Council of Chalcedon observed Can. 3. forbids Ministers to take Farms or Stewardships and to intermeddle with Secular Affairs Can. 7. is against the Clergies medling with Military Affairs or receiving Secular Honours upon pain of Excommunication Booted Prelates and Spiritual Lords would have look'd strange in this Age. One of the Methods which Iulian the Apostate used to corrupt the Clergy was to make Senators and Ministers of State of them That Politick Enemy of Christianity knew well enough how inconsistent worldly Greatness and Dominion would be with that humble Mortification and vigorous Application which the Gospel requires He that had been a READER in the Church before he came to the Empire could not be ignorant of that Precept of our Saviour to his Apostles Matth. 20. 25 26. The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them but it shall not be so among you Can. 10. Deposeth all obstinate Pluralists This Canon if executed would bear hard upon our Gigantick Pluralists that heap Pelion upon Ossa Steeple upon Steeple as if they would mount to Heaven from the Pinnacle of Ecclesiastical Promotions I only produce these Canons ad hominem to shew how unreasonable 't is to urge old Canons against Ordinations by Presbyters when they may be equally urged against Episcopal Ordinations We judge it more ingenuous to disown their Authority over us as being made by such as had no power to give Universal Laws to the Church then pretend Submission to them as they do who act in open Contradiction to them If then it be a Crime not to observe the Canons let them that are without Canonical Guilt cast the first Stone Object 2. Your Ordinations are not by such Diocesans as have uninterrupted Succession down from the Apostles Answ. 1. This is the triumphing Argument of the Papists against the first Reformers They peremptorily deny the validity of their Ordinations because they wanted this Succession It is urged by Bellarmine De Sacram. Ordinis cap. 2. and by Gretzer against Luther Ep. Dedic praefix Operibus ejus The same Argument is used by Parsons the supposed Author of the Three Conversions of England part 2. cap. 10. and by Stapleton Rel. cap. 1. q. 4. art 2. as also by Arnoux the Jesuit in Moulin's Buckler p. 274 275. Turrian the Jesuite writ a great Book de Ordinationibus Ministrorum Ecclesiae against the Ordinations in Protestant Churches The Sum of all his Arguments is this of the Succession which we find gathered up in this Syllogism by M. Sadeel All lawful Ordinations depend upon an Ordinary Succession of Bishops under the Roman Pontiff the visible Head of the whole Church but no Protestant Ordinations are such therefore no Protestant Ordinations are lawful but they are void null and meerly Laic This Argument is exactly the same that is used against our Ordinations but with this Addition That the Pope is put at the top of the Line of Succession which adds no great Reputation to it 2. This Argument of the Succession is at large refuted by our Prosestant Writers Sadeel calls it praecipuum adversariorum Argumentum he challenges them to produce some Scripture to confirm it by Several Testimonies of the Ancients are cited by him that the Succession they plead for is a Succession of Doctrine and not of Persons which Succession of Doctrine failing in the Romish Church the other Succession of Persons is a meer useless Carcass These offensive Carcasses of Popish Bishops are animated by some to propagate a Generation of immortal Successors He further proves that the Ordinary Succession of Ministers may be interrupted by Scripture-Examples as when the Priesthood was taken away from the House of Ely to whom a Promise of perpetual Succession was made 1 Sam. 2. 30. And under the Kings of Israel God raised up Elijah to preach Repentance to them though he was not ex Sacerdotum Ordine Nay Christ himself coming to reform his Church chose unto himself Apostles not from the Priests but from other Families He did not observe the Ordinary Succession in the Reformation of the Church To which I may add That the Roman Governours set up and deposed what High Priests they pleased in the Jewish Church without regard to Lineal Succession Iosephus gives many Instances of this kind Vide lib. 15. c. 2. If ever an uninterrupted Succession were necessary to the being of a Church it must be in the Jewish Priesthood which was entailed upon one Family but the Church remained a true Church though the regular Succession was destroyed To the same effect speaks holy Mr. Bradford the Martyr to Dr. Harpsfield You shall not find saith he in all the Scripture this your essential part of Succession of Bishops In Christ's Church Antichrist will sit Dr. Fulk saith If the Truth of Doctrine be necessary to prove a true Church the Scriptures are sufficient to prove a true Church with lawful Succession also Dr. Field is of the same Judgment in this Point Field of the Church II. 6. III. 39. Mr. Perkins distinguisheth of a threefold Succession The first of Persons and Doctrines in the primitive Church The second