to the mind of God a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one The Scripture owns no Bishop over Presbyters but onely a presbyter-Presbyter-Bishop That the Lawes of the Realme acknowledge nothing by divine right in a Bishop but his being a Presbyter Sir Edward Cook makes it one part of the Kings jurisdiction to grant to Bishops that Ecclesiastical power they now exercise over us speaking of his times and also to take it from them at pleasure c. In Henry the 8 thâ— dayes there was a Book Printed for all his subjects to receive seen and allowed by both Houses of Parliament wherein is said Of these two Orders onely that is to say Priests and Deacons the Scripture maketh expresse mention and how they were conferred by the Apostles by prayer and imposition of hands By which it is evident That the Lawes of the Realme do not acknowledge the divine right of Prelacy That most of our Bishops in King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths dayes did freely confess That Episcopacy as it differed from Presbytery was onely of humane right and not from divine institution This Bishop Iewel confesseth in his answer to Harding and brings divers of the Ancient Fathers of the same judgement whose sayings we shall hereafter mention The same is affirmed by Archbishop Whitgift against Carewright and by Bishop Downam in the Preface to his defence of his Sermon Preached at the consecration of the Bishop of Bath and Wells That the best learned even amongst the Papists themselves do confesse That a Bishop is not a superiour order of Ministry above a Presbyter but onely a superiour dignity That Sacerdotium that is as they call it The Priesthood is the highest order in the Church That a Bishop is onely 〈◊〉 Presbyter The first Presbyter or as Bellarmine calls him major 〈◊〉 Episcopacy is not another Order distinct from the Priesthood saith Caeprâ—â—lus No Prelate hath more concerning Sacramental power or of Order then simple Priests So Armachanus As concerning Sacerdotal order and things that pertain to Order they are equal Thus Bellarmine himself Although a Bishop and Presbyter are distinguished yet as concerning Sacrifice they exercise the same Ministry and therefore they make one Order and not two Cusanus goeth further All Bishops and haply also Presbyters are of equal power in respect of jurisdiction although not of execution which executive power is shut up and restrained by certain positive Lawes The Master of the Sentences saith That the Canons acknowledge onely two sorts of holy orders Diaconatum sc. Presbyteratum quia hos solos primitiva Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solis praeceptum Apostoli â—abamus That is The Deacon and the Presbyter Because the Primitive Church had no other and the Apostolique precept speaks of no other Estins tells us That Aquinas Waldensis Bonaventure and most of the other Schoolmen are of this opinion And Doctor Field in his 5th Book of the Church hath this remarkeable passage Touching the preeminence of Bishops above Presbyters there is some difference among the School Divines For the best Learned amongst them are of opinion that Bishops are not greater then Presbyters in the power of consecration or order but only in the exercise of it and in the power of jurisdiction seeing Presbyters may Preach and Minister the greatest of all Sacraments by vertue of their Consecration and order as well as Bishops Touching the power of consecration or order saith Durandus it is much doubted of amongst Divines whether any be greater then an ordinary Presbyter For Hierome seemeth to have been of opinion that the highest power of consecration or order iâ— the power of a Priest or Elder so that every Priest in respect of his Priestly power may Minister all Sacraments confirm the Baptized give all orders all blessings and consecrations but that for the avoiding of the peril of Schisme it was Ordained that one should be chosen who should be named a Bishop whom the rest should obey and to whom it was reserved to give orders and to do some other things which none but Bishops do And afterwards he saith That Hierome is clearly of this opinion and much more to this purpose Now hence it followeth necessarily That the power of Ordination of Ministers exercised for these many hundred years by Bishops did belong to them as Presbyters and not as Bishops and that the act and exercise of it was restrained to them potius ad honorem Sacerdotii in remedium schismatis quam ad Legis â—â—cessitatem rather for the honour of the Priesthood and as was then their opinion for the remedy of Schisme then for any necessity of Law For the Scripture warrants no such practise as we shall shew hereafter Now this floweth from the former conclusion For if Episcopacy be the same Order of Ministers with Presbytery and the Ecclesiastical power equal in both and a Bishop be nothing else in the opinion of Antiquity but a chief Presbyter or the President of the Presbytery and of the same rank with them then all the acts he doth he must do by vertue of his Presbyterial consecration This is demonstrable even our adversaries being Judges from this Argument Because a Bishop made per saltum that never had the Ordination of a Presbyter can neither consecrate and administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper nor Ordain a Presbyter himself being none nor do any act peculiarly appertaining to Presbyters Ordination therefore saith Mr. Ball is reserved to the Bishop not in respect of superiority in degree of Ministry above his brethren for if he be no Presbyter he cannot make Presbyters but for order sake and to prevent Schisme and division being for substance of the same Order and consecration with them Dr. Field manageth the same argument these or words A Presbyter saith he ordained per saltum that never was consecrated or ordained a Deacon may notwithstanding do all those Actâ— that pertaine to the Deacons Order because the higher Order doth alwayes imply in it the lower and inferiour in an eminent and excellent sort But â— Bishop Ordained per saltum that never had the Ordination of a Presbyter can neither Consecrate and Administer the Sacrament of the Lords body nor Ordaine a Presbyter himself being nonâ— nor do any act peculiarly pertaining to Presbyters Whereby it is most Evident saith Dr. Field That that wherein a Bishop excelleth a Presbyter is not a distinct Power of Order but an Eminency and Dignitie onely specially yeelded to one above all the rest of the same Rank for Order sake and to preserve the unity and peace of the Church What peace and Order was preserved hereby in the Church we shall shew afterwards For the present it is most clear even from the testimony of Episcopal men themselves That a Bishop is of the same Order and Rank with a Presbyter and that his acts of Ordination were exercised by him as a Presbyter
fully proved Therefore a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same Officer 5. This is further manifested from Phil. 1.1 To all thâ— Saints in Christ Iâ—sus who are at Philippi with the Bishops and Dâ—acons Here again note 1. That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one For by Bishops cannot be meant Bishops over Presbyters for of such there never was as our Episcopal men say but one in a City 2. That there are but two Orders of Ministry in the Church of Christ of divine institution Bishops and Deacons And that therefore a Bishop over Presbyters is not a plant of Gods planting nor an Officer appointed by Christ in his Church 6. We argue From these very texts in which the holy Ghost doth on purpose set down all the several sorts of Ministry which Christ hath Ordained in his Church As 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 4.11 12. Rom. 12.6.7 8. When Christ went up to Heaven he left extraordinary and ordinary Officers for the perfecting of the Saints and for the work of the Ministry c. But here is no mention made of a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter much lesse of a Bishop superiour to a Presbyter in the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Here are Apostles Prophets and Evangelists who were extraordinary Officers and temporary and had no successors properly in â—undem gradum And here is mention of Pastors and Teachers who are the onely ordinary standing and perpetual Ministers But no mention of the Pope by which argument our learned Protestant Divines prove him to be none of Christ's Ministers nor of Patriarches nor of Archbishops or Bishops distinct from Pastors and Teachers 7. All distinct Officers must have distinct works and operations nam operari sequitur esse and they must have distinct Commissions But Presbyters have the same commission with Bishops and the same work and operation Ergâ— they are the same with Bishops That they have the same Commission appears from Ioh. 20.21 As my Father sent me so send I you This was said to all the Apostles equally and to all their successors indifferently And whose sins you forgive are forgiven c. This is common with Bishops to all Presbyters So Matth. 28.20 Go Teach all Nations Baptising them c. and lo I am with you alway unto the end of the world This is common to all Presbyters And as for their work and operation The Presbyters are called Rulers Governours and Overseers in Scripture 1 Tim. 3.5 1 Tim 5.17 1 Thess. 5.12 Heb. 13.7.17 24. And the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven are committed to them Matth. 16.19 The Scripture puts no distinction between the Bishop and the Presbyter nor gives us any the least hint to make us believe That the key of doctrine should belong to the Presbyter and the key of Discipline to the Bishop Ordination is performed by the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 Jurisdiction likewise is given to the Presbyters For they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And when the Apostle saith to the Church of Corinth Do not ye Iudge them that are within and put ye away from among your selves that wicked person And when Christ saith Tell the Church These texts cannot be understood of a Biship distinct from a Presbyter For one man cannot be called a Church which signifieth a company And the Apostle speaks to the Corinthians not in the singular but in the plural number Nor can they be understood of the whole Congregation promiscuously For the Apostle saith expresly That the punishment executed upon the incestuous person was inflicted by many not by all And by the Church of which Christ speaks and to which scandals are to be brought must of necessity be meant a Ruling and Governing Church And it is most clear in Scripture That private members are not Church-rulers For the Apostle puts a distinction between Saints and Rulers Heb. 13.24 Salute all them that have the rule over you and all the Saints If all were the eye where were the hands and feet And therefore these texts must be understood of the Presbytery From hence then it followes If jurdifiction and Ordination Oâ—dination belong to the Presbyter as well as the Bishop then a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same office 8. We might add That the Scripture acknowledgeth no superiority or inferiority between officers of the same kind For thâ—â—gh we read that one order of Ministery is said to be above another yet we never read that in the same Order of Officers there was any one superior to others of the same order We believe That the Apostles were above the Evangelistâ— And the Evangelists above Pastors and Teachers and Pastors and Teachers above Deacons But we likewise believe That there was no Apostle above â—n Apostle but that they were all equal in power and jurisdiction no Evangelist above an Evangelist no Deacon above another and so by consequence no Presbyter by divine right over other Presbyters 6. Lasâ—ly If there be any distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter in Scripture the greater honour and preâ—â—inence must of necessity be given to the Presbyter above the Bishop which we believe will never be granted For according to our Prelatical Divines the office of a Bishop as distinct from Presbyters is to rule and govern and the office of a Presbyter is to preach and administer the Sacraments Now sure we are That preaching and administring the Sacraments are far more excellent works then ruling and governing And the Apostle saith expressely That they that labour in word and doctrine deserve more honour then they that Rule well 1. Tim. 5.17 Hence we argue If there be a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter either he is equal or inferior or superior Our Adversaries will answer That he is superior But this cannot be For superiour Orders must have superior acts and honour belonging unto them above their equalls or inferiours But Bishops have not For preaching is an act above Ruling and most worthy of double honour and so is administring of the Holy Sacraments And therefore the act and honour of a Presbyter is above the act and honour of a Bishop and â—rgo a Bishop is not superior and ergo there is no Bishop at all in Scripture distinct from a Presbyter This is all we have to say out of Scripture for the Identity of a Bishop and a Preâ—byter and that this may not seem to be our own private judgment or that we do herein hold any thing that is contrary to the doctrine of the Catholique Church or our own Church of England we shall crave leave to set down what hath been the opinion of the Church of Christ and also of our own Church concerning the divine right of Episcopal government First we will begin with St. Ierome who upon the first of Titus hath these words A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same and before there were through the Diveâ—â— instinct divisions in Religion and
are called A Church 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 3.21 1 Cor. 10.32 And if all the Churches in the World are called one Church let no man be offended if all the Congregations in England be called the Church of England But how doth it appear that it is the will of Christ that the Churches of one Nation should be governed by lesser and greater Assemblies and so become a Nationall Church For this we desire the Reader seriously and impartially to peruse the Vindication of the Presbyterial Government wherein this very thing is largely proved both by the light of Nature and by the Scripture See Vindicat. p. 20. 26. And thus we have endevoured by two Arguments to convince those that oppose our Ministry from their own principles and to give them to understand that according to their own Tenents they are bound in conscience to acknowledge many of our Ministers at least to be true Ministers although it should be granted them that our Ordination is unwarrantable and Antichristian For most of these men are amongst the number of them that vilify and disregard Ordination The best of them make it but a meer circumstance or adjunct to the call of the Ministry And who knowes not but circumstances may be wanting or corrupted and yet the substance remain intire If we be true Churches then according to their own positions we are true Ministers If rightly Elected then we have that which they say is essential to the Ministerial call Suppose Ordination by Bishops should be an humane addition not agreeable to the Rule yet notwithstanding humâ—nâ— additioâ—â— do not nullify divine institution Mr. Burroughs in his Heart-divisions hath this saying I confesse for my part I never yet doubted of the lawfulnesse of the call of many of the Ministers of the Parishional Congregations in England though they had something superadded which was sinfull yet it did not nullify that call they had by the Church that communion of Saints amongst whom they exercised their Ministery If a man be Baptized in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost though there should be many Ceremonial additions of Sâ—le Spiâ—â—l◠〈◊〉 the sign of the Crosse c. Yet these additions would not nullify the Ordinance of Baptismâ— Now more can the superaddition of Ordination unto our election though it be supposed by them to be sinful nullify our Ministry which in their judgements is for the 〈◊〉 of it conferâ—ed by Election CHAP. II. Wherein the same Proposition is proved by Arguments taken from our own Principles BUt omitting this way of Argumentation we shall now God assisting undertake to prove according to our own Principles who hold That Ordination is that which gives the Essâ—rice to the Ministerial call That the call to the Office of the Ministry which some of our Ministers did receive during the prevalency of Episcopacy was lawful and valid for the substance of it though mingled with many circumstantial defects This appears by these ensuing Arguments They that for the substance of their call were called to the Ministry according to the mind of Christ are lawful Ministers of Christ. But the Ministers that were Ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy were for the substance of their call called according to the mind of Christ Ergo. Here we desire the Reader to take notice that in this Argument we shall not at all speak of the peoples election of their Minister Not because we are enemies to popular Election rightly managed and ordered or because we think that the Ministerial call doth not consist in Election as well as Ordination for we have formerly declared the contrary But because the great stumbling stone and Rock of offence against the present Ministry is in reference to to their Ordination therefore it is that we insist upon that onely The Minor is proved by surveying the Book of Ordination established by Act of Parliament according to which Ministers were to be Ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy Out of which we thus Argue They who were sufficiently gifted and qualified for the Ministry and were inwardly called by God and outwardly called by prayer and fasting with the imposition of the hands of Preaching Presbyters were called to the Office of the Ministry for the substance of it according to the mind of Christ. But such were they who were Ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy Ergo. That they were such that is ought to have been such according the Rule established and that many were such de facto and if any were not such it was viâ—ium personae ordinantis not vitium regulae the fault of the person ordaining not of the Rule for Ordination appears by viewing the Book it self in which we shall find 1. That the party to be Ordained is to be one that is apt to teach willing to take pains in the Ministry found in the faith of honest life and conversation And sure we are many were such and if any were not it was a personal not a Church error 2. The party to be Ordained is to be examined touching his perswasion of an inward calling by the Spirit whether he be inwardly moved by God to the work of the Ministry and touching his faith of the sufficiency of the Scriptures his purpose to execute his Ministry according to the word of God to oppose all erroneous and strange doctrines to fashion his conversation according to what may become a Minister of the Gospel c. 3. The party thus qualified after a Sermon Preached and prayer made to God for a blessing is to be Ordained and set apart to the work of the Ministry by the laying on of the hands of the Bishop together with other Preaching Presbyters This is the substance of the Book as touching the Ordination of Ministers from which it appears That Ministers made during the prevalency of Episcopacy were for the substance of their call called according to the mind of Christ and therefore lawful Ministers But it will be objected That the Ministers we plead for were made by Bishops distinct from Presbyters who had no power nor authority to Ordain them and not onely so but by Bishops who held themselves to be a superiour Order of Ministry by divine right above Presbyters who were not onely Bishops but Lord Bishops who were wicked and Antichristian and whom we have renounced and sworn to endeavour to extirpate in our late solemn League and Covenant What our opinio n is concerning the divine right of Episcopacy and what difference there is between a Presbyter Bishop and a Bishop over Presbyters between a Scripture Bishop and the Bishop that obtained in the Primitivâ— times and the Bishop of our times we shall have occasion to declare hereafter For the present before we return an answer to this great objection consisting of many particulars we must crave leave to premise these few conclusions many of which we shall in the next proposition prove at large That according
