sake And he that shall call such Bishops wicked and ungodly is notoriously guilty of the breach of the 9. commandement 2. Supposing though not granting that all of them were wicked and ungodly yet notwithstanding though we are far from justifying their ungodlinesse We answer That some evil men may and alwaies have de facto been officers and Ministers in the Church In the Church of the Jewes Hophni and Phinehas in the dayes of Christ Scribes and Pharises 2. That the wickednesse of such men did not null or evacuate their ministerial acts The Scribes Pharisees that sat in Moses his chair were to be heard though they said and did not Christs commission did as well authorize Iudas as any other to Preach and baptize c. And surely if the Principall acts belongingto the Ministerial function as Preaching Baptizing adminstring the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be not nulled or made void by the personal wickedness of Ministers then consequently not their ordination So that if Iudas had been an Apostle when Christ sent his Apostles to ordain Elders his Ordination should have been as valid as his Preaching and Baptizing formerly had been The Leprosie of the hand doth not hinder the growing of the corn which that hand soweth But these Bishops were Antichristian and their office Antichristian and therefore the Ministers ordained by them must needs be Antichristian Ministers and not the Ministers of Christ. For satisfaction to this objection we shall first propose what the ancient learned godly Non-conformists have left in print about it and then we will lay down our own answer The old Non-conformists by joynt consent have written That they did not see how our Bishops could be called Antichrists or Antichristian 1. Because the word mâ—rks out Antichrist by his false Doctrine nor do we find in holy Scripture any such accounted Antichrist or Antichristian which holding the truth of Doctrine swerveth either in judgement or practise from Christs rule for Discipline Now it is evident that our Bishops do hold and teach all fundamental doctrines and truths and some of them have soundly maintained them against Hereticks converted many to the truth and have suffered persecution for the Gospel 2. Their Hierarchy and other corruptions charged upon the calling of our Bishops were rather to be esteemed the staires and way to Antichristianity then Antichristianity â—t self for they were in the Church before the Popâ— who is the Antichrist and the chiefe Head link of all Antichristianity was revealed 3. The Antichristian Bishops hold their preeminence as from Gods law which is unchangeable whereas our Bishops since his Majesties reign to this day for the most part hold superiority by no other right then the positive law which is variable yea it appeares by the institution of the Court of Delegates and the continuance thereof to this day that they do and ought by law to hold their Jurisdiction not as from God but is from the Prince Thus they And as to the Ministers Ordeyned by Bishops they say Bishops are able to judge of such gifts as are required for the sufficiencie of Ministers that many of them have been such Ministers themselves as to whose labours thâ— Lord hath set to his Seal We are perswaded that though it were not necessary yet it cannot be unlawful for him that entreth into the ministery to be approved and authorized even by them Andif our Ordination be in this behalf faultie how will our Brethren justifie the calling of their own Ministers that have received Ordination ever from the people who neither by commandement nor example can be found to have any such authority nor are in any degree so capable of it as the Bishops Thus much is said by the old Non-conformist For our own particulars we shall return an answer to this objection by distinguishing of the word Bishop and the word Antichristian There are three sorts of Bishop the Scripture-Bishop thâ— Bishop of the first Primitive times and the Bishop of latter times Now we are far from thinking that the scripture Bishop that is to say the Presbyter or the Bishop of the first Primitive times who was nothing else but a chief Bresbyter or the Moderator of the Presbytery and had a Priority not of power but of order onely like a Speaker in the Parliament were Antichristian The question onely is about the Bishop of latter times The word Antichristian may be taken propeâ—ly or improperly An Antichristian Minister propeâ—ly is one that own 's the Pope as a visible Monarchical head over the Church and that stands a Minister with subjection and subordination to the Church of Rome and that professedly maintains the Popish religion An Antichristian Minister improperly is one that in his calling and office hath divers things that are Antichristian In the first sense we believe none will say our Bishops were Antichristians But yet we cannot deny but that those Bishops who did take upon them by divine right the care of whole Diocesses and did assume the whole power of jurisdiction over the people and Ministers therein and did challenge a Majority and tantum non a sole power in Ordination did symbolize herein too much with Antichrist and had in this sence much of Antichristianisme in them yet notwithstanding this is not sufficient to denominate them Antichristian no more then the having of some hypocrisy and covetousnesse doth denominate a godly man an hypocrite or a covetous person The denomination is alwaies á meliore Our Bishops for the most part were very Orthodox in doctrine and pure in the substantialls of worship and have written many learned treatises against Popery and Antichristianisme Indeed in matters of Discipline and ceremonies they were exceeding faulty and some of â—hem of late yeares began to Apoâ—â—atize both in doctrine and worship for which God hath grieviously punished them yet all this is not sufficient to make them Antichristian properly so called much lesse to null all their acts of Ordination no more then their acts of preaching baptizing and administring theLords supper specially if we consider that they had power enabling them to perform all these acts as they were Presbyters though they never had been Bishops Bâ—t let us suppose though not grant the Bishops were Antichristian and their office Antichristian yet we answer That it will not follow that the Ministers made by them are Antichristian unlesse it can also be made out which never can be done that they were Antichristian in the very act of Ordination For as a maimed man may beget a perfect child because he begets him not as maimed but as a man So an Antichristian Bishop may ordain a true Minister because he ordaines him not aâ— Antichristian but as a Presbyter that by divine warrant hath authority so to do As Austin against the Donatists proves the validity of Baptisme by Hereticks if they Baptized with water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost though in other
the people began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I of Câ—phas The Churches were governed by the common Councel of the Presters But after that each man begun to account those whom he had baptized his own and not Christs it was decreed through the whole world that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest to whom the care of al the Church should belong that the seeds of schisme might be taken away Thinkes any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him read the words of the Apostle to the Philippians saying Paul and Timothy the servants of Iesus Christ to them that are at Philippi with the Bishops and Dâ—acâ—ns Philippi is one City of Macidonia and certainly in one City there could not be many Bishops as they are now called But because at that time they called the same men Bishops whom they called Presbyters Therefore he speaks indifferently of Bishops as of Presbyters If thiâ— yet seems doubtful to any unlesse it be proved by another testimony let him consider That in the Acts of the Apostles it is written That when Paul came to Miletuâ— he sent to Ephâ—sus and called the Elders of that Church and amongst other things saith unto them Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood And here let yet be diligently observed That calling the Presbyters of one City of Ephesus he afterwards called the same persons Bishops If any will receive that Epistle which under the name of Paul is written to the Hebrewes There are care of the Church is divided amongst many For thus he writeth to the people Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls as they that must give an account that they may do it with joy and not with grief for that is unprofitable for you And Peter if called from the firmnesse of his faith saith in his Epistle The Elders which are among you I exhort also who am an Elder and a witnesse of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the Glory that shall be revealed Feed the flock of God which is among you c. not by constraint but willingly These things I have written to shew that amongst the ancients Bishops and Presbyters were one the same and that by little little that all the seeds of dissention might be pluckt up all the care of the Church was delegated to one And therefore as the Elders may know that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the custom of theChurch so let the Bishops know That it is more from custom then from any true dispensation from the Lord that they are above the Presbyters and that they ought to rule the Church in common imitating Moses who though he had it in his own power to govern the people of Israel yet notwithstanding chose 70. with whom he would judge the People We have thought fit to transcribe this quotation at large because it gives the same interpretation of Scriptures which we do and makes it the result of all his discourse That Bishops over Presbyters are from the Custom of the Church onely and not from any divine original We might here likewise set down the Epistle that St. Hierome writes to Evagrius wherein he brings not only the Scripture forementioned but most of the other places which we have brought and gives the same explication of them but because it is very long we think fit to omit it and desire the diligent Reader for his own further satisfaction to peruse it The next that we shall cite is St. Austin who in his 19 th Epistle writing unto St. Hierome saith That though according to words of honour which the custome of the Church hath brought in Episcopacy be greater then Presbytery yet in many things Austin is Inferior to Hierome And in Quaest. veteris et Novi Testamenti Quaest. 101. what is a Bishop but the first Priest that is to say the highest Priest In the third place we shall add Dr. Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knowls who shewes out of Chrysostome Hierome Ambrose Augustinâ— Theodoret Pri masius Sedulius Theophylact That Bishops and Presbyters are all one in Scripture and that Aerius co uld no more be justly condemned for heresie for holding Bishops and Presbyters to be all one then all those fathers with whom agree saith he Oecumenius and Ansolme Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and another Anselme and Gregory and Gratian and affirmes that it was once enro lled in the Canon law for sound and Catholique Doctrine and thereupon taught by learned men he adds further That it is unlikely that Anselmâ— should have been Canonized for a Saint by the Pope of Rome and the other Anselme and Gregory so esteemed in the Popes Library that Gratians works should be allowed so long time by so many Popes for the golden fountain of the Canon law if they had taught that for sound doctrine which by the whole Church in her most flourishing condition was condemned for heresy and concludes th at they who have laboured about the reformation of the Church these five hundred yeares of whom he names abundance have taught that all Pastors be they intitulated Bishops or Priests have equal authority and power by the word of God In the fourth place we might urge the saying of Michael Medina lib. 1. de sacris origin who affirmes that not onely St. Hierome but also that Ambrose Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrisostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were of the same judgement with Aerius and held that there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter by Scripture The Next we shall instance in is Cassander in his Book of consâ—ltation article 14 who saith whether Episcopacy be to be accounted an order Ecclesiastical distinct from Presbytery is a question much debated between the Theologues and the Canonists But in this one particular all sides agree That in the Apostles dayes there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter but afterwards for the avoiding of Schisme the Bishop was placed before the Presbyter to whom the power of ordination was granted that so peace might be continued in the Church Add further That in the Oecumenical Councels of Constance and Basil after long debate it was concluded That Presbyters should have dicisive suffrages in Councells as well as Bishops because that by the law of God Bishops were no more then they and it is expressely given them Act 17.23 7. Erasmus upon 1. Tim. 4.4 saith that in ancient time there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter but afterwards for the avoiding of Schisme a Bishop was chosen by many and so many Pres byters so many Bishops 8. Bishop Iewel in
the defence of his Apoology part 2. cap 9. diviâ— 1. proveth against Harding that Aerius could not be counted an heretick for holding that Bishops and Presbyters are all one Iure divino and citing for it Hierom Austin Cyhrsostome closeth up for answer with these words All these and many more holy Fathers together with the Apostle St. Paul for thus saying must by Hardings advice be held for heretiques 9. Bishop Morton in his Cathol Apology part 1. cap. 33. affirmeth that divers other Divines besides Hierom were of the same opinion with Aerius That there was no difference by divine right between a Bishop a Presbyter For which he also citeth Medina Anselme Sedulius Erasmus and Alphonsus a Castro who saith that Hierome was of this opinion that a Bishop and a Presbyter are ejusdem ordinis et authoritatis of the same Order and the same Authority 10. Bishop Bilson whatsoever he saith to the contrary in his book called the perpetual government of Christs Church in his book against Seminaries lib. 1. pag. 318. affirmeth out of Hierome that the Church at first was governed by the common Councel of Prâ—byters and therefore Bishops must understand that they be greater then Ministers rather by custome then the Lords appointment and the Bishops came in after the Apostles times 11. Dr. Whitakers respon ad Campiani rationes ratio affirmeth That Iure divino a Presbyter and a Bishop are all one And whereas Durans affirmeth with many words that Bishops and Presbyters were Iure Divino divers he telleth him that if he will retain the estimation of a modest Divine he must not so confidently affirm that which all men see to be so evidently false For what is so well known saith he as this which you acknowledge not Hierom plainly writeth that Elders and Bishops are the same and confirmeth it by many places of Scripture 12. Dr. Holland the Kings Professor in Oxford at an Act Iuly 9. 1608. Concluded against Mr Lanes question An Episcopatus sit ordo distinctus a Presbyteratu â—oque superior jure divino and said That the Affirmative was most false against the Scriptures Fathers the Doctrine of the Church of England yea the very School-men themselves Lombard Thomas Bonaventure c. We might cite divers others as Arch-Bishop Whitguife against Carâ—hright and Dr. Fulk upon Titus the 1. ver 5. and Deane Nowell c. But we forbeare and the rather because we shall have occasion hereafter to touch upon the same Argument Now by all this it appears That by Scripture the judgment of the antient Church and our own Church of England a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one and that therefore they that are made Ministers by Presbyters are made Ministers by Bishops and are lawfully ordained because ordained in a way most agreeable to Scripture pattern CHAP. V. Answering Objections taken from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus BEfore we leave our Scripture-proofs it will be expected that we should answer to what is brought out of Scripture for for the Ius Divinum of Prelacy and also to what is brought in answer unto our Arguments out of Scripture against it For the first there are two chiefe and principall arguments the one from Timothy and Titus the other from the 7. Asian Angels As for Timothy and Titus It is said that they were constituted Bishops of Ephesus and Creeâ— by the Apostle Paul and did exercise Episcopall power in these places both in Ordination and Jurisdiction and this power was derived by them unto their successors as being necessary to continue in the Church as well as the power of preaching and administring the Sacraments To this we Answer That Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sense We deny not but that they did exercise Episcopal power both in Ordination and Jurisdiction and that this power is necessary to be continued in the Church But we say that they did this not as Bishops in a formall sense but as extraordinary Officers or Evangelists which were Officers in the Church distinct from Pastors and Teachers To make this out we will briefly do two things 1. We will prove that Timothy and Titus were not Prelaticall Bishops 2. That they were Evangelists 1. That they were not Prelaticall Bishops This we make out 1. Because the Scripture no where cals them Bishopâ— But in the Postscripts they are called Bishops These Postscripts are no part of Canonicall Scripture The Papists themselves Baronius Serarius and the Rhemists confesse that there is much falsity in them Smectimnuâ—s hath everlastingly blasted the Authority of them The first Epistle is said to be writ from Laodicea whereas Bâ—za in his Annotations proves apparently that it was written from Macedonia to which opinion Baronius and Serarius and Athanasius and Theodoret in his Epistle before his Commentary upon Timothy subscribe It is also called the first Epistle But how was Paul sure that he should live to write a second And it is also said to be written from Laodicea which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Paâ—atiana But as Bâ—za well observes there is no mention of Phrygia Pacatiana in the writers of those ages sed apud recentiores illos qui Romani â—mperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt The second Epistle iâ— thus subscribed The second Epistle unto Timothy ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians was written from Rome when Paul was brought c. Now these words Ordained the first Bishop are wanting saith Bâ—za in quibusdam vâ—tâ—stis codicibus in veteri vulgatâ editione apud Syrum interpretem The Syriack Interpreter reads it Here ends the Second Epistle to Timothy written from Rome If St. Paul had written this Postscript he would not have said to Timothy the first Bishop c. whereas it was not yet certain whether ever there should be a second Neither would it be said when Paul was brought c. But when I was the second time brought before Nero. The Epistle to Titus is said to be written from Nicopolis whereas it is cleare that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he wrote it Titus 3.12 Be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis for I have determined there to winter he doth not say here to winter but there where note for the present he was not there and besides it is said that Titus was ordained the first Bishop c. And who was the second or was there ever a second But we forbear transcribing any more c. This is abundantly sufficient to invalidate the authority of the Postscript written ab hominibus vâ—l indoctis vel certe non sâ—tis attentis as Beza saith But some of the Fathers call them Bishops They that call them Bishops borrow their testimonies from Eusebius of whom Scaliger saith and Dr. Râ—ynâ—lds approves of it That he read ancient Histories paruâ— attente which they prove by many instances And all that Eusebius saith is only Sic scribitur It is so
