EPISCOPAL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTED BY CHRIST And confirmed by cleere evidence of Scripture and invincible Reason Collected by the pains of R. R. Preacher of the Gospell DEVT. 42. Yee shall not adde unto the Word which I command you neither shall yee diminish ought from it that yee may keep the Commandements of the Lord your God which I command you REVEL 22.18 19 For I testifie unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecie of this booke if any man shal add unto these things God shal add unto him the plagues that are written in this book And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecie God shall take away his part out of the book of life and out of the holy City and from the things that are written in this book LONDON Printed Anno Domini 1641. Episcopall Government instituted by Christ The first Argument THat whatsoever degrees of Church Governours as God established under the Law that Christ and his Apostles continued under the Gospel and that hath governed the Christian Church since the days of Christ and his Apostles They are and must be of Divine Ordination But God established three degrees of Church Governours under the Law Christ and his Apostles continued three degrees under the Gospell and three degrees hath governed the Christian Church since the days of Christ and his Apostles And therefore three degrees of Church Governours are and must be of Divine Ordination The proposition I will take for granted for I know no man will deny it The assumption I must prove which hath three branches The first is That God established three degrees under the Law the High Priest inferiour Priests and Levits the High Priest to be in the first order Inferiour Priests in the second and Levits in the third and this I hope will be granted The second branch of the Proposition that Christ and his Apostles continued three degrees under the Gospell I prove thus Christ chose Apostles for one order and Evangelists for another called at the first the seventy Disciples to distinguish them from the other twelve who were also called Disciples as long as Christ lived for they were seldome before Christ his Resurrection distinguished by their proper names and Christ filled the room of the high Priest himself as long as he served in the Ministery of the Gospell And after his Ascention immediatly the Apostles by the direction of the Spirit made choice of a third Order of Churchmen whom they called by the name of Deacons Act. 6. so that the Apostles were appointed to be of the first Order after Christ his Resurrection at which time they were only endued with stolicall authoritie being before Christs death in the order and rank of Evangelists and the Evangelists inferiour to them for the twelve were ever distinguished from the seventy both in Place Estimation as any man may perceive that can read the Scriptures but when Christ was to asâ—end up unto the Father he made the Apostles chiefe Governours of the Church and put them in his own place and said to them He that heareth you heareth mee and he that despiseth you despiseth mee after which time they were called by the name of Apostles ordinarily and the other seventy got the name of Evangelists and were the second order of Church Governours at all times remembred in the second place howsoever the twelve Disciples were called Apostles as chiefly sent of God although the other seventy were sent too as wee read Luke 10. yet they were not consecrate with so great solemnitie as the other twelve nor got not so strict a charge nor so great authoritie and power conferred upon them the truth of all this you will finde in the last Chapter of Saint Johns Gospel and the first of the Acts so that since the twelve Disciples are thus advanced and not the seventie it is more then evident that Christ would have the Seventie to be still inferiour to the Twelve And this also appears by the election of Matthias who was taken out of the number of the seventie and advanced to the Apostolicall charge if the twelve had not been in degree above the seventy to what end should this distinction have been made no man will say I hope that the Twelve would have advanced themselves above the Seventy if Christ himselfe had made no difference before for Christ no question if they had beene wrong would have reproved their arrogancie but on the contrary Christ gives testimonie of his approbation of that which they did by consenting to Matthias election yea it appeares that they had a commandement so to do for Peter saith Acts 1.22 that one must be ordained to be a witnesse with us of the Resurrection the word 〈◊〉 in the 21 Verse is very emphaticall so that it would seeme that it was not left arbitrary to them to doe it or not to do it at their plâ—asure but of necessitie it behoved to be done as being commanded by Christ their Master Moreover it is evident by the words of the 25 Verse where the Apostle makes a cleer distinction between Apostles and Evangelists That he may take part saith he of this Ministery and Apostleship