particulars and you will find a small remainder that preach piously and edifying also very few to equal the Compilers of our Homilies and then calmly consider the great use yea the great necessity of such Homilies But if you can furnish all our Churches with pious discreet edifying preaching Pastors I am abundantly satisfied and do you seal up the Book of Homilies till a new dearth of spiritual food which God in his great mercy prevent Amen Concerning Bishops and Priests WHoever unbiass'd reads the Scripture thence proceeds to the first Christian Writers and so goes on from Age to Age can't doubt but that the Church was always governed by Bishops that is by one Elder or Presbyter or President or what else you please to call him set over the rest of the Clergy with authority to Ordain to Exhort to Rebuke to Judg and Censure as he found cause no other form of Government is mentioned by any Authority for Fifteen hundred years from the Apostles downwards Now who can in reason and modesty suspect those Primitive Bishops who lived in the days of the Apostles chosen by them into the Church succeeded them in Church Government yea and in Martyrdom also for the Faith as Clemens Ignatius Polycarpus and others who I say can suspect them to be prevaricators in Church Discipline and take upon them another form of Episcopal Government contrary to Apostolican Institution These great Masters of Self-denyal who gave their Lives for the Truth would they transmit unto Posterity a Church Government contrary to the Truth let who will believe it I can neither believe it nor suspect it And there is yet another thing very observable that all the Orthodox Church dispersed all the world over some parts having no correspondence at all with the other by reason of distance some by Warrs divided and made cruel Enemies yet all agreed in this form of Government and not only the Orthodox but also the Schismaticks and Hereticks who separated from hated and persecuted the Orthodox Church they likewise retained still this form of Government as if all were of necessity compelled to acknowledg this having never known heard nor dream'd of other And therefore nothing but necessity if that can excuse those who first set up another form of Government to their own Masters let them stand or fall I will not presume to censure them I will only say That from the begining it was not so and I thank God 't is not so with us but as it was in the beginning so it is now with us and ever shall be I trust in God Amen But notwithstanding all this yet 't is very much to be doubted whether they were of any distinct superiour order from and above the Presbyters or one of the same order set over the rest with power to ordain Elders to exhort rebuke chastise as Timothy and Titus were constituted by St. Paul For though they were of the same order with the other Elders and Pastors yet there was great reason for some to be placed with greater Authority to rule over the rest The Scripture tells us That even in the days of the Apostles there were several seducing teachers leading the people into errors and heresies and more were to follow after the Apostles times grievous wolves in sheeps clothing and therefore it was very necessary to pick out some of eminent soundness in faith and godliness of life and set them up on high with great Authority as fixed Stars in the Heavens so styled Revel 1. to whom all might have regard in dangerous times as Marriners observe in their Sea-faring journies But the Scripture no where expresses any distinction of order among the Elders we find there but two orders mentioned Bishops and Deacons Of Deacons we shall treat afterwards Let us now proceed to the Order of Bishops and Priests which the Scripture distinguishes not for there we find but one kind of Ordination then certainly but one Order for two distinct Orders can't be conferred in the same instant by the same words by the same actions They who think Deaconship and Priesthood distinct the one subservient to the other though they intend in the same hour to consecrate the same Man Deacon and Priest do they not first compleat him Deacon then Priest I pray let any Man shew me from Scripture as I said Timothy or Titus or any one ordained twice made first Priest then Bishop which is absolutely necessary if they be distinct characters and 't is generally affirmed though I humbly conceive they scarce understand what they affirm I mean they understand not what these characters are whether Greek Hebrew or Arabick or what else But let that pass I desire them only to shew me how a Man can make two characters with one stroke or motion A. and B. at the same instant If then neither Timothy nor Titus nor any other were but once ordained whence can we gather these two distinct characters these two distinct Orders We find the Apostles themselves but once ordained those by the Apostles but once ordained and so on When St. Paul left Titus in Creete to ordain he mentions only one ordination that of Presbyters so the word in Greek no other ther 's no commission given him to ordain Bishops and Presbyters Who then was to ordain Bishops there not Titus he had no such command we do not find that St. Paul himself did And sure you will not grant that the Presbyters which Titus ordained that they could ordain Bishops there for you will not allow them to ordain so much as Presbyters Yet Bishops you will needs have in every City and in Creete were very many who ordained Bishops for them all Truly I can't find nor you neither I believe But you will say The superior order contains in it virtually the inferior order let this pass at present doth Presbyter then virtually cantain Bishop If so then all Presbyters are Bishops No say you Bishop is the superior order and that contains in it Presbyter You say so but by your leave you are to prove so or give me leave to say otherwise especially seeing I have Scripture for my saying and you have none for yours But should I grant Bishop the superior what then we find Titus ordained not any but Presbyters as he was commanded by St. Paul so we are still at a loss for our Bishops we find not their Ordination Or did St. Paul mistake in his expression and meaning Bishops in every City said Presbyters in every City let this pass also and I pray let us see what you mean by this The superior order virtually contains the inferior Do not you say they are two distinct Orders two real distinct indelible characters imprinted in the Soul as the School-men affirm give me leave to talk their Language though I understand it not If I take a fair paper and make an A. upon it for the character of Presbyter and then make a B. upon it for the Character of
a Bishop the same paper contains both Characters but sure one Character doth not contain the other A. doth not contain B. nor doth B. contain A. So the same Soul may receive two Characters two Orders but if the two Orders be distinct how can they contain each other I understand no more then I do these Holy Characters If they can paint them out unto me in their proper figures perchance I may understand them better but as yet I ingeniously confess my ignorance I grant in a Metaphysical way of Abstraction the superiour species contains the inferiour genus A Man a rational creature contains the animality of a Horse the inferiour creature but doth not contain a real Horse in his belly nor can a man beget Horses or men when he pleases Nor can you truly say a man is a Horse I believe my Schoolmen would take it in snuff should I affirm any of them to be Horses c. But they affirm that a Bishop doth not only virtually contain the Priesthood but is really a Priest and can make Priests or Bishops as he please Whereby you may see this answer That the Superiour Order virtually contains the inferiour is a meer evasion it sounds as if it were something but really is nothing to our purpose at all for we are not now upon Metaphysical abstractions but real individual subsistencies two actual distinct Orders as they would have it two distinct indelible characters imprinted on mens souls by Ordination as A. and B. which can never be truly affirmed one of the other A. is not B. and B. is not A. a man is not a horse and a Horse is not a man so a Bishop ordain'd only Bishop is not a Priest nor a Priest a Bishop if they be distinct Wherefore I must beleive them one and the same Order especially seeing the Scripture applies the same name promiscuously to both which is the second argument of their identity to be one and the same Acts. 20. St. Paul sends to Ephesus to call the Presbyters of that Ghurch un-him at Miletum and speaking to them he calls them all Bishops in our Translation 't is Overseers Verse 28. So in his Epistle to the Phillippians he directs to all the Saints with the Bishops and Deacons both in the plural number so that by the word Bishops we must needs understand Presbyters for Bishops as we now take the word were never many in one City I pray observe also St. Paul Epis. to Titus 1. 