through all degrees ad culmen Episcopatus but what must such eminent men descend be degraded when as Timothy also had a Prophesie concerning him 1 Tim. 1.18 believe this who will 2. Was there need of these men to be Evangelists in Pauls life time and not as much after Did the Seducers and Wolves cease or decline when Paul was gone Acts 20.29 Surely there was more need of being Evangelists now than before 3. After that time when you say they were made Bishops we find them sent up and down by Paul 4. If so Titus had an advantage or honour above Timothy to be made Bishop of an Iland of 270 miles long 50 miles in breadth a hundred Cities whence called Hecatompolis and not only so but Bishop of the Ilands adjacent and Timothy to be made Bishop of one City Ephesus and it may be some Villages about there But Dr. Hammond if he speak truth will be too hard for me he tels me Timothy was Metropolitan of Asia Then Timothy is equal but take Metropolitan in our sense else he saith nothing as we call such Bishops you may believe him who think him to be one who could not erre But 3. Suppose they had been constituted thus yet he hath not proved that they were invested with power to do such Acts which Presbyters might not do which he doth afterwards assert indeed how strongly he proves I will consider For the Angel in Rev. 2. what force is there in this to prove such a Bishop I know not though taken individually Are not all Ministers truly such sent then they are Angels I think Rom. 10.15 But this is Angel Object onely One When our King sent his Letters from Breda Answ to the Speaker of the House of Commons did it imply the Speaker had more power than other Members When Christ sends his Letters to this Angel doth it imply more power The Speaker is there for Order-sake and it is honour to him c. So if you be men sound in the Faith holy in your Conversations Learned and able fit for the place I can allow you an Angel of the Church in London in Ipswich in Exeter c. So in the Countrey you shall have the Honour and Maintenance to be our Speakers I have declared my Opinion and Reasons for this before this turn came if you will have more win it by Scripture and wear it Thus I have done with all his Arguments for the jus divinum only I might mind him that Bishop Jewel and Anselm do subscribe to that of Jerom Let Bishops understand that they are above Priests rather of custom than of any truth or right of Christs Institution And to that of Augustine The Office of a Bishop is above the Office of a Priest not by authority of the Scriptures but after the names of honour which the custom of the Church hath now obtained I hope it will still be said fifteen hundred years Bishops have been superiour by Divine right How did Jeroms and Augustins sentence escape the Index expurgatorius Then the Dr. comes to the Insignia Episcoporum propria Let us see if he prove these also by the Apostles His first is this That in large and populous Cities in which were many Presbyters made the Apostles ordained one only Bishop For the Bishop in the question Answ the Apostles were so far from ordaining unicum that they ordained ne unum not one Scripture or sound reason brought to prove it 2. That the Apostles did ordain but one Scripture-Bishop in a great City is an assertion point-blanck against the Scriptures which shew the contrary Let Jerom speak some say he was angry and I know not what but the Scriptures he produces were not Vide Chemnit exan Concil Trid. de Sacr. ord p. 224. Chemnitius gives us a better ground for his writing but thus Jerom Doth any one think it is our own opinion and not the sentence of the Scriptures that a Bishop a Presbyter are one Let him read Phil. 1.1 With the Bishops and Deacons Philippi is one City of Macedonia and certainly as Bishops are now called there cannot be more than one in one City but then there were non adversatur sacris eloquiis plures in una civitate appellari tunc temporis Presbyteros seu Episcopos ut Acts 10. Doth it still seem doubtful unlesse it be confirmed by another testimony then take Acts 20.17 He calls them Elders v. 28. calls them Bishops Observe diligently the Elders of one City he cals Bishops then adds Heb. 13.17 Thus he in Tit. 1. When in his Epist ad Evagr. he had been proving the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter from Phil. 1. Tim. 4. Tit. 1. Pet. 5. He saith to him Parva tibi videntur tantorum virorum Testimonia To us these testimonies are not small but more than if a thousand Bishops say the contrary What Jerom saith Cajetan Tit. 1.5 postea nuns electus we regard not being after the Apostles and yet then not superiour in power that crept in by degrees His Second is The Right and Power of Ordination which is denied to inferiour Presbyters 1. Tim. 5.22 Tit. 1.5 1. He hath not shewn us such a Bishop as he speaks of Answ as yet in all the Scripture how then can this be true 2. If denied to Presbyters then to Bishops also for they were both one in these Epistles to Timothy and Titus Vnde ad Titum ad Timotheum de ordinatione Episcopi Diaconi dicitur Hieron ad E vagr. de Presbyteris omnino reticetur quia in Episcopo Presbyter continetur Hieron ad Evagr. 3. Was not Timothy himself ordained by a Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 How then was it denied The laying on of Pauls hands did not deny the laying on their hands 4. According to this One Bishop alone may ordain which as it is 1. Contrary to the Instance before in Timothies Ordination So 2. Contrary to the Canon 3. Concil Carthag 4. Where no Bishop alone must impose but Presbyters with him 3. And contrary to the 35 Canon of our English Bishops Whence Dr. Featly in his Annotat. on 1 Tim. 4.14 saith Timothy though he were ordained by St. Paul 2 Tim. 1.6 yet this Ordination was performed in the Assembly of the Elders and with the laying on of their hands also agreeable whereunto is the Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage and the practise of the Church of England So he 4. Contrary to Cyprians practise Ep. 33. Also what means the Constitution of Vrban Ordinationes factae sine communi sensu clericorum irritae Take also the 22 Canon of the Council of Carthage before-named Vt Episcopus sine consilio clericorum suorum clericos non ordinet c. Now what is meant by consilium the 3 Canon shews All the Presbyters present were to impose hands with the Bishop Much it is that when we cannot find the Apostles did ordain alone Paul had the Apostle Barnabas with him
