pag. 240.390 Fâ—â—b but when Cresconius or other Donatists would bring any thing out of him to prove what Augustin judged an errour he knew how to set the Scriâ—tures and Apostles above him So doth Cyprian sharply speak against those who brought Tradition for their proof qua ista obstinatio qua presumptio humanam traditionem divine dispositîoni anteponere c Vnde ista traditio Vtrumne de dominica evangelica auctoritate descendens Ep 74. c So Tertullian Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de two infert Bellarmine saith enough Patrum scripta non sunt regula nec habent authoritatem obligandi To the Scriptures then let us go which speak so clear in this controversie that all men even the Papists who call those men Hereticks that deny this superiority of Bishops yet are forced to yield it that in the Apostles time the Bishop and Presbyter were the same Let Cajetan's interpretation be heard upon Tit. 1.5 7. Vbi adverte eundem gradum idemquè officium significari à Paulo nomine Presbyteri nomine Episcopi as cross to Bishop Davenant as can be Anselm the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Comment upon the same verses brings all Hierons Comment where he proves Bishops and Presbyters to be the same and no way opposeth it Estius who in the beginning of his Disputation calls them Hereticks who will not yield the superiority of Bishops and that jure divino in the midst of his Disputation hath these words Quod autem jure divinâ— sint Episcopi Presbyteris superiores Senten l. 4. d. 24. S. 25. etsi non ita clarum est è saoris literis aliunde ramen satis efficaciter probari potest probatur tam ratione quà m testimoniis veterum It seems then the Scriptures are not clear enough to prove this superiority in his opinion and which is divinely spoken though he could not prove the divine right of this Superiority out of the Scriptures yet he would prove it by reason and testimonies of Ancients Had a Presbyterian written thus he should have been scorned to purpose Take the Papists again in their I. C. dist 60. Sacres Ordines dicimus Diaconatum Presbyteratum hos enimsolos primitiva legitur habuisse Ecclesia According to these then your Antiquity for Episcopacy must not go so high as the Primitive Church One more Papist and I have done with them I find Greg. de Valen. De Sacr. Ord. disp 9. q. 1. p. 2. quoting of Michael Medina one of their own affirming that Hierem and all the Fathers he had named before which were Angustin Ambrose Chrysostom Primasius Theophylact and Otcumenius fuisse planè in errore Acrii but the Church did not condemn this errour in them but bare with them because they were otherwise orthodox but did condemn it in Acrius being otherwise in multis nominibus hareticus Then it seems Acrius who was against this Superiority by divine right had these worthy men in that point to agree with him in Medina's judgment with whom Valentia is not pleased To conclude as to Testimonies Learned and Sober Jewel a Jewel indeed in his defence against Harding p. 101 202. quoting testimonies out of Hierom Ambrose Augustin concludes that by the Scriptures of God a Bishop and Presbyter are all one thus this Reverend Bishop I wonder these Testimonies grounded also on Scripture could not moderate our Brethrens heat in this controversie We hope Presbyterial Ordination will not be so contemptible at last I have but one thing to add and it is considerable the Syriack Translation which is so ancient that in time it came near the Original and is thought by some to have been made in the time of the first Antiochian Christians do not use two words one for Bishop and another for Presbyter as our Translation and the Greek but it hath only the word which signifies a Presbyter unlesse in one place Tit. 1.5 7. For a Presbyter must be blameless So 1 Tim. 3.1 If a man desire the Office of a Presbyter V. 2. A Presbyter then must be blameless So in Phil. 1.1 With the Presbyters and Deacons In Acts 20.28 There it alters the word is originally Greek the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only it hath a Syriac termination being Nomen plurale emphaticum in prima Declinatione In 1 Pet. 2. ult Where Bishop is referr'd to Christ there it hath another word Now this to me carries strong proof that this distinction of Bishop and Presbyter was unknown when that Translation was made for there is not so much as any different names but Presbyter is the only word Whether any have taken notice of this before I know not And though some say that it is a Trite Argument that is drawn from the words Presbyter and Bishop being used promiscuously yet it is such an Argument as hath so much strength in it that it was never answered We use to say that Nomina sunt rerum notae symbola whence if the same persons are called Presbyters or Bishops surely their power cannot be distinct Officers are known by their names and distinct Officers by distinct names in some places in the Scripture though in others they may have a general name common to others Though Paul in one place calls himself a Minister and Peter an Elder yet in other