now the Apostle could not call it this Ministery except it had bin distinct from that which Matthias had before hee was one of the Seventy Disciples before and had power to preach the Gospell of Christ so that it is most sure if the calling of the twelve had not beene particularly differenced by Christ from the calling of the seventy the Apostles would never have put a distinction between the one Ministerie and the other But the Apostle Peter adds yet a cleerer distinction and hee cals the Ministery whereunto Matthias was advanced Apostleship this Ministery and Apostleship saith he now the Ministerie of the seventy Disciples was never called Apostleship unto this day as all men know Further this distinction appeareth that the Apostle with the consent of the rest of the twelve would have the number made up before the comming of the Holy Ghost for the Holy Ghost did not visibly descend upon any but upon the twelve well they did always attend his comming they could not tell how soon and therefore they thought it necessary that Matthias should be elected withall expedition so that any man may conceive if there had not been a wide difference between the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples the Apostle would never have made such haste By the former doctrine we finde that our Saviour differenced the 12 from the seventy thrice in the time of his life once for by taking the twelve to be of his counsell as it were and guard of his bodie he made a manifest distinction Luke 6.13 Next after his Resurrection hee put a difference between them in that hee enstalled them solemnly in their Apostolicall charge which hee did not unto the seventy and thirdly after his Ascention he sent the Holy Ghost
chiefly to the twelve and caused him to descend visibly even to the view of all the beholders upon their heads in the likenesse of cloven tongues of fire which for any thing we read he did not to the seventy In the thirteenth of the Acts Verse 1. we may behold this distinction with our eyes where Barnabas Simeon Lucius Manaen and Saul are called Prophets and Teachers and not Apostles for I thinke as yet Saul was not joyned to the number of Apostles at least hee was not accounted one so Paul makes this distinction when he takes to himself the honour to plant the Gospel and to lay the foundation and makes Apollos a waterer only and a builder upon the foundation Paul plants saith hee Apollo waters but God gives the increase 1 Cor. 2.6 Moreover Acts 8. we see a manifest distinction in Philip the Evangelist who converted the Samaritans and baptized them but Peter and John behoved to be sent out of Ierusalem to lay on hands and conferre the Holy Ghost but my opponent may say that Philip was a Deacon and one of the seven mentioned Acts 6. I answer we read of Philip the Apostle and of Philip the Deacon and why not a third Philip an Evangelist read Acts 21.8 he that was Deacon was there after advanced to be an Evangelist Alwayes wee gaine thus much that Deacons must preach and administer the Sacrament of Baptisme and therefore they are not Lay-men That Deacons are not Lay-men but Preachers and a third order of Church Governours it is evident Acts 6. for as soon as there was any need of men of that office that was when the number of the Disciples was multiplied they were chosen and elected by the Apostles yea they were elected too before the Apostles went out of Jerusalem separated themselves to preach the Gospell to all Nations for they behoved to be helpers of the Apostles and to assist them in the work of Ministery to have a care of the poore under them and to baptize new converts at their command that so the Apostles might give themselves to prayer and the Ministerie of the Word Acts 6.4 The truth of this may be seen Acts 10.48 where the Apostle Peter gives commandement no question to the Deacons to baptise Cornelius and those who were with him so we may see 1 Cor. 1. that the Apostle Paul attributes the care of Baptisme to others then the Apostles where he saith that hee was not sent to Baptize it being chiefly the charge of the Deacons but to preach the Gospell not that he might not baptise for wee see the contrary in the words but because the Apostles gave themselves chiefly to Prayer and the Ministery of the Word and committed the care of Baptisme to the Deacons and the administration of the Sacrament of the Supper to the Evangelists called hereafter Elders as may be gathered out of 1 Cor. 10.11 We see also Col. 1.1 a manifest distinction between Bishops and Deacons for the Apostle writes to them as their chiefe Bishop and Overseer for as yet the Apostle reserved the chief care of that Church to himself although some think that Epaphroditus was chief Bishop of that place howsoever we see two Orders here of Church-men and I hope none will deny but the Apostle was in order and degree above them we see them also made mention of in the Epistles of Paul to Timothy and Titus over whom Timothy and Titus are placed as their chiefe Governours so that it is more then evident that Christ and the Apostles continued three Orders of Church Governours under the Gospell But I know that it will be objected that there should be but two Orders of Church Governours now under the Gospel because Christ himselfe appointed but two Apostles and Evangelists both of them called at first Disciples only distinguished by their number twelve and seventie Answ Christ appointed but two indeed because hee supplyed the room of the High Priest himself neither would hee have any more during his own Ministery he was chiefe Governour of the Church himselfe and hee would have no Suffragans as long as he lived Where the King is present himself he needs not a Commissioner nor a Vice-roy Again had Christ chosen three Orders in his owne time then there should have been foure Orders of Church Governours all the while of Christ his Ministery upon earth First Christ himselfe for I hope no man will refuse Christ for one and for the chief too and the other 3 ordained by Christ Now our blessed M. Saviour because he would keep Analogie so farre as I can conceive with the number and degrees of Church Governours under the Law he would choose but two and leave the third to be added by the Apostles after his departure which they did with all diligence as we may see Acts 6. That our Saviour used this analogie in this I will prove by other particulars wherein he observed the like analogie and first in the number of the Sacraments as his Father appointed but two under the Law Circumcision and the Paschall Lambe so hee appointed but two under the Gospell Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord the one to succeed in place of Circumcision the other in place of the Paschall Lambe And againe as Circumcision did represent unto us the guilt of sin so our Saviour would have Baptisme to represent to us remission of sins And as the Passeover represented to the people of Israel their bodily deliverance from the bondage of Egypt so our Saviour would have his last Supper to represent to us our spirituall deliverance from the bondage of sin and Satan When our Saviour instituted Baptisme hee devised no new Ceremony but took that Ceremony of Washing which the Jews used in their Purification appointed it to represent our spirituall washing from sin So likewise in the Institution of the other Sacrament hee did not devise any new Ceremony to represent his Death and Passion but took the last part of the Paschall Supper and appointed it for that usâ—e The custome of the Iews was after the Supper was ended and the Paschall Lambe caten hee that was Master of the Feast tooke as many pieces of bread as there were people present at the eating of the Lamb and there behoved to be between the number of ten and the number of twenty for there might not be fewer then ten nor more then twenty and gave every one a piece saying these words This is the bread of affliction which your Fathers eat in the wildernesse and thereafter hee took the Cup and gave it to them saying This is the cup of affliction which your Fathers dranke in the wildernesse Now our Saviour Christ reserved the same Ceremony for the Text saith that first he took bread and after that He had given thanks he brake it and gave to every one a portion and said This is my body which is broken for you Doe this in remembrance of mee And in like
company of Presbyters Acts 8.14 and 11.22 and 15.6 7 8. to the 30. and 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. Answer These things were done in the infancie of the Church before the Government was established and so can be no rule for after ages some will so answer I answer further there is not a word there that will confirme Presbyteriall government for none of the meetings spoken of in those places consist of persons having the like and equall authoritie but all that was done in them was done by Apostolicall power by the power of the Apostles they were convened together by the Apostles moderation those meetings were governed by their authoritie all things were concluded they had full and absolute power in their own hands although it pleased them to do nothing without the consent of their Brethren of an inferiour Order yee will find all that I have said true if yee will be pleased to see the places But most cleerly it appeareth 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. where the Apostle by his power and authoritie coÌ„mandeth the Corinthian Ministers to excommunicate the incestuous person in an open assembly or rather to intimate that excommunication which he had already pronounced for thus he speaketh For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged alreadie as though I were present concerning him that hath done this deed In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus I hope this meeting was enjoyned by the Apostle upon an extraordinary occasion nothing was done but by his speciall appointment Here is nothing to warrant the authority of Presbyteriall Government there seems something to be in the words for Parochiall If there had been Parishes and Lay-elders in