Usurpers of an unlawful Function Reverend Antiquity shall prevail more with me than any mans Novel Institution The like was that Mr. Beza his Absit saying God forbid that I should reprehend that Order as rashly introduced c. As also Zanchy his Quis Ego Who am I that I should reprehend that which the whole Church hath approved to be for the best ends So he Whereof there hath been a full Section And that the deduction of Episcopacy cannot be called properly Popish will be proved hereafter CAP. III. After these our Evidences from Primitive Antiquity according to our precedent Method we are to contemplate of the Coelestial Sphear the Word of God it self The Right of Episcopacy discussed by the Word of God IN this Discussion we are to use both our hands the one of Defence in Answering Objections and as it were bearing off Assaults made against the Apostolical Right of Episcopacy The other is the Confirmation thereof by such Arguments which may be held convincent SECT I. Against the first Objection from the Identity of Names as they call it of Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture OUr Opposites endeavour to perswade us that there ought to be No dâ—stinction of Degree between Bishop and Presbyter because of the Identity of denomination in Scripture which is say they of no small consequence And this they offer to prove from as they say The Supreme Wisdom of God the imposer of Names who could not mistake the proper end of the imposition of Names And for a further inforcement they add That the Texts brought to prove the Identity of Names prove also as intrinsically the Identity of Offices So they Which consequence was taught them by their great Dictator Walo Messalinus Who would have it impossible that Bishops and Presbyters should really differ in Function seeing that their Titles are communicable in Scripture So he One would think it had not been possible for any of judgment to have concluded thus who had but once observed the Texts of Scripture which present themselves often unto any conversant therein as the places in the New Testament themselves The Testimonies of Fathers together with the consent of some Protestant Divines will evidence unto us First Scriptures wherein we find Matthias Peter John and Paul all by excellency of Function Apostles yet Maâ—thias entituled to a Bishoprick Act. 1.20 Peter styling himself Co-presbyter 1 Pet. 5.1 John terming himself a Presbyter twice 2 Joh. 1. and 3 Joh. 1. And Paul descending a degree lower to name himself thrice a Deacon Col. 1.23 25. 2 Cor. 3.6 Yea reciprocally those that were but Assistants of the Apostles had the name of Apostles attributed unto them As Barnabas Act. 14.14 Andronicus and Junias Rom. 16.7 Titus and others Graece 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 8. In all which communicableness of names of Bishop Presbyter Sympresbyter and Deacon attributed to the Apostles themselves and of the Title of Apostle given to some of inferior ranke our Opposites we dare say will not presume to conclude any necessity of Indistinction of Offices either between the Disciples of the Apostles and the Apostles themselves or between Presbyters and Deacons and the same Apostles Therefore to draw nearer to our mark we add more particularly SECT II. That the former Objection is rejected by the choycest and most acceptable Divines which our Opposites themselves can name WE besides the current Testimonies of Fathers to be alleadged in the following Section seek to satisfie our Opposites by the Confession of three such Protestant Divines whose very Names and that deservedly are of great Authority with them 1. Calvin upon that very objected Text Tit. 1.5 For this cause left I thee at Creet c. From hence we learn saith he that there was not then any equality among the Ministers of the Church but that one was placed over the rest in Authority and Counsel 2. Beza successor to Calvin expressly confesseth That the Presbyters even then in the Apostles times had a President over them while the Appellation of Bishop and Presbyter was communicable Accordingly hereunto is the judgment of Dr. Reynolds telling us That in the Apostles times the Presbyters did choose one amongst them to be President c. Whom afterward saith he in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishops So that in the judgment of these exquisite judicious Divines the Office or Function of a Bishop was distinct from that of Presbyters notwithstanding the Identical communicableness of Titles or Names SECT III. The second Objection out of Scripture in that place Phil. 1.1 With the Bishops and Deacons c. is repugnant to the general Expositions of Antient Fathers IT useth to be objected That seeing as the Fathers held there should be no more than one Bishop in any one City How then cometh it to pass that the Apostle mentioneth Bishops in the Plural and immediately subjoyneth Deacons without insinuation of Presbyters Either we must suppose that there were no Presbyters at all in that City or else that by Bishops here Presbyters are to be understood The Testimonies of Antiquity have untwined this thred long since telling us That for as much as the words Bishop and Presbyter were then Communicable notwithstanding the difference of their Degrees and Functions therefore by the word Bishops in this place are to be understood Presbyters So Chrysostom Occumendus Theophylact Theodoret. This last for further illustration thereof sheweth That St. Paul did in this Epistle attribute likewise this Title of Apostle to Epaphroditus though he was distinctly a Bishop Our Opposites we know are in all these Questions most addicted to Hierome Who notwithstanding upon the same reason with the rest of the Fathers inferreth the same Conclusion saying Here by Bishops we understand Presbyters because there could not then have been two Bishops in one City But if Epaphroditus was Bishop of Philippi as Theodoret both here and elsewhere assureth us he was why will some say was not this Epistle inscribed unto him as well as to the Presbyters and Deacons Theophylact gives the answer Because saith he at this time the Philippians had sent Epaphroditus to carry such things to the Apostle as he had need of So he Which Answer of his hath sufficient ground upon Phil. 2.25 and 4.18 To which we refer our Reader SECT IV. The third Objection is against the appropriation of the word Bishop unto one which Appellation is shewn to be most justifiable BOth Houses of Parliament have been advised concerning Presbyterial Ordination that the Names of Bishop and Presbyter have been communicable to Presbyters Therefore the appropriation of the word Bishop to one hath been say they by corrupt Custom Both which we take to have been so unadvisedly spoken concerning Appropriation as if they had meant to cross the judicious Confessions of the three Worthies Mr. Calvin Mr. Beza and Dr. Reynolds who have expressly testified and
writing against that grand Antiepiscopal Presbyter Aerius told him That the Superiority of Bishops above Presbyters was founded in the word of God An Author under the name of Ambrose speaking distinctly of Bishops saith That they held the person of Christ and therefore our behaviour before them ought to be as before the Vicars of the Lord. And again That the Bishop is ordained by the Lord the light of the Church Another under the name of Augustine as hath been said judged it a matter that none could be ignorant of That Bishops were instituted by Christ who instituted Bishops when he ordained the Apostles whose Successors the Bâ—shops are Hierome thus far agreeth with him to wit That Bishops in the Catholick Church supply the place of the Apostles And what else meant that which hath been before alleadged out of the Canon of six hundred Fathers in the general Council of Calcedon which judgeth The Depression of a Bishop down to the degree of a Presbyter to be in it self Sacriledg But do any Protestant Divines of remote Churches consent to any Divine Right SECT III. That two eminent Protestant Divines grant this Supposition which is the ground of the said Truth THis grant and concession is freely yielded unto us by Beza who speaking of Episcopacy saith If it did proceed from the Apostles then certainly I should not doubt to attribute it wholly as all other Apostolical Ordinances to divine disposition Another who is also a professed Advocate for the Presbyterians granteth as freely as the former That if Episcopacy be from the Apostles then doubtless it is of Divine Right But that Episcopacy had its Apostolical institution hath been sufficiently ratified unto us through this whole Discourse both from Testimonies of Antiquity from general Consent of Protestants of Reformed Churches and above all from the clear Evidence of the Scriptures themselves the Repetition whereof would be superfluous the rather because these our foresaid Opposites will ease us of that labour for Mr. Beza himself confesseth That it is a Custome not to be reprehended of setting one of the Presbyters over the rest which was used saith he from Mark the Evangelist in the Church of Alexandria So he Now then whether we say with Hierome That this Episcopacy was in Mark because the first Bishop or in Anianus who was constituted by Mark as Eutychus relateth or with Beza that it was from Mark as a thing irreprehensible It must needs be judged to be from the Ordinance of the Apostles and consequently Divine We have yet somewhat more SECT IV. That Episcopal Prelacy hath been directly acknowledged by Protestants of remote Churches to be of Divine Right 1 LUther proves this directly and Categorically saying That every City ought to have its proper Bishop by Divine Right grounding his Argument upon Titus 2.5 Who was commanded to ordain Elders in every City which Elders saith he were Bishops as Hierome witnesseth and the subsequent Text doth manifest Yea and St. Augustine describing a Bishop concurreth with them saying It was a City as if he should have said it was not a mere Presbyter but a Bishop which is here spoken of because Bishops were over Cities Thus far Luther his Tractate being a Resolution his Sentence the Conclusion and his words plainly distinguishing Bishop from mere Presbyter and alleadging from Scripture a divine Right of Episcopal Function as clearly as either our Opposites can dislike or we desire Accordingly Bucer a man of great Learning and Piety saith That these three Orders of Ministers in the Church Bishops Presbyters and Deacons were for institution from the Holy Ghost and for Continuance perpetual even from the Beginning The learned Professor in the Palatinate Scultetus hath Professedly and Positively concluded Episcopacy to be of Divine Right by as he saith efficacious Reasons clear Examples and excellent Authorities And he hath been as good as his word as in divers foregoing Sections hath been made manifest upon which Subject likewise a most learned Belgick Doctor wrote a whole book urging therein very many Arguments both from Scripture and Antiquity and assoiling the Objections to the contrary Aegidius Hunnius Divinity Professor in the University of Marpurg speaking of Episcopacy in the Apostles times saith That Paul did ordain Titus General Superintendent that is Archbishop of all the Cretian Churches and thereupon concludeth That the Order and Degree of Episcopacy is a thing not lately invented but received in the Church even from the very times of the Apostles Wherein he is seconded by Hemingius a very Learned Divine whose Observation upon Titus 1. v. 5. is That to the end that Anarchy might be avoided and all things done Decently and in Order the Apostle would have some one to ordain Ministers to dispose all things in the Church and to take care lest Haeresie should arise The worthily renowned Doctor Gerard speaks no less than the former proving Episcopacy as distinct from Presbytery to be of Divine Right not only in respect of the Original as proceeding from the diversity of Gifts but also in regard of the End The avoiding of Dissension and Schism in the Church Yea and even the Church of Geneva it self will afford us a Testimony or two from the pen of the Mirrour of Learning Mr. Isaac Causabon who tells us That three Orders of Ministers in the Church Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are founded upon the Testimony of plain Scriptures And again That Bishops are the Vicegerents of the Apostles Thus these learned Protestants Nothing now remaineth but that nam finis coronat opus we have as the Seal of this Truth the Approbation of Christ himself SECT V. That Episcopal Prelacy had the Approbation of Christ himself after his Ascension into Heaven NEver did nor could any deny but that every of the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia had the Approbation of Christ himself after his Ascension into Heaven that Book wherein they are mentioned being called the Revelation of Jesus Christ as the Author delivered by an Angel to John as unto Christs Scribe commanding him to write the seven Epistles and to direct them to the Angels of the seven Churches two of which Angels Christ commendâ—th in the same Epistles for the good discharge of their Function And is not Commendation Testimonial enough and an Argument of his Approbation The other five Bishops being more or less Delinquents are reprehended for Neglect of their Cure And is not Reproof of the Neglect of Duty in the Officers a Justification and Approbation of their Offices Finally as those which are faithful in their Offices are continued so they that were obnoxious are threatned To be removed except they did repent So that here is no Displacing of any for a first Offence nor yet an Eradicating the whole Order for the particular Abuses of some For he that calleth for Repentance and Amendment of
