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!

According to the Talent the Lord hath lent me, I wrote a little in defence of Episcopal Ordination, so far as to prove it not to be Antichristian: But now the Controversie is come home to my own door; for though in the presence of the people who elected me, with their hands lifted up to manifest their Election, in a day of Fasting and Prayer, I was by five Ancient, Godly and Grave Divines [the greater part eminent in their Generation] set apart to the work of the Ministry by Imposition of hands, Prayer, and words sutable to the Ordinance, yet my Ordination is questioned by such in whose defence I wrote before; (thank you Brethren) the ground being this, they judge Ordination to be a work proper to a Bishop, whom they make an Officer distinct from Presby­ters, having more eminent Offices, and greater power belonging to them than Presbyters have. How they come by this power, is the question; that Reverend and Learned Bishop Dr. Davenant, in his 42 Determination, undertakes to prove that this eminency of the Bishop, is in verbo divino adumbrata, delineata, & abipsis Apo­stolis constabilita, and that it is an easie thing to demonstrate it.

The reasons why I pitch upon this man rather than another, are these; 1. Because he undertakes to prove this eminency of power by the holy Scriptures [I wish all would hold here.] 2. He sums up all the Arguments that ever I heard for it. 3. He performes his work gravely, soberly, like a Christian, a Divine, not filling his Papers with such scorns, jeers and bitter Invectives, as the Episcopal men have done, who have wrote of late, that a sober man hath scarce patience to read them.

For my part, I have bestowed but very little time in this con­troversie, neither have I so much as seen those who have written most largely and elaborately about it, as Blondel, Salmatius, nor others: Mr. Baxter came to my hand when I had almost done, so that I have not read him through, but cast my eye here and there upon him. I wish some body would answer him as soberly as he writes; but I think he will never be answered. Leaving the Reader to such able men for fuller satisfaction, I shall communicate my meditations, so far I hope, as to prove our Ordination by Pret­byters to be valid, holding weight in Gods Balance.

For those Episcopal men who have written of late, with such scorn, bitterness and confidence, the strongest Arguments I find, are these:

[Page 3]1. Thus it hath been for fifteen hundred years, before Calvin rose, the Churches had ever Bishops; name the Church that had not: Thus these Brethren think, à facto ad jus, valet consequentia undenia­bly.

2. The Fathers who lived in the Primitive times tell us, the Apo­stles did constitute Bishops in several Cities, as, Timothy, and Titus, &c. This is all their strength.

But in sober words I beseech you, What kind of Bishops were fifteen hundred years ago? [if you begin to reckon from the Apostles times] Bishops distinct from Presbyters in Power and Of­fices and that by Divine right? Verily you fall short in proving it. Or were they such Bishops that extended their power for forty miles space or more, over many hundred Presbyters, and over many hundred thousand of persons, whom they never saw? I be­seech you name us such Bishops in the three or four first Centuries, else you know what Bishops do not answer. I have read in a Learn­ed Author, that in Augustines time, there were in one Province under Carthage, of the Catholicks and Donatists, above nine hun­dred Bishops, the Author sums up how many of each; surely these Bishops did not extend their power much further than some great Parishes in some Countreys Suppose Lan­cashire., or some such Towns as Ipswich, Bristol, Colchester, &c. If you will have such Bishops, and give them no more power than Christ hath given them, for Order sake I will yield to them, and give them the Honour, and if more maintenance be conferred upon them by the King, than other Presbyters who joyn with them, I shall be very willing and glad of it. So that I am not against an Imparity in honour nor mainte­nance, neither would I be in power and office, if Christ had given more to them than others.

As to the Second, I do honour the Fathers in their places. 1. Scri­pture. 2. Sound Reason. 3. Fathers or Antiquity.

But yet I cannot yield that St. Paul and Ignatius, St. Peter and Chrysostome, should be of equal authority; I am sure you make them but very little different, if any thing less, as will appear af­ter.

I am not a man versed in the Fathers as others are, yet some of them (the most ancient) I have read, and in them I find so ma­ny strange humane mixtures in the Worship of God, that I can­not yield to this consequence, The Fathers say it, or did it, ergo, It [Page 4]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? So [Page 5] 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, [Page 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 [...], 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, [Page 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. [...]. 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 diffe­rently [Page 8]he builds, there he set up no Officer, but all the Officers continued so long as that polity continued, but here his chief Of­ficers were but for a short time, so that you see he makes a vast difference in the building. Also the Deacon was properly ap­pointed to serve Tables, to regard the poor: Were there Dea­cons for the poor amongst the Jews?

6. Had the Dr. mentioned the Heads of the 24 Orders of Priests appointed by David, which some say, were called [...], the Hebrews called them Roshe aboth, the chief of the Family, there had been more likelihood of an Argument, and it is likely we should have yielded as much now to the Ministers of the Gospel, if we were certain what the Head of the Order had more than the other Priests of that Order, which was not eminency of power and of­fice sure enough.