those days and truly if I were not of that judgement That the Calling of the Apostles were an ordinary Calling and to be continued with the same latitude of power and authoritie in their Successors untill the end of the World I might easily be moved to approve of Parochiall Government but never of Presbyteriall and truly if the Callings of the Apostles and Evangelists be not acknowledged to be instituted by Christ for the perpetuall Government of Gods Church Parochiall Government is that which hath greatest shew of warrant in the Scriptures as for Presbyteriall it hath not so much as any shew at all in the whole book of God Now follows that I cleere the doubts and first I know it will be objected That by this doctrine I condemne all the Churches of Christ that are governed after that manner Ans I condemne not the Churches but the Government Some perhaps may reply That since I make Episcopal government to be Christs institution I charge them with a very grosse errour I answer Let them see to that I cannot call evill good nor good evill unlesse I make my selfe lyable to the curse pronounced neither will any thing excuse them except necessity for both Gods Law and mans Law doth dispence with it but because there is no necessitie let men beware for Ego liberavi animam meam Furthermore it will be alleaged That Timothy and Titus and the Bishops of old were not like our Bishops They had not that power and authoritie nor that Lordly Government that Bishops have now They were not Barons Lords Earles Princes in such kind as they are now They had not power over the bodies and estates of offenders as Bishops have now They might not punish with the Civill Sword as well as the Spirituall Ans In Episcopall Government there are two things The one is Spirituall and de jure divino by divine right The other is Civill and de dono humano of humane gift and by the donation of Kings and Princes That is their Civill Honour their Civill Power their Temporalities their Revenues as to be Barons in Parliament to judge in causes Temporall to inflict temporall punishment all these they have by the free gift of Kings and Princes and many Kings have been very liberall in this kind to Churchmen and not without warrant from God neither according to that of the Apostle The Elders that rule wel are worthy of double honour and in speciall they that labour in the Word Doctrine 1 Tim. 5. And why should any man be offended to see Honor given to Church-men May not Kings and Princes give honour to any subject they please or are not Churchmen capable of Civill Honour and Power now under the Gospell aswell as they were under the Law As to the first I think no man will deny but Kings and Princes may advance such of their Subjects as they please it is their speciall prerogative I make no question of it And truly I see no more reason that any man should make question of the other but that Churchmen are as capable of Civill Honour and Power now under the Gospel as they were under the Law it is forbidden in no part of the New Testament I am sure hath God forbidden Ministers to give their advice to Kings and Princes for the better correcting of Vice and Sin and for managing all things in the State so that God thereby may be the more glorified and the Kingdome of Jesus Christ advanced or hath God forbidden Princes to crave their advice It was well said of a Divive That it is well with the Church when godly Prophets hang as precious Earings at the Princes eares Erasmus said well in an Epistle to Iohn Alasco If we had moe Bishops like Ambrose we should have more Emperours like Theodosius But I would aske any man this question Have not Christian Kings as great need of the concurrent Counsell and Assistance of the Governours of the Church now as the Kings of Israel had under the Law and was there ever any religious King among the Iews who had not conâ—inually the High priest to second him in all his affaires was not Aaron next unto Moses was not Eleazar next unto Iosua Had not David Zador and Abiather continually in his company Was not Azariah next unto Salomon and did not Ioash that which was right in the sight of the Lord as long as Iehoida lived and was not Hilkia chief Counsellour to Iosia and Amaria chief Judge under Jehosaphat Truly I hold this for a sure ground That what ever was done under the Law not being commanded by God then it is as lawfull for us now under the Gospell to doe the same except it be forbidden us and wee need not doubt but it will be as well approved by God now as it was then But which is more yet If any thing be commanded by God under the Law which is not ceremoniall and typicall it is then much more lawfull I think for us to do now Did not the Lord himselfe command the people of
