Presbyteriall Ordination VINDICATED.
CHAP. I. Of Epiſcopacy, &c.
IN all the changes which have paſſed over this Nation of late years, it hath been the portion of the Lords Miniſters, to paſs through unkind dealings, and reproachful ſpeeches from ſeveral ſorts of men, no change proving to be on their ſide, but all changes againſt them. One while they were called Antichriſtian Miniſters, becauſe they were ordained by Biſhops, who being Antichriſtian, all that were ordained by them, were ſuch alſo: Hence Epiſcopal Ordination muſt be renounced, a new one taken [or Popular Election alone might ſerve the turn] elſe the people, will renounce their Miniſtry, ſeparate from them, and ſo did. In this unexpected change [though much deſired and prayed for, as to our King and the Royal Family, with our Ancient Civil Government, unto which by ſolemn Covenant we were engaged] many hundreds of Godly Miniſters, and able for their work, are ſaid to be no Miniſters, becauſe they were ordained by Presbyters: And let me give you the words of one of the great Doctors, who asking a godly and able Miniſter, who was ordained by Presbyters, Whether he were ordained by a Biſhop? Whether he had his Inſtitution, &c. from a Biſhop? to which he anſwered, No; then ſaid this Learned Doctor to him, Your Ordination and Inſtitution is not worth a Fart. Sweetly ſpoken Sir!
2According to the Talent the Lord hath lent me, I wrote a little in defence of Epiſcopal Ordination, ſo far as to prove it not to be Antichriſtian: But now the Controverſie is come home to my own door; for though in the preſence of the people who elected me, with their hands lifted up to manifeſt their Election, in a day of Faſting and Prayer, I was by five Ancient, Godly and Grave Divines [the greater part eminent in their Generation] ſet apart to the work of the Miniſtry by Impoſition of hands, Prayer, and words ſutable to the Ordinance, yet my Ordination is queſtioned by ſuch in whoſe defence I wrote before; (thank you Brethren) the ground being this, they judge Ordination to be a work proper to a Biſhop, whom they make an Officer diſtinct from Presbyters, having more eminent Offices, and greater power belonging to them than Presbyters have. How they come by this power, is the queſtion; that Reverend and Learned Biſhop Dr. Davenant, in his 42 Determination, undertakes to prove that this eminency of the Biſhop, is in verbo divino adumbrata, delineata, & abipſis Apoſtolis conſtabilita, and that it is an eaſie thing to demonſtrate it.
The reaſons why I pitch upon this man rather than another, are theſe; 1. Becauſe he undertakes to prove this eminency of power by the holy Scriptures [I wiſh all would hold here.] 2. He ſums up all the Arguments that ever I heard for it. 3. He performes his work gravely, ſoberly, like a Chriſtian, a Divine, not filling his Papers with ſuch ſcorns, jeers and bitter Invectives, as the Epiſcopal men have done, who have wrote of late, that a ſober man hath ſcarce patience to read them.
For my part, I have beſtowed but very little time in this controverſie, neither have I ſo much as ſeen thoſe who have written moſt largely and elaborately about it, as Blondel, Salmatius, nor others: Mr. Baxter came to my hand when I had almoſt done, ſo that I have not read him through, but caſt my eye here and there upon him. I wiſh ſome body would anſwer him as ſoberly as he writes; but I think he will never be anſwered. Leaving the Reader to ſuch able men for fuller ſatisfaction, I ſhall communicate my meditations, ſo far I hope, as to prove our Ordination by Pretbyters to be valid, holding weight in Gods Balance.
For thoſe Epiſcopal men who have written of late, with ſuch ſcorn, bitterneſs and confidence, the ſtrongeſt Arguments I find, are theſe:
31. Thus it hath been for fifteen hundred years, before Calvin roſe, the Churches had ever Biſhops; name the Church that had not: Thus theſe Brethren think, à facto ad jus, valet conſequentia undeniably.
2. The Fathers who lived in the Primitive times tell us, the Apoſtles did conſtitute Biſhops in ſeveral Cities, as, Timothy, and Titus, &c. This is all their ſtrength.
But in ſober words I beſeech you, What kind of Biſhops were fifteen hundred years ago? [if you begin to reckon from the Apoſtles times] Biſhops diſtinct from Presbyters in Power and Offices and that by Divine right? Verily you fall ſhort in proving it. Or were they ſuch Biſhops that extended their power for forty miles ſpace or more, over many hundred Presbyters, and over many hundred thouſand of perſons, whom they never ſaw? I beſeech you name us ſuch Biſhops in the three or four firſt Centuries, elſe you know what Biſhops do not anſwer. I have read in a Learned Author, that in Auguſtines time, there were in one Province under Carthage, of the Catholicks and Donatiſts, above nine hundred Biſhops, the Author ſums up how many of each; ſurely theſe Biſhops did not extend their power much further than ſome great Pariſhes in ſome Countreys**Suppoſe Lancaſhire. , or ſome ſuch Towns as Ipſwich, Briſtol, Colchester, &c. If you will have ſuch Biſhops, and give them no more power than Chriſt hath given them, for Order ſake I will yield to them, and give them the Honour, and if more maintenance be conferred upon them by the King, than other Presbyters who joyn with them, I ſhall be very willing and glad of it. So that I am not againſt an Imparity in honour nor maintenance, neither would I be in power and office, if Chriſt had given more to them than others.
As to the Second, I do honour the Fathers in their places. 1. Scripture. 2. Sound Reaſon. 3. Fathers or Antiquity.
But yet I cannot yield that St. Paul and Ignatius, St. Peter and Chryſoſtome, ſhould be of equal authority; I am ſure you make them but very little different, if any thing leſs, as will appear after.
I am not a man verſed in the Fathers as others are, yet ſome of them (the moſt ancient) I have read, and in them I find ſo many ſtrange humane mixtures in the Worſhip of God, that I cannot yield to this conſequence, The Fathers ſay it, or did it, ergo, It4 is lawful: Much leſs in this controverſie, finding what the holy Ghoſt hath foretold of an Antichriſt that ſhould ariſe, whom out Godly Biſhops before, and Learned Whitaker, with others, have thought and proved to be the Biſhop of Rome, though Dr. Hammond and our latter Epiſcopal Divines, will not have it ſo: We fear, we fear, &c. [What a pitiful interpretation hath D. Hum. made of 2 Theſ. 2. and ſo of ſeveral places of the Revelation, to the end the Biſhop of Rome might be ſpared.] But following worthy Biſhops, and the Learned and holy Divines, in their judgment of that Biſhop of Rome, I am not ſo much carried with the ſayings not practiſes of theſe ancient Biſhops in this point, for there muſt be ſome preparation made to his riſing into that uſurped Chair, he came not there perſaltum.
To theſe Divines let me propound theſe queſtions.
1. Quest. Whether are not the Holy Scriptures the perfect and only Rule for our Faith and Manners? Are they not able to Make a man of God (a Miniſter) perfect? 2 Tim. 3 17. If they be, I beſeech you let us give more honour to them in theſe Controverſies.
2. Were thoſe Fathers and Churches you ſo much mention, ſo guided, that they could not, or did not erre? Were not the holy Scriptures a Rule to them as well as to us? Erre they did in ſome points I am ſure.
3. Will the Lord judge us at that great day by theſe Fathers? Will it be a ſufficient anſwer to give the Lord, if we ſin in ſetting up Humane Inventions in his Worſhip, to ſay, Lord, thus the Fathers ſaid, thus they did; Dare you ſay it is ſufficient to excuſe us?
I beſeech you then, Reverend Brethren, Why do you preſs us ſo much with theſe men, and with Antiquities, and not ſtick to pure Antiquity, the holy Scriptures: Bleſſed Auguſtine (whom I ſo much honour and love of all the Fathers) knew how to value Cyprian enough,Aug. tom. 7. pag. 240.390 F••b. but when Creſconius or other Donatiſts, would bring any thing out of him, to prove what Auguſtin judged an errour, he knew how to ſet the Scri•tures and Apoſtles above him. So doth Cyprian ſharply ſpeak againſt thoſe who brought Tradition for their proof; qua iſta obstinatio, qua preſumptio, humanam traditionem divine diſpoſitîoni anteponere, & c? Ʋnde iſta traditio? Ʋtrumne de dominica & evangelica auctoritate deſcendens,Ep 74. & c? So5 Tertullian. Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de two infert. Bellarmine ſaith enough, Patrum ſcripta non ſunt regula, nec habent authoritatem obligandi.
To the Scriptures then let us go, which ſpeak ſo clear in this controverſie, that all men, even the Papiſts, who call thoſe men Hereticks, that deny this ſuperiority of Biſhops, yet are forced to yield it, that in the Apoſtles time, the Biſhop and Presbyter were the ſame. Let Cajetan's interpretation be heard, upon Tit. 1.5, 7. Ʋbi adverte eundem gradum, idemquè officium ſignificari à Paulo, nomine Presbyteri & nomine Epiſcopi; as croſs to Biſhop Davenant as can be, Anſelm the Archbiſhop of Canterbury, in his Comment upon the ſame verſes, brings all Hierons Comment, where he proves Biſhops and Presbyters to be the ſame, and no way oppoſeth it. Eſtius, who in the beginning of his Diſputation, calls them Hereticks, who will not yield the ſuperiority of Biſhops, and that jure divino, in the midſt of his Diſputation, hath theſe words, Quod autem jure divin•ſint Epiſcopi Presbyteris ſuperiores,Senten. l. 4. d. 24. S. 25. etſi non ita clarum eſt è ſaoris literis, aliunde ramen ſatis efficaciter probari poteſt; probatur tam ratione, quàm teſtimoniis veterum. It ſeems then the Scriptures are not clear enough to prove this ſuperiority, in his opinion; and which is divinely ſpoken, though he could not prove the divine right of this Superiority out of the Scriptures, yet he would prove it by reaſon and teſtimonies of Ancients: Had a Presbyterian written thus, he ſhould have been ſcorned to purpoſe.
Take the Papiſts again, in their I. C. diſt. 60. Sacres Ordines dicimus, Diaconatum & Preſbyteratum, hos enimſolos primitiva legitur habuiſſe Eccleſia. According to theſe then, your Antiquity for Epiſcopacy muſt not go ſo high as the Primitive Church. One more Papiſt, and I have done with them: I find Greg. de Valen.De Sacr. Ord. diſp. 9. q. 1. p. 2. quoting of Michael Medina (one of their own) affirming that Hierem, and all the Fathers he had named before, which were Anguſtin, Ambroſe, Chryſoſtom, Primaſius, Theophylact and Otcumenius, fuiſſe planè in errore Acrii, but the Church did not condemn this errour in them, but bare with them, becauſe they were otherwiſe orthodox, but did condemn it in Acrius, being otherwiſe in multis nominibus hareticus. Then it ſeems Acrius, who was againſt this Superiority by divine right, had theſe worthy men in that point to agree with him, in Medina's judgment,6 with whom Valentia is not pleaſed.