His second Argument is taken from Christ in the new Testament, Arg. 2 Who appointed Twelve Apostles, superiour not only in gifts, but in amplitude of Authority and Power to the Seventy Disciples, Now Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles, and Presbyters of the Se­venty.

This Argument I see is much insisted upon by others, Answ. let us try the strength of it. I Answer,

1. Had the Apostles shewn any of that power and authority in the mission of the Seventy, there had been some probability in this Argument, but there was not the least appearance of any such thing, the Seventy had their Mission as immediatly from Christ, as had the Apostles, they contributing nothing towards it. But our Bishops tell us, our sending depends upon them, we can be no Presbyters without them, so that they will be ten times more su­periour than the Apostles.

2. As there was no difference in their Mission, so neither in their Commission. Read both their Commissions and you find the same; Preach the Gospel, Heal the sick, Cust out Devils &c. Bi­shops then and Presbyters have the same Commission and Mission: Agreed.

3. That Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles, Bellarmine saith but impropriè: Had the Dr. drawn his Argument into form, I think I should have found a Fallacy in the Syllogism. Limit he [Page 9]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 ofthe Fathers said that Presbyters are the Successors of the Apostles also? Hath Irenaeus nothing to that purpose? the two Jesuits Bellarm and Greg. Lib. 3. cap. 2. Lib. 4. cap. 23. de Val. are so kind to us to tell us they have said so.

I see the Dr. adds a Scripture at the bottom of the Paragraph, 1 Cor. 12.28, 29. But surely this makes nothing to the proof of Episcopal succession. Are all Apostles? are all Prophets? are all Teachers? I think this Text he brings will pluck up this Episco­pacy by the roots: God hath set in his Church, Where shall we find the Bishop in question set? not among the Apostles I hope, not among the Prophets, then it must be among the Teachers, so the Text, thirdly Teachers, but are not Presbyters Teachers? Well met honoured Dr.

6. The Apostle Peter, 1 Ep. c 5. v. 1. Writing to the Presby­ters, calls himself a Presbyter: Had the Apostle written thus, The Bishops which are among you I exhort, whs also am a Bishop, this would have been cried up for an invincible Argument to prove that Bishops were the Apostles Successors, for he writes to Bi­shops, and calls himself a Bishop. Gentlemen, give us fair play I beseech you, the Argument is ours, to prove Presbyters are the Successors of Peter the Presbyter.

To say the Apostles and Seventy were extraordinary Officers, and so we cannot draw any thing from them, there may be som­thing in it, but I add no more.

His third Argument is, Arg. 3 The Apostles before they passed from earth to Heaven, did constitute in great Cities one Bishop, superiour not on­ly over the Laicks, but also the Presbyters; as James in Jerusalem, Timothy at Ephesus, Titus in Creet, &c.

I hope he takes Bishop properly, Answ. as we intend in the question, else he deceives us. I Answer,

1. Why did not the Apostle Paul or some other Apostle con­stitute such a Bishop in Gorinth before his departure? I am sure Corinth was none of the least Cities: His Epistles to Corinth men­tion no such thing, and that is much if there were one. Paul wrote to them Anno 52, as Buchol. and Alsted. Or about 54, as Dr. Hammond. When Clemens wrote his Epistle to them is un­certain, saith Learned Mr. Young, but he supposeth, not before his banishment, which was two years before his Martyrdom, and gives his reasons for his opinion; he suffered Martyrdom in the third year of Trajan, Anno 103. saith Sixtus Senensis: Hence then almost fifty years passed between the Epistles of Paul and Cle­mens to the Corinthians, Clemens p. 8. mentions Pauls Martyr­dom, but in all his Epistle there is not one word to shew that there was such a Bishop in his time, for in the winding up his Epistle, p. 73. he exhorts them, [...], it should have been [...], but not a word of such a Bishop, whom Clemens would not have forgotten had he been there. This Epistle is the most pure piece of all Antiquity, next the Scriptures.

2. Is the Dr. sure that all those he mentions were Bishops pro­priè dicti, he saith indeed afterward, p. 195. Certum est Timotheum, Titum, Jacobum, multosquè alios propriè dictos Episcopos fuisse vi­ventibus Apostolis, &c. yet adds in the conclusion, quasi affixos. Well then certum est, but how I pray, certitudine fidei divinae? else '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,

[Page 11]1. He was an Apostle, one of the Pillars, Gal. 2.9. whose sen­tence in this question swayed the Synod, but to have an Apostle a Bishop in our sense is strange: Had the Dr. forgot that on this ground our Divines against the Papists prove that Peter could not be Bishop of Rome, because he was an Apostle, and so not fixed.