not as a Bishop These things premised we now come to Answer to the Objection and to every branch of it The Ministers we plead for were made by Bishops distinct from Presbyters who had no power nor authority to Ordain them The Bishop though distinct from his Presbyters yet he did not Ordain them alone but together with the laying on of the hands of other Presbyters he being as the first and chief Presbyter or is Prâ—ses Presbyâ—â—rii The President of the Presbytery The Bishop that ordained them was also himself a Presbyter and had power as a Presbyter to Ordain and therefore by vertue of his Presbyterial capacity his Ordination must needs be valid and lawful Even as when a Bishop conseâ—rateth the Bread and Wine at the Lords Supper he doth it not as a Bishop though he be one but as a Presbyter so also when the Ordaineth a Minister which is an act of a farâ— inferiour nature he doth it by vertue of a power belonging to him as a Presbyter not as a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter much lesse as a Lord-Bishop This is that which is said in the Ordinance of Parliament for Ordination Whereas the word Presbyter that is to say Elder and the word Bishop do in the holy Scripture intend and signifie one and the same function although the Title of Bishop hath been by corrupt custome appropriated to one and that unto him aâ—cribed and by him assumed as in other things so in that matter of Ordination that was not meet which Ordination notwithstanding being performed by him a Presbyter joyned with other Presbyters we hold for substance to be valid and not to be disclaimed by any that have received it And that Presbyters so Ordained being lawfully thereunto appointed and authorized may ordain other Presbyters In the office and calling of Bishops two things arâ— to be considered saith Mr. Ball. 1. The substance of their office and Ministry whereunto they are separated to wit to Preach the Gospel dispense the Sacraments and Administer the Discipline of Jesus Christ. And this is of God 2. The superiority they take or challenge over their Brethren whether in Ordination or Jurisdiction and this is of man But they make not a difference or nullity in the substance of their Ministry All Ministers of the Gospel are stewards of Jesus Chrisâ— seâ— apart to do his work wherein if any one shall challenge more thâ—â— of right appertaineth to him or do ought out of pride partiality sinister affection tyranny or sedition or receive such authority to himself alone as belongeth not to his place and office or is common to many in that he is blame worthy but thereupon his Ministry or Ministerial acts done by him are not made void or of none effect But the Bishop that Ordained these Ministers you plead for Ordained them as a Bishop by vertue of his Episcopal consecration and not as a Presbyter by vertue of his Presbyterial Order This is not true of all Bishops For as Mr. Firmin tells us he heard a Reverend Minister of a Congregational Church in Essex say That when the Bishop Ordained him he told him I do Ordain you as I am a Presbyter 2. Suppose he did this waâ— his personal errour but did not â—word his power of Ordination as a Presbyter Suppose a man made a Constable by lawful authority should afterwards unwarrantably assume the power of a Justice of the Peace and should do things which belong to his place as a Constable under the Title of a Justice of Peace should not this act of his be valid though he pretends to do it upon a wrong title Mr. Burroughs in his Heart-divisions hath this observable passage If a man doth a thing that he may do by vertue of 2 relations or either of them it may be he thinks he stands in one of these relations which indeed he doth not yet he doth the action by vertue of it in his own thoughts in this he sins but there is another relation wherein he stands that is enough to warrant the action that he doth to be lawful Now though he doth not intend the acting by this relation the action may be sin to him but not at all sin to those that joyn with him in it If he will go upon a false ground when he may go upon a true let him look to it I will joyn with him in that action as warranted for him to do by vertue of his second relation which it may be he will not own himself He gives this instance Giving alms is a work that a man may do either by vertue of Church-office as a Deacon or as a Christian whom God hath blessed in his estate or betrusted with the distribution of what others betrust him with Now suppose a man is in the place of a Deacon he thinks himself to be in that office by a right call into it and he gives out the alms of his Church by vertue of his call but I am perswaded his call to that office is not right he is not a true Deacon yet if I be in want I knowing that bothhe and those who have given him monies to dispose may and ought to distribute to those that are in need by vertue of another relation as men as Christians enabled by God surely then I may receive alms from him lawfully though his principle by which he gives them me is sin to him I may communicate with him in this thing though he acts by vertue of that offece that he had no true call unto c. Much more may the like be said of receiving Ordination from a Bishop who hath power to confer it as a Presbyter though he gave it by vertue of his Episcopal consecration But the Ministers whose Ordinations you defend were made by Bishops who held themselves to be a superior order of Ministry above Presbyters by divine Institution Whether they did so or no we know not but sure we are that the Bishops of King Edwaâ—d and Queen Elizabeths dayes were not of this opinion as we have shewed That the lawes of the Realm do not countenance it that the learnedest of the Papists are against it and if any of the Bishops of late years were of this opinion it was their personall error and not at all essentiall to the Episcopall Office The Ministers we speak against were made not onely by Bishops but Lord Bishops But not as Lord-Bishops The Lordly dignities of Bishops were meere civil additaments annexed to their Bishopricks by Kingly favour not essential ingredients into their Office And therefore when they were taken from them they continued not onely Presbyters but Bishops The Bishops from whom these Ministers received their Ordination were wicked and ungodly and therefore their Ordination must needs be wicked and ungoldly This is not true of all of them Some of them were godly and some of them have shed their bloods for the Gospel
sake And he that shall call such Bishops wicked and ungodly is notoriously guilty of the breach of the 9. commandement 2. Supposing though not granting that all of them were wicked and ungodly yet notwithstanding though we are far from justifying their ungodlinesse We answer That some evil men may and alwaies have de facto been officers and Ministers in the Church In the Church of the Jewes Hophni and Phinehas in the dayes of Christ Scribes and Pharises 2. That the wickednesse of such men did not null or evacuate their ministerial acts The Scribes Pharisees that sat in Moses his chair were to be heard though they said and did not Christs commission did as well authorize Iudas as any other to Preach and baptize c. And surely if the Principall acts belongingto the Ministerial function as Preaching Baptizing adminstring the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be not nulled or made void by the personal wickedness of Ministers then consequently not their ordination So that if Iudas had been an Apostle when Christ sent his Apostles to ordain Elders his Ordination should have been as valid as his Preaching and Baptizing formerly had been The Leprosie of the hand doth not hinder the growing of the corn which that hand soweth But these Bishops were Antichristian and their office Antichristian and therefore the Ministers ordained by them must needs be Antichristian Ministers and not the Ministers of Christ. For satisfaction to this objection we shall first propose what the ancient learned godly Non-conformists have left in print about it and then we will lay down our own answer The old Non-conformists by joynt consent have written That they did not see how our Bishops could be called Antichrists or Antichristian 1. Because the word mâ—rks out Antichrist by his false Doctrine nor do we find in holy Scripture any such accounted Antichrist or Antichristian which holding the truth of Doctrine swerveth either in judgement or practise from Christs rule for Discipline Now it is evident that our Bishops do hold and teach all fundamental doctrines and truths and some of them have soundly maintained them against Hereticks converted many to the truth and have suffered persecution for the Gospel 2. Their Hierarchy and other corruptions charged upon the calling of our Bishops were rather to be esteemed the staires and way to Antichristianity then Antichristianity â—t self for they were in the Church before the Popâ— who is the Antichrist and the chiefe Head link of all Antichristianity was revealed 3. The Antichristian Bishops hold their preeminence as from Gods law which is unchangeable whereas our Bishops since his Majesties reign to this day for the most part hold superiority by no other right then the positive law which is variable yea it appeares by the institution of the Court of Delegates and the continuance thereof to this day that they do and ought by law to hold their Jurisdiction not as from God but is from the Prince Thus they And as to the Ministers Ordeyned by Bishops they say Bishops are able to judge of such gifts as are required for the sufficiencie of Ministers that many of them have been such Ministers themselves as to whose labours thâ— Lord hath set to his Seal We are perswaded that though it were not necessary yet it cannot be unlawful for him that entreth into the ministery to be approved and authorized even by them Andif our Ordination be in this behalf faultie how will our Brethren justifie the calling of their own Ministers that have received Ordination ever from the people who neither by commandement nor example can be found to have any such authority nor are in any degree so capable of it as the Bishops Thus much is said by the old Non-conformist For our own particulars we shall return an answer to this objection by distinguishing of the word Bishop and the word Antichristian There are three sorts of Bishop the Scripture-Bishop thâ— Bishop of the first Primitive times and the Bishop of latter times Now we are far from thinking that the scripture Bishop that is to say the Presbyter or the Bishop of the first Primitive times who was nothing else but a chief Bresbyter or the Moderator of the Presbytery and had a Priority not of power but of order onely like a Speaker in the Parliament were Antichristian The question onely is about the Bishop of latter times The word Antichristian may be taken propeâ—ly or improperly An Antichristian Minister propeâ—ly is one that own 's the Pope as a visible Monarchical head over the Church and that stands a Minister with subjection and subordination to the Church of Rome and that professedly maintains the Popish religion An Antichristian Minister improperly is one that in his calling and office hath divers things that are Antichristian In the first sense we believe none will say our Bishops were Antichristians But yet we cannot deny but that those Bishops who did take upon them by divine right the care of whole Diocesses and did assume the whole power of jurisdiction over the people and Ministers therein and did challenge a Majority and tantum non a sole power in Ordination did symbolize herein too much with Antichrist and had in this sence much of Antichristianisme in them yet notwithstanding this is not sufficient to denominate them Antichristian no more then the having of some hypocrisy and covetousnesse doth denominate a godly man an hypocrite or a covetous person The denomination is alwaies á meliore Our Bishops for the most part were very Orthodox in doctrine and pure in the substantialls of worship and have written many learned treatises against Popery and Antichristianisme Indeed in matters of Discipline and ceremonies they were exceeding faulty and some of â—hem of late yeares began to Apoâ—â—atize both in doctrine and worship for which God hath grieviously punished them yet all this is not sufficient to make them Antichristian properly so called much lesse to null all their acts of Ordination no more then their acts of preaching baptizing and administring theLords supper specially if we consider that they had power enabling them to perform all these acts as they were Presbyters though they never had been Bishops Bâ—t let us suppose though not grant the Bishops were Antichristian and their office Antichristian yet we answer That it will not follow that the Ministers made by them are Antichristian unlesse it can also be made out which never can be done that they were Antichristian in the very act of Ordination For as a maimed man may beget a perfect child because he begets him not as maimed but as a man So an Antichristian Bishop may ordain a true Minister because he ordaines him not aâ— Antichristian but as a Presbyter that by divine warrant hath authority so to do As Austin against the Donatists proves the validity of Baptisme by Hereticks if they Baptized with water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost though in other
points they were Heretical So certainly a Minister ordained to Preach the Word and administer the Sacraments according to the mind of Christ is a lawful Minister though ordained by a Bishop in other points Antichristian considering that in that one act he is not Antichristian but doth that which he hath warrant from the Scripture to do though he were not a Bishop The word Sacraments and Ministery are the institutions of Jesus Christ. And these are not made null and void though the power to dispence them in foro externo be conveighed to us by corrupt Instruments no more then the Scriptures were polluted because offered by Hophni and Phinehas or the Chair of Moses defiled because the Scribes and Pharisees sat in it We must carefully distinguish as a learned Minister well saith the acts of office which have their form and being from a root or fountain without us from the qualities of the man that performes the office The man may be naught yet his office good and acts done by vertue of his Office Just and allowable although the man and his religion be naught As for instance A Popish Landlord makes you a lâ—ase of a Farme your lease is not antichristian but good in Law though he that demised it be for his Religion a Papist A Popish Judge doth passe a sentence in Court which stands good in Judicature his sentence is not Popish though he that pronounced it be a Papist the reason is because the legall sentence is not of him nor from him as a Papist but as a Judge who doth but deliver that which he hath received from an higher root the Law So in this case Ordination is an act of Office received from Christ and is not Antichristian though executed by one that is in other things Antichristian We do not rebaptize them that were baptized by a popish Priest because the power ofGods Ordinance depends not on theperson that does execute the same but upon an higher foundation the institution of Christ. Ministerial acts are not vitiated or made null though they pâ—sse through the hands of bad men But stand good to all intents and purposes to such as receive them aright by vertue of their Office authoritatively derived from the first institution A Bishop in his Presbyterial capacity hath divine right to ordain and therefore his Ordination is valid though it be granted that he is Antichristian in his Episcopal capacity If a Minister made by a Bishop be a lawfull Minister why then did you in your late covenant abjure Episcopacy with all its dependencies We did not swear in our covenant to endeavour the extirpation of Scripture Episcopacy which is Presbytery but of Prelacy that is of those Lordly titles which Bishops were invested withal and of their unjust usurpation of a sole power of jurisdiction and of a Majority of power in Ordination together with their Chancellours and Commissaries and the rest of the Hierarchy But we never did and never shall by Godâ— Grace renounce them as Presbyters which by consent of all sides are by divine right nor Ordination by them upon that account which we doubt not but is lawful and valid and will appear so to be at the great Tribunal And thus we have answered this objection with all the branches of it There is one objection of great concerment yet behind But before we mention it we shall propose three other Arguments for the Justification of the Ministry made during the prevalency of Episcopaâ—y From the glorious successe God gave unto it during the raign of Prelacy For since our Ordination God hath sealed to the truth of our Ministry and hath blessed it with the Conversion of many Thousand souls unto God Now that Ministry that God doth ordinarily blesse with bringing forth sons and daughters unto God that Ministry must needs be a Ministry sent of God For God hath threatned as we have often said That a false Ministry shall not profit And the Apostle proves the lawfulnesse of his Ministry by the successe it had upon the hearts of the Corinthians 1. Cor. 9.1 2. There are many of those that cry down our Ministry as Antichristian and separate from us as no Ministers that cannot deny but that they had their conversion if they are at all converted from us And if our Ministry be Antichristian how is their conversion Christian From the ends and purposes for which we were Ordained They that were Ordained by Bishops together with other Ministers for no other end and purpose but to Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments according to the will of Christ are lawful Ministers of Christ. But so were the Ministers Ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy Ergo. He that shall say That a Minister that Preacheth Christ and his truths and administreth â—he Sacraments according to the mind of Christ is an Antichristian Minister because of some defects in his entrance doth more advance and honour Antichrist then he doth disparage or disgrace us Mr. Ball no friend to Episcopal Government in his answer to Mr. Can hath these words In every true Church where the Word of God is intirely preached and received and the Sacraments for substance rightly administred there is a true Ministry ' and a true calling to the Ministry though in some things maimed and faulty From the destructive mischiefes and Church-ruining consequences that do naturally flow from this assertion For he that shall undertake to make good this desperate proposition as that learned and godly man so often cited justly calls it That a Minister made by a Bishop is no Minister of Christ but of Antichrist must also be forced to confesse and acknowledge 1. That Mr. Bradford Mr. Rogers Mr. Philpot Dr. Taylâ—r Mr. Saunders and the rest of those blessed Saints and Ministers who laid down their lives in defence of the Gospel against Antichrist were Antichristian Ministers 2. He nulliâ—ieth and and maketh void all the Ministerial acts performed by the Ministers of England ever since the Reformation For if our Ministry be no true Ministry then is our Baptisme no true Baptisme the Sacrament of the Lords Supper no true Sacrament our Church no true Church 3. He must acknowledge that there was neither Church Sacraments nor Ministry in the whole Christian World for many hundred years past For it is without dispute that there was no other way of entring into the Ministry for many hundred years in the Church of Christ but by the Ordination of Bishops 4. He must be forced if a Minister to renounce his Ministry and take it up again from the people who as the old Non conformists well say have neither commandement nor example in all the New Testament to authorize them to Ordain him And by this means he overthroweth the whole Ministry a nd Church of Jesus Christ and will be necessitated at last to renounce all Churches and all Ministry and turn Seekers as some do in our dayes even upon
of the chiefe heads of this large discourse but because we have been overlong we feare already we shall forbeare it and conclude with that saying of the Apostle Consider what wâ— have said and thâ— Lord give you understanding in all things CHAP. IV. Containing the 2. Proposition and proving it by clearing from Scriptures and other Tâ—stimonies that a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one THat the call to the Office of the Ministry which our present Ministers doe now recâ—ive sincâ— the abolishing of Episcopacy is lawfull and valid FOr this you must know that this way of making of Ministerâ— doth not essentially differ from the former but is the same for substance onely this iâ— more â—urified and refined and agreeable to Scriâ—ture-pattern The formeâ— wâ—s by Bishops that did claim a greater power in many thingâ— thâ—â— waâ— due uâ—â—o thâ—m by 〈…〉 by Bâ—shops also buâ— they are Scripâ—â—â—e-Bishopâ— that 〈◊〉 Preâ—byters There are some among us and these not a few tâ—â—t do so Idolize a Bishop over Presbyters as that they â—ffirm â—ll Ordiâ—â—tions to be null and void that are made by the Presbyteâ— Bishop withouâ— a Bishop over Preâ—byâ—ers For their sâ—tisfaction if possiblâ— and for our own peopleâ— edification â—nd instruction we will briâ—fly undertake two things 1. To prove that a Bishop over Presbyters is an Apocryphall not a Canonical Bishop that a Bishop and a Presbyter are Synonymâ—'s in Scripture 2. We will speake something about the Aâ—tiquity of Episcopall Government and concerning the judgmeâ—t of the anâ—ient Church â—bout it 1. We shall undertake to prove That according to the Scripture pattern which is a perfect rule both for doctrine â—nd government a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one not onely in name but in office And that there is no such Officer in the Church ordained by Christ as a Bishop over Presbyters This appears evidently 1. From Titus 1.5.7 where the Apostle leaves Titus in Creet to ordain Elders in every City and then shews how these Elders are to be qualified and adds the reason of his advise For a Bishop must be blamâ—lâ—ss This For is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or causall and sheweth clearely not onely the Indentity of names but of office between an Elder and a Bishop otherwise his argument had not onely been a false reasoning and failed in forme having foure termes but in â—ruth had been no reason at all If a Chancellour saith Smectymnuus in one of the Universities should give order to his Vice-Chancellour to admit none to the degree of Bachelour in Arts but such aâ— were able to pâ—â—â—ch or kâ—ep a Divinity Act For Bachelours in Diâ—inâ—â—y 〈…〉 so What reason or equity were in this So if 〈…〉 so Had â— Bishop been an Order or Calling â—istinct from oâ— superiour to a Preâ—byâ—er and not the same this had been no more rationall or â—quall then thâ— former Theâ—efore under the name of Bishop in the seventh verse the Apostle must needs intend the Elder mentioned in the fifth veâ—se To this purpoâ—â— speâ—keth Gâ—rrard de Minisâ—â—rio Ecclâ—stastico Ex hoc loco manifestum eosdem dici fuissâ— Episcopos qui dicebantâ—â— eâ—ant Prâ—sbytâ—ri aliâ—◠〈…〉 in textu Apostolicâ— connexio quam tamâ—n particul◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diserâ—è ponit Quâ—â—ui◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hac forest Illi constiâ—uâ—ndi sum Prâ—sbytâ—ri qui sunt sâ—ne criminâ— quia Episcopum cujus Officiuâ— potestas jâ—risdictio grâ—dâ—s diffâ—rt à Prâ—sbytâ—ro 〈◊〉 esse fine crimine From this placâ— it is manifâ—sâ— that the same were called and were Bishops who were callâ—d and wâ—re Prâ—sbytâ—rs otherwise there would bâ— no connexion in the Text of the Apostlâ— which yet the caâ—sall particle for evidently makes out For what juncture of râ—â—son would be in this They are to be made Presbyters who are blamelesse because a Bishop whose office powâ—r jurisdiction and degâ—â—â— diffâ—â—â— from a Prâ—sbyter ought to blamelesse 2. The same is manifested Act. 20.17.28 Paul sends from Miletum to Ephâ—sus and cals the Presbyters of the Church and this he doth when he waâ— to leave them and never see their faces more vers 38. To these Elders he saith Take heâ—d thâ—â—â—fore unto your selves and to all the flock â—ver which the Holy-Ghost hath made â—ou over-sears or as it is in the greek-Greek-Bishops to feed the Church of God which he hath purchâ—sâ—d with his own blood From hence we gather 1. That Elderâ— are called Bishops And not onely so But 2. That the Apostle gives the whole Episcopall power unto them and chargeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to feed by government â—s wâ—ll as by life and doctrine If it belongs to Bishops to ordâ—in Elders â—nd to exercise jurisdiction in 〈…〉 then this also belongâ— to Elders for thâ—y are Bishops and their duty is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From 1 Pet. 5.1 2. The Elders which are among you I exhort who am also an Elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ c. Feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof or as in the Greek performing the Office of a Bishop over the flock of God not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind Here again observe 1. That the Apostle cals himselfe a Presbyter and so doth Iohn 2 Epistle and 3. Epistle vers 1. and therefore the Presbyters are the Successors of theApostles 2. That Presbyters are called Bishops and that they have not onely the name but the Office of Bishops given to them for their work and office is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Elders are not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is said Act. 20.28 But here they are comm anded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to perform all those Offices to the Church which belong to a Bishop which are to preach ordain and govern c. 4. We argue from 1 Tim. 3. where the Apostle makes but two standing ordinary Officers for the service of the Church Bishops and Deacons And therefore after he hath set down the qualification of a Bishop he presently propoundeth the qualification of a Deacon not at all interposing the qualification of a Presbyter thereby giving us to understand That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one in Scripture language And from hence we may safely argue after this manner They which have the same name and same qualification to their Office and the same Ordination and the same Work and duty required of them are one and the same Officer But a Bishop and a Presbyter have one and the same name as we have already proved from Act. 20. and 1. Pet. 5. and the same qualification to their Office as appears here and Titus 1.5 7. and the same ordination for ought we can read in Scripture and the same work and duty as appears from Act. 20.28 and 1 Pâ—t 5.2 and shall presently be more
