Bishop to which he answered No then said this Learned Doctor to him Your Ordination and Institution is not worth a Fart Sweetly spoken Sir According to the Talent the Lord hath lent me I wrote a little in defence of Episcopal Ordination so far as to prove it not to be Antichristian But now the Controversie is come home to my own door for though in the presence of the people who elected me with their hands lifted up to manifest their Election in a day of Fasting and Prayer I was by five Ancient Godly and Grave Divines the greater part eminent in their Generation set apart to the work of the Ministry by Imposition of hands Prayer and words sutable to the Ordinance yet my Ordination is questioned by such in whose defence I wrote before thank you Brethren the ground being this they judge Ordination to be a work proper to a Bishop whom they make an Officer distinct from Presbyters having more eminent Offices and greater power belonging to them than Presbyters have How they come by this power is the question that Reverend and Learned Bishop Dr. Davenant in his 42 Determination undertakes to prove that this eminency of the Bishop is in verbo divino adumbrata delineata abipsis Apostolis constabilita and that it is an easie thing to demonstrate it The reasons why I pitch upon this man rather than another are these 1. Because he undertakes to prove this eminency of power by the holy Scriptures I wish all would hold here 2. He sums up all the Arguments that ever I heard for it 3. He performes his work gravely soberly like a Christian a Divine not filling his Papers with such scorns jeers and bitter Invectives as the Episcopal men have done who have wrote of late that a sober man hath scarce patience to read them For my part I have bestowed but very little time in this controversie neither have I so much as seen those who have written most largely and elaborately about it as Blondel Salmatius nor others Mr. Baxter came to my hand when I had almost done so that I have not read him through but cast my eye here and there upon him I wish some body would answer him as soberly as he writes but I think he will never be answered Leaving the Reader to such able men for fuller satisfaction I shall communicate my meditations so far I hope as to prove our Ordination by Pretbyters to be valid holding weight in Gods Balance For those Episcopal men who have written of late with such scorn bitterness and confidence the strongest Arguments I find are these 1. Thus it hath been for fifteen hundred years before Calvin rose the Churches had ever Bishops name the Church that had not Thus these Brethren think à facto ad jus valet consequentia undeniably 2. The Fathers who lived in the Primitive times tell us the Apostles did constitute Bishops in several Cities as Timothy and Titus c. This is all their strength But in sober words I beseech you What kind of Bishops were fifteen hundred years ago if you begin to reckon from the Apostles times Bishops distinct from Presbyters in Power and Offices and that by Divine right Verily you fall short in proving it Or were they such Bishops that extended their power for forty miles space or more over many hundred Presbyters and over many hundred thousand of persons whom they never saw I beseech you name us such Bishops in the three or four first Centuries else you know what Bishops do not answer I have read in a Learned Author that in Augustines time there were in one Province under Carthage of the Catholicks and Donatists above nine hundred Bishops the Author sums up how many of each surely these Bishops did not extend their power much further than some great Parishes in some Countreys * Suppose Lancashire or some such Towns as Ipswich Bristol Colchester c. If you will have such Bishops and give them no more power than Christ hath given them for Order sake I will yield to them and give them the Honour and if more maintenance be conferred upon them by the King than other Presbyters who joyn with them I shall be very willing and glad of it So that I am not against an Imparity in honour nor maintenance neither would I be in power and office if Christ had given more to them than others As to the Second I do honour the Fathers in their places 1. Scripture 2. Sound Reason 3. Fathers or Antiquity But yet I cannot yield that St. Paul and Ignatius St. Peter and Chrysostome should be of equal authority I am sure you make them but very little different if any thing less as will appear after I am not a man versed in the Fathers as others are yet some of them the most ancient I have read and in them I find so many strange humane mixtures in the Worship of God that I cannot yield to this consequence The Fathers say it or did it ergo It is lawful Much less in this controversie finding what the holy Ghost hath foretold of an Antichrist that should arise whom out Godly Bishops before and Learned Whitaker with others have thought and proved to be the Bishop of Rome though Dr. Hammond and our latter Episcopal Divines will not have it so We fear we fear c. What a pitiful interpretation hath D. Hum. made of 2 Thes 2. and so of several places of the Revelation to the end the Bishop of Rome might be spared But following worthy Bishops and the Learned and holy Divines in their judgment of that Bishop of Rome I am not so much carried with the sayings not practises of these ancient Bishops in this point for there must be some preparation made to his rising into that usurped Chair he came not there persaltum To these Divines let me propound these questions 1. Quest. Whether are not the Holy Scriptures the perfect and only Rule for our Faith and Manners Are they not able to Make a man of God a Minister perfect 2 Tim. 3 17. If they be I beseech you let us give more honour to them in these Controversies 2. Were those Fathers and Churches you so much mention so guided that they could not or did not erre Were not the holy Scriptures a Rule to them as well as to us Erre they did in some points I am sure 3. Will the Lord judge us at that great day by these Fathers Will it be a sufficient answer to give the Lord if we sin in setting up Humane Inventions in his Worship to say Lord thus the Fathers said thus they did Dare you say it is sufficient to excuse us I beseech you then Reverend Brethren Why do you press us so much with these men and with Antiquities and not stick to pure Antiquity the holy Scriptures Blessed Augustine whom I so much honour and love of all the Fathers knew how to value Cyprian enough Aug. tom 7.