and shame to a Bishop to be degraded from a Bishop to a Presbyter much more reproach and shame it must needs be for an Evangelist to be brought down unto the Office of a Bishop But Timothy and Titus were once made Evangelists by the Apostles when they were chosen to travell up and downe with them as their companions and before they were setled as our Brethren suppose the one at Ephesus the other at Creet This is confessed by Bishop Hall Bishop Downham and all Episcopall men that we have read of this subject And the great debate between them and us is not whether they were once Evangelists and Vice-Apostles or no but how long they continued so and whether ever they were made Bishops in our Brethrens sense And therefore we may undoubtedly conclude That because they were once Evangelists therefore they were never Bishops neither before they were sent to Ephesus and Creâ—â— nor afterwards Before we leave our discourse concerning Timothy and Titus we must of necessity answer one Objection It is said that the work imposed upon Timothy and Titus in Ephesus and Creet both of Ordination and Jurisdiction is as necessary to be continued in the Church as the work of preaching and adminstring the Sacrament and that after their deaths those that did succeed them did the same work and were called Bishops by the ancient Fathers And that therefore Timothy himselfe was a Bishop because his Successors in the same place were called so Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and therefore temporary and extraordinary Officers and therefore could not have any Successors in Office Indeed the power they did exercise in Ephesus and Creet was necessary for the Church of Christ and there were some that succeeded them in that work but none in the Office the Apostles and Evangelists had some that came after them and did the same work that they did in governing ordaining and preaching but they had no Successors in Office for then they had not been extraordinary And as one wel saith when the Apostles and Evangelists dyed their Offices ceased what parts of their Office were of perpetuall use as praying preaching administring Sacraments and the use of the Keyes were left to those Ordinary Officers called Pastors and Teachers Eph. 4.11 The distinction made afterward between a pastor-Pastor-Bishop and a pastor-Pastor-Presbyter was but an humane invention for order and to avoid accidental inconveniencies of which we shall speake more hereafter In a word the successors of Timothy and Titus were Presbyters who by common consent govern the Church and ordain Elders and did the same work as ordinary standing Officers which Timothy and Titus did as extraordinary and temporary Officers c. So it was at first till afterwards for avoiding ofSchisme as Hierom saith one was chosen from amongst the Presbyters and called a Bishop But whether this invention were of God and whether it were hurtfull or profitable for the Church we shall God willing shew at large when we come to speak of the practise of Antiquity in point of Episcopacy So much for Timothy and Titus CHAP. VI. Answering Objections from the pretended Episcopacy of the seven Asian Angels THe second Scripture ground brought to prove the Divine right of Prelacy is from the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia These Angels say they were seven single persons And as one hath lately written not onely Bishops but Metropolitans and Arch-Bishops This is said with so much confidence that all men are condemned as blinde or wilfull that indeavour to oppose it And it is reckoned as one of the great prodigies of this unhappy age that men should still continue blinde and not see light enough in this Scripture to build the great Fabrick of Episcopacy by Divine right upon It is further added That some of the ancient Fathers mention the very men that were the Angels of those Churches Some say Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when Iohn writ his Epistle to it Others say Onesimus Others say that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna And from hence they conclude with a great deale of plausibilitie that the Angels of the Churches were seven individuall Bishops For answer to those things we must of necessity referre the Reader to what is said in the bookes quoted in the margent wherein they are fully clearly and as we conceive satisfactorily handled we shall crave leave to borrow a few things out of them adding something of our own In answer therefore to this Scripture we do desire those things may be considered 1. That St. Iohn the Pen-man of the Revelation doth neither in it nor in any of his other writings so much as upon the name Bishop he names the name Presbyter frequently especially in the Revelation yea when he would set out the Office of those that are nearest to the throne of Christ in his Church Revel 4. He cals himselfe a Presbyter Epist. 2. And whereas in St. Iohn's dayes some new expressions were used in the Christian Church which were not in Scripture As the Christian Sabbath began to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Christ himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now both these are found in the writings of St. Iohn And it is strange to us that the Apostle should mention a new phrase and not mention a new Office erected by this time as our Brethren say in the Church especially if we consider that Polycarp as iâ— related was made Bishop by him and no doubt if he had been made Bishop in a Prelaticall sense we should have found the name Bishop in some of his writings who lived so long as to see Episcopacy setled in the Church as our Adversaries would make us believe Add to thiâ— 1. That there is not the least intimation in all St. Iohns writngs of the superiority of one Presbyter over another save onely where he names and chides Diotrephes as one ambitiously affecting such a Primacy Consider thirdly That the same Authors that say that St. Iohn made Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna and that St. Peter made Ignatius Bishop of Antioch do also say that St. Iohn himself sate many yeares Bishop of Ephesus and was the Metropolitan of all Asia which is an evident demonstration to us that these Authors did not use the word Bishop in a Prelaticall sense For it is certain that the Apostles cannot properly be called Bishops For though they did eminently contain the Episcopall office yet they were not formally Bishops For this were to degrade the Apostles and to make their Office ordinary and perpetuall this were to exalt the Bishop above his degree and make him an Apostle and to make the Apostle a Bishop It doth not much differ from madness to say that Peter or any one of the Apostles were properly Bishops as learned Whitaker saith whom we shal have occasion to cite this purpose hereafter 4. Consider fourthly That the word Angel which is the title given to those supposed Bishops doth not import
Lord it over Gods heritage that is Gods flock but to be examples unto them We shall not trouble the Reader with any other answers to our arguments These that we have mentioned being the most material Onely for the conclusion of this discourse we shall crave leave to take notice That there is a Doctor a high Prelatist of great esteem for learning amongst some men that in a late Book of his hath undertaken to make out these two great Paradoxes 1. That wheresover the word Bishop is used in the New Testament it is to be taken in a Prelatical sense For a Bishop is superiour to Presbyters in Ordination and Jurisdiction 2. That wheresoever the word Presbyter is used in the New Testament it is to be understood not of a meer Prâ—sbyter but of a Bishop properly so called And whereas we say That the scripture-Scripture-Bishop is nothing else but a Presbyter and that there were no Bishops distinct from Presbyters in the Apostles dayes This Author on the contrary saith That the Scripture-Presbyter is a true Bishop And that there were no single and meer Presbyters in the Apostles dayes For our parts we do not think it necessary to take a particular survey of all that is said in Justification of these Paradoxes Onely we desire it may be considered 1. That these assertions are contrary unto Antiquity which yet notwithstanding our Brethren do so highly magnify and boast of in this controversie and for receding from which as they sâ—y we do they do most deeply charge us 2. That they are contrary to all that have ever written in defence of Episcopacy And therefore till our Brethren can agree amongst themselves we need not spend time to answer the private opinion of one Doctor 3. That whosoever will defend these Paradoxes must of necessity be forced to grant 1. That there were more Bishops then one in a City in the Apostles dayes which is to betray the cause of Episcopacy and to bring down a Bishop to the ranke of a Presbyter 2. That there were no Bishops over Presbyters in the Apostles dayes For if there were no Presbyters there could be no Bishops over Presbyters 3. That Ordo Presbyteratus is not jure divino For if neither Christ nor his Apostles Ordained the Office of a Presbyter Then is the Order of Presbytery a meer humane invention Which is an assertion that even the worst of Papists will abominate Bellarmine himself saith That a Bishop that is not first a Presbyter is a meer figment and an empty Title 4. The Author himself in Justification of this his opinion is forc'd to confesse 1. That the Ephesius Presbyters whom Paul sent for to Mileâ—â—â— were all the Prelates of Asia 2. That the Bishops of Philippi whom Paul salutes Chap. 1. were not the Bishops of that City onely but of the whole Province whereas Theophylact saith That Philippi was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A little City subject to the Metropolis of Thessalonica 3. That Timothy was Arch-Bishop of Ephesus and that when Paul sets down the qualifications of Bishops though he mentioneth no qualification but such which are common to a Presbyter with a Bishop yet he is to be understood to speak of Bishops in a prelatical sence and not at all of Presbyters And when he saith The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour c. That is saith this Author the Bishops that rule well c. Thereby holding out this great error that a Bishop that rules well is worthy of double honour though he never preacheth And when St. Paul bidâ— Timothy not neglect the gift that was given him by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery that iâ— saith he of Episcopacy And when the Apostle chargeth him not to rebuke an Elder c. and not receive an accusation against an Elder c. This is to be understood of Bishops saith he and not of meer Presbyters 4. That Titus also was Arch-Bishop of Creet and that he received no commission from St. Paul to ordain single Elders but onely for ordaining of Bishops in every City It seems this Author slights the postscript where Titus is called the first Bishop of Creet and slights all those ancient Fathers that are cited by his own party to prove that he was Bishop of Creet But he must be an Arch-bishop and so must Tymothy be also or else these assertions of his will fall to the ground Now that they were neither Bishops nor Archbishops hath been sufficiently proved as we conceive in the former discourse 5. Fiftly and lastly those Paradoxes are contrary to the very letter of the Scripture as we have made it evident in our arguments against the jus divinum of Episcopacy and would further manifest it if we thought it necessary For when the Apostle saith Iames 5.14 Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church c. who is there that can be perswaded to believe That all these Elders were Bishops in the sense that Bishops are taken in our dayes is this the proper work of Bishops to visit the sick and besides If the Apostles by Elders had meant Bishops in that sense he would have said let him call the Elder s of the Churches not of the Church unlesse our Brethren will say that there were divers Bishops in every Church in the Apostles dayes in which there were many sick persons Besides when it is said Act. 21.18 Paul went in with us unto Iames and all the Elders were present It is supposed by our Episcopal men that this Iames was at this time Bishop of Hierusalem Now we demand who were these Elders were these also Bishops of Hierusalem will this answer consist with our Brethrens judgment So likewise when it is said Act. 15.4 And when they were come to Hierusalem they were received of the Church and of thâ— Aâ—pstles and Elders We demand what is meant by the Church Is it not meant the Church of Hierusalem to which place they are said to come And if so Then we ask further what is meant by the Elders Must it not be answered That by Elders are meant the Elders of Hierusalem And then let any man tell us how these Elders can be said to be Bishops in a Prelaticall sense especially according to the sense of our Brethren who make Iames to be at this time the onely Bishop of Hierusalem Add further It is said Act. 14.23 when Paul and Barnabas had ordained them Elders in every Church Act. 11.30 They sent relief to the Elders c. Can any Imagin that this Relief was sent onely to Bishops and that Paul and Barnabas ordained no Presbyters in any Church but onely Bishops Is not this to offer manifest violence to the Scriptures and instead of upholding of Episcopacy is not this sufficient to render it odious and contemptible to all sober and Godly and Moderate Christians But we forbear So much for our Scripture-proof and for our Justification out of the Word
not as a Bishop These things premised we now come to Answer to the Objection and to every branch of it The Ministers we plead for were made by Bishops distinct from Presbyters who had no power nor authority to Ordain them The Bishop though distinct from his Presbyters yet he did not Ordain them alone but together with the laying on of the hands of other Presbyters he being as the first and chief Presbyter or is Prâ—ses Presbyâ—â—rii The President of the Presbytery The Bishop that ordained them was also himself a Presbyter and had power as a Presbyter to Ordain and therefore by vertue of his Presbyterial capacity his Ordination must needs be valid and lawful Even as when a Bishop conseâ—rateth the Bread and Wine at the Lords Supper he doth it not as a Bishop though he be one but as a Presbyter so also when the Ordaineth a Minister which is an act of a farâ— inferiour nature he doth it by vertue of a power belonging to him as a Presbyter not as a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter much lesse as a lord-Lord-Bishop This is that which is said in the Ordinance of Parliament for Ordination Whereas the word Presbyter that is to say Elder and the word Bishop do in the holy Scripture intend and signifie one and the same function although the Title of Bishop hath been by corrupt custome appropriated to one and that unto him aâ—cribed and by him assumed as in other things so in that matter of Ordination that was not meet which Ordination notwithstanding being performed by him a Presbyter joyned with other Presbyters we hold for substance to be valid and not to be disclaimed by any that have received it And that Presbyters so Ordained being lawfully thereunto appointed and authorized may ordain other Presbyters In the office and calling of Bishops two things arâ— to be considered saith Mr. Ball. 1. The substance of their office and Ministry whereunto they are separated to wit to Preach the Gospel dispense the Sacraments and Administer the Discipline of Jesus Christ. And this is of God 2. The superiority they take or challenge over their Brethren whether in Ordination or Jurisdiction and this is of man But they make not a difference or nullity in the substance of their Ministry All Ministers of the Gospel are stewards of Jesus Chrisâ— seâ— apart to do his work wherein if any one shall challenge more thâ—â— of right appertaineth to him or do ought out of pride partiality sinister affection tyranny or sedition or receive such authority to himself alone as belongeth not to his place and office or is common to many in that he is blame worthy but thereupon his Ministry or Ministerial acts done by him are not made void or of none effect But the Bishop that Ordained these Ministers you plead for Ordained them as a Bishop by vertue of his Episcopal consecration and not as a Presbyter by vertue of his Presbyterial Order This is not true of all Bishops For as Mr. Firmin tells us he heard a Reverend Minister of a Congregational Church in Essex say That when the Bishop Ordained him he told him I do Ordain you as I am a Presbyter 2. Suppose he did this waâ— his personal errour but did not â—word his power of Ordination as a Presbyter Suppose a man made a Constable by lawful authority should afterwards unwarrantably assume the power of a Justice of the Peace and should do things which belong to his place as a Constable under the Title of a Justice of Peace should not this act of his be valid though he pretends to do it upon a wrong title Mr. Burroughs in his Heart-divisions hath this observable passage If a man doth a thing that he may do by vertue of 2 relations or either of them it may be he thinks he stands in one of these relations which indeed he doth not yet he doth the action by vertue of it in his own thoughts in this he sins but there is another relation wherein he stands that is enough to warrant the action that he doth to be lawful Now though he doth not intend the acting by this relation the action may be sin to him but not at all sin to those that joyn with him in it If he will go upon a false ground when he may go upon a true let him look to it I will joyn with him in that action as warranted for him to do by vertue of his second relation which it may be he will not own himself He gives this instance Giving alms is a work that a man may do either by vertue of Church-office as a Deacon or as a Christian whom God hath blessed in his estate or betrusted with the distribution of what others betrust him with Now suppose a man is in the place of a Deacon he thinks himself to be in that office by a right call into it and he gives out the alms of his Church by vertue of his call but I am perswaded his call to that office is not right he is not a true Deacon yet if I be in want I knowing that bothhe and those who have given him monies to dispose may and ought to distribute to those that are in need by vertue of another relation as men as Christians enabled by God surely then I may receive alms from him lawfully though his principle by which he gives them me is sin to him I may communicate with him in this thing though he acts by vertue of that offece that he had no true call unto c. Much more may the like be said of receiving Ordination from a Bishop who hath power to confer it as a Presbyter though he gave it by vertue of his Episcopal consecration But the Ministers whose Ordinations you defend were made by Bishops who held themselves to be a superior order of Ministry above Presbyters by divine Institution Whether they did so or no we know not but sure we are that the Bishops of King Edwaâ—d and Queen Elizabeths dayes were not of this opinion as we have shewed That the lawes of the Realm do not countenance it that the learnedest of the Papists are against it and if any of the Bishops of late years were of this opinion it was their personall error and not at all essentiall to the Episcopall Office The Ministers we speak against were made not onely by Bishops but Lord Bishops But not as Lord-Bishops The Lordly dignities of Bishops were meere civil additaments annexed to their Bishopricks by Kingly favour not essential ingredients into their Office And therefore when they were taken from them they continued not onely Presbyters but Bishops The Bishops from whom these Ministers received their Ordination were wicked and ungodly and therefore their Ordination must needs be wicked and ungoldly This is not true of all of them Some of them were godly and some of them have shed their bloods for the Gospel