of Persons alone among Infidels and Hereticks The third of Doctrine alone And thus our Ministers saith he succeed the Apostles and this is sufficient For this Rule must be remembred that the power of the Keys that of Order and Iurisdiction is tied by God and annext in the New Testament to Doctrine Dr. White largely confutes this pretended Succession in his defence of the way to the true Church So doth his Brother Mr. Francis White Thus we see the vanity of this pretended Succession who they be that maintain it and who are the Opposers of it It 's one of the Pillars of the Popish Church which supports that tottering Fabrick The Arguments against our Ordination must needs be very defective when no other can be found but those which the Jesuits urge against all Protestant Ordinations It 's an ill Cause that must be defended by Weapons borrowed out of their Tents Is there no Sword in Israel that you go to the Philistines to sharpen your Goads 3. The violent Assertors and Defendants of this Opinion little consider that by this Hypothesis there can be no true Ministers in the Church of England for it 's certain the Chain of Succession pleaded for hath been broken again and again One Nullity makes a breach in the whole Chain All our Bishops as such derive their Succession from Rome Now if we can find any Interruption in the Succession of Bishops there it Nullifies all the Administrations of those that depend upon them If the Pope succeeds Peter as Darkness doth Light if he who calls himself Christ's Vicar proves to be the Antichrist if many Popes were Hereticks Sodomites Idolaters Conjurers Whoremongers Murderers c. as some of their own Authors affirm if there were two or three Popes at a time and if they were
whether Peter Euodius or Ignatius succeeded Peter or Paul or the one and the other Paul At Alexandria where the Succession seems to run clearest the Original of the Power is imputed to the Choice of Presbyters and to no Divine Institution as we observed already 7. If there were any certainty in this Succession the Fathers ascribe it to Presbyters as much as to Bishops Ignatius saith concerning them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Presbyters succeeded in the place of the Bench of the Apostles Irenaeus affirms the same Cum autem ad eam iterum Traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per Successionem Presbyteriorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos qui adversantur Traditioni dicent se non solum Presbyteris sed etiam Apostolis existentes sapientiores c. Though the truth is when the Fathers insist upon the Succession of Bishops or Presbyters they are not to be understood of the Succession of Persons but principally of the Succession of Doctrine which the first Bishops or Pastors of Churches kept inviolable as received from the Apostles Otherwise the Succession of Persons without the Orthodox Doctrine is no note of a true Church as among the Arians where they had a Succession of Bishops and yet no true Church Pietatis successio proprie successio aestimanda est namque qui eandem fidei Doctrinam ejusdem quoque Throni particeps est qui autem Contrariam fidem amplectitur adversarius in Throno etiam Censeri debet Atque haec quidem nomen illa vero rem ipsam veritatem habet successionis Now the Succession of true Doctrine being wanting in the Popish Church the other of Persons is an empty Name to circumvent the Simple Object 3. Ischyras was Deposed because he was Ordained by Colluthus a Presbyter of Alexandria Thus Bishop Hall in his Divine Right of Episcopacy p. 91 92. and Bilson's Perpetual Government cap. 13. Answ. Colluthus Ordained as a pretended Bishop constituted by Meletius Arch Bishop of Thebais and therefore was commanded by the Alexandrian Council to be a Presbyter as he had been formerly Ischyras's Ordination was declared void as being not acknowledged by them that were reported to be the Authors himself also is reckon'd by Austin amongst the Hereticks and his Ordination was a notorious breach of the Canons it was sine titulo extra fines and nulli vicinorum nota all which Circumstances make it uncanonical Dr. Field saith That when Presbyters Ordinations were accounted void it 's to be understood acoording to the rigour of Canons in use in their Age which appears saith he by this that Ordinations sine Titulo were null Conc. Chalc. Can. 6. The Reverend Author of the Naked Truth thus Answers Bishop Hall's Objection about Colluthus and Ischyras I am sorry saith he so good a Man had no better proof for his intended purpose It seems he quite forgot how that the famous Council of Niâ—e made a Canon wherein they declare that if any Bishop should Ordain any of the Clergy belonging to another Bishops Diocess without his consent 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 Object 4. It is objected out of Ierom Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter exceptâ Ordinatione Answ. Ierom speaks of Canonical Restraints and not of Scriptural for the design of his Discourse is to prove the identity of Bishops