2. If James were a Bishop, why had he not his Title given him in Acts 15? For in v. 4, 6, 23. we have mention made of Apostles and Presbyters, but not a word of a Bishop, this is very far from this certainty: '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, [Page 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 [...] is taken largely, yet, [...], which is used but thrice in the New Testament, is never taken but for a peculiar Officer. He was one of those Paul mentions Eph. 4.11. To confine the word Evangelists to those who wrote the Gospels, is absurd: Matthew and John I hope were Apostles, and Philip was an Evangelist, Acts 21.8. yet wrote no Gospel. If he were no Evangelist, but bidden to do the work of one this is strange; an inferiour order do the work of a superiour: However I hope by this Presbyters may ordain as well, though they be of an inferiour Order. But if Timothy must do the work of an Evangelist, he must not fixe at Ephesus.

No more fixed at Crete was Titus, though for a time left at Crete. In 2. Cor. 8.23. Paul cals him his [...], and his [...], words sutable to an Evangelist, sent up and down by Paul, as we may observe in the Epistles, and journeying with Paul. After he was at Crete, Paul sends to him to Nicopolis, Tit. 3.12. which was six hundred miles distant from Crete, as Bunting saith, p. 566. How long he stayed with him, or whither he went next, I find not. But towards the end of Pauls life, 2 Tim. 4.10, 11. he was at Rome with Paul, and by Paul sent to preach in Dalmatia, saith Lapide. How these things sute with a Bishop in our sense I know not: Hence Junius, Zanchy, Polanus, Beza, Calvin, Diodati, and the Lutherans conclude him to be an Evangelist.

As for Evangelists, Ensebius will give us some light to un­derstand them, Eccles. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 37. He speaks of divers then, ‘who obtained the first step of Apostolical succession, and being as divine Disciples of the chief and principal men, builded the Churches every where planted by the Apostles, &c. Taking their [Page 13]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 to [Page 14]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

[Page 15]2. That the Apostles did ordain but one Scripture-Bishop in a great City, is an assertion point-blanck against the Scriptures, which shew the contrary. Let Jerom speak; some say he was angry, and I know not what, but the Scriptures he produces were not, Vide Chemnit. exan. Concil Trid. de Sacr. ord. p. 224. [ Chemnitius gives us a better ground for his writing] but thus Je­rom, Doth any one think it is our own opinion, and not the sentence of the Scriptures that a Bishop & a Presbyter are one? Let him read Phil. 1.1. With the Bishops and Deacons. Philippi is one City of Macedonia, and certainly as Bishops are now called, there cannot be more than one in one City, but then there were. non adversatur sacris eloquiis plures in una civitate appel­lari tunc tempo­ris Presbyteros seu Episcopos, ut Acts 10. Doth it still seem doubtful unlesse it be confirmed by another testimony, then take Acts 20.17, He calls them Elders. v. 28. calls them Bishops. Observe diligently, the Elders of one City he cals Bishops, then adds, Heb. 13.17. Thus he in Tit. 1. When in his Epist. ad Evagr. he had been proving the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, from Phil. 1. Tim. 4. Tit. 1. Pet. 5. He saith to him, Parva tibi videntur tantorum virorum Testimonia? To us these testimonies are not small, but more than if a thousand Bishops say the contrary. What Jerom saith, Cajetan. Tit. 1.5. postea nuns electus, we regard not, being after the Apostles, and yet then not superiour in power; that crept in by degrees.

His Second is, The Right and Power of Ordination, which is de­nied to inferiour Presbyters, 1. Tim. 5.22. Tit. 1.5.

1. He hath not shewn us such a Bishop as he speaks of, Answ. as yet in all the Scripture; how then can this be true?

2. If denied to Presbyters, then to Bishops also: for they were both one in these Epistles to Timothy and Titus. 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 Ordination [Page 16]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,

[Page 17]1. There is a difference between the arrival of Evangelists and the Bishops in question.

2. There being abundance of enemies and errours spread about, as we see, it was the very reason why Paul besought Timothy to stay at Ephesus, 1 Tim. 1.3. These men being so able and qualified above others, might very well there be lest for a time, as to op­pose the heresies and errours, so to look to the Ministry, that none but sound and able men came into it: but because these be­ing Evangelists, were far more able, does it conclude the Presby­ters had not the Right to ordain with them?

3. Remember, that Cajetan confesseth even in these Epistles, Presbyter and Bishop signifie the same degree and the same of­fice. Had not the Churches been in danger, Timothy had not need been there, so this denies not their power.

The Dr. goes on to prove this sole power of Ordination from humane Authority.

1. From that Saying of Jerome, Excepta Ordinatione quid facit Episcopus quod Presbyter non faciat? Answ.

Jerom speaks de facto, the Bishops had engrossed this power, but he does not say de jure, it ought to be so, for he had strongly proved the Bishop and Presbyter from several Scriptures to be the same.