pag. 240.390 Fâ—â—b but when Cresconius or other Donatists would bring any thing out of him to prove what Augustin judged an errour he knew how to set the Scriâ—tures and Apostles above him So doth Cyprian sharply speak against those who brought Tradition for their proof qua ista obstinatio qua presumptio humanam traditionem divine dispositîoni anteponere c Vnde ista traditio Vtrumne de dominica evangelica auctoritate descendens Ep 74. c So Tertullian Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de two infert Bellarmine saith enough Patrum scripta non sunt regula nec habent authoritatem obligandi To the Scriptures then let us go which speak so clear in this controversie that all men even the Papists who call those men Hereticks that deny this superiority of Bishops yet are forced to yield it that in the Apostles time the Bishop and Presbyter were the same Let Cajetan's interpretation be heard upon Tit. 1.5 7. Vbi adverte eundem gradum idemquè officium significari à Paulo nomine Presbyteri nomine Episcopi as cross to Bishop Davenant as can be Anselm the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Comment upon the same verses brings all Hierons Comment where he proves Bishops and Presbyters to be the same and no way opposeth it Estius who in the beginning of his Disputation calls them Hereticks who will not yield the superiority of Bishops and that jure divino in the midst of his Disputation hath these words Quod autem jure divinâ— sint Episcopi Presbyteris superiores Senten l. 4. d. 24. S. 25. etsi non ita clarum est è saoris literis aliunde ramen satis efficaciter probari potest probatur tam ratione quà m testimoniis veterum It seems then the Scriptures are not clear enough to prove this superiority in his opinion and which is divinely spoken though he could not prove the divine right of this Superiority out of the Scriptures yet he would prove it by reason and testimonies of Ancients Had a Presbyterian written thus he should have been scorned to purpose Take the Papists again in their I. C. dist 60. Sacres Ordines dicimus Diaconatum Presbyteratum hos enimsolos primitiva legitur habuisse Ecclesia According to these then your Antiquity for Episcopacy must not go so high as the Primitive Church One more Papist and I have done with them I find Greg. de Valen. De Sacr. Ord. disp 9. q. 1. p. 2. quoting of Michael Medina one of their own affirming that Hierem and all the Fathers he had named before which were Angustin Ambrose Chrysostom Primasius Theophylact and Otcumenius fuisse planè in errore Acrii but the Church did not condemn this errour in them but bare with them because they were otherwise orthodox but did condemn it in Acrius being otherwise in multis nominibus hareticus Then it seems Acrius who was against this Superiority by divine right had these worthy men in that point to agree with him in Medina's judgment with whom Valentia is not pleased To conclude as to Testimonies Learned and Sober Jewel a Jewel indeed in his defence against Harding p. 101 202. quoting testimonies out of Hierom Ambrose Augustin concludes that by the Scriptures of God a Bishop and Presbyter are all one thus this Reverend Bishop I wonder these Testimonies grounded also on Scripture could not moderate our Brethrens heat in this controversie We hope Presbyterial Ordination will not be so contemptible at last I have but one thing to add and it is considerable the Syriack Translation which is so ancient that in time it came near the Original and is thought by some to have been made in the time of the first Antiochian Christians do not use two words one for Bishop and another for Presbyter as our Translation and the Greek but it hath only the word which signifies a Presbyter unlesse in one place Tit. 1.5 7. For a Presbyter must be blameless So 1 Tim. 3.1 If a man desire the Office of a Presbyter V. 2. A Presbyter then must be blameless So in Phil. 1.1 With the Presbyters and Deacons In Acts 20.28 There it alters the word is originally Greek the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only it hath a Syriac termination being Nomen plurale emphaticum in prima Declinatione In 1 Pet. 2. ult Where Bishop is referr'd to Christ there it hath another word Now this to me carries strong proof that this distinction of Bishop and Presbyter was unknown when that Translation was made for there is not so much as any different names but Presbyter is the only word Whether any have taken notice of this before I know not And though some say that it is a Trite Argument that is drawn from the words Presbyter and Bishop being used promiscuously yet it is such an Argument as hath so much strength in it that it was never answered We use to say that Nomina sunt rerum notae symbola whence if the same persons are called Presbyters or Bishops surely their power cannot be distinct Officers are known by their names and distinct Officers by distinct names in some places in the Scripture though in others they may have a general name common to others Though Paul in one place calls himself a Minister and Peter an Elder yet in other places we find they are called Apostles So the Officers have their distinctions Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers Eph. 4.11 But Presbyter and Bishop are never thus differenced no not in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus where of all places they should have been if in those Epistles the Apostle lay the foundation of Episcopacy as say our Brethren but there they are the same as is plain to see and confessed by the Fathers Papists and Protestants Yea and besides the same Names what qualifications are required of one are required of the other the same work is enjoyned both Acts 20.28 1 Pet. 5.1 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same Names the same Qualifications the same Charge conclude the same Function How then Reverend Davenant comes to find this eminency of power to be given and confirmed by the Apostles let us now consider His first Argument is taken from the Jewish Church thus Arg. 1 God appointed the High Priest superiour in authority over the Priests and the Priests over the Levites Ergo The like order is to be stablished in the Christian Church To which I Answer 1. There was and is still superiority of Officers in the Christian Church there was when there were Apostles Prophets Answ Evangelists Pastors c. there is now the Preaching Elder above the Ruling Elder and the Ruling Elder above the Deacon But he means amongst the Preaching Elders then I answer 2. This Argument will better prove a Vniversal Bishop Bellar. de Rom. Pont l. 1. c. 9. than a Diocesan Bishop and is used by Bellarmine for the same purpose it is his third reason
