the defence of his Apoology part 2. cap 9. diviâ— 1. proveth against Harding that Aerius could not be counted an heretick for holding that Bishops and Presbyters are all one Iure divino and citing for it Hierom Austin Cyhrsostome closeth up for answer with these words All these and many more holy Fathers together with the Apostle St. Paul for thus saying must by Hardings advice be held for heretiques 9. Bishop Morton in his Cathol Apology part 1. cap. 33. affirmeth that divers other Divines besides Hierom were of the same opinion with Aerius That there was no difference by divine right between a Bishop a Presbyter For which he also citeth Medina Anselme Sedulius Erasmus and Alphonsus a Castro who saith that Hierome was of this opinion that a Bishop and a Presbyter are ejusdem ordinis et authoritatis of the same Order and the same Authority 10. Bishop Bilson whatsoever he saith to the contrary in his book called the perpetual government of Christs Church in his book against Seminaries lib. 1. pag. 318. affirmeth out of Hierome that the Church at first was governed by the common Councel of Prâ—byters and therefore Bishops must understand that they be greater then Ministers rather by custome then the Lords appointment and the Bishops came in after the Apostles times 11. Dr. Whitakers respon ad Campiani rationes ratio affirmeth That Iure divino a Presbyter and a Bishop are all one And whereas Durans affirmeth with many words that Bishops and Presbyters were Iure Divino divers he telleth him that if he will retain the estimation of a modest Divine he must not so confidently affirm that which all men see to be so evidently false For what is so well known saith he as this which you acknowledge not Hierom plainly writeth that Elders and Bishops are the same and confirmeth it by many places of Scripture 12. Dr. Holland the Kings Professor in Oxford at an Act Iuly 9. 1608. Concluded against Mr Lanes question An Episcopatus sit ordo distinctus a Presbyteratu â—oque superior jure divino and said That the Affirmative was most false against the Scriptures Fathers the Doctrine of the Church of England yea the very School-men themselves Lombard Thomas Bonaventure c. We might cite divers others as Arch-Bishop Whitguife against Carâ—hright and Dr. Fulk upon Titus the 1. ver 5. and Deane Nowell c. But we forbeare and the rather because we shall have occasion hereafter to touch upon the same Argument Now by all this it appears That by Scripture the judgment of the antient Church and our own Church of England a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one and that therefore they that are made Ministers by Presbyters are made Ministers by Bishops and are lawfully ordained because ordained in a way most agreeable to Scripture pattern CHAP. V. Answering Objections taken from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus BEfore we leave our Scripture-proofs it will be expected that we should answer to what is brought out of Scripture for for the Ius Divinum of Prelacy and also to what is brought in answer unto our Arguments out of Scripture against it For the first there are two chiefe and principall arguments the one from Timothy and Titus the other from the 7. Asian Angels As for Timothy and Titus It is said that they were constituted Bishops of Ephesus and Creeâ— by the Apostle Paul and did exercise Episcopall power in these places both in Ordination and Jurisdiction and this power was derived by them unto their successors as being necessary to continue in the Church as well as the power of preaching and administring the Sacraments To this we Answer That Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sense We deny not but that they did exercise Episcopal power both in Ordination and Jurisdiction and that this power is necessary to be continued in the Church But we say that they did this not as Bishops in a formall sense but as extraordinary Officers or Evangelists which were Officers in the Church distinct from Pastors and Teachers To make this out we will briefly do two things 1. We will prove that Timothy and Titus were not Prelaticall Bishops 2. That they were Evangelists 1. That they were not Prelaticall Bishops This we make out 1. Because the Scripture no where cals them Bishopâ— But in the Postscripts they are called Bishops These Postscripts are no part of Canonicall Scripture The Papists themselves Baronius Serarius and the Rhemists confesse that there is much falsity in them Smectimnuâ—s hath everlastingly blasted the Authority of them The first Epistle is said to be writ from Laodicea whereas Bâ—za in his Annotations proves apparently that it was written from Macedonia to which opinion Baronius and Serarius and Athanasius and Theodoret in his Epistle before his Commentary upon Timothy subscribe It is also called the first Epistle But how was Paul sure that he should live to write a second And it is also said to be written from Laodicea which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Paâ—atiana But as Bâ—za well observes there is no mention of Phrygia Pacatiana in the writers of those ages sed apud recentiores illos qui Romani â—mperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt The second Epistle iâ— thus subscribed The second Epistle unto Timothy ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians was written from Rome when Paul was brought c. Now these words Ordained the first Bishop are wanting saith Bâ—za in quibusdam vâ—tâ—stis codicibus in veteri vulgatâ editione apud Syrum interpretem The Syriack Interpreter reads it Here ends the Second Epistle to Timothy written from Rome If St. Paul had written this Postscript he would not have said to Timothy the first Bishop c. whereas it was not yet certain whether ever there should be a second Neither would it be said when Paul was brought c. But when I was the second time brought before Nero. The Epistle to Titus is said to be written from Nicopolis whereas it is cleare that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he wrote it Titus 3.12 Be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis for I have determined there to winter he doth not say here to winter but there where note for the present he was not there and besides it is said that Titus was ordained the first Bishop c. And who was the second or was there ever a second But we forbear transcribing any more c. This is abundantly sufficient to invalidate the authority of the Postscript written ab hominibus vâ—l indoctis vel certe non sâ—tis attentis as Beza saith But some of the Fathers call them Bishops They that call them Bishops borrow their testimonies from Eusebius of whom Scaliger saith and Dr. Râ—ynâ—lds approves of it That he read ancient Histories paruâ— attente which they prove by many instances And all that Eusebius saith is only Sic scribitur It is so
Reverend Fathers the Chorepiscopi had an intrinsecal power to Ordain derived to them from Christ. For a licence doth not confer a power to him that hath it not but onely a faculty to exercise that power he hath And this is the Conclusion that D. Forbes drawes from this practise of these Councels Surely saith he The Church would not have granted this power to the Chorepiscopi Nisi judicasset validam esse eam Ordinationem qua per solos pâ—ragitur Presbyteros It cannot be denied but that Pope Damasus made a Constitution for the abolishing of this Office of the Chorepiscopi But it seems this constitution was not put in execution in all Churches for above 200. years after Isidore Hispalensis who lived Anno. 630. in libro de Officiis Ecclesiasticis cap. 6. speaks of these Chorepiscopi as yet continuing in the Church and saith Chorepiscopi id est Vicarii Episcoporum juxta quod Canones ipsi testantur instituti sunt ad exempla 70. Seniorum tanquam Sacerdotes propter solicitudinem pauperum Hi in vicis vitis constituti gubernant sibi commissas Ecclesias habentes licentiam constituere Lectores Subdiaconos exorcistas Presbyteros autem Diaconos Ordinare non audeant praeter conscientiam Episcopi in cujus regione praeesse noscuntur Hi autem à solo Episcopo civitatis cui adjacent ordinantur Observe here That Isidore translates those words of the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as Gentianus Hervetus Absque urbis Episcopo but Praeter conscientiam Episcopi Quae versio optime explicat mentem Concilii saith Forbesius estque ipso rei usu exequutione firmata ut nimirum possent Chorepiscopi etiam Presbyteros Diaconos ordinare permittente licet non simul ordinante Episcopo loci But how will it be proved may some say That these Chorepiscopi were onely Presbyters and not Bishops For if this can be clearly made out it will undeniably follow That according to the judgment of Antiquity Presbyters had not onely the inward power but also the outward exercise of Ordination for a long space Now that these Chorepiscopi were meer Presbyters appeares 1. Because they were to be ordained but by one Bishop à solo Episcopo civitatis cui adjacent saith the Councel of Antiochia But by the Canons of the Church A Bishop properly so called was to be ordained by three Bishops 2. Because they were to be subject to the Bishop of the City So saith the Canon Ab Episcopo Civitatis cui subjicitur fiat Chorepiscopus Now we read no where of the subjection of one Bishop and his charge to another Cyprian pleads the freedome of Bishops telling us that each of them hath a portion of Christs flock assigned to him for which he is to give account to God 3. Because they could not nay they must not dare to exercise the power of Ordination without the leave of the Bishop Conâ—il Ancyr saith Non licere nisi cum literis ab Episcopo pâ—rmissum fuerit Concil Antioâ—h saith Non audeat praeter conscientiam Episcopi None of this would have been said if they had been Bishops in a Prelatical sence 4 Because they were Bishops in villis regionibus and therefore as some think called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But according to the Canons of the Church Bishops in â— proper sence were not to be made unlesse in great Cities nâ— vilâ—scaâ— nomen Episcopi as Damasus argues when he pleads for the abolition of the Chorepiscopi 5. Because thiâ— power was afterwards taken away from the Chorepiscopi by the same authority of the Canons and Ecclesiastical constitutions by which it was first appropriated to Bishops themselves as Leo epist. 88. witnesseth which to us is a firm argument to prove not only that they once had it but that they had it as Presbyters For if they had it as Bishops the taking of it away would have been a degradation of them 6. We might bring an argument ad hominâ—m because they are said Concil Nâ—ocaesar Can. 14. to have been appointed in the Church after the manner or in imitation of the Seventy Now according to the opinion of the Hierarchical men Bishops succeed the Apostles not the Seventy 7. We might also here urge the authority of Leo epist. 