fully proved Therefore a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same Officer 5. This is further manifested from Phil. 1.1 To all thâ— Saints in Christ Iâ—sus who are at Philippi with the Bishops and Dâ—acons Here again note 1. That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one For by Bishops cannot be meant Bishops over Presbyters for of such there never was as our Episcopal men say but one in a City 2. That there are but two Orders of Ministry in the Church of Christ of divine institution Bishops and Deacons And that therefore a Bishop over Presbyters is not a plant of Gods planting nor an Officer appointed by Christ in his Church 6. We argue From these very texts in which the holy Ghost doth on purpose set down all the several sorts of Ministry which Christ hath Ordained in his Church As 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 4.11 12. Rom. 12.6.7 8. When Christ went up to Heaven he left extraordinary and ordinary Officers for the perfecting of the Saints and for the work of the Ministry c. But here is no mention made of a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter much lesse of a Bishop superiour to a Presbyter in the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Here are Apostles Prophets and Evangelists who were extraordinary Officers and temporary and had no successors properly in â—undem gradum And here is mention of Pastors and Teachers who are the onely ordinary standing and perpetual Ministers But no mention of the Pope by which argument our learned Protestant Divines prove him to be none of Christ's Ministers nor of Patriarches nor of Archbishops or Bishops distinct from Pastors and Teachers 7. All distinct Officers must have distinct works and operations nam operari sequitur esse and they must have distinct Commissions But Presbyters have the same commission with Bishops and the same work and operation Ergâ— they are the same with Bishops That they have the same Commission appears from Ioh. 20.21 As my Father sent me so send I you This was said to all the Apostles equally and to all their successors indifferently And whose sins you forgive are forgiven c. This is common with Bishops to all Presbyters So Matth. 28.20 Go Teach all Nations Baptising them c. and lo I am with you alway unto the end of the world This is common to all Presbyters And as for their work and operation The Presbyters are called Rulers Governours and Overseers in Scripture 1 Tim. 3.5 1 Tim 5.17 1 Thess. 5.12 Heb. 13.7.17 24. And the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven are committed to them Matth. 16.19 The Scripture puts no distinction between the Bishop and the Presbyter nor gives us any the least hint to make us believe That the key of doctrine should belong to the Presbyter and the key of Discipline to the Bishop Ordination is performed by the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 Jurisdiction likewise is given to the Presbyters For they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And when the Apostle saith to the Church of Corinth Do not ye Iudge them that are within and put ye away from among your selves that wicked person And when Christ saith Tell the Church These texts cannot be understood of a Biship distinct from a Presbyter For one man cannot be called a Church which signifieth a company And the Apostle speaks to the Corinthians not in the singular but in the plural number Nor can they be understood of the whole Congregation promiscuously For the Apostle saith expresly That the punishment executed upon the incestuous person was inflicted by many not by all And by the Church of which Christ speaks and to which scandals are to be brought must of necessity be meant a Ruling and Governing Church And it is most clear in Scripture That private members are not Church-rulers For the Apostle puts a distinction between Saints and Rulers Heb. 13.24 Salute all them that have the rule over you and all the Saints If all were the eye where were the hands and feet And therefore these texts must be understood of the Presbytery From hence then it followes If jurdifiction and Ordination Oâ—dination belong to the Presbyter as well as the Bishop then a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same office 8. We might add That the Scripture acknowledgeth no superiority or inferiority between officers of the same kind For thâ—â—gh we read that one order of Ministery is said to be above another yet we never read that in the same Order of Officers there was any one superior to others of the same order We believe That the Apostles were above the Evangelistâ— And the Evangelists above Pastors and Teachers and Pastors and Teachers above Deacons But we likewise believe That there was no Apostle above â—n Apostle but that they were all equal in power and jurisdiction no Evangelist above an Evangelist no Deacon above another and so by consequence no Presbyter by divine right over other Presbyters 6. Lasâ—ly If there be any distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter in Scripture the greater honour and preâ—â—inence must of necessity be given to the Presbyter above the Bishop which we believe will never be granted For according to our Prelatical Divines the office of a Bishop as distinct from Presbyters is to rule and govern and the office of a Presbyter is to preach and administer the Sacraments Now sure we are That preaching and administring the Sacraments are far more excellent works then ruling and governing And the Apostle saith expressely That they that labour in word and doctrine deserve more honour then they that Rule well 1. Tim. 5.17 Hence we argue If there be a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter either he is equal or inferior or superior Our Adversaries will answer That he is superior But this cannot be For superiour Orders must have superior acts and honour belonging unto them above their equalls or inferiours But Bishops have not For preaching is an act above Ruling and most worthy of double honour and so is administring of the Holy Sacraments And therefore the act and honour of a Presbyter is above the act and honour of a Bishop and â—rgo a Bishop is not superior and ergo there is no Bishop at all in Scripture distinct from a Presbyter This is all we have to say out of Scripture for the Identity of a Bishop and a Preâ—byter and that this may not seem to be our own private judgment or that we do herein hold any thing that is contrary to the doctrine of the Catholique Church or our own Church of England we shall crave leave to set down what hath been the opinion of the Church of Christ and also of our own Church concerning the divine right of Episcopal government First we will begin with St. Ierome who upon the first of Titus hath these words A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same and before there were through the Diveâ—â— instinct divisions in Religion and
of God of Ordination by Presbyters without Prelats HAving now finished our Vindication of the present Ministers of the Church of England both such as were made by Bishops and such as are now made without Bishops before we come to our Appendix we shall crave leave to shew in few words unto our respective Congregations not onely the lawfulnesse of the present Ministry But the absolute necessity of adhering to it and the destructive dangers and ineffable mischiefs that will follow upon receiving of it And this will appear upon a fourfold account 1. Because a true Ministery is essential to an Organical Church that is a Church administring Ordinances A true Church saith Cyprian is Plebs Episcopo adunata Ecclesia non est saith Jerom quae non habet sacerdotem Sure we are That there cannot be a true Church Ministerial without true Ministers 2. Because the Scripture way and the onely Ordinary way by which men are set apart to the work of the Ministry is by Ordination as we have abundantly shewed He that comes any other way is a Thief and a Robber not a true Shepherd 3. Because That this Ordination must be performed either by Ministers or by the people And if all Ordination by Ministers be to be accounted Antichristian because these Ministers were made by other Ministers and those by others and those by such as before the reformation were belonging to the Church of Rome Then it will follow That there is no way of Ordination left but by the people 4. Because there is neither precept nor president in all the Book of God for Ordination of Ministers by the people without Ministers We read of Ordination by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery but never by the laying on of the hands of the people We find the Apostles Ordaining and Timothy and Titus Ordaining as we have formerly said and the Presbytery ordaining But no where of the peoples Ordaining We find the people contra-distinguished from Rulers and Governours but no where called Rulers or Governours And if there be a power by Scripture in the people to Ordain Ministers why was Titus sent to Creete to Ordain Elders why did the Apostles visit the Churches they had planted to Ordain Elders in every Church And why is Timothy commanded To lay hands suddenly on no man c. Some thing possibly may be said out of Scripture For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem in totâ Scripturâ Surely this way of Ordination by the people is a devise that hath neither ground for it in the Scripture nor in all Antiquity And for private Christians to assume not onely a power to elect their own Ministers that is to nominate Persons to be made their Ministers which we no wayes dislike or deny so it be done in an orderly way by the guidance of the Presbytery but also to undertake without Ordination to become Publick Preachers themselves and not onely so but to send forth Ministers authoritatively to Preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments This is a sin like unto the sin of Vzziah and of Corah and his company This is to make themselves Political Popes and Antichristian Christians And therefore for the conclusion of all we shall make bold to speak two things to all those that renounce their former Ordination by Ministers and take up a new way of Ordination by the people 1. We would intreat them that before they find fault with our way of Ordination by Ministers they would first of all justifie by the Canon of the Scripture their new way of Ordination by the people 2. We would desire them in the fear of God to consider That whosoever renounceth Ordination by Ministers must of nece ssity not onely renounce our Ministry but all the Ministers and Churches Reformed in the Christian world and as Constantine said to Acesius the Novaâ—ian He must erect a Ladder by himself to go to heaven in a new way He must turn Seeker and forsake all Church-Communion as some do in these our unhappy dayes upon this very ground that we are speaking of For sure we are If Ordination by Ministers be Antichristian Ordination by the people is much more Antichristian But we hope better things of you though we thus speak And our prayer to God is and shall be That the Lord would send down the spirit of Truth into the hearts of his people to guide them in the truth in these erring dayes The Spirit of holinesse to sanctifie them by his truth in these prophane dayes And the Spirit of charity and meeknesse and sobriety to cause them to speak the truth in love Ephes. 4.15 and to love one another in the truth 2 Joh. 1. in these sinful and miserable dayes of uncharitablenesse and division The Appendix HAving sufficiently proved out of the word of God that a Bishop and Presbyter are all one and that Ordination by Presbyters is most agreeable thereunto We shall now subjoyn a brief Discourse about the grand Objection from the Antiquity of Prelacy and about the Judgement and Practise of the Ancient Church concerning the Ordination of Ministers And this we shall do the rather because our Prelatical Divines do herein most triumph and boast For Bishops distinct from Presbyters have been say they in the Church of Christ for 1600. years and upâ—ward And there never was any Ordination without them And when Coluthus was Ordained by a Presbyter without a Bishop his Ordination was pronounced null and void And Aerius by Austin and Epiphanius was accounted an Heretique for holding an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an equality and Identity between a Bishop and a Presbyter Nay Ierom himself saith That a Bishop over Presbyters is an Apostolical Tradition and that it began when some said I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas which was say they in the Apostles dayes And from hence it is peremptorily asserted that Episcopal government is of Apostolical institution For answer to this great and plausible objection and for the further declaration of our judgements concerning the Antiquity of Prelaâ—y we crave leave to lay down these following Propositâ—ons Proposition 1. THat whatsoever may be said for Prelacy out of antiquity yet sure we are as we hope hath been sufficiently proved That it hath no foundation in the Scriptures And as Christ in matter of divorce brought the Iewes to the first institution of marriage so ought we in the point of Prelacy to reduce men back to the first Institution of Episâ—opacy and to say as Christ From the beginning it was not so It is a good saying of Tertullian Id adulterum quod posterius id verum quod primum And it was well observed by Cyprian That Christ said Ego sum via veritas vita not Ego sum consuetudo and that consuetudo sine veritate est vetâ—stas erroris Christ is
truth and not custome and custome without Truth is a mouldy error And as Sir Francis Bacon saith Antiquity without truth is a Cypher without a figure And if we should seem in what we have asserted about the Identity of a Bishop and Presbyter to differ from some of the ancient Fathers yet we have the same plea for our selves which Austin had who being prest with the authority of Cyprian answers His writings I hold not Canonical but examinâ— them by the Canonical writings And in them what agreeth with the authority of Divine Scriptures I accept with his praise what agreeth not I refuse with his leave Sure we are That humane authority can but produce an humane faith and when all is done it is the Scripture a perfect reconditory of all credenda petenda faciâ—nda to which we must flee as the onely rock upon which we can rightly build our faith according to that excellent saying of Austin Sunt certe libri Dominici quorum auctoritati utrique consentimus utrique credimus utrique servimus ibi quaramus Ecclesiam ibi disâ—â—tiamus causam nostram Proposition 2. THat there were many corruptions which crept into the Church in the very Infancy of it and were generally received as Apostolical traditions which yet notwithstanding are not pleaded for by our Episcopal men but many of them confessedly acknowledged to be errors and mistakes Witnesse first The Millenary opinion which Iustine Martyr saith That he and all in all parts Orthodox Christians held it and calls them Christians onely in name with many other circumstances of aggravation that denied it Lactantius after a long discourse about it concludes Haec est doctrina sanctorum Prophetarum quam Christiani sâ—quimur hac est Christiana sapientia The like is affirmed by Tertullian Irenaeus and divers others as is well known Secondly we will instance in the necessity of childrens partaking of the Eucharist which was taught by Austin and others as an Apostolical tradition Rightly saith Austin do the Punick Christians call Baptisme by no other names but health and safety nor the Sacraments of Christs body by no other then life Vnde nisi ex antiquâ ut existimo Apostolica tradiâ—ionâ— qua Ecclesiae Christi insitum tenent praeter Baptismum participâtionem Dominica mensae non solâ—m non ad regnum Dei sed nec ad salutem vitam aeâ—ernam posse quenquam hominum pervenire In which words the absolute necessity of Baptism and of the Eucharist for all sorts of people is made an Apostolical tradition Lastly to name no more St. Basil in one Chapter names 4. customes as Apostolical Traditions to wit signing men with the sign of the Crosse praying towards the East anointing with oyl standing up at prayer from Easter to Whitsuntide which though some of our Episcopal Divines may perhaps approve of as lawful customes yet we conceive none of them will believe all of them especially the two last to be Apostolical traditions From hence we gather That there were many doctrines and practises pretended to be grounded upon Apostolical institution which yet notwithstanding are rather to be accounted Apocryphal then Apostolical Proposition 3. THat after Christs ascension into heaven The Church of God for a certain space of time was governed by the common Councel of Presbyters without Bishops This appears 1. From the words of Ierom forementioned Idem Ergo est Presbyter qui Episcopus Et antequam Diaboli instinctu studiâ— in religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli Ego Apollo ego Cephae communi consilio Prâ—sbyterorum Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam vâ—ro unusquisque eos c. And afterwards Paulatim vero ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam c. Here note That for a certain time the Church was governed by the Assembly of Presbyterâ— alone and that Bishops came in postea and paulatim It is not said Simulaâ— Corinthi dictum fuit Ego sum Pauli c. Sed postquam id dictum But Ierom seems to say That this was done in the Apostles dayes because then people began to say I am of Paul I am of Apollo I am of Cephas These words cannot be so understood For then Ierom should contradict himself For the whole design of the place is to prove Bishops to be of humane constitution Besides Ierom doth not say That it was said so among the Corinthians But among the people diceretur iâ— populis He alludes indeed to the Apostles words and speaks in the Apostolical phrase but not at all of the Apostles times The meaning is as David Blondel well observes Postquam alii passim Corinthiorum more dementati iâ— partes diâ—cerpti sunt After that others were intoxicated after the manner of the Corinthians and divided into several factions then was one set over the rest as their Bishop And that this must needs be so appears demonstratively by this argument Because that to prove that a Bishop and Presbyter are all one Ierom cites places out of the Philippians out of Titus and out of the second and third Epistle of Iohn which were all of them written after the Epistles to the Corinthians But St. Ierom in his 85. Epistle ad Evagrium calls the superiority of a Bishop over Presbyters an Apostolical tradition A learned writer for the Prelatical government triumphs over Dr. Blondel and Walâ— Messalinus because they passe over this objection unanswered and he seems to say that it never can be answered But if he had been pleased to have cast an eye upon the Vindication of the answer to the humble Remonstrance written by Smectymnuus he should have found this answer Ierom in that Epistle sharpens his reproof against some Deacons that would equalize thewselves to Presbyters c. To make this repoof the stronger he saith Presbyteris id est Episcopis and a little after he doth out of the Scripture most manifestly prove eundem esse Presbyterum atque Episcopum and carries this proof by Paul by Peter and by Iohn the longest surviver of the Apostles Then adds Quod autem postea unâ—s electus qui caeteris praeponâ—retur in sâ—hismatis remedium factum The reason why afterwards one was elected and set over the rest was the cure of Schisme It is hard to conceive how this imparity can be properly called an Apostolical tradition when Ierom having mentioned Iohn the last of the Apostles saith iâ— waâ— posteâ— that one was set over the rest Yet should we grant it an Apostolical tradition in Ieroms sence it would be no prejudice to our cause seeing with him Apostolical tradition and Ecclesiastical customâ— are the same witnesse that instance of the observation of Lent which he writing ad Marcâ—llum saith is Apostolica traditio yet writing adversus Luciferianos faith it is Ecclesiae consuetudo Whereby it fully appears That Ierom by Apostolical tradition meant not an Apostolical institution but an