and neither of things present nor by-past Thirdly the High Priest as he was chiefe Governour he could not be a type and figure of Christ because if there had been but two ranks of Church Governours one of them behoved to be chiefe and so still there should have been a chiefe Governour And lastly the order that was among Church Governours was not Ceremoniall but Morall and as necessary for the Government of the Christian Church as the Jewish for God is the God of Order now I am sure as well as he was then now nothing that was Morall was typicall and therefore Aaron was not a type and figure of Christ as hee was chiefe Governour of the Iews Now I will shew you in what respect hee was a type and figure of Christ First as the High Priest was one man he did typifie Christ as the one High Priest of our profession and therefore Christ would not commit the chief Government of the Church to one any more but to many in one and the same rank and order Next the High Priest his offering of one Sacrifice once in the yeere within the Veil was a Type of that only one propitiatorie Sacrifice once offered up for the sins of the quick and the dead by our Saviour Christ Thirdly the High Priest his once in the yeere only entring within the Veil was a type of our Saviour his once entring into Heaven to make intercession for us For these respects then AARON was a type and figure of Christ but no ways in relation to his Government for the Reasons before alleaged I have another Reason yet that moves mee to think that there can be no fewer then three Rankes of Church Governours now under the Gospel and it is this The number of Three is mysticall as is evident by many examples both in Scripture things above Nature Naturall things and Spirituall things In Supernaturall things wee see the truth of this assertion in the Divine Essence which subsists in the number of three Persons which is the mysterie of all mysteries in the Divine Essence also there are three Communicable properties Goodnesse Power and Wisdome to these three all the rest may be referred as Life Love Justice c. three incommunicable properties Simplicitie Eternitie Ubiquitie of These no creature is capable According to this similitude the faculties of the Soul were formed by God himselfe for the Soule hath three chiefe faculties Judgement Memory and Will yea the renewed minde consisteth of three Theologicall Vertues Faith Hope and Charitie which are the three dimensions of every Christian soule the bodily Substences of all creatures are composed of Three Longitude Latitude and Profunditie without the which the Creatures can have no Subsistence There are also three degrees of Life Vegetative Sensitive and Rationall and all these in analogie to the three Persons of the Godhead it were easie to shew you divers resemblances between them if it were necessary and to the purpose It was more then the light of Nature that taught Aristotle to esteeme the number of three to be the perfectest number of all numbers yea to be all in all Qui dicit tria saith hee dicit omnia qui dicit ter dicit omnifariam He that saith three saith all and he that saith thrice saith always But to come to the Scriptures saith not Iohn 1 John 5.7 8 that there are three things that beare witnesse in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one and that there are three things that beare witnesse on earth the Spirit the Water and the Bloud and these three agree in one Christ loved three Disciples above all the rest with whom he conversed most familiarly Peter James and Iohn to them he shewed himselfe in his glory at the Transfiguration and also in his greatest agonie and humiliation in the Garden of Gethsemanie Our Saviour fulfilled his Ministery in the space of three yeeres hee lay three days in the Grave three times appearred to the eleven after his Resurrection and many mo then these are to be found in the New Testament In the Old Testament you shall finde many numbers of three wherein some mysterie may be found wee read of three only that went to Heaven bodily Enoch Elias and Christ to teach us that salvation both in body and soule is obtained under all the three kinds of Church Government for God hath governed his Church three severall wayes since the Creation one way before the Law another way under the Law and a third way under the Gospell The Worship of God hath been also of three severall formes according to the severall ages of the World Three men saved in the floud of Noah of whom the World hath been replenished the second time Sem Ham and Japhet Three great Patriarchs out of whose loins the Church of God did spring Three great Sabbaths the seven dayes Sabbath the seven yeers Sabbath and the yeer of Jubilee Three great Feasts the Feast of Tabernacles Easter and Pentecost Three ranks of Church Governours the high Priest inferiour Priests and Levits and a number more so that I say if there be any number mysticall it is the number of Three wee have not so great reason to call Seven Mysticall as for Nine it is only thought Mysticall because it contains thrice three But here my opponents will reply That they keep this analogie of three for they also maintain three Degrees of Churchmen preaching Elders Lay-Elders and Deacons who are all Governours of the Church and preaching Elders the chiefe Governours I answer if preaching Elders be the chiefe Governours then