Acts 14.23 that now a single Bishop can ordain alone The Dr. forgat himself much but this power of Ordination and Jurisdiction he had need to prove to reside as he saith in illis solis else he hath lost his cause But see how much authority he opposeth what woful mischief might this soon produce to the Church 5. It may as strongly be gathered that to preach in season and out of season as do all Bishops to meditate to read to oppose hereticks c do only belong to Bishops because these Commands are given the first I am sure only to Timothy as to gather because Timothy is directed in Ordination how to act that therefore Presbyters must not impose hands Why this proper to him above all the rest 6. Consider I pray that which is added 1 Tim. 5.22 Neither be partakers of other mens sins whether it may not infer the contrary thus Timothy though other Ministers may be rash and not consider what they do in Ordination but would ordain unfit unworthy persons yet do not thou lay on hanas suddenly do not thou partake of their sins in rash Ordinations joyning with them A man may partake of the sins of Ordainers as well as of the Ordained I know nothing contrary to the Analogy of Faith nor to the Context if that sense be given Why saith the Dr. Could not the Ministers of Ephesus ordain before Timothy arrived or of Crete before Titus came thither I cannot learn but Titus went along with Paul to Crete the first time of his preaching there Answ and having laid the Foundations of Churches as Jerom saith left Titus there ut rudimenta nascentis Ecclesiae confirmaret ipse pergens ad alias Nationes c. But however 1. There is a difference between the arrival of Evangelists and the Bishops in question 2. There being abundance of enemies and errours spread about as we see it was the very reason why Paul besought Timothy to stay at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1.3 These men being so able and qualified above others might very well there be lest for a time as to oppose the heresies and errours so to look to the Ministry that none but sound and able men came into it but because these being Evangelists were far more able does it conclude the Presbyters had not the Right to ordain with them 3. Remember that Cajetan confesseth even in these Epistles Presbyter and Bishop signifie the same degree and the same office Had not the Churches been in danger Timothy had not need been there so this denies not their power The Dr. goes on to prove this sole power of Ordination from humane Authority 1. From that Saying of Jerome Excepta Ordinatione quid facit Episcopus quod Presbyter non faciat Answ Jerom speaks de facto the Bishops had engrossed this power but he does not say de jure it ought to be so for he had strongly proved the Bishop and Presbyter from several Scriptures to be the same 2. It should seem it was not a universal Custom For it was one great complaint against Chrysostom saith Bish Downam that he made Ordinations without the Presbytery And in the year 398 about which time Chrysostom flourished that fourth Council of Carthage which opposeth Bishops sole power of Ordination was held However this is but humane 2. He brings in the example of one Colythus a Presbyter of Alexandria who ordained Presbyters but their Ordination was made void and the Ordained returned into the Order of Laicks Still this is but a humane Act grounded on no Scripture Answ and yet there is somthing more to be said about this For 1. I find this Colythus is reckoned among the Hereticks by Augustine and others One of his Opinions Augustin mentions but what more he held I know not 2. He was a man infamis ambitione say the Historians and would make himself a Bishop as the Epistle of the Presbyters of Mareotis in the same Apol. of Athanas intimates whence they call him non verum sed imaginarium episcopum whence the general Council commanded ut se pro Presbytero haberat qualis antea fuisset 3. It appears in both places of Athanasins that this Colythus ordained alone there are none mentioned that joyned with him 4. That Ischyras who was ordained by Colythus and about whom there was so much trouble was not chosen of a Church for so the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 570. Now for a Heretick alone ambitiously making himself a Bishop to ordain a person not elected by a Church is not the same with five Orthodox Presbyters ordaining a Presbyter elected by a true Church The Dr. before he hath done does allow this which is so proper to Bishops to be common to Presbyters in some cases then it seems the power may be ours and whether our case be not as weighty I will consider anon The Third and last is The power of Jurisdiction over both Laick◠and Presbyters and instanceth in Excommunication He will allow indeed Presbyters to be consulted with from Cyprians example he might have added the 23 Canon Concil Carthag 4. which make else Sententia Episcopi irrita but for the censure this proceeds only from Episcopal Authority Hence then Presbyters have not the power of Excommunication nor are Judges in it so he saith 2. A Bishop alone may excommunicate Presbyters For the first Presbyters have the power of Excommunication 1. Why else are they called Pastors and Rulers Heb. 13.17 and the people commanded to obey them they must feed the flock and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5.1 So 1 Thes 5.12 They are over them in the Lord. 2. There was no Bishop in Corinth when Paul wrote to have the incestuous person cast out yet they had the power of Excommunication 1 Cor. 5.7 12 13. purge judge put away Had they done it before Paul would not have written so sharply 3. Those who have the power of the Keyes have the power of Jurisdiction but Presbyters have the power of the Keyes not denied by the Papists Sent. l. 4. dis 18. S. 14. but affirmed insomuch that Estius moves this Question Vtrum Sacerdotes soli habent potestatem excommunicandi and tels us some were of that opinion Now by soli◠Estius does not mean whether they alone without a Bishop For the question he is about is this Penes quos sit excommunicandi potestas and his scope is to prove that others besides Priests have the power but for the Priests that is taken for granted that they had the power and quotes 1 Cor. 5.5 13. And Augustine l. 3. contra Epist Parmen c. 2. Aquinas he also tels us Supplem q. 22. ◠1. that some were of that opinion that the Parochial Priests might excommunicate but thinks his own opinion to be more rational that the Bishop should do it had his distinction a foundation in Scripture 4. Those that have power to take into the Church have power to cast out of the