Ecclesiastical custome Thus far Smectymâ—uns And thus Ierom is made to agree with himself whom our Episcopal Doctors would make to speak contradictions But Ierom saith It was toto orbe decretum and how could this be but by Apostolical appointment The same Author also saith in the same place That it came in paulatim It was not decreed in the whole world all at once but it came in by degrees in some places sooner and in some later The saying of Ambrose or whosoever was the Author of it upon the 4 th to the Ephesians is very remarkable Ideo non per omnia conveniâ—nt scripta Apostoli Ordâ—nationi quae nunc in Ecclesiâ est c. Nam Timotheum Presbyterum a se creatum Episcopum vocat quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet c. Sed quia caeperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos immutata est ratio prospiciente Concilio ut non Ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum This quotation we shall have occasion to mention afterwards We bring it now onely to shew 1. That the Ordination that was in Ambrose his dayes if he be the Author was not in all things agreeable to the Apostolical pattern 2. That the change that was made was prospicieâ—te concilio Was by the advise of a Councel and therefore it is not to be wondered if in time the Church of Christ came to be governed by the lifting up of one Presbyter above the rest But how long was it that the Church of Christ was governed by the common Councel of Presbyters without a Bishop set over them Dr. Blondel a man of great Reading and Learning undertakes in a large discourse to make out that before the year 140. there was not a Bishop over Presbyters To whose elaborate writings we refer the Reader for further satisfaction in this particular Sure we are that Clemens who lived in the first Century in his famous Epistle to the Corinthians an undoubted piece of Antiquity makes but two Orders of Ministry Bishops and Deacons The occasion of that Epistle seems to be a new sedition raised by the Corinthians against their Presbyters p. 57.58 not as B. Hall saies the continuation of the schismes amongst them in the Apostles dayes Clemens to remove their present sedition tells them how God hath alwayes appointed several Orders in his Church which must not be confounded In the Iewish Church he appointed a high Priest Priests and Levites And then tells them for the time of the Gospel that Christ Jesus sent his Apostles through Countries and Cities in which they preached and constituted the first fruits approving them by the spirit for Bishops and Deacons to those who should afterwards believe Here we observe 1. That in the first and purest times the custome was to choose Bishops in Villages as well as in great Cities Afterwards indeed in the year 347. in the Councel of Sardica it was decreed That no man should be chosen Bishop in a Village or in a little City ne vilescat noâ—eâ— Episcopi That the name of a Bishop might not be rendred contemptible But in the first age of the Church they appointed Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. That Bishops and Deacons were the onely Orders of Ministry in the first Primitive Church And that the Apostles appointed but two Officers that is Bishops and Deacons to bring men to believe Because when he had reckoned up three Orders appointed by God among the Jewes Highpriest Priests and Levites coming to recite Orders appointed by the Apostles under the Gospel he doth mention onely Bishops and Deacons The same Clemens adds pag. 57. That the Apostles knowing by Jesus Christ that there would a contention arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 About the name Bishop and being indued with perfect foreknowledge they appointed the foresaid that is the foresaid Orders of Bishops and Deacons c. Here note 1. That by name is not meant the bare name of Bishop but the honour and dignity as it is taken Phil. 2.9 Ephes. 1.21 Heb. 1.4 Revel 11. So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here to be rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The controversie amongst the Corinthians was not about the Name but dignity of Episcopacy for it was about the deposition of their godly Presbyters pag. 57.58 2. That the onely remedy appointed by the Apostles for the care of all contentions arising about Episcopacy is by committing the care of the Church unto Bishops and Deacons Afterwards the Church found out another way by setting up one Bishop over another But Clemens tells us That the Apostles indued with perfect foreknowledge of things Ordained onely Bishops and Deacons for a remedy of all Schismes It would be too long to recite all that is said in this Epistle for the Justification of our proposition Let the Reader peruse pag. 57.62.69.72 and take notice That those that are called Bishops in one place are called Presbyters in another and that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 throughout the whole Epistle The like record we have of Polycarpe that famous Disciple of Iohn the Apostle who lived also within the first Century and wrote an Epistle to the Philippians in which he makes also but two Orders of Ministry Bishops and Deacons perswades the Philippians to be subject to their Presbyters and Deacons as to God and to Christ. Nay Bishop Bilson himself saith pag. 158.159 That Elders at first did govern by common advise is no doubt at all to us That which is doubted and denied by us is That these Elders were Lay-men Gratian in his decrees brings in Ierom word for word affirming That a Bishop and a Presbyter are the same upon which words the author of the glosse saith Some say that in the first Primitive Church the Office of Bishops and Presbyters was common but in the second Primitive Church both names and Offices began to be distinguished And again A third sort say this advancing was made in respect of name and in respect of administration and in respect of certain Ministeries which belong onely to the Episcopal office And the same Author himself is of this opinion saying Before this advancing these names Bishops and Presbyters were altogether of the same signification and the administration was common because Churches were governed by the common advise of Presbyters And again This advancing was made for a remedy against schisme as is here said by St. Ierom. That one should have the preheminence in regard of the name the administration and certain Sacraments which now are appropriated to Bishops Here we have a distinction of the first and second Primitive Church and that in the first Primitive Church Bishops and Presbyters were all one To all these Quotations we shall subjoyn a remarkable passage of the L.
Ignatius requires of Hero to whom he saith Keep that depositum which I and Christ have committed unto you Christ in his Word hath concredited this holy depositum And whatsoever is agreeable in Ignatius to this holy word we imbrace Other things which neither agree with Christ nor with the true Ignatius we reject as adulterinâ— and not to be born So much in answer to this objection Proposition 4. THat when it is said by Irâ—naeus lib. 3. cap. 3. That the holy Apostles made Bishops in Churches and particularly That Polycaâ—pe was made Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostles and that the Apostles made Linus Bishop of Rome after whom succeeded Anacletus and that Clemens was made the third Bishop by the Apostles And when it is said by Tertullian lib. de praescription That Polycarpe was made Bishop of Smyrna by S. Iohn and Clement Bishop of Rome by S. Peter This will nothing at all advance the Episcopal cause unlesse it can be proved that by the word Bishop is meant a Bishop as distinct from Presbyters a Bishop as Gerrhard saith pâ—rasi Ponâ—ificiâ not a Bishop phrasi Apostolica a Bishop in a Popish not in an Apostolical sense which is all one with a Presbyter For it is not denyed by any that ever wrote of Episcopacy That the names of Bishop and Presbyter were used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostles dayes and many years after And therefore Irenâ—us in his Epistle to Victor cited by Eusebius lib. 5. cap. 23 calls Aâ—iâ—etus Pius Higinus Telesphorâ—s Xistâ—â—s Presbyters of the Church of Rome and afterwards Presbyter◠〈◊〉 qui te pracesserunt The Presbyters that went before thee And so also Nec Polycarpus Aniceto suasit ut servaret qui sibi Presbyterorum quibus successerat consuâ—tudinem servandam 〈◊〉 dicebaâ— Tâ—rtullian also in his Apolog. cap. 39. callâ— the Presidents of the Churches Seniorâ— or Presbyteâ—â— when he saith Praesident probati quique Senioreâ— c. It is not therefore sufficient for our Episcopal Brethren to say That Bishops over Presbyters are of Apostolical institution because the Apostles made Bishops in Churches unlesse they do also prove that those holy men who are called â—ishopâ— were more then Presbyters Otherwise we must justly charge them of which they unjustly charge us to be guilty of endeavouring from the name Bishop which was common to Presbyters with Bishops to prove a superiority of Bishops over Presbyters Adde to this That when our Brethren do frequently urge those places of Irenaeus where he â—aith That he was able to number those that were madeBishops by the Apostles their successors unto his time and often urgeth the successions of Bishops unto whom the Apostles committed the charge of the Church in every place This will nothing at all as we conceive advantage the Episcopal Hierâ—rchy unlesse they do also prove That those Bishops were Hierarchical Bishops and not the very same with Presbyters For the same Authoâ— doth speak the very same things of Presbyters calling them also Bishops For he saith lib. 4. cap. 43. Quapropter â—is 〈◊〉 in Ecclesia sunt Presbyterâ—s obaudirâ— oporâ—et his qui successionâ—â— hâ—beâ—â— ab Apostolâ—s sicu◠〈◊〉 qui cum Episcopaâ—us successiâ—â—â— charisâ—a veritatis certâ—m secundum placitum Patris accâ—perunt Reâ—iquos vero qui absistuâ—â— Ã principâ—lâ— successione quâ—cunque loco colliguntur suspectos habere vel quasi hâ—reticâ—s mala 〈◊〉 vel quasi sciâ—dâ—ntes â—latos sibi placeâ—â—â—s 〈…〉 â—t hypocritas 〈◊〉 grati◠〈◊〉 gloriae hoc 〈◊〉 So also 〈◊〉 4 cap. 44 Ab omnibus â—aâ—ibus absistâ—re oportet adhaerere vero his qui Apostolorum sicut praediximus doctrinam custodiunt cum Presbyâ—â—rii ordine sâ—rmonem sanum conversationem sine offensa praestant ad informationem corrâ—ctionem aliorum Observe here 1. That Presbyters are called the Successors of the Apostles 2. That they are also called Bishops 3. That the Apostolical doctrine is derived from the Apostles by their succession 4. That there is nothing said in the former places of Bishops which is not here said of Presbyters And that therefore those placeâ— do not prove That the Apostles constituted Bishops in the Church distinct from and superiour over Presbyters As for that which is said about the succession of Bishops from the Apostles unto Irenaeus his time we shall hâ—ve â—ccasion to speak to afterwards Adde also That when in Antiquity Iames the Brother of our Lord is said to have been made Bishop of Hierusalem by the Apostles and Peter to be ordained Bishop of Antioch or Rome c. This doth not contribute to the proof of what it is brought for to wit That there were Bishops properly so called in the Apostles dayes For as Dr. Reynolds againsâ— Hart cap. 2. saith When the Fathers termed any Apostle a Bishop of this or that City as namely Saint Peter of Antioch or Rome they meant in a general sort and signification because they did attend that Church for a time and supply that room in preaching the Gospel which Bishops did after but as the name of Bishop is commonly taken for the Overseer of a particular Church and Pastor of a several flock so Peter was not Bishop of any one place therefore not of Rome And Dr. Whitakers lib. de Pontif. qu. 2. cap. 15. saith Patres cum Iacobum Episcopum voâ—ant auâ— etiam Pâ—trum non propriè sumâ—nt Episcopi nâ—men sed vocant eos Episcopos illarum Ecclesiarum in quibus aliquandiu commorati sunt Et si propriâ— de Episcopo loquatur absurdum est Apostolos fuisse Episcopos Nam qui propriè Episcopus â—st is Apostolus non potest esse quia Episcopus est unius tantum Ecclesiae Aâ— Apostoli plâ—â—ium Ecclesiarum fundatores inspectores erant Et postea Hâ—â— eniâ— non multum distat ab insania dicere Petrum fuisse propriè Episcopum aut reliquos Apostolos That the Fathers when they call Iames or Peter Bishops do not take the name of Bishop properly but they call them Bishops of those places where they abode for any long time And in the same place If we speak properly of Bishops it is absurd to say That the Apostles were Bishops For he that is properly a Bishop cannot be an Apostle For a Bishop is onely of one Church But the Apostles were the Founders and Overseers of many Churches And again he saith It doth not much differ from a phrenzy and madnesse to say That Peter or any of the Apostles were properly Bishops For the truth is This were to degrade the Apostles and to bring them into the Rank and Order of common and ordinâ—ry Officers of the Church which is no little Sacriledge And therefore such kind of quotations out of Antiquity do little avail our Brethren So much for the fourth Proposition Proposiâ—ion 5. THat when the distinction between a Bishop and Presbyter first began in the Church of Christ it was not
of the Church having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a proper Office Rom. 12. Secondly That the preaching of the Word amongst divers others is one work assigned to these Officers which is manifest both in the Old and New Testament The Priests work was not only to bring Sacrifices and burn Incense but also to teach Iacob Deut 33. Ever were the Priests Lips to preserve knowledge and the people to enquire the Law at his mouth Mal. 2. And the greatest complainâ— of God against those Officers was the neglect of thaâ—â—uty that they were dumb dogs Isa. 56 Iâ—le Idol Shepherâ—s Ezek. â—4 Our blessed Saviour when he had ordained 12. sent them out to preach and afterwards sent out the 70 to preach The Apostle saith of himself that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was his work Rom. 1.1 that he was intrusted with the Gospel Tit. 1.3 according to the Commandment of God that he and other Ministers were allowed of God to be intrusted with the Gospel 1 Thes. 2.4 Thus the same Apostle gives direction to Timothy 2 Tim. 2.2 To commit the things which he had heard of him to faithfull men who shall be able to teach others which must of necessity be understood of some speciall trust because of the speciall qualifications required in the persons that might be trusted they must be faithful and able to teach if the Apostle had understood by this word commit only the making known of these things this was to be done to all in which respect Paul professeth himself a debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians to the wise and to the unwise Rom. 1.14 but inasmuch as he requires that the parties should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the two special qualifications of such a one as might be ordained a Bishop it is plain that by this word commit he understands the giving of the work in especiall charge Indeed the Preaching of the Word is not only a work assigned to the Ministry which they may not omit without incurring the wo 1 Cor. 9 because a dispensation is committed to them but the greatest weightiest work they are entrusted with 1 Cor. 1.17 I was not sent i. so much sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel A work it is which the people can least want because it is the power of God to salvation and requireth the greatest learning prudence meeknesse faithfulnesse in the dispensers of it that they may shew themselves workmen that need not be ashamed 1 Tim. 2. and fullfill their Ministry It is not for nothing that the Apostle tels us that ordinary Teachers were set in the Church that we might not be children in knowledge Ephes. 