instruct us in the particular Instance which we have in hand who although he held it uncertain whether Timothy be here called an Evangelist in the general notion of Preaching the Gospel or for some peculiar Function yet doth he grant that an Evangelist is a middle degree between Apostle and Pastor and upon those words of St. Paul to Timothy Do thy diligence to come speedily unto me he Commenteth telling us That St. Paul called Timothy from the Church over which he was Governour for the space of almost a whole year This is a pregnant testimony to teach us That Timothy had both the Government over Presbyters in the Church of Ephesus and also that it was his peculiar Charge whence except upon great and weighty Cause he was not to depart which is as much as we contend for Before we conclude this Point we make bold to intreat our Opposites to satisfie us in one particular namely seeing that Philip being one of the seaven Deacons is found Preaching the Word in Samaria Act. 8.5 and yet afterwards is called Philip the Evangelist one of the seven viz. Deacons Act. 21.8 Our Quaere hereupon is Why Timothy and Titus might not as well be called Evangelist for Preaching the Word of God being Bishops as Philip was for the same cause named an Evangelist being but a Deacon It may be our Opposites would wish to be satisfied by Reverend Zanchy upon these points whom yet they will find to be chief Opposite to themselves And albeit he will have the Apostles by their Vocation to have been as it were Itinerants for their time For the founding and erecting of Churches Yet he granteth That Churches being once erected the same Apostles set a Pastor or Bishop over them And what he meaneth hereby he sheweth when more distinctly he confesseth That at first indeed Presbyters were ordained in the Churches and after them Bishops as Hierome affirmeth even in the Apostles times So he Where by the judgment of Zanchy First Bishops were ordained by the Apostles as a degree contradistinct from Presbyters Secondly That the Bishops so ordained although they had been Evangelists and fellow Labourers with the Apostles yet when Churches were once erected some of them were placed Residentiaries in the said Churches And lastly That although Presbyters had their Institution void of subjection to Episcopal Authority at the first as Deacons likewise had theirs yet because of the insufficiency of Presbyterial Government the Episcopal was erected as more perfect even in the dayes of the Apostles The next Obstruction is to be removed SECT V. That Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus notwithstanding that objected Scripture Act. 20. THere is one Objection for we may not dissemble which the Smectymnians press thrice as being inexpugnable and thereupon call it Lethalis Arundo as that which must strike all opposition quite dead In summe thus Timothy was with Paul at the meeting of Miletum Act. 20.4 Therefore say they if Timothy had been Bishop of Ephesus Paul would there and then have given him a charge of feeding the Flock and not the Elders So they As though Timothy before this had not been sufficiently instructed in this duty both by his long and constant attendance on St. Paul and also by his former Epistle unto him which was written and received before this time as some have probably conjectured or as though Timothy should need a particular Admonition to discharge that duty which was respectively common to him with the rest of the Bishops and Presbyters there assembled For though the Smectymnians tell us It is a poor evasion to say that they who were there assembled were not all of Ephesus but were callâ—d also from other parts because say they these Elders were all of one Church made by good Bishops over one Flock and therefore may with most probability be affirmed to be the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Yet we must tell them that Dr. Reynolds whom they and we admire for his exquisite learning speaking of the same meeting at Miletâ—m Act. 20.17 saith notwithstanding all these objected circumstances That though the Church of Ephesus had sundry Pastors and Elders to guide it yet amongst those sundry was there one Chief c. The same whom afterwards the Fathers in the Primitive Church called Bishop So he But yet though he or all Protestants should fail us there is a Father Irenaeus by name who was so antient as to be acquainted with the Apostles of the Apostles themselves and him we can produce distinguishing the persons here met at Miletum into Bishops and Presbyters and affirming That they came not only from Ephesus but also from other Cities near adjoyning to it Which makes the Smectimnians Arundo but a bruised Reed Thus have we fully as we hope satisfied the contrary Objections We proceed now to our proof SECT VI. That Timothy and Titus were both of them properly Bishops by the judgment of Antiquity THe greatest Opposite that we can name even Walo Messalinus the very Atlas of Presbyterial Government will spare us the labour of citing the Greek Fathers or Scholiasts for confirmation of this point who confesseth That most of their Commentaries upon Titus record him to have been Bishop of Crete alleadging by name Chrysostom Theophylact Oâ—cumenius Theodoret and others whose Testimonies we shall not need to repeat only we shall add which may serve for a transition to Timothy the testimony of that antient Ecclesiastical Historian Eusebius who speaking of S. Pauls fellow Labourers reckons Timothy amongst them Whom saith he History recordeth to be the first Bishop of Ephesus adding with the same breath and so was Titus Bishop of Crete Thus this famous Author concerning the Episcopacy of Timothy also To whom we may adjoyn as concurring in the same Judgment Epiphanius Chysostomus Theophylact Oecumenius Gregory Ambrose Primasius yea and Hierome himself who hath positively affirmed That Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Crete But the Smectymnians hearing of a Cloud of Witnesses averring Timothy and Titus to have lived and and died Bishops answer That this Cloud will soon blow over and the greatest blast that they give is That the Fathers who were of this judgment borrowed their Testimonies from Eusebius Assuredly this will seem but a poor evasion to any judicious Reader who shall but observe that the Testimonies of these Fathers are in their Commentaries and Collections out of Texts themselves But the best is other Protestant Divines will appear to be more ingenuous SECT VII That Protestant Divines of very great esteem have acknowledged Timothy and Titus to have been properly Bishops WE begin with Luther who amongst other Resolutions setteth down this for one That Episcopacy is of Divine Right which he groundeth upon St. Paul's appointing Titus to Ordain Elders in every City which Elders saith he were Bishops as Hierome and the subsequent Texts do