the people began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I of Câ—phas The Churches were governed by the common Councel of the Presters But after that each man begun to account those whom he had baptized his own and not Christs it was decreed through the whole world that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest to whom the care of al the Church should belong that the seeds of schisme might be taken away Thinkes any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him read the words of the Apostle to the Philippians saying Paul and Timothy the servants of Iesus Christ to them that are at Philippi with the Bishops and Dâ—acâ—ns Philippi is one City of Macidonia and certainly in one City there could not be many Bishops as they are now called But because at that time they called the same men Bishops whom they called Presbyters Therefore he speaks indifferently of Bishops as of Presbyters If thiâ— yet seems doubtful to any unlesse it be proved by another testimony let him consider That in the Acts of the Apostles it is written That when Paul came to Miletuâ— he sent to Ephâ—sus and called the Elders of that Church and amongst other things saith unto them Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood And here let yet be diligently observed That calling the Presbyters of one City of Ephesus he afterwards called the same persons Bishops If any will receive that Epistle which under the name of Paul is written to the Hebrewes There are care of the Church is divided amongst many For thus he writeth to the people Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls as they that must give an account that they may do it with joy and not with grief for that is unprofitable for you And Peter if called from the firmnesse of his faith saith in his Epistle The Elders which are among you I exhort also who am an Elder and a witnesse of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the Glory that shall be revealed Feed the flock of God which is among you c. not by constraint but willingly These things I have written to shew that amongst the ancients Bishops and Presbyters were one the same and that by little little that all the seeds of dissention might be pluckt up all the care of the Church was delegated to one And therefore as the Elders may know that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the custom of theChurch so let the Bishops know That it is more from custom then from any true dispensation from the Lord that they are above the Presbyters and that they ought to rule the Church in common imitating Moses who though he had it in his own power to govern the people of Israel yet notwithstanding chose 70. with whom he would judge the People We have thought fit to transcribe this quotation at large because it gives the same interpretation of Scriptures which we do and makes it the result of all his discourse That Bishops over Presbyters are from the Custom of the Church onely and not from any divine original We might here likewise set down the Epistle that St. Hierome writes to Evagrius wherein he brings not only the Scripture forementioned but most of the other places which we have brought and gives the same explication of them but because it is very long we think fit to omit it and desire the diligent Reader for his own further satisfaction to peruse it The next that we shall cite is St. Austin who in his 19 th Epistle writing unto St. Hierome saith That though according to words of honour which the custome of the Church hath brought in Episcopacy be greater then Presbytery yet in many things Austin is Inferior to Hierome And in Quaest. veteris et Novi Testamenti Quaest. 101. what is a Bishop but the first Priest that is to say the highest Priest In the third place we shall add Dr. Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knowls who shewes out of Chrysostome Hierome Ambrose Augustinâ— Theodoret Pri masius Sedulius Theophylact That Bishops and Presbyters are all one in Scripture and that Aerius co uld no more be justly condemned for heresie for holding Bishops and Presbyters to be all one then all those fathers with whom agree saith he Oecumenius and Ansolme Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and another Anselme and Gregory and Gratian and affirmes that it was once enro lled in the Canon law for sound and Catholique Doctrine and thereupon taught by learned men he adds further That it is unlikely that Anselmâ— should have been Canonized for a Saint by the Pope of Rome and the other Anselme and Gregory so esteemed in the Popes Library that Gratians works should be allowed so long time by so many Popes for the golden fountain of the Canon law if they had taught that for sound doctrine which by the whole Church in her most flourishing condition was condemned for heresy and concludes th at they who have laboured about the reformation of the Church these five hundred yeares of whom he names abundance have taught that all Pastors be they intitulated Bishops or Priests have equal authority and power by the word of God In the fourth place we might urge the saying of Michael Medina lib. 1. de sacris origin who affirmes that not onely St. Hierome but also that Ambrose Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrisostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were of the same judgement with Aerius and held that there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter by Scripture The Next we shall instance in is Cassander in his Book of consâ—ltation article 14 who saith whether Episcopacy be to be accounted an order Ecclesiastical distinct from Presbytery is a question much debated between the Theologues and the Canonists But in this one particular all sides agree That in the Apostles dayes there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter but afterwards for the avoiding of Schisme the Bishop was placed before the Presbyter to whom the power of ordination was granted that so peace might be continued in the Church Add further That in the Oecumenical Councels of Constance and Basil after long debate it was concluded That Presbyters should have dicisive suffrages in Councells as well as Bishops because that by the law of God Bishops were no more then they and it is expressely given them Act 17.23 7. Erasmus upon 1. Tim. 4.4 saith that in ancient time there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter but afterwards for the avoiding of Schisme a Bishop was chosen by many and so many Pres byters so many Bishops 8. Bishop Iewel in
reported But from whence had he thiâ— History Even from Clemens Fabuleus and Hegesippus not extant 2. It is no wonder that Timothy and Titus are called Bishops by Eâ—sebius and Theodoret because that the Apostles themselves are called Bishops by the writers of those times who spake of former times according to their own Thus Peter is said to be Bishop of Rome and Iames of Hiâ—rusalem Now it is evident as we shall hereafter prove That the Apostles were not Bishops properly and formally but onely eminently and vertually 3. As they are called Bishops so also they are called Apostles Theodoret calles Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Timothy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet we believe that there are few of our Episcopal Divines will undertake to prove them to be Veri Nominis Apostolos Some call them Archbishops Metropolitans Patriarches and yet will not be easie to perswade a person disengaged from Prelacy that there were Archbishops and Metropolitans in the Apostles dayes The truth is That which Thucydides saith of the ancient Greek Historians may as truly be said of Eusebius Irenaeus and others c. That those things which they received from their Fore-fathers they delivered to their posterity without strict examination and thereby in many things more deceived themselves and were the cause of deceiving others as we shall have occasion to shew afterwards For our parts we answer clearly That the Fathers and Councels speak of the Officers of former times according to the stile of their own times That Timothy had an Office above a Bishop as Wale Messalinus saith though afterwards from the custome of the Church and some acts that Bishops did like his but not solely he was allusively if not abusively and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called a Bishop And as another faith Timothy and Titus are called Bishops by the ancients because they did those acts that by humane custome were afterwards appropriated to Bishops in regard of Presidency but they did them not as Bishops which they are not called in Scripture hut as Evangelists which they were and so one of them is called 2 Tim. 4.5 2. The second argument to prove that Timothy and Titus were no Bishops relates especially to Timothy and it is this If Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus it must be when the first Epistle was written For it is in that Epistle in which he is said to receive his pretended charge of exercising his Episcopal power in Ordination and Jurisdiction But now this first Epistle was written when Paul was at Macedonia as the learned both new and old Papists and Protestants agree And it was after this when Paul came to Miletum accompanied with Timothy and sends for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus unto him and commends the government of the Church unto these Elders whom he calls Bishops Now surely if Timothy had been constituted their Bishop in the sence of our Adversaries the Apostle would not have called the Elders Bishops before their Bishops face and in stead of giving a charge to the Elders to feed the flock of Christ he would have given that charge to Timothy and not to them And no doubt he would have given some directions to the Elders how to carry themselves toward their Bishop And because none of these things were done it is a clear demonstration to us that Timothy was not at that time Bishop of Ephesus To avoid the force of this argument there are some that say That Timothy was not made Bishop of Ephesus till after Pauls first being a prisoner at Rome which was after his being at Miletum But these men while they seek to avoid the Scylla of one inconvenience fall into the Carybdis of another as great For if Timothy was not made Bishop till Pauls first being at Rome then he was not Bishop when the first Epistle was written to him which all agree to be written before that time And then it will also follow That all that charge that was laid upon him both of Ordination and jurisdiction and that intreating of him to abide at Ephesus was given to him not as to the Bishop of Ephesus which he was not but as to an extraordinary Officer sent thither upon special occasion with a purpose of returning when his work imposed was finished From both these considerations we may safely conclude That if Timothy were neither constituted Bishop of Ephâ—sus before Pauls first being prisoner at Rome nor after Then he was not constituted Bishop at all But he was neither constituted Bishop before nor after c. Ergo not at all 3. To prove that Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sence we argue from the matter contained in these Epistles In the first Epistle wherein all that is alledged for Episcopacy is contained for in the 2 Epistle there is nothing at all said about it Chap. 1. Vers. 3. He beseecheth Timothy to abide at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia which had been a needless importunity as Smecttymnuus well observes if Timothy had had the Episcopal charge of Ephesus committed to him by the Apostles for then he might have laid as dreadful a charge upon him to abide at Ephesus as he doth afterwards to Preach the Gospel 2 Tim. 4.1 2. And in his Epistle to Titus Chap. 1.5 he saith For this cause left I thee in Creete that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting c. In which words the Apostle specifieth the occasional imployment for which he was desired to stay in that place Now as the Reverend Presbyters in their conference at the Isle of Wight have well noted These expressions I besought thâ—e to abide still at Ephesus I left thee in Creete do not sound like words of instalment of a man into a Bishoprick but of an intendment to call him away again And if we consider his actual revocation of them both of which we shall afterwards speake and the intimation in these texts of his intention that they should not stay there for continuance and the reason of his beseeching the one to stay and of his leaving the other behind him which was some present defects and distempers in those Churches they will put fair to prove That the Apostle intended not to establish them Bishops of those places and therfore did not Add to this That when Paul undertook in 1 Tim. 3. to set out the Office of a Bishop he mentioneth nothing in that Office which is not competent to a Presbyter and therefore omits the Office of a Presbyter as we have formerly said including it in the Office of a Bishop which certainly he would never have done if he had at the same time made Timothy an HierachicalBishop with a power to do that formally which was unlawful for a Presbyter to do And in his Epistle to Titus he directly confounds the names and offices of Presbyters and Bishops and makes them one and the same Titus 1.5.6 which he certainly would not have
Ecclesiae Epâ—esinae So concilium Aquis-granense 4. If the Apostles by the Elders of the Church had meant the Bishops of all Asia he would have said not the Elders of the Church but of the Churches It is an observation brought by one of those that makes use of this answer we are now confuting That when the Scripture speakes of Churches in Cities it alwaies useth the singular number as the Church of Hirusalem the Church of Corinth c. But when it speakes of provinces in which were many Cities then it useth the Plural number As the Churches of Iudaea and the Churches of Asia Rev. 1.11 According to this observation If the Apostle had meant of the Bishops of All Asia he would have said The Elders of the Churches But because he saith the Elders of the Church it is evident he meanes onely The Elders of the Church of Ephesus and so by consequence it is as evident That by Elders the Apostle understands meer Presbyters not Bishops in a distinct sense unlesse our brethren will confesse That there were more Bishops then one in Ephesus which is wholly to forsake theircause and to confesse that which we affirm that the Bishops of Ephesus were true Presbyters and the Presbyters true Bishops 5. Whereas it is said That Paul sent not onely for the Bishops or superintendents of Ephesus but of all Asia We demand who was the Bishop of Ephesus that Paul sent for Surely it was not Timothy For Timothy was then present with him and needed not to have been sent for and yet Timothy was according to our Brethrens judgement the first Bishop of Ephesus And if Timothy was the first Bishop then surely there was none in Ephesus for Paul to send for and if Ephesus at that time had no Bishop which was the Metroplis of all Asia How came the Daughter Churches to have Bishops before their Motheâ— Church as they call it 6. But sixtly We desire it may be proved That there were any Bishops over Presbyters in Asia when Paul was at Miletum This is taken for granted by Episcopall men But this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very thing which is in question We say That the Bishops of Asia were of the same nature with the Bishop of Ephesus that is they were Elders and Presbyters of the Churches to whom the Holy Ghost had committed the care of teaching and governing c. 7. As for that which is gathered from the 25. verse it beares no weight at all with it For these words All ye relate onely to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus that were then present Should a man say unto ten Members of the House of Lords and ten of the House of commons and say unto them All ye are now dissolved would it imply a presence of all the Lords and all the Commons because the speech concerned them all and was true of them all who â—nows not it would not So it is here c. As for that which is hinted from the 31 vers it doth not â—t all prove that which it is brought for For if we look into Act. 19. we shall find that Paul spent most of his three years at Ephesus oâ—â—ly and not in other parts of Asia Ephesus was the chief City of Asia and greatly given to Idolatry and there Pâ—â—l fixed his habitation It is the observation of Hiroâ—â— That Paul tarried 3. years at Ephesus in praedicatâ—ous Evangelis assiduns 〈◊〉 Minister â—t Idâ—lolatriae arcâ— destructa facile miâ—orum urbiâ—â—â— faâ—a superstitioâ—â—s convellâ—â—et A daily and stroâ—uous Minister in the Preaching of the Gospel That by destroying the chief fort and castlâ— of Idolâ—try hâ— might the â—asilier demolish the temples and the sâ—â—â—â—stitions of the lessâ—r Cities The teâ—t it self â—entioneth two years and three Moneths And therefore this verse doth not at all prove that all the Bishops of Asia were present with Paul at Miâ—etum So much for the Justificâ—tion of our â—gument drawn from Act. 20.17.28 2. Whereas we have proved from Phil. 1.1 That there â—re but two ordinary â—nd stâ—nding Officers constituted by Christ in his Church c. To this divers answers are given and some of them quite contrary one to the other 1. First it is said by some That though in the place cited there be but two Orders of the Ministry mentioned yet it doth not follow but that there may be mention in other Scriptures of â—nother standing Officer We desire that these Scriptures may be produced We say That there is no mention in any place of any others and we add That there is no mention of any Rules for Ordaining any others or of any way of Mission for any others no Qualifications for any others And therefore that there is no other standing Officer in Christ's Church of his appointing 2. It is confessed by others That the Bishops in Philippi were meer Presbyters and that the Apostles in the Churches which they planted did not at first appoint any Bishops but Presbyters onely to whom they gave the power of Preaching but reserved in their own hands the power of Governing till towards the latter end of their lives This conceit though it be frequently urged and much insisted on by the learnedest of our Brethren yet that it is but a meer conceit appears 1. Because that when the Apostles placed Preaching Presbyters over the Churches they did not only give unto them the power of Teaching but also of governing They are called Rulers and Governours and their charge was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we have proved at large Our Saviour Christ committed both the Keyes as they are called The Key of Doctrine and Discipline into the hands of Preaching Presbyters And whom the Apostles did constitute Teachers the same they made also Rulers and Governours 2. Because that when Paul took his solemn leave of the Elders of Ephesus and was never to see their faces more he did not set a Bishop over them to Rule and govern them But he left the power of government in the hands of the Elders Charging them to feed the flock over which the holy Ghost had made them Bishops both by Doctrine and Discipline 3. This answer doth yeeld thus much That the Apostles at first did place Presbyters in the Churches by them planted and that to these Presbyters he gave the power of Teaching and as we have proved the power of governing also Now it lyeth upon our Brethren to prove a Super-institution of a Bishop over Presbyters by the Apostles in some after times which we are sure they cannot do It is evident they did the quite contrary at Ephesus And therefore we may safely conclude That there was no such Officer in the Apostles dayes 4. As for the Apostles reserving in their own hands the power of governing To this it is well answered by the reverend Divines in their humble answer c. That the Apostles could no more devest