and Presbyters and having brought many Arguments from Scripture to prove it he confirms it by asking this Question What doth a Bishop more then a Presbyter except Ordination plainly intimating that this could not advance him to a superiour Order the Bishop and Presbyter being originally the same As if he would say The Presbyters perform the most transcendent Acts of Religion they are Ambassadors for Christ to preach the Gospel they administer Baptism and the Lord's Supper and what doth a Bishop more then these except Ordination which being no Sacrament is inferiour in dignity to the other mentioned Acts and therefore cannot elevate them to a higher degree A Canonical Restraint cannot prejudice their inherent Power FINIS Books Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhil PRactical Reflections on the late Earthquakes in Iamaica England Sicily Malta Anno 1692. with a particular Historical Account of those and divers other Earthquakes by Iohn Shower Earthquakes explained and Practically improved occasioned by the late Earthquakes on Sept. 18. 1692. in London and many other Parts in England and beyond Sea by Tho. Doolittle M.A. The Duty and Blessing of a Tender Conscience plainly stated and earnestly recommended to all that regard Acceptance with God and the Prosperity of their Souls by T. Cruso The Christian Laver or a Discourse opening the Nature of Participation with and demonstrating the Necessity of Purification by Christ by T. Cruso Four Sermons on several Occasions by T. Cruso Barbarian Cruelty being a true History of the distressed Condition of the Christian Captives under the Tyrany of Mully Ishmael Emperor of Morocco c. by Francis Brooks The Mirrour of Divine Love unvail'd in a Paraphrase on the Song of Solomon by Robert Flemming V. D. M. * Perrin's Hist. p. 53 62. Hist. of the Vaudois c. 3 * Contra Waldens cap. 4. Walsing Hist. p. 339. * Dr. Stillingfl Iren. p. 393. †Hier. in Ep. ad Tit. * CommuniÌ„ Concitio Presbyterorum gubernabatur Ecclesia Hieron ubi supra ad Evagr. ‖ See La Rocque's Conform of Dâ—scipline cap. 1. art 3. Isa. 53. 12. Rom. 8. 36 37. Eph. 4. 11 14. Arg. 1. * 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. †Rev. 2. 27 ‖ 1 Tim. 5. 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * 1 Tim 3. Phil. 1. 1. †Acts 20. 17 28. ‖ Acts 14. 21 22 23. * Walt. Praef. de Edit Bib. Polygl p. 30 40. ‖ 1 Tim. 5. 17. †1 Pet. 5. 1. Object * Spens contra Bucer Answ. †Acts 20. 28. ‖ 1 Pet. 5. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Eph. 4. 11. * Acts 20. 17 28. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. †1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. Object Answ. 1. ‖ Vid. Turr. Sophis inter Sadeel Op. p. 598. * Eph. 4. 11 ‖ Euseb. Hist. 111. 34. * In Eph 4. †1 Tim. 5. 22. ‖ 2 Tim. 4. 1. 2. * 1 Tim. 4. 14. †Acts 14. 23. ‖ 1 Tim. 1. 3. 4. 13 14. * 1 Tim. 3. 14 15. †Whitt contr 5. q. 1. c. 2. s. 16. ‖ Cypr. Ep. 64 68. ‖ Acts 20. 17 28. * 1 Tim. 3. 14. 15. 4. 13. †1 Tim. 5. 13. ‖ 1 Pet. 4. 15. * 2 Tim 4. 9 10 11. †Heb. 13. 23. ‖ Acts 20. 17 28. * Acts 20. 4 5 6 7 13 14. * Ib. v. 25. †1 Tim. 4 14. 1 Tim. 1.
95. c. Legimus in verb. postea Arch-Bishop Vsher appeals to this first primitive Church in Matters of Doctrine and why may not we appeal to it in point of Discipline as well as Doctrine See many more Canonists quoted in Mr. Mason ubi supra 4. Some Councils also attest to this Truth The Council of Aix le Chapelle owns the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters Sed solum propter authoritatem summo Sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio reservata est To the same purpose speaks the Council of Hispalis or Sevil. Concil Hispal 2. Can 7. In the Councils of Constance and Basil after long debate it was concluded that Presbyters should have decisive Suffrages in Councils as well as Bishops because by the Law of God Bishops were no more then Presbyters and it 's expresly given them Acts 15. 23. In the Council of Trent all the Spaniards with some others moved that the superiority of Bishops de jure Divino might be defined next morning came into the Legats Chamber three Patriarchs six Arch-Bishops and eleven Bishops with a Request that it might not be put into the Canon that the Superiority is de jure Divino because it savoured of Ambition and it was not seemly themselves should give Sentence in their own Cause and besides the greater part would not have it put in At length the Opinion of the Spaniards prevailed and was inserted into the Canon though in such ambiguous words as might not offend the other Party The words of the Canon are these Si quis dixerit Episcopos non esse Presbyteris superiores vel non habere potestatem confirmandi ordinandi vel eam quam habent illis esse cum Presbyteris Communem anathema sit This Decision was made 1. In opposition to the Lutherans This Reason was given by the Arch Bishops of Granata in the Congregation held Octob. 13. 