Menophanes or Menophant Bishop of Ephesus Eutychius Bishop of Smyrna Artemidâ—rus Bishop of Sardis Soron Bishop of Thyatira Ethymasius Bishop of Philadelphia Nunechius Bishop of Laodicea And that one of seven should be absent upon some occasion it can be no matter of exception else would not these Protestant Divines have been satisfied with the same Evidences to wit see the Margent Marlorat Aretius Paraeus Gaspar Sibellius Gualter and Bullinger respectively all confessing Polycarp to have been Bishop of Smyrna most of them also that he was the very same to whom the Epistle was then dedicated To the Angel of the Church of Smyrna and three of them witnessing as much for Melito Bishop of Sardis SECT XXI A Torrent of Protestant Divines of the Reformed Churches consenting to the same Exposition of an Individual Person having Prelacy over Presbyters under the Name of Angels HEre likewise the Church of Geneva alloweth us two Witnesses thus By Angel is meant the President and so in special was to be admonished and his Colleagues and whole Church by him So Beza The other paraphrasing thus To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus That is to the Pastor or Bishop under whose Person ought to be understood the whole Church So Deodate the now Pastor in the new Church of Geneva True the whole Church is concerned as far as the matter did appertein unto them yet so as to receive it from the Angel as one Person quasi per se una according as Beza hath even now shewn and as the Testimonies following will confirm To the Angel of Smyrna that is To the Bishop which was Polycarpus as History evidenceth So Gualter To the Angel that is to one singular Angel as I rather think So Gaspar Sibellius Letters are sent to the Bishop of the Church of Ephesus to the Bishop of the Church of Smyrna to the Bishop of the Church of Pergamus c. So Piscator The Pastor is therefore named but the People are not excluded The Epistle is therefore to the Angel that Pastors might be admonished and in them the whole Church So Bullinger Although some things were to be corrected as well in Clergy as Laity yet the Chief of the Clergy is named as the Bishop So Marlorate To the Angel of Ephesus thus he calleth the Pastor of the Church So Paraeus Angel that is Minister by whom the whole Church was to be informed So Aretius To the Angel yet not to him only but to the whole Church So Zanchie He was commanded to write to the Angels of the Churches that is unto the Bishops So Peter Martyr Yea all the most learned Interpreters by Angels understand Bishops nor can they do otherwise without violence to the Text. So Scultetus One more but such a one that standeth as a second Proctor for equality of Degree of Presbytery with Episcopacy Mr. Blundell in his Book published but the last day naming the Angels of the several Churches of Asia he calleth them The Heads of the whole Clergy of the same Churches We add SECT XXII The second of our English Protestant Divines in the opinion of our Opposites as competent Witnesses as any ONe deserving the first place is Doctor Reynolds Although the Church of Ephesus saith he had sundry Pastors and Elders to guide it yet among these sundry was there one Chief whom our Saviour calleth the Angel of the Church Even as Mr. Brightman of the Angel of Thyatira To the Angel together with his Colleagues as saith he Theodore Beza hath excellently expounded it And how adverse this Author was to Episcopacy who knoweth not Mr. Cartwright he who in his time justled with Bishops saith That the Letters written to the Church were therefore directed to the Angel because he is the meetest Man by Offiâ—e by whom the Church may understand the Tenor of the Letters Mr. Fox also concludes for us These Angels saith he were such as did govern the Church in those Primitive times as Polycarpus Timothy c. All these Authors because in the Degree of Presbyters for Ingenuity so impartial for Learning so judicious for Consent so unanimous for Multitude so numerous by direct and clear Testimonies avouching the truth of this Episcopal Prelacy from the Divine Epistles of Christ Jesus which we think ought to perswade all Religious Consciences of the infallibility thereof SECT XXIII Of two notable Subterfuges of our Opposites What they are THey finding themselves sinking for want of Support by Judicious Protestant Divines are glad to catch at Reed Rush or very Shadows as for Example these two 1. To deny these Apostolical Prelates their due Jurisdiction as if it were no more than a Moderator hath in the Schools The other is to abridge them of their just time of Continuance as no better than a Weekly Office if yet so much at one time It were good we heard themselves speak Although say they these Angels had a Prelacy over others yet it was not of Jurisdiction but only of Order as of a Moderator in the Assembly or Speaker in the House of Commons which is only during Parliament and thus we take our leave Courteously done but will you not stay for an Answer which is from one of your own Friends First to the former Paradox Dr. Bastwick whom the Classis of our Opposites do much respect rejecteth the Collective sense of the Word Angel saying That in each of these Churches there was a Colledge of their constituted Church and therefore for Order sake the Light of Nature teacheth there must have been a President who by way of excellency and to distinguish him from others is called an Angel 〈◊〉 the Inscription of the Epistle of the Revelation declares saying Unto the Angel of the Church of Ephesus Than which what can be more contradictory to your former flat denial and force in oppugning Prelacy even as he saith against the Light of Nature Nevertheless he leaneth to the same slender Reed with you to allow no more Jurisdiction to the Prelate or President than to use his own words To a Speaker in the House of Commons and to a Proloqunter in an Assembly We reply SECT XXIV Against the Opposites Exception to Episcopal Jurisdiction from Scripture AMong them that are adverse unto Episcopacy is he that pareth Episcopacy to the quick as if the difference between a Bishop and Presbyter were not Real but Nominal and in Name only as a Moderator in the Assembly or Speaker in the House of Commons This derogation hath been sufficiently confuted by St. Paul's Epistles in the Examples of Timothy and Titus in taking Accusations imposing Injunctions and the like as hath been amply acknowledged Wherewithal we are to adjoin the aforesaid Epistles of Christ by St. John unto the Seven Churches of Asia Wherein yet we need not to bestir
