Orders were distinct especially as to some things as that of Ordination and they all taught that even in the Apostles times or at least before S. John's death there were three several Degrees of Ministers in the Church and Tert. de Bapt. Orig. hom 7. in Jer. in Mat. tract 24. Clem. Alex. de Gnost that as Presbyters were superiour to Deacons so Bishops were superiour to both Those Writers of the second Century after the Apostles as Tertullian Origen and if you will reckon him Clemens Alexandrinus do make express mention of three ranks of Clergy-men in their days viz. Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and of these the Bishops to have been in chief Lastly though it is suppos'd that the Testimonies of Antiquity touching the Constitution of the Church be most of all wanting in that Age which was the very next to the Holy Apostles yet by the plain and pregnant evidences out of Ireneus Iren. lib. 3. c. 3. Hegesip in Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 4. c. 22. Id. de Dionys c. 23. Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. Hegesippus Dionysius of Corinth Clement of Rome and out of those Canons which go under the Name of the Apostles many whereof were framed and observed in that Age it doth appear to any considerate and indifferent person that certain particular Men called Bishops were in those early days of Christianity entrusted with the Superintendency and Authority over whole Churches But above all the Epistles of Ignatius a Contemporary of the Apostles themselves yield us so many and such strong Arguments of this matter that they who have been Schismaticks from the Catholic Church in this particular of Government have used all their Art and Skill to decry those Epistles as spurious and fictitious though the late Reverend Dr. Hammond and the present Bishop of Chester have laboured Dissertationes vindiciae with so much Learning and Success to prove those Epistles to be the genuine issue of St. Ignatius that they have said enough to lay this whole Controversie asleep unless Men will expect that an Angel from Heaven shall Preach to us to bury our Disputes as well as Summon us with the sound of a Trumpet to come out of our Graves Briefly the most ancient Ecclesiastical writers where they reckon up the Orders of those who were intrusted with the work of the Ministry do so carefully distinguish between Bishops as the first Order and Presbyters as the second that the most Learned of that Party who are no good friends to Episcopal Government have been forced to confess that Episcopacy was the only Government of the Church in the most Primitive times that is in the very next Age to the Apostles but that Age they do except and we shall see the Practice of that Age too anon In the mean time it may be Objected that Antiquity is an incompetent witness to prove that Episcopacy was the setled form of Government in the first Ages and that upon these three accounts 1. Because we have no clear and particular account of the uniformity of Episcopal Government in all Apostolical Plantations so that for ought we know it might vary in some places But this is a fallacious way of arguing because a Negative is not to be proved from the silence of Antiquity as to the constitution of some parts of Christendom Though we have no exact Records of what St. Thomas did in Parthia or St. Andrew in Scythia or some other Apostles in their respective 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dioceses and Jurisdictions yet it doth not follow that they either did or might set up another form of Government different from that in other Churches When by the joint-Testimony of the first writers and their followers we find that Episcopal Chairs were set up in all the Western parts of Asia and in sundry other Countries Provinces and Cities when Ireneus who was Polycarp's Disciple and but one remove from the Apostles tells us Hier. in Catal. Iren. lib. 3. c. 3. plainly and peremptorily that Bishops were instituted by the Apostles and that he was able to enumerate but that he should be too prolix Omnium Ecclesiarum Successiones those Bishops who succeeded the Apostles in all Churches and when St. Clement who was St. Paul's fellow-labourer tells us expresly that Phil. 4. 3. Clem. Ep. p. 54. the Apostles preaching through Countries and Cities ordained the first Fruits of them to be Bishops and Deacons for those who should afterwards believe we have no reason to doubt but that Episcopal Government was erected every where though by the iniquity of times some Records of particular Churches are lost unto us which were extant in former Ages They who argue from the defect of Testimonies that another Government there might be would do well to shew us from Testimonies extant that another Government there was 2. It may be pretended that Antiquity is no competent witness of Episcopal Government setled in the first Ages because those Testimonies we have do not give us a particular Catalogue of those Bishops who succeeded the Apostles And to this purpose is urged that of Eusebius that it is not easie to Euseb l. 3. c. 4. tell what or who they were that were appointed to feed the Church setting aside those whom we pick out of the writings of St. Paul Now to this Allegation there are four things in Answer 1. That Eusebius speaks only of the Bishops in Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia 2. That he declared it not altogether impossible but somewhat hard meaning for him who was at some considerable distance from the first Age to give account of the Apostles Successors in all those Churches 3. That the difficulty was not as to the Succession it self but as to the particular Names of the succeeding Bishops for so Ruffinus his Interpreter did understand Quorum nomina non est facilè explicare per singulos it 4. But all this is nothing to our present purpose because Eusebius could not readily tell all the Names of the Bishops which had been before him it doth not follow that there had been no such thing as a setled Episcopacy For who can reasonably expect that there should be an exact Register of the Names of all the Bishops in the World Though in the Age next to the Apostles we find Ignatius Bishop of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna and Onesimus of Ephesus and Dama of Magnesia and Polybius at Trallis and Papias of Hierapolis and Melito of Sardis and Symeon the Son of Cleophas of Jerusalem and Palmeas of Amastris and Thraseas of Eumenia and Sagaris of Laodicea yet 't is not to be wondred at if we meet not with the Names of many more who presided over other Churches in those parts of Asia and yet 't is easie to gather from Polycrates his Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome that all the Asiatic Euseb Eccles Hist l. 5. c. 24. Churches were under the Government of Episcopacy Again though in the same