2. It should seem it was not a universal Custom: For it was one great complaint against Chrysostom (saith Bish. Downam) that he made Ordinations without the Presbytery: And in the year 398, about which time Chrysostom flourished, that fourth Council of Carthage, which opposeth Bishops sole power of Ordination, was held. However this is but humane.

2. He brings in the example of one Colythus a Presbyter of Alexandria, who ordained Presbyters, but their Ordination was made void, and the Ordained returned into the Order of Laicks.

Still this is but a humane Act grounded on no Scripture, Answ. and yet there is somthing more to be said about this. For,

1. I find this Colythus is reckoned among the Hereticks by Au­gustine and others. One of his Opinions Augustin mentions, but what more he held I know not.

2. He was a man infamis ambitione, say the Historians, and would make himself a Bishop, as the Epistle of the Presbyters of Mareotis, in the same Apol. of Athanas intimates, whence they call [Page 18]him non verum sed imaginarium episcopum; whence the general Council commanded, ut se pro Presbytero haberat, qualis antea fu­isset.

3. It appears in both places of Athanasins that this Colythus or­dained alone, there are none mentioned that joyned with him.

4. That Ischyras who was ordained by Colythus, and about whom there was so much trouble, was not chosen of a Church; for so the words, [...], p. 570.

Now for a Heretick, alone, ambitiously making himself a Bishop. to ordain a person not elected by a Church, is not the same with five Orthodox Presbyters, ordaining a Presbyter elected by a true Church.

The Dr. before he hath done, does allow this which is so pro­per to Bishops, to be common to Presbyters in some cases, then it seems, the power may be ours, and whether our case be not as weighty, I will consider anon.

The Third and last is, The power of Jurisdiction over both Laick [...] and Presbyters: and instanceth in Excommunication.

He will allow indeed Presbyters to be consulted with from Cyprians example [he might have added the 23 Canon Concil. Carthag. 4. which make else Sententia Episcopi irrita] but for the censure, this proceeds only from Episcopal Authority.

Hence then Presbyters have not the power of Excommunicati­on, nor are Judges in it, so he saith.

2. A Bishop alone may excommunicate Presbyters.

For the first, Presbyters have the power of Excommunica­tion.

1. Why else are they called Pastors and Rulers, Heb. 13.17. and the people commanded to obey them; they must feed the flock, and [...], 1 Pet. 5.1. So 1 Thes. 5.12. They are over them in the Lord.

2. There was no Bishop in Corinth when Paul wrote to have the incestuous person cast out, yet they had the power of Excom­munication, 1 Cor. 5.7, 12, 13. purge, judge, put away. Had they done it before, Paul would not have written so sharply.

3. Those who have the power of the Keyes have the power of Jurisdiction: but Presbyters have the power of the Keyes; not denied by the Papists, Sent. l. 4. dis. 18. S. 14. but affirmed, insomuch that Estius moves this Question; Ʋtrum Sacerdotes soli habent potestatem excommu­nicandi? [Page 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, [Page 20]and divers Elders in common governed that Church, let the [...] pronounce the sentence of excommunication, I deny it not.

For his Proofs, because Timothy must charge some that they teach no other Doctrine, 1 Tim. 1.3. So Tit. 1.11. Mouths must be stop­ped.

But I beseech you what is there in this more than Presbyters might do, who govern the Church in common? that stopping may be meant partly, if not chiefly there by Argument, convince gainsayers, v. 9. I must confess I cannot see the Logick of this Argument; though it doth prove Jurisdiction, does it prove Pres­byters have not the power? I thought he would have quoted 1 Tim. 5.19. But because he doth not, I let it alone.

His next is, the Angel of Pergamus and Thiatira, blamed Rev. 2. for suffering of Jezebel, &c.

1. Answ. Does this exclude the other Presbyters? What mean those words, [...], v. 24. But to you I say. If the King writes to the Speaker, and reproves somthing amiss, or complains somthing is not done, does it lay the blame on him only, and not on the Members of the House as well?

2. Suppose these Angels had been guilty of sins for which them­selves had deserved excommunication, who should have cast them out? Are they Lords Paramount above all Christs Laws in his Church? I know not but the other Presbyters with the consent of the Chur­ches, obeying their Presbyters, might have cast these Angels out, or no way that I know of. The Scriptures know no Archbishops, though the Papists and Dr. Hammond do.

But to have one Bishop alone excommunicate Presbyters, this would make as brave work as we have known before the wars begun. Let the [...] with the Presbyters, excommunicate a Presbyter, the Church consenting.

Thus far the Dr. goeth, and then undertakes to answer our Arguments, but because I see nothing is there said which I have not spoken to before, and I am loath to exceed in this discourse, I shall only take notice of what he saith in his Answer to the third Objection, where he tels us the necessity of Bishops in these re­spects.