88. who saith That the Chorepiscopi juxta Canones Neocaesarienses sive secundum aliorum Patrum decreta iidâ—m sunt qui Presbyteri and of Isidore Hispalensis before mentioned and of Damasus epist. 5. To whose sentence Concil Hispal Can. 7. doth subscribe and also of Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. cap. 39. who saith Neither should it seem strange to our adversaries that the power of Ordination should at some times be yeelded unto Presbyters seeing their Chorepiscopi Suffragans or Titular Bishops that live in the Diocesse and Churches of other Bishops and are no Bishops according to the old course of Discipline do daily in the Romish Church confirm children and give Orders And again Seeing that Chorepiscopi or Suffragans as they call them being not Bishops but onely Presbyters do daily with good allowance Ordain Presbyters and all other Episcopall acts But we forbear multiplying of argumentâ— These are sufficient to prove That they were but single Presbyters And that therefore single Presbyters did Ordain even during the prevalency of Episcopacy To avoid the strength of this argument Bellarmine invents novum quoddam antea inauditum Chorepiscoporum genus He saith That there were some of them that were meer Presbyters and others that were veri nominis Episcopi And that the Councel of Antiochia speaks of the last in the beginning and of the first sort in the latter end But certain it is that the Canon speaks of Chorepiscopi in generall without any distinction throughout the whole And the scope of Damasus his letter is to prove that all the Chorepiscopi whatsoever their Ordination was were nothing else but Presbyters We shall not undertake to answer Bellarmine at large because it is done to our hands by that learned man so often mentioned who though a lover of Episcopacy yet surely he was a very Moderate and meek spirited man and hath fully answered all that is brought by Bellarmine against what we have asserted The Reader may view him if he please for his further satisfaction There is another whom we forbear to name that saith That the Chorepiscopi of whom the Canon speaks were Bishops But he addeâ— Though they were Bishops yet they were Bishops made but by one Bishop and Bishops meerly Tituâ—an and sine Cathedrâ which is all one as if he should say They were not properly Bishops For according to the Canons then in force A Bishop properly so called was to be made by 3. Bishops â—nd if he were Ordained sine titulo his Ordination was null and void We will conclude this discourse of the Chorepiscopi with a passâ—ge out of Gabriâ—l Vasquez Postquam proposuisset istud Bâ—llarmini somnium â—aec
not as a Bishop These things premised we now come to Answer to the Objection and to every branch of it The Ministers we plead for were made by Bishops distinct from Presbyters who had no power nor authority to Ordain them The Bishop though distinct from his Presbyters yet he did not Ordain them alone but together with the laying on of the hands of other Presbyters he being as the first and chief Presbyter or is Prâ—ses Presbyâ—â—rii The President of the Presbytery The Bishop that ordained them was also himself a Presbyter and had power as a Presbyter to Ordain and therefore by vertue of his Presbyterial capacity his Ordination must needs be valid and lawful Even as when a Bishop conseâ—rateth the Bread and Wine at the Lords Supper he doth it not as a Bishop though he be one but as a Presbyter so also when the Ordaineth a Minister which is an act of a farâ— inferiour nature he doth it by vertue of a power belonging to him as a Presbyter not as a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter much lesse as a Lord-Bishop This is that which is said in the Ordinance of Parliament for Ordination Whereas the word Presbyter that is to say Elder and the word Bishop do in the holy Scripture intend and signifie one and the same function although the Title of Bishop hath been by corrupt custome appropriated to one and that unto him aâ—cribed and by him assumed as in other things so in that matter of Ordination that was not meet which Ordination notwithstanding being performed by him a Presbyter joyned with other Presbyters we hold for substance to be valid and not to be disclaimed by any that have received it And that Presbyters so Ordained being lawfully thereunto appointed and authorized may ordain other Presbyters In the office and calling of Bishops two things arâ— to be considered saith Mr. Ball. 1. The substance of their office and Ministry whereunto they are separated to wit to Preach the Gospel dispense the Sacraments and Administer the Discipline of Jesus Christ. And this is of God 2. The superiority they take or challenge over their Brethren whether in Ordination or Jurisdiction and this is of man But they make not a difference or nullity in the substance of their Ministry All Ministers of the Gospel are stewards of Jesus Chrisâ— seâ— apart to do his work wherein if any one shall challenge more thâ—â— of right appertaineth to him or do ought out of pride partiality sinister affection tyranny or sedition or receive such authority to himself alone as belongeth not to his place and office or is common to many in that he is blame worthy but thereupon his Ministry or Ministerial acts done by him are not made void or of none effect But the Bishop that Ordained these Ministers you plead for Ordained them as a Bishop by vertue of his Episcopal consecration and not as a Presbyter by vertue of his Presbyterial Order This is not true of all Bishops For as Mr. Firmin tells us he heard a Reverend Minister of a Congregational Church in Essex say That when the Bishop Ordained him he told him I do Ordain you as I am a Presbyter 2. Suppose he did this waâ— his personal errour but did not â—word his power of Ordination as a Presbyter Suppose a man made a Constable by lawful authority should afterwards unwarrantably assume the power of a Justice of the Peace and should do things which belong to his place as a Constable under the Title of a Justice of Peace should not this act of his be valid though he pretends to do it upon a wrong title Mr. Burroughs in his Heart-divisions hath this observable passage If a man doth a thing that he may do by vertue of 2 relations or either of them it may be he thinks he stands in one of these relations which indeed he doth not yet he doth the action by vertue of it in his own thoughts in this he sins but there is another relation wherein he stands that is enough to warrant the action that he doth to be lawful Now though he doth not intend the acting by this relation the action may be sin to him but not at all sin to those that joyn with him in it If he will go upon a false ground when he may go upon a true let him look to it I will joyn with him in that action as warranted for him to do by vertue of his second relation which it may be he will not own himself He gives this instance Giving alms is a work that a man may do either by vertue of Church-office as a Deacon or as a Christian whom God hath blessed in his estate or betrusted with the distribution of what others betrust him with Now suppose a man is in the place of a Deacon he thinks himself to be in that office by a right call into it and he gives out the alms of his Church by vertue of his call but I am perswaded his call to that office is not right he is not a true Deacon yet if I be in want I knowing that bothhe and those who have given him monies to dispose may and ought to distribute to those that are in need by vertue of another relation as men as Christians enabled by God surely then I may receive alms from him lawfully though his principle by which he gives them me is sin to him I may communicate with him in this thing though he acts by vertue of that offece that he had no true call unto c. Much more may the like be said of receiving Ordination from a Bishop who hath power to confer it as a Presbyter though he gave it by vertue of his Episcopal consecration But the Ministers whose Ordinations you defend were made by Bishops who held themselves to be a superior order of Ministry above Presbyters by divine Institution Whether they did so or no we know not but sure we are that the Bishops of King Edwaâ—d and Queen Elizabeths dayes were not of this opinion as we have shewed That the lawes of the Realm do not countenance it that the learnedest of the Papists are against it and if any of the Bishops of late years were of this opinion it was their personall error and not at all essentiall to the Episcopall Office The Ministers we speak against were made not onely by Bishops but Lord Bishops But not as Lord-Bishops The Lordly dignities of Bishops were meere civil additaments annexed to their Bishopricks by Kingly favour not essential ingredients into their Office And therefore when they were taken from them they continued not onely Presbyters but Bishops The Bishops from whom these Ministers received their Ordination were wicked and ungodly and therefore their Ordination must needs be wicked and ungoldly This is not true of all of them Some of them were godly and some of them have shed their bloods for the Gospel
the people began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I of Câ—phas The Churches were governed by the common Councel of the Presters But after that each man begun to account those whom he had baptized his own and not Christs it was decreed through the whole world that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest to whom the care of al the Church should belong that the seeds of schisme might be taken away Thinkes any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him read the words of the Apostle to the Philippians saying Paul and Timothy the servants of Iesus Christ to them that are at Philippi with the Bishops and Dâ—acâ—ns Philippi is one City of Macidonia and certainly in one City there could not be many Bishops as they are now called But because at that time they called the same men Bishops whom they called Presbyters Therefore he speaks indifferently of Bishops as of Presbyters If thiâ— yet seems doubtful to any unlesse it be proved by another testimony let him consider That in the Acts of the Apostles it is written That when Paul came to Miletuâ— he sent to Ephâ—sus and called the Elders of that Church and amongst other things saith unto them Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood And here let yet be diligently observed That calling the Presbyters of one City of Ephesus he afterwards called the same persons Bishops If any will receive that Epistle which under the name of Paul is written to the Hebrewes There are care of the Church is divided amongst many For thus he writeth to the people Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls as they that must give an account that they may do it with joy and not with grief for that is unprofitable for you And Peter if called from the firmnesse