5. For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldest ordain Elders in every City if any be blameless for a Bishop must be blameless Is it not here evident that an Elder and a Bishop in St. Paul's Language is one and the same otherwise there were no coherency at all in St. Paul's speech If this be not convincing beyond all possible evasion I understand nothing of discourse Other such places are obvious in Scripture to every one I need mention no more only I desire to inform the Reader of a passage to this purpose in an Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians This Clemens is mentioned in Scripture and is he whom St. Peter appointed his successor at Rome and who was of so great Authority that as St. Hierome tells us this his Epistle was read in Churches Now in this Epistle Clemens particularly sets forth the constitution of the Church by the Apostles and what Ministers they ordained in the Church to wit Bishops and Deacons he names no other which seems to me as full an evidence as can be that there were no other Orders in the Church in those daies but those two And yet we are sure there was then Presbiters in the Church for Peter and Iohn call themselves Presbyters and St. Peter calls them Presbiters to whom he wrote his Epistle so that if there were but two Orders to wit Bishops and Deacons Presbyters must be one and the same with Bishops or with Deacons not with Deacons therefore one and the same with Bishops One Order called by two names promiscuously in Scripture as hath been shewed before And I desire you to observe that of those two names Presbyter and Bishop if therebe any dignity and eminency exprest in one more then the other sure it is in the name of Presbiter not Bishop because the Apostles themselves and the chief of the Apostles as some would have it who stand highest on their Panâ—ables are in Scripture styled Presbyters or Elders as the word in our English Translation but never Bishops as I remember And therefore I can't but wonder why that haughty head of the Papists should not assume to himself the title of his pretended predecessor St. Peter Presbyter rather then Bishop unless it be by God's providential disposure to shew his blindness in this as well as in other things and make him confute himself by this name of Bishop which was never given to St. Peter no more then St. Peter gave unto him the Headship of the Church As to the interpretations and answers given to these and such like Scripture expressions sure I need not take any pains to confute them for they are so weak as that Petavius a late Writer and great stickler for the superiority of Episcopacy durst not trust to them nor would venture his credit to make use of them but sound out a new and rare conceit as he conceives That these Presters mentioned in Scripture and called by both names were all really Bishops and that the Apostles Ordained them so as most convenient for that time for the Congregations of the Faithful being small there needed no Priests under the Bishops to officiate and yet there was need of a Bishop in those small Congregations because there were several things to be done which were not within the power and capacity of Presbiters to act as he supposes viz. the laying on of hands and confirming the Faithful after Baptisme the veiling of devoted Women the reconciling of penitents the ordaining Deacons where there was need and adds moreover several impertinences as the making of Chrisme consecrating Church-Vessels c. And Petavius mightily applauds himself in this conceit as the only means to clear all difficulties Our Doctor Hammond also finding the usual interpretations of those places of Scripture above mentioned too weak to sustain the arguments builded on them for the Unity of Order goes along after Petavius a great way in the fore cited discourse though not in the later impertinances and affirms that the Presbyters then were all Bishops And so far I go with them that all were Presbyters all Bishops because all was one and one was all several names not several Orders as they would have it and this I humbly conceive firmly proved by my former Argument of one Ordination wherein two distinct Orders could not be conferred so that still I require them to shew me from Scripture where these Presbyter-Bishops were twice Ordained else it cannot be truly affirmed they were really
restrain and chastise disorderly Pastors Just so when whole Nations were converted and not only the Pastors but the Bishops also who had oversight of the Pastors encreased in number then for the same reason it was thought fit there should be an Overseer of the Bishops and be called an Arch-Bishop when the Arch Bishops were multiplied then another set over them and he called a Patriark and at last one over the Patriarks and he call'd Papa a Pope Catexochen though Papa before was a name attrributed to other Bishops Now as Pope Patriarck Arch-Bishop Bishop are all one and the same Order Papists themselves grant this so Bishop Elder Presbyter Priest all one and the same only one of these set over the rest and he now particularly call'd Episcopus that is Bishop Catexochen because he oversees the Overseers but this last constitution only is Apostolical the other of Arch-Bishop Patriark Pope are meer humane not at all mentioned in Scripture But now another Objection arises Petavius grants that all the Elders which the Apostles Ordained were Bishops and towards the end of the Apostles days they set some eminent amongst them over the rest to govern and ordain Elders in every City as Timothy and Titus and these Elders in every City were Bishops and thus the Apostles left the Church with Bishops only and Deacons And this is evident by what I brought before out of Clemens who lived after the Apostles days and mentions only Bishops and Deacons left by the Apostles This being so I desire to know who after the Apostles days began this new kind of Ordination of Presbyters or Elders not Bishops the Apostles Ordained none such who then and by what authority was this new Order set up the Scripture mentions it not when and by whom came it in A very bold undertaking without Scripture or Apostolical practice I will not boast my conceit as Petavius doth his only I wish the Reader to consider which is most practical most rational or rather most scriptural thereon I frame this wole Fabrick as the Rock and only sure Foundation humane Brain is too weak to erect and to support the Fabrick of the Church of God which the Romanists have made a very Babel with their humane inventions and multiplied Characters and Orders some of them would have nine several holy Orders in God's Church militant here on Earth because there are nine several Orders of Coelestial Spirits in the Church Triumphant in Heaven This is a castle of their own building in the Air a rare foundation for God's Church Others will have seven several Orders and Characters as seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost Hath the Holy Ghost then but seven several Gifts to confer on Men St. Paul 1 Cor. 12. counts unto us nine not as if these were all but only for example sake to shew us that many and divers Gifts are conferred on us by one and the same Spirit and in the conclusion of the same Chapter he mentions eight These things were uttered accidentally according to the occasion not as limiting the Gifts of the Holy Ghost to any set number But if you will further look into their application of these Gifts of the Holy Ghost and see to what kind of several Orders they appropriate them it would make a Man amazed to see sober Learned Men even that great Wit and Scholar Aquinas discourse in such wild manner as did you but stand behind a Curtain to hear and not see them you doubtless would conclude you heard some old Woman in the Nursery telling her Dreams to Children rather than Divine Doctors in School I 'le name but one or two of their Orders The Porter of the Church Door is one and he forsooth hath a Sacred Character imprinted on his Soul and his Gift is the discerning of Spirits that he may judge who are fit to enter into God's Church who to be shut out Another of their Orders is that of Acolouthi who are now antiently they were quite another thing certain Boys carrying Torches and attending on the Bishop saying Mass these have their Character also and their Gift of the Holy Ghost is the interpretation of Tongues signified no doubt on 't by the Light in their Hands but understand no more of Tongues than the Stick of their Torch I will not weary you with more of their Absurdities Our Episcopal Divines rejecting these chymerical fancies of Orders and Characters suppose it to be a certain Faculty and Power conferred by the laying on of hands for the exercise of Ministerial Duties and according to this purpose the Superior Order contains the Inferiour as the greater Power contains in it the less Thus Episcopacy being the superior Order contains in it Priesthood and Deaconship these three are their supposed distinct Orders They may suppose this if they please and. I may suppose the contrary But I would gladly know on what Scripture they ground this discourse that 's the thing I still require and there we find no larger Faculty or Power given to Bishops but rather to Presbyters as I have shewed the Apostles who had the greatest power being stiled Presbyters not Bishops And when our Bishops do Ordain Presbyters do not they use the very same form of words which our Saviour used when he Ordained the Apostles Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins ye forgive they are forgiven c. Do they not then by the same words conser the same power for I hope they use no Equivocation nor mental Reservation if the Power be the same the Order is the same by their own Rule Again let us examine their own Practice Do they not require a Man should be ordained first Deacon before he be ordained Priest and Priest before Bishop what needs this if the superiour contains the inferiour But in Scripture we find it otherwise Timothy who long officiated under St. Paul as a Presbyter when he was left at Ephesus and so when Titus was left at Creet both to be Bishops we find no new ordination were this requisite sure the Scripture would have given us at least some hint of it but not one tittle there But if the Scripture be defective in expressions you will supply it by the expressions and practice of the Church in first succeeding Ages Before you go on and take much pains to shew me this give me leave to tell you that I shall not easily recede from Scripture in fundamentals either of Faith or Church-discipline in things indifferent of themselves or in more weighty matters very doubtfully express't in Scripture I shall always most readily submit to the interpretation of the Primitive and Universal Church I require both Primitive and Universal for I shewed before that in matters of Faith there were some errors very Primitive yet not continued by the Universal Church but rejected in succeeding Ages And at the time of the Evangelical Reformation by Luther Melancton Calvin c. I can shew some errors generally received in most if