according to the Replyers opinion who maintains that the High Priest was a Type and figure of Christ as he was chief Governour of the Church they must be cashiered for wee cannot have chiefe Governours now under the Gospel according to my opposites tenet and so it will follow we must have no publike Ministery at all nor no publike Government neither but private in every man his own Family or rather every man must doe according as hee is moved by the spirit I answer further that those three Orders are neither Christs nor his Apostles Ordinance for any evidence that I can see in Scripture no not so much as any shew or appearance As for Lay Elders I can not find them once named in all the Scripture although the Apostle Paul doth particularly make mention of all Church Governours under the Apostolicall Order in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus he particularly declares what preaching Elders and Deacons must be how they must be qualified before they enter into holy Orders but never one word of Lay Elders Deacons indeed he nominates but not Lay Deacons but such as must preach the Gospel and baptise at their Superiours direction and therefore the Apostle Paul requires that Deacons keep the mysterie of Faith in a pure conscience which cannot be required of Lay men such a measure of knowledge as is understood
and I will begin with this Argument Either Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles or the Apostles have no Successors at all But that the Apostles have no Successors at all it is false as I have in my judgment unanswerably proved And therefore Bishops are their Successors for I have proved also that Presbyters cannot be their Successors My next argument is this Timothy and Titus were Bishopt Timothy and Titus succeeded unto the Apostles And therefore Bishops succeeded to the Apostles I prove the proposition by this argument that is That Timothy and Titus were Bishops They whose calling was ordinary and had the power of Ordination and Iurisdiction over Presbyters were Bishops But Timothy and Titus their calling was ordinary and had the power of Ordination and Iurisdiction over Presbyters And therefore Timothy and Titus were Bishops The proposition will be granted I prove the assumption and first that Timothy and Titus Calling was ordinary They who had the only Ordinary parts of the Ministeriall Function their Calling was ordinary But Timothy and Titus had the only ordinary parts of the Ministeriall Function And therefore the Calling of Timothy and Titus was ordinary The proposition will be granted I prove the assumption They who had only power to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments c. had only the ordinary parts of the Ministeriall Function But Timothy and Titus had only power to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments c. And therefore Timothy and Titus had the only ordinary parts of the Ministeriall Function I prove the assumption thus Tim. Tit. had neither the gift of Miracles nor the gift of Prophecie nor the gift of Tongues nor the gift of Healing nor any extraordinary gift at all for any thing we read neither were they infallibly guided by the Spirit for if they had had the infallible assistance of the Spirit the Apostle Paul would not have bin so earnest to exhort them to do their dutie in their calling Timothy is exhorted to war a good warfare holding faith a good conscience 1 Tim. 1.18 19. to be an example of Believers in Word in Conversation in Charitie in Spirit in Faith in Puritie 1 Tim. 4.12 and to give attendance to Reading to Exhortation to Doctrine and Meditation and not to neglect the gift that was given him by Prophecie 1 Tim. 4.13 14 15. Titus had also the like exhortations so that it is most certain neither of them had the spirit of infallibilitie nor no extraordinary gift of the Spirit but the only ordinary parts of the Ministerial Function and consequently their calling was ordinary Next I prove their calling was ordinary by this argument They whose calling was by Education Triall and Ordination their calling was ordinary But Timothy and Titus their calling was by Education Triall and Ordination And therefore their calling was ordinary The Proposition needs no probation for they who are called to be Preachers of the Gospell by ordinary means without all question their calling was ordinary for Tim. it is cleere for he had his education under his Grandmother Lois and his Mother Eunice he was tryed by the Apostle and he had the approbation and commendation of the Brethren who were at Listra and Iconium before he would receive him in his companie thereafter he had his breeding for a greater progress in knowledge under the Apostle Paul before he was made a Presbyter much more before he was made a Bishop for this cause Paul saith to him Hold fast the forme of sound words which thou hast heard of me in Faith and Love which is in Christ Jesus as for his ordination it is without all question most cleere and evident all this also may bee said of Titus and therefore I conclude both their