making or ordaining Bishops c. ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons And in that our Church mentioneth the reading of Holy Scripture it is clear that in her account she taketh in the very times of the Apostles and meaneth that from the Scripture it may be proved that Episcopacy was erected while the Apostles were living Which shall give me warrant to take one step more backward from the Age next to the Apostles to the Apostolical Age it self and to affirm that even then there was such a Sacred Order of men as we now call properly strictly and by way of eminence and distinction Bishops Now that we meet with the Name frequently in our Translation and oftner in the Original is altogether out of doubt The grand Question is about the thing whether in those days the Office Power and Order of a Bishop was distinct from and in any respect superiour unto the Office Power and Order of a Presbyter And though the Sence and Practice of the succeeding Age be enough to make us morally certain that it was so because it cannot be reasonably suppos'd that men so harassed by Persecution so zealous for Truth and Honesty and so careful to observe the Apostles orders even in the least things could or would conspire together to make an universal defection from so main a part of Christianity as the Government of the Church is yet setting aside that consideration to me it seemeth obvious and certain that Christ the great Bishop of our Souls erected an Episcopal Power and that the Apostles continued and propagated it I mean still a Power above that belonging to Presbyters This I shall endeavour briefly to shew 1. By making good the Affirmative and then Secondly By clearing up those difficulties which are usually brought from Scripture to prove the Negative 1. For probation of Episcopacy we begin with the Ordination of the Twelve Apostles which evidently differ'd from the Mission of the Seventy two Disciples in whom 't is conceived that the Office and Power of Presbyters was founded Now the Twelve Apostles were indeed Bishops though they were not clenched to any particular Sees and Chairs which the necessities of those times would not give way to For the clearing of this it is observable that the Mission of the Twelve Apostles as to their own Persons was extraordinary and that which none could pretend to in following Ages because they were sent immediately by Christ himself and had a common jurisdiction and care over all the Churches that should be and were endowed with a Power of working Miracles to confirm the Truth of their Doctrin But then their Authority and Charge as to their Function was an ordinary and standing Power that was not to dye with them nor to cease as Miracles did after a little interval but such as was to be transmitted to others from time to time and so to continue to the Worlds end Now if it doth appear First that the Twelve had a Superiour power over Presbyters Secondly that this Power was to be imparted and communicated to their Successors for ever Thirdly that this was no other than the Ordinary Episcopal Power Then this will suffice to shew that the Twelve Apostles were truly and indeed Bishops in their ordinary capacity and consequently that Episcopal Power was erected in their Time First then That the Twelve Apostles had a Superior power over Presbyters appeareth not only from the Extent of their Commission which compared with that given to the Seventy two Disciples was much larger for as the Father sent Joh. 20. 21. Christ so Christ sent them with full power to Teach and Govern the Church according to God's Will and to ordain Successors and in all respects to execute that power which he was invested with and had delegated unto them but moreover it is clear from the Exercise of this their Authority for they ordained Deacons Act. 6. They Ordained Matthias and took Act. 1. him into the number of Apostles who before was one of the Seventy two as Eusebius tells us twice they made Decrees Euseb lib. 2. c. 1. and sent them abroad to be observed in all Churches Act. 16. They had power of Censure and Jurisdiction every single Apostle had over inferiour Presbyters for St. John threatned ambitious Diotrephes that when he came he would remember his deeds meaning that he would correct him with the Rod of 3 Joh. his Apostolical Power And so were Hymenâ—us and Alexander delivered unto Satan by St. Paul after that he was ordained an Apostle This is enough to shew the Superiority of the Apostles 1 Tim. 1. 20. power 2. Again This power of theirs was no Temporary thing that was to vanish with their breath but that which was to be communicated to others to be transmitted unto Posterity and to hold as long as there should be need of it that is as long as the World should hold For so the promise of Christ runs Lo I am with you always even unto the end of Matt. 28. 20. the World Here our Lord did engage not to be with their Persons alone for they were to dye within a short time but to be with their Successors too that is to assist their Function for ever And truly had not Christ assisted it marvellously it would have fallen e're now since it hath been so lustily beav'd at especially in these last Ages 'T is plain that our Saviour intended that the Apostles power should continue to the Worlds end I mean their Ordinary power which was for the Regiment of the Church For their Extraordinary power of speaking all Languages and working Miracles which was for the Planting of the Church was not to last long but to cease after a while So that it was their ordinary and standing power to Administer Sacraments to Preach to Govern to Ordain and to exercise the power of the Keys this was that which was to hold to be delivered and banded down from Generation to Generation Now if there be any truth in that Promise of Christ this Apostolic Power and Office doth last and still continue and is even at this hour in the World 3. Thirdly then this Power we speak of is really that which we now call Episcopacy The Apostles Function is part of it in Deacons more of it in Presbyters and all of it in Bishops there the whole Ordinary power centers and is united The Twelve were called as their immediate Successors were many times also called Apostles in respect of their Mission and Authority from Christ but in respect of their Office and Inspection over Christ's Church they were indeed Bishops They were the first possessors of Episcopacy and the Bishops now are their Successors to the Apostolate 'T is plain that they themselves and the Church following them understood them to be no more than Bishops in their ordinary capacity For as on
Age we find Pothinus to have been Bishop of Lyons and Clement of Rome and Denys the Areopagite of Athens and another Denys of Corinth who mentions Philippus Bishop of Gortina and Pinytus Bishop of Gnossus I say though the Names of these and other Primitive Bishops in the very next Century to the Apostles do still stand upon good Record yet 't is not modest ingenuous or reasonable for any Man to require us either to nominate every one of the Apostles Successors in all parts of the World or to lay down our pretensions of a setled Episcopacy in the Ages next to them especially since Ireneus hath told us that he was able though Iren. ubi suprà Idem affirmat Tertullianus de Praesc Adv. Her we are not to reckon up the Bishops who succeeded the Apostles in all the Churches Were there no exact List of the former Prelates of England yet I hope it would not follow that these Churches have not been all along under the Government of Episcopacy It will trouble the best Antiquary to tell us all the old Bishops among the ancient Britains and Scots and yet we know that they had Bishops before the Saxons came in hither which was about Anno 450 and many Ages before the Bishops of Rome claimed any Jurisdiction in this Island 3. But then supposing a Succession of Bishops in the Apostolical Churches nevertheless it is Objected Thirdly that Antiquity is no sufficient witness of a setled Episcopacy in the first Ages because the Ancients speak ambiguously and doubtfully of those Bishops calling them sometimes Presbyters so that we have no certain account whether