1. To ordain Ministers, lest the Evangelical Ministry should fail.

Cannot this evil be prevented by Presbyters as well? Answ. Are not divers thousands of Presbyters in England more likely to keep up a succession of Ministers in England, than 24 Bishops, of whom, how few now were left? Had the succession of Ministers de­pended upon them, in what a sad case had the Church been?

2. For the Governing of Presbyters, lest by their impure manners, heresies and schismes, they should destroy the Church.

And are not Bishops equally liable to these? Answ. How shall the Church now be saved? May we not read with our eyes in Histories, and hear with our ears what Bishops have been? Have we not seen the excellency of this Government in England? as to the impure manners of Ministers being corrected: Is it not a Cordoli­um to the godly in England to have so many who were justly cast out for scandal by the Parliament [though some were wronged I know, and do as much detest their ejectment] to return again, not one whit purged that we can fee?

2. For Heresie and schism.

1. We know what Bellarmine saith, Certe Heresiarchae ferè om­nes aut Episcopi, aut Presbyteri fuerunt; and from these Heresies rise Factions among the people, saith he, so that Bishops are as deep in the mire for heresie and causing schism, as the Presbyters. Hence he will have a Pope; but that Monarchical Government hath not cured Schism we know, much less Heresie.

2. As for Heresie and Schism both, name any National Church under Heaven more free from them, than the Church of Scotland, before these troubles began, and yet there Bishops are not appro­ved of.

3. For Schism, read but the life of Constantine, and there see whether Bishops were not guilty of Schism, and the Concil. Tola­ta 1. was called upon some Schism among the Bishops.

4. We say that Rome is guilty of the Schism between us and them, because Rome gave the cause: I leave the Reader to en­quire who gave the first cause of the Schisms now in Eng­land.

5. Why then did not Paul appoint a Bishop in Corinth, when Schism was there, both in his time, and Clemens his time, but Clemens mentions none: Jerom saith indeed, that upon these Schisms Bishops were set up afterwards. [I write not his known word] posted: But it is much that these ends of a Bishop, which [Page 22]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 hoc [Page 23]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. 1 But Presbyterial [Page 24]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 the [Page 25]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 3 ^d 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, [Page 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 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, [...]. 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 con­vincing [Page 27]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. [Page 28]For 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 Au­gustine Tom. 4. p. 780 Fro. and Ambrose Ephes. 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 it [Page 29]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. [...]

us 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. [...], 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 [...] did pray. [...], 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. 2 If 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.

One 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.

Do 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.

I 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.

Object. 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 do [Page 37]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, [Page 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 M ^r 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.

[Page 39]5. 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.

Let 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 in infinitum? What hinders? B. Davenant [Page 41]saith of these Ceremonies, Si nimis excreverint, in hoc graviter peccant, and quotes Austin in his 119. Epist. Complaining of the burden of Ceremonies, preferring the Jews Ceremonies, being Gods own Institutions, before theirs: But what saith the Ceremo­ny-maker, all these make the worship to be performed decently? So this month he invents these, the next month he invents others: for so we are taught if we will believe, the Church may alter and change the Ceremonies, if she see cause; yea, and cast them out also, if she be so true to her husband as she should be.

As for Apparel, I think people commonly come decently enough, some else will not come at all: And I see not but if a Ministers civil Garments, with his gown, be cleanly, as commonly they are; in these his Civil Garments he is decent enough, as to apparel. Such Decency and Order, as whose contrary is undecency and disorder, I think is there meant, and nothing more; but I hope that is not want of a Surplice, which I thus prove:

I. If different Garments, appropriated to the worship of God, Arg. 1 [as a Surplice] be requisite to the decent performance of it, then neither the Apostles, nor the Primitive Churches did worship God decently.

But they did, deny it if you dare; Ergo, Such Garments are not requisite, &c.

For the Apostles, and those Churches, will any say they had Surplices? no man will I am sure. About the year 261. I finde indeed Pope Stephen decreed, The Garments for Divine Worship should be consecrated, and used only in the Church: But his Decree is not early enough by many years to reach the Primitive Churches. Bishop Jewel quoting Valafredus Abbas, Des. Apol. 326. tells us out of him, that the old Fathers ministred the Holy Communion having on their own common apparel: very undecently certainly: It is a wonder that holy Paul could not see his exhortation to decency did force in a Surplice, which he and others should have used; but older and wiser: I pray let the Rule of Irenaeus before mentioned here take place.

II. Arg. 2 If a Surplice be requisite to the decent performing of the worship of God, Then all the Congregation ought to wear Surplices. The Reason is, Because they are all worshippers (at least pretend so) they come thither to worship, and have their acts of worship as well as the Minister: now Decency is as much [Page 42]enjoyned them as the Minister, for All things must be done in decency: [this would be a handsome sight] So all those who have not Surplices, worship undecently, for they have not that Garment which is requisite to Decency, and such undecent Worshippers have our Congregations ever been.