To conclude (as to Teſtimonies) Learned and Sober Jewel, (a Jewel indeed) in his defence againſt Harding, p. 101, 202. quoting teſtimonies out of Hierom, Ambroſe, Auguſtin, concludes that by the Scriptures of God, a Biſhop and Preſbyter are all one: thus this Reverend Biſhop. I wonder theſe Teſtimonies grounded alſo on Scripture, could not moderate our Brethrens heat in this controverſie. We hope Presbyterial Ordination will not be ſo contemptible at laſt.
I have but one thing to add; and it is conſiderable, the Syriack Tranſlation, which is ſo ancient, that in time it came near the Original, and is thought by ſome to have been made in the time of the firſt Antiochian Chriſtians, do not uſe two words, one for Biſhop, and another for Presbyter, as our Tranſlation and the Greek, but it hath only the word which ſignifies a Presbyter, [unleſſe in one place] Tit. 1.5, 7. For a Presbyter muſt be blameleſs, So 1 Tim. 3.1. If a man deſire the Office of a Presbyter. V. 2. A Presbyter then muſt be blameleſs. So in Phil. 1.1. With the Presbyters and Deacons. In Acts 20.28. There it alters, the word is originally Greek, the ſame with〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, only it hath a Syriac termination, being Nomen plurale emphaticum in prima Declinatione. In 1 Pet. 2. ult. Where Biſhop is referr'd to Chriſt, there it hath another word.
Now this to me carries ſtrong proof that this diſtinction of Biſhop and Presbyter, was unknown, when that Tranſlation was made, for there is not ſo much as any different names, but Presbyter is the only word. Whether any have taken notice of this before, I know not.
And though ſome ſay, that it is a Trite Argument, that is drawn from the words Presbyter and Biſhop, being uſed promiſcuouſly, yet it is ſuch an Argument as hath ſo much ſtrength in it, that it was never anſwered. We uſe to ſay that Nomina ſunt rerum notae & ſymbola, whence if the ſame perſons are called Presbyters or Biſhops, ſurely their power cannot be diſtinct. Officers are known by their names, and diſtinct Officers by diſtinct names in ſome places in the Scripture, though in others they may have a general name common to others: Though Paul in one place calls himſelf a Miniſter, and Peter an Elder, yet in other places we find they are called Apoſtles: So the Officers have their diſtinctions,7 Apoſtles, Prophets, Evangeliſts, Paſtors and Teachers, Eph. 4.11. But Presbyter and Biſhop are never thus differenced, no not in the Epiſtles to Timothy and Titus, where of all places they ſhould have been, if in thoſe Epiſtles the Apoſtle lay the foundation of Epiſcopacy (as ſay our Brethren) but there they are the ſame, as is plain to ſee, and confeſſed by the Fathers, Papiſts and Proteſtants. Yea and beſides the ſame Names, what qualifications are required of one, are required of the other, the ſame work is enjoyned both, Acts 20.28. 1 Pet. 5.1, 2. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The ſame Names, the ſame Qualifications, the ſame Charge, conclude the ſame Function. How then Reverend Davenant comes to find this eminency of power to be given and confirmed by the Apoſtles, let us now conſider.
His firſt Argument is taken from the Jewiſh Church, thus,Arg. 1
God appointed the High Prieſt ſuperiour in authority over the Prieſts, and the Prieſts over the Levites: Ergo,
The like order is to be ſtabliſhed in the Chriſtian Church.
To which I Anſwer,
1. There was and is ſtill ſuperiority of Officers in the Chriſtian Church; there was when there were Apoſtles, Prophets,Anſw. Evangeliſts, Pastors, &c. there is now the Preaching Elder above the Ruling Elder, and the Ruling Elder above the Deacon. But he means amongſt the Preaching Elders; then I anſwer,
2. This Argument will better prove a Ʋniverſal Biſhop,Bellar. de Rom. Pont l. 1. c. 9. than a Dioceſan Biſhop, and is uſed by Bellarmine for the ſame purpoſe, it is his third reaſon; the Jewiſh Church had not hundreds of High Prieſts that met at one time, as there hath been of Biſhops in one Synod, ſo that all the Catholick Church viſible muſt have one Catholick Biſhop, elſe his Argument is loſt.
3. The High Prieſt being properly a Type of Chriſt, the moſt eminent Type, is not ſufficient to make an argument here.
4. Why not as well one Temple, though many Synagogues, if he will needs argue from the Jews, but we have more than one Cathedral in Chriſtendom.
5. Chriſt the Builder of that houſe then, hath built his houſe now under the Goſpel: Why ſhould we look back to that old building which in this ſenſe is pulled down. Obſerve how differently8 he builds, there he ſet up no Officer, but all the Officers continued ſo long as that polity continued, but here his chief Officers were but for a ſhort time, ſo that you ſee he makes a vaſt difference in the building. Alſo the Deacon was properly appointed to ſerve Tables, to regard the poor: Were there Deacons for the poor amongſt the Jews?
6. Had the Dr. mentioned the Heads of the 24 Orders of Prieſts appointed by David, which ſome ſay, were called〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Hebrews called them Roſhe aboth, the chief of the Family, there had been more likelihood of an Argument, and it is likely we ſhould have yielded as much now to the Miniſters of the Goſpel, if we were certain what the Head of the Order had more than the other Prieſts of that Order, which was not eminency of power and office ſure enough.
His ſecond Argument is taken from Chriſt in the new Teſtament,Arg. 2Who appointed Twelve Apostles, ſuperiour not only in gifts, but in amplitude of Authority and Power to the Seventy Diſciples, Now Biſhops are the Succeſſors of the Apoſtles, and Presbyters of the Seventy.
This Argument I ſee is much inſiſted upon by others,Anſw. let us try the ſtrength of it. I Anſwer,
1. Had the Apoſtles ſhewn any of that power and authority in the miſſion of the Seventy, there had been ſome probability in this Argument, but there was not the leaſt appearance of any ſuch thing, the Seventy had their Miſſion as immediatly from Chriſt, as had the Apoſtles, they contributing nothing towards it. But our Biſhops tell us, our ſending depends upon them, we can be no Presbyters without them, ſo that they will be ten times more ſuperiour than the Apoſtles.
2. As there was no difference in their Miſſion, ſo neither in their Commiſſion. Read both their Commiſſions and you find the ſame; Preach the Gospel, Heal the ſick, Cuſt out Devils &c. Biſhops then and Presbyters have the ſame Commiſſion and Miſſion: Agreed.
3. That Biſhops are the Succeſſors of the Apoſtles, Bellarmine ſaith but impropriè: Had the Dr. drawn his Argument into form, I think I ſhould have found a Fallacy in the Syllogiſm. Limit he9 muſt; then tell us how he can prove the Apoſtles were ſuperiour to the Seventy in the power of Ordination and Juriſdiction, ſo that the Seventy had not this Power: For if the Seventy had this power alſo, we are well enough, but this he cannot prove: Beſides, to ſay, though the Biſhops be not the Succeſſors of the Apoſtles in all things, yet they are in Ordination and Juriſdiction, is but the begging of the queſtion.
4. Biſhops are the Succeſſors of the Apoſtles, but let the Biſhop in the queſtion be Ens firſt, which we cannot find in divine Writ.
5. How proves he this, that Biſhops are the Apoſtles Succeſſors, and Presbyters of the Seventy, and not of the Apoſtles? This is his proof, it is omnium ferè patrum conſtans doctrina. Had he ſaid unius Apoſtoli, it had prevailed much more with me. We are ſeeking for jus divinum, but he mentions ſome Fathers, and thoſe not the moſt ancient neither. But have none[ of the] Fathers ſaid that Presbyters are the Succeſſors of the Apoſtles alſo? Hath Irenaeus nothing to that purpoſe? the two Jeſuits Bellarm and Greg.Lib. 3. cap. 2. Lib. 4. cap. 23. de Val. are ſo kind to us to tell us they have ſaid ſo.
I ſee the Dr. adds a Scripture at the bottom of the Paragraph, 1 Cor. 12.28, 29. But ſurely this makes nothing to the proof of Epiſcopal ſucceſſion. Are all Apostles? are all Prophets? are all Teachers? I think this Text he brings will pluck up this Epiſcopacy by the roots: God hath ſet in his Church, Where ſhall we find the Biſhop in queſtion ſet? not among the Apoſtles I hope, not among the Prophets, then it muſt be among the Teachers, ſo the Text, thirdly Teachers, but are not Presbyters Teachers? Well met honoured Dr.
6. The Apoſtle Peter, 1 Ep. c 5. v. 1. Writing to the Presbyters, calls himſelf a Presbyter: Had the Apoſtle written thus, The Biſhops which are among you I exhort, whs alſo am a Biſhop, this would have been cried up for an invincible Argument to prove that Biſhops were the Apoſtles Succeſſors, for he writes to Biſhops, and calls himſelf a Biſhop. Gentlemen, give us fair play I beſeech you, the Argument is ours, to prove Presbyters are the Succeſſors of Peter the Presbyter.
To ſay the Apoſtles and Seventy were extraordinary Officers, and ſo we cannot draw any thing from them, there may be ſomthing in it, but I add no more.
10His third Argument is,Arg. 3The Apoſtles before they paſſed from earth to Heaven, did conſtitute in great Cities one Biſhop, ſuperiour not only over the Laicks, but alſo the Presbyters; as James in Jeruſalem, Timothy at Epheſus, Titus in Creet, &c.
I hope he takes Biſhop properly,Anſw. as we intend in the queſtion, elſe he deceives us. I Anſwer,
1. Why did not the Apoſtle Paul or ſome other Apoſtle conſtitute ſuch a Biſhop in Gorinth before his departure? I am ſure Corinth was none of the leaſt Cities: His Epiſtles to Corinth mention no ſuch thing, and that is much if there were one. Paul wrote to them Anno 52, as Buchol. and Alſted. Or about 54, as Dr. Hammond. When Clemens wrote his Epiſtle to them is uncertain, ſaith Learned Mr. Young, but he ſuppoſeth, not before his baniſhment, which was two years before his Martyrdom, and gives his reaſons for his opinion; he ſuffered Martyrdom in the third year of Trajan, Anno 103. ſaith Sixtus Senenſis: Hence then almoſt fifty years paſſed between the Epiſtles of Paul and Clemens to the Corinthians, Clemens p. 8. mentions Pauls Martyrdom, but in all his Epiſtle there is not one word to ſhew that there was ſuch a Biſhop in his time, for in the winding up his Epiſtle, p. 73. he exhorts them,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it ſhould have been〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but not a word of ſuch a Biſhop, whom Clemens would not have forgotten had he been there. This Epiſtle is the moſt pure piece of all Antiquity, next the Scriptures.