those Men were superiour to Presbyters in Order Power and Authority or whether they were above them only in a Degree of Honour like the Chair-men in Assemblies or like the Archontes at Athens and the Ephori at Sparta who had an equal power but gave a deference of Honour and Dignity to one above the rest Now I cannot but wonder that Men should invent doubts where there are none for nothing is more clear then that the Bishops thus succeeding the Apostles had a Superiority of Power over the rest of the Clergy not only to ordain but also to judge and censure them without any Authority given them by a Bench of Presbyters though not always without their Aid and Advice For the removing of this third Scruple then these five things are to be noted 1. That in many of the writers of the first and second Age after Apostles we find a plain distinction between Bishops Presbyters and Deacons as three distinct Orders 2. That in not one of these writers can we find that this Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters was thought then what ever was imagined in after-times to be founded on any act vote or consent of the Church as bestowing this Power upon them 3. But on the contrary that the care of all Ecclesiastical Can. Ap. 39. matters was acknowledged then to belong to the Bishops that Presbyters were charged to obey the Bishops in all things and to do nothing without them or contrary to their Sentence is plain and evident out of Ignatius and other writers of that Age and all this was grounded upon the Sacredness and Superiority of their Power which they all owned to have been derived to them not from the Presbytery but from God and Christ by Divine appointment and institution and through the hands of the Apostles who left them for their Successors Suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes as Ireneus said delivering to Iren. l. 3. c. 3. them their own Office Power and Authority 4. Therefore whereas it is alleaged that a Father or two of that Age do sometimes comprehend Bishops under the general Name of Presbyters it is granted that the Prelates were so humble and modest as upon occasion to stile themselves Presbyters thereby giving a deference of Honour to those as were such only But yet they looked upon the Offices to be distinct and saith St. Clemens Ep. ad Cor. pag 57. the Apostles fore-seeing that a contention would arise about the Name of Episcopacy for that reason they appointed the Orders aforesaid and divided their parts and Offices among them meaning to the Bishop his Office and to the Presbyter his that they being dead other fit Men might succeed them in their Ministry Office or Apostolic function Now how all this can consist with that novel pretence that Presbyters had an equall Power with Bishops and that Bishops had only an Honorary Dignity above Presbyters seemeth to me to be altogether unimaginable 5. But fifthly to put all out of doubt we are beholding to a very Learned Prelate of our Church for Two useful and choice Vindic. Epist Ignat. p. 2. c. 13. Observations which we may well take upon his Credit First that no writer of that Age next to the Apostles did so promiscuously use the Names of Bishop and Presbyter as to give the Name of Bishop to one who was only a Presbyter of the second Order Though Bishops were sometimes called Presbyters the greater Office including the less yet that a bare Presbyter was ever then called a Bishop is not to be proved by any one instance out of the Monuments of those times Secondly that no writer of that Age did ever give the Name of Presbyter to a Bishop when he reckoned up the Degrees and Orders of Church-men and where he spake of some single Minister then living So that as you shall never find a Presbyer called Bishop so you shall rarely find Bishops called Presbyters and where they are so the writer mentioneth things in a lump not counting up the Degrees orderly nor speaking of one single person of his time With these two positive Assertions I shall rest 'till I see some body to have either the confidence to contradict or the Learning to confute them By what has been briefly said it may appear to any unprejudiced person that in the earliest and first times when Christianity was but green in the World the Churches were under the Government of Bishops We find innumerable instances of it in those Churches planted by St. Paul St. Peter St. John and other Apostles We find in undoubted Monuments of the best Antiquity the very Names mentioned of several Primitive Bishops who presided over some Apostolical Churches and a certain Succession avowed of other Bishops in other Churches whose particular Names do not occur We find that these Bishops were then looked upon as a distinct Order from the rest of the Clergy sometimes called Bishops in contra-distinction to Presbyters and always own'd as Superiour unto them not by any Ecclesiastical consent or grant for the avoiding of confusion only but by an Antecedent Charter derived to them from the Apostles All which do abundantly satisfie me of the Truth of that declaration of the Church of England that it is evident to all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture and Pref. to the form of
the one hand many Bishops besides the first Twelve were called Apostles so Timothy Titus V. Bovii Scholia in constit Apost And Dr. Hammonds Praef. to St. James Clement and abundance more had the Title given them which is the ground of that conjecture of Albaspinaeus and others that the Canones Constitutiones Apostolorum were the Canons and Constitutions virorum Apostolicorum or of these Secundary Apostles so on the other hand the Primary or Twelve Apostles were looked upon to have been Bishops I am sure when St. Peter moved that one should be chosen to succeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 1. 20. in the Apostolate of Judas he look'd upon it as a Succession into his Bishoprick or Episcopal Office that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the part of Apostleship which each of the Twelve had namely a Function and Power Episcopal And accordingly were the Epiph. lib. 1. cont Carpocr Ancients wont to style the Apostles Bishops So Epiphanius saith of Peter and Paul that they were Apostles in respect of their Mission and Bishops in respect of their charge And St. Cyprian bids Deacons to remember that our Lord chose Apostles Cypr. ep 65. ad Rogatianum id est Episcopos Praepositos that is Bishops and Governours and tells them moreover that the Apostles ordained Deacons to be Ministers to the Church and to them in the discharge of their Episcopal Office Episcopatûs sui Ecclesiae ministros And St. Austin is positive that when our Lord laid his hands Quaest in vet Nov. Test q. 97. upon the Apostles ordinavit eos Episcopos he ordained them Bishops Besides many more Testimonies to this purpose which are ready at hand and which yet I omit because this was evidently the Sence of the Ancients because they frequently affirm that Bishops are the Apostles successors that they hold their Place and are of their Degree and come after them in their Office and Function and the like which they would not have said had they not judged the Apostles themselves to have been I mean in their ordinary capacity no more and no less than Bishops 2. Which thing had it been well heeded might have prevented some Learned Tracts which have been written against the Divine Right of Episcopacy For to determin that Christ ordained not Episcopacy seemeth to me to be an Affirmation that He ordained not Apostles for they were invested with that Episcopal power which God be blessed hath continued in the Church hitherto notwithstanding all the gainsayings of Core Now this consideration leadeth us on to the next viz. That as the Apostles received this power themselves so it is proveable out of their Writings that they imparted it to others and invested them with their Apostolick or Episcopal Authority To shew this I shall make choice of three special Instances and they are these 1. First though the Scripture doth not expresly totidem verbis tell us that St. James was Bishop of V. Grot. in ep Ja. Jerusalem yet that he was so we are as certain as the most Ancient Records can make us And indeed St. Luke in his History of the Apostles Acts doth yield us such fair probabilities of this thing that the Testimonies of succeeding times seem to be unquestionably True For in Act. 21. 