I called to minde what I had heard them say which I will not set down onely concerning Bishop LAUD when he was in his height one had these words If that man die the ordinary death of men then hath not God spoken by me the man was an eminent Divine a Master-workman whether his words were not true you may judge The Lord grant that Reverend USHERS Prophesie come not to pass I much fear it Shall these Soveraign and trembling Acts of a jealous God cause no aw upon our Spirits Must we presently before we are healed perfectly of our wounds provoke God again will you try to force the Nation into Perjury by violating the solemn Covenant I beseech you do not cast such scorn upon it I remember the last year when the Army and that piece of Parliament so called were united and in their height while one was dehorting me friendly from praying for the Royal Family I said then Though God may suffer these men to go on a while yet if God be not revenged for the breach of that Covenant I will not believe my Bible God made good my words sooner than I was aware of I do yet believe The Lord will in his time have a regard to it let men now despise it as they please I do protest in the presence of the living God that it is not any envie that I beare to mens Honours Riches Greatness or Power in the Church or that I affect a Panty which makes me engage in this Controversie upon my one Defence for if my Ordination be null I can hardly look on my self as a Minister I can freely yield you the Honours and the Riches though my poor Viccaridg doth afford one but half the Maintenance for my Family and the power you should have also would but that which you and we call the Rule of your and our Faith the Scriptures give you it But if those Officers our Covenant engages against must be owned in the Church then we must not own our Bibles for a perfect Rule for Regula non est si quid ei deest saith BASIL Now all those Officers mentioned in the Covenant even Bishop as distinct from a Presbyter and superiour in power Desunt they are wanting in that Rule where all the Officers and their names are distinctly set down and you cannot make new Officers by Consequences The scope of the Covenant though I never took it so far as I can see as to the things of God is to reduce all things to the Perfect Rule the Holy Scriptures which I think men do extreamly vilifie in departing from it and bringing in another Lesbian Rule of Antiquity as if the Scriptures were not before the Fathers and well may I call it Lesbian Rule as Erasmus interprets the Adage Lesbia Regula dicitur quoties prâ—eposterè non ad rationem factum sed ratio ad factum accornmodatur Cum Lex moribus applicatur non mores ad Legem emendantur And is not this the practice of men in all these Controversies about the Officers of the Church and the Worship of God in this Nation to tell us of the Fathers and Primitive but not Apostolicall Churches they alledg their Acts not in all things neither and so carry the Scriptures to their Acts but not their Acts to the Scriptures and so judg them by the Perfect Rule Calovius the Lutheran hath strongly proved Syst loc Theol. 1. p. 422. that The Testimony of the Church or Consent of the Fathers in the five first Secula or Centuries after Christ is not the Rule of Interpretation of the Scriptures nor a medium so necessary that without it by the Scriptures alone the mouths of Adversaries cannot be stopped I yield to the Fathers as much as he doth Forthe Common-Prayer-Book I ever said there were some things in it good nor did I ever condemn sober and Godly men who used it yet I think if a Litturgy were necessary which I cannot learn from the Seriptures we have Divires in England endued with grace and gifts able to compose one for the matter agreeable to the Word and Forme less effensive then to be beholding to the Popish Puddles And strange it is that for the pleasing of a few Papists pray God they prove not numerous now who will not yet be drawn by it we must displease and drive from the worship of God thousands of the best Protestants Impose Formes of Prayers who will before I would do such an Act upon those whom the Lord hath so graciously and excellently gifted as are thousands in this Nation I had rather with Gods love go to my grave I have discoursed but briefly of these things For Ceremonies I intended but to touch them There is a Tract printed entituled A Modest Discourse concerning the CEREMONIES of the Church of ENGLAND It came to my hand when I had almost done where you have these things more largely and Learnedly discussed The Lord divert our fears and if it be his will let us enjoy his Ordinances in their purity and power his Ordinances and Himself in his Ordinances So shall we rejoyce in the Lord and Prayers shall not be â—aâ—â—ing for our KING The unworhiest of Christ Ministers G. F. READER There was some miscarriage when the Sheets were sent down to be corrected for some came not to my hand so that I must commit my self to thy Candor These Faults I observed Page 2. line 14. for them read him for they r. he p. 6. l. 28 29. for more superiour r. above p. 22. l. 36. Caepit p. 32. l. 37. formes p. 38. l. 39. for none r. wee For the Ceremonies I intended but a few words and but to name Kneeling at the Sacrament I am told Mr Rutherford hath written strongly against it Presbyteriall Ordination VINDICATED CHAP. I. Of Episcopacy c. IN all the changes which have passed over this Nation of late years it hath been the portion of the Lords Ministers to pass through unkind dealings and reproachful speeches from several sorts of men no change proving to be on their side but all changes against them One while they were called Antichristian Ministers because they were ordained by Bishops who being Antichristian all that were ordained by them were such also Hence Episcopal Ordination must be renounced a new one taken or Popular Election alone might serve the turn else the people will renounce their Ministry separate from them and so did In this unexpected change though much desired and prayed for as to our King and the Royal Family with our Ancient Civil Government unto which by solemn Covenant we were engaged many hundreds of Godly Ministers and able for their work are said to be no Ministers because they were ordained by Presbyters And let me give you the words of one of the great Doctors who asking a godly and able Minister who was ordained by Presbyters Whether he were ordained by a Bishop Whether he had his Institution c. from a