Ecclesiam must be the great healer under God of our Schisms else the Bishops within the Church will make them much worse but never heal I am sure by all power Episcopal If the Keyes of the Gate-house and other Prisons be at their command then they may do more with those Keyes than their Episcopal Keyes Yet I think Prisons will hardly heal us 8. There was an honest way found out how to cure wrangling schismatical Bishops and the same cure is proper and very apt for Schismatical Presbyters Concil Carthag 4. Can. 25. Dissidentes episcopos si non timor Dei Synodus reconciliet A more apt means than a Bishop because that is Apostolical To wind up all my Discourse concerning this Episcopacy which the Dr. hath asserted now commended as necessary against Schism I will only give the Reader the judgment of Musculus upon the question how effectual it is towards the cure After he had proved Bishop and Presbyter to be the same by Scripture then he comes to give the original of the Bishop out of Jorom Loc. com â— 195. and thus he writes Verum post Apostolorum tempora cum inter seniores Ecclesiarum sicuti Hieronymo placet dissentiones schismata subnascerentur ut mihi vere simile est tentatio illa de majoritate mentes seniorum pastorum at doctorum invaderet paulatim capit de numero seniorum unus aliquis eligi qui reliquis praeponeretur in sublimiori gradu positus Episcopus nominaretur atque ita quod caeteri antea communiter ipse solus ac singulariter vocaretur Profueritus vel seous hoc consilium Ecclesiâ— Christi quo tales sint Episcopi magis consuetudine ut Hieronymi verbis utar quam Dominioa dispositionis veritate introducti qui majores ossent Presbyteris melius est posterioribus seculis deelaratum quam dum haec consuetudo primum introduceretur cui debeâ—â—us omnem illam principalium equestrium Episcoporum insoleâ—tiam opulentiam tyrannidem imo omnium Ecclesiarum Christi corruptioneâ— quam si Hier. cerneret dubio procul consilium agnosceret non Spiritus Sancti ad tollenda Schismata sicuti praetexebatur sed ipsius Satanae ad vastanda perdenda prisca pascendi Dominici gregis ministeria quo fieret ut haberet Ecclesia non veros Pastores Doctores Presbyteros Episcopos sed sub â—ominum istorum larvis ociâ—sos ventres ac magnificos Principes qui non modo non pascant ipsi populum Domini doctrina sana Apostolica sed improbissima violentia caveant ne id per quenquam â—lium fiat c. I am far from applying this to all our Bishops no verily This Learned Davenant Hall Brownrig I do much reverence their names now dead and gone and no man upon earth have I so much honoured as that Archbishop Usher but what talk I of him he was in all Respects for Learning soundnesse in the Faith Humility and Holinesse a None-such In what an ill time as to us was he taken away but God is wise CHAP. II. Of Presbyterial Ordination VVHether that which made the greatest Argument against our Presbyterial Ordination be not taken away I leave to the Christian Reader who makes the Holy Scriptures his Rule to judge by Now then for a few Arguments to prove The validity of Presbyterial Ordination These two Propositions however denied by some yet I presume they will be granted by these scorners of our Presbyterial Ordination 1. That Ordination is still an Ordinance of God in force in the Church and so shall be while there is a Ministry 2. That it is an Act of Authority and can be performed by none but by those who are in Authority in the Church Hence then I thus argue Scripture Ordination is valid Ordination Arg. 1 But Presbyterial Ordination is Scriptural Ordination Ergo. Deny the major who dare The minor I thus prove That Ordination which is performed by persons invested with the power thereof by Scripture Authority is Scriptural Ordination But Presbyterial Ordination is Ordination performed by Persons invested with the power thereof by Scripture authority Ergo. Minor If the Scripture hath now invested any others with the power of Ordination they are persons either of an Inferiour or Superiour Order But neither Ergo. Not Inferiour is granted not Superiour the whole Discourse before proves by the judgment of the Scriptures and many agreeing thereto Presbyter and Bishop are the same Objection Presbyters are no where commanded to ordain Answer Prove that your Bishops are and I will prove my Presbyters are 2. Where are Presbyters commanded to Administer the Lords Supper or Baptize Finde that Command and I will finde other Authoritative Acts in it I doubt not our Authority descends from that Command and Commission to the Apostles Matth. 28. Whatever Acts are requisite to encrease to edifie or continue the Church we have the Authority by Succession and so are Pastors and Rulers II. Arg. 2 That Ordination which is performed by persons which have the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven committed to them that is valid Ordination But Presbyterial Ordination is performed by such Nomine clavium signisic tur omnis potestas Ecclesiallica Suppl cham lib. 4. chap. 4. Ergo. Major The Keyes of the Kingdome do contain in them the power of Ordination saith Cor. Ã Lapide Chemnitius Bucer c. Minor Though the Pope Bishops and Presbyters contend for the Keyes yet that Presbyters have the Keys committed to them is confessed by the Papists Objection The Key of Knowledg Answer I proved before the Key of Jurisdiction I adde That Distribution of the Keyes which is not grounded on the Scripture is a vain Distribution as we say Distinguendum est ubi Scriptura distinguit Sic distribuendum est c. But this distribution of the Keyes so as to give but the Key of Knowledge to the Presbyter is not grounded on Scripture Ergo It is vain To thee do I give the Keyes said our Lord he did not civide the Keyes give one key to one and both to another he gives no single key to any person but keyes and so whatever those Keys serve for Busil and Dr. Fulk speak fully for the Keys of jurisdiction belonging to all Pastors then the Key of Order as well III. Timothies Ordination was valid Ordination Arg. 3 but Timothies Ordination was Presbyterial Ordination Ergo. Laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie 1 Tim. 4.14 Against this is objected 1. Paul did impose his hands in Timothies Ordination and that was sufficient without the Presbytery Answ 1. Diodati conceives That by Pauls hands the miraculous gift was conveyed by the Presbytery Timothy was installed in the Ministry See him on 2 Tim. 1.6 I have spoken to this in another Treatise 2. However the Presbytery imposed hands they had a power to do the work else Paul would no have called them to it Paul did not ordain Timothy quatenus Apostle then your Bishop is gone