2. Is the Dr. ſure that all thoſe he mentions were Biſhops propriè dicti, he ſaith indeed afterward, p. 195. Certum eſt Timotheum, Titum, Jacobum, multosquè alios propriè dictos Epiſcopos fuiſſe viventibus Apoſtolis, &c. yet adds in the concluſion, quaſi affixos. Well then certum eſt, but how I pray, certitudine fidei divinae? elſe 'tis not certain to us in this controverſie, I regard not mens words without Scripture: but what mean theſe words quaſi affixos, this quaſi ſpoils the certainty, for if but quaſi affixi, they were but quaſi Epiſcopi, as I could ſoon prove from the Scriptures, and the Canons of Councils.
I wonder the Dr. ſhould ſay, that James was the Biſhop of Jeruſalem, and that propriè dictus. I ſee Lapide and Lorinus giving that the reaſon why James ſpake next to Peter, becauſe James was Biſhop of Jeruſalem, where the Council was held: But,
111. He was an Apoſtle, one of the Pillars, Gal. 2.9. whoſe ſentence in this queſtion ſwayed the Synod, but to have an Apoſtle a Biſhop in our ſenſe is ſtrange: Had the Dr. forgot that on this ground our Divines againſt the Papiſts prove that Peter could not be Biſhop of Rome, becauſe he was an Apoſtle, and ſo not fixed.
2. If James were a Biſhop, why had he not his Title given him in Acts 15? For in v. 4, 6, 23. we have mention made of Apoſtles and Presbyters, but not a word of a Biſhop, this is very far from this certainty: 'Tis certain indeed he was no Biſhop.
As for Timothy and Titus, there hath been a huge ſtir about theſe: I have heard that Mr. Prin hath written a Treatiſe, which he cals the unbiſhopping of Timothy and Titus, and that ſo ſtrongly, that as none yet ever went about to anſwer him, ſo none can: I could never ſee the Book, but refer the Reader to him. I ſhall be the briefer.
I ſee ſome Divines prove that Paul did conſtitute Timothy Biſhop of Epheſus, becauſe he ſaid, 1 Tim. 1.3. As I beſought thee to abide ſtill at Epheſus. [Strange that a Biſhop of a place ſhould be beſought to ſtay in his Biſhopprick.] And Titus becauſe he ſaid, Chap. 1.5. For this cauſe I left thee in Crete. I pray caſt theſe two Texts into Syllogiſms, and let us ſee how invincibly Timothy and Titus come out Biſhops of thoſe places in the Concluſions. Could not Timothy ſtay at Epheſus to oppoſe hereſies and ordain with others [or if not with others] Miniſters, and Titus left at Crete, to do the ſame, but it muſt follow neceſſarily, Ergo, they were conſtitued fixed Biſhops of thoſe places.
But the Fathers ſay they were Biſhops; that's a proof, not ſufficient to make jus divinum. The Papiſts and Dr. Hammond ſay, they were Archbiſhops: both alike for truth.
Do the Fathers ſpeak properly when they ſay ſo? It was the ſaying of a great Biſhop, that Hiſtories are not curious in calling men by their Ti•les. Sure I am that Paul gives him another title, of which preſently.
If the Fathers did ſo, might they not be deceived with the ſubſcriptions of the Epiſtles? which this Learned Dr. meddles not with, knowing they were not Canonical.
Name I pray the moſt ancient Fathers, and tell us if they call theſe ſo in your ſenſe. Sure I am that Ignatius cals Timothy a Deacon,12 and joynes Linus with him, Epiſt. ad Tral. p. 71.
But what if the Fathers call them ſo, if I find ſtrong grounds in Holy Scripture to make me believe, they were of a higher order than ordinary Officers, if a hundred Fathers ſay they were ordinary Biſhops, I regard them not. Searching the Scriptures, we find for Timothy, that,
1. He is often joyned with Paul in the Inſcription of his Epiſtles, as Phil. 1.1. Col. 1.1. 1. Theſ. 1. & 2 Theſ. 1. Philem. 1.
2. We find him journeying with Paul, and ſent up and down by Paul.
3. He is bidden to do the work of an Evangeliſt, 2 Tim. 4.5. Now though〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is taken largely, yet,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is uſed but thrice in the New Teſtament, is never taken but for a peculiar Officer. He was one of thoſe Paul mentions Eph. 4.11. To confine the word Evangeliſts to thoſe who wrote the Goſpels, is abſurd: Matthew and John I hope were Apoſtles, and Philip was an Evangeliſt, Acts 21.8. yet wrote no Goſpel. If he were no Evangeliſt, but bidden to do the work of one this is ſtrange; an inferiour order do the work of a ſuperiour: However I hope by this Presbyters may ordain as well, though they be of an inferiour Order. But if Timothy muſt do the work of an Evangeliſt, he muſt not fixe at Epheſus.
No more fixed at Crete was Titus, though for a time left at Crete. In 2. Cor. 8.23. Paul cals him his〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and his〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, words ſutable to an Evangeliſt, ſent up and down by Paul, as we may obſerve in the Epiſtles, and journeying with Paul. After he was at Crete, Paul ſends to him to Nicopolis, Tit. 3.12. which was ſix hundred miles diſtant from Crete, as Bunting ſaith, p. 566. How long he ſtayed with him, or whither he went next, I find not. But towards the end of Pauls life, 2 Tim. 4.10, 11. he was at Rome with Paul, and by Paul ſent to preach in Dalmatia, ſaith Lapide. How theſe things ſute with a Biſhop in our ſenſe I know not: Hence Junius, Zanchy, Polanus, Beza, Calvin, Diodati, and the Lutherans conclude him to be an Evangeliſt.
As for Evangeliſts, Enſebius will give us ſome light to underſtand them, Eccleſ. Hiſt. lib. 3. cap. 37. He ſpeaks of divers then,who obtained the firſt ſtep of Apoſtolical ſucceſſion, and being as divine Diſciples of the chief and principal men, builded the Churches every where planted by the Apoſtles, &c. Taking their13 journey fulfilled the work and office of Evangeliſts, that is, they preached Chriſt unto them, which as yet heard not of the Doctrine of Faith: Theſe men having planted the Faith in ſundry new and ſtrange places, ordained there other Paſtors, committing unto them the tillage of the new ground, paſſing themſelves unto other people and Countries, being holpen thereunto by the Grace of God, which wrought with them; for as yet by the power of the Holy Ghoſt they wrought miraculouſly, ſo that innumerable multitude of men embraced the Religion of the Almighty, &c. Thus Euſebius. If this deſcription of Evangeliſts ſute any, doth it not Timothy and Titus, who were indeed divine Diſciples of Paul, a principal man, ſent up and down by him; and if theſe wrought miraculouſly, muſt it be denied of Timothy and Titus: as for the gift of Tongues, that was alſo needful, for men travelling and preaching in ſo many ſeveral Countreys.
I find ſome forced to yield they were Evangeliſts at firſt, but afterwards were made Biſhops of theſe places.
1. Was the being made a Biſhop a degree above an Evangeliſt,Anſw. was an ordinary Officer above an extraordinary Officer? then ſome truth may be in this. I find Concil. Sard. Can. 13. that the Biſhop muſt aſcend through all degrees ad culmen Epiſcopatus, but what, muſt ſuch eminent men deſcend, be degraded, when as Timothy alſo had a Propheſie concerning him, 1 Tim. 1.18? believe this who will.
2. Was there need of theſe men to be Evangeliſts in Pauls life time, and not as much after? Did the Seducers and Wolves ceaſe or decline when Paul was gone? Acts 20.29. Surely there was more need of being Evangeliſts now than before.
3. After that time, when you ſay they were made Biſhops, we find them ſent up and down by Paul.
4. If ſo, Titus had an advantage or honour above Timothy, to be made Biſhop of an Iland of 270 miles long, 50 miles in breadth, a hundred Cities (whence called Hecatompolis) and not only ſo, but Biſhop of the Ilands adjacent, and Timothy to be made Biſhop of one City Epheſus, and it may be ſome Villages about there. But Dr. Hammond [if he ſpeak truth] will be too hard for me, he tels me Timothy was Metropolitan of Aſia: Then Timothy is equal; but take Metropolitan in our ſenſe (elſe he ſaith nothing) as we call ſuch Biſhops, you may believe him, who think him to14 be one who could not erre.
But 3. Suppoſe they had been conſtituted thus, yet he hath not proved that they were inveſted with power to do ſuch Acts which Presbyters might not do; which he doth afterwards aſſert indeed, how ſtrongly he proves, I will conſider.
For the Angel in Rev. 2. what force is there in this to prove ſuch a Biſhop, I know not, though taken individually: Are not all Miniſters (truly ſuch) ſent? then they are Angels I think, Rom. 10.15.
But this is Angel,Object. onely One.
When our King ſent his Letters from Breda,Anſw. to the Speaker of the Houſe of Commons, did it imply the Speaker had more power than other Members? When Chriſt ſends his Letters to this Angel, doth it imply more power? The Speaker is there for Order-ſake, and it is honour to him &c. So if you be men ſound in the Faith, holy in your Converſations, Learned and able, fit for the place, I can allow you an Angel of the Church in London, in Ipſwich, in Exeter, &c. So in the Countrey, you ſhall have the Honour and Maintenance, to be our Speakers; I have declared my Opinion and Reaſons for this before this turn came; if you will have more, win it by Scripture, and wear it.
Thus I have done with all his Arguments for the jus divinum; only I might mind him, that Biſhop Jewel and Anſelm, do ſubſcribe to that of Jerom, Let Biſhops understand that they are above Prieſts, rather of custom, than of any truth or right of Chriſts Inſtitution: And to that of Auguſtine, The Office of a Biſhop is above the Office of a Prieſt, not by authority of the Scriptures, but after the names of honour, which the cuſtom of the Church hath now obtained. I hope it will ſtill be ſaid, fifteen hundred years Biſhops have been ſuperiour by Divine right. How did Jeroms and Auguſtins ſentence eſcape the Index expurgatorius?
Then the Dr. comes to the Inſignia Epiſcoporum propria. Let us ſee if he prove theſe alſo by the Apoſtles.
His firſt is this;
That in large and populous Cities, in which were many Presbyters made, the Apoſtles ordained one only Biſhop.