themselves of power of Governing then as Dr. Bilson saith they could lose their Apostleship Had they set up Bishops in all Churches they had no more parted with their power of Governing then they did in setting up Presbyters for we have proved that Presbyters being called Rulers Governours Bishops had the power of Governing in Ordinary committed to them as well as the office of teaching c. Nor do we see how the Apostle could reasonably commitâ— the Government of the Church to the Presbyters of Ephesus and yet reserve the power of Governing viz. in ordinary in his own hands who took his last farewell of them as never to see them more As the reserving of that part of the power of Governme nt called Legislative in the Apostles hands hindred not but that in your Majesties judgment Timothy and Titus were Bishops at Ephesus and Creet to whom the Apostle gives rules for ordering and governing the Church So likewise there is no reason why the Apostle reserving of that part of the power of Government called Executive in such cases and upon such occasions as they thought m eet should hinder the setting up of Bishops if they had intended it and therefore the reserving of power in their hands can be no greater reason why they did not set up Bishops at first then that they never did There is a third answer given which is quite contrary to the second and that is that these Bishops of Philippi were Bishops in a proper sence and that at that time when the Apostle wrote his Epistle there were no single Presbyters at Philippi 1. This answer is quite contrary to the sence that Hierom Theodoret and Theophylacts and others give of this text 2. This answer supposeth that there were more Bishops then one planted in one City by the Apostles which is quite contrary to the judgment of Episcopall divines and quite destructive of the Episcopal Hierarchy Theodoret sayth that the Apostles by Bishops understands single Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Otherwise it had been impossible for many Bishops to go vern one City And so also Theophylact The Apostle calls Presbyters Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For there were not many Bishops in one City And the truth is To affirm That there were many Bishops in one City in the Apostles dayes is in plain English to grant the cause and to say That the Apostolicall Bishops were mere Presbyters 3. Another text brought by us to prove the Identity of a Bishop and Presbyter was 1. Tim. 3. where the Apostle reckoning up the qualifications of a Bishop passeth from Bishops unto Deaconâ— leaving out the qualifications of Presbyters there by giving us to understand that Presbyters and Bishops are all one To this it is answered That because Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus who were Bishops therefore there was no need to write any thing concerning the choice or qualification of any other sort of officers then such as belonged to their Ordination and inspection which were Presbyters and Deacons onely and no Bishops 1. This answer would have some weight in it if it could be proved That Timothy and Titus were Bishops in a forâ—all sence or if there could be found any rule for the Ordination of an Hierarchicall Bishop or for the qualification of him in some other place of Scripture but we are sure that neither the one nor the other can be made out 2. It is reasonable to think as our Divines at the Isle of Wight say the Apostle when he passeth immediately from the Bishop to the Deacon in the place forementioned would have distinctly exprest or at least hinted what sort of Bishop he meant whether the Bishop over Presbyters or the Presbyter Bishop to have avoided the confusion of the name and to have set as it were some mark of difference in the Eschocheon of the Presbyter-Bishop if there had been some other Bishop of a higher house 3. According to the judgement of Episcopal men as our divines do well observe Bishops might then have ordained Bishops like themselves for there was then no Canonâ— forbidding one single Bishop to Ordain another of his own rank and there being many Cities in Creete Titus might have found it expedient to have set up Bishops in some of those Cities So that this answer fights against the principle of those that hold Timothy and Titus to have been Bishops 4. This answer is opposite to all those that hold Timothy and Titus to have been made by the Apostle Arch-Bishops of Ephâ—sus and Crâ—â—tâ— If they were Arch-Bishops then their Office was to constitute Bishops in a proper sence There is one of no little note among our Prelatical Brethren that stoutly maintains this and till our Brethren be reconciled among themselves we need make no other reply to this answer 5. Whereas out of 1 Pet. 5. we proved That the Elderâ— are not onely called Bishops but have the whole Episcopal power committed unto them being commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To feed and take the Episcopal charge of the flock of God To this it is said That by Elders are meant Bishops in our Brthrens sense Because These Elders are required to feed the flock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as being Lords over Gods heritage So it is translated But say some it must be translated Not as being Lords â—ver the Clergy committed to your care which hints unto us say they That these Elders were Bishops over Presbyters and not meer Presbyters This Interpretation is Novel and not to be found for ought we can discern in all Antiquity and we believe our more Moderate Brethren are ashamed of it and therefore we will be very brief in answer to it All that we shall say is 1. That though after the Apostles dayes there came in this Nominal distinction between the people and their Ministers insomuch as the people were called Laici and their Ministrs Clerici yet it is evident that in the Apostles dayes there was no such distinction The people of God are in this very Epistle called an holy Priesthood 1 Pet. 2.5 and a royal Priesthood 1 Pet. 2.9 And Deut. 32.9 The Lords portion and the lot of his inheriâ—ance And if the Reader wil be pleased to view al the translations that have been of this text he will never find it translated As being Lords of the Clergy but as being Lords of Gods heritage 2. We answer That the Apostle as if on purpose he had intended to have fore-armed us against this misunderstanding of the words in the latter clause of the verse he sheweth what he maeneth by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not as Lords over Gods heritage but as being ensamples to the flock The latter is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the former By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the sense of the whole verse can be no other but this That the Elders be careful not to
grounded upon a Ius Divinum but upon prudential reasons and arguments And the chief of them was as Hierom and divers after him say in remedâ—â—m Schismatis ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur For the remedy of Schisme and that the seeds of errour might be rooted out of the Church Now that this prudential way invented no doubt at first upon a good intention was not the way of God appeares as Smectymnuus hath well shewn thus Because we read in the Apostles daies there were divisions Rom. 16.17 and Schismes 1 Cor. 3.3 11.18 yet the Apostle was not directed by the Holy Ghost to Ordain Bishops for the taking away of those Schismes Neither in the Rules he prescribes for healing of those breaches doth he mention Bishops for that end Neither doth he mention this in his directions to Timothy and Titus for the Ordination of Bishops or Elders as one end of their Ordination or one peculiar duty of their office And though the Apostle saith Oportet haereses esse ut qui probati sunt manifesti fiâ—â—t inter vos yet the Apostle no where saith Oportet Episcopos esse ut tollantur haereses quae manifestâ— fiunt There must be Bishops that those Heresies which are manifest amongst you may be removed 2. Because the Holy Ghost who could foresee what would ensue thereupon would never ordain that for a remedy which would not onely be ineffectual to the cutting off of evil but become a stirrup for Antichrist to get into the saddle For if there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for preventing Schisms there is as great a necessity of setting up one Archbishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Archbishops and one Pope over all unlesse men will imagine that there is a danger of Schisme only among Presbyters and not among Bishops and Archbishops which is contrary to reason truth history and our own experience Hence it is that Musculus having proved by Act. 20. Phil. 1.1 Titus 1.5 1 Pet. 5.1 that in the Apostles times a Bishop and a Presbyter were all one he addes But after the Apostles times when amongst the Elderâ— of the Church as Hierome saith Schismes arose and aâ— I verily think they began to strive for Majority by little and little they began to choose one among the rest out of the number of Elders that should be above the rest in a higher degree and called Bishop But whether that device of man profited the Church or no the times following could better judge then when it first began And further addeth That if Hierome and others had seen as much as they that came after they would have concluded that it was never brought in by Gods Spirit to take away Schismes as was pretended but brought in by Satan to wast and destroy the former Ministry that fed the flock Thus far Musculus Sadeel also hath this memorable passage The difference between Bishops and other Ministers came in for remedy of Schisme But they that devised it little thought what a gate they opened to the ambition of Bishopâ— Hence also Dr. Whiâ—akers asking How came in the inequality between Bishops and Presbyters answereth out of Hierome That the Schisme and faction of some occasioned the ancient Government to be changed which saith he how ever devised at first for a remedy against Schisme yet many holy and wise men have judged it more pernicious then the disease it self and although it did not by and by appear yet miserable experience afterward shewed it First ambition crept in which at length begat Antichrist set him in his chair and brought the yoak of bondage upon the neck of the Church The sense of these mischiefs made Nazianzâ—n wish not onely that there were no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No dignity or tyrannical prerogative of place but also that there were no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no principal dignity to wit in the Church of which he is speaking But now saith he Contentions about the right hand and the left about the higher and the lower place c. have bred many inconveniencies even among Ministers that should be Teachers in Israel Proposition 6. THat there is a widâ— and vast difference between the Bishops of the Primitive times and the Bishops of later times as much as between ancient Rome and Rome at this day A Bishop at his first erection was nothing else but Primus Presbyter or Episcopus Praeses as a Moderator in a Church-Assembly or a Speaker in a Parliament that governed communi Concilio Presbyterorum and had neither power of Ordination nor of Jurisdiction but in common with his Presbyters Ambrose upon the 1 Tim. 3. saith That there is one and the same Ordination of a Bishop and a Presbyter for both of them are Priests but the Bishop is the first Dr. Reynolds saith That when Elders were ordained by the Apostles in every Church through every City to feed the flock of Christ whereof the Holy Gost had made them Overseers they to the intent they might the better do it by common counsel and consent did use to assemble themselves and meet together In the which meetings for the more orderly handling and concluding of things pertaining to their charge they chose one amongst them to be the President of their company and Moderator of their actions And this is he whom afterward in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop For as the name of Ministers common to all them who serve Christ in the stewardship of the mysteries of God that is in preaching of the Gospel is now by the custome of our English speech restrained to Elders who are under a Bishop So the name of Bishop common to all Elders and Pastors of the Church was then by the usual language of of the Fathers appropriated to him who had the Presidentship over Elders From which quotation it appeares that in the judgment of learned Dr. Reynold A Bishop at his first appearing was nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The President or Moderator of the Presbytery D. Blondel a man of vast Reading indeavours strenuously to make it out That when Episcopacy first came up in the Church the custome was to choose the Eldest of the company of the Presbyters whom he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the first of those that were ordained to be their Bishop or Moderator And after his decease the next in age succeeded him not advanced in degree of Ministry or power above his Brethren but onely in order and dignity as being the first Presbyter This opinion is agreeable to that passage out of St. Ambrose if that Book be his where he saith Nam Timotheum Presbyterum à se creatum Episcopum vocat quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recâ—dente uno sequenâ— ei succederet Sed quia ceperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad Primatus tenendos immutata est ratio prospiciente concilio ut
Anacletus Clemens and another called Cletus as some affirm are inextricable Some say That Titus was Bishop of Crâ—te some say Archbishop and some Bishop of Dalmatia Some say That Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus and some say That Iohn was Bishop of Ephesus at the same time Some say Polycaâ—ps was first Bishop of Smyrna another saith that he succeeded one Buâ—olus and another That Aristâ— was first Some say That Alexandria had but one Bishop and other Cities two and others that there was but one Bishop of one City at the same time And how can these Catalogues be unquestionable that must be made up out of Testimonies that fight one against another Learned Iunius speaking of that great controversie about the succession of the first Bishops or Presbyters of Rome whether Linus was the first or Clemens or Anacletus hath this remarkable passage That these or some of these were Presbyters or Bishops of Rome at the same time ruling the Church in common But the following Writers fancying to themselves such Bishops as then had obtained in the Church fell into these snares of tradition because they supposed according to the custome of their own timeâ— that theâ—e could be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time which iâ— quite crosse to the Apostolic all times Thirdly This is also to be considered That they that made the Catalogues spake according to the language of the times in which they lived in which there was a distinction between Bishops and Presbyâ—ers and therefore call them who went before them Bishops whereas indeed they were not so in a proper sence Nor can the Bishops of after-times be said to succeed them any otherwise if so much then Caesar is said to succeed the Roman Consuls Fourthly These Catalogues do resolve themselves into an Apostle or an Evangelist as at Rome into 〈◊〉 at Alexandria into Mark at Ephesus into Timothy aâ— â—retâ— into Titus Now it is certain That the Apostles and Evangelists cannot be said to be Bishops in a formal sence For they had an universal Commission and their Offices were extraordinary and they had no successors properly in idem Officium Indeed Bishops or Presbyteâ—s did succeed them in some part of their work but not in their Office Ordinary Offices succeed Extraordinary not in the same line and degree as one Brother succeeds another in his inheritance but as men of another Order and in a different line They are we confesse called Bishops by Ecclesiastical Writers but that was onely by way of allusion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we have formerly shewed We will conclude this Proposition with part of a passage out of the conference of the Reverend Presbyters at the Isle of Wight where they say And left your Majesty might reply That however the Catalogues and Testimonies may varie or be mistaken in the order or times or names of those Persons that succeeded the Apostles yet all agree that there was a Succession of some Persons and so though the credit of the Catalogues be infirmed yet the thing intended is confirmed thereby We grant that a Succession of men to feed and govern these Churches while they continued Churches cannot be denyed and that the Apostles and Evangelists that planted and watered those Churches though extraordinary and temporary Officers were by Ecclesiastical Writers in compliance with the language and usage of thir own times called Bishops and so were eminent men of chief note presiding in Presbyteries of the Cities or Churches called by such Writers as wrote after the division and distinction of the names of Presbyters and Bishops But that those first and ancientest Presbyters were Bishops in proper sence according to your Majesties description invested with power over Presbyters and people to whom as distinct from Presbyters did belong the power of Ordination giving Rules and Censures we humbly conceive can never be proved by authentick or competent Testimonies And granting that your Majesty should prove the Succession of Bishops from the Primitive times seriatim yet if these from whom you draw and through whom you derive it be found either more then Bishops as Apostles and extraordinary persons or lesse then Bishops aâ— meerly first Presbyters having not one of the three essentials to Episcopal Government mentioned by your Majestie in their own hand it will follow that all your Majestie hath proved by this Succession is the Homonymy and equivocal acceptation of the word Episcopus Proposition 8. THat whatsoever may be said of Episcopacy out of Antiquity yet notwithstanding it is an opinion generally received by the Learned in all ages That there are but Two Orders of Ministers in the Church of Christ Bishops and Deacons according to the saying of Paul to the Philippians where he salutes the Bishops and Deaconâ— that is the Presbyters and Deacons Of this opinion iâ— Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians and Polycarpâ— in his Epistle to the Philâ—delphians as we have shewed Thiâ— also iâ— the opinion of most of the School-men Lombard saith Whereas all the seven Orders are spiritual and sacred yet the Canons think that two onely are called Sacred Orders by an excellency to wit the order of Deaconship and Priesthood because the Primitive Church so far as we can read had onely these two and of these only we have the Apostles precept Bonaventâ—râ— saith That Episcopacy iâ— no order but an eminency and dignity The like saith Aâ—reâ—lus upon the 4. Sent. distinct 24. Navâ—rrus saith That it is the common opinion of the Divines That Episcopacy is not an Order but an Office See more of this in Forbesii Iâ—â—nicuâ— lib. 2. cap. 11. And in the Addition of M. Mason to his defence of the Ministry of the Church of England where there are very many authors cited to prove That Presbytery is the highest Order of Ministry is not a different order but a different degree of the same Order See also D. Bloâ—deâ— Sect. 3.135 where he sheweth out of divers Councells that under the name of Priests and Levites the whole Gospel-Ministry were comprehended In our own Nation that blessed man Mr. Wickloffe did judge that there ought onely to be two Orders of Ministers in the Church to wit Presbyters and Deacons And Iohn Lamberâ— a Martyr in his answer to Articles objected against him saith As touching Priesthood in the Primitive Church when vertue bore as Ancient Doctors do deem and Scripture in mine opinion recordeth the same most room there were no more Officers in the Church of God then Bishops and Deacons that is Ministers as witnesseth besides Scripture Hierome in his Commentariesupon the Epistles of Paul But we shall give one instance instead of many that might be added In the year 1537. there came out a Book called The Institution of a Christian man made by the whole Clergy in their Provincial Synod set forth by the authority of the Kings Majestie and approved by the whole Parliament and commanded to be preached to the
whole Kingdom wherein speaking of the Sacrament of Orders it is said expresly That although the Fathers of the succeeding Church after the Apostles instituted certain inferiour degrees of Ministery yet the truth is that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any other degree or distinction in Orders but onely of Deacons or Ministers and Presbyters or Bishops and thoroughout the whole discourse makes Presbyters and Bishops one and the same But of this Proposition we have had occasion to speak formerly to which we refer the diligent Reader Now from hence it followeth inevitably That if according unto the judgments of our Episcopal Divines Episcopacy be the same Order of Ministry with Presbytery thâ—â— it hath no more intrinsecal power of Ordination and Jurisdiction then Presbytery hath And that all that distinction that was put between them by Antiquity was meerly in restraining the use and exercise of that power which was truly and really inherent in them The actus primuâ— was common to both although for order sake the actus secundus was inhibited the Presbytery And this leads us to speak something about the practise of Antiquity in the point of Ordination of Ministers which is that in which we believe the Reader doth desire especially to be satisfied and which is that for which we have undertaken this discourse about Antiquity and in which our Adversaries do most triumph For it is said by all Anti-Presbyterians That the way of Ordination now in use is quite contrary to Antiquity and that whatsoever is done in this kind without a Bishop over Presbyters is null and void In answer to this we shall crave leave to hold forth these ensuing Propositions about Ordination out of Antiquity for as to what the Scripture saith of that we have already spoken Several Propositions declaring the Iudgment and Practise of the Ancient Church about Ordination of Ministers Proposition 1. THat in the first and purest times when the Church of Christ was governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters There was Ordination of Presbyters without Bishops over Presbyters For these Bishops came in postea paulatim as Hierome saith And Panormitanus lib. 1. Decretal de consuetudine cap. quarto saith Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam ordinabant Sacerdotes paâ—iter conferebant omnia Sacramenta Proposition 2. THat after that Bishops were admitted into the Church yet notwithstanding Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of his Presbyters was alwaies forbidden and opposed Cyprian in his exile writing to his charge certifies them that Aurelius was ordained by him and his Colleagues who were present with him By his Colleagues he meanes his Presbyters as appears epist. 58. And Firmilianus saith of them that rule in the Church Quod baptizandi manum imponendi ordinandi possident potestatem And who those be he expresseth a little before Seniores Praepositi by whom the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood In Synodo ad Quercum anno 403. it was brought as an accusation against Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he had made Ordinations without the company and sentence of his Clergy In the Councel of Carthâ—ge it was decreed Can. 20. Vt Episcopus sine Consilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet And Can. 2. Cum â— dinatur Presbyter Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant When a Presbyter is ordained The Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head all the Presbyters that are present shall likewise lay their hands upon his head with the hands of the Bishop By this laying on of the hands of Presbyters is not onely signified the Presbyters consent to what the Bishop doth but Ordo ipse confertur gratia ordini necessaâ—ia impeâ—ratur quemadmodum per impositionem manuum Episcopi The Order it self is conferred and grace necessary is impetrated as it is by the hands of the Bishop as saith Forbefius in his Irenicum The Presbyters impose hands saith the same Author non tanquam duntaxat consentientes ad consensum enim sufficiunt suffragia plebs etiam consentit nec tamen ejus est manus imponere sed tanquam Ordinantes seâ— Ordinem conferentes ex potestate Ordinandi Diuinitùs acceptâ gratiam Ordinato hoc adhibito ritu apprecantes Not onely as Consenting for to manifest their consent their suffrages had been sufficient and the people also gave their consent and yet they impose not their hands but as Ordaining and conferring Orders and by the power of Ordination conferred to them by God praying for grace upon him that is Ordained using the ceremony of laying on of hands The same Author brings a famous example of Pelagius Bishop of Rome the first of that name who was made Bishop of Rome by Two Bishops and one Presbyter named Andreas In the Councel of Nice it was decreed That No Bishop should be made but by Three Bishops at least And yet this Pelagius being by Iustinian Anno 555. appointed to be Bishop of Rome and not being able to obtain Three Bishops to ordain him he being suspected then of a crime from which he afterwards cleared himself he received Ordination from Two Bishops and one Presbyter And this Ordination Canonica habita est in hunc usque diem is accounted Canonical even to this day By which it is evident that Presbyters lay on hands in Ordination together with the Bishop as partners in the power And that Pelagius and his successours would never have owned this way of Ordination had they not believed That a Presbyter had a power derived to him from Christ to confer Ecclesiastical Orders And this leads us to a Third Proposition Proposition 3. THat even according to the Judgment of Antiquity Presbyters have an intrinsecal power and authority to ordain Ministers and when this power was restrained and inhibited it was not propter legis necessitatem but onely propter honorem Sacerdotii It was not from the necessity of any Divine law for bidding it but onely for the Honour of Episcopacy It was not from the Canon of the Scriptures but from some Canons of the Church Leo Primus ep 88. upon complaints of unlawful Ordinations writing to the Germane and French Bishops reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops Among which he sets down Presbyterorum Diaconorum consecratio and then adds Quae omnia solis deberi summis Pontificibus authoritate Canonum praecipitur And Isidore Hispalensis lib. 2. de Offiâ—iis Ecclesiasticis cap. 7. speaking of Presbyters saith His enim sicut Episcopis dispensatio mysteriorum Dei commissa est Praesunt enim Ecclesiis Christi in confectione divina corporis sanguinis consortâ—s cum Episcopâ— sunt similiter in doctrina populorum in Officio praedicandi Sed sola propter authoritatem
