Israell Deut. 17. to go to the Priests and Levits and the Judge that shall be in those days and aske and they would shew them the sentence of judgement yea did not both these Offices to be Judge and Priest jump in one man many times before the Law we read that Melchizedec was both King and Priest Gen. 14. Heb. 7. and it is constantly believed also that the eldest Sons of the Patriarks were both Kings and Priests was not Eli both high Priest and Judge of the People for the space of 40. yeeres and Samuel for the space of thirty yeeres and it is well known that the Macabees after the captivity were Rulers both in Civill and Ecclesiasticall causes Truly I will say thus much If the civill places of Church-men be unlawfull now it is either because Princes now stand not in so much need of the counsell and advice of the Messengers of God as Princes did thē or God doth not inable now his Embassadors with such a measure of wisdome and understanding as hee did the Priests under the Law Truly to say the first were to derogate from the wisdome and religion of the Godly and religious Kings in those dayes and to say the second were to derogate from the providence favour and goodnesse of God most abundantly bestowed upon his servants under the Gospell There is but one place in all the new Testament that seemes to oppose the Doctrine I have delivered viz the words of our Saviour Mat. 20.25 The Lords of the Gentiles saith he have dominion over them and they that are great exercise Authority over them but it shall not bee so among you c. Ans The best interpreters both ancient and moderne understand the words so as is forbidden all greedie desire of governing and tyrannicall dominion and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to bear rule Tyranically according to the interpretation of most learned Divines but al sort of power is not forbidden here a paternall is not forbidden the truth of this will appeare to any man that will but take a strict view of the words for first ye see Christ forbids such domination as the Lords of the Gentiles exercised towards their inferiours and not that moderate and lawfull power exercised by Church-men under the Law for if Christ had meant of the Priestly jurisdiction he◠would have said out of all question I will not have degrees and ranks among you one above another as it is betweene the High Priest in feriour Priests and Levits no I will have you all of alike power and authority Again our Saviour saith that they that are great exercise authoritie over their subjects that is great and mighty men proud men they domineere over their inferiours and make slaves of them but saith our Saviour It must not be so among you yee must not domineere in that kinde but hee saith he that will be great among you let him be servant to the rest that is Let him so demean himself that yee may be defended maintained protected and cared for both in Soul and body so that in my judgement these words doe necessarily imply a Superiority and that not in dignity but in all Authority Power and Jurisdiction lawfull and laudable and therefore this text was never used by any Divine but against the tyrannicall power of the Church of Rome and the Popes usurped authority who takes upon him to depose Kings and translate Kingdomes and tyrannize over mens consciences Would to God that such doings might not also be laid to the charge of some others who pretend greater humility and loyalty Moreover we see in the New Testament that the Apostles did no◠denude themselves of all civill employment for the Scripture saith that many fold their Land and came and laid the monies downe at the Apostles feete whereof no doubt they had a speciall care that it was well employed and distributed according to every ones necessity s◠that it would seeme that the civill power of Churchmen is not altogether unlawfull truly in my judgement it is as unlawfull for a Minister to take the charge of a House and Family for it carrieth with it as great distraction yea more worldly incumbrances more troubles and turmoyles then to be a Counsellor of State And so I may reason If that charg which involves a man in infinit worldly cares troubles perplexities be no sin to a Minister to take upon him then far lesse is it a sinne to a Minister to take upon him a charge and employment which doth not involve him in any intricate or distracting cares and businesses as to be a Counsellor of State a Justice of Peace a Judge of Controversies between brother and brother Well Calvin and Beza both thought it not unlawfull to be chief Counsellors of Geneva that mirrour of Religion Learning S. Aug. many hundred yeers before them thought it not unlawfull neither yea not to be burdened with civill incumbrances heare what he saith and I will end with it I call the Lord Jesus to witnesse saith he upon my soul in whose name I boldly utter these words that touching my own commoditie I had much rather every day work something with my own hands as it is appointed in well governed Monasteries and to have the houres free to read and to pray and to doe some exercise in the holy Scriptures then to suffer the tumultuous perplexities of other mens causes touching Secular affaires either in determining them by judging or in cutting them off by intreaties To which molestations the Apostle tied us not