4.14 Seeing therefore that God hath provided Officers of his own to whose trust he hath committed the Preaching of the Word and no man can without blasphemy averre that this provision of God is either unnecessary or insufficient it evidently follows that the practice of men howsoever gifted that preach without a solemn setting apart to the Office of the Ministry is both unnecessary and unlawfull And thus much of our first Argument against the preaching of un-ordained men Our second Argument shall be this No religious service may be performed unto God by any other sort of persons then such as are appointed or otherwise warranted thereunto The preaching of the Word is a religious service unto which persons gifted not ordained are neither appointed nor warranted Therefore The Preaching of the Word may not be performed by gifted persons un-ordained The major Proposition is clear from this principle Every positive act of Religion must have an affirmative warrant and the service which we tender must be obedience or righteousness obedience it â—annot be unless it be commended nor righteousness unless it be at the least indulged If it be either commanded or indulged we have warrant sufficient but if the thing we do be neither required nor allowed we sin presumptuously though what we do be to a good intent and very plausible to humane wisedom As to the minor or Assumption First It will not be denied that the Preaching of the Word is a Religious Service Secondly That all gifted persons are not appointed to preach nor otherwise warranted thereunto It appears in the parts First They are not appointed For then 1. Every gifted man that preaches not is guilty of the sin of Omission 2. Preaching must be looked upon as a common duty enjoyned unto all Beleevers as such and every one should study Divinity in order to Preaching and wo to him that preaches not though he could preach but one Sermon only and do not The judgement of the unprofitable Servant shall be upon him Secondly They are not otherwise warranted for the Ministry of the Word is only cultus institutus founded in Institution and therefore must be regulated according to it For the Preaching of publique Officers we finde the Institution to be clear but of another Institution for the publique exercise of gifts by those who are no Ministers we finde nothing That which is pretended concerning prophesying or the like we shall answer when we come professedly to deal with Objections Thirdly We argue thus If no man may do the work of a Magistrate in the civil or of a Deacon in the Ecclesiasticall State but he that is called to the Office of a Magistrate or of a Deacon then much lesse may any man preach the Word which is the work of a Minister but he that is called to the Office of the Ministry But no man may do the work of a Magistrate in the civil or of a Deacon in the Ecclesiasticall estate but he that is called to the Office of a Magistrate or of a Deacon Therefore The minor is evident 1. That no man may do the work of a Magistrate unlesse he be a Magistrate from Luk. 12.14 where our Saviour Christ refuseth to meddle with dividing Inheritances because he was no Judge Man who made me a Iudge 2. That no man may do the work of a Deacon in the Ecclesiastical state unlesse called to the Office is evident from Act. 6. where men full of the holy Ghost and faith chosen by the people to that work yet might not minister till they were appointed by the Apostles and that generall rule laid down 1 Tim. 3.10 Let him be first proved so let him minister Now the reason of the connexion is evident for by how much the work of the Ministry is of greater consequence difficulty and danger then either of these by so much greater care and circumspection is to be taken that it be not performed promiscuously to Quicunque vult but performed by such men as are triedly sound in the faith and able to teach others also Galen stomacks Empericks and Mountebanks in Physick for saith he if a Stone-cutter miscarry he loseth but a stone If a Shoe-maker he spoils but a piece of Lether but if a Physician miscarry he destroys a
and Barnabas to the Lord. Answ. 1. This interpretation cannot consist with the Antecedents and Consequents as we have already shewed 2. If this Interpretation were true it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is illis not sibiipsis 3. Tremellius that translates the Syriack of the New Testament renders it Et constituerunt eis in omni coetu Seniores And they appointed that is Paul and Barnabas to them that is to the people The Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illis Object There is another that confesseth that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can agree with no other but Paul and Barnabas and therefore he labours to finde the Election of the people in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which saith he doth not signifie in every Church as it is translated but according to the Church instancing in the Orators phrase faciam secundum te I will do it according to thy minde So they that is Paul and Barnabas ordained them Elders according to the Church that is according to the will and minde of the Church Answ. If this were granted it would not prove the matter in hand That the major part of a Congregation by divine right have the whole and the sole power of Election it would only conclude an acquiescency in the people and that they had satisfaction in the Ordination carried on by Paul and Barnabas A phrase to the same purpose is used Tit. 1.5 where Titus is left in Crete to appoint Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we may as well say that the whole City had their vote in Election in Crete and that every thing was done according to the minde of the City as to say here that every thing was done according to the minde of the Church See more of this in M. Blake his Treatise of the Covenant So much for the first Argument The Second Argument by which we prove That the power of Election of Ministers doth not by divine right belong wholly and solely to the major part of every particular Congregation is drawn from the mischiefs that will inevitably flow from this assertion For 1. It is certain that every one that is to be made a Minister is first of all to be tried and proved whether he be fit for so great an Office 1 Tim 3.10 Let these also be proved c. These also that is the Deacons as well as the Bishops The Bishop therefore is to be tried and examined whether he be apt to teach whether he be able to convince gainsayers whether he be a workman that needs not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of Truth Now there are many Congregations wherein the major part are very unfit to judge of ministeriall abilities and if the whole and sole power were in them they would set up Idol-Shepherds instead of able Shepherds 2. There are some Congregations wherein the major part are wicked and if left to themselves wholly would choose none but such as are like themselves 3. There are some wherein possibly the major part may be hereticall and will never consent to the Election of an Orthodox and sound Minister 4. Sometimes there have been great dissentions and tumults in popular Elections even to the effusion of bloud as we reade in Ecclesiasticall Story Sometimes Congregations are destitute of Ministers for many years by reason of the divisions and disagreements thereof as we see by wofull experience in our daies Now in all these or such like cases if the whole and sole power of Election were in the major part of every Congregation how sad and lamentable would the condition be of many hundred Congregations in this Nation And therefore it is that in all well-governed Churches great care is had for the avoiding of these Church-undoing inconveniences In the Church of Scotland the power of voting in Elections is given to the Presbytery of the Congregation with the consent of the major or better part thereof And therefore M. Gillespie though a great friend to the due right of particular Congregations yet when he comes to state the question about Election of Ministers he puts it thus Whether the Election of Pastors ought not to be by the votes of the Eldership and with the consent tacit or expressed of the major or better part of the Congregation c. he durst not state it precisely upon the major part and afterwards he tels us That the Election of a Minister is not wholly and solely to be permitted to the multitude or body of the Church and that an hereticall and schismaticall Church hath not just right to the liberty and priviledge of a sound Church And that when a Congregation is rent asunder and cannot agree among themselves the highest Consistories Presbyteries and Assemblies of the Church are to end the controversie and determine the case after hearing of both parties Bucanus tels us That the Election of a Minister for the avoiding of confusion ought not to be by every member of a Congregation but by the Presbytery or by the Pastors and Teachers of neighbouring Congregations directing and guiding the people as being most fit to judge of Ministerial abilities The Lutheran Churches put the power of calling of Ministers into the Presbytery Magistracy and People To the Christian Magistrate they give nomination presentation and confirmation To the Presbytery examination ordination and inauguration To the People consent and approbation He that would be further satisfied in this point may reade the Discourse of our Reverend Brother Dr Seaman about Ordination where he shall finde the custome and practice of most of the Reformed Churches in calling of Ministers for the avoiding of the forementioned mischief So much for the first Proposition CHAP. IX Wherein a second assertion about Election is largely proved namely That the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call doth not consist in Election without Ordination THat the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call doth not consist in Election without Ordination There are many Learned and Godly men whom we much reverence though we dissent from them in this particular that say That Ordination is only Adjunctum consequens consummans an adjunct following and consummating the Ministeriall Call but not at all entring into the constitution of it That Ordination is nothing else but the approbation of the Officer and a setling and confirming him in his Office and that Election is that which gives him the essentials of his Office Dr Ames saith That the vocation of a Minister doth properly and essentially consist in Election Mr Hooker saith That the Election of the People rightly ordered by the rule of Christ gives the essentials to an Officer or leaves the impression of a true outward Call and so an Office-power upon a Pastor Our Brethren in New-England in their Platform of Church-Discipline say That the essence and substance of the outward Calling of an ordinary Officer in the Church doth not
keeping the Sabbath are sometimes put for the whole worship of God Ier. 10.25 Isa. 56.4 And as it is a good Argument keeping of the Sabbath and prayer are put for the whole worship of God and therefore they are parts of it if not chief parts So it is a good Argument Imposition of hands is put for the whole work of Ordination and therefore it is a part of it if not a chief part And we desire our people further to consider that there is but one Text for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or lifting up of hands in the election of a Minister and this also but a shadow without a substance as we have proved and yet how zealous are many amongst us for popular Election And why should not they be much more zealous for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Imposition of hands which hath so many substantial Texts for the justification of it and which is so often put for the whole work of Ordination Fourthly Because it is placed by the Apostle Heb. 6.1 2. amongst the principles of the doctrine of Christ Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ let us go on unto perfection not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God of the doctrine of Baptisms and of laying on of hands and of resurrection of the dead and of eternall judgement The great Question is What is here meant by laying on of hands The Papists understand it of the Sacrament of Confirmation But it never hath nor ever will be sufficiently proved that either there is such a Sacrament appointed by Christ or that it was a custome in the Apostles daies to lay on hands or as was formerly phrased to Bishop baptized Christians who were grown up to years of discretion others by laying on of hands understand the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost which in these daies were given by laying on of hands But this cannot be the meaning 1. Because it cannot be proved that the gift of the holy Ghost was given with every laying on of hands in those times For the laying on of hands 1 Tim. 4.14 1 Tim. 5.22 was not for giving the holy Ghost but for Ordination 2. Because the giving of the holy Ghost by laying on of hands was proper to the Primitive age and doth not concern after ages But the Catechetical heads enumerated by the Apostle concern all ages 3. Because it would be hard to think that the knowledge or profession of the doctrine concerning the giving of the holy Ghost by such laying on of hands was such a principle as that none ignorant thereof though instructed in all the other Articles of Christian faith could be received as a Church-member and as one grounded in Catechisticall doctrine And therefore by laying on of hands as by a Synecdoche we suppose is meant the whole Ministry Thus D. Ames in his Confutation of Bellarmine By laying on of hands saith he is here meant Totum Ministerium the whole Ministry Bullinger on the place By laying on of hands understandeth also the Ministry and their Vocation Mission and Authority given them Mr. Hooker in his Survey of Church-Discipline par 1. pag. 1. By laying on of hands as by a Metonymy of the adjunct understandeth Ordination and Ordination as one particular is put saith he for the whole of Church-Discipline And from this very Text he undertakes to prove Church-Discipline to be a fundamentall point of Religion But we may more safely and more rationally assert the same of the Church-Ministry For whosoever denieth a Ministry overthroweth all Gospel-Ordinances and Gospel-Churches And here we will make bold to put our people in minde of a passage in M. Cartwrights Confutation of the Rhemists who was a man sufficiently opposite to the Bishops and their Ceremonies yet he is pleased to use these words upon this Text. By Imposition of hands the Apostle meaneth no Sacrament much lesse Confirmation after Baptism but by a Trope and borrowed Speech the Ministry of the Church upon the which hands were laid which appeareth in that whosoever beleeveth that there ought not to be a Ministry by order to teach and govern the Church overthroweth Christianity whereas if Confirmation of Children were a Sacrament as it is not yet a man holding the rest and denying the use of it might notwithstanding be saved So Cartwright Now then If Imposition of hands be taken in Scripture not only for the whole work of Ordination but also for the whole Ministry We may we hope safely and convincingly conclude That it is the will of Jesus Christ that they that enter into the Ministry should have hands laid upon them And that they that oppose Imposition of hands may as well oppose the whole Gospel-Ministry and therein overthrow Christianity it self We will not trouble the Reader with answering all the Objections that are brought against this Thesis but only such as seem to carry most weight in them Object 1. We do not reade that the Apostles were made Ministers with Imposition of hands Answ. 1. No more do we reade that they were made Ministers by the Election of the people This objection fights as much against Election as against Imposition of hands 2. A negative argument from Scripture doth not hold in matters of this nature It doth not follow because it is not recorded therefore it was not done Many things were done by Christ which are not written It is said That Christ ordained twelve but after what manner is not set down 3. The Apostles were extraordinary Officers and had an extraordinary Call Our Thesis is of ordinary Officers They that oppose this Assertion must prove that ordinary Officers were made without Imposition of hands or else they prove nothing to the purpose Object 2. When the Apostle left Titus to ordain Elders in Crete he saies not a word of Imposition of hands Answ. 1. Nor a word of Election by the people 2. The Apostle left him to ordain Elders as he had appointed him Now it is irrationall to think that he would appoint Titus to do otherwise then according to what he himself practised He ordained Deacons Elders and Timothy by laying on of hands And therefore it is without dispute to us That he appointed Titus to do so also 3. If we compare Tit. 1.5 with Act. 6.3 5. it will appear That by appointing or ordaining Elders in Crete is meant ordaining by Imposition of hands For there is the same word in both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Act. 6. was by laying on of hands and so was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Tit. 1.5 Object 3. Imposition of hands was used by the Apostles only for the present occasion as other things were observed as bloud was forbidden as Paul used circumcision and shaving viz. for the Jews sake who had their publique Officers thus set apart Answ. 1. No circumstance of any one Text where Imposition of hands is mentioned to be used