Presbyterial Ordination VINDICATED In a Brief and Sober DISCOURSE CONCERNING EPISCOPACY As claiming greater Power and more eminent Offices by DIVINE RIGHT then Presbyterie The Arguments of the Reverend Bishop Dr Davenant in his Determination for such EPISCOPACY are modestly Examined And Arguments for the Validity of Presbyterial Ordination added With a brief DISCOURSE concerning Imposed Forms of Prayer and CEREMONIES Written by G.F. Minister of the Gospel in Defence of his own Ordination being questioned because it was performed by PRESBYTERS Isa 8.20 To the Law and to the Testimony If they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Patrum scriptanon sunt regulae nee habent auctotitatem obligandi Bell. de Conc. l. â— c. 12. Is it so horrible an heresie as he Harding makes it to say that by the Scriptures of God a Bishop and a Priest are all one All these S. Chrysostom S. Hierom S. Augustine S. Ambrose and other more holy Fathers together with S. Paul the Apostle for thus saying by Mr. Hardings advice must be holden for Hereticks Bishop Jewell Defen Apol. p. 202. London Printed for Nathanael Webb at the Kings head in S. Pauls Church yard 1660. THE PREFACE THE waies of the Lord towards our KING in his Affliction Preservation and Restauration were such as upon them all we may write wonderfull Prayers were poured out for him in his Affliction and for his Restauration Praises were not silent Prayers I say were poured out from sympathising and enlarged hearts they were not read out of a book his Affliction was not common no wonder though a prayer sutable could not be found in a Common-prayer Book But had there been a Prayer in the Book answerable to his Condition we could not have been content with that our hearts had not room to work had we been straitened by a Form yet a Form of Prayer when agreeable to Gods Word I do not judg unlawfull But Who heard those Prayers Where were they made say you I tell you God heard them and men heard them they were made in our Studies between God our own souls they were made in our families they were made in our daies of private Fasting and Prayer which you call Conventicles Would you have heard them in our Publick Congregations it may be you would but would you then have judged us prudent Yet some of us were so imprudent knowing the tempers of our Congregators which could say heartily Amen to pray publickly for him in his lowest condition The prison had witnessed it had I not a friend who delivered me and this year had not his Majestie been restored it had been proved being threatned to my face and the threats often repeated That as sure as God was in heaven I should be called into question only for praying for the afflicted Royall Family If any desire other Proofs of Loyally to his Majesty in his low condition I could give them but I spare to name them Such Subjects had his Majesty among the now despised Presbyterians who had they not been faithfull and loyal to his Majesty as they were bound to be bythe Solemn Covenant but would have closed with the Army doubtless they could have carried such a Party with them that I believe as yet our King had not set upon his English Throne nor had the voice of Thanksgiving for his restoring been heard in our Iland The Lord then rebuke the spirits of those men who go about notwithstanding his Majesties gracious Declaration to give Liberty to tender Consciences to make sad the hearts of those men who have thus prayed and praised GOD for our King by labouring to impose upon us again those humane Inventions in the Worship of God which were the first beginners of our troubles I say the first beginners for I dare say had it not been for those Humane devices and tyrannical forcing upon the Ministry of Christ what men only invented but God never appointed and for their not yielding to their wills silenced abundance imprisoned divers and forced into banishment many of the eminent Servants of Christ God had not been as yet so provoked though I know there was guilt enough the Spirits of people had not been so exasperated to have raised a Civil Warr and therein spill so much English blood much lesse the bloud of our Soveraign King a person of rare and Princely Endowments as before the Warrs I was a little informed in the Warrs further confirmed but after the Warres certainly assured by that excellent Book of His which who can read and then think who did the fact but must needs lament the wound the stain the blot which the Reformed Protestant Religion accompanied at least seemingly with warm and powerfull profession received alas how shall the glory of it be recovered again See what Tentations drive men to some to secure their own Lives and Estates supposing they lay in danger some from Ambition some from a designe to carry on their one private interest and others out of a fond conceit of another a Fifth Monarchy just now beginning Fools to phansie as if in that glorious time which I doubt not the Church shall have before the ultimate day of judgment according to the Soriptures not mens phansies Kings who are the supream 1 Pet. 2.13 should not be Nursing Fathers Isa 49.23 Thus several men from several Tentations and Principles were carried to act that which my pen shall not name but only pray Lead us not into temptation How well this was resented among the Presbyterians besides what is published and should have been published but that they were so quick in doing that which I could not believe they dared to do were but the several Sermons which they preached some choosing Texts on purpose gathered together Were the lamenting Prayers they made in publick and private recorded among men as they are before God no modest man that loveth truth would say The Presbyterians brought Him to the block who ever did the next act which I love not to mention But to return to the first Beginners which I mentioned of our troubles as I have cause to judge them so chiefly from the Word of a jealous God Exod. 20.5 So I am something the more enclined to judge from the Predictions of two Divines whom Bishop LAUD silenced I heard them both utter them one before the Troubles began the other after this also had foretold before the troubles but I heard him speak the words after yet before the things fell out or there were any such thoughts in the breasts of men insomuch that I was amazed to hear him and how confidently he spake Neither of these had any hand in beginning the troubles I am sure for one both did detest with great abhorrency the death of the King received the news with lamentation I gave no great credence to them for I thought we had no infallible Prophets living but when I saw their words so exactly fulfilled then