For the Biſhop in the queſtion,Anſw. the Apoſtles were ſo far from ordaining unicum, that they ordained ne unum; not one Scripture or ſound reaſon brought to prove it
152. That the Apoſtles did ordain but one Scripture-Biſhop in a great City, is an aſſertion point-blanck againſt the Scriptures, which ſhew the contrary. Let Jerom ſpeak; ſome ſay he was angry, and I know not what, but the Scriptures he produces were not,Vide Chemnit. exan. Concil Trid. de Sacr. ord. p. 224. [Chemnitius gives us a better ground for his writing] but thus Jerom, Doth any one think it is our own opinion, and not the ſentence of the Scriptures that a Biſhop & a Presbyter are one? Let him read Phil. 1.1. With the Biſhops and Deacons. Philippi is one City of Macedonia, and certainly as Biſhops are now called, there cannot be more than one in one City, but then there were. non adverſatur ſacris eloquiis plures in una civitate appellari tunc temporis Presbyteros ſeu Epiſcopos, ut Acts 10.Doth it ſtill ſeem doubtful unleſſe it be confirmed by another teſtimony, then take Acts 20.17, He calls them Elders. v. 28. calls them Biſhops. Obſerve diligently, the Elders of one City he cals Biſhops, then adds, Heb. 13.17. Thus he in Tit. 1. When in his Epiſt. ad Evagr. he had been proving the Identity of Biſhop and Presbyter, from Phil. 1. Tim. 4. Tit. 1. Pet. 5. He ſaith to him, Parva tibi videntur tantorum virorum Teſtimonia? To us theſe teſtimonies are not ſmall, but more than if a thouſand Biſhops ſay the contrary. What Jerom ſaith,Cajetan. Tit. 1.5. poſtea nuns electus, we regard not, being after the Apoſtles, and yet then not ſuperiour in power; that crept in by degrees.
His Second is, The Right and Power of Ordination, which is denied to inferiour Presbyters, 1. Tim. 5.22. Tit. 1.5.
1. He hath not ſhewn us ſuch a Biſhop as he ſpeaks of,Anſw. as yet in all the Scripture; how then can this be true?
2. If denied to Presbyters, then to Biſhops alſo: for they were both one in theſe Epiſtles to Timothy and Titus. Ʋnde & ad Titum & ad Timotheum de ordinatione Epiſcopi & Diaconi dicitur:Hieron. ad E vagr. de Presbyteris omnino reticetur, quia in Epiſcopo & Presbyter continetur, Hieron, ad Evagr.
3. Was not Timothy himſelf ordained by a Presbytery? 1 Tim. 4.14. How then was it denied? The laying on of Pauls hands did not deny the laying on their hands.
4. According to this, One Biſhop alone may ordain, which as it is, 1. Contrary to the Inſtance before in Timothies Ordination. So, 2. Contrary to the Canon 3. Concil Carthag. 4. Where no Biſhop alone muſt impoſe, but Presbyters with him. 3. And contrary to the 35 Canon of our Engliſh Biſhops. Whence Dr. Featly in his Annotat. on 1 Tim. 4.14. ſaith,Timothy though he were ordained by St. Paul, 2 Tim. 1.6. yet this Ordination16 was performed in the Aſſembly of the Elders, and with the laying on of their hands alſo: agreeable whereunto is the Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage, and the practiſe of the Church of England:So he. 4. Contrary to Cyprians practiſe, Ep. 33. Alſo what means the Conſtitution of Ʋrban? Ordinationes factae ſine communi ſenſu clericorum, irritae, Take alſo the 22 Canon of the Council of Carthage, before-named; Ʋt Epiſcopus ſine conſilio clericorum ſuorum clericos non ordinet, &c. Now what is meant by conſilium, the 3 Canon ſhews: All the Presbyters preſent were to impoſe hands with the Biſhop. Much it is, that when we cannot find the Apoſtles did ordain alone, Paul had the Apoſtle Barnabas with him, Acts 14.23. that now a ſingle Biſhop can ordain alone. The Dr. forgat himſelf much, but this power of Ordination and Juriſdiction he had need to prove to reſide as he ſaith, in illis ſolis, elſe he hath loſt his cauſe: But ſee how much authority he oppoſeth; what woful miſchief might this ſoon produce to the Church?
5. It may as ſtrongly be gathered, that to preach in ſeaſon and out of ſeaſon [as do all Biſhops] to meditate, to read, to oppoſe hereticks, &c, do only belong to Biſhops, becauſe theſe Commands are given (the firſt I am ſure) only to Timothy; as to gather, becauſe Timothy is directed in Ordination how to act, that therefore Presbyters muſt not impoſe hands: Why this proper to him above all the reſt?
6. Conſider I pray, that which is added, 1 Tim. 5.22. Neither be partakers of other mens ſins, whether it may not infer the contrary thus, Timothy, though other Ministers may be raſh, and not conſider what they do in Ordination, but would ordain unfit, unworthy perſons, yet do not thou lay on hanas ſuddenly, do not thou partake of their ſins, in raſh Ordinations, joyning with them. A man may partake of the ſins of Ordainers, as well as of the Ordained. I know nothing contrary to the Analogy of Faith, nor to the Context, if that ſenſe be given.
Why ſaith the Dr. Could not the Miniſters of Epheſus ordain before Timothy arrived, or of Crete before Titus came thither?
I cannot learn but Titus went along with Paul to Crete the firſt time of his preaching there,Anſw. and having laid the Foundations of Churches, as Jerom ſaith, left Titus there ut rudimenta naſcentis Eccleſiae confirmaret, ipſe pergens ad alias Nationes, &c. But however,
171. There is a difference between the arrival of Evangeliſts and the Biſhops in queſtion.
2. There being abundance of enemies and errours ſpread about, as we ſee, it was the very reaſon why Paul beſought Timothy to ſtay at Epheſus, 1 Tim. 1.3. Theſe men being ſo able and qualified above others, might very well there be leſt for a time, as to oppoſe the hereſies and errours, ſo to look to the Miniſtry, that none but ſound and able men came into it: but becauſe theſe being Evangeliſts, were far more able, does it conclude the Presbyters had not the Right to ordain with them?
3. Remember, that Cajetan confeſſeth even in theſe Epiſtles, Presbyter and Biſhop ſignifie the ſame degree and the ſame office. Had not the Churches been in danger, Timothy had not need been there, ſo this denies not their power.
The Dr. goes on to prove this ſole power of Ordination from humane Authority.
1. From that Saying of Jerome, Excepta Ordinatione quid facit Epiſcopus quod Preſbyter non faciat? Anſw.
Jerom ſpeaks de facto, the Biſhops had engroſſed this power, but he does not ſay de jure, it ought to be ſo, for he had ſtrongly proved the Biſhop and Presbyter from ſeveral Scriptures to be the ſame.
2. It ſhould ſeem it was not a univerſal Cuſtom: For it was one great complaint againſt Chryſostom (ſaith Biſh. Downam) that he made Ordinations without the Presbytery: And in the year 398, about which time Chryſoſtom flouriſhed, that fourth Council of Carthage, which oppoſeth Biſhops ſole power of Ordination, was held. However this is but humane.
2. He brings in the example of one Colythus a Presbyter of Alexandria, who ordained Presbyters, but their Ordination was made void, and the Ordained returned into the Order of Laicks.
Still this is but a humane Act grounded on no Scripture,Anſw. and yet there is ſomthing more to be ſaid about this. For,
1. I find this Colythus is reckoned among the Hereticks by Auguſtine and others. One of his Opinions Auguſtin mentions, but what more he held I know not.
2. He was a man infamis ambitione, ſay the Hiſtorians, and would make himſelf a Biſhop, as the Epiſtle of the Presbyters of Mareotis, in the ſame Apol. of Athanaſ intimates, whence they call18 him non verum ſed imaginarium epiſcopum; whence the general Council commanded, ut ſe pro Presbytero haberat, qualis antea fuiſſet.
3. It appears in both places of Athanaſins that this Colythus ordained alone, there are none mentioned that joyned with him.
4. That Iſchyras who was ordained by Colythus, and about whom there was ſo much trouble, was not choſen of a Church; for ſo the words,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, p. 570.
Now for a Heretick, alone, ambitiouſly making himſelf a Biſhop. to ordain a perſon not elected by a Church, is not the ſame with five Orthodox Presbyters, ordaining a Presbyter elected by a true Church.
The Dr. before he hath done, does allow this which is ſo proper to Biſhops, to be common to Presbyters in ſome caſes, then it ſeems, the power may be ours, and whether our caſe be not as weighty, I will conſider anon.
The Third and laſt is, The power of Juriſdiction over both Laick•and Presbyters: and inſtanceth in Excommunication.
He will allow indeed Presbyters to be conſulted with from Cyprians example [he might have added the 23 Canon Concil. Carthag. 4. which make elſe Sententia Epiſcopi irrita] but for the cenſure, this proceeds only from Epiſcopal Authority.
Hence then Presbyters have not the power of Excommunication, nor are Judges in it, ſo he ſaith.
2. A Biſhop alone may excommunicate Presbyters.
For the firſt, Presbyters have the power of Excommunication.
1. Why elſe are they called Paſtors and Rulers, Heb. 13.17. and the people commanded to obey them; they muſt feed the flock, and〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Pet. 5.1. So 1 Theſ. 5.12. They are over them in the Lord.
2. There was no Biſhop in Corinth when Paul wrote to have the inceſtuous perſon caſt out, yet they had the power of Excommunication, 1 Cor. 5.7, 12, 13. purge, judge, put away. Had they done it before, Paul would not have written ſo ſharply.
3. Thoſe who have the power of the Keyes have the power of Juriſdiction: but Presbyters have the power of the Keyes; not denied by the Papiſts,Sent. l. 4. diſ. 18. S. 14. but affirmed, inſomuch that Eſtius moves this Queſtion; Ʋtrum Sacerdotes ſoli habent poteſtatem excommunicandi?19 and tels us ſome were of that opinion. Now by ſoli•Eſtius does not mean, whether they alone without a Biſhop: For the queſtion he is about, is this, Penes quos ſit excommunicandi poteſtas? and his ſcope is to prove, that others beſides Prieſts have the power, but for the Prieſts, that is taken for granted, that they had the power, and quotes 1 Cor. 5.5, 13. And Auguſtine, l. 3. contra Epiſt. Parmen. c. 2. Aquinas he alſo tels us,Supplem. q. 22. •. 1. that ſome were of that opinion, that the Parochial Prieſts might excommunicate; but thinks his own opinion to be more rational, that the Biſhop ſhould do it, had his diſtinction a foundation in Scripture.
4. Thoſe that have power to take into the Church, have power to caſt out of the Church: Are the Keyes given to Paſtors to turn them but one way? Ridiculous.