3. In respect of the President and perpetual Order which was to be left to the Church of Christ it was necessary that the Presbytery should impose their hands Nec tantum dicit mearum manuum Exam. Conc. Trid. de Sacra ord p. 226. sed addit etiam Presbyterii 1 Tim. 4. ne existimetur discrimen esse sive ab Apostolis sive à Presbyteriis quis ordinetur saith Chemnitius Object 2. But who knows what Presbyters these were Chrysostome saith Bishops Answer So saith Lorinus Intelligit chorum Presbyterorum i. e. Episcoporum Be it so for now I am sure Presbyters and Bishops were the same Some say It was the Presbytery of Ephesus if they could prove this it were to the purpose indeed Junius saith the Presbytery of Lystra whence Paul took him What Presbyters are we know by the Scripture and Presbyterium is a company of Presbyters as Lorinus said If it please you not I pray teach us better The Rhemists render the word Priesthood and quote the 3d Canon Concil Carth. 4. before named to open it by This is more for us against Chrysostome Thus also Cajetan Dicit pluraliter manuum Presbyterii fortè ad significandum plurium Sacerdotum concursum c. This Presbytery imposing hands on Timothy was no doubt the ground of Cyprians practice so of that Canon in the Council of Carthage and of our Bishops Canons whence I wonder any rational man should so scorn Presbyterial Ordination Object But there was Pauls Imposition and so there was the Bishops Imposition but not Presbyters alone Answ As for Paul the answer to the first Objection will satisfie For the Bishop true he was there but how came he there Jerome tells us and we have reason to believe him because he groundeth his discourse upon the Scriptures However the Bishop did not superadd any thing to the perfection of the Ordinance he put forth no more power than the other Presbyters only for Order-sake he carried on the work So had we our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in our Association who was so and should have continued so dur ante vitâ for me But as in the absence of a Bishop the sufftagan might supply his room so as well in the absence of our President another might supply his being especially chosen and earnestly desired by his fellow Presbyters to do it IV. Arg. 4 If Prophets and Teachers may separate Apostles to their work by Fasting Prayer and Imposition of hands then may Presbyters ordain Presbyters and that Ordination is valid but the Antecedent is true Acts 13.1 2 3. Ergo. Teachers are inferiour to Prophets and all preaching Presbyters I hope are Teachers but these imposed hands the Prophets were inferiour to Apostles Object But this was not Ordination Answ I have spoken to this in another Treatise more largely but I could name and have named there several of the Fathers Lutherans and Calvinists who say it was Ordination and for the Papists divers of those I could mention who call it Ordination If it was not Ordination I pray what was it We find Barnabas after this Act is called an Apostle Acts 14.14 but so he was never before he was at the highest but a Prophet as the Text declares So Jerom Catal. Script Keeles speaking of Barnahas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was a separation to a work and what do you more in Ordination than is here set down But I speak no more of it in this place because as I said I have done it before V. Arg. 5 Those who have Authority to perform the greatest ministerial Acts they have power to perform the less But Prebyters have Authority to perform the greatest Ergo. For the Major those who will deny it give us a sound and convincing reason why they do so I cannot imagine one à majore ad minus valet consequentia in this case sure For the Minor When Paul saith 1 Cor. 1.17 Christ did not send him to baptize but to preach the Gespel surely Paul mentioned the highest Ministerial Act else Paul must say not to baptize nor to preach but to ordain Ministers Reverend Davenant saith Pag. 194. that in rebus maximi momenti ad salutem hominum Presbyters have power as well as Bishops and therefore the name Bishop may well agree to them saith he why not then in rebus minoris momenti I wish he had given a sound reason for it it seems they can do those Acts which tend to the end of the Ministry mainly and principally and not the lesser What rational man can swallow this If Ability be the question I think the Presbyters have shewn enough to answer it Compare Episcopal Ordinations and Presbyterial where did the Majesty of Gods Ordinance appear most And as for the Ordained by them compare them with others and see if not able for the work I will adde two or three Arguments ad homi nem VI. If Ordination by Bishops be valid Arg. 6 then ordination by Presbyters is valid but you suppose the first is true and we wish you had proved it more sufficiently that our-people might not have separated from us upon that account The consequence I prove thus 1. For Presbyters we are sure they are the Officers of Christ but for your Bishops especially such as are in England extending their power as I said in the beginning after that manner so vastly I dare say quâ tales they are none of Christs Officers nor as they take to themselves a power above other Ministers 2. Take Bishops in the fairest sence so Bishops and Presbyters are of the same Order If of the same Order then Presbyters Ordination is as valid as the Bishops That they are of the same Order Learned Davenant doth in the beginning of his Determination name Gulielmus Parisiensis Gerson and Durandus among the Papists affirming it to which as a further confirmation I may add that saying of Ambrose on 1 Tim. 3. Post Episcopum tamen Diaconatus Ordinationem subject quare Nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una Ordinatio est uterque enim Sacerdos est for that he adds Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros primus est I shall not stick at that still they are the fame Order For the Consequence I borrow this only out of Mr. Baxter who saith he had it from Bishop Usher to prove Ordination by meer Presbyters without a Prelate is valid for ad ordinem pertinet ordinare VII Arg. 7 Ordination by Presbyters in case of necessity is valid So saith learned Davenant 191. But The Ordination by Presbyters now was in a case of necessity The Minor 1. Bishops were now put down by Authority 2. Solemn Covenant against them in part taken being imposed by Authority 3. Bishops dared not to Ordain openly why not we as much afraid to go to them 4. The eye of the State not so favourable upon those who were ordained by them and unless we were satissied they were Officers of Christ we had no
