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
Ecclesiam must be the great healer under God of our Schisms else the Bishops within the Church will make them much worse but never heal I am sure by all power Episcopal If the Keyes of the Gate-house and other Prisons be at their command then they may do more with those Keyes than their Episcopal Keyes Yet I think Prisons will hardly heal us 8. There was an honest way found out how to cure wrangling schismatical Bishops and the same cure is proper and very apt for Schismatical Presbyters Concil Carthag 4. Can. 25. Dissidentes episcopos si non timor Dei Synodus reconciliet A more apt means than a Bishop because that is Apostolical To wind up all my Discourse concerning this Episcopacy which the Dr. hath asserted now commended as necessary against Schism I will only give the Reader the judgment of Musculus upon the question how effectual it is towards the cure After he had proved Bishop and Presbyter to be the same by Scripture then he comes to give the original of the Bishop out of Jorom Loc. com â— 195. and thus he writes Verum post Apostolorum tempora cum inter seniores Ecclesiarum sicuti Hieronymo placet dissentiones schismata subnascerentur ut mihi vere simile est tentatio illa de majoritate mentes seniorum pastorum at doctorum invaderet paulatim capit de numero seniorum unus aliquis eligi qui reliquis praeponeretur in sublimiori gradu positus Episcopus nominaretur atque ita quod caeteri antea communiter ipse solus ac singulariter vocaretur Profueritus vel seous hoc consilium Ecclesiâ— Christi quo tales sint Episcopi magis consuetudine ut Hieronymi verbis utar quam Dominioa dispositionis veritate introducti qui majores ossent Presbyteris melius est posterioribus seculis deelaratum quam dum haec consuetudo primum introduceretur cui debeâ—â—us omnem illam principalium equestrium Episcoporum insoleâ—tiam opulentiam tyrannidem imo omnium Ecclesiarum Christi corruptioneâ— quam si Hier. cerneret dubio procul consilium agnosceret non Spiritus Sancti ad tollenda Schismata sicuti praetexebatur sed ipsius Satanae ad vastanda perdenda prisca pascendi Dominici gregis ministeria quo fieret ut haberet Ecclesia non veros Pastores Doctores Presbyteros Episcopos sed sub â—ominum istorum larvis ociâ—sos ventres ac magnificos Principes qui non modo non pascant ipsi populum Domini doctrina sana Apostolica sed improbissima violentia caveant ne id per quenquam â—lium fiat c. I am far from applying this to all our Bishops no verily This Learned Davenant Hall Brownrig I do much reverence their names now dead and gone and no man upon earth have I so much honoured as that Archbishop Usher but what talk I of him he was in all Respects for Learning soundnesse in the Faith Humility and Holinesse a None-such In what an ill time as to us was he taken away but God is wise CHAP. II. Of Presbyterial Ordination VVHether that which made the greatest Argument against our Presbyterial Ordination be not taken away I leave to the Christian Reader who makes the Holy Scriptures his Rule to judge by Now then for a few Arguments to prove The validity of Presbyterial Ordination These two Propositions however denied by some yet I presume they will be granted by these scorners of our Presbyterial Ordination 1. That Ordination is still an Ordinance of God in force in the Church and so shall be while there is a Ministry 2. That it is an Act of Authority and can be performed by none but by those who are in Authority in the Church Hence then I thus argue Scripture Ordination is valid Ordination Arg. 1 But Presbyterial Ordination is Scriptural Ordination Ergo. Deny the major who dare The minor I thus prove That Ordination which is performed by persons invested with the power thereof by Scripture Authority is Scriptural Ordination But Presbyterial Ordination is Ordination performed by Persons invested with the power thereof by Scripture authority Ergo. Minor If the Scripture hath now invested any others with the power of Ordination they are persons either of an Inferiour or Superiour Order But neither Ergo. Not Inferiour is granted not Superiour the whole Discourse before proves by the judgment of the Scriptures and many agreeing thereto Presbyter and Bishop are the same Objection Presbyters are no where commanded to ordain Answer Prove that your Bishops are and I will prove my Presbyters are 2. Where are Presbyters commanded to Administer the Lords Supper or Baptize Finde that Command and I will finde other Authoritative Acts in it I doubt not our Authority descends from that Command and Commission to the Apostles Matth. 