summo Sacerdoti Clericorum ordinatio consecratio reservata est ne à multis Ecclesiae disciplina vendicata concordiam solveret scandala generaret and afterwards he proves by Scripture texts that Bishops and Presbyters are one and the same So also Concilium Aquisgran 1. Canon 8. Solum propter authoritatem Clericorum Ordinatio Consâ—cratio reservata est summo Sacerdoti Dr. Forbes professor at Aberdeen though a great friend and pleader for Episcopacy yet he saith Habent Presbyteri de jure Divino Ordinandi sicut praedicandi baptizandi potestatem quamvis haec omnia exequi debeant sub regimine inspectione Episcopi in locis ubi est Episcopus And Mr. Mason a known Writer in defence of Episcopacy saith also That a Presbyter as he is a Presbyter is indued with intrinsecal power and ability to Ordain and was restrained from the exercise of it onely by the Church for Disciplines sake and that when the Power of Ordination was reserved to the Bishop the power of the Presbyter was not at that time utterly extinguished but onely restrained as the faculty of the flying of a bird when hiâ— wings are tyed What authority the Church had to tye these wings or whether the Church did well in tying them when the Scripture had left them untyed is not now under debate All that we produce this Authour for is to prove That the wingâ— of Presbytery were not cut off though they were tyed up and that according to the judgment of Episcopal Writers themselves Presbyters have an intrinsecal power of giving Orders The same Authour proves this his Assertion thus Because that a Bishop is intrinsecally inabled to give Orders not by his power of Jurisdiction but by his power of Order And because a Presbyter hath as much of the Sacrament and character of Order according to the Papists themselves as a Bishop and therefore every Presbyter hath an intrinsecal power of giving Orders Now that Episcopacy and Presbytery are one and the same Order of Ministry and that that which is added in Episcopal consecration whereby a Bishop is distinguished from a Presbyter is only a degree of dignity and eminency and is neither the Sacrament of Order nor imprinteth a Character he proveth by a world of witnesses even from Popish Writers From Lombard Aquinas Durandus Dominicus Soto Richardus Aureolus and divers otherâ— Tostatus saith It is in the consecration of Bishops as of the Pope in which there is not imprinted a Character seeing they are not Orders but dignities or degrees of Ecclesiastical preeminence Gerson saith Above Priesthood there is no superiour Order no not the function of a Bishop or Archbishop Armachanus saith A Bishop in such things hath no more in respect of his Order then every single Priest Although the Church hath appointed that such things should be executed by those men whom we call Bishops Aureolus hath a notable passage Every foâ—m in as much as it is in act hath power to communicate it self in the same kind therefore every Priest hath power to celebrate Orders Why then do they not celebrate them Because their power is hindred by the decree of the Church Whereupon when a Bishop is made there is not given unto him any new power but the former power being hindred is set at liberty as a man when the act of reason is hindered and the impediment is removed there is not given unto him a new Soul From all these things it appears that Presbyters have an intrinsecal power to Ordain Presbyters Proposition 4. THat even during the prevalency of Episcopacy it was not held unlawful for a Presbyter to Ordain without a Bishop A Presbyter had not onely an inherent power of Ordination but in some cases he did actually Ordain S. Ambrose upon Eph. 4. saith Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus Austine or whosoever was the author in quaestionibus ex utroque Testamento mixtim quast 101. In Alexandriâ per totam Aegyptum fi desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter Which words cannot be understood as a learned defender of Prelacy would have them of the consecration of the Eucharist For this might be done by the Presbyter praesente Episcopo But it must be understood either of confirmation or which is more likely of Ordination because Ambrose in that place is speaking of Ordination But howsoever it is not much material For Confirmation was restrained to the Bishop as well as Ordination and if the Presbyter might confirm si desit Episcopus then he might also Ordain Hierome saith of the Alexandrian Bishops Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant c. That the Presbyters for many years did Ordain their Bishops And certainly if it were not held unlawfull in Antiquity for Presbyters to ordain Bishops much lesse could it be held unlawful for Presbyters to Ordain Presbyters Dr. Forbes saith That in all those Churches which are governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters without Bishops Valida efficax est Ordinatio quae fit per impositionem manuum solius Presbyterii Quin ubi est Episcopus possunt Presbyteri Ordinare consentiente licet non simul manus imponente Episcopo Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. cap. 39. tells us That Presbyters in some places and at some times did impose hands which when Gregory Bishop of Rome would wholly have forbidden there was so great exception taken at him for it that he left it free again And afterwards Not onely Armachanus a very learned and worthy Bishop but as it appeareth by Alexander of Hales many learned men in his time and before were of opinion that in some cases and at some times Presbyters may give Orders and that their Ordinations are of force c. And that Ordination by Presbyters was held lawfull and warrantable by the ancient Church appears further by these ensuing Arguments 1. Because the Chorepiscopi who were but single Presbyters had liberty by the Church to Ordain if they had a licence from the Bishop That they had liberty appears from the 13. Canon of the Councel at Aâ—â—yra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chorepiscopis non licere Presbyteros vel Diaconos ordinare sed neque urbis Presbyteris nisi cum literis ab Episcopo permissum fuerit in alienâ parochiâ This Councel was held before the Councel of Nice in the year 314. And in the Councel of Antiochia which was Anno 341. Can. 10. It is decreed That the Chorepiscopi should not dare to Ordain Presbyters or Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From these two Canons we may collect these two observations 1. That before these Councels the Chorepiscopi did Ordain Presbyters without any licence at all from the Bishop of the City Otherwise to what purpose are they inhibited 2. That after these Councels they might Ordain by vertue of a licence which sheweth evidently that in the judgment of these
Reverend Fathers the Chorepiscopi had an intrinsecal power to Ordain derived to them from Christ. For a licence doth not confer a power to him that hath it not but onely a faculty to exercise that power he hath And this is the Conclusion that D. Forbes drawes from this practise of these Councels Surely saith he The Church would not have granted this power to the Chorepiscopi Nisi judicasset validam esse eam Ordinationem qua per solos pâ—ragitur Presbyteros It cannot be denied but that Pope Damasus made a Constitution for the abolishing of this Office of the Chorepiscopi But it seems this constitution was not put in execution in all Churches for above 200. years after Isidore Hispalensis who lived Anno. 630. in libro de Officiis Ecclesiasticis cap. 6. speaks of these Chorepiscopi as yet continuing in the Church and saith Chorepiscopi id est Vicarii Episcoporum juxta quod Canones ipsi testantur instituti sunt ad exempla 70. Seniorum tanquam Sacerdotes propter solicitudinem pauperum Hi in vicis vitis constituti gubernant sibi commissas Ecclesias habentes licentiam constituere Lectores Subdiaconos exorcistas Presbyteros autem Diaconos Ordinare non audeant praeter conscientiam Episcopi in cujus regione praeesse noscuntur Hi autem à solo Episcopo civitatis cui adjacent ordinantur Observe here That Isidore translates those words of the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as Gentianus Hervetus Absque urbis Episcopo but Praeter conscientiam Episcopi Quae versio optime explicat mentem Concilii saith Forbesius estque ipso rei usu exequutione firmata ut nimirum possent Chorepiscopi etiam Presbyteros Diaconos ordinare permittente licet non simul ordinante Episcopo loci But how will it be proved may some say That these Chorepiscopi were onely Presbyters and not Bishops For if this can be clearly made out it will undeniably follow That according to the judgment of Antiquity Presbyters had not onely the inward power but also the outward exercise of Ordination for a long space Now that these Chorepiscopi were meer Presbyters appeares 1. Because they were to be ordained but by one Bishop à solo Episcopo civitatis cui adjacent saith the Councel of Antiochia But by the Canons of the Church A Bishop properly so called was to be ordained by three Bishops 2. Because they were to be subject to the Bishop of the City So saith the Canon Ab Episcopo Civitatis cui subjicitur fiat Chorepiscopus Now we read no where of the subjection of one Bishop and his charge to another Cyprian pleads the freedome of Bishops telling us that each of them hath a portion of Christs flock assigned to him for which he is to give account to God 3. Because they could not nay they must not dare to exercise the power of Ordination without the leave of the Bishop Conâ—il Ancyr saith Non licere nisi cum literis ab Episcopo pâ—rmissum fuerit Concil Antioâ—h saith Non audeat praeter conscientiam Episcopi None of this would have been said if they had been Bishops in a Prelatical sence 4 Because they were Bishops in villis regionibus and therefore as some think called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But according to the Canons of the Church Bishops in â— proper sence were not to be made unlesse in great Cities nâ— vilâ—scaâ— nomen Episcopi as Damasus argues when he pleads for the abolition of the Chorepiscopi 5. Because thiâ— power was afterwards taken away from the Chorepiscopi by the same authority of the Canons and Ecclesiastical constitutions by which it was first appropriated to Bishops themselves as Leo epist. 88. witnesseth which to us is a firm argument to prove not only that they once had it but that they had it as Presbyters For if they had it as Bishops the taking of it away would have been a degradation of them 6. We might bring an argument ad hominâ—m because they are said Concil Nâ—ocaesar Can. 14. to have been appointed in the Church after the manner or in imitation of the Seventy Now according to the opinion of the Hierarchical men Bishops succeed the Apostles not the Seventy 7. We might also here urge the authority of Leo epist. 88. who saith That the Chorepiscopi juxta Canones Neocaesarienses sive secundum aliorum Patrum decreta iidâ—m sunt qui Presbyteri and of Isidore Hispalensis before mentioned and of Damasus epist. 5. To whose sentence Concil Hispal Can. 7. doth subscribe and also of Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. cap. 39. who saith Neither should it seem strange to our adversaries that the power of Ordination should at some times be yeelded unto Presbyters seeing their Chorepiscopi Suffragans or Titular Bishops that live in the Diocesse and Churches of other Bishops and are no Bishops according to the old course of Discipline do daily in the Romish Church confirm children and give Orders And again Seeing that Chorepiscopi or Suffragans as they call them being not Bishops but onely Presbyters do daily with good allowance Ordain Presbyters and all other Episcopall acts But we forbear multiplying of argumentâ— These are sufficient to prove That they were but single Presbyters And that therefore single Presbyters did Ordain even during the prevalency of Episcopacy To avoid the strength of this argument Bellarmine invents novum quoddam antea inauditum Chorepiscoporum genus He saith That there were some of them that were meer Presbyters and others that were veri nominis Episcopi And that the Councel of Antiochia speaks of the last in the beginning and of the first sort in the latter end But certain it is that the Canon speaks of Chorepiscopi in generall without any distinction throughout the whole And the scope of Damasus his letter is to prove that all the Chorepiscopi whatsoever their Ordination was were nothing else but Presbyters We shall not undertake to answer Bellarmine at large because it is done to our hands by that learned man so often mentioned who though a lover of Episcopacy yet surely he was a very Moderate and meek spirited man and hath fully answered all that is brought by Bellarmine against what we have asserted The Reader may view him if he please for his further satisfaction There is another whom we forbear to name that saith That the Chorepiscopi of whom the Canon speaks were Bishops But he addeâ— Though they were Bishops yet they were Bishops made but by one Bishop and Bishops meerly Tituâ—an and sine Cathedrâ which is all one as if he should say They were not properly Bishops For according to the Canons then in force A Bishop properly so called was to be made by 3. Bishops â—nd if he were Ordained sine titulo his Ordination was null and void We will conclude this discourse of the Chorepiscopi with a passâ—ge out of Gabriâ—l Vasquez Postquam proposuisset istud Bâ—llarmini somnium â—aec
subjungit vâ—rba Alii â—amen non minorâ—s authoritatis existimant Chorâ—piscopos fuisse tantùm Presbyteros Ita expresse sentit Ayala de traditionibus Ecclesiasticis 3. part Consideratione 4. ubi haâ—c râ—m ex prâ—fâ—ssâ— disputat noster Franciscus Turrianus in annotationibus ad Consilium Nicaenum Can. 54. â—it Ordinâ—m Chorepiscoporum non fuisse nisi Presbyterorum tantùm eandem sententiam sequuntur docti aliqui recâ—ntiores c. Porro Damasum duo illa genera Chorepiscoporum minimè distinxisse sed de omnibus etiam illis quoruâ— mâ— minit Concilium Antiochenum pronunciasse veros non esse Episcopos ita ut si Presbyteri essâ— nollent nihil omâ—ino essent probat ex instituto Ayala loce citato Potestque ex ipso Damaso sâ—aderi Nunquam dicit Damasus hos Chorepiscopos diversos esse à prioribus aut verè Episcopos esse imo verò ex professo probat licet à pluribus consecrati verè tamen Episcopos non esse Haec Vasquez So much of this argument A second Argument to prove That it was not held unlawful in Antiquity for Presbyters to Ordain may be drawn from the opinion of the Schoolmen and Canonists during the prevalency not onely of Episcopacy but even of Papal Tyranny For it is a received opinion in the Church of Rome That the Pope may by his Commission authorize a single Presbyter to Ordain Presbyters he cannot say they commissionate a Lay-man but he may a Presbyter Mr. Francis Mason citeâ— many Authors to attest this The Author of the Glosse saith Diâ—o quod Papa potest hoc delegare simpliâ—i Sacerdotâ— non Laico sicut credo sic ex tali delegatione adminiculo habiti Sacramenti potest conferre quicquid habet Imo quilibet Clâ—ricus hoc facere potest qui verâ— non habet non potest conferre Rosâ—llus also saith Vâ—lunt Doctores quod Papa potest committere cuilibet Clerico ut conferat quae babet ipse ut si est Presbyter possit Ordinare Presbyterum Diaconus Diaconum ex manâ—ato Papae And again Ego teneo quod Papa possit demandare Presbyterâ— quod conferat omnâ—s sacros Ordines in hoc 〈◊〉 cum sentenâ—ia Canonistarum Dr. Forbes brings also many quotations to this purpose some of which we shall recite as being very observable Panormitaâ—â—â— saith Ego potiuâ— pâ—tarem ut Sacerdoti hoc possit delegare indistinctè quia 〈◊〉 de Sacrâ—â—â—nto Eucharistiâ— sit dispositâ—m institutione Domiâ—icâ— quâ— haâ—â—ant illud administrare hoc tamen non est dispositum in collationâ— Ordinum Nam olim Presbyteri in commâ—ni râ—gebaâ— Ecclesiam ordinabant Sacerdotes Vndâ— quemadmodum olim poterant ita videtur quòd Papa possit hoc concedere Sacerdoti maximè delegando quum nihil exerceat delegatus nomine proprio In decretalibus Gregorii 9. de consuetudine cap. 4. c. It is said Dico quod Papa potest hoc delegare simplici Sacerdoti et non Laico sicut credo et sic ex tali delegatione et in adminiculo habiti sacramenti potest conferre quicquid habet Very remarkable is that passage in Petrus Aureolus in quartum Sent. Distinct. 24. In habente animam rationalem quandoque impeditur â—ctus rationis et postea removetur impedimentum non datur nova anima vel forma sed tantum removetur illud quod impediebat prius animam nâ— exiret in actum rationis Sed Ordinare in Sacerdotem est actus conveniens Sacerdoti in quantum Sacerdos est tantùm est actus impeditus in â—o Probo Quia nemo dat quod non habet sicut in naturalibus ubi forma transfundit seipsam Ergo non Sacerdotis non est ordinare in Sacerdotem sed hoc pertinet ad Sacerdotem qui habet formam illam in actu potentem transfundere seipsam Vnde Papa non posseâ— Ordines committere nisi Sacerdoti ut Diacono vel Laico Potest autem committere cuicunque Sacerdoti Ergo videtur quod conferre Ordines sit pertinens ad Sacerdotem Probo Quia Pone quod sit Sacerdos omni alio circumscripto potest Papa committere â—i Ordines Pone autem alia omnia circumscribe Sacerdotium non poterit Papa committere potestatem Ordinandi Hoc videtur satis rationale quia omnis forma ex quo est in actu videtur quod possit se communicare infra eandem speciem apud Capreolum est in eandem speciem ergo Sacerdos hoc modo quantum est ex potestate sibi conveniente absolutè poterit Ordines celebrare Ergo si potestas â—lla modo sit impedita sicut est de facto impedimentum removeatur per hoc quod fit Episcopus Non datur â—i Nova potestas sed tantummodo pristina potestas prius impedita reducitur ad usum impedimento remoto haec reductio illius potestatis ad usum dicitur ampliatio potestatis Hac Aureolus From these two arguments and the quotations alledged we may safely gather these conclusions 1. That there was a time when Presbyters did govern by Common Councel and did Ordain without Bishops So saith Panormitan Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam Ordinabant Sacerdotes 2. That whole Nations have been converted to the faith and governed for hundreds of years without Bishops This Conclusion is abundantly proved by D. Blondel Sect. 3. de Ordinationibus where he tells us That Ioannes Major de gestis Scotorum lib. 2. cap. 2. saith Per Sacerdotes Monachos sine Episcopis Scoti in fide eruditi That Ioannes Fordonius saith Ante Palladiâ— adventum habâ—bant Scoti fidei Doctoros ac Sacramentorum Ministratores Presbyteros solummodò vel Monachos ritum sequentes Ecclesia Primitivae The Scots were Christians 220. years and more without Episcopal Government The like he proves of the Gothes and French For brevity sake we refer the Reader to the Author himself 3. That in Aegypt when the Bishop was absent Presbyters did consecrate 4. That in Alexandria for almost 200. years the Presbyters constituted and Ordained their Bishop 5. That though by the Canons of the Church the power of Presbyters in Ordaining was restrained yet it was the judgment of Antiquity That every Presbyter hath actum primum and an inward power to Ordain and that though his power was impedited by the Canons yet it was not utterly extinguished 6. That when a Presbyter is made a Bishop he hath no new power conferred upon him but onely his former restraints and impediments are removed as saith Aureolus 7. That the Chorâ—piscopi for a certain space did Ordain of their own authority without receiving authority from the Bishop Afterwards though they were meer Presbyters yet notwithstanding by the leave of Councels had liberty with the Bishops licence to Ordain 8. That to this day it is the opinion of Schoolmen and Canonists that the Pope may give liberty to a Presbyter to Ordain From whence saith Dr. Forbes it evidently followeth