declared in a Letter he wrote to St. John's Colledge where he had been Fellow in behalf of a Kinsman of his Mr. Low for whom he desired a Fellowship that he was an adversary to his Kinsman if he refused it His words are these But if this young man be averse to that posture of Bowing himself towards the Lords Table he shall have me much his Elder altogether his Enemy And although our Church in her Canons doth but commend this and leaves the practice of it perfectly indifferent yet nothing of this nature claims a greater Antiquity For Clemens Alexandrinus tells us That by the Christians Prayers were made towards the East And Tertullian sayes That the Heathens suspected the Christians worshipped the Sun and that their suspicion arose because Christians prayed towards the East And St. Augustin who lived at the end of the 4 th Century is very express in this custom and withall gives this reason of it When saith he we stand to Prayer we are turned to the East whence the Sun ariseth not as if that was God's proper place and that he hath deserted the other parts of the World who is every-where present not by extension of places but Majesty of power but that our mind might be admonished to convert it self to the more excellent nature that is to the Lord. And in that discourse which goes under the name of Justin Martyr though not so antient as St. Justin yet as old as Theodoret if we believe Rivet we are told That this custom speaking before of Praying towards the East the Church received from the holy Apostles For the Church received the place where to Pray from whom they received the command to Pray And a few lines before he tells us That â—o Pray to the East doth not contradict either the Prophets or Apostles As if he should argue We have no command in the Scripture to the contrary this hath been the custom and practice of the Church of which we have no beginning therefore 't is Apostolical But whether this custom be from the Apostles or no this we are sure on Bodily adoration is that we owe to God and if that be his due and our duty certainly the custom of the Church is of more than sufficient authority to determine to what place that Act of Worship is most decent to be directed unto I must not omit another Information I haâ—â— of this good Bishop before I come to speak of this Work I now publish and that is He was in his younger dayes nay when he came to be a Bishop earnest in those Controversies which commonly go under Calvin's name insomuch that when he was Bishop of Lichfield he set upon to Answer Arminius and morâ— particularly that Tract of his Intituled Examen Praedestinationis Perkinsianae and after a moneths consideration anâ— making several Observations on thaâ— Discourse he laid it aside saying thesâ— words If thou wilt not be Answered lie thee there And after that he greâ— very moderate if he did not incline tâ— the contrary opinion though he did not love to discourse of that Subject or to hear Ministers in their Pulpits to meddle with that which is most proper for the Scholes Now though this Controversie about the time of the Synod of Dort was by many good men looked on under a severe character yet now we find the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas incline much to it As in the French Church Amiraldus and Mr. Daillee who hath a particular tract de Gratia Universali do sufficiently assure us and for the Dutch Churches the Remonstrant party is so much increased in power that they possess most of the great places both in Church and State But some men are strangely mistaken when they would father the Calvinian Doctrin on the Church of England in her Articles who hath most wisely left it undetermined knowing that both learned and good men may differ in these Sublime Points and that the Churches peace ought not to he disturbed with such unnecessary determinations 'T is true I have read that in the Parliament of 1 Caroli Mr. Pym moved in the House of Commons That Arminianisme might be condemned by a Vote of that House as if the Infallibility pretended to attend St. Peter's Chair at Rome was removed to the Speaker's at Westminster But yet I find not that grave Assembly did any thing in it As for those Articles composed at Lambeth by Archbishop Whitgift and those Assistants he called to him they were so far from being received as a Doctrin of our Church that if we believe a very diligent Historian Queen Elizabeth totally disliked them and the manner of making of them and had like to have questioned the Archbishop about them And when by Dr. John Reynolds at the Conference at Hampton Court they were desired to be inserted into the Articles of the Church of England the motion was rejected by King James who told them That the quietest determinations of such Questions were fit for the University and not to stuff our Articles with all Theological conclusions But this by the way I have before told you how great service this worthy Prelate did in his Controversies against the Papists This was not all the work that lay on his shoulders for he no sooner came to the Office of a Bishop but he met with another sort of Adversary who began then to question the Authority of the Church in her ordaining decent Ceremonies in her service And when he found that a private Conference with these sort of men did little prevail he then published his Defence of the Three Innocent Ceremonies a discourse so solid that it must satisfie any person that is governed by reason and not by phansie and affection But as these men began then to undermine the Out-works as I may so call them of Episcopal Jurisdiction so this great man lived to see the whole Hierarchy by them destroyed voted down Root and Branch and that as Popish and Antichristian to the amazement of all Mankind the Wonder of the Reformed Church and the publique Triumph of the Roman Conclave And were it not that those years so late past were perfectly a time of Paradoxes what wise man could imagine that they and their Order should be counted Popish who were the greatest opposers of it who had writ so many unanswerable Volumns against it and who had by divers of their Martyrdom in Queen Mary's days asserted the Reformed Catholick Doctrine against the Corruptions and Novelties of the Roman Church This was the occasion which put this Learned Bishop to write this ensuing Tract which when he had first done he communicated it to the Most Reverend Father in God James Usher Lord Archbishop of Armagh and it did so satisfie that Learned Primate that he put it forth with some Discourses of his own without our Bishops Name or Knowledge though in the Codicel annexed to our Bishops Will