by his own judgment but by his judgement who spake in him which troubles for all that himself did not undergo because his course Apostolicall had another respect which labour notwithstanding we endure with consolation in the Lord for the hope of eternall life that wee may bring forth fruit with patience for we are servants of the Church especially to the weak members how mean members soever we are in the same bodie I referre to the consideration of the learned and religious Reader the weight and authority of this Fathers Testimony Further if our Saviour Christ understands an equality of Church-men in these words It must be understood only to be among the Apostles whom our Saviour Christ would have all of the same rank and degree but they cannot be so understood as importing an equality betwixt them and the other 70. whom hee so manifestly distinguished from the 12. as I have told you before Lastly was not Christ himselfe superiour to the 12 and yet no man will say that Christ did transgresse that Commandement which he gave unto them Christ did exercise paternall authority over them and the same authority hee committed unto them over other inferiour Ministers yea and the same also they exercised over them for the which cause our Saviour Christ said to them He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me he committed to them his owne place in the chiefe government of the Church and gave chiefly unto them the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven he said not to the 70. whose sinnes yee remit shall be remitted and whose sinnes yee retain shall be retained but to the 12. They had all power granted them immediatly from Christ and they committed that power to others according to their own pleasure Now I say no more but these reasons have prevailed with mee to sway and settle my judgment in the points before discussed which I commend to the consideration of the judicious and imprejudicate reader for no reason can prevaile against prejudice and I pray God to enlighten the eys of our understanding and to remove all prejudices of flesh and bloud and of this deceitfull World that we may more and more perceive the hidden truths of Scriptures and Mysteries of the Kingdome of Heaven Amen Amen FINIS
grace That inferiour Bishops cannot be the Apostles Successors first by Scripture and next by demonstrative Reasons Beside many other places of Scripture read but Acts 15.2.4.6.22.23 where yee shall finde Apostles and Elders cleerly distinguished I intreat you to see the places and I doubt not but ye shall receive satisfaction and farther I remember not that ever I heard any Divine affirme Elders and inferiour Bishops to be in rank and degree with the Apostles but that all Divines ancient and moderne accounted Elders to bee inferiour in degree to the Apostles but I will prove by three unanswerable Reasons That Presbyters did not succeed the Apostles My first Reason I will form thus They that were inferiour in degree to the apostles were not the apostles successors in that same order and degree But Presbyters were inferiour in degree to the apostles And therefore Presbyters were not the apostles successors in that same order and degree The Proposition I take for granted for I hope no man will deny it I prove the assumption first by the cōsent of all the divines that ever were in this World next by the cleer evidence of Scripture throughout all the book of God where the Apostles who were chiefe Bishops and Over-seers both of the Pastors and the people are cleerly distinguished from inferiour Bishops who only have the oversight of the people as is evident by the Apostle Paul his directions to the Elders of Ephesus Acts 20. My second Reason I will form thus If Elders be the Apostles Successors then that same power and authoritie necessary for the government of the Church is committed to them by the Apostles as amply as they themselves had it But that same power and authoritie necessary for the government of the Church is not committed unto Elders as amply as the Apostles themselves had it And therefore Elders are not the Successors of the Apostles If any man deny the Proposition I will aske him how it can be possible that Elders can be the Apostles Successors unlesse they succeed them in that same Power and Authoritie Truly it is beyond my capacitie to conceive and understand it I know they cannot succeed them in those things that are extraordinary but in their ordinary power and authoritie and that which is perpetually necessary for the Government of the Church of Christ under the Gospel they must succeed them and they be their successors I prove the Assumption Any one of the Apostles might ordaine Elders so Paul ordained twelve Elders at one time at Ephesus Acts 19. any one might ordain Bishops so Paul ordained Timothy and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Creet for Timothy it is cleer 2 Tim. 1.6 any one of the Apostles might command Elders and Deacons to preach the Gospel any where as is evident throughout all Pauls Epistles and in the Acts of the Apostles and which I think no Divine will deny any one of them might prescribe Rules and Laws to inferiour Elders so did the Apostle Paul to the Elders of Ephesus Acts 20. to Archippus Col. 4.17 who by the declaration of all the Ancients was Bishop and so