1562. and of Zarah as also by the Bishop of Segovia 2. In favour of the Pope for they were afraid that if the Divine Institution and Superiority of Bishops were denied the Popes triple Crown would soon fall off his Head So the Bishop of Segovia If the power of the Bishops be weaken'd that of the Pope is weaken'd also To the same purpose said the Arch-Bishop of Granata being assured that if the Bishops Authority were diminished the Obedience to the Holy See would decrease also The very Council of Trent doth not expresly determine Bishops to be a Superiour Order to Presbyters and the general definition which they make of their Superiority above Presbyters and of their sole power of Ordination and Confirmation is in opposition to the Protestants and in favour of the Pope Which puts me in mind of a passage in the Council of Constance where that blessed Man of God Mr. Iohn Wickleff was condemned for a Heretick and his Bones ordered to be taken up and burnt One of the Articles for which he was condemned was this Confirmatio juvenum Clericorum Ordinatio locorum consecratio reservantur Papae Episcopis propter cupiditatem lucri temporalis honoris 5. This Doctrine hath been maintain'd also by the Church of England both Popish and Protestant The Judgment of the Church of England in the tims of Popery we have in the Canons of Elfrick ad Wolfin Episc where the Bishop is declared to be of the same Order with the Presbyter Haud pluris interest inter Missalem Presbyterum Episcopum quam quod Episcopus constitutus sit ad Ordinationes conferendas ad visitandum seu inspiciendum curandúmque ea quae ad Deum pertinent quod nimiae crederetur multitudini si omnis Presbyter hoc idem faceret Ambo siquidem unum tenent eundem Ordinem quamvis dignior sit illa pars Episcopi The ancient Confessors and Martyrs here were of the same mind It is said of that eminent Confessor Iohn Wickleff that tantum duos Ordines Ministrorum esse debere judicavit viz. Presbyteros Diaconos Iohn Lambert a holy Martyr saith In the primitive Church when Vertue bare as ancient Doctors do deem and Scripture in mine Opinion recordeth the same most room there were no more Officers in the Church of God then Bishops and Deacons The same was the Judgment of Tindal and Bannes The Protestant Church of England was of the same mind The Institution of a Christian Man made by the whole Clergy in their Provincial Synod Anno 1537. set forth by King and Parliament and commanded to be preached to the whole Kingdom mentions but two Orders Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons In Novo Testamento nulla mentio facta est aliorum graduum aut distinctionum in Ordinibus sed Diaconorum vel Ministrorum Presbyterorum sive Episcorum To which agrees the MS. mention'd â—y the now Bishop of Worcester setting forth the Judgment of Arch-Bishop Cranmer That Bishops and Priests were â—ne Office in the beginning of Christs Reâ—igion The Bishop of St. Asaph Thirlby Redman Cox all imployed in that Conâ—ention were of the same Opinion â—hat at first Bishops and Presbyters were â—he same Redman and Cox expresly â—ite the Judgment of Ierom with approâ—ation The Learned Bishop concludes his Discourse of Arch Bishop Cranmer thus We see by the Testimony of him who was instrumental in our Reformation that he owned not Episcopacy as a distinct Order from Presbytery of Divine Right but only as a prudent Constitution of the CIVIL MAGISTRATE for the better governing of the Church The same Arch-Bishop Cranmer was the first of six and forty who in the time of King H. 8. affirmed in a Book called The Bishops Book to be seen in Fox's Martyrology that the difference of Bishops and Presbyters was a Device of the ancient Fathers and not mentioned in Scripture Our Learned Writers against the Papists are of the same mind Bishop Iewel in the Defence of his Apology proves against Harding that Aerius could not be accounted a Heretick for holding that Bishops and Presbyters are all one Iure Divino and â—ting Ieróm c. concludes in thesâ— words All these with many more holy Fathers together with the Apostle St Paul for thus saying must by Harding advice be held for Hereticks The same is affirmed by Bishop Morton in his Cath. Appeal by Bishop Bilson against Seminaries Dr. Whittaker Resp. ad Camp Rationes Dr. Fulk upon Tit. 1. 5. Dean Nowel Dr. Stillingfleet Bishop of Worcester in his Irenic Dr. Burnet Bishop of Salisbury in his Vindication of the Church of Scotland his words are these I acknowledge Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same Office and so plead for no new Office-bearer in the Church The first branch of their power is their Authority to publish the Gospel to manage the Worship and to dispense the Sacraments and this is all that is of Divine Right in the Ministry in which Bishops and Presbyters are equal sharers p. 331. The truth is this