not in all the Churches of Christendom but neither approved nor known by the Primitive Church wherefore I require what you produce should be both Primitive and Universal and this to interpret some place of Scripture doubtful in it self not plain Now as to the business in hand I can't yield that the Scripture is very doubtful in it or scarce doubtful at all for though in Scripture 't is not in terminis said Presbytery and Episcopacy are both one and the same Order yet the circumstantial expressions are as I have shewed so strong and many that they are equivalent to a cleer expression in terminis Secondly this is not a matter of any indifferency but of vast and dangerous consequence if mistaken That a Church without such Bishops as you require can't be truly call'd a Church and so we shall exclude many Godly Reformed Churches For if Bishops be of such a superiour and distinct order as you pretend if the power of Ordination be inherent in them only Then where no Bishop no true Priests ordained where no Priests no Sacraments where no Sacraments no Church Wherefore I humbly beseech you be not too positive in this point lest thereby you do not only condemn all the Reformed Churches but the Scripture and St. Paul also who tells us That the Scripture is sufficient to make us wise unto Salvation both in matters of faith and works also to instruct and throughly furnish us to every good work and will any deny this of Ordination to be both a good and necessary work seeing that the powerful preaching the Word and administration of the Sacraments depend upon it Wherefore I dare not by any means suspect the Scripture defective in this weighty affair Yet to shew you our willingness to hear all things let us hear what you can tell us from Antiquity The first you bring is Epiphanius three hundred years after the Apostles from whom the main Objection is drawn against the Indentity of Order and shot as a Cannon Bell against us beyond all possible resistance but you will find it to be a meet Tennis Ball. Epiphanius making a Catalogue of Hereticks puts in Aertius for one who was an Arian and moreover held that Bishops and Priests were all of one Order and of equal Dignity and Authority and that a Presbyter had power to Ordain Confirm and in short to act any thing equal with a Bishop That he was an Heretick is apparent being an Arrian nay I shall not scruple to yeeld unto you that he was an Heretick in this his assertion concerning Episcopacy and Presbytery as we now understand them I say the Assertion contains Heresie in one part but not in every part viz. That the Bishop and other Presbyters are of equal authority and power to act this may in some sense be called Heresie for it is against Apostolical Constitution declared in Scripture therefore an Heresie and if you can shew me from Scripture as much against Identity of Order I shall brand him for an Heretick in that also but being sure there is no such thing in Scripture there can be no Heresie in affirming the Identity I fully agree with Tertullian we can make no judgment de rebus fidei nisi ex literis fidei of matters of Faith but from the writings of Faith that is the Scripture and therefore I shall never be pulled from this Pillar of Truth The Scripture is our compleat Rule of Faith no Opinion is heretical and damnable which is not against that Now Good Reader I pray take notice that Epiphanius was a very godly Bishop in the main but yet a very cholerick Man as appears in that his fierce contest with Iohn Bishop of Constantinople and his bitter expressions therein which I do not mention in disparagement of this holy Man but only to give the Reader a caution to remember that passionate Men do sometimes censure more severely than there is cause Epiphanius being a Bishop and finding the authority and dignity of Episcopacy much disparaged by Aerius being an Arrian Heretick falls upon him sharply for this his Opinion also wherein he was in part much to be condemned as I freely confest before but not in the very Point now in question nor doth Epiphanius himself condemn him in this particular as an Heretick but only in the gross to which I freely give my vote But you will tell me that a Man of a far milder temper St. Austin doth also enrol Aerius among Hereticks I know it well but I desire you to know that St. Austin doth not lay this to his charge as an Heresie for he saith only thus Aereus also was an Heretick for he fell into Arrian Heresie and he added some Opinions of his own then St. Austin recounts several of his Opinions whereof this was one That he affirmed there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter where I pray you observe St. Austin gives us the reason why he ranks him with Hereticks viz. because he fell into the Arrian Heresie then follows And he added some Opinions of his own St. Austin calls these Opinions not Heresies for he doth not say he added more Heresies of his own Secondly I pray you observe St. Austin makes no mention of his affirming the Identity of Order but only this That there was no difference at all between Bishop and Presbyter wherein I will condemn Aerius as well as you But as for the Identity of Order 't is well known that St. Austin is noted by Medina a Papist Writer and others to encline to this Opinion but for my part I think the words quoted from St. Austin do not express any Opinion one way or other to this purpose but are only a Complement to St. Hierom who was but a Prespyter yet in humility St. Austin being a Bishop acknowledges him to be his superiour in many things But I desire you to take notice of another very remarkable and most worthy passage of St. Austin who tells us plainly that we are not to read him or any other Author ever so holy or ever so learned with any obligation to submit to his or their Opinions unless they prove their Opinions by Scripture or convincing Reasons So then had Aerius been declared both by Epiphanius and St. Austin also to have been an Heretick in this very particular of Identity of Order yet they bringing neither Scripture nor any reason at all but meerly a bare narrative of Aerius and his Opinions not so much as calling his Opinion in this particular Heresie much less offering proofs for it by St. Austin's rule we may with great civility to them and great confidence in the truth still affirm the Identity of Order But how will I answer that Objection taken out of St. Hierom who say you was as great a leveller of Bishops with Priests as any and therefore whatever comes from him you may be sure is extracted from him by the powerfulness of undeniable truth yet he confesses that
their Judgments but receive their Opinions as agreeing with their Judgments this is evidently true and clearly rational and fully agrees with the Rules given by some of the Fathers as St. Cyprian and St. Austin two as generally and as deservedly reverenced as any in the Christian Church St. Cyprian tells us that the very Praepositus which we call Bishop is to be guided by his own reason and conscience and is responsible only to God for his Doctrine St. Austin tells us that he submits to no Doctor of the Church ever so learned ever so holy any further than he proves his doctrine by Scripture or reason and desires none should do otherwise by him this is plain and rational dealing had the Evangelical Doctors taken this course in the beginning they had saved themselves from many intricate troubles which their in-bred over-revence to antiquity entangled them in But sure they needed not have been so scrupulous in this matter seeing there is scarce any one Father whose authority the Papists themselves do not in some particular or other reject though other whiles when he speaks for them they try it up to that height as if it were even a matter of damnation not to submit unto it I say not this as if I would have antiquity wholly rejected by no means but to consult the Fathers with great regard as Expositors of Scriptures and attentively observe what they shew us from thence I am not of those who admire the great knowledge in divine matters revealed in this later Age of the world I do not think there are any now so likely to discover the truth of Gospel mysteries as those of antient dayes As for that saying A Pigme set on a Giants shoulder may see more than the Giant pardon me if I call it a shallow and silly fancy nothing to our purpose for our question is not of seeing more but of the clear discerning and judging those things we all see but are in doubt what they mean if a Pigme and a Giant see a Beast at a miles distance and are in dispute whether it be a Horse or an Oxe the Pigme set on the Giant shoulder is never the nearer discerning what it is which depends on the sharpness of sight not the height of his shoulders Now that the antient and holy Fathers of the Church were more spiritual and consequently sharper sighted in spiritual things than we carnal creatures of this later age is evident by their Spiritual holy Lives The natural Man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned 1 Cor. 2. 