THat whatsoever degrees of Church Governours, as God established under the Law, that Christ and his Apostles continued under the Gospel, and that hath governed the Christian Church since the days of Christ and his Apostles, They are and must be of Divine Ordination.

But God established three degrees of Church Governours under the Law, Christ and his Apostles continued three degrees under the Gospell, and three degrees hath governed the Christian Church since the days of Christ and his Apostles.

And therefore three degrees of Church Governours are and must be of Divine Ordination.

The proposition I will take for granted, for I know no man will deny it. The assumption I must prove, which hath three branches: The first is, That God established three degrees under the Law, the High Priest, inferiour Priests, and Levits; the High Priest to be in the first order, In­feriour Priests in the second, and Levits in the third: and this I hope will be granted. The second branch of the Proposition, that Christ and his Apostles continued three degrees under the Gospell, I prove thus: Christ chose Apostles for one order, and Evangelists for another, called at the first the seventy Disciples, to distinguish them from the other twelve, who were also called Disciples, as long as Christ lived (for they were seldome before Christ his Resurrection distinguished by their pro­per names) and Christ filled the room of the high Priest himself, as long as he served in the Ministery of the Gospell: And after his Ascention immediatly, the Apostles by the direction of the Spirit made choice of a third Order of Churchmen, whom they called by the name of Dea­cons, Act. 6. so that the Apostles were appointed to be of the first Order after Christ his Resurrection, at which time they were only endued with [Page 4] stolicall authoritie, being before Christs death in the order and rank of Evangelists, and the Evangelists inferiour to them, for the twelve were ever distinguished from the seventy, both in Place & Estimation, as any man may perceive that can read the Scriptures: but when Christ was to as [...]end up unto the Father, he made the Apostles chiefe Governours of the Church, and put them in his own place, and said to them, He that heareth you, heareth mee, and he that despiseth you, despiseth mee; after which time they were called by the name of Apostles ordinarily, and the other seventy got the name of Evangelists, and were the second order of Church Governours, & at all times remembred in the second place; howsoever, the twelve Disciples were called Apostles, as chiefly sent of God, although the other seventy were sent too, as wee read, Luke 10. yet they were not consecrate with so great solemnitie as the o­ther twelve, nor got not so strict a charge, nor so great authoritie and power conferred upon them; the truth of all this you will finde in the last Chapter of Saint Johns Gospel, and the first of the Acts; so that since the twelve Disciples are thus advanced, and not the seventie, it is more then evident, that Christ would have the Seventie to be still inferiour to the Twelve.

And this also appears by the election of Matthias, who was taken out of the number of the seventie, and advanced to the Apostolicall charge, if the twelve had not been in degree above the seventy, to what end should this distinction have been made? no man will say I hope, that the Twelve would have advanced themselves, above the Seventy, if Christ himselfe had made no difference before; for Christ no question if they had beene wrong would have reproved their arrogancie; but on the contrary, Christ gives testimonie of his approbation of that which they did, by consenting to Matthias election, yea, it appeares that they had a commandement so to do, for Peter saith, Acts 1.22. that one (must) be ordained, to be a witnesse with us of the Resurrection; the word ( [...],) in the 21 Verse is very emphaticall, so that it would seeme, that it was not left arbitrary to them, to doe it, or not to do it, at their pl [...]asure; but of necessitie it behoved to be done, as being commanded by Christ their Master.

Moreover, it is evident by the words of the 25 Verse, where the A­postle makes a cleer distinction between Apostles and Evangelists: That he may take part (saith he) of this Ministery and Apostleship; now the Apostle could not call it this Ministery, except it had bin distinct from [Page 5]that which Matthias had before; hee was one of the Seventy Disciples before, and had power to preach the Gospell of Christ: so that it is most sure, if the calling of the twelve, had not beene particularly diffe­renced by Christ, from the calling of the seventy, the Apostles would never have put a distinction between the one Ministerie, and the other. But the Apostle Peter adds yet a cleerer distinction, and hee cals the Mi­nistery whereunto Matthias was advanced Apostleship (this Mini­stery, and Apostleship saith he) now the Ministerie of the seventy Di­sciples was never called Apostleship unto this day, as all men know.

Further this distinction appeareth, that the Apostle, with the consent of the rest of the twelve, would have the number made up before the comming of the Holy Ghost; for the Holy Ghost did not visibly de­scend upon any but upon the twelve; well, they did always attend his comming, they could not tell how soon, and therefore they thought it necessary, that Matthias should be elected withall expedition, so that any man may conceive, if there had not been a wide difference between the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples, the Apostle would ne­ver have made such haste.