Church Are the Keyes given to Pastors to turn them but one way Ridiculous 5. How does this agree with Jerom before quoted excepta Ordinatione c. It seems Jurisdiction was not excepted when they had engrossed Ordination Presbyters had that power and at first the Churches were governed by the common advice of the Presbyters thus he Tit. 1. 6. The Priests had that power not only to discern between Lepers and Lepers but as they could judge they could separate them from the Camp of Israel which did shadow out our excommunication 7. It seems very strange that when a Pastor who hath taught it may be baptized a person and now fallen into sin the Church and he have dealt with that person according to rule that now the Church must go to a Bishop to excommunicate this person to whom yet he never bare relation How came this Bishop to have power over this Church which he never saw it may be But let Dr. Fulks speak It is manifest that the Authority of binding and loosing committing and retaining pertaineth generally to all the Apostles alike and to every Pastor in his Cure Answ to Rhem. 2 Cor. 2. Bishop Jewel Reply p. 178. quotes Basil speaking thus Christ appointed Peter to be the Pastor of the Church after him and so consequently gave the same power unto all Pastots and Doctors A Token whereof is this that all Pastors do equally both bind and loose as well as he So Basil 8. In such Cities as Ephesus c. where the Church was one and divers Elders in common governed that Church let the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pronounce the sentence of excommunication I deny it not For his Proofs because Timothy must charge some that they teach no other Doctrine 1 Tim. 1.3 So Tit. 1.11 Mouths must be stopped But I beseech you what is there in this more than Presbyters might do who govern the Church in common that stopping may be meant partly if not chiefly there by Argument convince gainsayers v. 9. I must confess I cannot see the Logick of this Argument though it doth prove Jurisdiction does it prove Presbyters have not the power I thought he would have quoted 1 Tim. 5.19 But because he doth not I let it alone His next is the Angel of Pergamus and Thiatira blamed Rev. 2. for suffering of Jezebel c. 1. Answ Does this exclude the other Presbyters What mean those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 24. But to you I say If the King writes to the Speaker and reproves somthing amiss or complains somthing is not done does it lay the blame on him only and not on the Members of the House as well 2. Suppose these Angels had been guilty of sins for which themselves had deserved excommunication who should have cast them out Are they Lords Paramount above all Christs Laws in his Church I know not but the other Presbyters with the consent of the Churches obeying their Presbyters might have cast these Angels out or no way that I know of The Scriptures know no Archbishops though the Papists and Dr. Hammond do But to have one Bishop alone excommunicate Presbyters this would make as brave work as we have known before the wars begun Let the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Presbyters excommunicate a Presbyter the Church consenting Thus far the Dr. goeth and then undertakes to answer our Arguments but because I see nothing is there said which I have not spoken to before and I am loath to exceed in this discourse I shall only take notice of what he saith in his Answer to the third Objection where he tels us the necessity of Bishops in these respects 1. To ordain Ministers lest the Evangelical Ministry should fail Cannot this evil be prevented by Presbyters as well Answ Are not divers thousands of Presbyters in England more likely to keep up a succession of Ministers in England than 24 Bishops of whom how few now were left Had the succession of Ministers depended upon them in what a sad case had the Church been 2. For the Governing of Presbyters lest by their impure manners heresies and schismes they should destroy the Church And are not Bishops equally liable to these Answ How shall the Church now be saved May we not read with our eyes in Histories and hear with our ears what Bishops have been Have we not seen the excellency of this Government in England as to the impure manners of Ministers being corrected Is it not a Cordolium to the godly in England to have so many who were justly cast out for scandal by the Parliament though some were wronged I know and do as much detest their ejectment to return again not one whit purged that we can fee 2. For Heresie and schism 1. We know what Bellarmine saith Certe Heresiarchae ferè omnes aut Episcopi aut Presbyteri fuerunt and from these Heresies rise Factions among the people saith he so that Bishops are as deep in the mire for heresie and causing schism as the Presbyters Hence he will have a Pope but that Monarchical Government hath not cured Schism we know much less Heresie 2. As for Heresie and Schism both name any National Church under Heaven more free from them than the Church of Scotland before these troubles began and yet there Bishops are not approved of 3. For Schism read but the life of Constantine and there see whether Bishops were not guilty of Schism and the Concil Tolata 1. was called upon some Schism among the Bishops 4. We say that Rome is guilty of the Schism between us and them because Rome gave the cause I leave the Reader to enquire who gave the first cause of the Schisms now in England 5. Why then did not Paul appoint a Bishop in Corinth when Schism was there both in his time and Clemens his time but Clemens mentions none Jerom saith indeed that upon these Schisms Bishops were set up afterwards I write not his known word posted But it is much that these ends of a Bishop which are so great for the good of the Church and it seems can be performed by none but him should not be foreseen by Christ at first and so this Bishop at first appointed but the ordinary main Stud of Christs House should be forgot to be set up till many years after the House was up Sure this means was none of his and so it proves 6. How can the Bishop be a fit means to cure Schism or prevent it I know no way but this that Presbyters must resign all their judgments up to his Chair and he infallibly determine which is right or wrong and so all must yield to his sentence This were brave indeed 7. Let our King withdraw his tender and healing hand and his power from assisting Bishops let us now see how the Bishops will shew forth that wonderful vertue of Episcopacy in healing our Schisms I doubt our King who is as Constantine said of himself the Bishop extra
