and I will begin with this Argument Either Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles or the Apostles have no Successors at all But that the Apostles have no Successors at all it is false as I have in my judgment unanswerably proved And therefore Bishops are their Successors for I have proved also that Presbyters cannot be their Successors My next argument is this Timothy and Titus were Bishopt Timothy and Titus succeeded unto the Apostles And therefore Bishops succeeded to the Apostles I prove the proposition by this argument that is That Timothy and Titus were Bishops They whose calling was ordinary and had the power of Ordination and Iurisdiction over Presbyters were Bishops But Timothy and Titus their calling was ordinary and had the power of Ordination and Iurisdiction over Presbyters And therefore Timothy and Titus were Bishops The proposition will be granted I prove the assumption and first that Timothy and Titus Calling was ordinary They who had the only Ordinary parts of the Ministeriall Function their Calling was ordinary But Timothy and Titus had the only ordinary parts of the Ministeriall Function And therefore the Calling of Timothy and Titus was ordinary The proposition will be granted I prove the assumption They who had only power to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments c. had only the ordinary parts of the Ministeriall Function But Timothy and Titus had only power to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments c. And therefore Timothy and Titus had the only ordinary parts of the Ministeriall Function I prove the assumption thus Tim. Tit. had neither the gift of Miracles nor the gift of Prophecie nor the gift of Tongues nor the gift of Healing nor any extraordinary gift at all for any thing we read neither were they infallibly guided by the Spirit for if they had had the infallible assistance of the Spirit the Apostle Paul would not have bin so earnest to exhort them to do their dutie in their calling Timothy is exhorted to war a good warfare holding faith a good conscience 1 Tim. 1.18 19. to be an example of Believers in Word in Conversation in Charitie in Spirit in Faith in Puritie 1 Tim. 4.12 and to give attendance to Reading to Exhortation to Doctrine and Meditation and not to neglect the gift that was given him by Prophecie 1 Tim. 4.13 14 15. Titus had also the like exhortations so that it is most certain neither of them had the spirit of infallibilitie nor no extraordinary gift of the Spirit but the only ordinary parts of the Ministerial Function and consequently their calling was ordinary Next I prove their calling was ordinary by this argument They whose calling was by Education Triall and Ordination their calling was ordinary But Timothy and Titus their calling was by Education Triall and Ordination And therefore their calling was ordinary The Proposition needs no probation for they who are called to be Preachers of the Gospell by ordinary means without all question their calling was ordinary for Tim. it is cleere for he had his education under his Grandmother Lois and his Mother Eunice he was tryed by the Apostle and he had the approbation and commendation of the Brethren who were at Listra and Iconium before he would receive him in his companie thereafter he had his breeding for a greater progress in knowledge under the Apostle Paul before he was made a Presbyter much more before he was made a Bishop for this cause Paul saith to him Hold fast the forme of sound words which thou hast heard of me in Faith and Love which is in Christ Jesus as for his ordination it is without all question most cleere and evident all this also may bee said of Titus and therefore I conclude both their callings to bee ordinary Titus his calling as well as Timothies Thirdly I prove their calling to be ordinary by this Argument That calling which was to continue unto the end of the World was an ordinary calling But Timothy and Titus calling was to continue unto the end of the VVorld And therefore Timothy and Titus calling was an ordinary Calling I prove the Assumption That which was to bee propagated untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Persons of Tim. and Tit. successors was to continue unto the end of the World But Timothy and Titus calling was to be propagated in the persons of Tim. and Titus successors untill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ And therefore Timothy and Titus calling was to continue untill the end of the World The Proposition will be granted I prove the assumption That which must be kept untill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ must be propagated by Timothy and Titus successors untill his appearing But the calling of Tim. and Tit. in all the particular parts of it must be kept untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ And therefore their calling was to be propagated in the persons of their successors untill his appearing The Proposition is evident because the parts of the Ministeriall function cannot be otherwise kept but by propagation and for this cause the Apostle commands Timothy to propagate 2 Tim. 2.2 The things that thou hast heard of mee saith he before many witnesses the same commit thou to faithfull men who shall be able to teach others The Assumption is also manifest by that strict charge which he giveth unto Timothy in the latter end of the first Epistle cap. 6.13.14 I charge thee saith he in