the Jewish Church had not hundreds of High Priests that met at one time as there hath been of Bishops in one Synod so that all the Catholick Church visible must have one Catholick Bishop else his Argument is lost 3. The High Priest being properly a Type of Christ the most eminent Type is not sufficient to make an argument here 4. Why not as well one Temple though many Synagogues if he will needs argue from the Jews but we have more than one Cathedral in Christendom 5. Christ the Builder of that house then hath built his house now under the Gospel Why should we look back to that old building which in this sense is pulled down Observe how differently he builds there he set up no Officer but all the Officers continued so long as that polity continued but here his chief Officers were but for a short time so that you see he makes a vast difference in the building Also the Deacon was properly appointed to serve Tables to regard the poor Were there Deacons for the poor amongst the Jews 6. Had the Dr. mentioned the Heads of the 24 Orders of Priests appointed by David which some say were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hebrews called them Roshe aboth the chief of the Family there had been more likelihood of an Argument and it is likely we should have yielded as much now to the Ministers of the Gospel if we were certain what the Head of the Order had more than the other Priests of that Order which was not eminency of power and office sure enough His second Argument is taken from Christ in the new Testament Arg. 2 Who appointed Twelve Apostles superiour not only in gifts but in amplitude of Authority and Power to the Seventy Disciples Now Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles and Presbyters of the Seventy This Argument I see is much insisted upon by others Answ let us try the strength of it I Answer 1. Had the Apostles shewn any of that power and authority in the mission of the Seventy there had been some probability in this Argument but there was not the least appearance of any such thing the Seventy had their Mission as immediatly from Christ as had the Apostles they contributing nothing towards it But our Bishops tell us our sending depends upon them we can be no Presbyters without them so that they will be ten times more superiour than the Apostles 2. As there was no difference in their Mission so neither in their Commission Read both their Commissions and you find the same Preach the Gospel Heal the sick Cust out Devils c. Bishops then and Presbyters have the same Commission and Mission Agreed 3. That Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles Bellarmine saith but impropriè Had the Dr. drawn his Argument into form I think I should have found a Fallacy in the Syllogism Limit he must then tell us how he can prove the Apostles were superiour to the Seventy in the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction so that the Seventy had not this Power For if the Seventy had this power also we are well enough but this he cannot prove Besides to say though the Bishops be not the Successors of the Apostles in all things yet they are in Ordination and Jurisdiction is but the begging of the question 4. Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles but let the Bishop in the question be Ens first which we cannot find in divine Writ 5. How proves he this that Bishops are the Apostles Successors and Presbyters of the Seventy and not of the Apostles This is his proof it is omnium ferè patrum constans doctrina Had he said unius Apostoli it had prevailed much more with me We are seeking for jus divinum but he mentions some Fathers and those not the most ancient neither But have none of the Fathers said that Presbyters are the Successors of the Apostles also Hath Irenaeus nothing to that purpose the two Jesuits Bellarm and Greg. Lib. 3. cap. 2. Lib. 4. cap. 23. de Val. are so kind to us to tell us they have said so I see the Dr. adds a Scripture at the bottom of the Paragraph 1 Cor. 12.28 29. But surely this makes nothing to the proof of Episcopal succession Are all Apostles are all Prophets are all Teachers I think this Text he brings will pluck up this Episcopacy by the roots God hath set in his Church Where shall we find the Bishop in question set not among the Apostles I hope not among the Prophets then it must be among the Teachers so the Text thirdly Teachers but are not Presbyters Teachers Well met honoured Dr. 6. The Apostle Peter 1 Ep. c 5. v. 1. Writing to the Presbyters calls himself a Presbyter Had the Apostle written thus The Bishops which are among you I exhort whs also am a Bishop this would have been cried up for an invincible Argument to prove that Bishops were the Apostles Successors for he writes to Bishops and calls himself a Bishop Gentlemen give us fair play I beseech you the Argument is ours to prove Presbyters are the Successors of Peter the Presbyter To say the Apostles and Seventy were extraordinary Officers and so we cannot draw any thing from them there may be somthing in it but I add no more His third Argument is Arg. 3 The Apostles before they passed from earth to Heaven did constitute in great Cities one Bishop superiour not only over the Laicks but also the Presbyters as James in Jerusalem Timothy at Ephesus Titus in Creet c. I hope he takes Bishop properly Answ as we intend in the question else he deceives us I Answer 1. Why did not the Apostle Paul or some other Apostle constitute such a Bishop in Gorinth before his departure I am sure Corinth was none of the least Cities His Epistles to Corinth mention no such thing and that is much if there were one Paul wrote to them Anno 52 as Buchol and Alsted Or about 54 as Dr. Hammond When Clemens wrote his Epistle to them is uncertain saith Learned Mr. Young but he supposeth not before his banishment which was two years before his Martyrdom and gives his reasons for his opinion he suffered Martyrdom in the third year of Trajan Anno 103. saith Sixtus Senensis Hence then almost fifty years passed between the Epistles of Paul and Clemens to the Corinthians Clemens p. 8. mentions Pauls Martyrdom but in all his Epistle there is not one word to shew that there was such a Bishop in his time for in the winding up his Epistle p. 73. he exhorts them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not a word of such a Bishop whom Clemens would not have forgotten had he been there This Epistle is the most pure piece of all Antiquity next the Scriptures 2. Is the Dr. sure that all those he mentions were Bishops propriè dicti he saith indeed afterward p. 195. Certum