28. Whatever Acts are requisite to encrease to edifie or continue the Church we have the Authority by Succession and so are Pastors and Rulers II. Arg. 2 That Ordination which is performed by persons which have the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven committed to them that is valid Ordination But Presbyterial Ordination is performed by such Nomine clavium signisic tur omnis potestas Ecclesiallica Suppl cham lib. 4. chap. 4. Ergo. Major The Keyes of the Kingdome do contain in them the power of Ordination saith Cor. Ã Lapide Chemnitius Bucer c. Minor Though the Pope Bishops and Presbyters contend for the Keyes yet that Presbyters have the Keys committed to them is confessed by the Papists Objection The Key of Knowledg Answer I proved before the Key of Jurisdiction I adde That Distribution of the Keyes which is not grounded on the Scripture is a vain Distribution as we say Distinguendum est ubi Scriptura distinguit Sic distribuendum est c. But this distribution of the Keyes so as to give but the Key of Knowledge to the Presbyter is not grounded on Scripture Ergo It is vain To thee do I give the Keyes said our Lord he did not civide the Keyes give one key to one and both to another he gives no single key to any person but keyes and so whatever those Keys serve for Busil and Dr. Fulk speak fully for the Keys of jurisdiction belonging to all Pastors then the Key of Order as well III. Timothies Ordination was valid Ordination Arg. 3 but Timothies Ordination was Presbyterial Ordination Ergo. Laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie 1 Tim. 4.14 Against this is objected 1. Paul did impose his hands in Timothies Ordination and that was sufficient without the Presbytery Answ 1. Diodati conceives That by Pauls hands the miraculous gift was conveyed by the Presbytery Timothy was installed in the Ministry See him on 2 Tim. 1.6 I have spoken to this in another Treatise 2. However the Presbytery imposed hands they had a power to do the work else Paul would no have called them to it Paul did not ordain Timothy quatenus Apostle then your Bishop is gone
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
by you with those Forms which the Penmen of the Scriptures were directed by the Spirit to compose 2. Impose no other Prayers upon us but Scripture-forms and we shall not refuse to use them though not them only The Lords Prayer is the most compleat of all the Forms yet we are not bound to that form only I hope we may use other prayers keeping that substance 3. The 102 Psal which was made for the afflicted Church a little before the time of their return out of Captivity as the 13 14 15 16 Verses declare did not hinder Daniel Chap. 9. to pray by his own gift upon the same occasion where there is great difference in the Petitions and matter of prayer Object But other Churches have their Formes Answ Not all Churches where men are as orthodox and holy as ours are 2. Irenaeus bids us have recourse to those Churches in which the Apostles were conversant and in them we finde no such thing 3. Those who have Forms do yet condemn ours as witness Apollonius in the name of the Walacrian Classis p. 172. who rejecting Forms of Prayer and Administrations of Sacraments where the matter is vicious or any Superstition cleaves to them c. He adds For this cause we reject the Ceremonies and Forms of Publick Worship in the Church of England in these last corrupt times brought in by the Hierarehical Bishops as those which being Superstitious and Idolatrous have deformed the Church and the worship of God obscurarunt gloriosa Reformationis facem faciem c. In the next Section the same Divines do reject those Forms of Prayer though in respect of the matter of them good whenas they are imposed tyrannically and with violent command upon the consciences of men as being absolutely necessary and essential parts of Gods Worship c. They speak more and that notably what cruelty they have been made the instruments of and Hath not ENGLAND felt it See more in that Learned Author page 173. though he maintains the lawfulnesse of a Form So do the Leyden Professors Synop pu the. p. 499. and yet say it is necessary that Pastors of Churche should stirr up themselves to pray without forms p. 499. And once more for our Common-Prayer Book lately used Bishop Davenant hath commended it to us upon this ground What is there in it that is not approved of the Papists themselves Determ 27. and he confirms the truth of it thus That some of the Bishops of Rome have offered to approve our forme of Prayers provided that we would accept it by their authority A notable Argument to bring Orthodox and holy Christians to hear it though his scope is to prove Ergo the Papists ought to be present at our worship and the Magistrate neglects his Office if he doth not compell them Object But the totall use of Ministers gifts is not taken away Answ I think it was in some places and every where it was in Baptisme and the Lords Supper only before Sermon and after men had the use of their gifts scarce that Object But all Ministers are not able Answ Whose fault is that shew us such Ministers ordained by the Presbyterians that are not in some good measure able to pray without their book though there is difference of Gifts There are a Generation coming in again that I think indeed are not all of them and but very few I deny not but there was wrong offered to some who were turned out and let them come in withall my heart But I speak of Superstititous men pot-companions swearers c. men who have not the Gift of Prayer and despise it in others 2. But what is this to those who are able why must they be forced to read as other insufficient men must wanting Gifts Question But what if a Form of prayer be imposed so as not to take away the total use of Ministers Gifts in any Ordinance they may have their liberty of their own gifts but sometimes