of his faith saith in his Epistle The Elders which are among you I exhort also who am an Elder and a witnesse of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the Glory that shall be revealed Feed the flock of God which is among you c. not by constraint but willingly These things I have written to shew that amongst the ancients Bishops and Presbyters were one the same and that by little little that all the seeds of dissention might be pluckt up all the care of the Church was delegated to one And therefore as the Elders may know that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the custom of theChurch so let the Bishops know That it is more from custom then from any true dispensation from the Lord that they are above the Presbyters and that they ought to rule the Church in common imitating Moses who though he had it in his own power to govern the people of Israel yet notwithstanding chose 70. with whom he would judge the People We have thought fit to transcribe this quotation at large because it gives the same interpretation of Scriptures which we do and makes it the result of all his discourse That Bishops over Presbyters are from the Custom of the Church onely and not from any divine original We might here likewise set down the Epistle that St. Hierome writes to Evagrius wherein he brings not only the Scripture forementioned but most of the other places which we have brought and gives the same explication of them but because it is very long we think fit to omit it and desire the diligent Reader for his own further satisfaction to peruse it The next that we shall cite is St. Austin who in his 19 th Epistle writing unto St. Hierome saith That though according to words of honour which the custome of the Church hath brought in Episcopacy be greater then Presbytery yet in many things Austin is Inferior to Hierome And in Quaest. veteris et Novi Testamenti Quaest. 101. what is a Bishop but the first Priest that is to say the highest Priest In the third place we shall add Dr. Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knowls who shewes out of Chrysostome Hierome Ambrose Augustinâ— Theodoret Pri masius Sedulius Theophylact That Bishops and Presbyters are all one in Scripture and that Aerius co uld no more be justly condemned for heresie for holding Bishops and Presbyters to be all one then all those fathers with whom agree saith he Oecumenius and Ansolme Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and another Anselme and Gregory and Gratian and affirmes that it was once enro lled in the Canon law for sound and Catholique Doctrine and thereupon taught by learned men he adds further That it is unlikely that Anselmâ— should have been Canonized for a Saint by the Pope of Rome and the other Anselme and Gregory so esteemed in the Popes Library that Gratians works should be allowed so long time by so many Popes for the golden fountain of the Canon law if they had taught that for sound doctrine which by the whole Church in her most flourishing condition was condemned for heresy and concludes th at they who have laboured about the reformation of the Church these five hundred yeares of whom he names abundance have taught that all Pastors be they intitulated Bishops or Priests have equal authority and power by the word of God In the fourth place we might urge the saying of Michael Medina lib. 1. de sacris origin who affirmes that not onely St. Hierome but also that Ambrose Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrisostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were of the same judgement with Aerius and held that there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter by Scripture The Next we shall instance in is Cassander in his Book of consâ—ltation article 14 who saith whether Episcopacy be to be accounted an order Ecclesiastical distinct from Presbytery is a question much debated between the Theologues and the Canonists But in this one particular all sides agree That in the Apostles dayes there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter but afterwards for the avoiding of Schisme the Bishop was placed before the Presbyter to whom the power of ordination was granted that so peace might be continued in the Church Add further That in the Oecumenical Councels of Constance and Basil after long debate it was concluded That Presbyters should have dicisive suffrages in Councells as well as Bishops because that by the law of God Bishops were no more then they and it is expressely given them Act 17.23 7. Erasmus upon 1. Tim. 4.4 saith that in ancient time there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter but afterwards for the avoiding of Schisme a Bishop was chosen by many and so many Pres byters so many Bishops 8. Bishop Iewel in
summo Sacerdoti Clericorum ordinatio consecratio reservata est ne à multis Ecclesiae disciplina vendicata concordiam solveret scandala generaret and afterwards he proves by Scripture texts that Bishops and Presbyters are one and the same So also Concilium Aquisgran 1. Canon 8. Solum propter authoritatem Clericorum Ordinatio Consâ—cratio reservata est summo Sacerdoti Dr. Forbes professor at Aberdeen though a great friend and pleader for Episcopacy yet he saith Habent Presbyteri de jure Divino Ordinandi sicut praedicandi baptizandi potestatem quamvis haec omnia exequi debeant sub regimine inspectione Episcopi in locis ubi est Episcopus And Mr. Mason a known Writer in defence of Episcopacy saith also That a Presbyter as he is a Presbyter is indued with intrinsecal power and ability to Ordain and was restrained from the exercise of it onely by the Church for Disciplines sake and that when the Power of Ordination was reserved to the Bishop the power of the Presbyter was not at that time utterly extinguished but onely restrained as the faculty of the flying of a bird when hiâ— wings are tyed What authority the Church had to tye these wings or whether the Church did well in tying them when the Scripture had left them untyed is not now under debate All that we produce this Authour for is to prove That the wingâ— of Presbytery were not cut off though they were tyed up and that according to the judgment of Episcopal Writers themselves Presbyters have an intrinsecal power of giving Orders The same Authour proves this his Assertion thus Because that a Bishop is intrinsecally inabled to give Orders not by his power of Jurisdiction but by his power of Order And because a Presbyter hath as much of the Sacrament and character of Order according to the Papists themselves as a Bishop and therefore every Presbyter hath an intrinsecal power of giving Orders Now that Episcopacy and Presbytery are one and the same Order of Ministry and that that which is added in Episcopal consecration whereby a Bishop is distinguished from a Presbyter is only a degree of dignity and eminency and is neither the Sacrament of Order nor imprinteth a Character he proveth by a world of witnesses even from Popish Writers From Lombard Aquinas Durandus Dominicus Soto Richardus Aureolus and divers otherâ— Tostatus saith It is in the consecration of Bishops as of the Pope in which there is not imprinted a Character seeing they are not Orders but dignities or degrees of Ecclesiastical preeminence Gerson saith Above Priesthood there is no superiour Order no not the function of a Bishop or Archbishop Armachanus saith A Bishop in such things hath no more in respect of his Order then every single Priest Although the Church hath appointed that such things should be executed by those men whom we call Bishops Aureolus hath a notable passage Every foâ—m in as much as it is in act hath power to communicate it self in the same kind therefore every Priest hath power to celebrate Orders Why then do they not celebrate them Because their power is hindred by the decree of the Church Whereupon when a Bishop is made there is not given unto him any new power but the former power being hindred is set at liberty as a man when the act of reason is hindered and the impediment is removed there is not given unto him a new Soul From all these things it appears that Presbyters have an intrinsecal power to Ordain Presbyters Proposition 4. THat even during the prevalency of Episcopacy it was not held unlawful for a Presbyter to Ordain without a Bishop A Presbyter had not onely an inherent power of Ordination but in some cases he did actually Ordain S. Ambrose upon Eph. 4. saith Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus Austine or whosoever was the author in quaestionibus ex utroque Testamento mixtim quast 101. In Alexandriâ per totam Aegyptum fi desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter Which words cannot be understood as a learned defender of Prelacy would have them of the consecration of the Eucharist For this might be done by the Presbyter praesente Episcopo But it must be understood either of confirmation or which is more likely of Ordination because Ambrose in that place is speaking of Ordination But howsoever it is not much material For Confirmation was restrained to the Bishop as well as Ordination and if the Presbyter might confirm si desit Episcopus then he might also Ordain Hierome saith of the Alexandrian Bishops Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant c. That the Presbyters for many years did Ordain their Bishops And certainly if it were not held unlawfull in Antiquity for Presbyters to ordain Bishops much lesse could it be held unlawful for Presbyters to Ordain Presbyters Dr. Forbes saith That in all those Churches which are governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters without Bishops Valida efficax est Ordinatio quae fit per impositionem manuum solius Presbyterii Quin ubi est Episcopus possunt Presbyteri Ordinare consentiente licet non simul manus imponente Episcopo Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. cap. 39. tells us That Presbyters in some places and at some times did impose hands which when Gregory Bishop of Rome would wholly have forbidden there was so great exception taken at him for it that he left it free again And afterwards Not onely Armachanus a very learned and worthy Bishop but as it appeareth by Alexander of Hales many learned men in his time and before were of opinion that in some cases and at some times Presbyters may give Orders and that their Ordinations are of force c. And that Ordination by Presbyters was held lawfull and warrantable by the ancient Church appears further by these ensuing Arguments 1. Because the Chorepiscopi who were but single Presbyters had liberty by the Church to Ordain if they had a licence from the Bishop That they had liberty appears from the 13. Canon of the Councel at Aâ—â—yra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chorepiscopis non licere Presbyteros vel Diaconos ordinare sed neque urbis Presbyteris nisi cum literis ab Episcopo permissum fuerit in alienâ parochiâ This Councel was held before the Councel of Nice in the year 314. And in the Councel of Antiochia which was Anno 341. Can. 10. It is decreed That the Chorepiscopi should not dare to Ordain Presbyters or Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From these two Canons we may collect these two observations 1. That before these Councels the Chorepiscopi did Ordain Presbyters without any licence at all from the Bishop of the City Otherwise to what purpose are they inhibited 2. That after these Councels they might Ordain by vertue of a licence which sheweth evidently that in the judgment of these