into Swords and makes Ambassadors of Peace to become Heralds of War and the Fathers of Vnity Sons of Discord Of all Divisions those amongst Ministers have the saddest tendency of all the Divisions of Ministers those that concern their Ministerial Call are the most destructive It is not strange that Romish Priests should Condemn all Reformed Ministers without distinction that the spurious Offspring of the Scarlet Whore should conspire against the Seed of the Woman that the Ministers of Antichrist should reject the Ministers of Christ. Their unmerited Condemnation is our Convincing Justification But that which administers just cause of Sorrow is to behold Protestant Ministers uncharitably Arraigning one another Some unthinking Dissenters ignorantly condemn all that are Ordained by Bishops as no Ministers of Christ not considering that thereby they nullifie their own Baptism which most of them received from Episcopal Ministers if they are but meer Lay-men their Baptism is no Baptism and ought to be repeated in the Judgment of many This Principle naturally leads to Anabaptism On the other hand some Dignitaries of the Church of England condemn all that are not Ordained by Bishops as no Ministers and so they Anathematize all the Reformed Churches that have no Bishops they affirm their Ministry and Sacraments to be meer Nullities and that there is no Salvation to be had in their Communion and therefore that it is safer to continue in the Roman Church as if the empty Name of a Bishop were more necessary to Salvation then an interest in the great Bishop of our Souls the Lord Jesus and an Idolatrous Heretical Church under the Conduct of Antichristian Bishops were preferrable to an Evangelical Orthodox Church without them But these severe Judges that pass a damnatory Sentence upon the greatest if not the best part of the Reformed Churches are worthily deserted by all sober and moderate Church-men Others of that Communion own Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops to be valid but they look upon them as Schismatical where Bishops may be had We have no Controversie with these about the validity of Ordination by Presbyters but about the Charge of Schism which we conceive falls upon the Imposers of unscriptural Conditions of Ordination Others allow Ordinations by Presbyters in the Forreign Churches who have no Bishops but they Censure such Ordinations for Nullities where Bishops may be had as in England Our present Controversie is with these For the stating of the Point in difference we 'l consider 1. Wherein we are agreed 2. Wherein the real difference lies Our Agreement We agree 1. That Christ hath appointed a Ministry in his Church A Gospel Ministry is not of Humane but of Divine Original It belongs to Jesus Christ to institute what sort of Officers must serve in his House 2. We agree that the Ministry is a standing Office to continue in the Christian Church to the end of Time Matth. 28.19 20. 3. That no Man ought to take upon him the Sacred Office of a Minister of the Word without a lawful Calling or Mission Rom. 10.14 15. Ier. 14.14 Heb. 5.4 4. That Ordination is always to be continued in the Church Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.21 22. 5. That Ordination is the Solemn setting apart of a Person to some Publick Church-Office 6. That every Minister of the Word is to be Ordained by Imposition of Hands and Prayer with Fasting Acts 13. 3. 1 Tim. 5.22 7. That he who is to be Ordained Minister must be duly qualified both for Life and Ministerial Abilities according to the Rules of the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1.6 7 8 9. In these things which comprehend all the Essentials of the Ministry whatever more we are fully agreed The main difference is about the Persons Ordaining We say Ordination may be perform'd by meer Presbyters Some of our Brethren of the Episcopal Persuasion say That no Ordinations are valid but such as are done by Diocesan Bishops The common Cry against Protestant dissenting Ministers is That they are no true Ministers of Christ but Intruders and false Prophets And why so Not because they are not Orthodox in their Doctrine for they have subscribed all the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England Nor can they charge them with Insufficiency or Scandal for they are generally Persons of approved Abilities exemplary Conversations and great Industry in the Lord's Vineyard who seek not their own things but the things of Christ. They are willing to be tried by the Characters of Gospel Ministers Where lies the defect then why in this they are not Ordained by Bishops They derive not their Power from such Diocesans as pretend to an uninterrupted Succession down from the Apostles They were Ordained by meer Presbyters that have not the Ordaining Power and none can communicate that to another which he hath not in himself Our Case then in short is this Whether Ordination by meer Presbyter's without Diocesan Bishops be valid The Question needs but little Explanation By Ordination I mean the setting of Persons apart by Imposition of Hands for the Sacred Office of the Ministry By Presbyters I understand Gospel Ministers who are called to the Oversight of Souls and to whom the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed By Diocesan Bishops I intend that Species of Church Officers which claim to themselves a Superior