III. Arg. 3 That humane Invention which is supposed to make the worship of God better in it self, and more acceptable unto God, is unlawfull: But the humane invented Surplice is supposed to make the Worship of God better in it self, and more acceptable to God: Ergo, It is unlawfull.

For the major, It supposeth the wisdome of the Commander to be defective, for here comes in a creature who can adde a degree of goodnesse to his worship, which he hath not commanded, [and surely the more goodnesse in his worship, the more acceptance that worship must have] so that the Divine Rule for worship is not perfect. Regula non est, si quid ei deest: Regula & amussis neque appositionem neque ablationem admittit. But the Rule which Infinite wisdom hath given, which we suppose should provide best for what concerns himself, is short in this respect, for man may add a degree of goodnesse, and that is better.

I know not how to free such an Invention from Superstition, concerning which I intend not now to discourse: But that which some say concerning these Ceremonies, to save them, and other inventions, They are not opposite to the Word, though not commanded; I confesse, a Surplice, as it lyeth in the chest, is not opposite to the Word, but when the Surplice is appropriated only to the Worship of God, and makes it better, &c. now in the use of it it is opposite; for Excessus Religionis, which is Superstition, is opposite to the Second Commandement, and this Excessus Religionis est in ordine ad actus, & media Religionis externa, & vanae observantia circa onltum, aut cum aliquo respectu ad cultum, qua formaliter non sunt indebitus seu falsus cultus: These by learned and godly Divines abroad are charged with Superstition, I know not how our Ceremo­nies will escape the charge.

I pray prove unto us, That the washing of pots, cups, &c. in Mark 7.8. were forbiden by the Word: Had not the Pharisees the same Answer to give, We are not Superstitious in these, for they are not opposite to the Word: but the Lord charges them with vain worship­ping, vers. 7. So say you, The Surplice and Ceremonies are not [Page 43]opposite to the Word: But they put Religion in such washings. They made no more of them, than ours have done of their Ceremonies. Also, I pray shew us where the Word had commanded, that they must touch, taste, and handle those mears or things which their Men-Teachers taught them they must not touch, not taste, nor handle, Col. 2.21. if they meant of not eating Hoggs, Conies, Hares flesh, as the Rhemists interpret it, [I know various Interpretations, but passe them by] might not they say, when Paul charged them with will-worship, and Superstition, Why Paul these things are not opposite to the Word, May we not forbear to eat these, as well as eat them? this who could deny; but such abstinence the Apostle blames, and other things there in the general mentioned; For men to put any Religion, Holinesse, in what God hath not, and think to add to him, or mend his Rules or worship, as our men do in Ceremonies, the jealous God will not be pleased.

But then the Minor will be denyed: We do not suppose the worship of God to be better, or to have the least acceptance more with God for a Surplice, no, no?

1. Why then do you use these Ceremonies, if the worship be not one whit the better, nor God accept the more? but that the worship is every whit as good, and God fully as well pleased with his worship, without these, as with these, then we shall shew our selves vain in our Imaginations indeed, and very foolish, having no rational end of our actions. Cui bono? To what end then serve they? You do use to quote the 1 Cor. 14. for your ground, and end. It is true, Decent Worship is better than Undecent Worship, and we may conceive more acceptable to God. Now, if you by your humane Ceremonies, can make it Decent, and without them it is Undecent, Then your Ceremonies add some goodnesse to the worship of God, and tend more to acceptation with him.

2. If not, Why then have people been debarred from the Worship of God, because the Surplice hath been wanting? I read in the Writings of an eminent Minister of Christ [whom I knew when he lived] that in Suffolk the Surplice was lost in one Parish, There was a strict in junction to the poor Countrymen, that there might not be any Service or Sermon till they had got another, for which they were appointed Ten dayes, and this being upon a Friday, there were two Sabbaths without any Service. Now if the worship of God had been as good in it self, and as acceptable to God [Page 44]without the Surplice, why were the people hindered from woship­ping of God, and God denyed his due? See what men put in their Ceremonies.

3. If not, what is the Reason so many eminent Servants of God, holy worshippers of God, have been silenced, mouths stopped, that they must not worship God at all in publick, and other troubles and Persecutions befallen them, and that because of those Ceremonies? If the Worship was not the better, nor more accepted with God for the Ceremonies, What should cause this?

Objection, No, they would not be obedient.

Answer, No men in the world so obedient to their Superiours, [such as God had made Superiours] for conscience sake. But that was not the end of the injunction to try obedience, that came in accidentally. I never yet heard that our Civil Power did command Ceremonies in the worship of God, meerly to try the obedience of the Subject: No nor those who took that power upon them, which God never gave them in the Church; it is not said in their Books, We enjoyn these to try your obedience to us. So that there is an other End; of which before.