14. And how natural how carnal how purblind we are is too too visible Besides a purblind man near the object will discern it better than a much sharper sight at greater distance as we are For if you ask those lofty conceited Pigmes why they give more credit to the Fathers of the second and third Century than to those of the sixth or seventh they answer Because those that lived nearer the dayes of Christ and his Apostles are like lyer to know their minds better than those of remoter and corrupted Ages the reason is good but mightily confounds those who live at the very foot of the Hill in the valley of darkness and all Iniquity and therefore not so likely to discern the truth of the doctrine of Christ preach't on the top of Mount Sion as those who lived in higher ascents Wherefore I shall alwayes hearken with due reverence unto what those Primitive Holy Fathers deliver and the more holy and more antient doubtless more to be regarded And yet seeing that Irenaeus and before him Papiâ—â— held to be a Disciple of St. Iohn the Apostle taught the error of the Millenaries rejected now by all the Church why might not others do so as well as they and therefore there can be no certainty of their Doctrine farther than they shew us clearly from Scripture which ought to be our only Rule of Faith as I shewed before But in any point of Religion either of Faith or Discipline if after diligent and humble search of Scripture the matter be doubtful then certainly I would so much reverence antiquity as to embrace what I found approved of by the greater number of antient Fathers and what I found generally approved by them though my own judgement did much incline to the contrary yet I would receive it unless it appeared to me flatly opposite to Scripture which we believe to be the Word of God then it were damnation in me to forsake that and hearken to the words of Fathers on earth or Angels coming from Heaven till they could make me understand their word agreed with Gods Word I must be saved by Faith in God and Christ and not by faith in Men or Angels And now I shall be bold to make this assertion That the Man who reads Scripture humbly and attentively fasts and prayes to God earnestly consults his Pastors and Teachers carefully and modestly and yet after all continues in some error by blind ignorance and mistake of Scripture if such a thing was or ever will be suffered by the infinite goodness of God that Man shall sooner be saved than he who receives a true opinion from the authority of Men which he soberly conceives to be contrary to Scripture for 't is all one to him as if it were really so all things are unclean to him that believes them unclean so all things are damnable to him that believes them damnable as he must do who believes them flatly contrary to Scripture Let no Man count me a libertine in faith because I would neither compel nor be compelled to submit to the Doctrines of Men. I trust in God no Man shall out-go me in zealous contending for the Faith once delivered to the Saints once for all never to receive any new Doctrine any other Gospel than that preached by Christ and his Apostles herein I am no Libertine by God's gracious assistance neither Men nor Angels shall make me recede from one tittle of this nor to embrace with divine faith one tittle more than this for doubtless it is far greater Idolatry to believe in Man than to sacrifice to Man more to give him my heart than my hand And yet notwithstanding all this no Man is forwarder than my self to receive from others humane doctrine as humane that is I believe it is not only possible but probable also that another may have more natural understanding more acquired learning than my self and so may find out that in Scripture or from Scripture or by reason which I cannot do my self but yet I can have no possible assurance that the Doctrine he delivers to me is absolutely true because I have assurance that 't is possible for him to erre and then I can have no assurance but that he may erre in that very Doctrine he now delivers me There is no Man I ever yet heard or read of to
and actually Priests and Bishops As for that answer That though but one Order was conferred viz. Episcopal yet that being superior to the Priesthood contains this virtually in it first you are to prove Bishop to be superior to Presbiter which I deny the Apostles being peculiarly called Presbyters Secondly that one contains the other I suppose is already confuted and fully declar'd that it cannot be And as I mentioned before you do in effect confess it your selves by your practice for if the Superiour Order so contains the inferiour as to enable a Man thereby to act all things belonging to the inferiour it is a very impertinent thing to ordain a Man as you do first a Deacon then a Priest then a Bishop when you design to confer all upon him in the same day and hour And now I pray give me leave to examine a little Petavius his rare conceits which he conceives will satisfy all former objections and will meet with no news ones He confesses the Presbyters of the Apostles times were all of one Order viz. Bishops because the Pastors of each congregations might perform those several acts he mentions which a bare Presbyter is not capable of And why not capable of them how doth he prove this he brings not one tittle of proof for this cut of Scripture where there are good proofs to the contrary St. Peter and St. Iohn Presbyters could do all these and more Ergo Presbyters are capable of all But saith he The Apostles were Bishops also also is impertinent as signifying somewhat else whereas I say and prove 't is one and the same Order only another name it lyes upon him to prove this difference of Orders and how doth he prove it because Presbyters can't do the acts of a Bishop why this is the thing in question and thus he runs round to prove this by that and that by this and not one tittle out of Scripture for either I know full well by several Canons of Councils made some at one time some at another the Bishops reserved many things to themselves whereof most of them had been practised formerly by Presbyters and the Canons were made to prevent the like for the future for had there not been such a pactice there had been no need of such Canons whereby they reserved these things unto themselves and for their own greatness would needs perswade the World that Presbyters were not capable of them I grant that for decency and order in that sence some things may be reserved to some other things to other to perform but that the Order of Priesthood was not capable is even ridiculous that the Priesthood being capable to do the greatest things should not be capable to do the least he can consecrate the Souls of Men by Baptism and the Lords Supper yet for sooth can't consecrate their Oyl and their Cups and their Candlestiks which we never heard the Apostles did or dream'd of but are the fond dreams of doting Men just like the Pharisees washing cups and platters after the doctrines of Men. Really there needs no better confutation of their distinction and superiority of Episcopal Order then the mean ridiculous things which they ascribe unto their Bishops and debar Presbyters of which my thinks a Presbyter should contemn were they offered him and therefore such Arguments as these are not worth the small pains I have taken about them I proceed to somewhat that seems a little better Petavius tells us That the number of Christians encreasing and factions arising in the Church the Apostles at length towards the end of their times chose out of these presbyter-Presbyter-Bishops some chief Men and placed them as Governors over the rest and reserved unto these principal Men the power of ordaining thus far I freely consent the Scripture declares it and it seems most Rational And I humbly conceive these Governors and Ordainers were Men of great prudence and moderation and probably had also that gift of the Holy Ghost The discerning of spirits and judging of Men a gift mentioned in Scripture among others that none might be admitted into the Priesthood but Men of meek and peaceable spirits But now I would ask Petavius when these Governing Ordaining Bishops were set over the rest of the Presbyter-Bishops when Titus was first settled with this Authority in Creete and when Timothy was thus placed at Ephesus where we find before were several Presbyter-Bishops what became of them were they un-Bishop'd and made simple Presbyters they must no more ordain nor govern but be subject to Timothy and Titus I am sure it was thought no small punishment in future Ages when Bishops were thus by decrees of Councel abased and cast down unto the Presbyter form and it was for some notorious crimes I pray what crime were all these Presbyter-Bishops guilty of to be thus handled and tumbled down into a lower form Truly Petavius deals hardly with them unless he can shew us their crime Or will he instead of accusing them excuse himself and say they were not un-Bishopt nor abased but only restrained from exercising that power their order was capable of had they been commissioned thereto Truly I must commend Petavius if he will thus ingeniously confess the truth for I shall by and by fully declare that 't is the diversity of Commission and not of Order that enables Men to act diversly and that a Bishop without commission can do no more than a Presbyter without commission and therefore I farâ—her begg of Petavius that till he can prove the contrary he would confess them also to be all of one single Order called only by divers names Priest or Bishop and one chosen out of the number not the rest abased but he exalted with authority to Govern This is the rational and common practice of all Societies Corporations Colledges Monasteries Conclave of Cardinals what not There is no new Order supposed in any of these but only a new Election and a new Authority given according to the fundamental constitution of each Society The Pope himself with his triple crown and triple dominion over all Patriarchs Arch-Bishops Bishops pretends to have no new order of Popeship but only the new Authority conferred by his Election why then may not Presbyters chosen to preside over the rest without any new Order do the like And for this very reason I conceive Iustin Martyr uses the name of President always for Bishop and St. Cyprian also a Bishop himself and most glorious Martyr he calls himself and other Bishops generally by the name of Praepositus as if this were the main distinction betwixt himself and his Presbyters that he was Praepositus only one of them placed with authority over them no more Nor doth the name of Bishop in the original Greek signify any more then an Overseer of the rest And as for the avoiding of Heresies and Factions they thought it meet to settle some Bishop of great soundness in faith and godliness of life with authority to