5. How does this agree with Jerom before quoted, excepta Ordinatione, &c. It ſeems Juriſdiction was not excepted, when they had engroſſed Ordination, Presbyters had that power, and at firſt the Churches were governed by the common advice of the Presbyters, thus he, Tit. 1.
6. The Prieſts had that power not only to diſcern between Lepers and Lepers, but as they could judge, they could ſeparate them from the Camp of Iſrael, which did ſhadow out our excommunication.
7. It ſeems very ſtrange, that when a Paſtor who hath taught (it may be baptized) a perſon, and now fallen into ſin, the Church and he have dealt with that perſon according to rule, that now the Church muſt go to a Biſhop to excommunicate this perſon, to whom yet he never bare relation: How came this Biſhop to have power over this Church, which he never ſaw it may be? But let Dr. Fulks ſpeak. It is manifeſt that the Authority of binding and looſing, committing and retaining, pertaineth generally to all the Apoſtles alike, and to every Paſtor in his Cure, Anſw. to Rhem. 2 Cor. 2.
Biſhop Jewel, Reply p. 178. quotes Baſil, ſpeaking thus, Chriſt appointed Peter to be the Paſtor of the Church after him, and ſo conſequently gave the ſame power unto all Paſtots and Doctors: A Token whereof is this, that all Paſtors do equally both bind and looſe as well as he, So Baſil.
8. In ſuch Cities as Epheſus, &c. where the Church was one,20 and divers Elders in common governed that Church, let the〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉pronounce the ſentence of excommunication, I deny it not.
For his Proofs, becauſe Timothy muſt charge ſome that they teach no other Doctrine, 1 Tim. 1.3. So Tit. 1.11. Mouths muſt be stopped.
But I beſeech you what is there in this more than Presbyters might do, who govern the Church in common? that ſtopping may be meant partly, if not chiefly there by Argument, convince gainſayers, v. 9. I muſt confeſs I cannot ſee the Logick of this Argument; though it doth prove Juriſdiction, does it prove Presbyters have not the power? I thought he would have quoted 1 Tim. 5.19. But becauſe he doth not, I let it alone.
His next is, the Angel of Pergamus and Thiatira, blamed Rev. 2. for ſuffering of Jezebel, &c.
1. Anſw. Does this exclude the other Presbyters? What mean thoſe words,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 24. But to you I ſay. If the King writes to the Speaker, and reproves ſomthing amiſs, or complains ſomthing is not done, does it lay the blame on him only, and not on the Members of the Houſe as well?
2. Suppoſe theſe Angels had been guilty of ſins for which themſelves had deſerved excommunication, who ſhould have caſt them out? Are they Lords Paramount above all Chriſts Laws in his Church? I know not but the other Presbyters with the conſent of the Churches, obeying their Presbyters, might have caſt theſe Angels out, or no way that I know of. The Scriptures know no Archbiſhops, though the Papiſts and Dr. Hammond do.
But to have one Biſhop alone excommunicate Presbyters, this would make as brave work as we have known before the wars begun. Let the〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉with the Presbyters, excommunicate a Presbyter, the Church conſenting.
Thus far the Dr. goeth, and then undertakes to anſwer our Arguments, but becauſe I ſee nothing is there ſaid which I have not ſpoken to before, and I am loath to exceed in this diſcourſe, I ſhall only take notice of what he ſaith in his Anſwer to the third Objection, where he tels us the neceſſity of Biſhops in theſe reſpects.
1. To ordain Ministers, leſt the Evangelical Ministry ſhould fail.
21Cannot this evil be prevented by Presbyters as well? Anſw. Are not divers thouſands of Presbyters in England more likely to keep up a ſucceſſion of Miniſters in England, than 24 Biſhops, of whom, how few now were left? Had the ſucceſſion of Miniſters depended upon them, in what a ſad caſe had the Church been?
2. For the Governing of Presbyters, leſt by their impure manners, hereſies and ſchiſmes, they ſhould deſtroy the Church.
And are not Biſhops equally liable to theſe? Anſw. How ſhall the Church now be ſaved? May we not read with our eyes in Hiſtories, and hear with our ears what Biſhops have been? Have we not ſeen the excellency of this Government in England? as to the impure manners of Miniſters being corrected: Is it not a Cordolium to the godly in England to have ſo many who were juſtly caſt out for ſcandal by the Parliament [though ſome were wronged I know, and do as much deteſt their ejectment] to return again, not one whit purged that we can fee?
2. For Hereſie and ſchiſm.
1. We know what Bellarmine ſaith, Certe Hereſiarchae ferè omnes aut Epiſcopi, aut Presbyteri fuerunt; and from theſe Hereſies riſe Factions among the people, ſaith he, ſo that Biſhops are as deep in the mire for hereſie and cauſing ſchiſm, as the Presbyters. Hence he will have a Pope; but that Monarchical Government hath not cured Schiſm we know, much leſs Hereſie.
2. As for Hereſie and Schiſm both, name any National Church under Heaven more free from them, than the Church of Scotland, before theſe troubles began, and yet there Biſhops are not approved of.
3. For Schiſm, read but the life of Conſtantine, and there ſee whether Biſhops were not guilty of Schiſm, and the Concil. Tolata 1. was called upon ſome Schiſm among the Biſhops.
4. We ſay that Rome is guilty of the Schiſm between us and them, becauſe Rome gave the cauſe: I leave the Reader to enquire who gave the firſt cauſe of the Schiſms now in England.
5. Why then did not Paul appoint a Biſhop in Corinth, when Schiſm was there, both in his time, and Clemens his time, but Clemens mentions none: Jerom ſaith indeed, that upon theſe Schiſms Biſhops were ſet up afterwards. [I write not his known word] poſted: But it is much that theſe ends of a Biſhop, which22 are ſo great for the good of the Church, and it ſeems can be performed by none but him, ſhould not be foreſeen by Chriſt at firſt, and ſo this Biſhop at firſt appointed; but the ordinary main Stud of Chriſts Houſe ſhould be forgot to be ſet up, till many years after the Houſe was up. Sure this means was none of his, and ſo it proves.
6. How can the Biſhop be a fit means to cure Schiſm or prevent it? I know no way but this, that Presbyters muſt reſign all their judgments up to his Chair, and he infallibly determine, which is right or wrong, and ſo all muſt yield to his ſentence. This were brave indeed.
7. Let our King withdraw his tender and healing hand, and his power from aſſiſting Biſhops, & let us now ſee how the Biſhops will ſhew forth that wonderful vertue of Epiſcopacy in healing our Schiſms: I doubt our King who is, as Conſtantine ſaid of himſelf, the Biſhop extra Eccleſiam, muſt be the great healer, under God, of our Schiſms, elſe the Biſhops within the Church will make them much worſe, but never heal I am ſure by all power Epiſcopal. If the Keyes of the Gate-houſe and other Priſons be at their command, then they may do more with thoſe Keyes than their Epiſcopal Keyes. Yet I think Priſons will hardly heal us.
8. There was an honeſt way found out how to cure wrangling, ſchiſmatical Biſhops; and the ſame cure is proper and very apt for Schiſmatical Presbyters, Concil. Carthag. 4. Can. 25. Diſſidentes epiſcopos ſi non timor Dei, Synodus reconciliet: A more apt means than a Biſhop, becauſe that is Apoſtolical.
To wind up all my Diſcourſe concerning this Epiſcopacy, which the Dr. hath aſſerted, & now commended as neceſſary againſt Schiſm, I will only give the Reader the judgment of Muſculus upon the queſtion, how effectual it is towards the cure. After he had proved, Biſhop and Preſbyter to be the ſame by Scripture, then he comes to give the original of the Biſhop out of Jorom,Loc. com. •. 195. and thus he writes; Verum poſt Apoſtolorum tempora, cum inter ſeniores Eccleſiarum, ſicuti Hieronymo placet, diſſentiones & ſchiſmata ſubnaſcerentur, & ut mihi vere ſimile eſt, tentatio illa de majoritate mentes ſeniorum, paſtorum at doctorum invaderet, paulatim capit de numero ſeniorum unus aliquis eligi, qui reliquis praeponeretur, & in ſublimiori gradu poſitus, Epiſcopus nominaretur: atque ita quod caeteri antea communiter ipſe ſolus ac ſingulariter vocaretur. Profueritus vel ſeous hoc23 conſilium Eccleſi•Christi, quo tales ſint Epiſcopi, magis conſuetudine, ut Hieronymi verbis utar, quam Dominioa diſpoſitionis veritate introducti, qui majores oſſent Preſbyteris, melius eſt poſterioribus ſeculis deelaratum, quam dum haec conſuetudo primum introduceretur, cui debe••us omnem illam principalium & equeſtrium Epiſcoporum inſole•tiam, opulentiam, & tyrannidem, imo omnium Eccleſiarum Chriſti corruptione•, quam ſi Hier. cerneret, dubio procul conſilium agnoſceret non Spiritus Sancti ad tollenda Schiſmata, ſicuti praetexebatur, ſed ipſius Satanae, ad vaſtanda & perdenda priſca paſcendi Dominici gregis miniſteria; quo fieret ut haberet Eccleſia, non veros Paſtores, Doctores Preſbyteros & Epiſcopos, ſed ſub•ominum iſtorum larvis oci•ſos ventres ac magnificos Principes, qui non modo non paſcant ipſi populum Domini doctrina ſana & Apoſtolica, ſed & improbiſſima violentia caveant ne id per quenquam•lium fiat, &c. I am far from applying this to all our Biſhops; no verily, This Learned Davenant, Hall, Brownrig; I do much reverence their names now dead and gone, and no man upon earth have I ſo much honoured as that Archbiſhop Uſher; but what talk I of him? he was in all Reſpects, for Learning, ſoundneſſe in the Faith, Humility, and Holineſſe, a None-ſuch: In what an ill time (as to us) was he taken away! but God is wiſe.
CHAP. II. Of Preſbyterial Ordination.
VVHether that which made the greateſt Argument againſt our Presbyterial Ordination be not taken away, I leave to the Chriſtian Reader, who makes the Holy Scriptures his Rule to judge by. Now then for a few Arguments to prove, The validity of Preſbyterial Ordination.
Theſe two Propoſitions, however denied by ſome, yet I preſume they will be granted by theſe ſcorners of our Presbyterial Ordination.
- 1. That Ordination is ſtill an Ordinance of God, in force in the Church; and ſo ſhall be while there is a Miniſtry.
- 2. That it is an Act of Authority, and can be performed by none but by thoſe who are in Authority in the Church.