18. we read that when St. Paul was returned from his Circuit to Jerusalem the next day he and his company went in unto James and all the Elders were present Now certainly James would not have been named distinctly and by himself had he not had a preheminence over the College of Elders that were assembled with him St. Luke singles him out as the Person to whom St. Paul did after a particular manner address himself though all the Elders were there present yet they went in unto James intimating plainly that he was the President over that venerable Society And to confirm this it is likewise observable what is related of this St. James at the famous Convention at Jerusalem Act. 15. The occasion of that Synod was a Controversie about the Necessity and Use of Circumcision and great disputes there were about it at the Council But at last when Peter and the rest had given their Opinions of the matter St. James determins it and puts an end to the debate by his decisive Sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I determine Judge and give Sentence saith he vers 19. and in his Judgement and Determination all did acquiesce This is a plain Argument that St. James was then Bishop of Jerusalem For otherwise why did St. Paul so particularly apply himself to St. James and why did the other Apostles and even Peter himself rest in the Determination of St. James Nay why should St. James take upon him to decide the Controversie For it is certain that this James was not one of the Twelve Apostles All do agree that he had been a Disciple and some think he was our Lords Cousin others do conceive that he was our Lords Brother in Law the Son of Joseph by his former Wife He is called by way of distinction James the Just And if he was not Bishop of Jerusalem how is it imaginable Euseb l. 2. c. 1. that he should have had at those meetings of the Apostles such Eminence Precedency and Authority The Truth is Eusebius tells that the Apostles declined the Honour of being in the Chair and See of Jerusalem and gave it unto this James as for other Reasons so for this Because he was our Saviours near Relation and so he took the Government of the Church with the Apostles saith Eusebius which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some do understand as if he was only taken into the number of the Apostles having been a bare Disciple before but this is a palpable mistake touching the sence of Eusebius for saith he this James the Just was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop of Jerusalem and a World of Testimonies more there are to confirm it Secondly my next instance is in Timothy who was ordained by St. Paul himself the Presbytery concurring as Approvers of his Ordination That he was an Apostolical Prelate we have the Joint Testimonies of all the Primitive Authors which speak of him some affirming him to have been Metropolitan of Asia and all confessing him to have been Bishop of Ephesus Out of those two Epistles which St. Paul sent him it appears that he himself constituted and sixt him at Ephesus requiring him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abide and settle there 1 Tim. 1. 3. Ephesus was the place of his Residence unless happily the necessities of the Church did oblige him to consult St. Paul for himself was young or the necessities of St. Paul required his attendance for he was his Convert 2. We find that he was to restrain Preachers within the boundaries of c. 1. 3. Truth and to charge some that they should teach no other c. 2. 1. 2. 10. 11. Doctrine He was
to order the public Service of God and to take care that decency and a grave decorum might be in Christian Assemblies He was to see that such as would be Bishops and Deacons should be rightly qualified c. 3. 2. and himself to keep up his Authority by being an Example of Believers He was to allot a double Portion of c. 4. 12. maintenance to Elders that Ruled well under him and c. 5. 17. laboured in the Word He was to take cognizance of the 19. irregularities of Presbyters but with this caution that he should not receive an Accusation against an Elder but before two or three Witnesses And such as sinned he was to Rebuke before all He was to hold Ordinations but with 20. this Proviso That he should lay bands suddainly on no man 22. Briefly St. Paul gave him a plenitude of that power which he had himself And if to Model Churches to prescribe Rules to confer holy O deus to command examin judge and reprehend O fenders Openly and even Presbyters themselves I say if these are parts of Episcopal Power then was Timothy a Bishop indeed And I should be loth to see half that Charter given to a single Presbyter as is here given to Timothy by this Great Apostle 3. The third instance to shew that the Apostles setled the Episcopal form of Government is Titus whom Antiquity acknowledgeth to have been Metropolitan of Crete an Island consistng of an hundred Cities and to have been intrusted with the power of Modelling and Governing of all the Churches there That St. Paul left him there is clear from his own words and Tit. 1. 5. questionless his design was that Titus should remain and continue there unless summoned away upon some Emergency and for a Time only and even then St. Paul promised to send either Artemas or Tychicus to be his Vicar and Procurator c. 3. 12. in his absence Now that Titus was indeed a Bishop superior in Authority to Presbyters and invested with a Superintendency and Power over all his Clergy doth plainly appear from the Authority he had both to Ordain and to Judge of so many Bishops as St. Chrysostom declares he had For this cause Chrysost Hom. in Tit. 1. it was that when the Apostle himself could not stay in Crete to put every thing into due Order but was obliged to be gone he left Titus behind him to set in order the things that Tit. 1. 5 11. c. 2. 