yet the Apostles who were guided by an Infallible Spirit setled Episcopacy in them all There was not in a Monarchy Episcopacy and in a Republick Presbytery but one and the same in both And this is matter of Fact and hath greater Authority to attest it than any humane story of that Antiquity which all mankind admits for Truth And for to affirm that though this be true this Government is alterable if the Magistrate judg it not so conducing to Piety as another he sets up What is it but to say that God did not foresee what contingencies would fall out in succeeding Ages and that the Apostles did not know what would advance true Religion and Piety in succeeding Ages so well as Magistrates that follow who are easily blinded and deceived when it conduceth to their Temporal Interest But if we must fansy nothing to have a lasting Reason but what we judg to have so I doubt this Atheistical Age will quickly lay aside all Institutions of Christ by judging them as some openly do of all Religion not to be of a lasting necessity Besides he that shall affirm that nothing can be a Medium to bind the Consciences of men as of Divine right unalterably but what is founded on Divine Testimony in some sense speaks true but if this be included in the assertion that this must be obvious to every capacity that is obliged to obey this divine Right 't is false For upon that account the Scripture it self should not bind those who have not understanding enough to know how they are admitted as such For to say the Scripture is the word of God because my Conscience which in plain English is nothing but my Opinion tells me so is no better an Argument than every Turc hath for his Alcoran But if there is a necessity to prove the Scripture to be Divine viz. the Reception of these books by the Catholick Church then he who hath not sense nor Learning enough to find out the truth of this must either admit the Scripture of divine Authority when the reason why it is so is not obvious to his understanding or else all illiterate people are not obliged to believe the truth of its Doctrine and obey it Now let us apply this to Church-Government If the same Authority which tells us these books are Canonical Scripture tells us withall that the very Apostles the Penmen of the New Testament did settle such a Government and if we find the following Age practiced it allow it to be dubious in Scripture which certainly it is not yet is not there as sufficient assurance that that Government was settled by the Apostles and so in some sense of Divine Right and so unalterable as we have to admit for Scripture the Revelation or any other book that ever was questioned Now for to affirm that Antiquity is not a sufficient ground for our assent unless we have a full assurance that the succeeding Ages did not vary from what the Apostles delivered or that they could not mistake in the delivery What is it but to say we must have greater Authority for matter of Fact than what a fact can have and doth not this Opinion destroy the Authority of Scripture totally For if the Churches delivery of such books as the writings of the Apostles be not sufficient for a rational man to ground his assent that these books were their writings and so Divine unless we have assurance that she could not mistake in the delivery of those books we must either believe the Church incapable of Errour in the delivery of Scripture or else we have no assurance to ground our Assent Now to believe a Church incapable of Errour savours little of Reason and to believe her only incapable in the delivery of Scripture savours much of Partiality But if we must understand the Church for by Church here I mean the Governours of it to be a wise sober body of pious and rational men and so by consequence that they would receive no books as the writings of inspired men but such of whose Authentickness they had rational Grounds as perhaps the very authentique Letters under the Apostles own hands which Tertullian mentions or some other good Authority And if this be sufficient reason to gain our assent Why is not the same Reason as sufficient for the Apostolical Government as for the Apostolical writings I confess 't is beyond my reach But if the Apostolical practice be sufficiently attested then to affirm 't is not enough to bind continually unless it be known to be God's mind it should do so is either to say the Apostles knew not the mind of God or else would not reveal it For certainly we have much more reason to say their practice binds unalterably than any one can have to say it doth not For we have much more reason to demand of these men some mind of God why we should change Apostolical Practice than they have of us why we constantly practice what the inspired Apostles did Neither do I understand how an Argument from Apostolical practice must suppose a different State of things than what they were when the Apostles established Governours over Churches For why should not we imagine the Apostles did constitute what they practiced And certainly he must be as infallible as the Pope pretends too that is sure any Exposition of Scripture that contradicts or concurs not with Apostolical practice is true if there can be any rational Exposition of those Scriptures which concurs with that practice And he who shall not believe there are such Expositions and though not infallible yet sober and I dare say much surer than any to the contrary must condemn all the Antient Fathers of the Church as ignorant and irrational men and believe some new fancies of men of Yesterday and the dotings of some idle Haereticks of greater Authority than those great lights of the Catholick Church And now to argue from some few practices in the Apostles times which were laid aside such as the Holy kiss c. that therefore any Constitution may is just such an Argument that if a circumstance a Ceremony may be changed the whole Substance may too unless a man will affirm there is no more need of a standing succession of Church-Governours than there is of the most minute practice in those daies But here I expect it should be said What necessity is there of a Succession of Ministers A ministry is necessary but to think that every Minister must as some in derision say draw his Pedegree from the Apostles that is a narrow principle and fit only for Bigots to believe and such as are easily deceived with the Great names of Antiquity and Catholique Tradition I confess I was sorry when I considered this Opinion to find that the French Ministers when they maintained their vocation to be lawful unto which Cardinal Perron made his Reply lay this down for their first Argument That if there was no other