Ordinationem quae per solos Presbyteroâ— peragitur non esse de jurâ— divino invalidam neque Ordinationâ—m esse de jure Divino ita propriam Episcoporum ut non possit validè peragi per solos Presbyteros That is That Ordination which is by Presbyters alone is not by Divine right invalid neither is Ordination so proper by Divine right to a Bishop that it may not be done even in the opinion of Papists themselves by Presbyters alone For otherwise the Pope could not commit Ordination unto Presbyters For Bellâ—rmine saith expresly In jure Divino non potest Papa dispensare The Pope cannot dispense in things that are by divine right And Aureolus saith Ea quae sunt Ordinum omnes recipiunt immediatè à Christo ita quod in potestâ—te nullius imò nec Papae est illâ— auferre qua sunt autem jurisdictionis potest ea Pâ—pa suspendere Now then from hence we may argue That which by divine authority is to be done onely by Bishops that neither Bishops nor Councels nor Pope can commit to Presbyters that are not Bishops Nam in jure Divino Papa non potest dispensare But according to the Judgment and practise of Antiquity The Pope may give the liberty and power of Ordaining to Presbâ—ters that are not Bishops And Bishops also may do the like Therefore the liberty and power of Ordaining is not by divine right belonging to Bishops onely but may be lawfully done by others the Papists themselves being Judges And so much for our fourth Proposition Proposition 5. THat when Hierome saith Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter exceptâ— Ordinatione This passage cannot be understood as if Hierome had thought That Ordination was by Divine right appropriated to Bishops and not to Presbyters as Bishop Bilson saith For in the very same Epistle he tells us That by divine right a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one And that in Alexandria for a long time the Presbyters Ordained their Bishop But he must bâ— understood of the practise of the Church in his dayes and his meaning iâ— Quid facit Episcopus secundum Canoâ—â—s Ecclesia quad non facit Presbyteâ— excepta Ordinatione Proposition 6. THat when Ischyras was deposed from being a Presbyter because madâ— by Colluâ—hus that was but a Presbyter himself and not a Bishop This was done not because the act of Colluâ—â—us was against the Canon of thâ— Scriptures but onely because it was against the Canons of some Councelâ— Thuâ— Dr. Fiâ—ld answereth Whereas saith he The Fathers make all such Ordinations void 〈◊〉 are made by Presbyters it is to be understood according to the strictnesse of the Canon in use in their time and not absolutely in the nâ—ture of the thing which appears in that they likewise make all Ordinations sine titulo to be void All Ordinationâ— of Bishops ordained by fewer then three Bishops with the Metropolitane All Ordinations of Presbyterâ— by Bishops out of their own Churches without leave Whereas I am well assured The Romanists will not pronounce any of these to be void though the parties so doing are not excusable from all fault Thus far Dr. Field But now whether the Church in thâ—se dayes did well or no in restraining that by their Canons which the Canons of the Scripture hath left free we leave it to all sober Christians to judge and determine Proposition 7. THat Aâ—rius was never condemned by any Councel oâ— heresie for holding the Identity of a Bishop and a Presbyter But on the contrary Concil Aquisgranens sub Ludovico Pio Imp. 1â— an 816. hath approved it for true Divinity out of the Scripture that Bishops and Presbyters are equal bringing the same texts that Aerius doth and which Epiphanius indeed undertakes to answer but how slightly let any indifferent Reader judge We confesse That he is called an heretick by Epiphanius and Austinâ— but this was especially if not onely because he was an Arrian Epiphanius saith he did Arrium ipsum dogmatum novitate superare Austine saith That he did in Arrianorum haeresin labi But as for his opinion That there ought to be no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter Austine indeed calls it proprium dogma And Epiphanius calls it dogma furiosum stolidum But neither of them both call it an Heresie But suppose they did for so it is commonly thought yet that this was the private opinion of these two Doctors and not much to be regarded appears 1. Because as Smectymâ—uus hath well observed the same Authors condemn Aerius as much for reprehending and censuring praying and offering for the dead and the performing of good works for the benefit of the dead Epiphanius accused him because he said that superstitum preces did not opitulari â—is qui ex hâ—c vita discesserunt And Austine accused Aerius because he said Non licet orare vel offerrâ— pro mortuis oblationem He is further condemned for reprehending stata jejunia and the keeping of the week before Easter as a solemn Fast. Which things if worthy of condemnation would bring in most of the reformed Churches into the censure of Heresie and would make most of our Episcopal men themselves Hereticks 2. Because not onely Saint Hierome but Austine himself Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were of the same opinion with Aërius as Michael Medina observes in the Councel of Trent and hath written lib. 1. de Sacr. hom origin and yet none of these do deserve the name of fooles and mad men much lesse to be branded for hereticks Adde to this That Alphonsus de Castro advers haeres Titul Episcopus saith That Hierome was of the same opinion with Aërius And our learned Professor Dr. Whitakers resp ad Campian rat 10. hath these words Aâ—rium Epiphanius Augustinus in haereticis nume ant praeter eos antiqui pauci Et si Presbyterum Episcopo aequare sit haereticum nihil Catholicum esse potest Cum Aerio Hieronymus de Presbyteris omnino sensit Illos enim jure divino Episcopis aequales esse statuit This is sufficient to answer the objection about Aerius Proposition 8. THat even many if not most of those that hold Episcopacy and Episcopal Ordination to be divini juris yet as we in charity believe they do not hold it to be so of divine institution as to be perpetually and immutably necessary â—n the Church of Christ But they say That those Churchâ—â— are true Churches that want Bishops and those Ministers true Ministers who are Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops Thus Bishop Downame in his consecr Sermon professeth pag. 92. not so to maintain the calling of Bishops to be Divini juris as intending thereby a general and perpetual necessity thereof And afterwards in his defence Though ordinary right of Ordination belongeth to Bishopâ— in the Judgment of the ancient Church yet it was not to be understood as so appropriating it to them as that extraordinarily and in case of
ISA. 66.21 I will also take of them for Priests and for Levites saith the Lord. EPHES. 4.8 11 12 13. When he ascended up on high he gave gifts unto men And he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ. Till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. HEB. 5.4 5. And no man taketh this honour to himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high-Priest but he that said unto him Thou art my Son to day have I begotten thee 1 TIM 4.14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery LUTH Tom. 4. Lat. Ien. fol. 19. Non fortunat Deus labores eorum qui non sunt vocati quanquam salutaria quaedam afferant tamen non aedificant Ius Divinum Ministerii Evangelici OR THE DIVINE RIGHT OF THE Gospel-Ministry Divided into two Parts The first Part containing A Justification of The Gospel-Ministry in general The Necessity of Ordination thereunto by Imposition of hands The Vnlawfulnesse of private mens â—ssuming to themselves either the Office or Work of the Ministry without a lawfull Call and Ordination The second Part containing A Justification of the present Ministers of England both such as were Ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy frâ—m the â—oul aspeâ—sion of Antichristianism And those who have been Ordained since its abolition from the unjust imputation of Novelty Proving that a Bishop and Presbyter are all one in Scripture and that Ordination by Presbyters is most agreeable to the Scripture-Patern Together with an Appendix wherein the Iudgement and Practice of Antiquity about the whole matter of Episcopacy and especially about the Ordination of Ministers is briefly discussed Published by the Provincial Assembly of London LONDON Printed by Iohn Legat and Abraham Miller 1654. THE EPISTLE TO THE READER IT is reported of Bucer that he was so eager of Peace with Luthâ—r that he was like to a man Qui prae nimia aviditate etiam foeces haurireâ— who by an overmuch greediness after Unity was ready to swallow down many of Luthers errours For our parts Though we should be loath to buy Peace with the loss of Truth yet such have been the unexpressible mischiefs that the divisions of Brethren have brought upon this Nation and such is our earnest desire after an happy Accommodation that we hope we can truly close â—hough not with the former yet with another saying of Bucers That we would willingly purchase with the losse of our lives the removing of the infinite scandals that have been given to the Churches of Christ by the divisions of Christians Eusebius reports of Constantine though a great Emperour That he was more troubled with the dissentions of the Church then with all the warres in his Dominions That he took them so to heart that he could not sleep quietly for them yea although he had a spiritfull of heroick valâ—ur yet the dissentions of the Church were such evils to him as to cause him to shed many a tear c. Our prayer to God is that the same affection towards the Churches of Christ in these three Nations may be kindled in all our brests And We doubt not but through the grace of God We are able in Sincerity to profess with Luther That we are as desirous to imbrace Peace and Concord as We are desirous to have the Lord Iesus to be propitious to us And therefore fore-seeing that this ensuing Treatise will meet with many Adversaries of different Perswasions and with much opposition We thought fit to give the Reader notice of our intentions here lest We should be thought to be enemies to Peace and hinderers of that long desired and often praied for Union between dissenting Brethren There are six sorts and ranks of men whom We have occasion to deal with in this Book 1. Such as are against the very Office of the Ministery and that affirm That there is no such Office instituted by Christ to be perpetual in his Church We look upon this Assertion as destructive unto Christian Religion and to the souls of Christians 2. Such as say That it is lawfull for any men that suppose themselves gifted though neither Ordained nor approved by able men to assume unto themselves a power to preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments This Opinion We judge to be the high-way to all Disorder and Confusion an inlet to Errours and Heresies and a Door opened for Priests and Jesuites to broach their Popish and Antichristian Doctrine 3. Such as hold That the Ministry of England is Antichristian That our Churches are no true Churches but Synagogues of Satan and that there is no Communion to be held with us This Opinion We conceive to be not only false and uncharitable but contradictory to Peace and Unity 4. Such as say That Episcopacy is an higher Order of Ministry above Presbytery by Divine Right That Christ hath given the sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction unto Bishops And that Ordination of Ministers is so appropriated to them by the Gospel that all Ordinations by single Presbyters are null and void and that Sacraments by them administred are no Sacraments These Assertions We look upon not only â—s groundlesse and unscriptural but as cruel and utterly overthrowing all the Protestant Reformed Churches and Ministers Now though We hope We can truly say that We have with all Meekness and Christian Moderation managed the Debate with these four sorts of Adversaries and shall be ready to exercise all Offices of Christian Love and Affection towards them and by requiting good for evil labour to heap coals of fire upon their heads yet notwithstanding such is the great Distance between Them and Us in Judgement and Practice and such is the bitternesse of their Spirits in their Opposition against Us that We have little hope for the present till the Lord be pleased to work a happy change of Judgment in them of any real and hearty Accord and Agreement with them 5. A fifth sort are our Reverend Brethren of New and Old-England of the Congregational way who hold Our Churches to be true Churches and Our Ministers true Ministers though they differ from Us in some lesser things We have been necessitated to fall upon some things wherein they and We disagree and have represented the Reasons of Our Dissent But yet We here profess That this Disagreement shall not hinder Us from any Christian Accord with them in Affection That We can willingly write upon Our Study-doors that Motto which Mr Ieremiah Burroughes who a little before his Death did ambitiously indeavour after Union amongst Brethren as some of
besides This is contrary to their own practice in New-England where it is frequent to have a man Elected and preach half a year a whole year nay as Mr Gi. Firmin once a Preacher there saith he knew one elected and preached two years to his people and they maintained him all that while and yet all that time he never administred a Sacrament but he and they when they would partake the Lords Supper went ten miles to the Church out of which they issued to receive the Sacrament which practice without doubt was very unnecessary if Election gives the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call and Ordination be only an adjunct We say in Logick Forma dat operari Effects depend upon the Form not upon extrinsecall circumstances This is Argumentum ad hominem Arg. 6. If the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call consisteth in Election then it will follow That a Minister is only a Minister to that particular charge to which he is called and that he cannot act as a Minister in any other place This consequence is confessed by Reverend Mr Hooker who saith That a Minister preaching to another Congregation though he ceaseth not to be a Pastor yet he doth not preach as a Pastor nor can he do any Pastorall acts but in that place and to that people to whom he is a Pastor Thus also it is said in the answer of the Elders of severall Churches in New-England unto nine Positions Pos. 8. If you mean by Ministerial act such an act of authority and power in dispensing of Gods Ordinances as a Minister doth perform to the Church whereunto he is called to be a Minister then we deny that he can perform any Ministeriall act to any other Church but his own because his Office extends no further then his Call This is also confessed in the New-England Platform of Church-Discipline And therefore we need not say more for the proof of the consequence But as for the minor That a Minister can perform no Pastorall act out of his own Congregation is an assertion 1. Unheard of in the Church of Christ before these late years 2. Contrary to the practice of the Brethren themselves with whom we dispute It is acknowledged by all of them that the administration of the Sacrament is a Ministeriall act and cannot be done but by a Pastor or Teacher and yet it is ordinary both in Old England and in New England for members of one Congregation to receive in another Congregation M. Firmin tels us That M. Phillips Pastor of the Church in Water-town while M. Wilson Pastor of the Church of Boston was here in England went to Boston and administred the Lords Supper to that Church This surely was a Pastorall act and M. Phillips acted herein as a Pastor to those that were out of his own Congregation And if we may argue from our Brethrens practice we may safely conclude That a Minister may act as a Minister out of his own Congregation Thirdly Contrary to Scripture For the Scripture tels us 1. That there is a Church generall visible as well as a particular Church visible Act. 8.1 Gal. 1.13 1 Cor. 10.32 Gal. 4.26 Eph. 3.10 1 Cor. 12.28 1 Tim. 3 15. 2. That Ministers are primarily seated in the Church generall visible and but secondarily in this or that particular Church 1 Cor. 12.28 Teachers are set by God in the same Church with the Apostles Eph. 4.11 12. Pastors and Teachers are given by Christ for the perfecting of the Saints and for the building of the body of Christ in general 3. That every Minister hath a double relation one to his particular Church another to the Church general visible And though he be actually to exercise his Ministry especially over that charge where he is fixed yet he hath a virtual and habitual power to preach as a Minister in any place where he shall be lawfully called Therefore Ministers are spoken of in Scripture under a general notion to shew the indefinitenesse of their Office They are called Ministers of God 2 Cor. 6.4 Ministers of Christ 1 Cor. 4.1 Ministers of the New Testament 2 Cor. 3.6 Ministers of the Gospel 1 Thess. 3.2 and Ministers in the Lord Ephes. 6.21 Embassadours for Christ 2 Cor. 5.20 But never Ministers of the people Indeed they are for the people but not of the people That a Minister is a Minister of the Church Catholick visible appears thus He that can ministerially admit or eject a Member into or out of the Church-Catholick visible is a Minister and Officer of the Church-Catholick visible But every Minister by Baptism or Excommunication admitteth or ejecteth Members into or out of the Church-Catholick visible Therefore c. This Argument is urged by Apolloâ—iâ—s and also by that godly learned Minister Mr Hudson who hath largely handled this point and to whom we must necessarily referre the Reader that would be further satisfied about it We shall onely relate a passage out of Mr Ball in his Trial of the new Church-way p. 33. collected by Mr Hudson A Minister chosen and set over one Society is to look unto that people committed to his charge c. But he is a Minister in the Church universal For as the Church is one so is the Ministry one of which every Minister sound orthodox doth hold his part And though he is a Minister over that flock which he is to attend yet he is a Minister in the Church universal The function or power of exercising that function in the abstract must be distinguished from the power of exercising it concretely according to the divers circumstances of places The first belongeth to a Minister every where in the Church the later is proper to the place and people where he doth minister The lawful use of the power is limited to that Congregation ordinarily the power it self is not so bounded In Ordination Presbyters are not restrained to one or other certain place as if they were to be deemed Ministers there onely though they be set over a certain people And as the faithfull in respect of their community between them must and ought to perform the offices of love one to another though of different Societies so the Ministers in respect of their communion must and ought upon occasion to perform ministerial Offices toward the faithfull of distinct societies And one more passage out of Mr Rutherford in his peaceable plea pag. 263. Ordination saith he maketh a man a Pastor under Christ formally and essentially the peoples consent and choice do not make him a Minister but their Minister the Minister of such a Church he is indefinitely made a Pastor for the Church Fourthly This Assertion That a Minister can perform no Pastoral act out of his own Congregation as it is contrary to the universal Church to the practice of our Brethren themselves to the holy Scriptures so also it is contrary to sound reason For hence it will follow 1. That when a
a debate about it For we deny not but that a Congregation sufficiently Presbyterated that is wherein there are many Ministers may ordain though we believe that there are but very few such if any and therefore are of the opinion of the Reverend Assembly in their Advice to the Parliament concerning Ordination That it is very requisite that no single Congregation that can conveniently associate do assume to it self all and sole power in Ordination Quest. 4. What part hath the Ruling Elder in Ordination Answ. Supposing that there is such an Officer in the Church for the proof of which we referre the Reader to our Vindication We answer That the power of ordering of the whole work of Ordination belongs to the whole Presbytery that is to the Teaching and Ruling Elders But Imposition of hands is to be alwayes by Preaching Presbyters and the rather because it is accompanied with Prayer and Exhortation both before in and after which is the proper work of the Teaching Elder Quest. 5. Whether may one Preaching Presbyter lay on hands without the assistance of other Ministers Answ. Imposition of hands ought to be performed not by one single Presbyter but by a combination of preaching Presbyters In the Ordination of Deacons not one Apostle alone but a company of them laid on hands Act. 6.6 When Paul and Barnabas were separated unto the work whereunto they were called by God the Prophets and Teachers joyned together in laying on of hands It is observable that in all the Texts where mention is made of Imposition of hands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Plural not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Singular or Dual Number and so there must of necessity be more then one Imposer of hands Timothy was ordained by the Imposition not onely of Pauls hands but also of the Presbytery And therefore when we reade that Timothy is enjoyned to lay hands suddenly on no man and Titus left in Crete to ordain Elders we must not imagine that they were indued thereby with the sole power of Ordination For surely the Apostle would not require Timothy or Titus to do that which he himself would not do If Paul with the Presbytery laid hands upon Timothy then no doubt Timothy was also together with other Presbyters to lay hands upon those whom he should ordain The naming of one doth not exclude others especially if we consider that Titus was left to ordain Elders as Paul had appointed him Now it is without all peradventure that Paul did appoint him to do according as he himself practised Quest. 6. Whether a company of Believers associated together may ordain without Ministers Answ. The Answer to this Question is that which we especially aim at in this our fourth Assertion and wherein we desire most of all to satisfie the expectation of the Reader For this end we shall offer this Proposition in Answer to the Question That Ordination of Ministers doth belong to Church-Officers and not to a Church without Officers And that Ordination by people without Ministers is a perverting of the Ordinance and of no more force then Baptism by a Midwife or consecration of the Lords Supper by a person out of Office For the proof of this we might argue from what is recorded by Jewish Writers concerning the custom of creating men members of their great Council or Sanhedrin When Moses by Gods appointment assumed the seventy Elders to assist him in Government and part of his spirit was by God put upon them this was done saith Maimonides Sanhedr cap. 4. by Moses laying hands upon them And at length before his departure out of this life when a successour was to be provided for him God commands him to take Ioshua and lay his hand upon him c. and accordingly it was done Numb 27.18 And so for those seventy Elders it is certain from the Jewish Writers that the succession of these was continued through all Ages by their creating others in the place of those that died by this Ceremony of Imposition of hands To this purpose are the clear words of Maimonides Moses our Master created the seventy Elders by Imposition of hands and the divine Majesty rested on them and those Elders imposed hands on others and others on others And they were found created untill the house of judgement of Ioshua and unto the house of judgement of Moses that is from time to time ascending to the Sanhedrin in Ioshua's and Moses's time Petrus Cunaeus de Rep. Hebraeâ—rum cap. 12. saith This Senatorian dignity because it was most honourable was granted to none without a legitimate act namely Imposition of hands So Moses laid his hand upon Ioshua and the seventy Elders which solemnity being performed presently a divine Spirit from above fell down upon them and filled their brests And these being thus initiated themselves admitted others after the same way The same Authour tels us also out of Maimonides of a constitution made That no man should after such a time use Imposition of hands but by grant from Rabbi Hillel that divine old man who was Prince of the great Council and how afterwards it came to cease And what care was taken by Juda the son of Baba to support and uphold it But because these things are not recorded in Scripture we shall wave all such way of arguing and rather dispute First From the constant practice of the Church of Christ as it is set down in the Apostolical Writings We challenge any man to shew any one Text in all the New Testament for the justification of popular Ordination We reade of Ordination by Apostles Act. 6. Act. 14. And by Prophets and Teachers Act. 13. And by Evangelists Tit. 1. 1 Tim. 5.22 And by a Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 But for Ordination by the people we meet not at all with it And without all peradventure If Ordination be an Ordinance of Christ it is to be managed according to the will of Christ and that is by Ministers and not by the community of believers May we not say to such Churches that usurp upon this work as it is said Matth. 21.23 By what Authority do you these things And who gave you this Authority Shew us your warrant out of the Word We reade indeed of Ordination in Churches Act. 18.23 and in Cities Tit. 1.5 but no where of Ordination by Churches or by Cities taking them for believers without Officers We adde Secondly That Ordination by the people is not onely not written in Scripture but it is against the Scripture For to what end and purpose should Jesus Christ appoint Officers extraordinary and ordinary for the doing of that work which the people themselves may do To what purpose did Paul and Barnabas go from place to place to ordain Elders Why was Titus left in Crete to appoint Elders in every City Might not the people say What need Paul leave Titus to do that which