gives ground for stating this to be the reason of its practise 2. This was not only practised at Ierusalem but at Antioch and not only among and by the Jews but elsewhere and by others It is said of Paul and Barnabas that they ordained Elders in every Church Object 4. Imposition of hands was used by the Apostles in a miraculous way and it did conferre the holy Ghost and gift of Tongues c. and therefore as the miracle is ceased so ought the ceremony to cease As in extream Unction c. Answ. 1. The giving of the holy Ghost and conferring of extraordinary gifts was one but not the only use which the Apostles made of Imposition of hands And as praier is still to be continued in the Church though it did sometimes conveigh extraordinary blessings Act. 8.15 16 17. Act. 9.40 Iam. 5.14 15. because it had other ordinary ends and uses So is Imposition of hands to be continued upon the same account Answ. 2. We never read of the holy Ghost given by Imposition of hands in Ordination That gift which Timothy received by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery is no other then the gift of Office Neglect not the gift i. e. Neglect not the office If Timothy had had power by laying on of hands to have conferred due qualifications for the Ministry why doth Paul require him to lay hands suddenly on no man and why must he be so carefull to see them first fit in case his laying on of hands would fit them There needed not such triall of their gifts in case a touch of his hands could have gifted them This proves clearly That there was no extraordinary gift conferred in Ordination 3. There is a double Imposition of hands The one miraculous and extraordinary which consisted in healing the sick and conveighing the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit And this was temporary and is now ceased as extream Unction is The other is ordinary Such is the Imposition of hands in Ordination and therefore to be perpetually continued in the Church We reade not only that Paul who was an extraordinary Officer but that Presbyters who were ordinary Officers imposed hands upon Timothy And the example of the Primitive Churches were intentionally left upon record for this end that they might be binding patterns in like cases in after ages And this seems to be one singular ground and reason of the Writing of the Acts of the Apostles That the Apostles acts in the Primitive Churches might be our Rules in succeeding ages Obj. 5. To what purpose then is Imposition of hands used if the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost be not conveighed thereby Answ. 1. We use it because the Apostles did use it in an ordinary way without giving the holy Ghost as well as in an extraordinary way because there is the same standing reason and because the Apostle bids us 1 Tim. 5.22 Sufficit pro universis rationibus Deus vult 2. We use it not as an operative Ceremony but as a Moral sign so declare publickly who the party is that is solemnly set apart to the work of the Ministry 3. We use it as it is a Rite and Ceremony by which the Office is conveyed 1 Tim. 4.14 4. We use it as it is a consecrating dedicating and offering up of the party unto the Lord and his service as in the Old Testament hands were laid on for this end 5. We use it as it is an Authoritative and Ministerial Benediction of the party ordained as it was used by Iacob in his fatherly blessing of Ephraim and Manasses and by Christ in his blessing and praying over the little children Mat. 19.15 Mark 10.16 And thus we have made out the Divine Right of Imposition of hands and our Exhortation to our people is That they would not stumble at that way of Ordination which hath so much of God in it nor be easily led aside into by-pathes by the seducers of this Age. And that they would not rest contented with Ministerial Examination though that ought to be and that in all exactnesse nor with Ministerial approbation nor yet with Authoritative Mission without this Apostolicall Ordinance of Imposition of hands CHAP. XIII Wherein the fourth Assertion about Ordination is proved viz. That ordination of Ministers ought to be by the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie OUr last Assertion is concerning the persons who are by Divine Authority appointed to ordain and it is this That Ordinâ—tion â—f Ministers ought to be by laying on of the hands of the Presbytery For this we have an expresse Text 1 Tim. 4.14 which that we may the better understand we will give a brief Answer to some few Questions Quâ—st 1. What is meant by the word Presbytery Answ. By Presbytery is not meant the Office of a Presbyter but Collegium fâ—oâ— confessâ—â— Presbyterâ—rum a Colledge or company of Presbyters For as Mr Rutherford well observes The Office hath no hands And the word is used but in two other places Luke 22.66 Acts 22.5 In both which it must necessarily be taken for the Officers and not for the Office For the Office of Elders could not meet together as in that placâ— of Luke nor could the Oâ—â—â—ce of Elders beaâ— witnesse to Paul as in that place of the Acts. Besides as Mr Hooker well saith Not onely reason doth reject but the very ear would not relish such an unsutable sense Neglect not the gift which is in thee which was given thee by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Office How harsh and unpleasant is such an expression Here Calvin is brought in by some who are in other things his utter enemies to countenance this interpretation And Mr Gillespy reckoneth it as one of Calvins few for they were but very few mistakes But looking upon his Commentary upon the place we finde these words Presbyterium qui hîc collectivum nomen esse putant pro collegio Presbyterorum positum rectè sentiunt meo judicio They who think Presbytery in this place to be a Noun collective put for a Colledge of Presbyters do think rightly in my judgement And therefore though he thinks the other interpretation non male quadrare which was his errour yet he is not to be reckoned amongst those that deny that by Presbytery is meant an Assembly of Presbyters Quest. 2. Whether this Presbytery was a Presbytery of Bishops or of single Presbyters Answ. To this we shall give this short reply That in Scripture a Bishop and a Presbyter is all one as we shall have occasion hereafter to prove And therfore we answer That it was an Assembly of Bishops that is of Presbyters Quest. 3. Whether this Presbytery were Congregational or Classical Answ. Mr Hooker of New-England confesseth That he never yet heard any Argument that did evince either by dint of undeniable evidence And for our parts we do not conceive it necessary as to our purpose to disquiet the Reader with
to the mind of God a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one The Scripture owns no Bishop over Presbyters but onely a Presbyter-Bishop That the Lawes of the Realme acknowledge nothing by divine right in a Bishop but his being a Presbyter Sir Edward Cook makes it one part of the Kings jurisdiction to grant to Bishops that Ecclesiastical power they now exercise over us speaking of his times and also to take it from them at pleasure c. In Henry the 8 thâ— dayes there was a Book Printed for all his subjects to receive seen and allowed by both Houses of Parliament wherein is said Of these two Orders onely that is to say Priests and Deacons the Scripture maketh expresse mention and how they were conferred by the Apostles by prayer and imposition of hands By which it is evident That the Lawes of the Realme do not acknowledge the divine right of Prelacy That most of our Bishops in King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths dayes did freely confess That Episcopacy as it differed from Presbytery was onely of humane right and not from divine institution This Bishop Iewel confesseth in his answer to Harding and brings divers of the Ancient Fathers of the same judgement whose sayings we shall hereafter mention The same is affirmed by Archbishop Whitgift against Carewright and by Bishop Downam in the Preface to his defence of his Sermon Preached at the consecration of the Bishop of Bath and Wells That the best learned even amongst the Papists themselves do confesse That a Bishop is not a superiour order of Ministry above a Presbyter but onely a superiour dignity That Sacerdotium that is as they call it The Priesthood is the highest order in the Church That a Bishop is onely 〈◊〉 Presbyter The first Presbyter or as Bellarmine calls him major 〈◊〉 Episcopacy is not another Order distinct from the Priesthood saith Caeprâ—â—lus No Prelate hath more concerning Sacramental power or of Order then simple Priests So Armachanus As concerning Sacerdotal order and things that pertain to Order they are equal Thus Bellarmine himself Although a Bishop and Presbyter are distinguished yet as concerning Sacrifice they exercise the same Ministry and therefore they make one Order and not two Cusanus goeth further All Bishops and haply also Presbyters are of equal power in respect of jurisdiction although not of execution which executive power is shut up and restrained by certain positive Lawes The Master of the Sentences saith That the Canons acknowledge onely two sorts of holy orders Diaconatum sc. Presbyteratum quia hos solos primitiva Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solis praeceptum Apostoli â—abamus That is The Deacon and the Presbyter Because the Primitive Church had no other and the Apostolique precept speaks of no other Estins tells us That Aquinas Waldensis Bonaventure and most of the other Schoolmen are of this opinion And Doctor Field in his 5th Book of the Church hath this remarkeable passage Touching the preeminence of Bishops above Presbyters there is some difference among the School Divines For the best Learned amongst them are of opinion that Bishops are not greater then Presbyters in the power of consecration or order but only in the exercise of it and in the power of jurisdiction seeing Presbyters may Preach and Minister the greatest of all Sacraments by vertue of their Consecration and order as well as Bishops Touching the power of consecration or order saith Durandus it is much doubted of amongst Divines whether any be greater then an ordinary Presbyter For Hierome seemeth to have been of opinion that the highest power of consecration or order iâ— the power of a Priest or Elder so that every Priest in respect of his Priestly power may Minister all Sacraments confirm the Baptized give all orders all blessings and consecrations but that for the avoiding of the peril of Schisme it was Ordained that one should be chosen who should be named a Bishop whom the rest should obey and to whom it was reserved to give orders and to do some other things which none but Bishops do And afterwards he saith That Hierome is clearly of this opinion and much more to this purpose Now hence it followeth necessarily That the power of Ordination of Ministers exercised for these many hundred years by Bishops did belong to them as Presbyters and not as Bishops and that the act and exercise of it was restrained to them potius ad honorem Sacerdotii in remedium schismatis quam ad Legis â—â—cessitatem rather for the honour of the Priesthood and as was then their opinion for the remedy of Schisme then for any necessity of Law For the Scripture warrants no such practise as we shall shew hereafter Now this floweth from the former conclusion For if Episcopacy be the same Order of Ministers with Presbytery and the Ecclesiastical power equal in both and a Bishop be nothing else in the opinion of Antiquity but a chief Presbyter or the President of the Presbytery and of the same rank with them then all the acts he doth he must do by vertue of his Presbyterial consecration This is demonstrable even our adversaries being Judges from this Argument Because a Bishop made per saltum that never had the Ordination of a Presbyter can neither consecrate and administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper nor Ordain a Presbyter himself being none nor do any act peculiarly appertaining to Presbyters Ordination therefore saith Mr. Ball is reserved to the Bishop not in respect of superiority in degree of Ministry above his brethren for if he be no Presbyter he cannot make Presbyters but for order sake and to prevent Schisme and division being for substance of the same Order and consecration with them Dr. Field manageth the same argument these or words A Presbyter saith he ordained per saltum that never was consecrated or ordained a Deacon may notwithstanding do all those Actâ— that pertaine to the Deacons Order because the higher Order doth alwayes imply in it the lower and inferiour in an eminent and excellent sort But â— Bishop Ordained per saltum that never had the Ordination of a Presbyter can neither Consecrate and Administer the Sacrament of the Lords body nor Ordaine a Presbyter himself being nonâ— nor do any act peculiarly pertaining to Presbyters Whereby it is most Evident saith Dr. Field That that wherein a Bishop excelleth a Presbyter is not a distinct Power of Order but an Eminency and Dignitie onely specially yeelded to one above all the rest of the same Rank for Order sake and to preserve the unity and peace of the Church What peace and Order was preserved hereby in the Church we shall shew afterwards For the present it is most clear even from the testimony of Episcopal men themselves That a Bishop is of the same Order and Rank with a Presbyter and that his acts of Ordination were exercised by him as a Presbyter
points they were Heretical So certainly a Minister ordained to Preach the Word and administer the Sacraments according to the mind of Christ is a lawful Minister though ordained by a Bishop in other points Antichristian considering that in that one act he is not Antichristian but doth that which he hath warrant from the Scripture to do though he were not a Bishop The word Sacraments and Ministery are the institutions of Jesus Christ. And these are not made null and void though the power to dispence them in foro externo be conveighed to us by corrupt Instruments no more then the Scriptures were polluted because offered by Hophni and Phinehas or the Chair of Moses defiled because the Scribes and Pharisees sat in it We must carefully distinguish as a learned Minister well saith the acts of office which have their form and being from a root or fountain without us from the qualities of the man that performes the office The man may be naught yet his office good and acts done by vertue of his Office Just and allowable although the man and his religion be naught As for instance A Popish Landlord makes you a lâ—ase of a Farme your lease is not antichristian but good in Law though he that demised it be for his Religion a Papist A Popish Judge doth passe a sentence in Court which stands good in Judicature his sentence is not Popish though he that pronounced it be a Papist the reason is because the legall sentence is not of him nor from him as a Papist but as a Judge who doth but deliver that which he hath received from an higher root the Law So in this case Ordination is an act of Office received from Christ and is not Antichristian though executed by one that is in other things Antichristian We do not rebaptize them that were baptized by a popish Priest because the power ofGods Ordinance depends not on theperson that does execute the same but upon an higher foundation the institution of Christ. Ministerial acts are not vitiated or made null though they pâ—sse through the hands of bad men But stand good to all intents and purposes to such as receive them aright by vertue of their Office authoritatively derived from the first institution A Bishop in his Presbyterial capacity hath divine right to ordain and therefore his Ordination is valid though it be granted that he is Antichristian in his Episcopal capacity If a Minister made by a Bishop be a lawfull Minister why then did you in your late covenant abjure Episcopacy with all its dependencies We did not swear in our covenant to endeavour the extirpation of Scripture Episcopacy which is Presbytery but of Prelacy that is of those Lordly titles which Bishops were invested withal and of their unjust usurpation of a sole power of jurisdiction and of a Majority of power in Ordination together with their Chancellours and Commissaries and the rest of the Hierarchy But we never did and never shall by Godâ— Grace renounce them as Presbyters which by consent of all sides are by divine right nor Ordination by them upon that account which we doubt not but is lawful and valid and will appear so to be at the great Tribunal And thus we have answered this objection with all the branches of it There is one objection of great concerment yet behind But before we mention it we shall propose three other Arguments for the Justification of the Ministry made during the prevalency of Episcopaâ—y From the glorious successe God gave unto it during the raign of Prelacy For since our Ordination God hath sealed to the truth of our Ministry and hath blessed it with the Conversion of many Thousand souls unto God Now that Ministry that God doth ordinarily blesse with bringing forth sons and daughters unto God that Ministry must needs be a Ministry sent of God For God hath threatned as we have often said That a false Ministry shall not profit And the Apostle proves the lawfulnesse of his Ministry by the successe it had upon the hearts of the Corinthians 1. Cor. 9.1 2. There are many of those that cry down our Ministry as Antichristian and separate from us as no Ministers that cannot deny but that they had their conversion if they are at all converted from us And if our Ministry be Antichristian how is their conversion Christian From the ends and purposes for which we were Ordained They that were Ordained by Bishops together with other Ministers for no other end and purpose but to Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments according to the will of Christ are lawful Ministers of Christ. But so were the Ministers Ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy Ergo. He that shall say That a Minister that Preacheth Christ and his truths and administreth â—he Sacraments according to the mind of Christ is an Antichristian Minister because of some defects in his entrance doth more advance and honour Antichrist then he doth disparage or disgrace us Mr. Ball no friend to Episcopal Government in his answer to Mr. Can hath these words In every true Church where the Word of God is intirely preached and received and the Sacraments for substance rightly administred there is a true Ministry ' and a true calling to the Ministry though in some things maimed and faulty From the destructive mischiefes and Church-ruining consequences that do naturally flow from this assertion For he that shall undertake to make good this desperate proposition as that learned and godly man so often cited justly calls it That a Minister made by a Bishop is no Minister of Christ but of Antichrist must also be forced to confesse and acknowledge 1. That Mr. Bradford Mr. Rogers Mr. Philpot Dr. Taylâ—r Mr. Saunders and the rest of those blessed Saints and Ministers who laid down their lives in defence of the Gospel against Antichrist were Antichristian Ministers 2. He nulliâ—ieth and and maketh void all the Ministerial acts performed by the Ministers of England ever since the Reformation For if our Ministry be no true Ministry then is our Baptisme no true Baptisme the Sacrament of the Lords Supper no true Sacrament our Church no true Church 3. He must acknowledge that there was neither Church Sacraments nor Ministry in the whole Christian World for many hundred years past For it is without dispute that there was no other way of entring into the Ministry for many hundred years in the Church of Christ but by the Ordination of Bishops 4. He must be forced if a Minister to renounce his Ministry and take it up again from the people who as the old Non conformists well say have neither commandement nor example in all the New Testament to authorize them to Ordain him And by this means he overthroweth the whole Ministry a nd Church of Jesus Christ and will be necessitated at last to renounce all Churches and all Ministry and turn Seekers as some do in our dayes even upon