had no sooner done but the Wolves presently devoured the Sheep Even so when once not only the Persons of Ministers are disgraced and their Maintenance taken away but when the very Calling and Office of the Ministry is denied and libertie given to every man that will to preach then will the Wolves devour the Sheep of Christ then will Errors Heresies Blasphemie Atheism and Poperie come in like a mighty floud then will ruine and desolation come like an armed man upon that Nation where this is practized without remedie And thâ—refore to testifie our Love unto the Truth that the Sun of Righteousness may not go down in our daies that the Truth of the Gospel may live when we are dead and the Word of Christ may run and be glorified And to prevent the growth of Atheism which every where abounds and threatneth the overthrow and ruine of the way that God hath called holy and to reduce poor misled souls which ignorantly conceive they sinne not in traducing the Ministers of the Gospel as if they were men onely seeking their own things and not t he things of the Lord Iesus and contemning the Ministry as if it were not Gods Institution but an humane in vention introduced to uphold some carnal interest We the Members of the Provincial Assembly convened by Authority of Parliament conceive it our Duty to clear unto our respective Congregations the Ministry and Ministers such as serve the Lord in uprightness from these unkinde and ungrounded aspersions Beseeching the Lord the Father of Spirits to convince and settle the Iudgments of them that through misguidance may doubt and to give Repentance unto such as carnally oppose themselves that they may come to the acknowledgement of the Truth and so recover themselves out of the snare of Satan wherein they suffer themselves to be taken captive at his pleasure The Summe of all we shall say about the Gospel-Ministry we shall comprehend in this following Scheme The Divine Right of the Gospel-Ministry containing 1. The Justification of the Ministry wherein are handled these particulars 1. That the Office of the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments is necessary in the Church of God by Divine Institution 2. That this Office is perpetually necessary in the Church of God 3. That no man ought to take upon him the Office or do the work of the Ministry except he be lawfully called and ordained thereunto 4. The several waies of calling men to the Ministry where is spoken of 1. An immediate call and therein laid down 1. The characters of an immediate call 2. A resolution whether we are now to expect an immediate call 3. Whether the call of the first Reformers of Religion from Popery was an immediate call 2. A mediate call consisting in Election concerning which are handled two things 1. That the Election of a Minister doth not by Divine Right belong wholly and solely to the major part of every Congregation 2. That the whole Essence of the Ministerial call doth not consist in Election without Ordination Ordination concering which are made good these four Assertions 1. That Ordination of Ministers is an Ordinance of Christ. 2. That the Essence of the Ministerial call consisteth in Ordination 3. That Ordination ought to be with praier fasting and Imposition of hands 4. That Ordination ought to be by the Presbytery 2. The Justification c. B B. 2. The Justification of our Ministry which is comprised under two Propositions 1. That the Call to the Office of the Ministry which some of our present Ministers did receive during the prevalency of Episcopacy was lawful valid which is proved 1. By Arguments drawn from the principles of our Adversaries wherein by the way is proved 1. That the Chuâ—ches of England are true Churches 2. And the two great Objections against them taken from their Parochiall and Nationall constitution are sufficiently answered 2. By Arguments taken from our own Principles and the nature of the thing And here our Ministry is largely vindicated from the foul aspersion of Antichristianism which is cast upon it because conveyed unto us as is said by Popish and Antichristian Bishops 2. That the Call to the Office of the Ministry which our present Ministers do receive since the abolition of Episcopacy is lawfull and valid in which is shewed 1. That a Bishop and Presbyter are all one in Scripture 2. That the instances of Timothy and Titus and the Asian Angels do not prove the contrary And because Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops is highly accused of Novelty as having not the least shadow of Antiquity and thereby many Candidates of the Ministry are discouraged from this way of entring into the Ministry and Ordination so received is accounted null We have therefore added an Appendix wherein is briefly held forth the Judgement and Practise of Antiquity both in reference to Ordination and the whole matter of Episcopacy Ius Divinum Ministerij Evangelici OR THE DIVINE RIGHT OF THE Gospel-Ministry The First Part. CONTAINING A Justification of The Gospel-Ministry in generall The necessity of Ordination thereunto by Imposition of Hands The Unlawfulnesse of private mens assuming to themselves either the Office or Work of the Ministry without a lawful Call and Ordination LONDON Printed by Abraham Miller 1654. Ius Divinum Ministerij Evangelici OR THE DIVINE RIGHT OF THE Gospel-Ministry CHAPTER I. Containing the first Proposition PROP. I. That the Office of the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments is necessary in the Church by Divine Institution FOr the understanding of this Proposition we shall briefly shew 1. What is meant by Ministry 2. What by Office 1. What is meant by Ministry The word Ministry is a term of large comprehension Sometimes it is taken for a Civil Service in the Common-wealth Sometimes for a spirituall worship of Jesus Christ Sometimes for the Office of a Deacon But in this Proposition it is taken for an Ecclesiasticall Function appointed by Christ in his Church for the Preaching of the Word and Administration of the Sacraments This is called a Ministry in opposition to Lordly Domination and Principality For Ministers are not appointed to be Lords over Gods Heritage but to be examples to the flock The Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them and they that are great exercise authority upon them But it shall not be so among you but whosoever will be great among you let him be your Minister and whosoever will be chief among you let him be your Servant The Office of the Ministry is not a Dominion but a Service and a labourious Service and therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word taken from those that labour at the oar and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word taken from those that do in pulvere desudare But yet it is a most glorious and honourable Service because a Service to God his Church and the Souls of People and therefore called The Ministry of Christ The Stewardship of the Mysteries
man what may we say of those that intrude upon the work of the Ministry if they miscarry they destroy souls and this is indeed to destroy the man Si navem poscat sibi peronatus arator non meritò exclamet frontem melicerta perisse de rebus In brief shall an exact scrutiny passe upon such as are to feed the bodies of poor men and not upon such as feed the souls Act. 20.28 The work of the Ministry the preaching of the Word is a work of the highest consequence and importance that ever God committed to the sons of men The reconciling of men to God 2 Cor. 5.19 Even an heavenly Embassy of infinite and eternall consequence Now if God allow not these works which are of an inferiour nature to be done by men untried and unappointed to the Office how shall he approve of such as adventure upon this work of preaching the Word which is negotium negotiorum the work of works without any trial or commission If none may administer the Sacrament but he that is lawfully called and ordained thereunto then neither may any preach but he that is lawfully called and ordained But none may administer the Sacraments but he that is lawfully called and ordained thereunto Therefore The minor is easily granted and proved from the nature of the Sacraments They are Seals of the righteousnesse by faith If it be an intolerable usurpation amongst men for a private man to take the broad seal of the Kingdom and put it to what instruments he pleaseth much more intolerable is it for a private man to usurp the dispensation of the broad Seal of the Kingdom of heaven As in all States there are Keepers of the Seals appointed whose office it is to dispose them according to Law Even so it is in the Church of God Jesus Christ hath appointed Keepers of his Seals those whom he cals Stewards of the mysteries of God to whom he hath committed the word of Reconciliation and to whom he hath given power to baptize and to administer the Lords Supper The connexion is clear because that these two works are joyntly in the same Commission Mat. 28.19 20. and of the two the preaching of the Word is the greater work This the Apostle intimates 1 Cor. 1.17 Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel The negative particle is here as in many other places taken for the comparative he was sent rather to preach then to baptize and by this manner of expression it appears that to preach was his more proper and especiall work This account all the rest of the Apostles had of it therefore they did put off ministring to Tables that they might give themselves to the Word and Praier In the consideration of the greatnesse of this work the Prophet Isaiah being sent about it cries out Wo is me I am undone the Prophet Ieremiah Ah Lord God behold I cannot speak for I am a childe and Paul also Who is sufficient for these things Of this account it hath been alwaies had in the Church of God ancient and modern till these unhappy times of licentiousnesse And therefore we humbly entreat all those that do conscienciously and as we beleeve justly scruple to have their Children baptized by or receive the Lords Supper from the hands of any un-ordained person that they would seriously consider upon what warrant they hear un-ordained men preach Seeing there is the same Commission for preaching and for baptizing and that preaching is the great if not the greatest work of a Minister To usurp authority over the