10. were wanting and unsettled at S. Paul's departure to ordain Bishops and to dispose of them into Cities into every City one to provide against the heterodox Preaching of Deceivers to stop their mouths to silence them and to rebuke them sharply and to admonish Hereticks once and again and then to excommunicate them upon their Contumacy This was Titus his Office and this was plainly the Exercise of Episcopal Power and Jurisdiction And to confirm this further two things are observable First that this Authority was given to Titus alone not to a College of Presbyters which 't is presumable S. Paul appointed before his going away but to Titus singly for this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldest set things in order that thou shouldest ordain c. This argues a supreme and a sole Superintendency and Authority in Titus Secondly that there was a necessity for S. Paul's committing this Authority unto him for otherwise the things that were wanting could not be set in order nor could Ordinations or Censures be there for this cause left I thee in Crete Which is a manifest Argument that the Presbyters in Crete had no power either to ordain or to excommunicate or to do such acts of Jurisdiction for then why was Titus left to those purposes And yet we see S. Paul left him and for this cause left him so that unless we will offer violence to the Sence of Scripture we must confess that Titus was left and fix'd at Crete as Bishop and Metropolitan of the whole Island To these three Apostolical Bishops I might add many more Const Apost l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Names we meet with in Ecclesiastical Writers either occasionally and scatteringly mentioned as in Irenaeus Eusebius and divers others or more orderly collected as in the Book of Constitutions commonly called Apostolical But because the truth of this dependeth upon the Credit of Church History which yet we have no reason to question I shall forbear further Instances having already and I hope sufficiently shewed out of Scripture that the Order and Authority of Bishops was in being 〈◊〉 in the Apostles days and from them continued and transmitted to succeeding Ages 2. Having done then with the Proof of the Affirmative I proceed next with what brevity I can to answer that grand Argument usually brought to make good the Negative viz. that the Names of Bishop and Presbyter are indifferently and promiscuously used in the Apostolical Writings as if onely one Order of men were meant by them As for instance in Tit. 1. 2 5. Paul tells Titus that he left him in Crete as for other reasons so for this that he should Ordain Elders or Presbyters in every City Then ver 6. he layeth down the Qualifications of these Elders and as a reason for it he saith ver 7. for a Bishop must be blameless c. Here a Bishop and a Presbyter seem to be not two distinct Orders but one and the same and so some say that by a Presbyter is here meant a Bishop and others affirm that by a Bishop is here meant a Presbyter and hence are willing to conclude that in the Apostles time they were not thought to be two distinct Offices but Bishop and Presbyter to be one both in Name Order and Authority and so Prelacy must fall to the ground without any help from Scripture For the removing of this Difficulty three things are to be observed 1. That Aerius the Heretic was the first that ever found out or insisted on this Community and Identity of Names for the Writers before him in the first and second Age after the Apostles did not discourse at this rate could not discover such a promiscuous use of the words 2. The Catholick Writers after Aerius who thought as he did that the Names of Bishop and Presbyter were common in the Apostles days did not yet think as that Heretic did affirm that the Office and Order were ever the same No they held that though Bishops were sometimes called Presbyters and Presbyters Bishops yet Bishops were a rank of Ministers above Presbyters both in Degree and Authority even in the Age of the Apostles 3. But then there is one Observation more for which I must thank a very Learned Prelate of our Church viz. that notwithstanding Vindic. Epist Ignat. p. 184. this Construction and late Pretence of the Promiscuous use of the words yet it doth not appear that the Scripture gives the Titles of
still retained and defended in the Church of England is undoubtedly the old and the good way The truth is Aerius was the first man that ever durst affirm that a Bishop is not above a Presbyter in Power Order and Authority but he was counted a mad man for his pains and was ranked by the Church in the black Catalogue of Hereticks not onely for his Separation from the Catholick Bishops nor onely for his condemning of Catholick Customs nor onely for embracing the Heretical Sentiments of Arius but also for affirming that Presbyters were of equal power and authority with Bishops And yet I much question whether he spake his free opinion or onely said so out of envy and spight to Eustathius For Aerius would fain have been a Bishop himself but Eustathius stood in his way and for that reason he grew sullen dogged and envious and such men commonly vend some new opinion to be revenged for their disappointments and so did he this because he had not Merits enough to advance himself from a Presbyter to a Bishop he had it seems impudence enough to degrade a Bishop into a Presbyter I will not make any untoward Reflections upon those Disciples of Aerius who in these our days have greatly wounded Christianity by the same groundless and singular but confident Assertion Yet I think 't is no uncharitableness to wish for the Peace and Interest of Christendom that their tallons were well pared who are not content to scratch and deface the Walls of the Church unless they undermine the very pillars of it too those ancient and strong Pillars upon which the Church hath rested and by which Religion has been upheld even from the beginning 2. Having said thus much touching the Antiquity of our form of Government I proceed now to that which is another most material part of our Establishments that is the form of our Service-book or Liturgy Concerning which I will be bold to affirm and be bound to maintain against all parties whatsoever that whosoever doth either deprave or dis-esteem it must of necessity be either a very Ignorant or a very naughty person Very Ignorant if he doth not see that our Service is so correspondent to that of the Ancient Churches that no Church in Christendom this day can shew a more lively Monument of Antiquity than our Common-Prayer Book But a very naughty person if seeing and knowing this he doth presume yet to condemn it because he cannot in this respect condemn the Church of England but he must likewise condem all the Old Churches in the World which whether it be not an Argument of an Vnchristian and naughty Spirit I leave to all moderate men to Judge I am apt to hope that those calumnies and reproaches which our Liturgy hath been laden with have been occasioned by mens Ignorance of its excellencies And therefore to prevent those aspersions for the future if it be possible I shall endeavour to shew First the Antiquity of set forms of publick Prayer in general Secondly then the Antiquity of our English Liturgy in particular And when these two things be made to appear I hope the Church of England will be acquitted in this respect as following the Old way of serving God 1. Touching the Ancient use of set Forms of publick Prayer in general three things are proveable for the satisfaction of all Modest and Ingenuous People 1. That set Forms of Divine Service were used among the Ancient Jews 2. That set Forms of Divine Service were used also among the Primitive Christians 3. That after our blessed Lords Ascention in that interval between the Burial of the Synagogue and the setling of the Christian Church set Forms of Divine Service were allowed also even by the Holy Apostles These three Heads I shall insist on the more largely and particularly because they may serve to inform and satisfie many even prejudiced persons who have not searched into the bottom of things but have contented themselves with many superficial not to say groundless and impertinent Notions 1. First then it is manifest that the whole Body of Divine Service among the Jews did consist of several Prescript and set Forms At their Temple though a great part of their Service was Ceremonial and Typical consisting of divers kinds of Sacrifices and offerings which in the fulness of time were to be done away yet this was attended with Moral and Spiritual Services consisting of Praises and Prayers which were to continue for ever For the Levites whose office it was to stand every morning to thank and praise the Lord and likewise at the Evening were wont to perform their parts as with a world of 1 Chron. 