reported But from whence had he thiâ— History Even from Clemens Fabuleus and Hegesippus not extant 2. It is no wonder that Timothy and Titus are called Bishops by Eâ—sebius and Theodoret because that the Apostles themselves are called Bishops by the writers of those times who spake of former times according to their own Thus Peter is said to be Bishop of Rome and Iames of Hiâ—rusalem Now it is evident as we shall hereafter prove That the Apostles were not Bishops properly and formally but onely eminently and vertually 3. As they are called Bishops so also they are called Apostles Theodoret calles Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Timothy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet we believe that there are few of our Episcopal Divines will undertake to prove them to be Veri Nominis Apostolos Some call them Archbishops Metropolitans Patriarches and yet will not be easie to perswade a person disengaged from Prelacy that there were Archbishops and Metropolitans in the Apostles dayes The truth is That which Thucydides saith of the ancient Greek Historians may as truly be said of Eusebius Irenaeus and others c. That those things which they received from their Fore-fathers they delivered to their posterity without strict examination and thereby in many things more deceived themselves and were the cause of deceiving others as we shall have occasion to shew afterwards For our parts we answer clearly That the Fathers and Councels speak of the Officers of former times according to the stile of their own times That Timothy had an Office above a Bishop as Wale Messalinus saith though afterwards from the custome of the Church and some acts that Bishops did like his but not solely he was allusively if not abusively and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called a Bishop And as another faith Timothy and Titus are called Bishops by the ancients because they did those acts that by humane custome were afterwards appropriated to Bishops in regard of Presidency but they did them not as Bishops which they are not called in Scripture hut as Evangelists which they were and so one of them is called 2 Tim. 4.5 2. The second argument to prove that Timothy and Titus were no Bishops relates especially to Timothy and it is this If Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus it must be when the first Epistle was written For it is in that Epistle in which he is said to receive his pretended charge of exercising his Episcopal power in Ordination and Jurisdiction But now this first Epistle was written when Paul was at Macedonia as the learned both new and old Papists and Protestants agree And it was after this when Paul came to Miletum accompanied with Timothy and sends for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus unto him and commends the government of the Church unto these Elders whom he calls Bishops Now surely if Timothy had been constituted their Bishop in the sence of our Adversaries the Apostle would not have called the Elders Bishops before their Bishops face and in stead of giving a charge to the Elders to feed the flock of Christ he would have given that charge to Timothy and not to them And no doubt he would have given some directions to the Elders how to carry themselves toward their Bishop And because none of these things were done it is a clear demonstration to us that Timothy was not at that time Bishop of Ephesus To avoid the force of this argument there are some that say That Timothy was not made Bishop of Ephesus till after Pauls first being a prisoner at Rome which was after his being at Miletum But these men while they seek to avoid the Scylla of one inconvenience fall into the Carybdis of another as great For if Timothy was not made Bishop till Pauls first being at Rome then he was not Bishop when the first Epistle was written to him which all agree to be written before that time And then it will also follow That all that charge that was laid upon him both of Ordination and jurisdiction and that intreating of him to abide at Ephesus was given to him not as to the Bishop of Ephesus which he was not but as to an extraordinary Officer sent thither upon special occasion with a purpose of returning when his work imposed was finished From both these considerations we may safely conclude That if Timothy were neither constituted Bishop of Ephâ—sus before Pauls first being prisoner at Rome nor after Then he was not constituted Bishop at all But he was neither constituted Bishop before nor after c. Ergo not at all 3. To prove that Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sence we argue from the matter contained in these Epistles In the first Epistle wherein all that is alledged for Episcopacy is contained for in the 2 Epistle there is nothing at all said about it Chap. 1. Vers. 3. He beseecheth Timothy to abide at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia which had been a needless importunity as Smecttymnuus well observes if Timothy had had the Episcopal charge of Ephesus committed to him by the Apostles for then he might have laid as dreadful a charge upon him to abide at Ephesus as he doth afterwards to Preach the Gospel 2 Tim. 4.1 2. And in his Epistle to Titus Chap. 1.5 he saith For this cause left I thee in Creete that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting c. In which words the Apostle specifieth the occasional imployment for which he was desired to stay in that place Now as the Reverend Presbyters in their conference at the Isle of Wight have well noted These expressions I besought thâ—e to abide still at Ephesus I left thee in Creete do not sound like words of instalment of a man into a Bishoprick but of an intendment to call him away again And if we consider his actual revocation of them both of which we shall afterwards speake and the intimation in these texts of his intention that they should not stay there for continuance and the reason of his beseeching the one to stay and of his leaving the other behind him which was some present defects and distempers in those Churches they will put fair to prove That the Apostle intended not to establish them Bishops of those places and therfore did not Add to this That when Paul undertook in 1 Tim. 3. to set out the Office of a Bishop he mentioneth nothing in that Office which is not competent to a Presbyter and therefore omits the Office of a Presbyter as we have formerly said including it in the Office of a Bishop which certainly he would never have done if he had at the same time made Timothy an HierachicalBishop with a power to do that formally which was unlawful for a Presbyter to do And in his Epistle to Titus he directly confounds the names and offices of Presbyters and Bishops and makes them one and the same Titus 1.5.6 which he certainly would not have
any peculiar jurisdiction or preheminence but is a common name to all Ministers and is so used in Scripture For all Ministers are Gods Messengers and Ambassadours sent for the good of the Elect and therfore the name being common to all Ministers why should we think that there should be any thing spoken to one Minister that doth not belong to all The same may be said of the word Starre which is also a title given to those supposed Metropolitans It is evident that all faithfull Ministers are called Stars in Scripture whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches in all purity of doctrine and holiness of conversation There is nothing in these Titles that argue these Ministers to be Bishops in our Brethrens sense insomuch as had they not been called Bishops by some Authors that succeeded them who spake of former times according to the language of their own times this way of arguing would have been counted ridiculous 5. Add lastly That these Titles of Stars and Angels are mysterious and metaphoricall It is said Rev. 1.20 The mysterie of the seven Stars c. And certainly it cannot be safe or solid to build the structure of Episcopacy by Divine right upon mysterious and metaphorical denominations Theologia Symbolica non est argumentativa Especially if we consider that there are abundance of cleare Texts that make Presbyters and Bishops to be one and the same and it cannot be praise-worthy for any men though never so learned in the esteem of the world to oppose certain allegoricall and mysterious titles to so many express testimonies of Scripture Against all this it will be said That our Saviour Christ in his Epistles to these seven Churcheâ— singles out one Angel in every Church from all the other ministers that were there and dedicates his Epistle unto these Angels thereby giving us to understand that these Angels were superiour to all the other Ministers Angels of an higher Orbe Superintendents not only Bishops overPresbyters arch-Arch-Bishops over other Bishops as a high Prelatist is pleased to tell us To this objection there are solid and every way sufficient answers given in the books forementioned we shall reduce all to these two headâ— 1. That the word Angel is not to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Individually but collectively for all the Pastors and Ministers of the respective Ministers this answer we confesse is called a poore shift vain conceit and a manifest wresting of the plain words of our Saviour by our Episcopal men But we conceive there are such reasons brought for the Justification of it that cannot be answered As for example It is certain that our Saviour Christ speakes to this Angel often in the plural number Rev. 2.24 But unto you I say and the rest of Thyatira Rev. 2.10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer Bâ—hold the Divel shall cast some of you into prison that ye may be tryed and ye shall have tribulation ten dayes be thou faithful unto death c. This see Rev. 2.13 By which is evident that by the word Angel is not meant one singular person but the collective body of Rulers But some copies leave out the Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that shall view the Antecedent and consequent and consider that verse 23. it is said I will give to every one of you c. And then followes But I say unto you and in the conclusion of the verse I will put upon you no other burden will confesse that the old copies are better then that which is said to be Tecla's Manuscript 2. It is certain that the Church of Ephesus was a collective body and that there were many Presbyters to whom St. Paul at his final departure from them committed the charge of that Church And these Presbyters are called Bishops and were all of them stars of the same magnitude and Angeâ—s of the same Order without a difference distinction 3. It is usuall with the Holy Ghost not onely in other books of the Scripture but in this very book of the Revelation in Mysterious and prophetick writings and visional representations such as this of the stars and golden Candlestick is to expresse a number of things or persons in singulars And this in visions is the usual way of representation of things a thousand persons making up one Church is represented by one Candlestick many Ministers making up one Presbytery by one Angel Thus Revel 8.2 It is said That Iohn say seven Angels which stood before God By these seven Candlesticks Dr. Reynolds doth not understand seven Individual Angels but all the Angels For there are no seven Individual Angels that stand before God but all do Dan 7. There are many more instances brought in the bookâ— forementioned 4. Add lastly That though but one Angel be mentioned in the foreâ—front yet it is evident that the Epistles themselves though we are far from thinking in that formall Denomination the Angels and Candlesticks are the the same are dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers in every Church and to the Churches themselves as appears Rev. 1.11 Rev. 2.7.11.17 And therefore when it is said in the singular number I know thy workes This thou hast Repent and do thy first workes c. All these and the like places are not to be understood as meant of one Individuall person but of the whole company of Ministers and also of the whole Church because the punishment threatned is to the whole Church Rev. 2.5.16.2 Now we have no warrant in the word to think that Christ would remove his Gospel from a Church for the sin of one Bishop when all the other Ministers and Churches are far from those sins These are some of those reasons that are brought to prove that this our interpretation is no wresting or offering of violence to the text but such a one that floweth naturally from it We might for the confirmation of it cite Mr. Brightman Mr. Perkins Mr. Fox who citeth Primasius Haymo Beda Richardus Thomas c. of the same judgment Dr. Fulk Mr. Mede Gregory and St. Austin all of them interpreting this text as we do But we forbear because they are quoted by Smectimnuus But it will be said that as some Autohors say That Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when our Saviour wrote this Epistle to it Others that Onesimus was Bishop c Others that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna at that very time And therefore these Angels must needs be taken Individually for for so many single persons They that say that Timothy was then Bishop offer no little injury to him for they thereby charge him to be guilty of Apostacy and of losing his first love and so out of a blind zeal to Episcopacy they make that Glorious Saint to stand charged as an Apostate The like injurie is offered by Objections to Onesimus 2. We have
Almighty All these things I know and yet am not perfect c. Now who is there that can believe that such Arrogant boasting can proceed from such a holy man and humble Saint as Ignatius was The third Reason which is most for our purpose is from his over eager and over anxious defence of the Episcopal Hierarchy which he doth with such strange hyperbolical expressions as if all Christianity were lost if Prelacy were not upheld and with such multiplied repetitions ad nauseam usque That we may confidently say as one doth Certo certius est has Epistolas vel supposititias esse vel foedè corruptas And that they do neither agree with those times wherein he wrote nor with such a holy and humble Martyr as he was We will instance in some few of them In his Epistle to the Trallians he saith What is a Bishop but he that is possest of all Principalitie and authority beâ—ond all as much as is possible for men to be possest of being made an imitator according to thâ— power of Christ who is God He that can find in these words an Apostolical Spirit breathing hath little acquaintance with the Apostolical writings How unlike is this to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 3.5 Who then is Paul and who Apollo but Ministers by whom ye believe In the same Epistle he saith Reverence the Bishop as yeâ— do Christ at the holy Apostles have commanded But where is this commanded In his Epistle to the Magnâ—sians He saith It becomes you to obey the Bishop and in nothing to oppose him For it is a terrible thing to contradict him And again As the Lord Christ doth nothing without his Father So must you do nothing without your Bishop neither Presbyter Deacon nor Lâ—y man Let nothing seem right and equal to you that is contrary to his judgment For that that is such is wicked and â—nmity to God In his Epistle to Polycarpe It becomes those that marry and are married not to marry without the consent of the Bishop And again my soul for theirs that obey the Bishop Presbyters and Deacons In his Epistle to the Philadelphians Let the Princes obey the Emperour the Souldiers the Princes The Deacons and the rest of the Clergy with all the people and the Souldiers and the Princes and the Emperour let them obey the Bishop Observe here how the Princes and Emperours are enjoyned to obey the Bishop when there were not at this time nor many years after any Emperour or Princes Christian In his Epistle to the Smyrâ—enses he saith The Scripture saith Honour God and the King But I say Honour God as the Author and Lord of all things And the Bishop as the Prince of Priests resembling the image of God Of God for his Principality of Christ for his Priesthood c. There is none greater then the Bishop in the Church who is consecrated for the salvation of the whole world c. and afterwards He that honours the Bishop shall be honoured by God and he that injur's him shall be punished by God And if he be justly thought worthy of punishment that riseth up against Kings and is therein a violator of good Lawes Of how much greater punishment shall he be thought worthy that will undertake to do any thing without his Bishop thereby breaking concord and overturning good Order c. We need not paraphrase upon these passages Onely we desire the Reader in the fear of God to passe sentence whether these high and supertranscendent expressions This prelation of Bishops above Kings do savour of the first Primitive times or can be imagined to proceed from Blessed Ignatius even then when he was in bonds and ready to be Martyred In the same Epistle he saith Let all men follow the Bishop as Christ the Father Let no man do any thing that belongs to the Church without the Bishop Let that Eucharist be allowed on which is done by the Bishop or by his concession c. It is not lawful without the Bishop to Baptize or offer c. That which he approves on is accepted of God and whatsoever is so done is safe and firm It is right that God and the Bishop be known He that honours the Bishop is honoured of God He that doth any thing without first consulting with the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Worshipper of the Divel If this Doctrine be true what shall become of all the Reformed Churches especially the Church of Scotland which as Ioannes Major saith lib. 2. hystoria de gâ—stis Scotorum cap. 2. was after its first conversion to the Christian faith above 230. years without Episcopal government We will not cite any more passages of this nature These are sufficient to justifie that censure which the Reverend Presbyterian Divines in their humble answer to the second Paper delivered them by his Majestie at the Isle of Wight do passe upon Ignatius where they say That there are great arguments drawn out of these Epistles themselves betraying their insincerity adulterate mixtures and interpolations So that Ignatius cannot be distinctly known in Ignatius And if we take him in grosse we make him the Patron as Baronius and the rest of the Popish writers do of such rights and observations as the Church in his time cannot be thought to have owned He doth indeed give testimony to the Prelacy of a Bishop above a Presbyter That which may justly render him suspected is that he gives too much Honour saith he the Bishop as Gods high Priest and after him you must honour the King He was indeed a holy Martyr and his writings have suffered Martyrdom as well as he Corruptions could not go currant but under the credit of worthy names The considerations of these things makes Salmasius to believe that these Epistles were written by a Pseâ—do-Ignatius at that very time when Episcopacy properly so called came into the Church that so the people who had been accustomed to the Presbyterian government might the more willingly and easily receive this new government and not be offended at the novelty of it And this he the rather thinkes Because in all his Epistles he speaks highly in honour of the Presbytery as well as of Episcopacy For in the Epistle to the Trallenses He bids them be subject to the Presbytery as to the Apostles of Iesus Christ. And a little after he calleâ— the Preâ—bytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the sâ—me Epistle he saith That the Colledge of the Presbyters is nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which passage must needs be understood of the second Primitive times For afterwards the Presbytery was much neglected and laid aside as Ambrose complaines upon 1 Tim. 5. We will conclude our discourse concerning the The Epistles of Ignaâ—ius with a remarkable saying of Riveâ— in his Critica sacra We are ready to ascâ—ibe to the genuine writings of the Fâ—thers as much as