Church is a sin But to preacâ— without calling and Ordination to the work is to usurp authority over the Church Therefore The first Proposition is clear by its own light the other is easily proved by asserting Preaching to be an act of authority which is evident both in that the Apostle 1 Thes. 5.12 gives this charge Know them that are over you in the Lord and admonish you where to admonish is to be over Heb. 7. without controversie the lesser is blessed of the greater and this is further eviâ—enced in that the Apostle suffers not women to preach because they may not usurp authority over the man 1 Tim. 2. but is commanded to be in subjection upon which place Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very act of teaching is to usurp authority over the man Besides them the publike work of the Ministry of the Word is an authoritative administration like unto that of Criers Heralds and Embassadors to be performed in the name of the Lord Jesus and therefore may not be performed by any but such as are authorized and immediatly or mediatly deputed by him 2 Cor. 5.19 20. appears because in preaching the key of the Kingdom of Heaven is used to take men in or shut men out and this key is in the hand of ordinary Teachers as well as extraordinary yea the power of binding and loosing is exercised For though to preach be no act of jurisdiction strictly so called yet it is an act not only of order but of power not such as is common to every member of the Church but peculiar to such as are in publike Office Now to perform any authoritative act without authority what is it other then to usurp authority Gifts conferre the faculty of administration but not the power The Question which the Pharisees put to our Saviour being propounded to these men By what authority dost thou these things and who gave thee this authority Could they answer as Christ Ioh. 7.28 I am not come of my self That which the Scripture reproves may no man practice but the Scripture reproves uncalled men for preaching Therfore The major will not be denied The minor appears in that the false Prophets are reproved Ier. 23.21 32. not only for their false doctrine telling their own dreams and stealing the Word of God from his people but also for running when they were not sent I am against them saith the Lord a fearfull commination If God be against them who shall be with them if they finde not acceptance with God all that approbatiâ—n and applause which they finde from men what will it profit He is not approved whom man approves but he whom God approves The false Prophets themselves accuse Ieremiah Jer. 29.27 for making himself a Prophet which though it was a most unjust and false imputation yet it holds forth this truth That no man ought to make himself a Prophet the false Prophets themselves being witnesses It is very observable that Shemaiah the Nehelamite a false Prophet and a dreamer writes to Zephaniah the sonne of Maasiah the Priest and to all the Priests and accuseth Ieremiah for a mad man in making himself a Prophet and tells them that upon this account they ought to put him in prison and in the stocks It seems by this that it was no little sin and deserves no little punishment even in the judgement of false Prophets
are called A Church 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 3.21 1 Cor. 10.32 And if all the Churches in the World are called one Church let no man be offended if all the Congregations in England be called the Church of England But how doth it appear that it is the will of Christ that the Churches of one Nation should be governed by lesser and greater Assemblies and so become a Nationall Church For this we desire the Reader seriously and impartially to peruse the Vindication of the Presbyterial Government wherein this very thing is largely proved both by the light of Nature and by the Scripture See Vindicat. p. 20. 26. And thus we have endevoured by two Arguments to convince those that oppose our Ministry from their own principles and to give them to understand that according to their own Tenents they are bound in conscience to acknowledge many of our Ministers at least to be true Ministers although it should be granted them that our Ordination is unwarrantable and Antichristian For most of these men are amongst the number of them that vilify and disregard Ordination The best of them make it but a meer circumstance or adjunct to the call of the Ministry And who knowes not but circumstances may be wanting or corrupted and yet the substance remain intire If we be true Churches then according to their own positions we are true Ministers If rightly Elected then we have that which they say is essential to the Ministerial call Suppose Ordination by Bishops should be an humane addition not agreeable to the Rule yet notwithstanding humâ—nâ— additioâ—â— do not nullify divine institution Mr. Burroughs in his Heart-divisions hath this saying I confesse for my part I never yet doubted of the lawfulnesse of the call of many of the Ministers of the Parishional Congregations in England though they had something superadded which was sinfull yet it did not nullify that call they had by the Church that communion of Saints amongst whom they exercised their Ministery If a man be Baptized in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost though there should be many Ceremonial additions of Sâ—le Spiâ—â—l◠〈◊〉 the sign of the Crosse c. Yet these additions would not nullify the Ordinance of Baptismâ— Now more can the superaddition of Ordination unto our election though it be supposed by them to be sinful nullify our Ministry which in their judgements is for the 〈◊〉 of it conferâ—ed by Election CHAP. II. Wherein the same Proposition is proved by Arguments taken from our own Principles BUt omitting this way of Argumentation we shall now God assisting undertake to prove according to our own Principles who hold That Ordination is that which gives the Essâ—rice to the Ministerial call That the call to the Office of the Ministry which some of our Ministers did receive during the prevalency of Episcopacy was lawful and valid for the substance of it though mingled with many circumstantial defects This appears by these ensuing Arguments They that for the substance of their call were called to the Ministry according to the mind of Christ are lawful Ministers of Christ. But the Ministers that were Ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy were for the substance of their call called according to the mind of Christ Ergo. Here we desire the Reader to take notice that in this Argument we shall not at all speak of the peoples election of their Minister Not because we are enemies to popular Election rightly managed and ordered or because we think that the Ministerial call doth not consist in Election as well as Ordination for we have formerly declared the contrary But because the great stumbling stone and Rock of offence against the present Ministry is in reference to to their Ordination therefore it is that we insist upon that onely The Minor is proved by surveying the Book of Ordination established by Act of Parliament according to which Ministers were to be Ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy Out of which we thus Argue They who were sufficiently gifted and qualified for the Ministry and were inwardly called by God and outwardly called by prayer and fasting with the imposition of the hands of Preaching Presbyters were called to the Office of the Ministry for the substance of it according to the mind of Christ. But such were they who were Ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy Ergo. That they were such that is ought to have been such according the Rule established and that many were such de facto and if any were not such it was viâ—ium personae ordinantis not vitium regulae the fault of the person ordaining not of the Rule for Ordination appears by viewing the Book it self in which we shall find 1. That the party to be Ordained is to be one that is apt to teach willing to take pains in the Ministry found in the faith of honest life and conversation And sure we are many were such and if any were not it was a personal not a Church error 2. The party to be Ordained is to be examined touching his perswasion of an inward calling by the Spirit whether he be inwardly moved by God to the work of the Ministry and touching his faith of the sufficiency of the Scriptures his purpose to execute his Ministry according to the word of God to oppose all erroneous and strange doctrines to fashion his conversation according to what may become a Minister of the Gospel c. 3. The party thus qualified after a Sermon Preached and prayer made to God for a blessing is to be Ordained and set apart to the work of the Ministry by the laying on of the hands of the Bishop together with other Preaching Presbyters This is the substance of the Book as touching the Ordination of Ministers from which it appears That Ministers made during the prevalency of Episcopacy were for the substance of their call called according to the mind of Christ and therefore lawful Ministers But it will be objected That the Ministers we plead for were made by Bishops distinct from Presbyters who had no power nor authority to Ordain them and not onely so but by Bishops who held themselves to be a superiour Order of Ministry by divine right above Presbyters who were not onely Bishops but Lord Bishops who were wicked and Antichristian and whom we have renounced and sworn to endeavour to extirpate in our late solemn League and Covenant What our opinio n is concerning the divine right of Episcopacy and what difference there is between a Presbyter Bishop and a Bishop over Presbyters between a Scripture Bishop and the Bishop that obtained in the Primitivâ— times and the Bishop of our times we shall have occasion to declare hereafter For the present before we return an answer to this great objection consisting of many particulars we must crave leave to premise these few conclusions many of which we shall in the next proposition prove at large That according