superiour to an Elder any one of Apostles might Command Rebuke Censure and correct Elders at their own pleasure as is most evident in Scriptures and in particular in Saint Paul his Epistles now those things no Elder can do by himself and therefore That some ordinary and necessary power which the Apostles had is not committed to inferiour Bishops but to Superiour Here it may be objected That by this Reason Bishops Superiour cannot be the Apostles Successors because they doe not exercise their power and authoritie without the concurrence of the inferiour Bishops they joyne with them in the Ordination of Ministers so they should also in the exercise of Jurisdiction Answer There is no warrant for this in the Scripture it is true wee read the Apostles tooke the concurrence of Ministers in decision of doubts and controversies and also in Ordination so Paul saith that Timothy was ordained by the Presbyterie but there was no direction from Christ for so doing it pleased the Apostles to take their concurrence which they needed not to have done and therefore they did sometimes exercise their Episcopall power by themselves alone as wee may see in the Acts of the Apostles and 2 Tim. 1.6 and many other places of Scripture and did very seldome crave the concurrence of Presbyters so that Bishops do not exercise their power without the concurrence of Presbyters it is not because they are commanded so to doe by Christ and his Apostles but their own voluntary yielding of their right and submitting of themselves to their own Ecclesiastick Laws and Canons of ancient Councels it is as cleer as the Sun That an Elder hath no power of Ordination or Jurisdiction granted to him in the Scriptures what he hath it is but by humane Ordination and hee hath not in any ways Supreame Power granted him by any ancient Councell This is most certaine That a Bishops Ordination is valid and good without a Presbyter and hath warrant from the example of the Apostles but a Presbyter to ordain without the command of a Bishop is not warranted by any example in Scripture nor the Canon of any ancient Councell and so my conclusion stands good That inferiour Bishops are not the Successors of the Apostles My third Reason is this They who were inferiour to those in dignitie and degree who were inferiour to the apostles in place and estimation were not the apostles Successors in all the parts of the Ministeriall Function But Presbyters were inferiour in dignitie and degree to those who were inferiour to the apostles in place and estimation And therefore Presbyters were not Successors to the Apostles in all the parts of the Ministeriall Function The Proposition I know will be granted I prove the assumption That Presbyters were inferiour in dignitie and degree to those who were inferiour to the Apostles in place and estimation Timothy and Titus were inferiour to the Apostles in place and estimation so were all the Evangelists as all Divines acknowledge and yet those were Superiour in dignitie and degree even in the judgment of those who oppose the doctrine delivered in this Treatise That Timothy and Titus were superiour to Presbyters I shall prove it by and by but I will use one Argument yet for the ordinary callings of Apostles and Evangelists and this it is briefly Either the callings of the Apostles and Evangelists were ordinary callings or else we have no ordinary Ministers of the Gospel by Christs institution But this were absurde to say that we had not ordinary Ministers of the Gospel by Christs institution And therefore it is as absurd to say that the callings of Apostles and Evangelists are not ordinary callings I desire all those who oppose this doctrine to loose this knot Now it remayneth to prove that the Bishops succeeded in place of the Apostles and in place of Evangelists inferiour Presbyters
by the mystery of Faith is not requisite in these to whom is only committed the over-sight of the poore More yet Lay Elders cannot answer to the Priests because the Priests sacrificed as well as the High Priest and there was no difference between them in regard of their office of sacrificing except that the High Priest was only appointed by God to offer sacrifice within the Veile once in the yeere for his owne sinnes and the sinnes of the people but the High Priest and the inferiour Priests agreed in these particulars They both burnt Incense and offered Sacrifice 1 Chron. 6.49 They both sounded the Trumpets Numbers 10 and they both slue the Sacrifices 2 Chron. 29.22 They both instructed the people Malachie 2.5 They both judged of Leprosie Leviticus 13.2 So that if Lay Elders will needs succeed in place of inferiour Priests and be the second degree of Church Governours they must preach and administer the Sacraments and so turn Pastors and Doctors and then the Preaching Elders must be Bishops for they must be a degree above them Now follows to shew you the truth of the last branch of the Assumption That three Ranks of Church Governours have governed the Church of God since the dayes of Christ and his Apostles but because it would take up much time and paper and might be wearisome to the Reader I referre him to the Writings of many learned Divines who have proved that point to the full I dare say wee may as well deny all the humane Histories that ever were written as deny the cleere