Bishops have the authority of Ordination more than Presbyters A Man may smile to see this used as an Argument for the preheminency of Bishops which is directly against it for St. Hierom having discourst of the equality and Identity of Presbyters and Bishops and having brought many Arguments from Scripture to prove that Bishop and Presbyter was only two names for one and the same Office for a further confirmation hereof asks this question I pray what doth a Bishop do more than a Presbyter except Ordination plainly intimating thereby that this could make no such distinction of eminency in them above Presbyters I beseech you consider Do not Presbyters perform Offices of a higher nature than Ordination Presbyters are ordained Embassadors for Christ to preach his Holy Gospel for the Salvation of Souls they are under Christ Mediators between God and the People to make intercession for them they administer the Sacrament of Baptism wherein the Children of Warth are regenerated and made the Children of God and Heirs of eternal Life yea they administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper also the most transcendent act of Religion and Christian Dignity whereby we are made partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ And what doth a Bishop more than these except Ordination which being no Sacrament sure is inferiour in dignity to the other mentioned Acts and therefore cannot elevate them to a higher degree Judge now I beseech you whether this question makes pro or con Are not such questions always tending to disparagement When any Man is boasting his Power and Authority should I come and ask What can you do more than others unless it be in this or that poor business not worth speaking of would he not take this as an affront Wherefore it cannot enter into my head that St. Hierom intended by this Question to express any superiour Order above the Priesthood but plainly the contrary v z. That Bishops having no other power distinct from Priests but Ordination this could be no Argument for a distinct and superior Order And now I desire my Reader if he understand Latin to view the Epistle of St. Hierom to Evagrius and doubtless he will wonder to see Men have the confidence to quote any thing out of it for the distinction between Episcopacy and Presbytery for the whole Epistle is to shew the Identity of them Before I chanced to read this Epistle I was of the crroneous Opinion that Bishops were a distinct Order but so convinc'd by this Epistle as I was forced to submit to a change And I farther desire my Reader to observe the various fate of St. Hierom and Aerius Aerius is reviled as an Heretick for affirming this Identity of Order Hierom passes for a Saint and a great Doctor of the Church though he affirms the very same as fully as Aerius or any Man can do and therefore it may be my fate to be reviled as Aerius was but our Saviour bids us rejoyce and be exceeding glad when we are reviled for his Names sake or for his Words sake sure all is one for great is our Reward and so I proceed But there lies yet a great Objection made by our good Bishop Hall he tells us how that Collutbus a Presbyter of Alexandria took upon him to ordain others and that afterwards in a Council of a hundred Bishops in Aegypt their Ordination was declared null because ordained by a Presbyter From this and some other such Instances the Bishop would prove that the Order of Presbyters is not capable to ordain therefore Bishops are a distinct Order I am sorry so good a Man had no better a proof for his intended purpose It seems he quite forgot how that the famous Council of Nice consisting of above three hundred made a Canon wherein they declare That if any Bishop should ordain any of the Clergy belonging to another Bishop's Diocess without consent and leave had of that Bishop to whose Diocess they did belong their Ordination should be null You see then the irregular Ordination of a Bishop is as null as the irregular Ordination of a Presbyter therefore the irregular Bishop and the irregular Presbyter are of the same Order of the same Authority neither able to Ordain Is it not most evident by this that 't is not their Order but Commission that makes them capable to Ordain sure an irregular Bishop is of the same Order with the regular Is the Line of his Diocess like a Conjurers Circle within it he is a Bishop without it he is none No but within it he hath Commission given him to Ordain without it no Commission no nor to act in his own Diocess beyond his Commission which is to ordain only the Clergy of his own Diocess and within his own Diocess Can any thing be plainer Cellutbus then being but a Presbyter and under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria his taking upon him to ordain Presbyters was highly irregular and insolent and therefore most justly declared null I desire the Papistical School-Divines with their manifold indelible Characters to observe here how easily the Councils dasht out the indelible Character of Presbyter imprinted on the Souls of these Men irregularly ordained they made a clear rasure not one tittle of it left And could they so easily cancel the Gift of the Holy Ghost I leave my Schoolmen to find out how this rare feat was done And I proceed to add a Canon taken from a Council at Antioch concerning Chorepiscopi much to our purpose When the Apostles had settled Bishops in every City with authority of ordaining and governing the several Churches or Congregations within the Circuits of those Cities some were very large and therefore in process of time when more were converted to the Faith and the Congregations encreased more in number and at greater distance than the Bishop himself could well have the overfight of the Bishop chose some principal Men for his assistance and dividing his great Circuit into several lesser Circuits placed these Men as Overseers under him and these were called Chorepiscopi that is Country Bishops and were much after the manner of our Rural Deans Those Chorepiscopi Country Bishops being thus setled in authority to govern the Pastoral Priests in their Circuits took upon them to ordain more Priests when occasion required which the chief Bishops took very ill at their hands as a great lessening to their Supream Authority And to prevent it for the future a Canon was made in the Council of Antioch about the year 340. to forbid these Country Bishops to ordain any Priests Now I pray you observe These Chorepiscopi were either really ordained in the Order of the Chief Bishop or not if they were as full Bishops as he as really they were why might they not ordain Priests as well as he The Chief Bishop answers Because he gave them no Commission Whereby you see that the power of ordaining Priests was annexed no more to Bishops than to Priests
unless the Bishops received a new Commission to ordain as well as a new Ordination If it be answered That these Chorepiscopi were meer Priests sent forth to have inspection only over other Priests Then I pray observe that these Chorepiscopi being meer Priests took upon them to ordain other Priests which certainly had been madness for them to do had they then such a Belief of Bishops as is now required They might as well have undertaken to create Stars in the Heavens For if Bishops only have received a Divine power from Christ and his Apostles to ordain Priests he that hath not this divine power of Ordination can no more ordain a Priest than a Man without the divine power of Creation can create a Star both are impossible in nature from whence it must follow that these Country Bishops were directly mad in undertaking to ordain Priests having received no such divine power from Christ his Apostles or their Successors But if we take these Country Bishops for sober Godly Persons in their right witts as doubtless they were being selected for that Office they must needs believe that being Priests alone they had power to ordain other Priests and also believed that the Bishops having made them Overseers and Governors in their little Circuits they had also received thereby Commission to ordain as well as to govern and were as little Bishops under an Arch-Bishop for such really they were so that I can't in charity censure them so much as of contumacy in taking upon them more then they thought at least they had Commission to act I doubt not but the chief Bishop would be wary enough not to employ any contumacious persons I conclude then first That it was only a meer mistake an easie and pardonable mistake of their Commission Secondly That in those Times it was not thought an impossible thing for bare Priests no Bishops to ordain other Priests for then certainly they would never have undertaken it And I confess my self of their opinion and can't but so continue till I see more reason to the contrary And I hope my Reader will see what weak proofs are brought for this distinction and superiority of Order no Scripture no Primitive General Council no general consent of Primitive Doctors and Fathers no not one Primitive Father of Note speaking particularly and home to our purpose Only a touch of Epiphanius and St. Austin upon Aerius the Arrian Heretick but not declared no not by them an Heretick in this particular of Episcopacy so that I my self declare more particularly against him then these Fathers do accusing him of Heresie in part of his affirmation concerning Bishops though not in every part I shall conclude this business by giving my poor Judgment drawn from the preceeding Arguments I find in Scripture that the Priesthood is a holy Order into which no man is to thrust himself unless he be called I do not find that Deaconship hath an inferiour part in it or Episcopacy above it but that it is compleat and entire in it self and that it may involve many administrrtions in one and the same Order and sometimes many in one and the same person St. Iohn was an Apostle an Evangelist a Prophet a Pastor a Teacher an Ordainer which we call Bishop all these Gifts he had by one and the same Spirit and in one and the same Priesthood Christ himself was of this Order a Priest for ever after the Order of Melcbisedek that is both King and Priest these were his Offices he is called also the Bishop of our Souls Was this in Christ a distinct and superiour Office or Order to his Priesthood who will presume to affirm this And Christ told