Bishop to which he answered No then said this Learned Doctor to him Your Ordination and Institution is not worth a Fart Sweetly spoken Sir According to the Talent the Lord hath lent me I wrote a little in defence of Episcopal Ordination so far as to prove it not to be Antichristian But now the Controversie is come home to my own door for though in the presence of the people who elected me with their hands lifted up to manifest their Election in a day of Fasting and Prayer I was by five Ancient Godly and Grave Divines the greater part eminent in their Generation set apart to the work of the Ministry by Imposition of hands Prayer and words sutable to the Ordinance yet my Ordination is questioned by such in whose defence I wrote before thank you Brethren the ground being this they judge Ordination to be a work proper to a Bishop whom they make an Officer distinct from Presbyters having more eminent Offices and greater power belonging to them than Presbyters have How they come by this power is the question that Reverend and Learned Bishop Dr. Davenant in his 42 Determination undertakes to prove that this eminency of the Bishop is in verbo divino adumbrata delineata abipsis Apostolis constabilita and that it is an easie thing to demonstrate it The reasons why I pitch upon this man rather than another are these 1. Because he undertakes to prove this eminency of power by the holy Scriptures I wish all would hold here 2. He sums up all the Arguments that ever I heard for it 3. He performes his work gravely soberly like a Christian a Divine not filling his Papers with such scorns jeers and bitter Invectives as the Episcopal men have done who have wrote of late that a sober man hath scarce patience to read them For my part I have bestowed but very little time in this controversie neither have I so much as seen those who have written most largely and elaborately about it as Blondel Salmatius nor others Mr. Baxter came to my hand when I had almost done so that I have not read him through but cast my eye here and there upon him I wish some body would answer him as soberly as he writes but I think he will never be answered Leaving the Reader to such able men for fuller satisfaction I shall communicate my meditations so far I hope as to prove our Ordination by Pretbyters to be valid holding weight in Gods Balance For those Episcopal men who have written of late with such scorn bitterness and confidence the strongest Arguments I find are these 1. Thus it hath been for fifteen hundred years before Calvin rose the Churches had ever Bishops name the Church that had not Thus these Brethren think à facto ad jus valet consequentia undeniably 2. The Fathers who lived in the Primitive times tell us the Apostles did constitute Bishops in several Cities as Timothy and Titus c. This is all their strength But in sober words I beseech you What kind of Bishops were fifteen hundred years ago if you begin to reckon from the Apostles times Bishops distinct from Presbyters in Power and Offices and that by Divine right Verily you fall short in proving it Or were they such Bishops that extended their power for forty miles space or more over many hundred Presbyters and over many hundred thousand of persons whom they never saw I beseech you name us such Bishops in the three or four first Centuries else you know what Bishops do not answer I have read in a Learned Author that in Augustines time there were in one Province under Carthage of the Catholicks and Donatists above nine hundred Bishops the Author sums up how many of each surely these Bishops did not extend their power much further than some great Parishes in some Countreys * Suppose Lancashire or some such Towns as Ipswich Bristol Colchester c. If you will have such Bishops and give them no more power than Christ hath given them for Order sake I will yield to them and give them the Honour and if more maintenance be conferred upon them by the King than other Presbyters who joyn with them I shall be very willing and glad of it So that I am not against an Imparity in honour nor maintenance neither would I be in power and office if Christ had given more to them than others As to the Second I do honour the Fathers in their places 1. Scripture 2. Sound Reason 3. Fathers or Antiquity But yet I cannot yield that St. Paul and Ignatius St. Peter and Chrysostome should be of equal authority I am sure you make them but very little different if any thing less as will appear after I am not a man versed in the Fathers as others are yet some of them the most ancient I have read and in them I find so many strange humane mixtures in the Worship of God that I cannot yield to this consequence The Fathers say it or did it ergo It is lawful Much less in this controversie finding what the holy Ghost hath foretold of an Antichrist that should arise whom out Godly Bishops before and Learned Whitaker with others have thought and proved to be the Bishop of Rome though Dr. Hammond and our latter Episcopal Divines will not have it so We fear we fear c. What a pitiful interpretation hath D. Hum. made of 2 Thes 2. and so of several places of the Revelation to the end the Bishop of Rome might be spared But following worthy Bishops and the Learned and holy Divines in their judgment of that Bishop of Rome I am not so much carried with the sayings not practises of these ancient Bishops in this point for there must be some preparation made to his rising into that usurped Chair he came not there persaltum To these Divines let me propound these questions 1. Quest. Whether are not the Holy Scriptures the perfect and only Rule for our Faith and Manners Are they not able to Make a man of God a Minister perfect 2 Tim. 3 17. If they be I beseech you let us give more honour to them in these Controversies 2. Were those Fathers and Churches you so much mention so guided that they could not or did not erre Were not the holy Scriptures a Rule to them as well as to us Erre they did in some points I am sure 3. Will the Lord judge us at that great day by these Fathers Will it be a sufficient answer to give the Lord if we sin in setting up Humane Inventions in his Worship to say Lord thus the Fathers said thus they did Dare you say it is sufficient to excuse us I beseech you then Reverend Brethren Why do you press us so much with these men and with Antiquities and not stick to pure Antiquity the holy Scriptures Blessed Augustine whom I so much honour and love of all the Fathers knew how to value Cyprian enough Aug. tom 7.