Power of Order and Jurisdiction above Presbyters and to be the sole Pastors of several hundreds of Congregations having Parish Priests under them who have no Power of Discipline in the Church By valid I mean not what the Old Canons make so but what the Scriptures determine to be so Those Sacred Oracles which are of Divine Inspiration and not Arbitrary Canons of weak Men's devising are the Foundation of our Faith and the infallible Standard by which Truth and Errour must be tried The Question being thus explained I affirm That such as are set apart with Imposition of Hands for the Office of the Ministry by Gospel Ministers without the Species of Church Officers who claim a superior Power over Presbyters are regularly Ordained and their Ordination is valid according to the Scriptures This Truth I hope to demonstrate by the following Arguments CHAP. II Presbyters have power to Ordain because they are Scripture Bishops The Syriac Translation useth not different Names If there be a difference the prebeminence belongs to the Presbyter Objection concerning Timothy and Titus answered 1. The Iesuits urge this against the Protestants 2. The Scripture doth not call them Bishops 3. The Government of Ephesus was in the Presbyters of that Church 4. St. Paul doth not mention Timothy in his Epistle to the Ephesians as he doth in other Epistles 5. When St. Paul took his last leave of them he made no mention of Timothy for his Successor though he were present 6. He did not reside at Ephesus 7. Ephesus no Diocesan Church but a Parochial or Congregational The Asian Angels no Diocesan Bishops Prov'd from the extent of the Asian Churches from
the work of an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4. 5. Suppose Paul had said Do the work of a Bishop would not our Episcopal Men have judg'd it a clear Argument for his Episcopal Power Who could do the Work of a Bishop but a Bishop In like manner we say None can do the work of an Evangelist but an Evangelist Evangelists were extraordinary Officers above Pastors and Teachers The work of an Evangelist is set forth at large by Eusebius They did preach Christ to those which had not as yet heard the Word of Faith they delivered unto them the Holy Scriptures or dain'd Pastors committed to them the Charge of those that were newly received into the Church and they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pass over unto other Countries and Nations With whom agrees Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Learned Prelate of the Church of England conceives the Bishops to succeed the Apostles the Presbyters to succeed the Prophets and the Deacons to succeed the Evangelists and if so the Deacons may put in a Claim to the Ordaining Power for Timothy an Evangelist assumed it whose Successors they are If Evangelists were not proper Successors to the Apostles and Bishops be not Successors to the Evangelists I cannot see how Timothy's doing the work of an Evangelist can support the Ius Divinum of English Episcopacy Nor can anything be concluded from the Apostle's words to him Lâ—y hands on no man suddenly Doth it follow therefore the sole Power of Ordination in Ephesus did belong to him It may as rationally be inferr'd the sole power of Exhorting and Teaching did belong to him for the Apostle bids him be instant in season and out of season in preaching the Word If it be said Preaching is common to Presbyters but so is not Ordination it 's gratis dictum and a begging of the Question Paul did not invest Timothy with a greater power then he himself did Exercise He did not assume the power of Ordination into his own hands but takes the Presbytery with him He joyned Barnabas with him if not others in the Ordination of Presbyters at Antioch Timothy's abiding in Ephesus doth not prove him to be Bishop there for Paul did not injoyn him to be resident there but besought him to abide there till he came which he intended shortly to do The Apostle sent him to Corinth Philippi Thessalonica furnished without doubt with the same powers which he had at Ephesus otherwise his Negotiations had not been effectual to settle those Churches and was he Bishop of these places also Bellarmine grounds Timothy's Episcopal Jurisdiction upon 1 Tim. 5. 19. Against an Elder receive not an Accusation c. which Dr. Whittaker Divinity Professor in Cambridge undermines and overthrows by demonstrating that this place proves not Timothy's power over over Presbyters his words are these Ex Apostoli mente According to the meaning of the Apostle to receive an Accusation is to acquaint the Church with the Crime Which not only Superiors but Equals yea and Inferiors also may do The Presbyters and the People may receive an Accusation against their Bishop are they therefore Superior to him Cyprian writes to Epictetus and the People of Assura not to admit Fortunatianus to be Bishop again because he had denied the Faith He commends also the Clergy and People of Spain for rejecting Basilides and Martialis who had sacrificed to Idols III. When Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus where we find several Presbyter-Bishops before what became of them were they unbishop'd and made simple Presbyters that they must no more Ordain or Govern but be subject to Timothy 'T was thought no small punishment in after Ages for a Bishop to be degraded into the Presbyter's form and 't was for some notorious Crime What Crime were these guilty of IV. If Timothy was the fixed Bishop of Ephesus whom St. Paul had deputed for his Successor and so not subject to him any more how comes he to promise to come shortly to Ephesus himself What had Paul to do in Ephesus now if he had settled a Successor there and had no power over him or his Church He forbids others to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 busie bodies in other mens matters and would he himself be such a one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are condemned and shall we make Paul of this number It 's more unaccountable that St. Paul should write an Epistle to the Ephesians long after the first Epistle to Timothy and not mention their pretended Bishop Timothy in the whole Epistle as he doth in all his Epistles to the Churches except that to the Galatians It 's a certain Evidence he was neither Bishop there nor Resident there We find him long after this at Rome and invited by the Apostle thither that he might be helpful to him in the Ministry from whence the Apostle intended to take him along with him to visit the Churches of Iudea and was he Bishop of Rome and Iudea also The truth is he was no fixed Officer in any one place but went up and down sometimes as Paul's Companion sometimes as his Messenger to settle the Churches as other Evangelists did If Non-residency hath such a Patron and Timothy hath taught Men to leave their Churches year after year and play the Pastors many hundred Miles distant it may tempt us to dream that Non-residency is a Duty V. If he was not Bishop of Ephesus when the first Epistle was written to him he was none at all for that Epistle is made the Foundation of his Episcopal Power He was no Bishop of Ephesus when Paul took his last leave of the Presbyters there He commits to them the oversight of the Church as the proper Bishops of it without the least mention of Timothy though he was then present The whole Episcopal Power is given to the Presbyters befor their supposed Bishop's face or if he had not been there at that time how comes Paul to be so regardless when he concluded he should never see their Faces any more as not to name his Successor was he only ignorant of the prophecies concerning Timothy If he had not been qualified for this Office now he might have given the Presbyters of Ephesus some hints concerning the Prophecies that went before on him of his future usefulness as a Bishop in that Church But why should any imagine so worthy a Person not qualified for this Undertaking He that was qualified to be the Apostle's Messenger to so many Churches whom St. Paul stiles his Work-fellow and whose name he joyns with his own in his Epistles written to several Churches could not want a Character to render him worthy of this Charge at Ephesus How then comes the Apostle to over-look him and to fix the Government in the Presbyters of that Church He told the Elders of Ephesus at Miletus that he had not spar'd to declare unto them
by Persons who have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to them is valid but Ordination by Presbyters is performed by Persons who have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to them Therefore it is valid The Major I prove Either Ordination is an Act of the Exercise of the Power of the Keys or of some other Power but of no other If any other it 's either of a Secular Power or of an Ecclesiastical but neither of these Not an Ecclesiastical for there is no Ecclesiastical Power at least which Ordination can be pretended to belong to but the Power of the Keys not of a Secular Power for that belongs not to Ministers That the Keys do contain in them the Power of Ordination is acknowledged by Papists and Protestants particularly by Cornelius à Lapide Chemnitius Bucer Chamier Nomine clavium significatur omnis potestas Ecclesiastica Suppl Cham. lib. 4. c. 4. Traditio Clavium saith Camero Symbolum est potestatis atque auctoritatis collatoe Isa. 22.22 Rev. 3.7 Clavium traditione Doctorum apud Iudoeos inauguratio veteri instituto peragebatur The Keys delivered to the Jewish Teachers included the power of Ordination for as we observed before Every one regularly Ordained himself had the power of Ordaining his Disciples Maimon The Minor is in part granted by all to wit That Presbyters have the Key of Doctrine that they have the Key of Jurisdiction and Order also as some distinguish them I thus prove They that have the Key of Doctrine have also the Key of Jurisdiction and Order but Presbyters have the former therefore they have the latter The Major I thus prove Christ gave the Keys together and did not divide them therefore they that have the Key of Doctrine have the Key of Jurisdiction and Order To thee I give the Keys saith our Lord Matth. 