his Apostles As my Father sent me so send I you Christ therefore made them also Kings and Priests as St. Iohn tells us Rev. 1. Our Saviour's Kingdom was not of this World no more was that of the Apostles Our Saviour's Office of Priest and Bishop was one and the same so was that of the Apostles and they Ordained and sent others as Christ. Ordained and sent them there was no distinction or diversity of Order in Christ and his Apostles no more was there in those who were Ordained and sent by the Apostles though there might be diversity of Gifts or Administrations all were not Evangelists nor Prophets some had the gift of Tongues some of Prophesie some of Miracles some of discerning Spirits and some such Gift I conceive they might have whom the Apostles constituted superintendent Overseers Bishops over the rest endued especially with the Gift of Discerning and Judging of Men and therefore fit to be intrusted with the Ordaining of others for which there needed no new Order but the enlargement only of their Commission to Ordain to oversee and govern those that were Ordained And these as I said before being setled in this eminent manner over the rest were call'd by that name in Greek which signifies as much and which we in English call Bishop and by degrees this name was wholly appropriate to them In this order the Apostles left the Church at their death and in this order their Successors continued it as in duty sure they ought from time to time near one thousand five hundred years without any interruption Wherefore for any to alter this way of Government or to take upon them to Ordain not being chosen this way to it they would be guilty of great rashness and high presumption and I thank God I am as zealous for the preserving this Primitive way as any Man Yet I cannot by any means consent to them who would have Episcopacy to be a distinct Order for the Reasons before given nor can I think the Ordination of a Priest made by Priests invalid for though it ought not be done but only of necessity yet being done 't is valid and certainly may without any crime be done by any Priest by shipwrak or any such chance cast into a Country where there were none Commissionated to Ordain in such a case he might and ought to Ordain other fit Persons for the Service of God and Preaching of the Gospel For who can doubt but that the Substance is to be preferred before Ceremony And as St. Paul approved of the Preaching of Christ out of envy rather than no Preaching so doubtless to Ordain out of order is better than no Ordination and the Church of Christ be deprived of Preaching Praying and Administring the Sacraments and all other Pastoral Duties so great necessity may well excuse any irregularity Yet where Order can possibly be observed it ought to be for God is the God of Order Wherefore he that wilfully transgresses against Order transgresses against God and shall receive to himself damnation for if to resist the Ordinance of Man only in humane and temporal things be damnation much more is it to resist an Apostolick Ordinance in things Spiritual and Divine Concerning Deacons HAving thus stated and united the two pretended distinct
Orders of Episcopacy and Presbytery I now proceed to the third pretended Spitual Order that of Deaconship Whether this of Deaconship be properly to be called an Order or an Office I will not dispute but certainly no Spiriritual Order for their Office was to serve Tables as the Scripture phrases it which in plain English is nothing else but Overseers of the Poor to distribute justly and discreetly the Alms of the Faithful which the Apostles would not trouble themselves withal least it should hinder them in the Ministration of the Word and Prayer But as most matters of this World in process of time deflect much from the original constitution so it fell out in this business for the Bishops who pretend to be successors to the Apostles by little and little took to themselves the Dispensation of Alms first by way of Inspection over the Deacons but at length the total Management and the Deacons who were meer Lay-Officers by degrees crept into the Church-Ministration and became a reputed Spiritual Order and a necessary degree and step to the Priesthood of which I can find nothing in Scripture and the Original Institution not a word relating to any thing but the ordering of Alms for the Poor And the first I find of their officiating in Spiritual matters is in Iustin Martyr who lived in the second Century he relates that when the Bishop had consecrated the Bread and Wine for the Lords Supper the Deacons took it from him and delivered it to the Lay-Communicants there present and carried it also to the Faithful that were absent hindered I guess from coming by sickness or some other good excusing cause In the beginning when the Congregations of the Faithful were small the Bishop himself delivered the Communion to them but at length encreasing to great numbers it would have taken too much of their time for the Bishop to have delivered it to the whole Congregation so the Deacons were made use of as fit Persons for this matter for in those days there was always a Communion in the Assemblies on the Lords-Day and the Laity that Day brought their Alms and Presents with them which were delivered unto the Deacons to dispose of to the Poor by the Bishops direction and therefore the Deacons receiving from their hands their charitable Benevolence were thought the fittest to return again to their hands the consecrated Mysteries being part of their Offerings But 't is evident this was not yet come to be the general practice of all Churches but only in Greece where Iustin Martyr lived for Tertullian who lived in Africk some years after Iustin declares that the custom there was to receive the Blessed Sacrament from the hands of the Bishop only whom he calls the President that is whosoever was chief in the Assembly whether Bishop or Presbyter But yet I confess that this custom of the Deacons delivering the Blessed Sacrament or at least one part of it viz. the Chalice by degrees became the custom in most Churches in after Ages and so passing from one thing to another in time they came to administer the Sacrament of Baptism and at last to the Ministration of the Word the business which the Apostles peculiarly reserved to themselves and which the Bishops also for a long time reserved so entirely to themselves as it was thought a great insolency for any even for the Presbyters to take upon them to preach in presence of the Bishop Valerius Bishop of Hippo as Possidius relates was sharply rebuked by his fellow Bishops for suffering St. Austin then but a Presbyter to preach before him I know sometimes it was suffered also in other Churches but very rarely where the Bishop himself was of weak abilities for the Work and had some Presbyters under him very eminent And so it was with Bishop Valerius and St. Austin a Person of great note in those days And thus you see in process of time how strangely things alter from their original Institution the Bishops omit preaching and become servants of Tables and the Deacons for serving of Tables step up into the Pulpit and became Preachers But Petavius takes upon him to prove Deaconship a Spiritual Order and brings us a more early Author for it than Iustin that noble Martyr mentioned before Ignatius who in his Epistle ad Tralli calls Deacons as Petavius conceives Ministers of the Mysteries of Christ. Here I find that which I often lament Learned Men to go on in a track one after another and some through inadvertency some through partiality take many Passages of ancient Authors quite different from their meaning as here all following the first erroneous Interpreter of Ignatius Whoever first translated this Epistle of Ignatius sure this fancy of Deacons ran much in his head otherwise he could never have found them here for 't is evident the word Diaconus in this place relates to the Presbytery newly before mentioned telling the People they ought to be obedient to the Presbyters as to the Apostles of Christ then follows You must therefore please them in all things being Ministers of the Mysteries of Christ. Mark I beseech you You must therefore Is not Therefore a Particle relating to what went before viz. to the Presbyters otherwise the Speech is very absurd Should I say Presbyters are as the Apostles of Christ therefore you must in all things please the Deacons were it sence no but just Deus in Coele ergo baculus in Angulo but to say the Presbyters are as the Apostles therefore you must please them in all things being the Ministers of the Mysteries of Christ as the Apostles were this is very good coherent sense and so run the words of Ignatius but the weak Interpreter mistaking the word Diacanus ran into this error and many learned Men without any consideration have run after him I grant the word Diaconos is often set for Deacons specifically distinguisht from Presbyters but 't is very often set for all Ministers in general Apostles Bishops Presbyters as you find frequently in Scripture St. Paul in one Epistle viz. the 2d Cor. twice stiles himself and other Apostles Diaconous And I do the more wonder at the Interpreters mistake in this place because by the following words Ignatius here excludes the specifical Deacons saying Not the Ministers of meats and drinks Now we know the specifical Deacons were Ministers of meats and drinks to the Poor it was their proper work for this very end they were chosen and for no other as appears evidently in the Acts and therefore Ignatius saying Not the Ministers of meats and drinks directly excludes such Deacons and the word Diaconous must necessarily be taken in the larger sence and relate to the Presbyters before mentioned therefore please them in all things being the Ministers of the Mysteries of Christ not of meats and drinks for the Poor Whoever understands the Greek and will see must needs see the truth of what I affirm But Petavius intoxicated with this spiritual Order of Deaconship