23. 30. solemnity so also with Hymns and Songs that were composed and set to their hands Most of these were Psalms endicted by David some were framed by Asaph and other Prophets and all were put together into a Book out of which the Levites were appointed in the Name of the Congregation to worship and praise God in one of the outward Courts of the Temple while the Sacrifices were offering by the Priest within Hence it is that we find many Psalms directed to the chief Musitian for Tunes to be set unto them that the Sons of Jeduthun Korah and other Levites in their courses might sing them in Consort with wind Instruments and stringed Instruments of which there were divers kinds as Flutes Cornets Trumpets Cymbals Harps Psalteries c. according to the commandment of the Lord by his Prophets 2 Chron. 29. 25. And hence it is too that we find some Psalms framed on purpose to be used on some special occasion as particularly the 92 Psalm entituled a Song for the Sabbath day which was intended questionless to be sung solemnly on the Sabbath in memory of Gods rest upon that day and to give him thanks for his wonderful works of Creation and Providence And Lastly hence it is that the fifteen Psalms immediately following the Hundred and Ninetenth are called Psalms of Degrees or steps because the Levites were wont to sing them upon the fifteen Stairs upon each Stair one which were between the womens and the mens Court. Briefly we find it said expresly of King Hezikiah that he commanded the Levites to sing praises unto the Lord with the words of David and of Asaph the Seer 2 Chron. 29. 30. So that it seemeth to be without question that all Acts of Divine Worship done by the Levites were performed in Prescript and set forms And let me add touching the People of Israel that when they presented their first fruits at the Sanctuary the offerer was to make an humble acknowledgement of Gods mercy to him and to the whole Nation in a set Form of words Deut. 26. 5. Thou shalt speak and say these words a Syrian ready to perish was my Father and so on to the Tenth Verse inclusively And at the end of their Tithing every man of them was to say these words before the Lord I have
upon them they crucified Christ for fear lest the Romans should come and his death was that which brought the Romans in upon them God punishing them with that which they most feared And I pray God said he that this Clamour of venient Romani of which I have given to my knowledge no just cause help not to bring the Romans in here too for the Pope never had such an Harvest in England since the Reformation as he hath now among the Sects and Divisions that are among us Thus he spake above thirty four years ago And not he onely but many other sagacious and wise men when once they saw Faction to grow bold and sturdy See a Piece entituled Fair Warning part 2. did greatly fear that the Protestant Interest would be sadly wounded by it and did as it were by a Prophetick Spirit tell us to this purpose That if ever Popery did return into this Nation it ought to be laid chiefly at the Schismaticks door I know it will not boot us much to charge one another now when we have all great reason to be humbled for our sins But yet it may not be unuseful for us to observe how the Romanist hath abused many silly and head-strong people among us making them his Machines and Instruments to shore up his tottering Cause and to keep it from sinking utterly And this he hath done by two several ways 1. By poysoning them with such Principles as are either the same with his own or much bordering upon them and very like unto them Amidst that variety of strange Opinions which hath prevailed here since men were so imprudent as to forsake the Old way we may finde many which are very neer of Kin to those that are directly Popish Tenents nay which have been the main Pillars to support the Popish Interest So that by the Tares we know what the hand was which scattered the Seed and by the Doctrines we may perceive who was the Author and Father of them and I dare say if we search narrowly into each Sect we may plainly discern the print of the Cloven-foot and easily perceive that the Jesuit hath been there To make this good I shall omitting many particulars of lesser moment which might be instanced in take notice of the most See Lysim Nicanor material points and such chiefly as strike at the very Heart of Government and which are accounted properly and strictly Jesuitical Tenents because the Jesuits were the first though not the last that had the confidence to defend them It has been generally taught by our Sectaries and I take notice of it the rather because this seditious antimonarchical and cursed Doctrine is now strangely revived that the power Buchanan Goodman Gilby Goodwin Bridges Rutherford and a world more which Princes have is derived to them by the People that Kings Princes and Governours have their Authority from their People that the People are better than the King and of greater Authority that the People have right to dispose of the Government at their pleasure that the People have the same power over the King that the King himself hath over any one of his Subjects that the power of making Laws belongeth unto the People that the King is but the Peoples Trustee and like a Master of the Rolls accountable to his Masters for his Trust and that the People may upon occasion remove him out of his Trust and Authority even as men may lawfully recal their Proxies and Letters of Attorney This monstrous Doctrine did cost the best of Kings his Head and the whole Nation its Peace and 't is perfectly a Jesuitical Principle For so Bellarmine and Azorius and several more of that Grew have Bellarm. de Laicis c. 6. asserted That all political power is in the Multitude as in its proper Seat and Subject and that by Divine Right that the Multitude being not able to exercise their power themselves do transfer it upon some one or more that it dependeth upon the consent and courtesie of the Multitude that there be either a King or Consuls or other Magistrates over them and that if there be cause the Multitude may change the Government and turn a Monarchy into an Aristocracy or Democracy as they please The Reason is given by the great Azorius because Azor. Instit Moral Pars 2. l. 11. c. 4. forsooth though the People do transfer their power and give it to the King yet they do not devest themselves wholly of it but do retain it habitually themselves and in certain cases may actually take it from him again and give it to the next of Kin or to any else Any man may see whither this Doctrine tendeth even to the subversion of Government and especially of Monarchy which is equally uneasie both to the Jesuite and the Schismatick Now Father Watson in his Quodlibets jirks the Jesuits for borrowing their Principles of the Scotch Fanaticks and others are of opinion that the Fanaticks borrowed it of the Jesuits Let such as are concerned dispute this out but this is clear that either they infected these or these