sake And he that shall call such Bishops wicked and ungodly is notoriously guilty of the breach of the 9. commandement 2. Supposing though not granting that all of them were wicked and ungodly yet notwithstanding though we are far from justifying their ungodlinesse We answer That some evil men may and alwaies have de facto been officers and Ministers in the Church In the Church of the Jewes Hophni and Phinehas in the dayes of Christ Scribes and Pharises 2. That the wickednesse of such men did not null or evacuate their ministerial acts The Scribes Pharisees that sat in Moses his chair were to be heard though they said and did not Christs commission did as well authorize Iudas as any other to Preach and baptize c. And surely if the Principall acts belongingto the Ministerial function as Preaching Baptizing adminstring the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be not nulled or made void by the personal wickedness of Ministers then consequently not their ordination So that if Iudas had been an Apostle when Christ sent his Apostles to ordain Elders his Ordination should have been as valid as his Preaching and Baptizing formerly had been The Leprosie of the hand doth not hinder the growing of the corn which that hand soweth But these Bishops were Antichristian and their office Antichristian and therefore the Ministers ordained by them must needs be Antichristian Ministers and not the Ministers of Christ. For satisfaction to this objection we shall first propose what the ancient learned godly Non-conformists have left in print about it and then we will lay down our own answer The old Non-conformists by joynt consent have written That they did not see how our Bishops could be called Antichrists or Antichristian 1. Because the word mâ—rks out Antichrist by his false Doctrine nor do we find in holy Scripture any such accounted Antichrist or Antichristian which holding the truth of Doctrine swerveth either in judgement or practise from Christs rule for Discipline Now it is evident that our Bishops do hold and teach all fundamental doctrines and truths and some of them have soundly maintained them against Hereticks converted many to the truth and have suffered persecution for the Gospel 2. Their Hierarchy and other corruptions charged upon the calling of our Bishops were rather to be esteemed the staires and way to Antichristianity then Antichristianity â—t self for they were in the Church before the Popâ— who is the Antichrist and the chiefe Head link of all Antichristianity was revealed 3. The Antichristian Bishops hold their preeminence as from Gods law which is unchangeable whereas our Bishops since his Majesties reign to this day for the most part hold superiority by no other right then the positive law which is variable yea it appeares by the institution of the Court of Delegates and the continuance thereof to this day that they do and ought by law to hold their Jurisdiction not as from God but is from the Prince Thus they And as to the Ministers Ordeyned by Bishops they say Bishops are able to judge of such gifts as are required for the sufficiencie of Ministers that many of them have been such Ministers themselves as to whose labours thâ— Lord hath set to his Seal We are perswaded that though it were not necessary yet it cannot be unlawful for him that entreth into the ministery to be approved and authorized even by them Andif our Ordination be in this behalf faultie how will our Brethren justifie the calling of their own Ministers that have received Ordination ever from the people who neither by commandement nor example can be found to have any such authority nor are in any degree so capable of it as the Bishops Thus much is said by the old Non-conformist For our own particulars we shall return an answer to this objection by distinguishing of the word Bishop and the word Antichristian There are three sorts of Bishop the Scripture-Bishop thâ— Bishop of the first Primitive times and the Bishop of latter times Now we are far from thinking that the scripture Bishop that is to say the Presbyter or the Bishop of the first Primitive times who was nothing else but a chief Bresbyter or the Moderator of the Presbytery and had a Priority not of power but of order onely like a Speaker in the Parliament were Antichristian The question onely is about the Bishop of latter times The word Antichristian may be taken propeâ—ly or improperly An Antichristian Minister propeâ—ly is one that own 's the Pope as a visible Monarchical head over the Church and that stands a Minister with subjection and subordination to the Church of Rome and that professedly maintains the Popish religion An Antichristian Minister improperly is one that in his calling and office hath divers things that are Antichristian In the first sense we believe none will say our Bishops were Antichristians But yet we cannot deny but that those Bishops who did take upon them by divine right the care of whole Diocesses and did assume the whole power of jurisdiction over the people and Ministers therein and did challenge a Majority and tantum non a sole power in Ordination did symbolize herein too much with Antichrist and had in this sence much of Antichristianisme in them yet notwithstanding this is not sufficient to denominate them Antichristian no more then the having of some hypocrisy and covetousnesse doth denominate a godly man an hypocrite or a covetous person The denomination is alwaies á meliore Our Bishops for the most part were very Orthodox in doctrine and pure in the substantialls of worship and have written many learned treatises against Popery and Antichristianisme Indeed in matters of Discipline and ceremonies they were exceeding faulty and some of â—hem of late yeares began to Apoâ—â—atize both in doctrine and worship for which God hath grieviously punished them yet all this is not sufficient to make them Antichristian properly so called much lesse to null all their acts of Ordination no more then their acts of preaching baptizing and administring theLords supper specially if we consider that they had power enabling them to perform all these acts as they were Presbyters though they never had been Bishops Bâ—t let us suppose though not grant the Bishops were Antichristian and their office Antichristian yet we answer That it will not follow that the Ministers made by them are Antichristian unlesse it can also be made out which never can be done that they were Antichristian in the very act of Ordination For as a maimed man may beget a perfect child because he begets him not as maimed but as a man So an Antichristian Bishop may ordain a true Minister because he ordaines him not aâ— Antichristian but as a Presbyter that by divine warrant hath authority so to do As Austin against the Donatists proves the validity of Baptisme by Hereticks if they Baptized with water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost though in other
truth and not custome and custome without Truth is a mouldy error And as Sir Francis Bacon saith Antiquity without truth is a Cypher without a figure And if we should seem in what we have asserted about the Identity of a Bishop and Presbyter to differ from some of the ancient Fathers yet we have the same plea for our selves which Austin had who being prest with the authority of Cyprian answers His writings I hold not Canonical but examinâ— them by the Canonical writings And in them what agreeth with the authority of Divine Scriptures I accept with his praise what agreeth not I refuse with his leave Sure we are That humane authority can but produce an humane faith and when all is done it is the Scripture a perfect reconditory of all credenda petenda faciâ—nda to which we must flee as the onely rock upon which we can rightly build our faith according to that excellent saying of Austin Sunt certe libri Dominici quorum auctoritati utrique consentimus utrique credimus utrique servimus ibi quaramus Ecclesiam ibi disâ—â—tiamus causam nostram Proposition 2. THat there were many corruptions which crept into the Church in the very Infancy of it and were generally received as Apostolical traditions which yet notwithstanding are not pleaded for by our Episcopal men but many of them confessedly acknowledged to be errors and mistakes Witnesse first The Millenary opinion which Iustine Martyr saith That he and all in all parts Orthodox Christians held it and calls them Christians onely in name with many other circumstances of aggravation that denied it Lactantius after a long discourse about it concludes Haec est doctrina sanctorum Prophetarum quam Christiani sâ—quimur hac est Christiana sapientia The like is affirmed by Tertullian Irenaeus and divers others as is well known Secondly we will instance in the necessity of childrens partaking of the Eucharist which was taught by Austin and others as an Apostolical tradition Rightly saith Austin do the Punick Christians call Baptisme by no other names but health and safety nor the Sacraments of Christs body by no other then life Vnde nisi ex antiquâ ut existimo Apostolica tradiâ—ionâ— qua Ecclesiae Christi insitum tenent praeter Baptismum participâtionem Dominica mensae non solâ—m non ad regnum Dei sed nec ad salutem vitam aeâ—ernam posse quenquam hominum pervenire In which words the absolute necessity of Baptism and of the Eucharist for all sorts of people is made an Apostolical tradition Lastly to name no more St. Basil in one Chapter names 4. customes as Apostolical Traditions to wit signing men with the sign of the Crosse praying towards the East anointing with oyl standing up at prayer from Easter to Whitsuntide which though some of our Episcopal Divines may perhaps approve of as lawful customes yet we conceive none of them will believe all of them especially the two last to be Apostolical traditions From hence we gather That there were many doctrines and practises pretended to be grounded upon Apostolical institution which yet notwithstanding are rather to be accounted Apocryphal then Apostolical Proposition 3. THat after Christs ascension into heaven The Church of God for a certain space of time was governed by the common Councel of Presbyters without Bishops This appears 1. From the words of Ierom forementioned Idem Ergo est Presbyter qui Episcopus Et antequam Diaboli instinctu studiâ— in religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli Ego Apollo ego Cephae communi consilio Prâ—sbyterorum Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam vâ—ro unusquisque eos c. And afterwards Paulatim vero ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam c. Here note That for a certain time the Church was governed by the Assembly of Presbyterâ— alone and that Bishops came in postea and paulatim It is not said Simulaâ— Corinthi dictum fuit Ego sum Pauli c. Sed postquam id dictum But Ierom seems to say That this was done in the Apostles dayes because then people began to say I am of Paul I am of Apollo I am of Cephas These words cannot be so understood For then Ierom should contradict himself For the whole design of the place is to prove Bishops to be of humane constitution Besides Ierom doth not say That it was said so among the Corinthians But among the people diceretur iâ— populis He alludes indeed to the Apostles words and speaks in the Apostolical phrase but not at all of the Apostles times The meaning is as David Blondel well observes Postquam alii passim Corinthiorum more dementati iâ— partes diâ—cerpti sunt After that others were intoxicated after the manner of the Corinthians and divided into several factions then was one set over the rest as their Bishop And that this must needs be so appears demonstratively by this argument Because that to prove that a Bishop and Presbyter are all one Ierom cites places out of the