By the former doctrine we finde, that our Saviour differenced the 12, from the seventy, thrice; in the time of his life once, for by taking the twelve to be of his counsell (as it were) and guard of his bodie, he made a manifest distinction, Luke 6.13. Next after his Resurrection hee put a difference between them, in that hee enstalled them solemnly in their Apostolicall charge, which hee did not unto the seventy; and thirdly, after his Ascention, he sent the Holy Ghost chiefly to the twelve, and caused him to descend visibly even to the view of all the beholders upon their heads in the likenesse of cloven tongues of fire, which, for any thing we read, he did not to the seventy.

In the thirteenth of the Acts, Verse 1. we may behold this distinction, with our eyes; where Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, and Saul, are cal­led Prophets and Teachers, and not Apostles, for I thinke as yet Saul was not joyned to the number of Apostles, at least hee was not accounted one: so Paul makes this distinction, when he takes to himself the honour to plant the Gospel, and to lay the foundation, and makes Apollos a wa­terer only, and a builder upon the foundation, Paul plants, saith hee, A­pollo waters, but God gives the increase, 1 Cor. 2.6.

Moreover, Acts 8. we see a manifest distinction, in Philip the Evange­list, who converted the Samaritans, and baptized them, but Peter and John behoved to be sent out of Ierusalem, to lay on hands and conferre [Page 6]the Holy Ghost; but my opponent may say, that Philip was a Deacon, and one of the seven mentioned, Acts 6. I answer, we read of Philip the Apostle, and of Philip the Deacon, and why not a third Philip an E­vangelist? read Acts 21.8. he that was Deacon was there after advan­ced to be an Evangelist. Alwayes wee gaine thus much, that Deacons must preach and administer the Sacrament of Baptisme, and therefore they are not Lay-men.

That Deacons are not Lay-men, but Preachers, and a third order of Church Governours, it is evident, Acts 6. for as soon as there was any need of men of that office (that was, when the number of the Disciples was multiplied) they were chosen and elected by the Apostles, yea, they were elected too before the Apostles went out of Jerusalem, & separated themselves to preach the Gospell to all Nations; for they behoved to be helpers of the Apostles, and to assist them in the work of Ministery, to have a care of the poore under them, and to baptize new converts at their command; that so the Apostles might give themselves to prayer, and the Ministerie of the Word, Acts 6.4. The truth of this may be seen, Acts 10.48. where the Apostle Peter gives commandement (no question to the Deacons) to baptise Cornelius, and those who were with him; so we may see, 1 Cor. 1. that the Apostle Paul attributes the care of Baptisme to others then the Apostles, where he saith, that hee was not sent to Baptize, it being chiefly the charge of the Deacons, but to preach the Gospell; not that he might not baptise, for wee see the contrary in the words, but because the Apostles gave themselves chiefly to Prayer and the Ministery of the Word, and committed the care of Baptisme to the Deacons, and the administration of the Sacrament of the Sup­per to the Evangelists, called hereafter Elders, as may be gathered out of 1 Cor. 10.11.

We see also Col. 1.1. a manifest distinction between Bishops and Dea­cons; for the Apostle writes to them as their chiefe Bishop and Over­seer, for as yet the Apostle reserved the chief care of that Church to himself, although some think, that Epaphroditus was chief Bishop of that place; howsoever, we see two Orders here of Church-men, and I hope none will deny but the Apostle was in order and degree above them; we see them also made mention of in the Epistles of Paul to Timothy, and Titus, over whom Timothy and Titus are placed as their chiefe Go­vernours, so that it is more then evident that Christ and the Apostles [Page 7]continued three Orders of Church Governours under the Gospell.

But I know that it will be objected, that there should be but two Orders of Church Governours now under the Gospel, because Christ himselfe appointed but two, Apostles and Evangelists, both of them called at first Disciples, only distinguished by their number, twelve, and seventie.

Answ. Christ appointed but two indeed, because hee supplyed the room of the High Priest himself: neither would hee have any more du­ring his own Ministery; he was chiefe Governour of the Church him­selfe, and hee would have no Suffragans as long as he lived. Where the King is present himself, he needs not a Commissioner, nor a Vice-roy. Again, had Christ chosen three Orders in his owne time, then there should have been foure Orders of Church Governours, all the while of Christ his Ministery upon earth: First Christ himselfe (for I hope no man will refuse Christ for one, and for the chief too) and the other 3 ordained by Christ. Now our blessed M. & Saviour, because he would keep Analogie (so farre as I can conceive) with the number and degrees of Church Governours under the Law, he would choose but two, and leave the third to be added by the Apostles after his departure; which they did with all diligence, as we may see, Acts 6.