Hence then I thus argue,Scripture Ordination is valid Ordination:Arg. 1But Presbyterial24 Ordination is Scriptural Ordination; Ergo. Deny the major who dare: The minor I thus prove;
That Ordination which is performed by perſons inveſted with the power thereof by Scripture Authority, is Scriptural Ordination: But Presbyterial Ordination is Ordination performed by Perſons inveſted with the power thereof by Scripture authority. Ergo.
Minor, If the Scripture hath now inveſted any others with the power of Ordination, they are perſons either of an Inferiour or Superiour Order, But neither: Ergo. Not Inferiour is granted, not Superiour, the whole Diſcourſe before proves, by the judgment of the Scriptures, and many agreeing thereto; Presbyter and Biſhop are the ſame.
Objection, Presbyters are no where commanded to ordain.
Anſwer, Prove that your Biſhops are: and I will prove my Presbyters are.
2. Where are Presbyters commanded to Adminiſter the Lords Supper, or Baptize? Finde that Command; and I will finde other Authoritative Acts in it. I doubt not our Authority deſcends from that Command and Commiſſion to the Apoſtles Matth. 28. Whatever Acts are requiſite to encreaſe, to edifie, or continue the Church, we have the Authority by Succeſſion; and ſo are Paſtors and Rulers.
But Presbyterial Ordination is performed by ſuch,Nomine clavium ſigniſic. tur omnis poteſtas Eccleſiallica. Suppl. cham. lib. 4. chap. 4. Ergo.
Major, The Keyes of the Kingdome do contain in them the power of Ordination, ſaith Cor. à Lapide, Chemnitius Bucer, &c.
Minor, Though the Pope, Biſhops and Presbyters contend for the Keyes, yet that Presbyters have the Keys committed to them, is confeſſed by the Papiſts.
Objection, The Key of Knowledg.
Anſwer. I proved before the Key of Juriſdiction. I adde, That Diſtribution of the Keyes which is not grounded on the Scripture is a vain Diſtribution, (as we ſay) Diſtinguendum eſt ubi Scriptura diſtinguit: Sic diſtribuendum eſt, &c.
But this diſtribution of the Keyes, ſo as to give but the Key of Knowledge to the Presbyter, is not grounded on Scripture; Ergo, It is vain.
To thee do I give the Keyes, ſaid our Lord; he did not civide the25 Keyes, give one key to one, and both to another, he gives no ſingle key to any perſon, but keyes, and ſo whatever thoſe Keys ſerve for: Buſil and Dr. Fulk ſpeak fully for the Keys of juriſdiction belonging to all Paſtors, then the Key of Order as well.
Laying on of the hands of the Preſbyterie, 1 Tim. 4.14. Againſt this is objected;
Anſw. 1. Diodati conceives, That by Pauls hands the miraculous gift was conveyed; by the Presbytery Timothy was inſtalled in the Miniſtry. See him on 2 Tim. 1.6. I have ſpoken to this in another Treatiſe.
2. However the Presbytery impoſed hands, they had a power to do the work, elſe Paul would no have called them to it, Paul did not ordain Timothy, quatenus Apoſtle; then your Biſhop is gone.
3. In reſpect of the Preſident, and perpetual Order which was to be left to the Church of Chriſt, it was neceſſary that the Presbytery ſhould impoſe their hands. Nec tantum dicit mearum manuum,Exam. Conc. Trid. de Sacra. ord. p. 226. ſed addit etiam Preſbyterii, 1 Tim. 4. ne exiſtimetur diſcrimen eſſe, ſive ab Apoſtolis, ſive à Preſbyteriis quis ordinetur (ſaith Chemnitius.
Anſwer, So ſaith Lorinus, Intelligit chorum Preſbyterorum, i. e. Epiſcoporum: Be it ſo; for now I am ſure Presbyters and Biſhops were the ſame. Some ſay, It was the Presbytery of Epheſus,; if they could prove this it were to the purpoſe indeed. Junius ſaith, the Presbytery of Lystra, whence Paul took him. What Presbyters are, we know by the Scripture, and Preſbyterium is a company of Presbyters, as Lorinus ſaid: If it pleaſe you not, I pray teach us better. The Rhemiſts render the word Prieſthood, and quote the 3d Canon, Concil. Carth. 4. before named, to open it by: This is more for us againſt Chryſoſtome: Thus alſo Cajetan, Dicit pluraliter manuum Preſbyterii, fortè ad ſignificandum plurium Sacerdotum concurſum. &c. This Presbytery impoſing hands on Timothy was no doubt the ground of Cyprians practice, ſo of that Canon in the Council of Carthage, and of our Biſhops Canons,26 whence I wonder, any rational man ſhould ſo ſcorn Presbyterial Ordination.
Object. But there was Pauls Impoſition, and ſo there was the Biſhops Impoſition, but not Presbyters alone.
Anſw. As for Paul, the anſwer to the firſt Objection will ſatisfie: For the Biſhop, true he was there, but how came he there? Jerome tells us, and we have reaſon to believe him, becauſe he groundeth his diſcourſe upon the Scriptures. However the Biſhop did not ſuperadd any thing to the perfection of the Ordinance, he put forth no more power than the other Presbyters, only for Orderſake he carried on the work: So had we our〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in our Aſſociation, who was ſo, and ſhould have continued ſo dur ante vitâ for me: But as in the abſence of a Biſhop, the ſufftagan might ſupply his room, ſo as well in the abſence of our Preſident another might ſupply his, being eſpecially choſen, and earneſtly deſired by his fellow Presbyters to do it.
Teachers are inferiour to Prophets, and all preaching Presbyters I hope are Teachers, but theſe impoſed hands, the Prophets were inferiour to Apoſtles.
Object. But this was not Ordination.
Anſw. I have ſpoken to this in another Treatiſe more largely: but I could name (and have named there) ſeveral of the Fathers, Lutherans, and Calviniſts, who ſay it was Ordination; and for the Papiſts, divers of thoſe I could mention, who call it Ordination.
If it was not Ordination, I pray what was it? We find Barnabas after this Act is called an Apoſtle, Acts 14.14. but ſo he was never before, he was at the higheſt but a Prophet, as the Text declares. So Jerom,Catal. Script. Keeleſ. ſpeaking of Barnahas,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It was a ſeparation to a work, and what do you more in Ordination than is here ſet down? But I ſpeak no more of it in this place, becauſe (as I ſaid) I have done it before.
But Prebyters have Authority to perform the greateſt. Ergo.
For the Major, thoſe who will deny it, give us a ſound and convincing27 reaſon why they do ſo, I cannot imagine one, à majore ad minus valet conſequentia in this caſe ſure.
For the Minor: When Paul ſaith, 1 Cor. 1.17. Chriſt did not ſend him to baptize, but to preach the Gespel, ſurely Paul mentioned the higheſt Miniſterial Act; elſe Paul muſt ſay, not to baptize, nor to preach, but to ordain Miniſters. Reverend Davenant ſaith,Pag. 194. that in rebus maximi momenti ad ſalutem hominum, Presbyters have power as well as Biſhops, and therefore the name, Biſhop, may well agree to them, ſaith he, why not then in rebus minoris momenti? I wiſh he had given a ſound reaſon for it; it ſeems they can do thoſe Acts which tend to the end of the Miniſtry mainly and principally, and not the leſſer; What rational man can ſwallow this? If Ability be the queſtion, I think the Presbyters have ſhewn enough to anſwer it. Compare Epiſcopal Ordinations and Presbyterial, where did the Majeſty of Gods Ordinance appear moſt? And as for the Ordained by them, compare them with others and ſee if not able for the work.
I will adde two or three Arguments ad homi nem.
The conſequence I prove thus:
1. For Presbyters we are ſure they are the Officers of Chriſt, but for your Biſhops, eſpecially ſuch as are in England, extending their power (as I ſaid in the beginning) after that manner ſo vaſtly, I dare ſay quâ tales, they are none of Chriſts Officers, nor, as they take to themſelves a power above other Miniſters.
2. Take Biſhops in the faireſt ſence, ſo Biſhops and Presbyters are of the ſame Order: If of the ſame Order, then Presbyters Ordination is as valid as the Biſhops.
That they are of the ſame Order, Learned Davenant doth, in the beginning of his Determination, name Gulielmus Pariſienſis, Gerſon, and Durandus among the Papiſts affirming it; to which, as a further confirmation, I may add that ſaying of Ambroſe, on 1 Tim. 3. Poſt Epiſcopum tamen Diaconatus Ordinationem ſubject; quare? Niſi quia Epiſcopi & Presbyteri una Ordinatio eſt, uterque enim Sacerdos eſt: for that he adds, Epiſcopus eſt qui inter Presbyteros primus eſt. I ſhall not ſtick at that, ſtill they are the fame Order. 28For the Conſequence, I borrow this only out of Mr. Baxter, who ſaith, he had it from Biſhop Uſher, to prove Ordination by meer Presbyters, without a Prelate, is valid, for ad ordinem pertinet ordinare.
The Ordination by Presbyters now was in a caſe of neceſſity.
The Minor: 1. Biſhops were now put down by Authority. 2. Solemn Covenant againſt them (in part) taken, being impoſed by Authority. 3. Biſhops dared not to Ordain openly, why not we as much afraid to go to them? 4. The eye of the State not ſo favourable upon thoſe who were ordained by them, and unleſs we were ſatisſied they were Officers of Chriſt, we had no reaſon to hazard our ſelves for them. 5. We could not tell where to have them. 6. And how many were corruption Doctrine. 7. And what divers had been in perſecution we know; ſo that we had no reaſon to feek to ſuch. 8. Beſides, the State ſet up Presbyterial Ordination. 9. Succeſſion of Miniſters muſt be continued.
And to go yet a little higher to Antiquity: thoſe places in AuguſtineaaTom. 4. p. 780 Fro. and AmbroſebbEpheſ. 4. are well known, both of them ſpeak to the ſame purpoſe: Nam in Alexandria & per totam Aegyptum ſi deſit Epiſcopus, conſecrat Presbyter, ſo ſaith Auguſtine. Conſignant Presbyteri ſi praeſens non ſit Epiſcopus, ſaith Ambroſe. Yea, it ſeems, that this Ordination by Presbyters did trouble Durandus,Sent. l. 4. Diſt. 24. q. 5. for ſpeaking to this queſtion. Utrum in Eccleſia ſit aliqua poteſt as major Sacerdotali? In point of Juriſdiction he will allow the Biſhop to be ſuperiour, but De poteſtate Conſecrationis vel Ordinis eſt magnum dubium. By Jeroms Authority from the Scripture, and by a reaſon he brings himſelf, he could conclude Biſhop and Prieſt in this point to be Pares, but that the Authority of the Church had determined it29 otherwiſe; Thus the Church is above Scripture and Reiſon, eiſe Durandus will own our Ordination.