4. Let us see whether our Ceremony-makers can better free themselves from Superstition, than those whom Tertullian charged with it, in his Exposition of the Lords Prayer; we shall find there, that the Ministers were not forced to read their Prayers out of a Book: After he had shown what frame we ought to bring with us to Prayer, as to our Brother, then he comes to speak of some who when they went to prayer washed their hands, and some their whole bodies, which cleannesse, saith he, pleri (que) superstitiosè curant adomnent orationem: yet it seems they had their Reason for it, as he alledgeth. Then he adds, This Rule cut off those Ceremonies which were in use in Tertulliaxs time; and out of use with us: (some at least) Sed quoniam unum aliqued attigimus vacuae observationis, non pigebit caetera quoque denotare, quibus merito vanitas exprobranda est, si quidem sine ullius aut Dominici, aut Apostolici Praecepti auctoritate fiunt, hujusmodi enim non Religioni sed superstitioni deputantur, affectata & coacta, & curiosi potius quam rationalis officii. Certè vel eo coercenda quod Gentilibus adaquent. Then he names some who put off their cloaks when they went to prayer, and others had their vain Observations. Tertullian here speaks like a Christian, one who took his Bible for a perfect Rule. These things we may observe in him: 1. What ought to guide and rule us in Worship; the Authority of the Lords, and the Apostles Precepts.

[Page 45]2. What he judged of such things that were practiced in Prayer, and had not this Authority; he chargeth them with vanity, and Superstition, &c. Now let us examine, why the washing of hands before Prayer should not be as warrantable, as a Surplice in Prayer, to shew how we lift up pure hands, 2 Tim. and to shew innocency, the same I think which the Surplice doth, as good, as rational: And what is there more in putting on a Surplice, than putting off a Cloak; a man might fancy some spiritual thing in that, to signifie the putting off the cloak of maliciousnesse, 1 Pet. 2.16. or of hypocrisie, &c. enough we may imagine; you may call this Religion, I call it Superstition, saith Tertullian: Then let the Surplice go under Tertullians Censure.

IV. Arg. 4 To follow Heathenish and corrupt Worshippers in the worship of the Holy God, is contrary to the Word of God.

But to worship God in white Garments, appropriated only to the Worship of God, is to follow Heathenish and corrupt worshippers; Ergo.

I know, Heathens may worship their Idols as God is, in some particulars; when Heathens follow God [as the Devil is Gods Ape, to imitate his worship, as Justin Martyr, and Tertullian shew] then the Worshippers of God are clear, for they follow Gods command in what he hath appointed, and they cannot hinder the Devil from imitating of Gods worship, to set up himself: but when we have no command from God, but it is only our own wills which sets up such a Ceremony, and therein we make God to be served in that manner which Heathens and Idolatrous persons worship, this cannot be without some spot of sin: not hating the garment spotted with the flesh. It was upon this ground also, that Tertullian, in the place fore­quoted, did condemn these Observations about prayer; and in his Book, de Coro. mil. he reasoneth vehemently, that a Christian man ought not to go with a Lawrel Garland upon his head, and that for none other cause, but only for that the Heathens used so to go.

How the Lord warned his people against this we know, and hence would not allow them to pray towards the East, Ezek. 8.16. they must not be like the Heathens, worshipping the Sun rising in the East. Arias Montanus, in his Treatise of the Fabrick of the Temple saith, That the Jews report of thirteen Tables of stone, that were in the outward Court of the Temple, at which men were wont to pray, and all of them were made, saith he, so as some looked to the North, [Page 46]and some to the South, and some to the West, but not one to the East. How many East-worshippers do England afford?

Now for the Surplice; whence we took it, and how in it we follow the corrupt Romanists, whom our Episcopal men cannot deny but they are corrupt Worshippers, and how they did conform in their Ceremonies to Heathen Idolaters, to win them over to the Christian Religion; this is well known from Learned men who have written upon that Subject. But I add no more; these are only a few thoughts which ran in my minde, others have written more largely upon these subjects, whom I have not read, but only have heard of them.

For the Cross in Baptism, which hath proved such a crosse to many holy men, I only see Mr. Baxter in his Disput. about Church-Govern­ment, p. 418. expressing himself very much against it, but I have not had time as yet to read him over; I suppose the Reader may there finde satisfaction.