non Ordo sed meritum crearet Episâ—opum multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum ne indignus temâ—re usurparet esset multis scandalum Iâ— lege nascebantur Sacâ—rdotes ex genere Aaron Leviâ—ae c. Whether this conjecture of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be true or no or whether as others think it was true in some Churches and not in others we will not now debate But sure we are that in Alexandria as St. Ierom tells us The Bishop was chosen not onely out of the Presbytery but by the Presbytery and by them constituted Bishop and placed in excelsiâ—ri gradu in an higher degree of honour not Office He was not made by 3. Bishops Sed Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiore grâ—an collocatuâ— Episcopum nominabant Indeed afterwards in processe of time This Epâ—scopus Pâ—aeses came to be Episcopus Princeps and usurped sinfully upon the priviledges of Ministers and people and made way for the coming in of Antichrist Famous is that so often mentined in several writings in this age saying of Ambrose upon 1 Tim. 5 1 Vnde Synagoga postâ—a Ecclesia Seniores habuit quorum sine consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia Quod quâ negligentiâ obsolevâ—rat nescio nisi forte Doctorum desidiâ— aut magis superbiâ dum volunt aliguid videri From hence came that distinction of Beza's between Episcopus divinus humanus and Diabolicus By the divine Bishop he means the Presbyter by the humane Bishop he means the Bishop chosen by the Presbyters to be President over them and to rule with them by fixed Lawes and Canons By the Diabolical he means a Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Lording it over Gods heritage and governing by his own will and authority And therefore when men argue from the practise of the Primitive times and from the Bishops of those dayes to the Bishops of our dayes they do but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they commit a fallacy just as if a man should argue That the Church of Rome is now a true Church because it was so in the Apostles dayes For the further handling of this proposition we refer the Reader to Smâ—ctymâ—â—us where he shall have many pages spent to prove the imparity between the Bishops of the Primitive times and our dayes Onely we shall crave leave to relate a passage from a Reverend Divine now with God who holdeth forth this assertion That the ancient Fathers in the point of Episcopacy differ more from the high Prelatist then from the Presbyterian This he proveth Because The Presbyterians alwayes have â— President to guide their actions which they acknowledge may be perpetual dâ—rante vitâ â—â—do sâ— benâ— gâ—sseriâ— or temporary to avoid inconvenience Which Bilson in his preface again and again in his Book of the Perp. government takes hold of as advantagious because so little discrepant as he saith from what he maintainâ— But now the high Prelatists excluâ—e a Presbytery â—s having nothing to do with jurisdiction which they put as far above the sphaere of a Presbyter as sacrificing above a Levites to wit an act restrained to an higher Order whereas the Fathers acknowledge a Presbytery and in divers cases Councels tie the Bishop to do nothing without them And so it is clear The high Prelatistâ— are at a further distance from the Fathers then the Prebyterians Afterwards he also adds If we differ from the Fathers in point of Prelacy wherein our opponents are in no better terms with them then we yet I would have them consider in how many thingâ— we jumpe with the Fathers wherein many of them have been dissenting both in opinion and practise as 1. touching promiscuous dancing especially upon the Lords day 2. Touching residency of Pastors in their Churches which excludes all Pluralities 3. Frequency and diligence in Preaching 4. Touching the abuse of health-drinking or drinking ad aequales calices 5. Touching Bishops not intanling themselves with secular affairs or businesses of state in Princes Courts 6. Touching gaming at Cards or Dice and such like so that they can with no great confidence triumph in the Fathers against us in this one point wherein themselves also are at a distance from them while we keep closer to the Fathers then they do in many others Proposition 7. THat the great argument that is brought for Episcopacy from the lineal succession of Bishops from the Apostles daies to our dâ—â—eâ— hath not that validity in it that is imagined Bishop Bilson and others â—ake a great deal of pains to give us a Catalogue of the Bishops in Rome Alâ—xandria Hierusalem and Antioch from the Apostles daies unto Constantine's time But we desire the Reader to consider First That these Catalogues labour much of an Homonymy in the word Bishop For the Bishops of later times were Bishops of a fâ—r different nature from the Bishops of the first times Though the same name be common to all in the Catalogue yet in the nature of their Office they differed very much The later peece by peece taking that authority to theâ— which the former neither might nor did â—njoy The later were Diocesan the former were Bishopâ— onely of one Congregation At first the Churches were governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters and the line of succession was drawn saith D. Bloâ—del from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that iâ— the first Ordained Minister Even â—s amongst the Athenianâ— there were 9. Archontes or chief Rulerâ— equal in power and authority and yet the succession of Governours in Athens was desiâ—ed from one of them onâ—ly who wâ—â— the first Arâ—bon or Ruler which was not done to diminish the â—â—thority of the â—est sed ut compendiâ—sioâ—â—â— minus 〈…〉 But that the enumerâ—â—iâ—n of the 〈◊〉 of their successive Governourâ— might 〈…〉 compendious and expedite Even so at first there were divers Presbyters in every City which did govern with equal power and authority and yet the line and succession was deduced from one who was the first of those that were ordained not thereby incroaching upon the joynt authority of the rest but for the more expedite way of reckoning And when afterwards one was chosen out of the Presbytery he was for a long time but as the Moderator of a Synod amongst the Scotch and Dutch and at most but as a Superintendent amongst the Germaâ—s of whom Zepp lib. 2. cap. 10. saith That they are of the same degree with other Ministers they are only presidentâ— while the Synod lasteth when it is dissolved their Prerogative ceaseth They have no prerogative over their fellow-Ministers they are subject to their Presbyteries The Synod ended they return to the care of their particular Churches Secondly That these Catalogues the nearer they come to the Apostles daies are the more â—ncerâ—in and indeed contradictory one unto another Some say that Clemens was first Bishop of Rome after Peter some say the third and the intricacies about the Order of Succession in Linus
Anacletus Clemens and another called Cletus as some affirm are inextricable Some say That Titus was Bishop of Crâ—te some say Archbishop and some Bishop of Dalmatia Some say That Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus and some say That Iohn was Bishop of Ephesus at the same time Some say Polycaâ—ps was first Bishop of Smyrna another saith that he succeeded one Buâ—olus and another That Aristâ— was first Some say That Alexandria had but one Bishop and other Cities two and others that there was but one Bishop of one City at the same time And how can these Catalogues be unquestionable that must be made up out of Testimonies that fight one against another Learned Iunius speaking of that great controversie about the succession of the first Bishops or Presbyters of Rome whether Linus was the first or Clemens or Anacletus hath this remarkable passage That these or some of these were Presbyters or Bishops of Rome at the same time ruling the Church in common But the following Writers fancying to themselves such Bishops as then had obtained in the Church fell into these snares of tradition because they supposed according to the custome of their own timeâ— that theâ—e could be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time which iâ— quite crosse to the Apostolic all times Thirdly This is also to be considered That they that made the Catalogues spake according to the language of the times in which they lived in which there was a distinction between Bishops and Presbyâ—ers and therefore call them who went before them Bishops whereas indeed they were not so in a proper sence Nor can the Bishops of after-times be said to succeed them any otherwise if so much then Caesar is said to succeed the Roman Consuls Fourthly These Catalogues do resolve themselves into an Apostle or an Evangelist as at Rome into 〈◊〉 at Alexandria into Mark at Ephesus into Timothy aâ— â—retâ— into Titus Now it is certain That the Apostles and Evangelists cannot be said to be Bishops in a formal sence For they had an universal Commission and their Offices were extraordinary and they had no successors properly in idem Officium Indeed Bishops or Presbyteâ—s did succeed them in some part of their work but not in their Office Ordinary Offices succeed Extraordinary not in the same line and degree as one Brother succeeds another in his inheritance but as men of another Order and in a different line They are we confesse called Bishops by Ecclesiastical Writers but that was onely by way of allusion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we have formerly shewed We will conclude this Proposition with part of a passage out of the conference of the Reverend Presbyters at the Isle of Wight where they say And left your Majesty might reply That however the Catalogues and Testimonies may varie or be mistaken in the order or times or names of those Persons that succeeded the Apostles yet all agree that there was a Succession of some Persons and so though the credit of the Catalogues be infirmed yet the thing intended is confirmed thereby We grant that a Succession of men to feed and govern these Churches while they continued Churches cannot be denyed and that the Apostles and Evangelists that planted and watered those Churches though extraordinary and temporary Officers were by Ecclesiastical Writers in compliance with the language and usage of thir own times called Bishops and so were eminent men of chief note presiding in Presbyteries of the Cities or Churches called by such Writers as wrote after the division and distinction of the names of Presbyters and Bishops But that those first and ancientest Presbyters were Bishops in proper sence according to your Majesties description invested with power over Presbyters and people to whom as distinct from Presbyters did belong the power of Ordination giving Rules and Censures we humbly conceive can never be proved by authentick or competent Testimonies And granting that your Majesty should prove the Succession of Bishops from the Primitive times seriatim yet if these from whom you draw and through whom you derive it be found either more then Bishops as Apostles and extraordinary persons or lesse then Bishops aâ— meerly first Presbyters having not one of the three essentials to Episcopal Government mentioned by your Majestie in their own hand it will follow that all your Majestie hath proved by this Succession is the Homonymy and equivocal acceptation of the word Episcopus Proposition 8. THat whatsoever may be said of Episcopacy out of Antiquity yet notwithstanding it is an opinion generally received by the Learned in all ages That there are but Two Orders of Ministers in the Church of Christ Bishops and Deacons according to the saying of Paul to the Philippians where he salutes the Bishops and Deaconâ— that is the Presbyters and Deacons Of this opinion iâ— Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians and Polycarpâ— in his Epistle to the Philâ—delphians as we have shewed Thiâ— also iâ— the opinion of most of the School-men Lombard saith Whereas all the seven Orders are spiritual and sacred yet the Canons think that two onely are called Sacred Orders by an excellency to wit the order of Deaconship and Priesthood because the Primitive Church so far as we can read had onely these two and of these only we have the Apostles precept Bonaventâ—râ— saith That Episcopacy iâ— no order but an eminency and dignity The like saith Aâ—reâ—lus upon the 4. Sent. distinct 24. Navâ—rrus saith That it is the common opinion of the Divines That Episcopacy is not an Order but an Office See more of this in Forbesii Iâ—â—nicuâ— lib. 2. cap. 11. And in the Addition of M. Mason to his defence of the Ministry of the Church of England where there are very many authors cited to prove That Presbytery is the highest Order of Ministry is not a different order but a different degree of the same Order See also D. Bloâ—deâ— Sect. 3.135 where he sheweth out of divers Councells that under the name of Priests and Levites the whole Gospel-Ministry were comprehended In our own Nation that blessed man Mr. Wickloffe did judge that there ought onely to be two Orders of Ministers in the Church to wit Presbyters and Deacons And Iohn Lamberâ— a Martyr in his answer to Articles objected against him saith As touching Priesthood in the Primitive Church when vertue bore 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 that is Ministers as witnesseth besides Scripture Hierome in his Commentariesupon the Epistles of Paul But we shall give one instance instead of many that might be added In the year 1537. there came out a Book called The Institution of a Christian man made by the whole Clergy in their Provincial Synod set forth by the authority of the Kings Majestie and approved by the whole Parliament and commanded to be preached to the
summo Sacerdoti Clericorum ordinatio consecratio reservata est ne à multis Ecclesiae disciplina vendicata concordiam solveret scandala generaret and afterwards he proves by Scripture texts that Bishops and Presbyters are one and the same So also Concilium Aquisgran 1. Canon 8. Solum propter authoritatem Clericorum Ordinatio Consâ—cratio reservata est summo Sacerdoti Dr. Forbes professor at Aberdeen though a great friend and pleader for Episcopacy yet he saith Habent Presbyteri de jure Divino Ordinandi sicut praedicandi baptizandi potestatem quamvis haec omnia exequi debeant sub regimine inspectione Episcopi in locis ubi est Episcopus And Mr. Mason a known Writer in defence of Episcopacy saith also That a Presbyter as he is a Presbyter is indued with intrinsecal power and ability to Ordain and was restrained from the exercise of it onely by the Church for Disciplines sake and that when the Power of Ordination was reserved to the Bishop the power of the Presbyter was not at that time utterly extinguished but onely restrained as the faculty of the flying of a bird when hiâ— wings are tyed What authority the Church had to tye these wings or whether the Church did well in tying them when the Scripture had left them untyed is not now under debate All that we produce this Authour for is to prove That the wingâ— of Presbytery were not cut off though they were tyed up and that according to the judgment of Episcopal Writers themselves Presbyters have an intrinsecal power of giving Orders The same Authour proves this his Assertion thus Because that a Bishop is intrinsecally inabled to give Orders not by his power of Jurisdiction but by his power of Order And because a Presbyter hath as much of the Sacrament and character of Order according to the Papists themselves as a Bishop and therefore every Presbyter hath an intrinsecal power of giving Orders Now that Episcopacy and Presbytery are one and the same Order of Ministry and that that which is added in Episcopal consecration whereby a Bishop is distinguished from a Presbyter is only a degree of dignity and eminency and is neither the Sacrament of Order nor imprinteth a Character he proveth by a world of witnesses even from Popish Writers From Lombard Aquinas Durandus Dominicus Soto Richardus Aureolus and divers otherâ— Tostatus saith It is in the consecration of Bishops as of the Pope in which there is not imprinted a Character seeing they are not Orders but dignities or degrees of Ecclesiastical preeminence Gerson saith Above Priesthood there is no superiour Order no not the function of a Bishop or Archbishop Armachanus saith A Bishop in such things hath no more in respect of his Order then every single Priest Although the Church hath appointed that such things should be executed by those men whom we call Bishops Aureolus hath a notable passage Every foâ—m in as much as it is in act hath power to communicate it self in the same kind therefore every Priest hath power to celebrate Orders Why then do they not celebrate them Because their power is hindred by the decree of the Church Whereupon when a Bishop is made there is not given unto him any new power but the former power being hindred is set at liberty as a man when the act of reason is hindered and the impediment is removed there is not given unto him a new Soul From all these things it appears that Presbyters have an intrinsecal power to Ordain Presbyters Proposition 4. THat even during the prevalency of Episcopacy it was not held unlawful for a Presbyter to Ordain without a Bishop A Presbyter had not onely an inherent power of Ordination but in some cases he did actually Ordain S. Ambrose upon Eph. 4. saith Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus Austine or whosoever was the author in quaestionibus ex utroque Testamento mixtim quast 101. In Alexandriâ per totam Aegyptum fi desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter Which words cannot be understood as a learned defender of Prelacy would have them of the consecration of the Eucharist For this might be done by the Presbyter praesente Episcopo But it must be understood either of confirmation or which is more likely of Ordination because Ambrose in that place is speaking of Ordination But howsoever it is not much material For Confirmation was restrained to the Bishop as well as Ordination and if the Presbyter might confirm si desit Episcopus then he might also Ordain Hierome saith of the Alexandrian Bishops Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant c. That the Presbyters for many years did Ordain their Bishops And certainly if it were not held unlawfull in Antiquity for Presbyters to ordain Bishops much lesse could it be held unlawful for Presbyters to Ordain Presbyters Dr. Forbes saith That in all those Churches which are governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters without Bishops Valida efficax est Ordinatio quae fit per impositionem manuum solius Presbyterii Quin ubi est Episcopus possunt Presbyteri Ordinare consentiente licet non simul manus imponente Episcopo Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. cap. 39. tells us That Presbyters in some places and at some times did impose hands which when Gregory Bishop of Rome would wholly have forbidden there was so great exception taken at him for it that he left it free again And afterwards Not onely Armachanus a very learned and worthy Bishop but as it appeareth by Alexander of Hales many learned men in his time and before were of opinion that in some cases and at some times Presbyters may give Orders and that their Ordinations are of force c. And that Ordination by Presbyters was held lawfull and warrantable by the ancient Church appears further by these ensuing Arguments 1. Because the Chorepiscopi who were but single Presbyters had liberty by the Church to Ordain if they had a licence from the Bishop That they had liberty appears from the 13. Canon of the Councel at Aâ—â—yra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chorepiscopis non licere Presbyteros vel Diaconos ordinare sed neque urbis Presbyteris nisi cum literis ab Episcopo permissum fuerit in alienâ parochiâ This Councel was held before the Councel of Nice in the year 314. And in the Councel of Antiochia which was Anno 341. Can. 10. It is decreed That the Chorepiscopi should not dare to Ordain Presbyters or Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From these two Canons we may collect these two observations 1. That before these Councels the Chorepiscopi did Ordain Presbyters without any licence at all from the Bishop of the City Otherwise to what purpose are they inhibited 2. That after these Councels they might Ordain by vertue of a licence which sheweth evidently that in the judgment of these