the sight of God who quickneth all things and before Christ Jesus who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession that thou keepe this Commandement without spot unrebukable untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ Now this Commandement that he would have Timothy to keepe doth comprehend all the particulars conteined in his Epistle both concerning Doctrine and Government and in particular the whole parts of the Episcopall function which is most obvious to any reader and so still my conclusion stands good That the calling of Timothy and Titus is to bee propagated in the persons of their successors untill the second comming of our Saviour and consequently their calling was an ordinary calling It rests to prove the second part of the assumption of the principall argument that Tim. and Titus had the power of ordination and jurisdiction over presbyters and first I will use this argument ad hominem for all the opposers of Episcopacie maintain That Tim. was an Evangelist and that his power was Apostolicall and so in order and degree above Presbyters and thus upon these grounds I reason after this manner They whose function was Apostolicall had the power of ordination and jurisdiction over Presbyters But Tim. and Titus function was Apostolicall And therefore they had the power of ordination and jurisdiction over Presbyters Next I will prove Timothy and Titus to have the power of ordination of Presbyters This is the Argument They who are commanded to ordaine Elders have the
power of ordination Timothy and Titus are commanded to Ordaine Elders And therefore Tim. and Tit. had the power of Ordination The Proposition cannot in reason be denied for Paul would never have commanded them to do that which they had not power to doe yea the same power of ordination is a part of that Commandement which he is bidden commit to faithfull men to be kept and propagated untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ The Assumption is manifest 1. Tim. 5.22 and Tit. 1.5 That they had the power of jurisdiction is proved thus They who are commanded to rebuke censure and correct with all authority and not suffer themselves to be despised to stay foolish questions and vain bablings to excommunicate the obstinate to try and prove those who desire the office of a Bishop and either to admit or reject them according to their weakenesse or ability have the power of jurisdiction spirituall But Timothy and Titus are commanded to do all these things 1 Timothy 4.11 12. 1 Tim. 3.9.17.19.20 1 Tim. 6.17 Tit. 1.11.13 and Tit. 3.10 And therefore Timothy and Titus have the power of jurisdiction spirituall The strength of this Argument I refer to the consideration of the learned for I hope no wise man will say that these priviledges can bee divided from the power of jurisdiction Now I will use one Argument yet to prove that Timothy and Titus had the power of ordination and jurisdiction jointly If those Bishops of whom the Apostle Paul speaks in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus received the power of ordination and jurisdiction by those instructions and precepts which the Apostle Paul sets downe in those Epistles then Timothy and Titus much more received the power of ordination and jurisdiction by those instructions of the Apostle Paul set downe in those Epistles But the first is true and therefore the second is true also The connexion of the proposition is valid enough for if inferiour Bishops whom the Apostle calleth also Elders in that place received the power of ordination and jurisdiction as is asserted by all the opposers of Episcopacie by the Apostles injunctions in those Epistles much more have superiour Bishops as Timothy and Titus were this twofold power by those injunctions this is an argument strong enough ad hominem although I confesse That properly Timothy and Titus have not this twofold power here by the Apostle Paul but only are commanded to put that power in execution which the Apostle Paul before had conferr'd upon them at their ordination which also they are commanded to propagate and transmit unto others for the preservation of the calling and propagation of the Gospell of Christ vntill his second comming to judgement Now for the better cleering of this Doctrine I will prove That Presbyters or inferior Bishops have no ways the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction I desire any Opponent to shew mee the place where it is recorded in the Scripture in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus they find it not Tim. and Tit. are commanded to put all the parts of the Apostolicall power in execution but not those Elders and Deacons of whom the Apostle speakes there they get no Commandement to use that power for it is more then evident That all the injunctions set down in those Epistles are given to Timothy and Titus and all those who were to succeed them in that same order and degree yea to them as they are singular men and as Superiour in Order and Degree to all those towards whom they are to exercise that power and the reason is this because one man in that same Order and Degree cannot have power over an other in that same rank and order one Bishop cannot have power over an other one Presbyter cannot have power over another That man that hath power over an other must be superior unto him in degree or he can have no authority over him that is his own properly delegate he may have but that