use that Forme Answ I should a little desire to know the Authority that enjoins it if a Synod of such Divines as ought to be I mean not superstitious Arminians Orthodox and holy men did order such a thing in a sober way not tyrannically as absolutely necessary as said Apollonius before then I confesse it would trouble me to refuse it though I finde and have heard some of my Brethren say Let the Forms of Prayer be what they will they will submit to none it is an offence they conceive and a wrong to that good spirit who hath pleased to bestow on them the Gift of Prayer to have that hindered by submitting to mens injunctions But I am not satisfied in this 1. Because you have the use of your gift in all Ordinances only sometimes you are required to use a Form 2. A Form of Prayer in it self the matter of it being agreeable to the Word is not unlawfull thus godly and wise men judge 3. I finde that the old holy Non-Conformists were not offended at a bare form of Prayer but some particular things in the Common prayer-Book and truly those are many Yea I finde the Congregationall Divines in New-England though they use no forms they are able indeed yet they dare not condemn all Forms of prayer in the Church Defense of the 9 Positions p. 34. divers of them at least would not do it so Master Shephard Though all of us could not concurr to condemn all set Forms as unlawfull yet for the English Liturgy c. And so after in the same Page Thus also Mr Norton in his Answer to Apollonius alloweth of a form of prayer for Ministers but if they be gifted then to impose is unlawfull But whether he means it is so though they use their own gift and the Forms sometimes I finde not p. 138 139. But do any we now speak of condemn all use thereof c. So again page 38. only there they say That though the thing it self be lawfull yet if not duly circumstantiated it may be evil and scandalous in the use as Meats 1 Cor. 8.13 This to me if we have liberty as in the Question is the greatest trouble how to answer the offence it will give to other Christians in case we cannot satisfie there being we have no command in the Word to use these Forms how will you help us here Will men give the Answer which Bishop Land when he silenced my Father in law gave to him My Father pleaded that Text of Paul He would not offend his weak Brother Why then should the Bishop offend him by imposing the Surplice To that speech of Paul Bishop Laud answered Yea Paul said so when he was alone but do you think Paul would have said so if he had been in a Convocation A rare Answer worthy of a Bishop 4. What think you of this Do we not many times when we are beaten with tentations pray our own conditions more than the Congregations though
time and out of use with us some at least Sed quoniam unum aliqued attigimus vacuae observationis non pigebit caetera quoque denotare quibus merito vanitas exprobranda est si quidem sine ullius aut Dominici aut Apostolici Praecepti auctoritate fiunt hujusmodi enim non Religioni sed superstitioni deputantur affectata coacta curiosi potius quam rationalis officii Certè vel eo coercenda quod Gentilibus adaquent Then he names some who put off their cloaks when they went to prayer and others had their vain Observations Tertullian here speaks like a Christian one who took his Bible for a perfect Rule These things we may observe in him 1. What ought to guide and rule us in Worship the Authority of the Lords and the Apostles Precepts 2. What he judged of such things that were practiced in Prayer and had not this Authority he chargeth them with vanity and Superstition c. Now let us examine why the washing of hands before Prayer should not be as warrantable as a Surplice in Prayer to shew how we lift up pure hands 2 Tim. and to shew innocency the same I think which the Surplice doth as good as rational And what is there more in putting on a Surplice than putting off a Cloak a man might fancy some spiritual thing in that to signifie the putting off the cloak of maliciousnesse 1 Pet. 2.16 or of hypocrisie c. enough we may imagine you may call this Religion I call it Superstition saith Tertullian Then let the Surplice go under Tertullians Censure IV. Arg. 4 To follow Heathenish and corrupt Worshippers in the worship of the Holy God is contrary to the Word of God But to worship God in white Garments appropriated only to the Worship of God is to follow Heathenish and corrupt worshippers Ergo. I know Heathens may worship their Idols as God is in some particulars when Heathens follow God as the Devil is Gods Ape to imitate his worship as Justin Martyr and Tertullian shew then the Worshippers of God are clear for they follow Gods command in what he hath appointed and they cannot hinder the Devil from imitating of Gods worship to set up himself but when we have no command from God but it is only our own wills which sets up such a Ceremony and therein we make God to be served in that manner which Heathens and Idolatrous persons worship this cannot be without some spot of sin not hating the garment spotted with the flesh It was upon this ground also that Tertullian in the place fore-quoted did condemn these Observations about prayer and in his Book de Coro mil. he reasoneth vehemently that a Christian