Philippians out of Titus and out of the second and third Epistle of Iohn which were all of them written after the Epistles to the Corinthians But St. Ierom in his 85. Epistle ad Evagrium calls the superiority of a Bishop over Presbyters an Apostolical tradition A learned writer for the Prelatical government triumphs over Dr. Blondel and Walâ— Messalinus because they passe over this objection unanswered and he seems to say that it never can be answered But if he had been pleased to have cast an eye upon the Vindication of the answer to the humble Remonstrance written by Smectymnuus he should have found this answer Ierom in that Epistle sharpens his reproof against some Deacons that would equalize thewselves to Presbyters c. To make this repoof the stronger he saith Presbyteris id est Episcopis and a little after he doth out of the Scripture most manifestly prove eundem esse Presbyterum atque Episcopum and carries this proof by Paul by Peter and by Iohn the longest surviver of the Apostles Then adds Quod autem postea unâ—s electus qui caeteris praeponâ—retur in sâ—hismatis remedium factum The reason why afterwards one was elected and set over the rest was the cure of Schisme It is hard to conceive how this imparity can be properly called an Apostolical tradition when Ierom having mentioned Iohn the last of the Apostles saith iâ— waâ— posteâ— that one was set over the rest Yet should we grant it an Apostolical tradition in Ieroms sence it would be no prejudice to our cause seeing with him Apostolical tradition and Ecclesiastical customâ— are the same witnesse that instance of the observation of Lent which he writing ad Marcâ—llum saith is Apostolica traditio yet writing adversus Luciferianos faith it is Ecclesiae consuetudo Whereby it fully appears That Ierom by Apostolical tradition meant not an Apostolical institution but an
Almighty All these things I know and yet am not perfect c. Now who is there that can believe that such Arrogant boasting can proceed from such a holy man and humble Saint as Ignatius was The third Reason which is most for our purpose is from his over eager and over anxious defence of the Episcopal Hierarchy which he doth with such strange hyperbolical expressions as if all Christianity were lost if Prelacy were not upheld and with such multiplied repetitions ad nauseam usque That we may confidently say as one doth Certo certius est has Epistolas vel supposititias esse vel foedè corruptas And that they do neither agree with those times wherein he wrote nor with such a holy and humble Martyr as he was We will instance in some few of them In his Epistle to the Trallians he saith What is a Bishop but he that is possest of all Principalitie and authority beâ—ond all as much as is possible for men to be possest of being made an imitator according to thâ— power of Christ who is God He that can find in these words an Apostolical Spirit breathing hath little acquaintance with the Apostolical writings How unlike is this to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 3.5 Who then is Paul and who Apollo but Ministers by whom ye believe In the same Epistle he saith Reverence the Bishop as yeâ— do Christ at the holy Apostles have commanded But where is this commanded In his Epistle to the Magnâ—sians He saith It becomes you to obey the Bishop and in nothing to oppose him For it is a terrible thing to contradict him And again As the Lord Christ doth nothing without his Father So must you do nothing without your Bishop neither Presbyter Deacon nor Lâ—y man Let nothing seem right and equal to you that is contrary to his judgment For that that is such is wicked and â—nmity to God In his Epistle to Polycarpe It becomes those that marry and are married not to marry without the consent of the Bishop And again my soul for theirs that obey the Bishop Presbyters and Deacons In his Epistle to the Philadelphians Let the Princes obey the Emperour the Souldiers the Princes The Deacons and the rest of the Clergy with all the people and the Souldiers and the Princes and the Emperour let them obey the Bishop Observe here how the Princes and Emperours are enjoyned to obey the Bishop when there were not at this time nor many years after any Emperour or Princes Christian In his Epistle to the Smyrâ—enses he saith The Scripture saith Honour God and the King But I say Honour God as the Author and Lord of all things And the Bishop as the Prince of Priests resembling the image of God Of God for his Principality of Christ for his Priesthood c. There is none greater then the Bishop in the Church who is consecrated for the salvation of the whole world c. and afterwards He that honours the Bishop shall be honoured by God and he that injur's him shall be punished by God And if he be justly thought worthy of punishment that riseth up against Kings and is therein a violator of good Lawes Of how much greater punishment shall he be thought worthy that will undertake to do any thing without his Bishop thereby breaking concord and overturning good Order c. We need not paraphrase upon these passages Onely we desire the Reader in the fear of God to passe sentence whether these high and supertranscendent expressions This prelation of Bishops above Kings do savour of the first Primitive times or can be imagined to proceed from Blessed Ignatius even then when he was in bonds and ready to be Martyred In the same Epistle he saith Let all men follow the Bishop as Christ the Father Let no man do any thing that belongs to the Church without the Bishop Let that Eucharist be allowed on which is done by the Bishop or by his concession c. It is not lawful without the Bishop to Baptize or offer c. That which he approves on is accepted of God and whatsoever is so done is safe and firm It is right that God and the Bishop be known He that honours the Bishop is honoured of God He that doth any thing without first consulting with the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Worshipper of the Divel If this Doctrine be true what shall become of all the Reformed Churches especially the Church of Scotland which as Ioannes Major saith lib. 2. hystoria de gâ—stis Scotorum cap. 2. was after its first conversion to the Christian faith above 230. years without Episcopal government We will not cite any more passages of this nature These are sufficient to justifie that censure which the Reverend Presbyterian Divines in their humble answer to the second Paper delivered them by his Majestie at the Isle of Wight do passe upon Ignatius where they say That there are great arguments drawn out of these Epistles themselves betraying their insincerity adulterate mixtures and interpolations So that Ignatius cannot be distinctly known in Ignatius And if we take him in grosse we make him the Patron as Baronius and the rest of the Popish writers do of such rights and observations as the Church in his time cannot be thought to have owned He doth indeed give testimony to the Prelacy of a Bishop above a Presbyter That which may justly render him suspected is that he gives too much Honour saith he the Bishop as Gods high Priest and after him you must honour the King He was indeed a holy Martyr and his writings have suffered Martyrdom as well as he Corruptions could not go currant but under the credit of worthy names The considerations of these things makes Salmasius to believe that these Epistles were written by a Pseâ—do-Ignatius at that very time when Episcopacy properly so called came into the Church that so the people who had been accustomed to the Presbyterian government might the more willingly and easily receive this new government and not be offended at the novelty of it And this he the rather thinkes Because in all his Epistles he speaks highly in honour of the Presbytery as well as of Episcopacy For in the Epistle to the Trallenses He bids them be subject to the Presbytery as to the Apostles of Iesus Christ. And a little after he calleâ— the Preâ—bytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the sâ—me Epistle he saith That the Colledge of the Presbyters is nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which passage must needs be understood of the second Primitive times For afterwards the Presbytery was much neglected and laid aside as Ambrose complaines upon 1 Tim. 5. We will conclude our discourse concerning the The Epistles of Ignaâ—ius with a remarkable saying of Riveâ— in his Critica sacra We are ready to ascâ—ibe to the genuine writings of the Fâ—thers as much as
non Ordo sed meritum crearet Episâ—opum multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum ne indignus temâ—re usurparet esset multis scandalum Iâ— lege nascebantur Sacâ—rdotes ex genere Aaron Leviâ—ae c. Whether this conjecture of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be true or no or whether as others think it was true in some Churches and not in others we will not now debate But sure we are that in Alexandria as St. Ierom tells us The Bishop was chosen not onely out of the Presbytery but by the Presbytery and by them constituted Bishop and placed in excelsiâ—ri gradu in an higher degree of honour not Office He was not made by 3. Bishops Sed Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiore grâ—an collocatuâ— Episcopum nominabant Indeed afterwards in processe of time This Epâ—scopus Pâ—aeses came to be Episcopus Princeps and usurped sinfully upon the priviledges of Ministers and people and made way for the coming in of Antichrist Famous is that so often mentined in several writings in this age saying of Ambrose upon 1 Tim. 5 1 Vnde Synagoga postâ—a Ecclesia Seniores habuit quorum sine consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia Quod quâ negligentiâ obsolevâ—rat nescio nisi forte Doctorum desidiâ— aut magis superbiâ dum volunt aliguid videri From hence came that distinction of Beza's between Episcopus divinus humanus and Diabolicus By the divine Bishop he means the Presbyter by the humane Bishop he means the Bishop chosen by the Presbyters to be President over them and to rule with them by fixed Lawes and Canons By the Diabolical he means a Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Lording it over Gods heritage and governing by his own will and authority And therefore when men argue from the practise of the Primitive times and from the Bishops of those dayes to the Bishops of our dayes they do but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they commit a fallacy just as if a man should argue That the Church of Rome is now a true Church because it was so in the Apostles dayes For the further handling of this proposition we refer the Reader to Smâ—ctymâ—â—us where he shall have many pages spent to prove the imparity between the Bishops of the Primitive times and our dayes Onely we shall crave leave to relate a passage from a Reverend Divine now with God who holdeth forth this assertion That the ancient Fathers in the point of Episcopacy