is not his it is his in whose name he exercises that power But it will be replied That this power is given to a company of Presbyters and not to one in particular Answer This power is given here to Timothy and Titus as singular persons and therefore I will make the matter manifest by a formall argument That power which is committed to certain particular and singular men in the Ministery is not committed to a representative body of Ministers But the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction is committed to certain particular and singular men in the Ministery And therefore it is not committed to a representative body of Ministers The proposition cannot be denied for that which is committed to one singular man in a calling cannot bee said to bee committed to the whole company and trade indefinitely for example that power which is committed to one Alderman in the Citie to wit the Master or Lord Major is not committed to the whole councell of Aldermen he hath a different and superiour power to all the rest As to the assumption That this power was committed to certain singular men as to Timothy and Titus and all those who were to succeed them in the same ranke and order it is more then evident Now to note this by the way since Presbyters doe not succeed to Timothy and Titus in that same order and degree the power of Ordination cannot be committed unto them Furthermore If the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction be committed to Presbyters as they are singular men then every Presbyter hath alike power and authoritie within his own Charge every one is Pope in his own Parish and may command rule and governe as hee thinks good for who can controll him none of his brethren have any more power over him then hee hath over them for every one hath equall power and authoritie transinitted unto them and this is downright Brownisme But it may be replyed That the Presbytery hath power over all particular Ministers Answ Who hath given them this power It is not given them by Christ nor his Apostles If you reply it is agreed upon by common consent I Answer Then at least Presbyteriall Government is not of divine Ordination But I would ask this question what if I should refuse to give my consent to such a government or to subject my self to it how can I be forced to obey their Canons and Laws by whose authoritie the representative Church such as the Presbytery is cannot compell me before I subject my selfe to her authoritie the civill Magistrate cannot do it neither by the doctrine of all my opposites and some would say if any should usurpe authoritie and compell by violence it should be the destroying of our Christian Libertie and tying us whom Christ hath made free and in a word the demolishing of that platforme of government which Christ himselfe did establish any defender of Parochiall government may reason in this kind But it will be againe replyed That this authoritie is given to a
grace That inferiour Bishops cannot be the Apostles Successors first by Scripture and next by demonstrative Reasons Beside many other places of Scripture read but Acts 15.2.4.6.22.23 where yee shall finde Apostles and Elders cleerly distinguished I intreat you to see the places and I doubt not but ye shall receive satisfaction and farther I remember not that ever I heard any Divine affirme Elders and inferiour Bishops to be in rank and degree with the Apostles but that all Divines ancient and moderne accounted Elders to bee inferiour in degree to the Apostles but I will prove by three unanswerable Reasons That Presbyters did not succeed the Apostles My first Reason I will form thus They that were inferiour in degree to the apostles were not the apostles successors in that same order and degree But Presbyters were inferiour in degree to the apostles And therefore Presbyters were not the apostles successors in that same order and degree The Proposition I take for granted for I hope no man will deny it I prove the assumption first by the cōsent of all the divines that ever were in this World next by the cleer evidence of Scripture throughout all the book of God where the Apostles who were chiefe Bishops and Over-seers both of the Pastors and the people are cleerly distinguished from inferiour Bishops who only have the oversight of the people as is evident by the Apostle Paul his directions to the Elders of Ephesus Acts 20. My second Reason I will form thus If Elders be the Apostles Successors then that same power and authoritie necessary for the government of the Church is committed to them by the Apostles as amply as they themselves had it But that same power and authoritie necessary for the government of the Church is not committed unto Elders as amply as the Apostles themselves had it And therefore Elders are not the Successors of the Apostles If any man deny the Proposition I will aske him how it can be possible that Elders can be the Apostles Successors unlesse they succeed them in that same Power and Authoritie Truly it is beyond my capacitie to conceive and understand it I know they cannot succeed them in those things that are extraordinary but in their ordinary power and authoritie and that which is perpetually necessary for the Government of the Church of Christ under the Gospel they must succeed them and they be their successors I prove the Assumption Any one of the Apostles might ordaine Elders so Paul ordained twelve Elders at one time