16. 19. Io. 20.23 He did not give one Key to one and both to another he gives no single Key to any Person but Keys and so whatever these Keys serve for We know no distribution of the Keys but what is grounded upon Scripture He that hath the Keys of a House or Castle delivered to him hath power to admit or exclude Persons as he seeth cause Except there be a Limitation in his Order or Commission his power extends to all Persons without exception Christ here doth not limit the power of the Keys therefore if Presbyters may admit Church-Members into the House of God by Baptism they may admit Church-Officers by Ordination CHAP. IX All that have the Power of Order may confer it acknowledged by Arch-Bishop Usher and Dr. Fern. Bishops and Presbyter's have the Power of Order equally Proved 1. By the Ancient Fathers 2. By Schoolmen Lombard Bonaventure c. 3. By the Canonists Gratian Joh. Semeca c. 4. By Councils as that of Aquisgranum Hispalis Constance Basil. Bishops not expresly determined a superiour Order in the Council of Trent 5. This is acknowledged by the Old Church of England in the Canons of Elfrick and by J. Wicklef Lambert the Martyr the Provincial Synod of 1537. Cranmer Juel Morton Bilson c. This Truth is owned by the now Bishop of Salisbury and by the Bishop of Worcester Ordination by Presbyters allowed in the Old Church of England Instances of it ORders conferred by such as are in Orders and have the power of Order equal with the highest Bishop are valid but Orders conferred by Presbyters are conferred by such as are in Orders and have the power of Order equally with the highest Bishop Therefore Orders conferred by Presbyters are valid As to the Major it 's founded on that Maxim frequently used by Arch-Bishop Vsher Ordinis est conferre Ordines a Man that is in Orders quoad Presbyteratum may coeteris paribus confer Orders it being like Generation or Univocal Causation This Maxim is acknowledged by Dr. H. Fern in his Compendious Discourse p. 115 116 117. If among the Papists Men of an inferiour Order do make the Pope and among our selves Bishops do make Arch-Bishops how much more may Men of the same Order give what they have that is Ordinem Sacerdotii as the School-men call it Why may not Presbyters make Presbyters as Physicians make Physicians All Ranks or Orders of Beings generate their own kind but the impotent Order of Presbyters must prove extinct if the favourable Influences of a superiour Order do not propagate it by a sort of equivocal Generation Must Presbyters be reckoned amongst those Monsters in Nature that cannot perpetuate themselves by Propagation The Minor That Bishops and Presbyters have the power of Order equally will be acknowledged by most Protestants and Papists The Scripture no where mentions any distinction of Order among ordinary Ministers Neither do we read there but of one kind of Ordination then certainly there can be but one Order of Presbyters or Gospel-Ministers properly so called for two distinct Orders cannot be conferred in the same Instant by the same words and by the same actions Let a Man shew me from Scripture that Timothy or Titus or any other were Ordained twice made first Presbyters then Bishops which is absolutely necessary if they be distinct Characters This Point of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters hath the Consent of the Fathers School-men Canonists Councils and of the Old Church of England 1. As to the Fathers Blondel in his Apology for Ierom's Opinion quotes most that are considerable who unanimously affirm the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters The Testimonies of Clemens Romanus Polycarp Irenoeus Clemens Alexandrin Ierom Austin Hilarius Isidore c. may be seen at large in the said Learned Author To which I could add several more if it were needful 2. The Judgment of the Schoolmen is the same in this Point The Master of the Sentences saith Apud veteres iidem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt He adds Excellenter Canones duos tantum sacros Ordines appellari censent Diaconatus sc. Presbyteratus quia hos solos primitiva Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solis proeceptum Apostoli habemus Bonaventure in 4 sent dist 24. q. 1. A. 1. Episcopatus deficit ab Ordine c. includit necessariò Ordinem perfectissimum sc. Sacerdotium With whom agree Durand Dominic Soto Aureolus c. who all Comment upon Lombard's Text. See Aquinas's Supplem quaest 37. Art 2. Mr. Fran. Mason in his Defence of the Ordinations of Ministers beyond the Seas hath more Quotations of Schoolmen 3. To this Opinion some Canonists subscribe Gratian Sacros Ordines dicimus Diaconatuâ— Presbyteratum hos quidem solos Ecclesia primitiva habuisse dicitur Iohannes Seâ—eca in his Gloss on the Caâ—on Laâ— â—â—â—unt quidem quod in Ecclesia primâ primitivâ Commune erat Officium Episcoporum Sacerdotum nomina erant Communia Dist. 95. c. olim Et Officium erat Commune sed in secunda primitivâ caeperunt distingui Nomina Officia c. Gloss. in Dist.