I will conclude with the ſaying of that learned Lutheran Gerhard, who alloweth ſome Biſhops:Loc com. de miniſt. Eccleſ. p. 261. Ex toto codice biblico ne apex quidom proferri potest, quo demonſtretur, immutabili quadam neceſſitate, a••ipſius Dei Institutione poteſtatem ordinandi en modo competere Epiſcopo,•t ſi Miniſter ab Epiſcopo ordinetur, ejus vocatio & ordinatio oenſeatur rata, ſin à Presbytero, quod tunc irrita coram Deo, & fruſtranea ſit habenda.
My Prayer is, Lord lead me not into temptation: But if it comes to this, that I muſt renounce my Presbyterial Ordination and be ordained by a Biſhop, or I muſt be ſilenced, I ſhall deſire grace from the Lord, and reſolve to lay down my Miniſtry, before I will my Ordination: for in being re-ordained by Biſhops,
1. I muſt plainly condemn all Miniſters of other Churches, who are ordained only by Presbyters: how abominable is this? To null all other Miniſters that have not Epiſcopal Ordination.
2. I muſt eſtabliſh an officer in the Church which Chriſt never did, not his Apoſtles, yea, and this the chief Officer.
3. Epiſcopal Ordinations have other Appendices, of ſubſcriptions which the Lord deliver us from. I omit the ſlightineſs of Biſhops in their Ordinations, above that I have ſeen among Presbyters.
4. And with this I conclude: If they can prove us to be Hereticks let them, elſe I give them the 67 Canon Apoſtol. Si quis Epiſcopus, aut Presbyter, aut Diaconus ſecundam ab aliquo ordinationem ſuſceperit, deponitor tam ipſe, quàm qui ipſum Ordinavit.
CHAP. III. Concerning Impoſed Forms of Prayer.
HOw different mens opinions are concerning Forms of Prayer their Tongues, Pens, and Practiſes declare. Some are carried vehemently againſt them, and will own none but conceived Prayers, made by the Spirit; others are as high for Forms of Prayer, againſt conceived Prayer. 〈2 pages missing〉
32us his Scriptures, he could have conveyed all his minde to us by Tradition, who doubts it? But I may go ſo farr, and deſire you to ſhew us, in the very next Churches to the Apoſtles, that ſuch things were in uſe, in the worſhip of God; and that thoſe Churches affirme, they had them from the Apoſtles by Tradition. What? neither Apoſtolical Writings, nor Apoſtolical Traditions: Whence came theſe then? not that I will build my Faith upon a Tradition.
When I read theſe words in Just. martyr, Apol. 2. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I thought, poſſibly ſome body might lay hold upon them for our Common-Prayers; and not long after, I found them uſed for that purpoſe by a Learned Doctor, But how do theſe words prove an Impoſed form of Prayer: or, that they read them out of a Book: why he calls them common, the next words will give us a Reaſon, but they prove not the impoſed forme: Beſides, had he turned over the leaf, in the next Page he might have found, that the〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉did pray. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which if Langus had any skill to tranſlate, is, quantum pro virili ſua poteſt. Tertullians words are commonly known, That they prayed ſine Monitore, Apol. c. 30. Then no Forms of Prayer were impoſed.
Arg. Arg. 2If the grounds for impoſing Forms of Prayer now were of as much or more force in the Apoſtles time, and yet they did not impoſe Forms of Prayer, then thoſe grounds are inſufficient now, and ſo the Act unwarrantable:
But the Grounds that now are alledged had as much, yea and ſome of them more force then, then now. Ergo.
For the Antecedent name your Grounds, the main one that I hear, is Uniformity; but this was of much more force in the Apoſtles time; for they, travelling into Europe, Aſia, Africa, and planting of Churches in all theſe parts of the world, had they made ſuch a Liturgie, and Forms of Prayer for the whole Catholique Church, there had been a Uniformity in all the Churches of the world; there ſhould not have been ſo many Liturgies as there is now, every Nation following their own, what abundance have been and are? Yea, but Paul wanted wiſdome, had he lived longer he might have learned from other men. Thus I wil carry all thoſe Arguments which the Scorners of conceived Prayer bring, and ſhew they had as much force then as now: But had there been ſuch form of Prayer in all the Churches, they would not all have been loſt ſure enough, ſome would have been reſerved til now.
33One thing it may be will be alledged, Inability of men: But this ſpeaks ill; it ſeems, neither the Apoſtles, nor Evangeliſts would ordain thoſe to the Miniſtry, who had not a gift of Prayer, it being as requiſite as a gift of preaching.
2. However that troubles not my Queſtion, for I ſpeak of impoſing upon men gifted and able.
To ſay, The Churches were then newly planted; Therefore ſay I, the more need of Formes of Prayer, if needfull at all, and yet the Apoſtles lived many years after the Churches were planted, and did not impoſe or appoint Forms of Prayers.
But the impoſing Forms of Prayer on men already qualified, is in great part a fruſtrating of one fruit of Chriſts Aſcention, Ergo, it is unlawfull.
The major I think cannot be denied:
The minor; One fruit of his Aſcenſion was to give gifts to men, Epheſ. 4.8. and as Gifts for Apoſtles, ſo for Paſtors and Teachers, verſ. 11. among which Gifts, I am ſure Prayer is one; and this Gift, as he hath beſtowed it variouſly, ſo he bath eminently, upon ſome men, and without pride it may be ſpoken (for it is a gift, ergo free) as eminently upon the Engliſh Miniſtry, as any now this day in the world: But the impoſing of Formes of Prayers doth fruſtrate this gift of Chriſt; for they are thereby hindered from the exerciſe of it; there needed no gifts to have been conferred, but upon thoſe wh•compoſe the Formes of Prayer.
But impoſing of Forms of Prayer takes off a Miniſter from his Duty, Engo.
Minor, A Miniſters Duty is, to ſtir up the gift of God which is in him, 2 Tim. 1.6. Unleſs you will ſay, the Epiſtle was written to a Biſhop, and ſo doth not belong to Presbyters. But there is no place to ſtir up the Gift of Prayer; for he muſt read Prayer, the effect of the gift of others.
But impoſing of Formes of Prayers do directly foment a corrupt frame to which we incline; that is lazineſs. Ergo.
34Do but impoſe Homilies alſo to be read, and a lazy heart will think you: And why not Forms of Preaching as well as of Praying? if hinder one gift, why not the other: A bare Form of Prayer doth not ſo directly foment lazineſs, but the impoſing and tying to it will.
But the impoſing of Prayers for Miniſters to read, expoſe them to conteinpt, Ergo.
Minor, Miniſters are ſuppoſed to be perſons gifted above others, and ought to be ſo I am ſure; [notably doth Mr. Cartwright ſpeak to this in his Comment upon Chriſts words to Nicodemus, John 3.]
But for a Miniſter to read Prayers [Prayer being a great part of his work] is to do no more than a boy of eight years old may do; and a reading Prieſt hath been the ſcorne caſt upon Miniſters.
But ſo does this impoſſing of Forms of Prayer:
How many are there of Gods ſervants who walk holily with him, whom he hath endued with the gift and ſpirit of Prayer, even private men, for theſe to come to the publick Worſhip of God, and there to hear Prayers read over, which their Children at home can do, but they themſelves can pour out their hearts to God, without reading their Petitions, will they not be diſcouraged? I know, and it is already proved, many will not come, as judging it unlawfull, and others will be much diſcouraged, that do come: and why ſhould Gods beſt worſhippers be offended: For others, if they can but ſay after a Miniſter, in a book, will not queſtion but they have ſerved God as well as the beſt, and in this their formal worſhip reſt.
But the impoſing of Forms of Prayer do hinder the actings of the Spirit in the hearts of Gods people, Ergo.
Major, What the Word hath ſpoken of the Spirits helping the people of God in Prayer I need not mention, the places are well known in the Old and New Teſtament. But this hinders.
It is commonly anſwered, The Spirit doth help, in working the heart and affections into a ſutable gracious frame, fit for Prayer, which may be though we uſe a Form of Prayer.
35I deny it not, but yet as the Spirit doth ſtirt up affections, and ſighs, &c. in the ſoul, ſo thoſe Affections would expreſs themſelves in other words than I finde in the Book.
I can tell, (if the Lord hath gifted me) how to expreſſe my own deſires and affections in my own words; and the words oftentimes have a reflection, and help to ſtirre up the affection more. But when I am tyed to the words of other men, I am ſtraitened, they will not ſerve to expreſſe what lies upon my heart; and who is it that knows what the work of the Spirit of God, and the workings of a heart are in prayer, that will not ſoon finde theſe hindered by being tied up to other mens words.
2. The Spirit doth not only help to the Grace of Prayer, but the Gift of prayer, and that is hindered be ſure in theſe Forms altogether.
3. The Method in Prayer uſe to be this. 1. I feel my wants. 2. My Deſires are ſtirred up to get theſe wants ſupplyed. 3. My minde frameth words to expreſs thoſe deſires to God. 4. Thoſe words are uttered. But in Formes of Prayers, the heart muſt follow the words, they are firſt; in the other, words follow, and interpret my heart, where Prayer begins.
I deſire to know of theſe Impoſers of Forms of Prayer, whether if they ſent a Servant on their Meſſage, and the ſervant is hail, luſty, and can go very well; if another man ſhould meet this ſervant, who is going on his journey, and force him to go with crutches, which hinder him extreamly, would you take it well? Why do you force the ſervant of God in his work to uſe your crutches, which are his hindrance in his Maſters work, he can go better without them? I am afraid the bottom of this lieth here, that many of our great men, if you take away a Prayer-book, know not how to pray, wanting a praying heart, and they think it ſome diſhonour to them to have other men, over whom they would tyrannize, to exceed them in a gift of Prayer; and ſo force men to their book, that no difference might appear. We leave theſe men to God.
Do not theſe Compoſers of Formes of Prayer ſuppoſe their Gifts to be better than any Miniſters upon whom they impoſe their Forms? If other Miniſters can expreſſe the ſame Petitions in other words, as well, may be better, more lively, why are they hindered? Do they know the Gifts of all Miniſters? do they know how the Spirit may aſſiſt them ſometimes over other times? To think your Gifts to be the beſt, ſavours of ſuch pride as becomes not a Chriſtian.
36Object. But we finde Forms of Prayer in the Scripture.
Anſw. What will you inferr from thence? Ergo, Ordinary men now may impoſe their Forms of Prayer upon Miniſters already gifted by God? I deny your Conſequence.
1. Will you compare your Formes now compoſed by you, with thoſe Forms which the Penmen of the Scriptures were directed by the Spirit to compoſe?