man ought not to go with a Lawrel Garland upon his head and that for none other cause but only for that the Heathens used so to go How the Lord warned his people against this we know and hence would not allow them to pray towards the East Ezek. 8.16 they must not be like the Heathens worshipping the Sun rising in the East Arias Montanus in his Treatise of the Fabrick of the Temple saith That the Jews report of thirteen Tables of stone that were in the outward Court of the Temple at which men were wont to pray and all of them were made saith he so as some looked to the North and some to the South and some to the West but not one to the East How many East-worshippers do England afford Now for the Surplice whence we took it and how in it we follow the corrupt Romanists whom our Episcopal men cannot deny but they are corrupt Worshippers and how they did conform in their Ceremonies to Heathen Idolaters to win them over to the Christian Religion this is well known from Learned men who have written upon that Subject But I add no more these are only a few thoughts which ran in my minde others have written more largely upon these subjects whom I have not read but only have heard of them For the Cross in Baptism which hath proved such a crosse to many holy men I only see Mr. Baxter in his Disput about Church-Government p. 418. expressing himself very much against it but I have not had time as yet to read him over I suppose the Reader may there finde satisfaction Mr. Fox in his Martyrol Vol. 3. p. 909. relates a Story concerning one Blomefield a Persecutor whom God followed with judgments upon his body and estate This Blomefield a little before his death bragged and threatned a good man one Simon Herlestone to put him forth to the Officers because he did wear no Surplice when he said Service Upon which Mr. Fox thus Wherefore it is pitty such baits of Popery are left to the enemies to take Christians in God take them away or else us from them for God knoweth they be the cause of much blindnesse and strife amongst men There is a notable Example of Gods dealing with one who urged a gracious Minister to read the Book of Common-prayer and set him Whitsunday for the day by which day if he did not read it he threatned to complain of him but for all his threats was in the grave before the day came and glad to get that worthy Minister whom he threatned to pray with him in his sickness but then no words of the Book of Common-prayer This a fresh act of Gods I thought to have added more Arguments but that I intended brevity Ravanel in his Biblioth sacra upon the word Mel gives the Reason why Hony was forbidden in the Sacrifices Lev. 2.11 To signifie saith he that all divised Worships should be avoided because sincere Religion is defiled with them though they appear beautifull and pleasing to humane reason as hony to the taste c. What he saith I am sure is true namely That devised Worship is very beautifull and pleasing to humane reason sweet as hony this is fully proved by sad experience and the pure Worship of God is as basely contemned also it is as true that sincere Religion is defiled by such worship but whether this was the Reason why Hony was forbidden I go not about to prove CHAP. V. Of Kneeling at Sacrament FOR Kneeling at the Sacrament it being but of later date I thought Irenaeus p. 515. those men who glory so much in Antiquity would not have hept such a stirr about it knowing that the gesture of the Christians in the Primitive times on the Lords day was quite opposite for they stood and must not kneel on that day for not bowing of the knee on that day did signifie their Resurrection and thus Basil holds it forth as one of the necessary Traditions and saith it was given us in secret charge by the Apostles of Christ That it is not lawfull for any man to kneel in the Church upon the Sunday but every man is bound by the same Tradition at Sermon at Prayer Reply p. 282. and at the Communion to stand
through all degrees ad culmen Episcopatus but what must such eminent men descend be degraded when as Timothy also had a Prophesie concerning him 1 Tim. 1.18 believe this who will 2. Was there need of these men to be Evangelists in Pauls life time and not as much after Did the Seducers and Wolves cease or decline when Paul was gone Acts 20.29 Surely there was more need of being Evangelists now than before 3. After that time when you say they were made Bishops we find them sent up and down by Paul 4. If so Titus had an advantage or honour above Timothy to be made Bishop of an Iland of 270 miles long 50 miles in breadth a hundred Cities whence called Hecatompolis and not only so but Bishop of the Ilands adjacent and Timothy to be made Bishop of one City Ephesus and it may be some Villages about there But Dr. Hammond if he speak truth will be too hard for me he tels me Timothy was Metropolitan of Asia Then Timothy is equal but take Metropolitan in our sense else he saith nothing as we call such Bishops you may believe him who think him to be one who could not erre But 3. Suppose they had been constituted thus yet he hath not proved that they were invested with power to do such Acts which Presbyters might not do which he doth afterwards assert indeed how strongly he proves I