at Ephesus Acts 19. any one might ordain Bishops so Paul ordained Timothy and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Creet for Timothy it is cleer 2 Tim. 1.6 any one of the Apostles might command Elders and Deacons to preach the Gospel any where as is evident throughout all Pauls Epistles and in the Acts of the Apostles and which I think no Divine will deny any one of them might prescribe Rules and Laws to inferiour Elders so did the Apostle Paul to the Elders of Ephesus Acts 20. to Archippus Col. 4.17 who by the declaration of all the Ancients was Bishop and so superiour to an Elder any one of Apostles might Command Rebuke Censure and correct Elders at their own pleasure as is most evident in Scriptures and in particular in Saint Paul his Epistles now those things no Elder can do by himself and therefore That some ordinary and necessary power which the Apostles had is not committed to inferiour Bishops but to Superiour Here it may be objected That by this Reason Bishops Superiour cannot be the Apostles Successors because they doe not exercise their power and authoritie without the concurrence of the inferiour Bishops they joyne with them in the Ordination of Ministers so they should also in the exercise of Jurisdiction Answer There is no warrant for this in the Scripture it is true wee read the Apostles tooke the concurrence of Ministers in decision of doubts and controversies and also in Ordination so Paul saith that Timothy was ordained by the Presbyterie but there was no direction from Christ for so doing it pleased the Apostles to take their concurrence which they needed not to have done and therefore they did sometimes exercise their Episcopall power by themselves alone as wee may see in the Acts of the Apostles and 2 Tim. 1.6 and many other places of Scripture and did very seldome crave the concurrence of Presbyters so that Bishops do not exercise their power without the concurrence of Presbyters it is not because they are commanded so to doe by Christ and his Apostles but their own voluntary yielding of their right and submitting of themselves to their own Ecclesiastick Laws and Canons of ancient Councels it is as cleer as the Sun That an Elder hath no power of Ordination or Jurisdiction granted to him in the Scriptures what he hath it is but by humane Ordination and hee hath not in any ways Supreame Power granted him by any ancient Councell This is most certaine That a Bishops Ordination is valid and good without a Presbyter and hath warrant from the example of the Apostles but a Presbyter to ordain without the command of a Bishop is not warranted by any example in Scripture nor the Canon of any ancient Councell and so my conclusion stands good That inferiour Bishops are not the Successors of the Apostles My third Reason is this They who were inferiour to those in dignitie and degree who were inferiour to the apostles in place and estimation were not the apostles Successors in all the parts of the Ministeriall Function But Presbyters were inferiour in dignitie and degree to those who were inferiour to the apostles in place and estimation And therefore Presbyters were not Successors to the Apostles in all the parts of the Ministeriall Function The Proposition I know will be granted I prove the assumption That Presbyters were inferiour in dignitie and degree to those who were inferiour to the Apostles in place and estimation Timothy and Titus were inferiour to the Apostles in place and estimation so were all the Evangelists as all Divines acknowledge and yet those were Superiour in dignitie and degree even in the judgment of those who oppose the doctrine delivered in this Treatise That Timothy and Titus were superiour to Presbyters I shall prove it by and by but I will use one Argument yet for the ordinary callings of Apostles and Evangelists and this it is briefly Either the callings of the Apostles and Evangelists were ordinary callings or else we have no ordinary Ministers of the Gospel by Christs institution But this were absurde to say that we had not ordinary Ministers of the Gospel by Christs institution And therefore it is as absurd to say that the callings of Apostles and Evangelists are not ordinary callings I desire all those who oppose this doctrine to loose this knot Now it remayneth to prove that the Bishops succeeded in place of the Apostles and in place of Evangelists inferiour Presbyters
company of Presbyters Acts 8.14 and 11.22 and 15.6 7 8. to the 30. and 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. Answer These things were done in the infancie of the Church before the Government was established and so can be no rule for after ages some will so answer I answer further there is not a word there that will confirme Presbyteriall government for none of the meetings spoken of in those places consist of persons having the like and equall authoritie but all that was done in them was done by Apostolicall power by the power of the Apostles they were convened together by the Apostles moderation those meetings were governed by their authoritie all things were concluded they had full and absolute power in their own hands although it pleased them to do nothing without the consent of their Brethren of an inferiour Order yee will find all that I have said true if yee will be pleased to see the places But most cleerly it appeareth 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. where the Apostle by his