have infected them for this is their common Principle a Principle which was never known among Christians till these latter days since Hell hath broke loose Again it is still maintain'd and by no mean person in Dr. Owen against Dr. Parker vulgar esteem That the Civil Magistrate hath nothing to do to enjoyn any thing relating to Gods Worship which God himself hath not required and that the Conscience is not bound to observe such Injunctions That though subjection be due unto the Magistrate in things of his proper Cognizance that is in all things necessary to publick Peace and Tranquillity in this p. 90. world though it be the duty of the supream Magistrate to encourage the professors of Religion to protect them from wrong and violence and to secure them in the performance of their duties yet the Church and its Religion and the Worship of God p. 161. observed therein is constituted fixed and regulated by God himself antecedently to the Magistrates duty and power about it so that the Administration of things meerly spiritual in p. 164. the Worship of God is derived immediately from him to the Ministers and Administrators of the Gospel and that the things of the Gospel and the Worship of God are plainly exempted from the Temporal jurisdiction and punishment of p. 170. earthly Princes insomuch that they have no power over the Consciences of men so as to lay their Commands upon them in these spiritual things or to back them with temporal corporal restraints and punishments This is the Principle defended by that Doctor and 't is likely that he was confirmed in it when his Acquaintance Father Whitebread was at Oxford for 't is perfect Jesuitism and a piece of Politick Divinity which has done as much service to the Church of Rome as any other Principle whatsoever For how came they by
that Absolute and Arbitrary Power which they have over mens Consciences but by shaking off the Authority and clipping the Prerogatives of the Civil Magistrates The Jesuits would not have that Empire and unlimited Dominion in the world did Princes interpose and restrain their Exorbitances Therefore this they contend for with all their might That Kings indeed are and Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 7. ought to be the Patrons and Protectors of Religion to defend the Church to punish Blasphemy Sacriledge Heresie c. but yet that the Government of the Church or the Cognizance of Church-matters belongeth not to them no they have no judgement in Ecclesiastical Affairs saith Bellarmine even as Dr. Owen and others say because Civil Peace and Tranquillity is the proper Object of the Magistrates care Divine things are not subject to his Power it belongeth to Ministers not to the Secular Power to meddle with matters in the Church for the Emperour himself is but a Laick and Lay-men have nothing to do in things Sacred saith Azorius agreeably to what Azor. Inst Moral pars 2. l. 10. c. 7. Sectaries do say and he that will be fully satisfied of the harmony between the Jesuits and them in this particular let him read the Survey of the pretended holy Discipline chap. 22 23 24. there it may be seen at large how these good Wits jump Thirdly it has been asserted not by Episcopal but by the Survey p. 267. Presbyt displayed p. 19. Classical Divines That the Presbyters having Power in their hands may make Decrees and that the Prince ought to confirm those Decrees though against his own Conscience and see them executed otherwise he is censurable and to be forced to do it And even thus saith the Jesuit Bellarmine That Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. l. 5. c. 7. in fine Kings are bound to serve God by defending the Church by punishing Hereticks and Schismaticks and so far he is right But moreover he tells us That the Church may and is obliged to command Kings to do their office and if they are negligent to compel and force them to it by Excommunication and other convenient ways What an unluckie thing it is that our zealous Reformers should be thus Jesuited for 't is but altering Names and instead of the Pope and his Cardinals to put in the Presbyterian and his Lay-Elders and the Doctrine is the very same 4. It needeth no proof that some pretended Protestants have counted it both lawful and just to bring their King to publick Tryal and Judgment But as no President can be anywhere found for that Practice unless you will instance in our Saviour so no warrant can be fetcht for that Doctrine but out of the Writings of the Jesuits So indeed Bellarmine affirms Bellarm. ubi supra That Kings and Princes being Hereticks and Opposers of Religion may be arraigned and judged by the Church and that the Church can exercise a coercive power over the Civil Magistrate by any ways and methods that shall seem necessary And the like is argued by Azorius onely he is so kind to Princes as Inst Moral pars 2. l. 11. to grant that though among the Ethnicks the people have power to take Cognizance of their Kings faults and to judge them when they are notorious either by evidence of Fact or by his own Confession in Court yet the King hath this priviledge and a huge great one it is to be heard before he be condemned and to make his Exceptions in order to his defence But saith he in a Christian State the people have not power to try their Soveraign without instructions and leave obtained first from the Pope who is to judge of his Crimes whether they be such as render the King obnoxious Now all this is agreeable to the Principles both of the Jesuits and the Kirk-men and the rest of that Clan viz. that the King is onely a Son of the Church notwithstanding his Kingship that their power is of Divine Institution whereas the Kings authority is onely by compact with the people and so much inferiour to theirs being onely Fiduciary and upon that score he may be brought to account and tryed and every worthy man in Parliament may for the publick good be thought a fit Peer and Judge of the King saith Milton This puts me in mind what Mr. Oates hath discovered Tenure of Kings p. 24. of that great Oracle Mr. Milton namely that he was a member of a Popish Clubb The thing is credible enough that he was a Jesuit in disguise But this is manifest that they were Jesuitical Doctrines which in 48 did pass in the Pulpits for Divinity and in Westminster-hall for Law and that the infamous Court of Justice did consist of men who were the Sons of the Jesuit who was the Son of the Devil 5. Further yet it is so notorious that it needeth not proof that our rigid Sectaries have held it lawful not onely not to obey wicked Kings whom they call wicked but also to resist them to take arms against them to have no further Buchanan Gilby Goodman regard to them than if they were the most simple Subjects within their Realms to excommunicate them to depose them to un-King them to take their Crowns and Thrones from them and to banish or imprison them for according to Buchanan and his whole Tribe the band being broken between the People and De jure regni the King he loseth all his power and authority which he had by compact from the people This is Jesuitism with a witness or else we have been unjust in charging this Doctrine upon the Jesuits Kings and Princes may be deposed saith Bellarmine and no injury is done unto them if they be deposed And he urgeth the Example of Vzzah 2 Chron. 26. and 't is De Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 8. observable that Mr. Knox himself urged the very same Example to let the world see how handsomely he and his Brethren went hand in hand with the Jesuits in this point also And it must not be omitted that Buchanan defending the Hist of the Reform p. 391. same Principle fetcheth many precedents from the continual Practice of the Scots who did depose their Kings just as the great Cardinal fetcheth many precedents from the continual Practice of the Popes who deposed Emperours though an honest man will say Quot Exempla tot flagitia look how many Examples of this nature may be found so many horrid sins have been committed on both sides Azorius is as positive as can be in this matter and tells us That though Bartolus and Azor. Instit pars 2. l. 10. c. 8. others were of opinion that it belonged to the People to depose Princes yet rather 't was to be said that it is the Popes business However he doth insist upon it that the thing may be done and done justly when a Prince is either forsworn or sacrilegious or