est Timotheum Titum Jacobum multosquè alios propriè dictos Episcopos fuisse viventibus Apostolis c. yet adds in the conclusion quasi affixos Well then certum est but how I pray certitudine fidei divinae else 't is not certain to us in this controversie I regard not mens words without Scripture but what mean these words quasi affixos this quasi spoils the certainty for if but quasi affixi they were but quasi Episcopi as I could soon prove from the Scriptures and the Canons of Councils I wonder the Dr. should say that James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and that propriè dictus I see Lapide and Lorinus giving that the reason why James spake next to Peter because James was Bishop of Jerusalem where the Council was held But 1. He was an Apostle one of the Pillars Gal. 2.9 whose sentence in this question swayed the Synod but to have an Apostle a Bishop in our sense is strange Had the Dr. forgot that on this ground our Divines against the Papists prove that Peter could not be Bishop of Rome because he was an Apostle and so not fixed 2. If James were a Bishop why had he not his Title given him in Acts 15 For in v. 4 6 23. we have mention made of Apostles and Presbyters but not a word of a Bishop this is very far from this certainty 'T is certain indeed he was no Bishop As for Timothy and Titus there hath been a huge stir about these I have heard that Mr. Prin hath written a Treatise which he cals the unbishopping of Timothy and Titus and that so strongly that as none yet ever went about to answer him so none can I could never see the Book but refer the Reader to him I shall be the briefer I see some Divines prove that Paul did constitute Timothy Bishop of Ephesus because he said 1 Tim. 1.3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus Strange that a Bishop of a place should be besought to stay in his Bishopprick And Titus because he said Chap. 1.5 For this cause I left thee in Crete I pray cast these two Texts into Syllogisms and let us see how invincibly Timothy and Titus come out Bishops of those places in the Conclusions Could not Timothy stay at Ephesus to oppose heresies and ordain with others or if not with others Ministers and Titus left at Crete to do the same but it must follow necessarily Ergo they were constitued fixed Bishops of those places But the Fathers say they were Bishops that 's a proof not sufficient to make jus divinum The Papists and Dr. Hammond say they were Archbishops both alike for truth Do the Fathers speak properly when they say so It was the saying of a great Bishop that Histories are not curious in calling men by their Tiâ—les Sure I am that Paul gives him another title of which presently If the Fathers did so might they not be deceived with the subscriptions of the Epistles which this Learned Dr. meddles not with knowing they were not Canonical Name I pray the most ancient Fathers and tell us if they call these so in your sense Sure I am that Ignatius cals Timothy a Deacon and joynes Linus with him Epist ad Tral p. 71. But what if the Fathers call them so if I find strong grounds in Holy Scripture to make me believe they were of a higher order than ordinary Officers if a hundred Fathers say they were ordinary Bishops I regard them not Searching the Scriptures we find for Timothy that 1. He is often joyned with Paul in the Inscription of his Epistles as Phil. 1.1 Col. 1.1 1. Thes 1. 2 Thes 1. Philem. 1. 2. We find him journeying with Paul and sent up and down by Paul 3. He is bidden to do the work of an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 Now though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken largely yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used but thrice in the New Testament is never taken but for a peculiar Officer He was one of those Paul mentions Eph. 4.11 To confine the word Evangelists to those who wrote the Gospels is absurd Matthew and John I hope were Apostles and Philip was an Evangelist Acts 21.8 yet wrote no Gospel If he were no Evangelist but bidden to do the work of one this is strange an inferiour order do the work of a superiour However I hope by this Presbyters may ordain as well though they be of an inferiour Order But if Timothy must do the work of an Evangelist he must not fixe at Ephesus No more fixed at Crete was Titus though for a time left at Crete In 2. Cor. 8.23 Paul cals him his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words sutable to an Evangelist sent up and down by Paul as we may observe in the Epistles and journeying with Paul After he was at Crete Paul sends to him to Nicopolis Tit. 3.12 which was six hundred miles distant from Crete as Bunting saith p. 566. How long he stayed with him or whither he went next I find not But towards the end of Pauls life 2 Tim. 4.10 11. he was at Rome with Paul and by Paul sent to preach in Dalmatia saith Lapide How these things sute with a Bishop in our sense I know not Hence Junius Zanchy Polanus Beza Calvin Diodati and the Lutherans conclude him to be an Evangelist As for Evangelists Ensebius will give us some light to understand them Eccles Hist lib. 3. cap. 37. He speaks of divers then who obtained the first step of Apostolical succession and being as divine Disciples of the chief and principal men builded the Churches every where planted by the Apostles c. Taking their journey fulfilled the work and office of Evangelists that is they preached Christ unto them which as yet heard not of the Doctrine of Faith These men having planted the Faith in sundry new and strange places ordained there other Pastors committing unto them the tillage of the new ground passing themselves unto other people and Countries being holpen thereunto by the Grace of God which wrought with them for as yet by the power of the Holy Ghost they wrought miraculously so that innumerable multitude of men embraced the Religion of the Almighty c. Thus Eusebius If this description of Evangelists sute any doth it not Timothy and Titus who were indeed divine Disciples of Paul a principal man sent up and down by him and if these wrought miraculously must it be denied of Timothy and Titus as for the gift of Tongues that was also needful for men travelling and preaching in so many several Countreys I find some forced to yield they were Evangelists at first but afterwards were made Bishops of these places 1. Was the being made a Bishop a degree above an Evangelist Answ was an ordinary Officer above an extraordinary Officer then some truth may be in this I find Concil Sard. Can. 13. that the Bishop must ascend