power and authoritie coÌ„mandeth the Corinthian Ministers to excommunicate the incestuous person in an open assembly or rather to intimate that excommunication which he had already pronounced for thus he speaketh For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged alreadie as though I were present concerning him that hath done this deed In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus I hope this meeting was enjoyned by the Apostle upon an extraordinary occasion nothing was done but by his speciall appointment Here is nothing to warrant the authority of Presbyteriall Government there seems something to be in the words for Parochiall If there had been Parishes and Lay-elders in those days and truly if I were not of that judgement That the Calling of the Apostles were an ordinary Calling and to be continued with the same latitude of power and authoritie in their Successors untill the end of the World I might easily be moved to approve of Parochiall Government but never of Presbyteriall and truly if the Callings of the Apostles and Evangelists be not acknowledged to be instituted by Christ for the perpetuall Government of Gods Church Parochiall Government is that which hath greatest shew of warrant in the Scriptures as for Presbyteriall it hath not so much as any shew at all in the whole book of God Now follows that I cleere the doubts and first I know it will be objected That by this doctrine I condemne all the Churches of Christ that are governed after that manner Ans I condemne not the Churches but the Government Some perhaps may reply That since I make Episcopal government to be Christs institution I charge them with a very grosse errour I answer Let them see to that I cannot call evill good nor good evill unlesse I make my selfe lyable to the curse pronounced neither will any thing excuse them except necessity for both Gods Law and mans Law doth dispence with it but because there is no necessitie let men beware for Ego liberavi animam meam Furthermore it will be alleaged That Timothy and Titus and the Bishops of old were not like our Bishops They had not that power and authoritie nor that Lordly Government that Bishops have now They were not Barons Lords Earles Princes in such kind as they are now They had not power over the bodies and estates of offenders as Bishops have now They might not punish with the Civill Sword as well as the Spirituall Ans In Episcopall Government there are two things The one is Spirituall and de jure divino by divine right The other is Civill and de dono humano of humane gift and by the donation of Kings and Princes That is their Civill Honour their Civill Power their Temporalities their Revenues as to be Barons in Parliament to judge in causes Temporall to inflict temporall punishment all these they have by the free gift of Kings and Princes and many Kings have been very liberall in this kind to Churchmen and not without warrant from God neither according to that of the Apostle The Elders that rule wel are worthy of double honour and in speciall they that labour in the Word Doctrine 1 Tim. 5. And why should any man be offended to see Honor given to Church-men May not Kings and Princes give honour to any subject they please or are not Churchmen capable of Civill Honour and Power now under the Gospell aswell as they were under the Law As to the first I think no man will deny but Kings and Princes may advance such of their Subjects as they please it is their speciall prerogative I make no question of it And truly I see no more reason that any man should make question of the other but that Churchmen are as capable of Civill Honour and Power now under the Gospel as they were under the Law it is forbidden in no part of the New Testament I am sure hath God forbidden Ministers to give their advice to Kings and Princes for the better correcting of Vice and Sin and for managing all things in the State so that God thereby may be the more glorified and the Kingdome of Jesus Christ advanced or hath God forbidden Princes to crave their advice It was well said of a Divive That it is well with the Church when godly Prophets hang as precious Earings at the Princes eares Erasmus said well in an Epistle to Iohn Alasco If we had moe Bishops like Ambrose we should have more Emperours like Theodosius But I would aske any man this question Have not Christian Kings as great need of the concurrent Counsell and Assistance of the Governours of the Church now as the Kings of Israel had under the Law and was there ever any religious King among the Iews who had not conâ—inually the High priest to second him in all his affaires was not Aaron next unto Moses was not Eleazar next unto Iosua Had not David Zador and Abiather continually in his company Was not Azariah next unto Salomon and did not Ioash that which was right in the sight of the Lord as long as Iehoida lived and was not Hilkia chief Counsellour to Iosia and Amaria chief Judge under Jehosaphat Truly I hold this for a sure ground That what ever was done under the Law not being commanded by God then it is as lawfull for us now under the Gospell to doe the same except it be forbidden us and wee need not doubt but it will be as well approved by God now as it was then But which is more yet If any thing be commanded by God under the Law which is not ceremoniall and typicall it is then much more lawfull I think for us to do now Did not the Lord himselfe command the people of