Affections 't would compose our Minds and our Affairs too 't would not only make us live together with one mind in an House but moreover it would establish our House and make it strong and firm and safe over our Heads For 't is not every difference in Opinion that exposeth a Church or a Nation to danger but 't is fighting and quarrelling about the Main way that ruins all We know that among the Turks there are several Sects and Parties and different persuasions and yet the Ottoman Empire holds though it be a most Arbitrary and Tyrannical Policy and the Interest of Mahomet is carried on though it be a most palpable and fulsome Imposture because though they jangle in matters of lesser moment yet they are true to their Common Interest and agree in the Main and closely adhere to their general Model of Government Religion and Worship In like manner among the Romanists themselves who boast so much of the Unity of their Church there are many very Considerable Divisions and more perhaps than there are among Us and those as hotly maintained and yet Herod and Pilate know how to agree against Christ the Scotists and Thomists the Molinists and Jansenists the Dominicans and Jesuits and the rest are wise enough to hang together under the Laws of their Church they go quietly and hand in hand in the main way they conspire in one Common Form they are tite to their Government and keep close to their Rubricks and Establishments and as long as the Pope can but keep things in this Channel either by the Terrours of the Inquisition or by other Politick Arts he knows that his and his Churches Interest is safe and he needs not make use of his pretended Infallibility to determine those points which are controverted I wish that we would learn so much wit of the Adversaries of True Religion as not to fall out there where the safety of us all is concern'd but walk together like Friends in that plain way which the Ancient Church hath beaten out before us and the Laws of our Land have fenced in for differences in matters of Speculation and points disputable could not hurt us or lay us open to danger if some among us were but True to our Common Interest if they would but stick to our Establishments which are the Rampiers and Bullwarks of the Church if they would but be as zealous for Christ as the Turk is for Mahomet or as the Jesuit is for Him whom some suppose to be Antichrist Nothing in all Probability can give us Rest to our Souls and Security to our Nation and Prosperity to our Religion but this one thing to seek after the good Old Way Men may please themselves with Fancies and try many fruitless Conclusions and make experiments of this and of that Expedient but the World will see in the end that nothing but the observing of the Old Path will put us into a good posture 4. But yet fourthly there is one huge Advantage more which the performance of this matter would bring unto us and that indeed which I shall chiefly insist on and it is this That it would justifie our whole Cause before all the World and cut off all just occasion from those who wrongfully upbraid us all for Innovators and under that pretence trepan many a Soul Where say they was your Religion before Luther Now the Dissenter is not able to answer this Question truly throughly or to satisfaction because a great part of his Religion was no where in the world no not in Luther's days and so the Romanists have a continual and unanswerable Objection to fling in his teeth But the Church of England as it is establish'd hath a fair and full Plea that her whole Religion was long before Popery that it was in the world in the days of the Apostles that it was in the Liturgies of the primitive Churches that it is to be seen still in the Tomes of the Greek and Latin Fathers nay she can justifie her Cause out of those very Writers in communion with the Roman Church both before and since the time of Luther whose Books they like dishonest men have corrected purged and mangled by the Expurgatory Indices lest they should tell tales I do not intend now to vindicate the Doctrine of our Church in this respect for that is not so much to my present purpose and our Faith hath been by others abundantly proved to be exactly consonant to the Sence of Scripture and to the Faith of all Orthodox Christians in the purest and best Ages and by this we are ready to stand or fall let the Papist bark at us till his Tongue and his Heart aketh But my purpose is to justifie the Government and Discipline of our Church to be the same which was used in Christian Churches from the beginning and that against a sort of men among our selves who accuse us of Superstition as the Papists do accuse us of Schism though God be blessed we are guilty of neither We tell our Dissenting Brethren that our way which they have forsaken is indeed the old Path we affirm our Government to have been Primitive and Apostolical and we say too that our Discipline Rites and way of Worship is the same generally which was establish'd in the first and best times and this I shall endeavour now to prove in some measure by instancing in particulars that men who desire satisfaction herein may see that the Frame of our Religion is de facto very ancient and that on that account besides many others it ought to be upheld and maintain'd which is the thing I have already argued for and withall that our Charge of Innovation would be unjust and ridiculous did we but unanimously resolve to tread in this Path our Brethren then would be free from guilt as well as our selves 1. The first thing to be spoken to is our Form of Government I mean our Episcopacy the thing that is such an Eye-sore to Papists Atheists and Schismaticks It is clear that for 1500 years it was the onely kind of Government in the Church And whatever some Learned men have pretended I believe you can scarcely instance in any ancient Churches perfectly and completely formed that were not under the care and government of Bishops in our present Sence of the word Bishops presiding over them either in person or by their Authority Those great Luminaries of the Church to whom the World hath been and is so much beholding the Austins Cyprians Chrysostoms Basils Cyrils Gregories and Ambroses were famous and renowned Prelates some of them Metropolitanes some Patriarchs all of them Bishops Those Fathers of the third Century after the Apostles as Theodoret Jerom and others who thought the Names of Bishop and Presbyter to be indifferently and promiscuously used in the Scripture did not mean to impair the just honour and dignity of Bishops for they acknowledged that though the Names were in common yet the Office Power and