callings to bee ordinary Titus his calling as well as Timothies Thirdly I prove their calling to be ordinary by this Argument That calling which was to continue unto the end of the World was an ordinary calling But Timothy and Titus calling was to continue unto the end of the VVorld And therefore Timothy and Titus calling was an ordinary Calling I prove the Assumption That which was to bee propagated untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Persons of Tim. and Tit. successors was to continue unto the end of the World But Timothy and Titus calling was to be propagated in the persons of Tim. and Titus successors untill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ And therefore Timothy and Titus calling was to continue untill the end of the World The Proposition will be granted I prove the assumption That which must be kept untill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ must be propagated by Timothy and Titus successors untill his appearing But the calling of Tim. and Tit. in all the particular parts of it must be kept untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ And therefore their calling was to be propagated in the persons of their successors untill his appearing The Proposition is evident because the parts of the Ministeriall function cannot be otherwise kept but by propagation and for this cause the Apostle commands Timothy to propagate 2 Tim. 2.2 The things that thou hast heard of mee saith he before many witnesses the same commit thou to faithfull men who shall be able to teach others The Assumption is also manifest by that strict charge which he giveth unto Timothy in the latter end of the first Epistle cap. 6.13.14 I charge thee saith he in the sight of God who quickneth all things and before Christ Jesus who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession that thou keepe this Commandement without spot unrebukable untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ Now this Commandement that he would have Timothy to keepe doth comprehend all the particulars conteined in his Epistle both concerning Doctrine and Government and in particular the whole parts of the Episcopall function which is most obvious to any reader and so still my conclusion stands good That the calling of Timothy and Titus is to bee propagated in the persons of their successors untill the second comming of our Saviour and consequently their calling was an ordinary calling It rests to prove the second part of the assumption of the principall argument that Tim. and Titus had the power of ordination and jurisdiction over presbyters and first I will use this argument ad hominem for all the opposers of Episcopacie maintain That Tim. was an Evangelist and that his power was Apostolicall and so in order and degree above Presbyters and thus upon these grounds I reason after this manner They whose function was Apostolicall had the power of ordination and jurisdiction over Presbyters But Tim. and Titus function was Apostolicall And therefore they had the power of ordination and jurisdiction over Presbyters Next I will prove Timothy and Titus to have the power of ordination of Presbyters This is the Argument They who are commanded to ordaine Elders have the
power of ordination Timothy and Titus are commanded to Ordaine Elders And therefore Tim. and Tit. had the power of Ordination The Proposition cannot in reason be denied for Paul would never have commanded them to do that which they had not power to doe yea the same power of ordination is a part of that Commandement which he is bidden commit to faithfull men to be kept and propagated untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ The Assumption is manifest 1. Tim. 5.22 and Tit. 1.5 That they had the power of jurisdiction is proved thus They who are commanded to rebuke censure and correct with all authority and not suffer themselves to be despised to stay foolish questions and vain bablings to excommunicate the obstinate to try and prove those who desire the office of a Bishop and either to admit or reject them according to their weakenesse or ability have the power of jurisdiction spirituall But Timothy and Titus are commanded to do all these things 1 Timothy 4.11 12. 1 Tim. 3.9.17.19.20 1 Tim. 6.17 Tit. 1.11.13 and Tit. 3.10 And therefore Timothy and Titus have the power of jurisdiction spirituall The strength of this Argument I refer to the consideration of the learned for I hope no wise man will say that these priviledges can bee divided from the power of jurisdiction Now I will use one Argument yet to prove that Timothy and Titus had the power of ordination and jurisdiction jointly If those Bishops of whom the Apostle Paul speaks in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus received the power of ordination and jurisdiction by those instructions and precepts which the Apostle Paul sets downe in those Epistles then Timothy and Titus much more received the power of ordination and jurisdiction by those instructions of the Apostle Paul set downe in those Epistles But