will consider For the Angel in Rev. 2. what force is there in this to prove such a Bishop I know not though taken individually Are not all Ministers truly such sent then they are Angels I think Rom. 10.15 But this is Angel Object onely One When our King sent his Letters from Breda Answ to the Speaker of the House of Commons did it imply the Speaker had more power than other Members When Christ sends his Letters to this Angel doth it imply more power The Speaker is there for Order-sake and it is honour to him c. So if you be men sound in the Faith holy in your Conversations Learned and able fit for the place I can allow you an Angel of the Church in London in Ipswich in Exeter c. So in the Countrey you shall have the Honour and Maintenance to be our Speakers I have declared my Opinion and Reasons for this before this turn came if you will have more win it by Scripture and wear it Thus I have done with all his Arguments for the jus divinum only I might mind him that Bishop Jewel and Anselm do subscribe to that of Jerom Let Bishops understand that they are above Priests rather of custom than of any truth or right of Christs Institution And to that of Augustine The Office of a Bishop is above the Office of a Priest not by authority of the Scriptures but after the names of honour which the custom of the Church hath now obtained I hope it will still be said fifteen hundred years Bishops have been superiour by Divine right How did Jeroms and Augustins sentence escape the Index expurgatorius Then the Dr. comes to the Insignia Episcoporum propria Let us see if he prove these also by the Apostles His first is this That in large and populous Cities in which were many Presbyters made the Apostles ordained one only Bishop For the Bishop in the question Answ the Apostles were so far from ordaining unicum that they ordained ne unum not one Scripture or sound reason brought to prove it 2. That the Apostles did ordain but one Scripture-Bishop in a great City is an assertion point-blanck against the Scriptures which shew the contrary Let Jerom speak some say he was angry and I know not what but the Scriptures he produces were not Vide Chemnit exan Concil Trid. de Sacr. ord p. 224. Chemnitius gives us a better ground for his writing but thus Jerom Doth any one think it is our own opinion and not the sentence of the Scriptures that a Bishop a Presbyter are one Let him read Phil. 1.1 With the Bishops and Deacons Philippi is one City of Macedonia and certainly as Bishops are now called there cannot be more than one in one City but then there were non adversatur sacris eloquiis plures in una civitate appellari tunc temporis Presbyteros seu Episcopos ut Acts 10. Doth it still seem doubtful unlesse it be confirmed by another testimony then take Acts 20.17 He calls them Elders v. 28. calls them Bishops Observe diligently the Elders of one City he cals Bishops then adds Heb. 13.17 Thus he in Tit. 1. When in his Epist ad Evagr. he had been proving the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter from Phil. 1. Tim. 4. Tit. 1. Pet. 5. He saith to him Parva tibi videntur tantorum virorum Testimonia To us these testimonies are not small but more than if a thousand Bishops say the contrary What Jerom saith Cajetan Tit. 1.5 postea nuns electus we regard not being after the Apostles and yet then not superiour in power that crept in by degrees His Second is The Right and Power of Ordination which is denied to inferiour Presbyters 1. Tim. 5.22 Tit. 1.5 1. He hath not shewn us such a Bishop as he speaks of Answ as yet in all the Scripture how then can this be true 2. If denied to Presbyters then to Bishops also for they were both one in these Epistles to Timothy and Titus Vnde ad Titum ad Timotheum de ordinatione Episcopi Diaconi dicitur Hieron ad E vagr. de Presbyteris omnino reticetur quia in Episcopo Presbyter continetur Hieron ad Evagr. 3. Was not Timothy himself ordained by a Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 How then was it denied The laying on of Pauls hands did not deny the laying on their hands 4. According to this One Bishop alone may ordain which as it is 1. Contrary to the Instance before in Timothies Ordination So 2. Contrary to the Canon 3. Concil Carthag 4. Where no Bishop alone must impose but Presbyters with him 3. And contrary to the 35 Canon of our English Bishops Whence Dr. Featly in his Annotat. on 1 Tim. 4.14 saith Timothy though he were ordained by St. Paul 2 Tim. 1.6 yet this Ordination was performed in the Assembly of the Elders and with the laying on of their hands also agreeable whereunto is the Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage and the practise of the Church of England So he 4. Contrary to Cyprians practise Ep. 33. Also what means the Constitution of Vrban Ordinationes factae sine communi sensu clericorum irritae Take also the 22 Canon of the Council of Carthage before-named Vt Episcopus sine consilio clericorum suorum clericos non ordinet c. Now what is meant by consilium the 3 Canon shews All the Presbyters present were to impose hands with the Bishop Much it is that when we cannot find the Apostles did ordain alone Paul had the Apostle Barnabas with him
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