be in the Apostles times there cannot but be the like if not a greater necessity of a Superintendency over Presbyterial parity the rather if we duly consider our next Proposition SECT II. That divers of the Apostolical Disciples were even in their times both in Dignity and Authority Superintendents over Presbyters HEre again our Opposites authentick Author Walo after much discussion of this point is ready to teach them being inforced thereunto by Scripture That those who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Assistants unto them in founding the Churches ordaining of Ministers in every City and watering the Church which they had instructed These he confesseth were so in Superiority above Presbyters as that the Apostles themselves did not forbear to term them Apostles and so predominant in Authority as Although absent from the Churches yet to instruct them by their Epistles and wheresoever any Schism arose either in Clergy or People still to rebuke them even as if they had been of their own Flock Upon these premisses thus granted we are sufficiently warranted to conclude not only that the Presbytery were continually under subjection both to the Apostolical Government but likewise to other eminent Disciples of the Apostles The same Author sticketh not to give a List of such Prelates and Superintendents as Mark Clement Titus Timothy Epaphroditus and saith he many others This being so pregnant a truth how is it that our Opposites should pretend an Eccesiastical Presbyterial Government no way Subordinate That which is objected by them is most vain and frivolous whereunto we occur as now followeth SECT III. That the aforesaid Apostolical Disciples were as Bishops over the Presbyters Among whom were Timothy and Titus by evidence from Scripture THE Texts of Scripture for proof of their Superiority and Authority are so plain that they need no Commentary And our witnesses are so impartial as not to admit of any exception For in the Text we read of an Apostolical Ordinance to Timothy and Titus respectively To set in order the things that were wanting To inhibit Heterodox Preachers To receive accusations against criminous Elders To excommunicate Hereticks To Ordain Elders yet so As to lay hands on no man suddainly Each of these and the like Apostolical Injunctions do fully express an Episcopal Function and Authority in both of these respectively over Presbyters and the whole Churches under them And though this hath been stuck at by divers of our Opposites lest that hereby Timothy and Titus might appear to be Bishops distinct from Presbyters yet now at last their chief and greatest Advocate for Presbyterial Government confesseth the Authority which these held and exercised over Presbyters yet so that Bishops as he thinks shall take no advantage thereby if they who are Pleaders may also be admitted as our Judges We proceed citing the same witness Walo Messalinus confessing That Timothy and Titus had almost equal Authority with the Apostles of Christ by whom they were ordained to govern whole Churches as Directors and Judges Of which sort besides Timothy and Tituâ— he there sets down Mark Clemens Epapâ—roditus and all those who were Assistants and fellow Labourers with the Apostles whereof we have spoken already Thus by the premises it sufficiently appeareth that there was a double Superintendency over Presbyters yet we enquire furthermore concerning Timothy and Titus whether or no they were at this time whereof we now speak distinctly Bishops In discussing whereof we shall according to our usual method first remove their Objections which are against their Episcopacy that done we shall make good the contrary by due proofs SECT IV. That Timothy and Titus were properly and distinctly Bishops notwithstanding their Title of Evangelists as is confessed by Protestant Divines of remote Churches BUt here their Walo will needs interpose seeking by an Objection as with a Spunge to wipe out all opinion of Episcopacy either in Timothy or Titus because forsooth Called Evangelists who had no peculiar Residence in any Church but general in all Churches whereas they who are by the Apostle called Bishops had a singular charge of the Church wherein they were and there were they to reside and remain for the governing thereof So he And from him our home Opposites chanting and rechanting and making it their undersong to say again and again That Timothy and Titus were Evangelists so as not to be held that which we call Bishop and they name this Assertion The hinge of the Controversie But this Objection say we hath often been taken off the hinge and laid flat on the floor by divers solid and satisfactory Answers We say not of Bishops or their Chaplains but of other Protestant Divines even of Presbyterial Churches cited here in the Margent First The Theological Professor of Hiedelberg answers That when these Epistles weâ—e written to Timothy and Titus they were exercised not as Evangelists in assisting the Apostles in the collecting of Churches but as Bishops in governing them which had been collected as saith he the general Praecepis given to them do prove which could not refer to the Temporary power of Evangelists but to them and their Successors as Bishops From whence we conclude what that learned Doctor doth there declare That the name Evangelist did belong unto them in the large sense as it signifieth a Preacher of the Gospel Tolossanus agreeth in the same answer namely that Timothy and Titus who had been Companions with Paul in his travails was afterward made Bishop of Crete Dr. Gerard answereth by way of distinction That the word Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 is not there specially taken for a particular degree in the Church but generally as signifying a Preacher of the Gospel and so including that Order which Timothy now had being a Bishop of Ephesus for now he did no more accompany Paul So he citing Luther also for the like interpretation of that Text. And though he doth acknowledge that both Timothy and Titus had formerly been Evangelists agreeable to the special and proper signification of the word and according hath set down their several travails from place to place yet after those travails were ended which was before these Epistles were written he concludeth both of them to have been Bishops out of several Texts of Scripture Timothy of Ephesus and Titus of Creet 6 Zwinglius likewise is downright against the Objectors proving by the example of Timothy out of the 2 Timoth. 4.5 That the Office of Evangelist and Bishop was hâ—re one and the same However our Opposites it may be will allow to Bishops the same liberty of going out of their Dioces which Calvin doth to Presbyters out of their Parishes who are otherwise bound to be Resident in their Charge Concerning whom he saith That they are not strictly tied to their Glebe or Charge but that they may be helpful unto other Churches upon necessary occasions The same admirable Divine will furthermore