Acts 14.23 that now a single Bishop can ordain alone The Dr. forgat himself much but this power of Ordination and Jurisdiction he had need to prove to reside as he saith in illis solis else he hath lost his cause But see how much authority he opposeth what woful mischief might this soon produce to the Church 5. It may as strongly be gathered that to preach in season and out of season as do all Bishops to meditate to read to oppose hereticks c do only belong to Bishops because these Commands are given the first I am sure only to Timothy as to gather because Timothy is directed in Ordination how to act that therefore Presbyters must not impose hands Why this proper to him above all the rest 6. Consider I pray that which is added 1 Tim. 5.22 Neither be partakers of other mens sins whether it may not infer the contrary thus Timothy though other Ministers may be rash and not consider what they do in Ordination but would ordain unfit unworthy persons yet do not thou lay on hanas suddenly do not thou partake of their sins in rash Ordinations joyning with them A man may partake of the sins of Ordainers as well as of the Ordained I know nothing contrary to the Analogy of Faith nor to the Context if that sense be given Why saith the Dr. Could not the Ministers of Ephesus ordain before Timothy arrived or of Crete before Titus came thither I cannot learn but Titus went along with Paul to Crete the first time of his preaching there Answ and having laid the Foundations of Churches as Jerom saith left Titus there ut rudimenta nascentis Ecclesiae confirmaret ipse pergens ad alias Nationes c. But however 1. There is a difference between the arrival of Evangelists and the Bishops in question 2. There being abundance of enemies and errours spread about as we see it was the very reason why Paul besought Timothy to stay at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1.3 These men being so able and qualified above others might very well there be lest for a time as to oppose the heresies and errours so to look to the Ministry that none but sound and able men came into it but because these being Evangelists were far more able does it conclude the Presbyters had not the Right to ordain with them 3. Remember that Cajetan confesseth even in these Epistles Presbyter and Bishop signifie the same degree and the same office Had not the Churches been in danger Timothy had not need been there so this denies not their power The Dr. goes on to prove this sole power of Ordination from humane Authority 1. From that Saying of Jerome Excepta Ordinatione quid facit Episcopus quod Presbyter non faciat Answ Jerom speaks de facto the Bishops had engrossed this power but he does not say de jure it ought to be so for he had strongly proved the Bishop and Presbyter from several Scriptures to be the same 2. It should seem it was not a universal Custom For it was one great complaint against Chrysostom saith Bish Downam that he made Ordinations without the Presbytery And in the year 398 about which time Chrysostom flourished that fourth Council of Carthage which opposeth Bishops sole power of Ordination was held However this is but humane 2. He brings in the example of one Colythus a Presbyter of Alexandria who ordained Presbyters but their Ordination was made void and the Ordained returned into the Order of Laicks Still this is but a humane Act grounded on no Scripture Answ and yet there is somthing more to be said about this For 1. I find this Colythus is reckoned among the Hereticks by Augustine and others One of his Opinions Augustin mentions but what more he held I know not 2. He was a man infamis ambitione say the Historians and would make himself a Bishop as the Epistle of the Presbyters of Mareotis in the same Apol. of Athanas intimates whence they call him non verum sed imaginarium episcopum whence the general Council commanded ut se pro Presbytero haberat qualis antea fuisset 3. It appears in both places of Athanasins that this Colythus ordained alone there are none mentioned that joyned with him 4. That Ischyras who was ordained by Colythus and about whom there was so much trouble was not chosen of a Church for so the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 570. Now for a Heretick alone ambitiously making himself a Bishop to ordain a person not elected by a Church is not the same with five Orthodox Presbyters ordaining a Presbyter elected by a true Church The Dr. before he hath done does allow this which is so proper to Bishops to be common to Presbyters in some cases then it seems the power may be ours and whether our case be not as weighty I will consider anon The Third and last is The power of Jurisdiction over both Laick◠and Presbyters and instanceth in Excommunication He will allow indeed Presbyters to be consulted with from Cyprians example he might have added the 23 Canon Concil Carthag 4. which make else Sententia Episcopi irrita but for the censure this proceeds only from Episcopal Authority Hence then Presbyters have not the power of Excommunication nor are Judges in it so he saith 2. A Bishop alone may excommunicate Presbyters For the first Presbyters have the power of Excommunication 1. Why else are they called Pastors and Rulers Heb. 13.17 and the people commanded to obey them they must feed the flock and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5.1 So 1 Thes 5.12 They are over them in the Lord. 2. There was no Bishop in Corinth when Paul wrote to have the incestuous person cast out yet they had the power of Excommunication 1 Cor. 5.7 12 13. purge judge put away Had they done it before Paul would not have written so sharply 3. Those who have the power of the Keyes have the power of Jurisdiction but Presbyters have the power of the Keyes not denied by the Papists Sent. l. 4. dis 18. S. 14. but affirmed insomuch that Estius moves this Question Vtrum Sacerdotes soli habent potestatem excommunicandi and tels us some were of that opinion Now by soli◠Estius does not mean whether they alone without a Bishop For the question he is about is this Penes quos sit excommunicandi potestas and his scope is to prove that others besides Priests have the power but for the Priests that is taken for granted that they had the power and quotes 1 Cor. 5.5 13. And Augustine l. 3. contra Epist Parmen c. 2. Aquinas he also tels us Supplem q. 22. ◠1. that some were of that opinion that the Parochial Priests might excommunicate but thinks his own opinion to be more rational that the Bishop should do it had his distinction a foundation in Scripture 4. Those that have power to take into the Church have power to cast out of the