the first is true and therefore the second is true also The connexion of the proposition is valid enough for if inferiour Bishops whom the Apostle calleth also Elders in that place received the power of ordination and jurisdiction as is asserted by all the opposers of Episcopacie by the Apostles injunctions in those Epistles much more have superiour Bishops as Timothy and Titus were this twofold power by those injunctions this is an argument strong enough ad hominem although I confesse That properly Timothy and Titus have not this twofold power here by the Apostle Paul but only are commanded to put that power in execution which the Apostle Paul before had conferr'd upon them at their ordination which also they are commanded to propagate and transmit unto others for the preservation of the calling and propagation of the Gospell of Christ vntill his second comming to judgement Now for the better cleering of this Doctrine I will prove That Presbyters or inferior Bishops have no ways the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction I desire any Opponent to shew mee the place where it is recorded in the Scripture in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus they find it not Tim. and Tit. are commanded to put all the parts of the Apostolicall power in execution but not those Elders and Deacons of whom the Apostle speakes there they get no Commandement to use that power for it is more then evident That all the injunctions set down in those Epistles are given to Timothy and Titus and all those who were to succeed them in that same order and degree yea to them as they are singular men and as Superiour in Order and Degree to all those towards whom they are to exercise that power and the reason is this because one man in that same Order and Degree cannot have power over an other in that same rank and order one Bishop cannot have power over an other one Presbyter cannot have power over another That man that hath power over an other must be superior unto him in degree or he can have no authority over him that is his own properly delegate he may have but that is not his it is his in whose name he exercises that power But it will be replied That this power is given to a company of Presbyters and not to one in particular Answer This power is given here to Timothy and Titus as singular persons and therefore I will make the matter manifest by a formall argument That power which is committed to certain particular and singular men in the Ministery is not committed to a representative body of Ministers But the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction is committed to certain particular and singular men in the Ministery And therefore it is not committed to a representative body of Ministers The proposition cannot be denied for that which is committed to one singular man in a calling cannot bee said to bee committed to the whole company and trade indefinitely for example that power which is committed to one Alderman in the Citie to wit the Master or Lord Major is not committed to the whole councell of Aldermen he hath a different and superiour power to all the rest As to the assumption That this power was committed to certain singular men as to Timothy and Titus and all those who were to succeed them in the same ranke and order it is more then evident Now to note this by the way since Presbyters doe not succeed to Timothy and Titus in that same order and degree the power of Ordination cannot be committed unto them Furthermore If the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction be committed to Presbyters as they are singular men then every Presbyter hath alike power and authoritie within his own Charge every one is Pope in his own Parish and may command rule and governe as hee thinks good for who can controll him none of his brethren have any more power over him then hee hath over them for every one hath equall power and authoritie transinitted unto them and this is downright Brownisme But it may be replyed That the Presbytery hath power over all particular Ministers Answ Who hath given them this power It is not given them by Christ nor his Apostles If you reply it is agreed upon by common consent I Answer Then at least Presbyteriall Government is not of divine Ordination But I would ask this question what if I should refuse to give my consent to such a government or to subject my self to it how can I be forced to obey their Canons and Laws by whose authoritie the representative Church such as the Presbytery is cannot compell me before I subject my selfe to her authoritie the civill Magistrate cannot do it neither by the doctrine of all my opposites and some would say if any should usurpe authoritie and compell by violence it should be the destroying of our Christian Libertie and tying us whom Christ hath made free and in a word the demolishing of that platforme of government which Christ himselfe did establish any defender of Parochiall government may reason in this kind But it will be againe replyed That this authoritie is given to a