differ more from the high Prelatist then from the Presbyterian This he proveth Because The Presbyterians alwayes have â— President to guide their actions which they acknowledge may be perpetual dâ—rante vitâ â—â—do sâ— benâ— gâ—sseriâ— or temporary to avoid inconvenience Which Bilson in his preface again and again in his Book of the Perp. government takes hold of as advantagious because so little discrepant as he saith from what he maintainâ— But now the high Prelatists excluâ—e a Presbytery â—s having nothing to do with jurisdiction which they put as far above the sphaere of a Presbyter as sacrificing above a Levites to wit an act restrained to an higher Order whereas the Fathers acknowledge a Presbytery and in divers cases Councels tie the Bishop to do nothing without them And so it is clear The high Prelatistâ— are at a further distance from the Fathers then the Prebyterians Afterwards he also adds If we differ from the Fathers in point of Prelacy wherein our opponents are in no better terms with them then we yet I would have them consider in how many thingâ— we jumpe with the Fathers wherein many of them have been dissenting both in opinion and practise as 1. touching promiscuous dancing especially upon the Lords day 2. Touching residency of Pastors in their Churches which excludes all Pluralities 3. Frequency and diligence in Preaching 4. Touching the abuse of health-drinking or drinking ad aequales calices 5. Touching Bishops not intanling themselves with secular affairs or businesses of state in Princes Courts 6. Touching gaming at Cards or Dice and such like so that they can with no great confidence triumph in the Fathers against us in this one point wherein themselves also are at a distance from them while we keep closer to the Fathers then they do in many others Proposition 7. THat the great argument that is brought for Episcopacy from the lineal succession of Bishops from the Apostles daies to our dâ—â—eâ— hath not that validity in it that is imagined Bishop Bilson and others â—ake a great deal of pains to give us a Catalogue of the Bishops in Rome Alâ—xandria Hierusalem and Antioch from the Apostles daies unto Constantine's time But we desire the Reader to consider First That these Catalogues labour much of an Homonymy in the word Bishop For the Bishops of later times were Bishops of a fâ—r different nature from the Bishops of the first times Though the same name be common to all in the Catalogue yet in the nature of their Office they differed very much The later peece by peece taking that authority to theâ— which the former neither might nor did â—njoy The later were Diocesan the former were Bishopâ— onely of one Congregation At first the Churches were governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters and the line of succession was drawn saith D. Bloâ—del from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that iâ— the first Ordained Minister Even â—s amongst the Athenianâ— there were 9. Archontes or chief Rulerâ— equal in power and authority and yet the succession of Governours in Athens was desiâ—ed from one of them onâ—ly who wâ—â— the first Arâ—bon or Ruler which was not done to diminish the â—â—thority of the â—est sed ut compendiâ—sioâ—â—â— minus 〈…〉 But that the enumerâ—â—iâ—n of the 〈◊〉 of their successive Governourâ— might 〈…〉 compendious and expedite Even so at first there were divers Presbyters in every City which did govern with equal power and authority and yet the line and succession was deduced from one who was the first of those that were ordained not thereby incroaching upon the joynt authority of the rest but for the more expedite way of reckoning And when afterwards one was chosen out of the Presbytery he was for a long time but as the Moderator of a Synod amongst the Scotch and Dutch and at most but as a Superintendent amongst the Germaâ—s of whom Zepp lib. 2. cap. 10. saith That they are of the same degree with other Ministers they are only presidentâ— while the Synod lasteth when it is dissolved their Prerogative ceaseth They have no prerogative over their fellow-Ministers they are subject to their Presbyteries The Synod ended they return to the care of their particular Churches Secondly That these Catalogues the nearer they come to the Apostles daies are the more â—ncerâ—in and indeed contradictory one unto another Some say that Clemens was first Bishop of Rome after Peter some say the third and the intricacies about the Order of Succession in Linus
subjungit vâ—rba Alii â—amen non minorâ—s authoritatis existimant Chorâ—piscopos fuisse tantùm Presbyteros Ita expresse sentit Ayala de traditionibus Ecclesiasticis 3. part Consideratione 4. ubi haâ—c râ—m ex prâ—fâ—ssâ— disputat noster Franciscus Turrianus in annotationibus ad Consilium Nicaenum Can. 54. â—it Ordinâ—m Chorepiscoporum non fuisse nisi Presbyterorum tantùm eandem sententiam sequuntur docti aliqui recâ—ntiores c. Porro Damasum duo illa genera Chorepiscoporum minimè distinxisse sed de omnibus etiam illis quoruâ— mâ— minit Concilium Antiochenum pronunciasse veros non esse Episcopos ita ut si Presbyteri essâ— nollent nihil omâ—ino essent probat ex instituto Ayala loce citato Potestque ex ipso Damaso sâ—aderi Nunquam dicit Damasus hos Chorepiscopos diversos esse à prioribus aut verè Episcopos esse imo verò ex professo probat licet à pluribus consecrati verè tamen Episcopos non esse Haec Vasquez So much of this argument A second Argument to prove That it was not held unlawful in Antiquity for Presbyters to Ordain may be drawn from the opinion of the Schoolmen and Canonists during the prevalency not onely of Episcopacy but even of Papal Tyranny For it is a received opinion in the Church of Rome That the Pope may by his Commission authorize a single Presbyter to Ordain Presbyters he cannot say they commissionate a Lay-man but he may a Presbyter Mr. Francis Mason citeâ— many Authors to attest this The Author of the Glosse saith Diâ—o quod Papa potest hoc delegare simpliâ—i Sacerdotâ— non Laico sicut credo sic ex tali delegatione adminiculo habiti Sacramenti potest conferre quicquid habet Imo quilibet Clâ—ricus hoc facere potest qui verâ— non habet non potest conferre Rosâ—llus also saith Vâ—lunt Doctores quod Papa potest committere cuilibet Clerico ut conferat quae babet ipse ut si est Presbyter possit Ordinare Presbyterum Diaconus Diaconum ex manâ—ato Papae And again Ego teneo quod Papa possit demandare Presbyterâ— quod conferat omnâ—s sacros Ordines in hoc 〈◊〉 cum sentenâ—ia Canonistarum Dr. Forbes brings also many quotations to this purpose some of which we shall recite as being very observable Panormitaâ—â—â— saith Ego potiuâ— pâ—tarem ut Sacerdoti hoc possit delegare indistinctè quia 〈◊〉 de Sacrâ—â—â—nto Eucharistiâ— sit dispositâ—m institutione Domiâ—icâ— quâ— haâ—â—ant illud administrare hoc tamen non est dispositum in collationâ— Ordinum Nam olim Presbyteri in commâ—ni râ—gebaâ— Ecclesiam ordinabant Sacerdotes Vndâ— quemadmodum olim poterant ita videtur quòd Papa possit hoc concedere Sacerdoti maximè delegando quum nihil exerceat delegatus nomine proprio In decretalibus Gregorii 9. de consuetudine cap. 4. c. It is said Dico quod Papa potest hoc delegare simplici Sacerdoti et non Laico sicut credo et sic ex tali delegatione et in adminiculo habiti sacramenti potest conferre quicquid habet Very remarkable is that passage in Petrus Aureolus in quartum Sent. Distinct. 24. In habente animam rationalem quandoque impeditur â—ctus rationis et postea removetur impedimentum non datur nova anima vel forma sed tantum removetur illud quod impediebat prius animam nâ— exiret in actum rationis Sed Ordinare in Sacerdotem est actus conveniens Sacerdoti in quantum Sacerdos est tantùm est actus impeditus in â—o Probo Quia nemo dat quod non habet sicut in naturalibus ubi forma transfundit seipsam Ergo non Sacerdotis non est ordinare in Sacerdotem sed hoc pertinet ad Sacerdotem qui habet formam illam in actu potentem transfundere seipsam Vnde Papa non posseâ— Ordines committere nisi Sacerdoti ut Diacono vel Laico Potest autem committere cuicunque Sacerdoti Ergo videtur quod conferre Ordines sit pertinens ad Sacerdotem Probo Quia Pone quod sit Sacerdos omni alio circumscripto potest Papa committere â—i Ordines Pone autem alia omnia circumscribe Sacerdotium non poterit Papa committere potestatem Ordinandi Hoc videtur satis rationale quia omnis forma ex quo est in actu videtur quod possit se communicare infra eandem speciem apud Capreolum est in eandem speciem ergo Sacerdos hoc modo quantum est ex potestate sibi conveniente absolutè poterit Ordines celebrare Ergo si potestas â—lla modo sit impedita sicut est de facto impedimentum removeatur per hoc quod fit Episcopus Non datur â—i Nova potestas sed tantummodo pristina potestas prius impedita reducitur ad usum impedimento remoto haec reductio illius potestatis ad usum dicitur ampliatio potestatis Hac Aureolus From these two arguments and the quotations alledged we may safely gather these conclusions 1. That there was a time when Presbyters did govern by Common Councel and did Ordain without Bishops So saith Panormitan Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam Ordinabant Sacerdotes 2. That whole Nations have been converted to the faith and governed for hundreds of years without Bishops This Conclusion is abundantly proved by D. Blondel Sect. 3. de Ordinationibus where he tells us That Ioannes Major de gestis Scotorum lib. 2. cap. 2. saith Per Sacerdotes Monachos sine Episcopis Scoti in fide eruditi That Ioannes Fordonius saith Ante Palladiâ— adventum habâ—bant Scoti fidei Doctoros ac Sacramentorum Ministratores Presbyteros solummodò vel Monachos ritum sequentes Ecclesia Primitivae The Scots were Christians 220. years and more without Episcopal Government The like he proves of the Gothes and French For brevity sake we refer the Reader to the Author himself 3. That in Aegypt when the Bishop was absent Presbyters did consecrate 4. That in Alexandria for almost 200. years the Presbyters constituted and Ordained their Bishop 5. That though by the Canons of the Church the power of Presbyters in Ordaining was restrained yet it was the judgment of Antiquity That every Presbyter hath actum primum and an inward power to Ordain and that though his power was impedited by the Canons yet it was not utterly extinguished 6. That when a Presbyter is made a Bishop he hath no new power conferred upon him but onely his former restraints and impediments are removed as saith Aureolus 7. That the Chorâ—piscopi for a certain space did Ordain of their own authority without receiving authority from the Bishop Afterwards though they were meer Presbyters yet notwithstanding by the leave of Councels had liberty with the Bishops licence to Ordain 8. That to this day it is the opinion of Schoolmen and Canonists that the Pope may give liberty to a Presbyter to Ordain From whence saith Dr. Forbes it evidently followeth