our selves much but may be contented with the Testimonies of our Opposites choice Advocate and against Bishops as vehement an Adversary as could be Yet he in his Commentaries upon the Verses concerning the foresaid Bishops instiled Angels in the two first Chapters of the Apocalypse from Point to Point sheweth notwithstanding how those Bishops in these Churches were reprehended by Christ for not executing Spiritual Discipline upon certain as well Clergy as People A second for too much Indulgence to the Wicked A third for suffering the Woman Jezabel and such as had been seduced by her and not handling her according to her Deserts Doctor Fulke saith as much in effect A fourth For forbearing to use Discipline against a Balaamatical Seducer Mr. Perkins likewise fetcheth his ground of Excommunication from the foresaid Texts concerning the Angel of the Church of Pergamus whom he was inclined to think was a Prelate over Presbyters as Marlorate also but even now told us That the same Angel was therefore reprehended by Christ because being President there he did not put in practice his Authority of Correction which he had over Clergy and People Let us now proceed to a Rule of Proportion to try how our Opposites Comparison can stand between an Apocalyptical Prelate and either Speaker in Parliament or Proloquutor in an Assembly or as any other for Time or Place together with some other circumstances allotted by Ordinance of Parliament But tell us have any of these Authority to take an Accusation of any Criminal Offence which haply may be committed or of controlling any one Vote be it never so exorbitant much less any Corrective Power of any one Member of the House Nor doth this differ from the Confession of Mr. Calvin first in his Collection out of the Epistle of St. Paul to Titus viz. That at that time one was set over the rest of Presbyters to govern them both in Authority and Counsel in Authority Why I confess saith he as the Conditions of Men are now a days no Order can be kept amongst Ministers except one be over the rest And how often have they acknowledged the Prelacy of one over the rest of the Clergy to be a Presidency And so their thrice Learned Advocate will resolve them saying They dream not of any Presidency void of Authority seeing that every Child knoweth that there cannot be any Presidency without Authority SECT XXV That Episcopal Government exercised in the Primitive Church was Authoritative WE dare and do protest That hereby we plead not for an irregular Prelacy No for according to the State of the Church even at this time Bishops themselves are under Canons and are as liable to Censures as others if they shall transgress Besides the Obedience enjoyned upon Presbyters hath ever been constituted by their own Consents either express or implicit and accordingly ratified by Parliaments But we are to inquire into the Judgment of Antiquity that we may the better continue in their Footsteps The most Antient Father Ignatius in those Epistles which are allowed for genuine by the most exact and industrious Authors Vedelius Scultetus and Rivetus is most frequent in this Argument for submission of Presbyters to their Bishops giving them always a Negative Voice and allowing nothing to be done without them As did also Clemens both of them being Disciples of the Apostles Cyprian not long after a Martyr of Christ professed to do nothing without the Consent of his Clergy yet held it necessary for the Church that all Acts should be managed by Bishops Tertullian though himself a Presbyter denied that Presbyters we speak of the Exercise had the right so much as of Baptizing without the Consent of the Bishop Origen a Presbyter likewise thinketh That his Accompt to God will be less than if he had been a Bishop because saith he the Bishop possessing the chief place in the Church is accomptable to God for the whole Church Ambrose noteth such a Man be he Presbyter or Lay to be a strayer from the Truth who doth not obey his Bishop We pass by Epiphanius Chrysostome and other eminent Fathers to Hierome whose Patronage our Opposites pretend to have yet in this Particular he is as much against them as any The Safety of the Church saith he doth depend upon the Dignity of the Bishop so that unless an extraordinary and eminent Power be given unto him there will be as many Schisms in the Church as Ministers And again which we wish the Presbyterial Advocates duely to mark he saith not only that Bishops are a Law unto themselves but unto Presbyters also Hitherto of the Jurisdiction it self The next Point concerneth the Continuance of it in the Person of the Bishop SECT XXVI That the personal continuance of Episcopacy was during life against the most novel Figments to the contrary FIrst The Angels or Supreme Ministers in the Revelation to whom the Epistles according to the Scriptures were written seeing that they were always chargeable to inform the Presbyters with the Contents therefore they must be supposed to be in Office before they could discharge any such Function Because Timothy Titus and all the other Apostles continued their functions until their bodily dissolution Secondly In the narrative parts of every of the said Epistles Christ giveth every of the Prelates to know That he knew their works and that he had them in estimation according to their works namely works done long before insomuch that he chargeth one To do his former works c. 2. v. 3. and commendeth another because His last works were better than his former c. 3. v. 19. Noting as well the works of his Function as of his Conversation and therefore was far from the conceipt of a Deambulatory Hebdomatical or peradventure Ephemeral Office either of the foresaid Speaker Proloquutor or Moderato Who by reason of their not continuance in their Office could not be capable of their Charge either of doing their former work nor commended for his better after work in his said Office Thirdly Besides some were questioned for not executing their Offices against the Heretical Nicolaitans and Idolatrous Balaamites and Jesabel as well out of the Convocation of Presbyters as with their consent when they were met Which proveth that in the interim between Convents and not Convents the Prelates office was permanent Whereas the Deambulatory Actors use to have their Quietus est and to forgo their Imployments for want of Continuance more or less Fourthly If we look forwards to the time to come Christ is found threatning the Prelates that were obnoxious One to be removed if he did not repent c. 2. v. 3. And denouncing against another To come against him if he should not repent and do his former works c. 2. v. 14. But useth this to be the process of Deambulatory Officers if they have offended grievously in one Parliament and Convocation to