the Jewish Church had not hundreds of High Priests that met at one time as there hath been of Bishops in one Synod so that all the Catholick Church visible must have one Catholick Bishop else his Argument is lost 3. The High Priest being properly a Type of Christ the most eminent Type is not sufficient to make an argument here 4. Why not as well one Temple though many Synagogues if he will needs argue from the Jews but we have more than one Cathedral in Christendom 5. Christ the Builder of that house then hath built his house now under the Gospel Why should we look back to that old building which in this sense is pulled down Observe how differently he builds there he set up no Officer but all the Officers continued so long as that polity continued but here his chief Officers were but for a short time so that you see he makes a vast difference in the building Also the Deacon was properly appointed to serve Tables to regard the poor Were there Deacons for the poor amongst the Jews 6. Had the Dr. mentioned the Heads of the 24 Orders of Priests appointed by David which some say were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hebrews called them Roshe aboth the chief of the Family there had been more likelihood of an Argument and it is likely we should have yielded as much now to the Ministers of the Gospel if we were certain what the Head of the Order had more than the other Priests of that Order which was not eminency of power and office sure enough His second Argument is taken from Christ in the new Testament Arg. 2 Who appointed Twelve Apostles superiour not only in gifts but in amplitude of Authority and Power to the Seventy Disciples Now Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles and Presbyters of the Seventy This Argument I see is much insisted upon by others Answ let us try the strength of it I Answer 1. Had the Apostles shewn any of that power and authority in the mission of the Seventy there had been some probability in this Argument but there was not the least appearance of any such thing the Seventy had their Mission as immediatly from Christ as had the Apostles they contributing nothing towards it But our Bishops tell us our sending depends upon them we can be no Presbyters without them so that they will be ten times more superiour than the Apostles 2. As there was no difference in their Mission so neither in their Commission Read both their Commissions and you find the same Preach the Gospel Heal the sick Cust out Devils c. Bishops then and Presbyters have the same Commission and Mission Agreed 3. That Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles Bellarmine saith but impropriè Had the Dr. drawn his Argument into form I think I should have found a Fallacy in the Syllogism Limit he must then tell us how he can prove the Apostles were superiour to the Seventy in the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction so that the Seventy had not this Power For if the Seventy had this power also we are well enough but this he cannot prove Besides to say though the Bishops be not the Successors of the Apostles in all things yet they are in Ordination and Jurisdiction is but the begging of the question 4. Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles but let the Bishop in the question be Ens first which we cannot find in divine Writ 5. How proves he this that Bishops are the Apostles Successors and Presbyters of the Seventy and not of the Apostles This is his proof it is omnium ferè patrum constans doctrina Had he said unius Apostoli it had prevailed much more with me We are seeking for jus divinum but he mentions some Fathers and those not the most ancient neither But have none of the Fathers said that Presbyters are the Successors of the Apostles also Hath Irenaeus nothing to that purpose the two Jesuits Bellarm and Greg. Lib. 3. cap. 2. Lib. 4. cap. 23. de Val. are so kind to us to tell us they have said so I see the Dr. adds a Scripture at the bottom of the Paragraph 1 Cor. 12.28 29. But surely this makes nothing to the proof of Episcopal succession Are all Apostles are all Prophets are all Teachers I think this Text he brings will pluck up this Episcopacy by the roots God hath set in his Church Where shall we find the Bishop in question set not among the Apostles I hope not among the Prophets then it must be among the Teachers so the Text thirdly Teachers but are not Presbyters Teachers Well met honoured Dr. 6. The Apostle Peter 1 Ep. c 5. v. 1. Writing to the Presbyters calls himself a Presbyter Had the Apostle written thus The Bishops which are among you I exhort whs also am a Bishop this would have been cried up for an invincible Argument to prove that Bishops were the Apostles Successors for he writes to Bishops and calls himself a Bishop Gentlemen give us fair play I beseech you the Argument is ours to prove Presbyters are the Successors of Peter the Presbyter To say the Apostles and Seventy were extraordinary Officers and so we cannot draw any thing from them there may be somthing in it but I add no more His third Argument is Arg. 3 The Apostles before they passed from earth to Heaven did constitute in great Cities one Bishop superiour not only over the Laicks but also the Presbyters as James in Jerusalem Timothy at Ephesus Titus in Creet c. I hope he takes Bishop properly Answ as we intend in the question else he deceives us I Answer 1. Why did not the Apostle Paul or some other Apostle constitute such a Bishop in Gorinth before his departure I am sure Corinth was none of the least Cities His Epistles to Corinth mention no such thing and that is much if there were one Paul wrote to them Anno 52 as Buchol and Alsted Or about 54 as Dr. Hammond When Clemens wrote his Epistle to them is uncertain saith Learned Mr. Young but he supposeth not before his banishment which was two years before his Martyrdom and gives his reasons for his opinion he suffered Martyrdom in the third year of Trajan Anno 103. saith Sixtus Senensis Hence then almost fifty years passed between the Epistles of Paul and Clemens to the Corinthians Clemens p. 8. mentions Pauls Martyrdom but in all his Epistle there is not one word to shew that there was such a Bishop in his time for in the winding up his Epistle p. 73. he exhorts them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not a word of such a Bishop whom Clemens would not have forgotten had he been there This Epistle is the most pure piece of all Antiquity next the Scriptures 2. Is the Dr. sure that all those he mentions were Bishops propriè dicti he saith indeed afterward p. 195. Certum