That our Saviour used this analogie in this, I will prove by other par­ticulars, wherein he observed the like analogie, and first in the number of the Sacraments; as his Father appointed but two under the Law, Circumcision, and the Paschall Lambe, so hee appointed but two under the Gospell, Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord; the one to succeed in place of Circumcision, the other in place of the Paschall Lambe. And againe, as Circumcision did represent unto us the guilt of sin, so our Saviour would have Baptisme to represent to us remission of sins; And as the Passeover represented to the people of Israel their bodily deliverance from the bondage of Egypt, so our Saviour would have his last Supper to represent to us our spirituall deliverance from the bondage of sin and Satan.

When our Saviour instituted Baptisme hee devised no new Ceremo­ny, but took that Ceremony of Washing which the Jews used in their Purification, & appointed it to represent our spirituall washing from sin. So likewise in the Institution of the other Sacrament hee did not devise any new Ceremony to represent his Death and Passion, but took the last part of the Paschall Supper, and appointed it for that us [...]e. The cu­stome [Page 8]of the Iews was, after the Supper was ended, and the Paschall Lambe caten, hee that was Master of the Feast tooke as many pieces of bread as there were people present at the eating of the Lamb (and there behoved to be between the number of ten, and the number of twenty, for there might not be fewer then ten, nor more then twenty) and gave every one a piece, saying these words, This is the bread of affliction, which your Fathers eat in the wildernesse; and thereafter hee took the Cup, and gave it to them, saying, This is the cup of affliction, which your Fathers dranke in the wildernesse. Now our Saviour Christ reserved the same Ceremo­ny; for the Text saith, that first he took bread, and after that He had gi­ven thanks, he brake it, and gave to every one a portion, and said, This is my body which is broken for you, Doe this in remembrance of mee; And in like manner, He took the Cup, saying, this Cup is the new Testament and Covenant in my bloud, drinke yee all hereof, and as oft as you eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, you shew the Lords death till he come, saith the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 11.

Moreover, Christ chose twelve Apostles in Analogie to the twelve Patriarchs, that like as the whole people of God, under the Law, did proceed out of the loynes of the twelve Patriarchs, so also Gods children, under the Gospel, should be begotten by the Ministery of the twelve Apostles, and their Successors: Hee chose also seventy Disciples, in Analogie to the seventy Elders of the Iews, whom Moses elected, to govern the people of Israel under himselfe; so our Saviour would have those seventy Disciples, and their Successours, to be spiri­tuall Governours of the people of God, under the Gospell. Moreover, Christ fasted forty days in the wildernesse, in reference to Moses, fasting forty days upon Mount Sinai. Christ entred into his Ministery, in the thirtieth yeare of his age, in similitude of the Priests and Levits entring in their severall Functions. So that there is nothing more probable in the Scriptures, then that as Christ, by way of Analogie, did imitate the Iews in many things, so also would hee have as many degrees of Church Governours under the Gospell, as there was under the Law, and that he would be chief Governour himself of both Churches.

But that ye may believe the truth of these things the better, I will let you see, that the Apostles also followed the example of their Ma­ster, in the imitation of the Iews in many things: As in the use of Lots, con­forme to the ancient custome of the Iews, Matthias is chosen to be an Apostle, so also they continued the use of an holy Kisse at their meet­ings [Page 9](yet if they had been as precise, as many people now adays, they would have abolished that Ceremony, because Judas betrayed his Ma­ster with a Kisse) and gave it in Commandement, Greet one another with an holy Kisse, saith the Apostle Paul: so also, the use of Love­feasts proceeded from the Jews, for, as after their Sacrifices, they feasted one another, so after the celebration of the Lords Supper, they had their Agapae, and Love-feasts, which the Apostle Paul did not discharge, but forbad them in publike, and licentiates them in their own private fa­milies; Have yee not Houses to eat and drinke in, or despise yee the Church of God, saith he? The day of Celebration of the Sacrament of the Supper, was ever a Festivall day to them, but not a day of fasting, as it is with many now: So also, the Custome, of laying on of Hands, was borrowed from the Jews, Numb. 8. in these, and some other formes and Ceremonies, the Apostle did imitate the Nation of the Iews, but let these serve for an example.