2. Impoſe no other Prayers upon us but Scripture-forms, and we ſhall not refuſe to uſe them, though not them only. The Lords Prayer is the moſt compleat of all the Forms; yet we are not bound to that form only; I hope, we may uſe other prayers, keeping that ſubſtance.
3. The 102 Pſal. which was made for the afflicted Church a little before the time of their return out of Captivity, as the 13, 14, 15, 16 Verſes declare, did not hinder Daniel, Chap. 9. to pray by his own gift upon the ſame occaſion, where there is great difference in the Petitions and matter of prayer.
Object. But other Churches have their Formes.
Anſw. Not all Churches, where men are as orthodox, and holy as ours are.
2. Irenaeus bids us have recourſe to thoſe Churches in which the Apoſtles were converſant, and in them we finde no ſuch thing.
3. Thoſe who have Forms, do yet condemn ours: as witneſs Apollonius, in the name of the Walacrian Claſſis, p. 172. who rejecting Forms of Prayer, and Adminiſtrations of Sacraments, where the matter is vicious, or any Superſtition cleaves to them, &c. He adds, For this cauſe we reject the Ceremonies, and Forms of Publick Worſhip in the Church of England, in theſe laſt corrupt times, brought in by the Hierarehical Biſhops: as thoſe which being Superſtitious and Idolatrous, have deformed the Church, and the worſhip of God, & obſcurarunt glorioſa Reformationis facem & faciem, &c.
In the next Section, the ſame Divines do reject thoſe Forms of Prayer, though in reſpect of the matter of them good, whenas they are impoſed tyrannically, and with violent command upon the conſciences of men, as being abſolutely neceſſary, and eſſential parts of Gods Worſhip, &c. They ſpeak more, and that notably, what cruelty they have been made the inſtruments of; and, Hath not ENGLAND felt it? See more in that Learned Author, page 173. though he maintains the lawfulneſſe of a Form. So do37 the Leyden Profeſſors,Synop pu. the. p. 499. and yet ſay it is neceſſary that Paſtors of Churche; ſhould ſtirr up themſelves to pray without forms, p. 499.
And once more for our Common-Prayer Book lately uſed, Biſhop Davenant hath commended it to us upon this ground, What is there in it that is not approved of the Papiſts themſelves!Determ. 27. and he confirms the truth of it thus, That ſome of the Biſhops of Rome have offered to approve our forme of Prayers, provided that we would accept it by their authority; A notable Argument to bring Orthodox and holy Chriſtians to hear it; though his ſcope is to prove, Ergo, the Papiſts ought to be preſent at our worſhip, and the Magiſtrate neglects his Office, if he doth not compell them.
Object. But the totall uſe of Miniſters gifts is not taken away.
Anſw. I think it was in ſome places; and every where it was in Baptiſme, and the Lords Supper, only before Sermon, and after, men had the uſe of their gifts, ſcarce that.
Object. But all Miniſters are not able.
Anſw. Whoſe fault is that? ſhew us ſuch Miniſters ordained by the Presbyterians, that are not in ſome good meaſure able to pray without their book, though there is difference of Gifts: There are a Generation coming in again, that I think indeed are not, all of them, and but very few. I deny not but there was wrong offered to ſome, who were turned out, and let them come in withall my heart: But I ſpeak of Superſtititous men, pot-companions, ſwearers, &c. men who have not the Gift of Prayer, and deſpiſe it in others.
2. But what is this to thoſe who are able? why muſt they be forced to read, as other inſufficient men muſt, wanting Gifts.
Queſtion, But what if a Form of prayer be impoſed, ſo as not to take away the total uſe of Miniſters Gifts in any Ordinance, they may have their liberty of their own gifts, but ſometimes uſe that Forme.
Anſw. I ſhould a little deſire to know the Authority that enjoins it, if a Synod of ſuch Divines as ought to be (I mean not ſuperſtitious Arminians) Orthodox and holy men, did order ſuch a thing in a ſober way, not tyrannically, as abſolutely neceſſary (as ſaid Apollonius before) then I confeſſe it would trouble me to refuſe it, though I finde, and have heard ſome of my Brethren ſay, Let the Forms of Prayer be what they will, they will ſubmit to none; it is an offence,38 they conceive, and a wrong to that good ſpirit, who hath pleaſed to beſtow on them the Gift of Prayer, to have that hindered, by ſubmitting to mens injunctions: But I am not ſatisfied in this.
1. Becauſe you have the uſe of your gift in all Ordinances only ſometimes you are required to uſe a Form.
2. A Form of Prayer, in it ſelf, the matter of it being agreeable to the Word, is not unlawfull: thus godly and wiſe men judge.
3. I finde that the old holy Non-Conformiſts were not offended at a bare form of Prayer, but ſome particular things in the Common prayer-Book, and truly thoſe are many. Yea, I finde the Congregationall Divines, in New-England, though they uſe no forms, [they are able indeed] yet they dare not condemn all Forms of prayer in the Church,Defenſe of the 9 Poſitions, p. 34. divers of them at leaſt would not do it; ſo Maſter Shephard, Though all of us could not concurr to condemn all ſet Forms as unlawfull, yet for the Engliſh Liturgy, &c. And ſo after, in the ſame Page,Thus alſo Mr Norton, in his Anſwer to Apollonius, alloweth of a form of prayer for Miniſters, but if they be gifted, then to impoſe is unlawfull.But whether he means it is ſo, though they uſe their own gift, and the Forms ſometimes, I finde not. p. 138, 139. But do any we now ſpeak of condemn all uſe thereof? &c. So again, page 38. only there they ſay, That though the thing it ſelf be lawfull, yet, if not duly circumſtantiated, it may be evil and ſcandalous in the uſe, as Meats, 1 Cor. 8.13. This to me (if we have liberty as in the Queſtion) is the greateſt trouble, how to anſwer the offence it will give to other Chriſtians, in caſe we cannot ſatisfie there, being we have no command in the Word to uſe theſe Forms; how will you help us here? Will men give the Anſwer which Biſhop Land, when he ſilenced my Father in law, gave to him? My Father pleaded that Text of Paul, He would not offend his weak Brother, Why then ſhould the Biſhop offend him by impoſing the Surplice? To that ſpeech of Paul, Biſhop Laud anſwered, Yea, Paul ſaid ſo when he was alone, but do you think Paul would have ſaid ſo, if he had been in a Convocation? A rare Anſwer, worthy of a Biſhop.
4. What think you of this? Do we not many times when we are beaten with tentations, pray our own conditions more than the Congregations? though I know God hath his hand in this, and we do pray the conditions of others, though we know it not, while we pray our own: But yet way we not then uſe theſe Forms alſo, which are common to the whole Congregation, as it were to make amends? Burdened ſouls, when indeed tentations ly heard, cannot but minde themſelves, though none ſhould be the mouth of the Congregation.
395. The thing being in it ſelf good, and doubtleſſe a man may pray graciouſly, though he doth uſe a form. Why may we not yield in ſuch a point, to take off prejudices from our Miniſtry, and if they would join with us more willingly in Prayer, why ſhould this be wholly denied.
If you look on it as being ſuch a thing as you will rather lay down your Miniſtry than uſe any form at all, I deſire we might ſee thoſe grounds which may warrant you and us thereunto, and we ſhall thank you
CHAP. IV. Of Ceremonies, and in particular of the Surplice.
I Intend but a few words; We are told, the Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, and this is ſwallowed down ſo readily, as if there were no bones in it. What they mean by the ambiguous word, Ceremony, and what by the Church, we muſt learn from their practice: And I pray ſee through all Pauls Epiſtles where the Church is often mentioned, whether you can find ſuch a Church as decreed our Ceremonies. God having appointed his Day for Worſhip, what time of the day is fitteſt for it, we doubt not the Church may determine; ſo for place, and other things, which of neceſſity muſt be; as if there muſt be Wine and Bread at the Supper, &c. then Veſſels muſt be, whether Woodden, (as when they had their golden Prieſts) or Pewter, or Silver, there is no determination by God, the Church may here appoint, but theſe deſerve not the names of Ceremonies: Were we in our pureſt eſtate in Adam, had God appointed ſuch Ordimnces, theſe things muſt of neceſſity follow, theſe things muſt be, place and veſſels, &c. but it would not then have neceſſarily followed we muſt have garments; Conſidering ſin indeed which hath brought this ſhame upon us, we muſt now from ſin have garments, but it doth not follow properly from the Ordinance it ſelf we muſt have Garments, as if Wine and Bread, we muſt have veſſels to put the Wine into; if ſin, then garments, is true; not properly if ordinances, then garments; though now it is true.
The only Text brought for theſe Ceremonies is, 1 Cor. 14. ult.
40Let all things be done decently and in Order; whence thus the Argument runs.
If all the Worſhip of God (for that I think the Apoſtle, by All things, properly aimes at) muſt be performed decently in the Church, then the Church may decree Ceremonies.
But the Conſequence is denied; For,
1. The Worſhip of God may be decently performed without humane Ceremonies, deny it if you can, I will prove it afterwards.
2. The Worſhip of God may be very undecently performed though humane Ceremonies be annexed; we need not to prove what eyes have ſeen among your white Worſhippers in your Cathedrals, and Colledges, how rudely have divers carried themſelves? very much unbecoming the Worſhip of God I am ſure.
3. Had Ceremonies been ſo neceſſary, ſurely the Lord would have appointed them himſelf, and not leave his Worſhip to be dreſſed by a vain wretched head of man, oppoſite to him in all things: He whoſe name is Jealous, Exod. 34.14. and that in his inſtituted Worſhip, would not let man have this refuge to run to, while he was ſinning againſt his Second Commandment, to ſay, I do it for decency.
4. God would not ſuffer his Church of old to add one Ceremony; Moſes did as he was commanded, repeated ſeven times over in Exod. 40. Did God take care of the pins of the Tabernacle then, and will he not now of the Curtains? Since Gods wiſdom ſeeth meet to appoint none, mans wiſdome ſeeth meet to appoint what he pleaſe: yea, thus it muſt be, elſe he is not Man-fallen; i.e. Croſs to God in every thing. It ſeems, God ſends his worſhip into the Church under the New Teſtament naked, and we muſt make Garments to hide the ſhame of it, and with other Ribbands of our Inventions dreſs it up fine; Will the great God thank you for this, you, potſheard, man, who will mend his work?
5. What the Apoſtle meaneth by decency and Order you may ſee in the eleventh Chapter, and this fourteenth Chapter; in which Chapters you ſhall find Undecency and Diſorder, but not for want of Ceremonies.
6. If from hence we may appoint Ceremonies, where ſhall we ſtand,Determ. 20. may we not go <