Mr. Fox, in his Martyrol. Vol. 3. p. 909. relates a Story concerning one Blomefield, a Persecutor, whom God followed with judgments upon his body and estate, This Blomefield a little before his death bragged, and threatned a good man, one Simon Herlestone, to put him forth to the Officers, because he did wear no Surplice when he said Service. Upon which Mr. Fox thus, Wherefore it is pitty such baits of Popery are left to the enemies to take Christians in: God take them away, or else us from them; for God knoweth they be the cause of much blindnesse and strife amongst men. There is a notable Example of Gods dealing with one who urged a gracious Minister to read the Book of Common-prayer, and set him Whitsunday for the day, by which day if he did not read it, he threatned to complain of him; but for all his threats was in the grave before the day came, and glad to get that worthy Minister whom he threatned to pray with him in his sickness, but then no words of the Book of Common-prayer. This a fresh act of Gods. I thought to have added more Arguments, but that I intended brevity.

Ravanel in his Biblioth. sacra, upon the word Mel, gives the Reason why Hony was forbidden in the Sacrifices, Lev. 2.11. To signifie (saith he) that all divised Worships should be avoided, because sincere Religion is defiled with them, though they appear beautifull and pleasing to humane reason, as hony to the taste, &c. What he saith I am sure is true, namely, That devised Worship is very beautifull and pleasing to humane [Page 47]reason, sweet as hony; this is fully proved by sad experience, and the pure Worship of God is as basely contemned: also it is as true, that sincere Religion is defiled by such worship; but whether this was the Reason why Hony was forbidden I go not about to prove.

CHAP. V. Of Kneeling at Sacrament.

FOR Kneeling at the Sacrament, it being but of later date, I thought, Irenaeus, p. 515. those men who glory so much in Antiquity would not have hept such a stirr about it, knowing that the gesture of the Christians in the Primitive times on the Lords day was quite opposite; for they stood, and must not kneel on that day; for not bowing of the knee on that day did signifie their Resurrection: and thus Basil holds it forth, as one of the necessary Traditions, and saith, it was given us in secret charge by the Apostles of Christ, That it is not lawfull for any man to kneel in the Church upon the Sunday, but every man is bound by the same Tradition, at Sermon, at Prayer, Reply, p. 282. and at the Communion to stand upright. Gentlemen, How is it, that you who tell us so much of Antiquity, for the proof of your Episcopacy, do you now make so light of your own Bible?

Harding tells Bishop Jewell, That if the blessed Sacrament of the Altar were no other than he and the rest of the Sacramentarians think of it, then were it not well done for the people to bow down to it. Transubstantiation was that which brought in Kneeling, and it seems, the Papists think if we do not own that, there is no reason to Kneel, nay, we do not well to bow down to the Bread and Wine.

But that which hath much run in my minde is this, Suppose in the Mahometane worship, there were some dispute what gesture there should be used in it, and the Mahometanes should find in their Alcoran, that Mahomet and some of his chiefest followers whom they most reverence, did use such a gesture in the worship, and this is recorded in the Alcoran; do we think the Mahometans would not give so much honor to Mahomet, his chief followers, & their Alcoran, as to say, That is the gesture we must and will use, which by our Alcoran we finde, our great Prophet and his Followers used? I am confident they would not disgrace their Alcoran, Mahomet, nor [Page 48]his Followers so much, to say, because we are not bound to it, we will use another. I beseech you Brethren, when as we finde in our Holy Bible, that Jesus Christ administred, and the Apostles received the Sacrament, not kneeling, but with another gesture suting a feast. If the Question be now moved, What gesture must we use at the Sacrament? do we when we have the gesture of sitting [to be sure it answered sitting at our feasts] recorded in our Bibles, that thus the Apostles received it, give due honour to our Bibles, and the Apostles with our Lord, when we cast by that, and use another? For the honor of my Bible, which I take to be the rule for my Religion, and for the honor of the Apostles, who first received it, and were the Lords Pen-men, I would chuse rather to use this gesture, because I would surely give as much honor to my Bible, as a Turk to his Alcoran.

For CHRISTMASSE-Day, Mr. Baxter hath spoken very fully to it, in my apprehension, some of the Arguments he useth against it were in my own thoughts, he hath added more, and shewn more Learning and Reading than I am acquainted with.

If the Day be kept to shew our Love to Christ, or our Thanks for Christ, Did not the Apostles love him as much as we? were not they as thankfull for him as we? did they not exceed us abundantly in both? and had not they the same cause for a day that we have? Yet we never finde that they kept such a day: For us to seem to be more wise, more holy, more enlarged in love to Christ, than the Apostles, is so abhorred in my thoughts, that this is it which hath kept me off from observing the Day as some men do, though I condemn not other Godly men who do keep it. To conclude;

1. In things belonging to God, if we keep close to the Holy Scriptures, there is no danger: Why do we not chuse the safest?

2. If we set up that in his Church, for which we have not good warrant from the Word, there may be danger.

3. To force others to yield to that in Religious things for which there is not sufficient warrant in the Word; or else to force them from their Ministry and worship of God, is certainly very sinfull, and therefore very dangerous.