turns all this round quite another way according to the working of his fancy And so he doth some places of Scripture as little to his purpose as this He tells us out of the Acts that Philip and Stephen both Deacons were Preachers of the Word that is a Spiritual work therefore belongs to a Spiritual Order I would gladly know who informed Petavius that Philip who Preacht to the Eunuch and afterwards went about Preaching to others was Philip the Deacon and not rather Philip the Apostle as seems to me far more probable for Philip the Deacon was by his Office to reside at Ierusalem and take care of the Poor thither the Alms of the Faithful were sent to relieve the Saints at Ierusalem But you farther urge Surely Stephen was a Deacon and let Philip also if you please it signifies little to the purpose Sure I can shew out of Scripture Preachers that were in no Spiritual Order neither Presbyters nor Deacons neither as Aquilla and Priscilla his Wife too and Apollo likewise to whom they both Preached and instructed him more fully sure they did not ordain Apollo a Deacon nor can I believe any of the Apostles ordain'd him Deacon and sent him forth to Preach before he was well catechized in the Word he was not so much as Baptized in Christ but knew only the Baptism of Iohn if not Baptized surely not ordained Deacon yet he prevailed and mightily convinced the Iews It is in reason strange though in practice common to see how Men wedded to an Opinion think whatever they read speaks to that so Fathers Doctors all clink as they think In the Primitive time all both Men and Women did Preach the Gospel taken in a large sence as St. Peter calls Noah a Preacher of Righteousness that is they endeavoured to instruct all they conversed with in the Faith of Christ and Godliness for which many both Men and Women suffered Martyrdom Wherefore though Philip the Deacon and Stephen Preach the Gospel it signifies nothing to the Spirituality of the Deaconship seeing that thousands of Lay-men and Women also did the like And so the Apostles laying their hands on those chosen to be Deacons signifies as little to this purpose Do not we find that Paul laid his hands on the converted Disciples at Ephesus and they received the Holy Ghost and Prophesied yet none of them ordained either Presbyter or Deacon And sometimes the Apostles laid their hands on those that were already ordained both Presbyters and Apostles also as on Barnabas and Paul when they were sent forth to Preach This laying of hands was a Ceremony used on several occasions I need not mention more they are obvious to any that read the Scripture 'T is evident then from Scripture that the first institution of Deacons was a meer Lay-Office I will not say a prophane Office as some too grosly and irreverently have termed it but a pious and honourable Office in the Church of God to serve Tables to take care of God's Poor but as I have shewed in process of time it became quite another thing and so different from the Original Institution as it made Chrysostome and divers other great and good Men doubt whether the Apostles did not constitute two sorts of Deacons some for this Lay-Office some for Spiritual-Offices Had Chrysostome consulted only Scripture he would never have doubted nor dream't of two sorts of Deacons there being no mention at all but of one but he seeing the practice of the Church which he was unwilling to condemn so different from that one Apostolical Institution of Deacons this so confounded the good Man that he knew not well what to make of it and willing to piece Scripture and the present practice together to put a new patch upon an old Garment made the rent the wider rending the Deaconship in two pieces which of old was but one only to serve Tables which Office he that used well purchased to himself a good degree a good esteem and so it might be a recommendation to the degree of Priesthood though no necessary step to it And so we find that holy Deacon and most renowned Martyr St. Lawrence was made a Priest but continued afterwards in that same Office of Deacon unto Death which he suffered in a most cruel manner laid on a Gridiron over Coals rather than he would give up the Treasury of the Church and Alms of the Poor to the covetous cruel Tyrant This holy Deacon Petavius brings to prove that Deacons by virtue of that Order only did minister in holy things telling us that St. Ambrose mentions how he did distribute in the Lords Supper the Blood of Christ to the Communicants under Bishop Xistus Whereas St. Ambrose tells us how he Consecrated the Blood of Christ which plainly shews how untruly Petavius deals with us and that St. Laurence was a Priest not a bare Deacon for neither Petavius nor ever any allowed Deacons the Consecration of these sacred Mysteries Wherefore seeing the Scripture allows Deacons as Deacons no more then serving of Tables for the Poor whatever else Ministration is allowed them is by humane Authority not Divine and their Office or Order which you please to call it being about Temporal things must be Temporal not Spiritual And so I leave them to their proper Office of serving Tables not finding in Scripture any thing more belonging to them Concerning Confirmation Confirmation or some such thing is so necessary that for want of due execution thereof Persons extreamly unfit are admitted to the holy Table of the Lords Supper I fear a quarter of the Communicants of this Nation do not sufficiently understand the true meaning of these holy Mysteries the due preparation for them the benefits the damages in worthily or unworthily receiving them This I affirm upon experience having by way of discourse questioned many both of low and high degree where one would little expect such Ignorance And by reason of this gross Ignorance in due preparing and conscientious receiving this blessed Cordial and Medicine of the Soul of power in it self to cure all our diseases if rightly applied is turned into our destruction and damnation of the Soul For this holy Sacrament rightly apprehended would strike a terror into the Soul and a dread of Sin but Men receiving it without any regard into their sinful souls the beams of Grace which this Sun of Righteousness brings with it harden their dirty hearts and make them afterwards unsensible of any horrid abomination whatsoever And all this is occasioned by the want of some fit Person of authority to examine youth of all degrees ever so high or ever so low before they are admitted to the Lords Table For there being many poor ignorant Curates many unconscientious careless Ministers many over-awed by the superior quality of their Parishioners some cannot some will not some dare not search into the requisite abilities of persons to be admitted All which was prevented in the Primitive times of Christianity
when able and holy Bishops were elected and therefore reverenced and obeyed in all Spiritual matters by the greatest as well as by the least These diligently and publickly before the Congregation at set-times in the year chiefly at Easter examined all those who had been converted to the faith from infidelity that year and all those who baptized in the faith desired admittance to the Lords Table and upon approbation and confirmation of the Bishop fit persons only were publickly Baptized by him and at the Church door assoon as Churches were built where the Baptistery was placed and then brought into the Church and admitted to the Lords Table And no inferiour Minister did either baptize or administer the holy Communion unless it were by the Bishops order on urgent occasions These things are very well known to the Learned who are conversant in Ignatius his Epistles Iust in Martyr Tertullian Cyprian and other succeeding Writers And in short nothing was dore of any moment as is plain in Ignatius but by the Bishops directions But at length the number of Christians growing great and multitudes of Children daily Born and an Opinion growing up also that it was absolutely necessary for the salvation of Children not only to be baptized but also to receive the Holy Communion before death it was impossible for the Bishop to be at hand to perform all or to give particular order for all Necessity forced every Priest in his Cure to perform these Offices Yet in process of time the opinion of the necessity for Children to receive the Holy Communion before death declining and few or none admitted till the age of discretion and the necessity of Baptism for Children still continuing the Bishops suffered still all Ministers to Baptize but resumed to themselves again the power of Confirming and Licensing youth to the Holy Communion And Bishops only for a long time executing this Office it grew by degrees into an Opinion that Bishops only were capable to do it and that Confirmation was a Sacrament and such a Sacrament as inferiour Priests supposed then also to be of an inferiour Order were not to meddle with What errors will Men yea learned Men carried along with a croud slide into not willing to stand in opposition with a multitude especially when countenanced by the Bishop their Superiour And then succeeding learned Men having in their Infancy sucked in the error continue it in their riper learned years and endeavour to desend it as a certain truth and at last it passeth for an Article of Faith necessary to be believed Thus have I laid out before you the true State and Progress of this business of Confirmation Now I pray consider first Suppose Confirmation to be a Sacrament and to be administred by the Bishop only and none to be admitted to the Lords Table till Confirmed How is it possible for a Bishop of so large a Diocess as some of ours are some extended three or fourscore miles many forty or fifty personally to Confirm half the Youth in a Diocess if he duly examine each one as is most fit and necessary We see how this is performed in their Triennial Visitations not a quarter of those who are admitted ever come to the Bishop and yet the croud is great What is then done to those that come They are asked by the Bishop whether they believe and will perform those things their God-fathers and God-mothers affirmed and promised