places we find they are called Apostles So the Officers have their distinctions Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers Eph. 4.11 But Presbyter and Bishop are never thus differenced no not in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus where of all places they should have been if in those Epistles the Apostle lay the foundation of Episcopacy as say our Brethren but there they are the same as is plain to see and confessed by the Fathers Papists and Protestants Yea and besides the same Names what qualifications are required of one are required of the other the same work is enjoyned both Acts 20.28 1 Pet. 5.1 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same Names the same Qualifications the same Charge conclude the same Function How then Reverend Davenant comes to find this eminency of power to be given and confirmed by the Apostles let us now consider His first Argument is taken from the Jewish Church thus Arg. 1 God appointed the High Priest superiour in authority over the Priests and the Priests over the Levites Ergo The like order is to be stablished in the Christian Church To which I Answer 1. There was and is still superiority of Officers in the Christian Church there was when there were Apostles Prophets Answ Evangelists Pastors c. there is now the Preaching Elder above the Ruling Elder and the Ruling Elder above the Deacon But he means amongst the Preaching Elders then I answer 2. This Argument will better prove a Vniversal Bishop Bellar. de Rom. Pont l. 1. c. 9. than a Diocesan Bishop and is used by Bellarmine for the same purpose it is his third reason
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-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
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
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
upright Gentlemen How is it that you who tell us so much of Antiquity for the proof of your Episcopacy do you now make so light of your own Bible Harding tells Bishop Jewell That if the blessed Sacrament of the Altar were no other than he and the rest of the Sacramentarians think of it then were it not well done for the people to bow down to it Transubstantiation was that which brought in Kneeling and it seems the Papists think if we do not own that there is no reason to Kneel nay we do not well to bow down to the Bread and Wine But that which hath much run in my minde is this Suppose in the Mahometane worship there were some dispute what gesture there should be used in it and the Mahometanes should find in their Alcoran that Mahomet and some of his chiefest followers whom they most reverence did use such a gesture in the worship and this is recorded in the Alcoran do we think the Mahometans would not give so much honor to Mahomet his chief followers their Alcoran as to say That is the gesture we must and will use which by our Alcoran we finde our great Prophet and his Followers used I am confident they would not disgrace their Alcoran Mahomet nor his Followers so much to say because we are not bound to it we will use another I beseech you Brethren when as we finde in our Holy Bible that Jesus Christ administred and the Apostles received the Sacrament not kneeling but with another gesture suting a feast If the Question be now moved What gesture must we use at the Sacrament do we when we have the gesture of sitting to be sure it answered sitting at our feasts recorded in our Bibles that thus the Apostles received it give due honour to our Bibles and the Apostles with our Lord when we cast by that and use another For the honor of my Bible which I take to be the rule for my Religion and for the honor of the Apostles who first received it and were the Lords Pen-men I would chuse rather to use this gesture because I would surely give as much honor to my Bible as a Turk to his Alcoran For CHRISTMASSE-Day Mr. Baxter hath spoken very fully to it in my apprehension some of the Arguments he useth against it were in my own thoughts he hath added more and shewn more Learning and Reading than I am acquainted with If the Day be kept to shew our Love to Christ or our Thanks for Christ Did not the Apostles love him as much as we were not they as thankfull for him as we did they not exceed us abundantly in both and had not they the same cause for a day that we have Yet we never finde that they kept such a day For us to seem to be more wise more holy more enlarged in love to Christ than the Apostles is so abhorred in my thoughts that this is it which hath kept me off from observing the Day as some men do though I condemn not other Godly men who do keep it To conclude 1. In things belonging to God if we keep close to the Holy Scriptures there is no danger Why do we not chuse the safest 2. If we set up that in his Church for which we have not good warrant from the Word there may be danger 3. To force others to yield to that in Religious things for which there is not sufficient warrant in the Word or else to force them from their Ministry and worship of God is certainly very sinfull and therefore very dangerous FINIS