Church Are the Keyes given to Pastors to turn them but one way Ridiculous 5. How does this agree with Jerom before quoted excepta Ordinatione c. It seems Jurisdiction was not excepted when they had engrossed Ordination Presbyters had that power and at first the Churches were governed by the common advice of the Presbyters thus he Tit. 1. 6. The Priests had that power not only to discern between Lepers and Lepers but as they could judge they could separate them from the Camp of Israel which did shadow out our excommunication 7. It seems very strange that when a Pastor who hath taught it may be baptized a person and now fallen into sin the Church and he have dealt with that person according to rule that now the Church must go to a Bishop to excommunicate this person to whom yet he never bare relation How came this Bishop to have power over this Church which he never saw it may be But let Dr. Fulks speak It is manifest that the Authority of binding and loosing committing and retaining pertaineth generally to all the Apostles alike and to every Pastor in his Cure Answ to Rhem. 2 Cor. 2. Bishop Jewel Reply p. 178. quotes Basil speaking thus Christ appointed Peter to be the Pastor of the Church after him and so consequently gave the same power unto all Pastots and Doctors A Token whereof is this that all Pastors do equally both bind and loose as well as he So Basil 8. In such Cities as Ephesus c. where the Church was one and divers Elders in common governed that Church let the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pronounce the sentence of excommunication I deny it not For his Proofs because Timothy must charge some that they teach no other Doctrine 1 Tim. 1.3 So Tit. 1.11 Mouths must be stopped But I beseech you what is there in this more than Presbyters might do who govern the Church in common that stopping may be meant partly if not chiefly there by Argument convince gainsayers v. 9. I must confess I cannot see the Logick of this Argument though it doth prove Jurisdiction does it prove Presbyters have not the power I thought he would have quoted 1 Tim. 5.19 But because he doth not I let it alone His next is the Angel of Pergamus and Thiatira blamed Rev. 2. for suffering of Jezebel c. 1. Answ Does this exclude the other Presbyters What mean those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 24. But to you I say If the King writes to the Speaker and reproves somthing amiss or complains somthing is not done does it lay the blame on him only and not on the Members of the House as well 2. Suppose these Angels had been guilty of sins for which themselves had deserved excommunication who should have cast them out Are they Lords Paramount above all Christs Laws in his Church I know not but the other Presbyters with the consent of the Churches obeying their Presbyters might have cast these Angels out or no way that I know of The Scriptures know no Archbishops though the Papists and Dr. Hammond do But to have one Bishop alone excommunicate Presbyters this would make as brave work as we have known before the wars begun Let the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Presbyters excommunicate a Presbyter the Church consenting Thus far the Dr. goeth and then undertakes to answer our Arguments but because I see nothing is there said which I have not spoken to before and I am loath to exceed in this discourse I shall only take notice of what he saith in his Answer to the third Objection where he tels us the necessity of Bishops in these respects 1. To ordain Ministers lest the Evangelical Ministry should fail Cannot this evil be prevented by Presbyters as well Answ Are not divers thousands of Presbyters in England more likely to keep up a succession of Ministers in England than 24 Bishops of whom how few now were left Had the succession of Ministers depended upon them in what a sad case had the Church been 2. For the Governing of Presbyters lest by their impure manners heresies and schismes they should destroy the Church And are not Bishops equally liable to these Answ How shall the Church now be saved May we not read with our eyes in Histories and hear with our ears what Bishops have been Have we not seen the excellency of this Government in England as to the impure manners of Ministers being corrected Is it not a Cordolium to the godly in England to have so many who were justly cast out for scandal by the Parliament though some were wronged I know and do as much detest their ejectment to return again not one whit purged that we can fee 2. For Heresie and schism 1. We know what Bellarmine saith Certe Heresiarchae ferè omnes aut Episcopi aut Presbyteri fuerunt and from these Heresies rise Factions among the people saith he so that Bishops are as deep in the mire for heresie and causing schism as the Presbyters Hence he will have a Pope but that Monarchical Government hath not cured Schism we know much less Heresie 2. As for Heresie and Schism both name any National Church under Heaven more free from them than the Church of Scotland before these troubles began and yet there Bishops are not approved of 3. For Schism read but the life of Constantine and there see whether Bishops were not guilty of Schism and the Concil Tolata 1. was called upon some Schism among the Bishops 4. We say that Rome is guilty of the Schism between us and them because Rome gave the cause I leave the Reader to enquire who gave the first cause of the Schisms now in England 5. Why then did not Paul appoint a Bishop in Corinth when Schism was there both in his time and Clemens his time but Clemens mentions none Jerom saith indeed that upon these Schisms Bishops were set up afterwards I write not his known word posted But it is much that these ends of a Bishop which are so great for the good of the Church and it seems can be performed by none but him should not be foreseen by Christ at first and so this Bishop at first appointed but the ordinary main Stud of Christs House should be forgot to be set up till many years after the House was up Sure this means was none of his and so it proves 6. How can the Bishop be a fit means to cure Schism or prevent it I know no way but this that Presbyters must resign all their judgments up to his Chair and he infallibly determine which is right or wrong and so all must yield to his sentence This were brave indeed 7. Let our King withdraw his tender and healing hand and his power from assisting Bishops let us now see how the Bishops will shew forth that wonderful vertue of Episcopacy in healing our Schisms I doubt our King who is as Constantine said of himself the Bishop extra