for them at their Baptism they answer Yes and so are confirmed But what those things are whether they understand and can give a good account of those things not a word of this Oh but the Curate who presents those Children to the Bishop assures him that they are fully instructed for it this is the thing we complain of and desire to be redressed that it may not be left to the discretion and care of every Curate seeing what pittiful Creatures are by them admitted And do we not see sometimes the Curate desiring to please the fond Mother Children confirmed so young as cannot without a Miracle be of a capacity to understand those divine Mysteries Besides it may often happen that a pious Child well fitted for the Holy Sacrament and perchance being weak earnestly desires it before his death yet must stay some years 'till next Visitation or take a long Journey to the Bishop for which he may want strength or means to support him But in the Primitive Times the Bishops confirmed every year their Diocess also was very narrow so that access to him was quick and easie and the work was as easie to the Bishop yea and easie also to the inferiour Curate to instruct and prepare them for Parents and Masters did then according to their bounden duty the great neglect whereof in these days will find some punishment at the last day made it their chief care to instruct their Servants and Children from their infancy in the Principles of Religion You see how impossible it is for a Bishop in a large Diocess and Triennial visitation to perform this necessary work as it ought and therefore in the second place consider how necessary it is for the Bishop to appoint some discreet conscientious Ministers as our Dean Rurals should be in several Circuits to examine and license to the Lord's Table For I pass it as granted that Confirmation is no Sacrament and if it were why may not Priests not Bishops perform it Certainly there is not one word in Scripture forbidding it or any colourable pretence against it nor can I discover the least ground of reason to forbid it inferior Ministers performing other Offices superior to it and certainly equal to it though it were a Sacrament which our Church denies There is nothing in the World can be pretended but that in the beginning Bishops did only perform it To this I answer That from the very beginning there were no other Priests but Bishops as I have shewed you and then Bishops did all other Ministerial Duties Preach Pray Baptise Catechise and in succeeding Ages when there were several inferior Priests not Bishops all but Confirming was ever transmitted to them and to Deacons also Preaching Praying and Baptizing nay Baptizing tolerated in necessity to Midwives I would gladly see any such thing in Antiquity and shall Confirming the meanest of all these be denyed Priests You will tell me there have been Decrees in some Councils to forbid it And will you be bound up to all the Decrees of Councils without Scripture or any reason for them If once we leave Scripture and hearken to the Doctrines of Men ever so holy ever so learned ever so Primitive we shall soon be wheedled into the Papists Religion and many other Errors which the Papists themselves now reject as I have declared at large before and therefore I forbear saying more now to this purpose but proceed to a third Consideration What will be the best means to prepare Youth for the receiving the holy Communion in every
of darkness to take full possession of their Souls and sometimes of their Bodies also both being sentenced thereby to the everlasting flames of Hell and likewise a power to release penitent souls from the chains of darkness and slavery of the Devil and restore them to the glorious liberty of the Sons of God whereby they are made Heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven If there be any thing under Heaven fit to stir up the Ambition of mortal men yea an ambition in Angels themselves sure this is it Who can forgive sins but God alone said the Iews to our Saviour Christ swelling with indignation against him for this though they had seen many divine Miracles wrought by him yet this is so peculiar so transcendent a divine act as not to be offered at by any but the great God Iehovah himself But blessed for ever be this great and gracious God who by his eternal Son Christ Jesus hath given this power unto men As his heavenly Father sent him with this power so sent he his Apostles with this power saying unto them Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained Wherefore if there be any thing in the Office of a Bishop to be stood upon and challenged peculiar to themselves certainly it should be this yet this is in a manner quite relinquished unto their Chancellors Lay-men who have no more capacity to sentence or absolve a sinner then to dissolve the heavens and earth and make a new heaven and a new earth and this pretended power of Chancellors is sometimes purchased with a sum of Money their Money perish with them Good God! what a horrid abuse is this of the Divine Authority But this notorious transgression is excused as they think by this that a Minister called the Bishops surrogat but is indeed the Chancellors servant chosen call'd and placed there by him to be his Cryer in the Court no better that when he hath examined heard and sentenced the Cause then the Minister forsooth pronounces the sentence Just as a Rector of a Parish Church should exclude any of his Congregation and lock him out of the Church then comes the Clerk shews and gingles the Keys that all may take notice that he is excluded And by this his authority the Chancellor takes upon him to sentence not only Lay-men but Clergy men also brought into his Court for any delinquency and in the Court of the Arches there they sentence even Bishops themselves This is a common practise in later ages but in St. Ambrose his time so great a wonder as with amazement cryeth out against the Emperour Valentinian when he took upon him to judge in such cases saying When was it ever heard of since the beginning of the World that Lay-men should judge of spirituals he means in spiritual things not in temporal things which by the laws of God and man belongs to the Lay-Magistrate This was that Ambrose of whom the other great Emperour as Good as Great Theodosius Father to this Valeninian affirmed Ambrose onely knew how to act the Bishop and with all Christian humility this great Emperour submitted to the sentence of this godly Bishop denying him entrance into the Church for the cruelty acted by his Souldiers at Thessilonica by his command and upon his great repentance and pennance performed six months together and after publique confession in the Church was again absolved and joyfully received into the Church Oh my Great and Reverend Fathers of the Church the Bishops whom Christ hath cleaved to his high dignity whom he hath made Kings and Princes whom he hath called to sit with him on his Throne there to give sentence of eternal life or eternal death can you so tamely part with this prime flower of your Crown yea the very Apex of it and suffer the Lay-members of the Church to usurp this divine authority Or how can you answer it to the chief Bishop of our Souls if any one Soul by the ill management of the Chancellors should certainly perish shall not his blood be required at your hands But perchance some of you will answer 'T is no fault of yours but of your predecessors who gave such Patents unto them as by vertue thereof they exercise this power will ye nill ye 'T is too true and I remember when the Bishop of Wells hearing of a cause corruptly mannaged and coming into the Court to rectifie it the Chancellor Dr. Duke fair and mannerly bad him be gon for he had no power there to act any thing and there with all pulls out his Patent sealed by the Bishops Predecessor which like Perseus shield with the Gorgons head frighted the poor Bishop out of the Court Where are you Parliament men you great Sons of the Church so zealous for Episcopal Government yet suffer this principal part of it to be thus alienated and usurped by Lay-men If an unordained person take upon him to pray or preach with what outeries and severe Laws and with great reason also you fall upon him but if an unordained person take upon him to judge sentence and excommunicate Bishops themselves you calmly pass it over take no notice of it You will answer me The Bishops themselves pass it over yea and pass it away from themselves and their successors for to gratifie their kinsmen or their friends or perchance for worse why then should you stir in it Truly in this you have reason and the balme most wholly light on them who do not use all possible endeavour and implore your assistance also to rectifie this great abuse which subverts the main Pillar of the Church Government this is no Ceremonial matter but the very substance of it they strain at Gnats and swallow Camels For Chancellors to intermeddle in Probats of Wills payment of Tythes or any other temporal matters there is no scripture nor reason to condemn but rather to condemn Bishops should they interpose in such matters for which they have no commission from Scripture but rather a prohibition from that saying of our Svaiovr Man who made me a judge or a divider over you but then it will be necessary that Chancellors have also power of Temporal punishments and not prophane that high and holy power in sordid earthly things certainly a greater prophanation than to convert a Church into a Chandlers Shop the Church is a bulk of earthly materials and holy only by dedication the power of its Keys is in its own nature and original constitution spiritual and divine If Uzza being no Levite suffered death for laying hold on the Sacred Ark of God to support and hold it up what shall he suffer who being no consecrated person layes hold on the sacred authority of Gnd to pull it down from heaven to earth Let them consider But let not the Civilians for this account me an Enemy to their Profession which no man honours more and I heartily wish much more of our Civil matters were