est Timotheum Titum Jacobum multosquè alios propriè dictos Episcopos fuisse viventibus Apostolis c. yet adds in the conclusion quasi affixos Well then certum est but how I pray certitudine fidei divinae else 't is not certain to us in this controversie I regard not mens words without Scripture but what mean these words quasi affixos this quasi spoils the certainty for if but quasi affixi they were but quasi Episcopi as I could soon prove from the Scriptures and the Canons of Councils I wonder the Dr. should say that James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and that propriè dictus I see Lapide and Lorinus giving that the reason why James spake next to Peter because James was Bishop of Jerusalem where the Council was held But 1. He was an Apostle one of the Pillars Gal. 2.9 whose sentence in this question swayed the Synod but to have an Apostle a Bishop in our sense is strange Had the Dr. forgot that on this ground our Divines against the Papists prove that Peter could not be Bishop of Rome because he was an Apostle and so not fixed 2. If James were a Bishop why had he not his Title given him in Acts 15 For in v. 4 6 23. we have mention made of Apostles and Presbyters but not a word of a Bishop this is very far from this certainty 'T is certain indeed he was no Bishop As for Timothy and Titus there hath been a huge stir about these I have heard that Mr. Prin hath written a Treatise which he cals the unbishopping of Timothy and Titus and that so strongly that as none yet ever went about to answer him so none can I could never see the Book but refer the Reader to him I shall be the briefer I see some Divines prove that Paul did constitute Timothy Bishop of Ephesus because he said 1 Tim. 1.3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus Strange that a Bishop of a place should be besought to stay in his Bishopprick And Titus because he said Chap. 1.5 For this cause I left thee in Crete I pray cast these two Texts into Syllogisms and let us see how invincibly Timothy and Titus come out Bishops of those places in the Conclusions Could not Timothy stay at Ephesus to oppose heresies and ordain with others or if not with others Ministers and Titus left at Crete to do the same but it must follow necessarily Ergo they were constitued fixed Bishops of those places But the Fathers say they were Bishops that 's a proof not sufficient to make jus divinum The Papists and Dr. Hammond say they were Archbishops both alike for truth Do the Fathers speak properly when they say so It was the saying of a great Bishop that Histories are not curious in calling men by their Tiâ—les Sure I am that Paul gives him another title of which presently If the Fathers did so might they not be deceived with the subscriptions of the Epistles which this Learned Dr. meddles not with knowing they were not Canonical Name I pray the most ancient Fathers and tell us if they call these so in your sense Sure I am that Ignatius cals Timothy a Deacon and joynes Linus with him Epist ad Tral p. 71. But what if the Fathers call them so if I find strong grounds in Holy Scripture to make me believe they were of a higher order than ordinary Officers if a hundred Fathers say they were ordinary Bishops I regard them not Searching the Scriptures we find for Timothy that 1. He is often joyned with Paul in the Inscription of his Epistles as Phil. 1.1 Col. 1.1 1. Thes 1. 2 Thes 1. Philem. 1. 2. We find him journeying with Paul and sent up and down by Paul 3. He is bidden to do the work of an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 Now though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken largely yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used but thrice in the New Testament is never taken but for a peculiar Officer He was one of those Paul mentions Eph. 4.11 To confine the word Evangelists to those who wrote the Gospels is absurd Matthew and John I hope were Apostles and Philip was an Evangelist Acts 21.8 yet wrote no Gospel If he were no Evangelist but bidden to do the work of one this is strange an inferiour order do the work of a superiour However I hope by this Presbyters may ordain as well though they be of an inferiour Order But if Timothy must do the work of an Evangelist he must not fixe at Ephesus No more fixed at Crete was Titus though for a time left at Crete In 2. Cor. 8.23 Paul cals him his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words sutable to an Evangelist sent up and down by Paul as we may observe in the Epistles and journeying with Paul After he was at Crete Paul sends to him to Nicopolis Tit. 3.12 which was six hundred miles distant from Crete as Bunting saith p. 566. How long he stayed with him or whither he went next I find not But towards the end of Pauls life 2 Tim. 4.10 11. he was at Rome with Paul and by Paul sent to preach in Dalmatia saith Lapide How these things sute with a Bishop in our sense I know not Hence Junius Zanchy Polanus Beza Calvin Diodati and the Lutherans conclude him to be an Evangelist As for Evangelists Ensebius will give us some light to understand them Eccles Hist lib. 3. cap. 37. He speaks of divers then who obtained the first step of Apostolical succession and being as divine Disciples of the chief and principal men builded the Churches every where planted by the Apostles c. Taking their journey fulfilled the work and office of Evangelists that is they preached Christ unto them which as yet heard not of the Doctrine of Faith These men having planted the Faith in sundry new and strange places ordained there other Pastors committing unto them the tillage of the new ground passing themselves unto other people and Countries being holpen thereunto by the Grace of God which wrought with them for as yet by the power of the Holy Ghost they wrought miraculously so that innumerable multitude of men embraced the Religion of the Almighty c. Thus Eusebius If this description of Evangelists sute any doth it not Timothy and Titus who were indeed divine Disciples of Paul a principal man sent up and down by him and if these wrought miraculously must it be denied of Timothy and Titus as for the gift of Tongues that was also needful for men travelling and preaching in so many several Countreys I find some forced to yield they were Evangelists at first but afterwards were made Bishops of these places 1. Was the being made a Bishop a degree above an Evangelist Answ was an ordinary Officer above an extraordinary Officer then some truth may be in this I find Concil Sard. Can. 13. that the Bishop must ascend