the defence of his Apoology part 2. cap 9. diviâ— 1. proveth against Harding that Aerius could not be counted an heretick for holding that Bishops and Presbyters are all one Iure divino and citing for it Hierom Austin Cyhrsostome closeth up for answer with these words All these and many more holy Fathers together with the Apostle St. Paul for thus saying must by Hardings advice be held for heretiques 9. Bishop Morton in his Cathol Apology part 1. cap. 33. affirmeth that divers other Divines besides Hierom were of the same opinion with Aerius That there was no difference by divine right between a Bishop a Presbyter For which he also citeth Medina Anselme Sedulius Erasmus and Alphonsus a Castro who saith that Hierome was of this opinion that a Bishop and a Presbyter are ejusdem ordinis et authoritatis of the same Order and the same Authority 10. Bishop Bilson whatsoever he saith to the contrary in his book called the perpetual government of Christs Church in his book against Seminaries lib. 1. pag. 318. affirmeth out of Hierome that the Church at first was governed by the common Councel of Prâ—byters and therefore Bishops must understand that they be greater then Ministers rather by custome then the Lords appointment and the Bishops came in after the Apostles times 11. Dr. Whitakers respon ad Campiani rationes ratio affirmeth That Iure divino a Presbyter and a Bishop are all one And whereas Durans affirmeth with many words that Bishops and Presbyters were Iure Divino divers he telleth him that if he will retain the estimation of a modest Divine he must not so confidently affirm that which all men see to be so evidently false For what is so well known saith he as this which you acknowledge not Hierom plainly writeth that Elders and Bishops are the same and confirmeth it by many places of Scripture 12. Dr. Holland the Kings Professor in Oxford at an Act Iuly 9. 1608. Concluded against Mr Lanes question An Episcopatus sit ordo distinctus a Presbyteratu â—oque superior jure divino and said That the Affirmative was most false against the Scriptures Fathers the Doctrine of the Church of England yea the very School-men themselves Lombard Thomas Bonaventure c. We might cite divers others as Arch-Bishop Whitguife against Carâ—hright and Dr. Fulk upon Titus the 1. ver 5. and Deane Nowell c. But we forbeare and the rather because we shall have occasion hereafter to touch upon the same Argument Now by all this it appears That by Scripture the judgment of the antient Church and our own Church of England a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one and that therefore they that are made Ministers by Presbyters are made Ministers by Bishops and are lawfully ordained because ordained in a way most agreeable to Scripture pattern CHAP. V. Answering Objections taken from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus BEfore we leave our Scripture-proofs it will be expected that we should answer to what is brought out of Scripture for for the Ius Divinum of Prelacy and also to what is brought in answer unto our Arguments out of Scripture against it For the first there are two chiefe and principall arguments the one from Timothy and Titus the other from the 7. Asian Angels As for Timothy and Titus It is said that they were constituted Bishops of Ephesus and Creeâ— by the Apostle Paul and did exercise Episcopall power in these places both in Ordination and Jurisdiction and this power was derived by them unto their successors as being necessary to continue in the Church as well as the power of preaching and administring the Sacraments To this we Answer That Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sense We deny not but that they did exercise Episcopal power both in Ordination and Jurisdiction and that this power is necessary to be continued in the Church But we say that they did this not as Bishops in a formall sense but as extraordinary Officers or Evangelists which were Officers in the Church distinct from Pastors and Teachers To make this out we will briefly do two things 1. We will prove that Timothy and Titus were not Prelaticall Bishops 2. That they were Evangelists 1. That they were not Prelaticall Bishops This we make out 1. Because the Scripture no where cals them Bishopâ— But in the Postscripts they are called Bishops These Postscripts are no part of Canonicall Scripture The Papists themselves Baronius Serarius and the Rhemists confesse that there is much falsity in them Smectimnuâ—s hath everlastingly blasted the Authority of them The first Epistle is said to be writ from Laodicea whereas Bâ—za in his Annotations proves apparently that it was written from Macedonia to which opinion Baronius and Serarius and Athanasius and Theodoret in his Epistle before his Commentary upon Timothy subscribe It is also called the first Epistle But how was Paul sure that he should live to write a second And it is also said to be written from Laodicea which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Paâ—atiana But as Bâ—za well observes there is no mention of Phrygia Pacatiana in the writers of those ages sed apud recentiores illos qui Romani â—mperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt The second Epistle iâ— thus subscribed The second Epistle unto Timothy ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians was written from Rome when Paul was brought c. Now these words Ordained the first Bishop are wanting saith Bâ—za in quibusdam vâ—tâ—stis codicibus in veteri vulgatâ editione apud Syrum interpretem The Syriack Interpreter reads it Here ends the Second Epistle to Timothy written from Rome If St. Paul had written this Postscript he would not have said to Timothy the first Bishop c. whereas it was not yet certain whether ever there should be a second Neither would it be said when Paul was brought c. But when I was the second time brought before Nero. The Epistle to Titus is said to be written from Nicopolis whereas it is cleare that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he wrote it Titus 3.12 Be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis for I have determined there to winter he doth not say here to winter but there where note for the present he was not there and besides it is said that Titus was ordained the first Bishop c. And who was the second or was there ever a second But we forbear transcribing any more c. This is abundantly sufficient to invalidate the authority of the Postscript written ab hominibus vâ—l indoctis vel certe non sâ—tis attentis as Beza saith But some of the Fathers call them Bishops They that call them Bishops borrow their testimonies from Eusebius of whom Scaliger saith and Dr. Râ—ynâ—lds approves of it That he read ancient Histories paruâ— attente which they prove by many instances And all that Eusebius saith is only Sic scribitur It is so
done if he had made them at that time distinct orderâ— with distinct Offices or if he had made Titus at that time Bishop or as some would have it Arch-Bishop or Primate and Metropolitan of the hundred Cities that were in Creet So much for the proof that Timothie and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sence 2. The second thing we are to prove is That Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and not onely so in a general signification as all Preachers of the Gospel may be called Evangelists but in a special and proper sence This will the better appear if we consider what an Evangelist is and the difference between Evangelists and other Officers of the Church Evangelists properly so called were men extraordinarily imployed in preaching the Gospell without a settled residence upon any one charge They were Comites et Vicarii Apostoloâ—um Vice-Apostles who had Curam vicariam omnium Ecclesiarum as the Apostles had Curam principalem And they did as Ambrose speakes Evangâ—lizare sine Cathedra Bishops or Presbyters were tyed to the particular care and tuition of that flock over which God had made them Overseers Act. 20.28 But Evangelists were not tyed to reside in one particular place but did attend upon the Apostles by whose appointment they were sent from place to place as the necessity of the Churches did require To this agreeth Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical policy Evangelists saith he were Presbyters of principal sufficiency whom the Apostles sent abroad and used as agents in Ecclesiastical affaires wheresoever they found need They were extraordinary and temporary Officers as the Apostles and Prophets were and Officers of a Rank higher then Pastors and Teachers and so they are reckoned Ephesians 4.11 Now that Timothy and Titus were such Officers is made evident Not onely because one of them is in direct terms called an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 But also from the perpetual motion of both of them from place to place not onely before they were sent to Ephesus and Creet but as much after as before And that they did so move appears from divers Authors who have exactly set down their several peregrinations both before and after We shall not trouble the Reader with their travailes before they were sent to Ephesus and Creet but shall onely relate what is said by the Reverend Minsters in their humble answer at the Isle of Wight of their journeyings after their going thither And first of Timothy If Timothy say they was Bishop of Ephesus he must be so when the first Epistle was sent to him in which he is pretended to receive the charge of exercising his Episcopall power in Ordination and government but it is manifest that after this Epistle sent to him he was in continual journeyes or absent from Ephesus For Paul left him at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia and he left him there to exercise his Office in regulating ordering that Church and in ordaining but it was after this time that Timothy is found with Paul at Miletum For after Paul had been at Miletum he went to Ierusalem whence he was sent prisoner to Rome and never came more into Macedonia and at Rome we find Timothy a prisoner with himand those Epistles which Paul wrote while he was prisoner at Rome namely the Epistle to the Philippians to Philâ—mon to the Colossians to the Hebrewes do make mention of Timothy as his companion at these times nor do we ever find him again at Ephesus for we find that after all this towards the end of Saint Paulâ— life after his first answering before Nero and when he said his departing was at hand he sent for Timothy to Rome not from Ephesus for it seems that Timothy was not there because Paul giving Timothy an account of the absence of most of his companions sent into divers parts he saith Tychieus have I sent to Ephesus Now if your Majesty shall be pleased to cast up into one Totall what is said The severall journeys and stations of Timothy the Order of them the time spent in them the nature of his imployment to negotiate the affaires of Christ in several Churches and places the silence of the Scriptures as touching his being Bishop of any one Church you will acknowledge that such a man was not a Bishop fixed to one Church or precinct and then by assuming that Timothy was such a man you will conclude that he was not Bishop of Ephesus The like may be said also concerning Titus after he was left at Creet he was sent for by Paul to Nicopolis and after that he is sent to Corinth from whence he is expected at Troas and not with Paul in Macedonia whence he is sent againe to Corinth and after all this is neere the time of Pauls death at Rome from whence he went not into Creet but unto Dalmatia and after this is not heard on in the Scripture From all this we gather 3. Conclusions That Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in our Brethrens sense that is were not fixed Stars in Ephesus or Creet And whereas it is answered that the necessities of those times made even the most fixed Stars planetary calling them frequently from the places of their abode to those services that were of most use for the successe of that great work yet so that after their errands fully done they returned to their own charge and that therefore they might be Bishops notwithstanding their severall journeys We challenge any of them to shew in all the New Testament any one that was appointed Overseer of a particucular Church whose motion was as Planetary as we have shewed that of Timothy and Titus to have been or if that fail to shew that after Timothy and Titus went abroad upon the service of the Churches they did constantly or ordinarily return either to Ephesus or Creet and not to the places either of the Apostles present abode or appointment But we are fully assured that they can shew neither the one nor the other and therefore we may safely conclude that they were not Bishops in our Brethrens sense That Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and Evangelists in a proper sense and Officers distinct from Pastors and Teachers and Officers of an higher Rank and Order That they were not onely Evangelists before they were sent to Ephesus and Creet but afterwards also as hath been abundantly proved And the truth is If they were Evangelists at any time we cannot conceive how they can come to be Bishops in our Brethrens sense For we thus argue They that were made Evangelists in a proper sense by the Apostles were never afterwards made Bishops in our Brethrens sense by the Apostles For this had been to degrade them from a superiour Office to an inferiour And if according to the Councell of Chalcedon it be not onely incongruous but sacrilegious to bring back a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter If it be an eternall reproach
and shame to a Bishop to be degraded from a Bishop to a Presbyter much more reproach and shame it must needs be for an Evangelist to be brought down unto the Office of a Bishop But Timothy and Titus were once made Evangelists by the Apostles when they were chosen to travell up and downe with them as their companions and before they were setled as our Brethren suppose the one at Ephesus the other at Creet This is confessed by Bishop Hall Bishop Downham and all Episcopall men that we have read of this subject And the great debate between them and us is not whether they were once Evangelists and Vice-Apostles or no but how long they continued so and whether ever they were made Bishops in our Brethrens sense And therefore we may undoubtedly conclude That because they were once Evangelists therefore they were never Bishops neither before they were sent to Ephesus and Creâ—â— nor afterwards Before we leave our discourse concerning Timothy and Titus we must of necessity answer one Objection It is said that the work imposed upon Timothy and Titus in Ephesus and Creet both of Ordination and Jurisdiction is as necessary to be continued in the Church as the work of preaching and adminstring the Sacrament and that after their deaths those that did succeed them did the same work and were called Bishops by the ancient Fathers And that therefore Timothy himselfe was a Bishop because his Successors in the same place were called so Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and therefore temporary and extraordinary Officers and therefore could not have any Successors in Office Indeed the power they did exercise in Ephesus and Creet was necessary for the Church of Christ and there were some that succeeded them in that work but none in the Office the Apostles and Evangelists had some that came after them and did the same work that they did in governing ordaining and preaching but they had no Successors in Office for then they had not been extraordinary And as one wel saith when the Apostles and Evangelists dyed their Offices ceased what parts of their Office were of perpetuall use as praying preaching administring Sacraments and the use of the Keyes were left to those Ordinary Officers called Pastors and Teachers Eph. 4.11 The distinction made afterward between a Pastor-Bishop and a Pastor-Presbyter was but an humane invention for order and to avoid accidental inconveniencies of which we shall speake more hereafter In a word the successors of Timothy and Titus were Presbyters who by common consent govern the Church and ordain Elders and did the same work as ordinary standing Officers which Timothy and Titus did as extraordinary and temporary Officers c. So it was at first till afterwards for avoiding ofSchisme as Hierom saith one was chosen from amongst the Presbyters and called a Bishop But whether this invention were of God and whether it were hurtfull or profitable for the Church we shall God willing shew at large when we come to speak of the practise of Antiquity in point of Episcopacy So much for Timothy and Titus CHAP. VI. Answering Objections from the pretended Episcopacy of the seven Asian Angels THe second Scripture ground brought to prove the Divine right of Prelacy is from the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia These Angels say they were seven single persons And as one hath lately written not onely Bishops but Metropolitans and Arch-Bishops This is said with so much confidence that all men are condemned as blinde or wilfull that indeavour to oppose it And it is reckoned as one of the great prodigies of this unhappy age that men should still continue blinde and not see light enough in this Scripture to build the great Fabrick of Episcopacy by Divine right upon It is further added That some of the ancient Fathers mention the very men that were the Angels of those Churches Some say Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when Iohn writ his Epistle to it Others say Onesimus Others say that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna And from hence they conclude with a great deale of plausibilitie that the Angels of the Churches were seven individuall Bishops For answer to those things we must of necessity referre the Reader to what is said in the bookes quoted in the margent wherein they are fully clearly and as we conceive satisfactorily handled we shall crave leave to borrow a few things out of them adding something of our own In answer therefore to this Scripture we do desire those things may be considered 1. That St. Iohn the Pen-man of the Revelation doth neither in it nor in any of his other writings so much as upon the name Bishop he names the name Presbyter frequently especially in the Revelation yea when he would set out the Office of those that are nearest to the throne of Christ in his Church Revel 4. He cals himselfe a Presbyter Epist. 2. And whereas in St. Iohn's dayes some new expressions were used in the Christian Church which were not in Scripture As the Christian Sabbath began to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Christ himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now both these are found in the writings of St. Iohn And it is strange to us that the Apostle should mention a new phrase and not mention a new Office erected by this time as our Brethren say in the Church especially if we consider that Polycarp as iâ— related was made Bishop by him and no doubt if he had been made Bishop in a Prelaticall sense we should have found the name Bishop in some of his writings who lived so long as to see Episcopacy setled in the Church as our Adversaries would make us believe Add to thiâ— 1. That there is not the least intimation in all St. Iohns writngs of the superiority of one Presbyter over another save onely where he names and chides Diotrephes as one ambitiously affecting such a Primacy Consider thirdly That the same Authors that say that St. Iohn made Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna and that St. Peter made Ignatius Bishop of Antioch do also say that St. Iohn himself sate many yeares Bishop of Ephesus and was the Metropolitan of all Asia which is an evident demonstration to us that these Authors did not use the word Bishop in a Prelaticall sense For it is certain that the Apostles cannot properly be called Bishops For though they did eminently contain the Episcopall office yet they were not formally Bishops For this were to degrade the Apostles and to make their Office ordinary and perpetuall this were to exalt the Bishop above his degree and make him an Apostle and to make the Apostle a Bishop It doth not much differ from madness to say that Peter or any one of the Apostles were properly Bishops as learned Whitaker saith whom we shal have occasion to cite this purpose hereafter 4. Consider fourthly That the word Angel which is the title given to those supposed Bishops doth not import
already proved That Timothy was an Evangelist in a proper sense and therefore cannot be called a Bishop of Ephesus in their sense It will not follow because Onesimus was bishop of Ephesus in 3. St. Johns dayes that therefore he was the onely person to whom Christ wrote his Epistle for St Paul tells us that there were many Bishops at Ephesus besides the supposed Onesimus and Christ may very well write to him and to all the rest as well as him The like may be said concerning Polycarpe For our Saviour speakes to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plural number Rev. 2.10 And therefore he may truly be said to write to all the other Angels that were at Smyrna as well as to one So much for the first head of answers 2. But now in the second place Let us suppose it though we will not grant it That these Angels were Personae singulares and that the word Angel is to be taken Individually yet we conceive That this will not at all advantage the Episcopal cause For 1. First Mr. Beza no great friend to Episcopacy acknowledgeth That by these words To the Angel is meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the President as whom it behoved specially to be admonished touching those matters and by him both the rest of his Colleagues and the whole Church likewise But then he addeth But that Episcopal Degree which was afterward by humane invention brought into the Church of God certainly neither can nor ought to be hence concluded Nay not so much as the Office of a perpetual President should be of necessity as the thence arising Oligâ—rchical Tyranny whose head is the Antichâ—istian Beast now at length with â—he most certain ruine not of the Church onely but of the word also maketh manifest by which quotation it is evident that though Beza hâ—ld the Angel to be a singular person yet he held him to be Angelus presâ—s not Angâ—lus Princeps And that he was Praeses prâ— tempore just as a Moderator in an Assembly or as a Speaker in Parliament To this effect do the Reverend Divines speak in their humble answer at the Isle of VVight where they say That these writings to the Angels are directed as Epistolary letters to Collective bodies usually are That is To one but intended to the body which your Majestie illustrateth by your sending a Message to your two Houses and directing it to the Speaker of the Houâ—e of Peers which as it doth not hinder we confesse but that the Speaker is one single Person so it doth not prove at all that the Speaker is alwayes the same Person or if he were that therefore because your Message is directed to him he is the Governour or Ruler of the Two Houses in the least and so your Majestie hath given clear instance that though these letters be directed to the Angels yet that notwithstanding they might neither be Bishops nor yet perpetual Moderators Secondly Dr Reynolds who hath written a letter in Print against the jâ—s divinum of Episcopacy acknowledgeth also in his conference with Hart dial 3. That this Angel was persona singularis For he saith That Presbyters when they met together for the carrying on of the affairs of the Church by common Councel and consent chose one amongst them to be the President of their company and Moderator of their actions As in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and Pastors to guide it yet amongst those sundry was there one chief whom our Saviour calleth The Angel of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know From which saying we may safely conclude That though we should grant which yet we do not that this Angel is a single person yet it will not at all help the Episcopal Hierarchy For this Angel is but a Moderator of the Presbytery having no superiority of power either in Ordination or Jurisdiction above Presbyters is himself also a Presbytery and for ought appears to the contrary from the judgment of Dr. Reynolds a Moderator onely pro tempore Which kind of government is purely Presbyterial and not at all Episcopal much lesse as some would have it even from this text Archiepiscopal and Metropolitical But it is objected by some learned men That the Seven Cities in which these seven Asian Churches had their seat were all of them Metropolitical and so had relation unto the rest of the Towns and Cities of Asia as unto daughters rising under them And that therefore these Churches were Metropolitical Churches and their Angels Metropolitical Bishops To this we answer 1. That it will hardly be proved that these Seven Cities were all of them Metropolitical Cities in St. Iohnâ— dayes And the situation of the most of them lying near together by the Sea side makes it very improbable 2. But suppose it would yet we answer 1. That it is no good argument from the greatnesse of the Cities to inferr the greatnesse of the Churches For though the Cities were great yet the Churches were but small and the number of believers very few in comparison of the rest of the people 2. We do not believe that ever it can be proved That the Apostles did model the government of the Church according to the government of the Roman State This was the after-policy of Christian Emperours and Bishops but no part of Apostolical policy And therefore it doth not follow That because there were divers Cities under the jurisdiction of these seven Cities That therefore there should be divers Churches subordinate to these seven Asian Churcheâ— 3. We are fully assured That it can never be made out That any of these Asian Angels were Archbishops or Bishops over other Bishops or Bishops over divers settled Churches The seven starrs are said in Scripture to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks or Churches not one Star over divers Candlesticks or Churches If this opinion were true Then Tertullian did noâ— do well in saying That St. Iohn made Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna but he should rather have said That he made him Arch-Bishop And our Saviour Christ had not given unto these seven Angels their due Titles For he must have written To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus together with all those Churches in the Cities subordinate to Ephesus And so likewise of the other Six Surely this device was found out for the honour of Archiepiscopacy by some that did aspire unto that dignity But we hope that our more moderate Brethren are far from stamping a divinum jus upon Archbishops and Primâ—tes and Patriarchs for fear lest by the same proportion of reason they be forced to put a divine stamp at last upon the Pope himself And therefore we forbear to say any more about it For the conclusion of this discourse about the Asian Angels we shall add 4. That it can never be proved That these Asian Angels were Bishops in a Prelatical sence much lesse Arch-Bishops and Metropolitans