evidence of so many Histories whereby Episcopall Government is defended and accounted by all the Ancients except Aerius who is enrolled among Heretikes by Augustine and Epiphanius for his pains for the first order of Church Government having alwayes two subordinate to it inferiour Bishops and Deacons But here I know it will bee said that I confound Apostles and the chiefe Bishops together and Evangelists and Inferiour Bishops whereas Apostles and Evangelists were extraordinary callings and ceased with themselves Ans Truly this mistake is the cause of all our dissenting one from another in this point for if wee did hold the callings of Apostles and Evangelists to be appointed by Christ to continue in the Christian Church for the Government thereof untill the end of the World as they are indeed this division that is amongst us had never beene And therefore I will endeavour by Gods grace to prove both by Reason and Scripture that these callings are ordinary and cannot without high sacriledge be cast out of Gods Church I will shew you then in what respects their calling was ordinarie and perpetually necessary for the Government of the Church and for what respects it is called extraordinary It is ordinary and perpetually necessary in regard of that power which Christ conferred upon them to preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments and also in regard of the power of Absolution and Excommunication Ordination and Jurisdiction spirituall which our Saviour also granted unto them as all men confesse and in regard of all those parts of the Episcopall Function to be continued untill the second comming of our Saviour and I think no man should denie this neither It is called extraordinary for these respects following First because they were extraordinarie persons not being of the Tribe of Levi who had only ordinary power in those days to be instruments of Gods publike Worship and to serve at the Altar Next because their gifts were extraordinary for Christ who was anointed with the oile of gladnesse above his fellows and had the spirit in super-abundance hee gave his Apostles an abundant measure of the spirit but to after-ages hee imparted only a certaine Sufficiencie Grace for Grace Thirdly the extent of their charge was extraordinary they were tyed to no setled Residence but the whole World was their Diocesse Go ye unto all the World saith our Saviour Fourthly The manner of their calling was extraordinary without Education Tryall or Ordination Fifthly they had the infallibilitie of the Spirit in matters of Faith they could not erre And lastly their calling was extraordinary quo ad ante â—ut not quo ad post even in respect of the ordinarie parts of the Ministeriall Function quo ad ante because the calling of Church-men in those dayes was to offer up Sacrifices unto God of Bullocks Rams and Lambs and other Creatures and to burne incense into him but so was not the calling of Apostles Their calling was to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments open the Gates of Heaven to the Penitent and shut them upon the impenitent c. and so I may say Their Calling in Analogie to the Priests calling under the Law is to offer up the Sacrifice of Prayer Prayse and Thanksgiving to God and to teach every man to present their bodies in a living holy and acceptable Sacrifice Quo ad post it was not extraordinarie because Christ established that government for the Christian Church in all Ages to come or else none at all for other wee see not but this is manifest yea our Saviour continued the Apostolicall and Episcopall calling in regard of the substance of it in the full latitude of Apostolicall Authoritie and all this I will prove after this manner and first If the callings of the High Priest Priests and Levits was not extraordinary quo ad post in the dayes of Moses then the callings of Apostles Evangelists and Deacons was not extraordinary quo ad post in the dayes of Christ But the first is true and therefore the second The reason of the connexion of the Proposition is this because those callings of Priests and Levits were newly established in the House of God and the Church was not so governed before and so although they were extraordinary quo ad ante in regard of the time by-past yet not in regard of the time to come so I thinke that these callings established by Christ for the Government of the Church under the Gospel although they were extraordinary in regard of the time past yet not in regard of the time to come more then the callings of the Priests and Levits under the Law For why shall these Governours instituted by Christ in the insancie of the Church cease to be of that Dignitie and Authoritie in after ages that they were of in the first Constitution more then those Governours which his Father appointed to rule the Church of the Iews at the first promulgation of the Law I would faine have my opposite to shew mee a reason for the one more then the other Truly those who took offence at the Superioritie of Church Governours under the Law might have alleaged that after the dayes of Moses and Aaron Churchmen were all to be of equall Authoritie because their calling was extraordinary in regard of the time past But I am confident that as God the Father appointed the one government to remain untill his sonnes comming in