Almighty All these things I know and yet am not perfect c. Now who is there that can believe that such Arrogant boasting can proceed from such a holy man and humble Saint as Ignatius was The third Reason which is most for our purpose is from his over eager and over anxious defence of the Episcopal Hierarchy which he doth with such strange hyperbolical expressions as if all Christianity were lost if Prelacy were not upheld and with such multiplied repetitions ad nauseam usque That we may confidently say as one doth Certo certius est has Epistolas vel supposititias esse vel foedè corruptas And that they do neither agree with those times wherein he wrote nor with such a holy and humble Martyr as he was We will instance in some few of them In his Epistle to the Trallians he saith What is a Bishop but he that is possest of all Principalitie and authority beâ—ond all as much as is possible for men to be possest of being made an imitator according to thâ— power of Christ who is God He that can find in these words an Apostolical Spirit breathing hath little acquaintance with the Apostolical writings How unlike is this to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 3.5 Who then is Paul and who Apollo but Ministers by whom ye believe In the same Epistle he saith Reverence the Bishop as yeâ— do Christ at the holy Apostles have commanded But where is this commanded In his Epistle to the Magnâ—sians He saith It becomes you to obey the Bishop and in nothing to oppose him For it is a terrible thing to contradict him And again As the Lord Christ doth nothing without his Father So must you do nothing without your Bishop neither Presbyter Deacon nor Lâ—y man Let nothing seem right and equal to you that is contrary to his judgment For that that is such is wicked and â—nmity to God In his Epistle to Polycarpe It becomes those that marry and are married not to marry without the consent of the Bishop And again my soul for theirs that obey the Bishop Presbyters and Deacons In his Epistle to the Philadelphians Let the Princes obey the Emperour the Souldiers the Princes The Deacons and the rest of the Clergy with all the people and the Souldiers and the Princes and the Emperour let them obey the Bishop Observe here how the Princes and Emperours are enjoyned to obey the Bishop when there were not at this time nor many years after any Emperour or Princes Christian In his Epistle to the Smyrâ—enses he saith The Scripture saith Honour God and the King But I say Honour God as the Author and Lord of all things And the Bishop as the Prince of Priests resembling the image of God Of God for his Principality of Christ for his Priesthood c. There is none greater then the Bishop in the Church who is consecrated for the salvation of the whole world c. and afterwards He that honours the Bishop shall be honoured by God and he that injur's him shall be punished by God And if he be justly thought worthy of punishment that riseth up against Kings and is therein a violator of good Lawes Of how much greater punishment shall he be thought worthy that will undertake to do any thing without his Bishop thereby breaking concord and overturning good Order c. We need not paraphrase upon these passages Onely we desire the Reader in the fear of God to passe sentence whether these high and supertranscendent expressions This prelation of Bishops above Kings do savour of the first Primitive times or can be imagined to proceed from Blessed Ignatius even then when he was in bonds and ready to be Martyred In the same Epistle he saith Let all men follow the Bishop as Christ the Father Let no man do any thing that belongs to the Church without the Bishop Let that Eucharist be allowed on which is done by the Bishop or by his concession c. It is not lawful without the Bishop to Baptize or offer c. That which he approves on is accepted of God and whatsoever is so done is safe and firm It is right that God and the Bishop be known He that honours the Bishop is honoured of God He that doth any thing without first consulting with the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Worshipper of the Divel If this Doctrine be true what shall become of all the Reformed Churches especially the Church of Scotland which as Ioannes Major saith lib. 2. hystoria de gâ—stis Scotorum cap. 2. was after its first conversion to the Christian faith above 230. years without Episcopal government We will not cite any more passages of this nature These are sufficient to justifie that censure which the Reverend Presbyterian Divines in their humble answer to the second Paper delivered them by his Majestie at the Isle of Wight do passe upon Ignatius where they say That there are great arguments drawn out of these Epistles themselves betraying their insincerity adulterate mixtures and interpolations So that Ignatius cannot be distinctly known in Ignatius And if we take him in grosse we make him the Patron as Baronius and the rest of the Popish writers do of such rights and observations as the Church in his time cannot be thought to have owned He doth indeed give testimony to the Prelacy of a Bishop above a Presbyter That which may justly render him suspected is that he gives too much Honour saith he the Bishop as Gods high Priest and after him you must honour the King He was indeed a holy Martyr and his writings have suffered Martyrdom as well as he Corruptions could not go currant but under the credit of worthy names The considerations of these things makes Salmasius to believe that these Epistles were written by a Pseâ—do-Ignatius at that very time when Episcopacy properly so called came into the Church that so the people who had been accustomed to the Presbyterian government might the more willingly and easily receive this new government and not be offended at the novelty of it And this he the rather thinkes Because in all his Epistles he speaks highly in honour of the Presbytery as well as of Episcopacy For in the Epistle to the Trallenses He bids them be subject to the Presbytery as to the Apostles of Iesus Christ. And a little after he calleâ— the Preâ—bytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the sâ—me Epistle he saith That the Colledge of the Presbyters is nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which passage must needs be understood of the second Primitive times For afterwards the Presbytery was much neglected and laid aside as Ambrose complaines upon 1 Tim. 5. We will conclude our discourse concerning the The Epistles of Ignaâ—ius with a remarkable saying of Riveâ— in his Critica sacra We are ready to ascâ—ibe to the genuine writings of the Fâ—thers as much as
non Ordo sed meritum crearet Episâ—opum multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum ne indignus temâ—re usurparet esset multis scandalum Iâ— lege nascebantur Sacâ—rdotes ex genere Aaron Leviâ—ae c. Whether this conjecture of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be true or no or whether as others think it was true in some Churches and not in others we will not now debate But sure we are that in Alexandria as St. Ierom tells us The Bishop was chosen not onely out of the Presbytery but by the Presbytery and by them constituted Bishop and placed in excelsiâ—ri gradu in an higher degree of honour not Office He was not made by 3. Bishops Sed Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiore grâ—an collocatuâ— Episcopum nominabant Indeed afterwards in processe of time This Epâ—scopus Pâ—aeses came to be Episcopus Princeps and usurped sinfully upon the priviledges of Ministers and people and made way for the coming in of Antichrist Famous is that so often mentined in several writings in this age saying of Ambrose upon 1 Tim. 5 1 Vnde Synagoga postâ—a Ecclesia Seniores habuit quorum sine consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia Quod quâ negligentiâ obsolevâ—rat nescio nisi forte Doctorum desidiâ— aut magis superbiâ dum volunt aliguid videri From hence came that distinction of Beza's between Episcopus divinus humanus and Diabolicus By the divine Bishop he means the Presbyter by the humane Bishop he means the Bishop chosen by the Presbyters to be President over them and to rule with them by fixed Lawes and Canons By the Diabolical he means a Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Lording it over Gods heritage and governing by his own will and authority And therefore when men argue from the practise of the Primitive times and from the Bishops of those dayes to the Bishops of our dayes they do but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they commit a fallacy just as if a man should argue That the Church of Rome is now a true Church because it was so in the Apostles dayes For the further handling of this proposition we refer the Reader to Smâ—ctymâ—â—us where he shall have many pages spent to prove the imparity between the Bishops of the Primitive times and our dayes Onely we shall crave leave to relate a passage from a Reverend Divine now with God who holdeth forth this assertion That the ancient Fathers in the point of Episcopacy differ more from the high Prelatist then from the Presbyterian This he proveth Because The Presbyterians alwayes have â— President to guide their actions which they acknowledge may be perpetual dâ—rante vitâ â—â—do sâ— benâ— gâ—sseriâ— or temporary to avoid inconvenience Which Bilson in his preface again and again in his Book of the Perp. government takes hold of as advantagious because so little discrepant as he saith from what he maintainâ— But now the high Prelatists excluâ—e a Presbytery â—s having nothing to do with jurisdiction which they put as far above the sphaere of a Presbyter as sacrificing above a Levites to wit an act restrained to an higher Order whereas the Fathers acknowledge a Presbytery and in divers cases Councels tie the Bishop to do nothing without them And so it is clear The high Prelatistâ— are at a further distance from the Fathers then the Prebyterians Afterwards he also adds If we differ from the Fathers in point of Prelacy wherein our opponents are in no better terms with them then we yet I would have them consider in how many thingâ— we jumpe with the Fathers wherein many of them have been dissenting both in opinion and practise as 1. touching promiscuous dancing especially upon the Lords day 2. Touching residency of Pastors in their Churches which excludes all Pluralities 3. Frequency and diligence in Preaching 4. Touching the abuse of health-drinking or drinking ad aequales calices 5. Touching Bishops not intanling themselves with secular affairs or businesses of state in Princes Courts 6. Touching gaming at Cards or Dice and such like so that they can with no great confidence triumph in the Fathers against us in this one point wherein themselves also are at a distance from them while we keep closer to the Fathers then they do in many others Proposition 7. THat the great argument that is brought for Episcopacy from the lineal succession of Bishops from the Apostles daies to our dâ—â—eâ— hath not that validity in it that is imagined Bishop Bilson and others â—ake a great deal of pains to give us a Catalogue of the Bishops in Rome Alâ—xandria Hierusalem and Antioch from the Apostles daies unto Constantine's time But we desire the Reader to consider First That these Catalogues labour much of an Homonymy in the word Bishop For the Bishops of later times were Bishops of a fâ—r different nature from the Bishops of the first times Though the same name be common to all in the Catalogue yet in the nature of their Office they differed very much The later peece by peece taking that authority to theâ— which the former neither might nor did â—njoy The later were Diocesan the former were Bishopâ— onely of one Congregation At first the Churches were governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters and the line of succession was drawn saith D. Bloâ—del from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that iâ— the first Ordained Minister Even â—s amongst the Athenianâ— there were 9. Archontes or chief Rulerâ— equal in power and authority and yet the succession of Governours in Athens was desiâ—ed from one of them onâ—ly who wâ—â— the first Arâ—bon or Ruler which was not done to diminish the â—â—thority of the â—est sed ut compendiâ—sioâ—â—â— minus 〈…〉 But that the enumerâ—â—iâ—n of the 〈◊〉 of their successive Governourâ— might 〈…〉 compendious and expedite Even so at first there were divers Presbyters in every City which did govern with equal power and authority and yet the line and succession was deduced from one who was the first of those that were ordained not thereby incroaching upon the joynt authority of the rest but for the more expedite way of reckoning And when afterwards one was chosen out of the Presbytery he was for a long time but as the Moderator of a Synod amongst the Scotch and Dutch and at most but as a Superintendent amongst the Germaâ—s of whom Zepp lib. 2. cap. 10. saith That they are of the same degree with other Ministers they are only presidentâ— while the Synod lasteth when it is dissolved their Prerogative ceaseth They have no prerogative over their fellow-Ministers they are subject to their Presbyteries The Synod ended they return to the care of their particular Churches Secondly That these Catalogues the nearer they come to the Apostles daies are the more â—ncerâ—in and indeed contradictory one unto another Some say that Clemens was first Bishop of Rome after Peter some say the third and the intricacies about the Order of Succession in Linus
necessity it might not be lawful for Presbyters to Ordain and much lesse teaching absolutely a nullity of the Ordination which is performed without a Bishop which answer I confirmed by divers reasons see them whereunto I now adde That there seemeth to be the like reasons for the imposition of hands in confirmation of the baptized in the reconciliation of publick penitents as in the Ordination of Ministers But although the two former were reserved as well as the third to the Bishop yet extraordinarily in the case of necessity and in the want and absence of the Bishop the ancient Church held it lawful for Ministers to impose hands either for confirming of parties baptized or for reconciliation of the penitents The former is testified by Ambrose upon Eph. 4. and Austin qu. ex Vet. Nov. Test. mixt qu. 101. The latter by Cyprian lib. 3. Ep. 17. and divers Councels Concil Carthag graec cap. 43. Carth. 2. cap. 4. Concil Araâ—sic cap. 2. And the Popish Writâ—rs themselves do teach that the Pope may give license to him that is not a Bishop to Ordain so that he to whom such licence is given have those Orders himself which he would give to another Summa Angel ordo c. If therefore by the Popes license a Presbyter may Ordain Presbyters much better may a company of Presbyters to whom in the want of a Bishop the charge of the Church is devolved be authorized by necessity which as they say hath no law So far B. Downame Thus also Mr. Francis Mason If by jure Divino you mean That which is according to Scripture then the preeminence of Bishops is jure Divino But if by jure Divinâ— you understand a law and commandement of God binding all Christian Churches universally perpetually unchangeably and with such absolute necessity that no other form of regiment may in any case be admitted in this sence neither may we grant it nor yet can you prove it to be jure Divino And no doubt it were a most cruel and unmerciful opinion so to cry up Episcopacy and Episcopal Ordination as to condemn all the reformed Churches of France Scotland Holland Helvetia c. as no Churches and their Ministers as no Ministers and their Sacraments as no Sacraments But we shall say no more of this Proposition because there is a Reverend Minister hath spoken largely to it and hath proved That it was the opinion of Dr. Field B. Downame B. Iewell Saravia B. Alley B. Pilkinton B. Bridges B. Bilson D. Nowel and divers others That Ordination by Presbyters in some cases is lawful and valid and hath also fully and excellently discovered the woful and unsufferable miseries and mischiefs that would flow from the contrary assertion To him we refer the Reader that desires to be further satisfied herein We shall name but one Proposition more and then we have done Proposition 9. THat our Episcopal brethren that do so much inveigh against the Presbyterianâ— in all their writingâ— for walking contrary to Antiquity in the matter of Ordination do themselves fall under the same accusation in many particulars which we could easily name if we did desire to recriminate We will instance only in two 1. The ancient Bishops would do nothing without their Presbyters Cyprian professeth he would do nothing without the Clergy he could do nothing without them nay he durst not take upon him alone to determine that which of right did belong to all The fourth Councel of Carthage condemâ—s the sentence of the Bishop as irrita nisi Clericorum praesentia confirmetur The Church had itâ— Seniores sine quorum consâ—lio nihil agâ—batur in Ecclesiâ There are a multitude of quotations of this nature which we might transcribe out of D. Blondâ—â— and Smectymnuus but we forbear Now how contrary our Episcopal men walk to this practise iâ— sufficiently manifest to all the Christian world 2. D. Blondel that great Antiquary undertakes in a very long discourse to make it out That for 1200. yeares the people had free liberty in the choyce of their Bishops he proves it by undoubted Authors in all the several Countries And Cyprian tells us That this power did descend upon the people de Divina Authoritate And yet our Brethren in their practise go quite Antipodes to this part of Antiquity and would be loath to be charged with the black brand of Innovators and despisers of all Antiquity for so doing And therefore let them not accuse us for walking contrary to Antiquity when as we are sure that we walk agreeably unto the Scriptures and to the first and purest Antiquity but consider how deeply and how justly they themselves may be charged with this guilt ANd thus we have finished all that we thought fit to adde concerning the Judgment and Practice of the Ancient Church in the point of Episcopacy Not that we intend to be finally concluded by the determination of Apostolical Traditions unwritten or by the Fathers or Canons of the Church in this great Controversie For though we are amongst the number of those that do much reverence Antiquity yet we do not Idolize it For we know that the Ancient Church was much beguiled in receiving many things as Traditions Apostolical which are confessed by all to have been Apocryphal Irenaeus tells us that S. Iohn told those that told him That Christ lived here upon earth and preached ultra quadragesimum aut etiam quinquagesimum annum beyond 40. or 50. years which to be a counterfeit Tradition will be by none denyed The Bishops of Asia in Victor's time who was Bishop of Rome celebrated the Christian Passeover or the Feast of Easter upon the 14th day of the moneth according â—s the Jewes were commanded to eat their Passeover This they did as a received Tradition not onely from Polycarpe but from S. Iohn himself But now on the contrary the Bishops of the Western Churches kept it upon the day of Christ's Resurrection which they did from a Tradition received from S. Peter Now sure we are that both of these cannot be true And as for the Ancient Fathers though they were famouâ— Lights in the Church yet they have their Naevâ—s and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and their writings are much defaced by the Popish Index Expurgatorius A learned Gentleman undertakes in a short Epistle to make out Their Contradictions one to another Their variance from themselves Their Repugnancies both to Protestants and Papists Their want of ability in many points of our Controversies in most of will to decide them And therefore we appeal from men to God from the Canons of the Fatherâ— to the Canons of the Holy Scriptures as the onely infallible Judge of this and all other Controversies of Religion We say with the Prophet Ad Legem Testimonium To the Law and to thâ— Testimony if they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no light in them And yet we have spoken something