The Primitive Church also followed the example of Christ and his Apostles in this Analogizing, and in particular, as in the Consecration of Priests, some pieces of the Sacrifices were put in the Priests hands, Exod. 29.9. Even so, they put the Bible in the hands of the Minister at his Ordination, this was done both by the Jewish Church, and the Christian; to teach both, That no man taketh this honour unto him­selfe, but hee that is called of God: so also, they erected a Mother­church, wherever there was a Bishop, even as the Iews had but one Mother-church, the Temple of Ierusalem, because they had but one High Priest; and therefore in respect that Bishops succeeded in the room of the High Priest in the government of the Church, where ever there was a Bishop, there they built a Mother-church, and all the rest of the Churches of the Diocesse were but pendicles of her, as the Jewish Synagogues were to the Temple of Ierusalem: yea & these Mother­churches, they built them according to the similitude of the Temple of Jerusalem; for as the Temple had the Most holy Place, Holy place, and atrium, called the Court of the Temple, or Sal. porch, this for the peo­ple, the Holy place for the Priests, and the Most holy place for the Lord of Hosts, to be as it were, the place of his habitation, to dwell be­tween the wings of the two Cherubims, there to give his Oracle; even so in the Christian Churches, there was a place appointed for the peo­ple, another for Churchmen, the third as the most holy place, where [Page 10]the Sacrament of the Supper was celebrated, as the onely memoriall of his presence, left by himselfe under the new Testament, as the Arke of the Covenant was under the Old. So then, since both the A­postles and the Churches of Christ, in the Primitive Times, did imitate the Iewish formes by way of Analogie, it seemes to mee that in so doing, they followed the example of Christ, who kept an Analogie himselfe with the Iewish Church, in many things, but in speciall in the number and degrees of Church Governours.

Now I would ask my Authour, by what reason hee thinks Christ should have diminished the number of Church Governours? was the number of three Typicall, or was the Church Government Typicall? truly neither; the number of three is mysticall indeed, but not Typi­call, neither was the Government Typicall, but as necessary now un­der the Gospel, as it was under the Law; for, as Christ did not governe his Church, immediatly by his spirit, under the Law, so no more doth he governe his Church, immediatly by his spirit, under the Gospel; but as he committed the government, to certain Governours, under the Law, so hath he committed it, to certain Governours, under the Go­spel. But it may be answered, that he hath not committed it, to so ma­ny degrees of Church Governours, now under the Gospel, as he did un­der the Law; I perswade my self, that my opponent shall never be able to prove, that Christ behoved to doe this de jure, or shew mee a reason, why it behoved to be so: yes, hee will say, of necessity the first degree behoved to be taken away, because the High Priest was a type and figure of Christ; and all types and figures were abolished by Christs comming.

Reply, I grant all types and figures were abolished, by Christs com­ming; but I deny that the High Priest was a type and figure of Christ, as he was chiefe Governour of the Church: and that for these reasons.

First, because then, all Church Government should have beene abrogated by Christs comming, for if Aarons Government, was a type and figure of Christs Government, then it will follow, that Christ now under the Gospel, should governe his Church, immediately by himself, without any subordinate Governours; for if Church Go­vernment, under the Law, was typicall, and all types abrogate, it follows necessarily that there should be no Church Government now, but Christs only.

Secondly, If Aaron, as hee was chiefe Governour under the Law, was a type and figure of Christ, then it will follow, that Christ was not Supreame Governour of his Church under the Law: for Types are of things to come, and neither of things present, nor by-past.

Thirdly, the High Priest, as he was chiefe Governour, he could not be a type and figure of Christ, because if there had been but two ranks of Church Governours, one of them behoved to be chiefe, and so still there should have been a chiefe Governour.

And lastly, the order that was among Church Governours was not Ceremoniall but Morall, and as necessary for the Government of the Christian Church, as the Jewish; for God is the God of Order now, I am sure, as well as he was then: now nothing that was Morall, was ty­picall, and therefore Aaron was not a type and figure of Christ, as hee was chiefe Governour of the Iews.

Now I will shew you, in what respect hee was a type and figure of Christ. First, as the High Priest was one man, he did typifie Christ as the one High Priest of our profession, and therefore Christ would not commit the chief Government of the Church to one any more, but to many in one and the same rank and order. Next, the High Priest his of­fering of one Sacrifice, once in the yeere within the Veil, was a Type of that only one propitiatorie Sacrifice once offered up for the sins of the quick and the dead, by our Saviour Christ: Thirdly, the High Priest his once in the yeere only entring within the Veil, was a type of our Saviour his once entring into Heaven, to make intercession for us: For these respects then, AARON was a type and figure of Christ, but no ways in relation to his Government, for the Reasons before alleaged.

I have another Reason yet that moves mee to think that there can be no fewer then three Rankes of Church Governours now under the Gospel: and it is this. The number of Three is mysticall, as is evident by many examples, both in Scripture, things above Nature, Naturall things, and Spirituall things. In Supernaturall things wee see the truth of this assertion, in the Divine Essence, which subsists in the number of three Persons, which is the mysterie of all mysteries: in the Divine Essence also, there are three Communicable properties, Goodnesse, Power, and Wisdome, to these three all the rest may [Page 12]be referred, as Life, Love, Justice, &c. three incommunicable proper­ties, Simplicitie, Eternitie, Ubiquitie, of These no creature is capable. According to this similitude, the faculties of the Soul were formed by God himselfe; for the Soule hath three chiefe faculties, Judgement, Memory, and Will, yea, the renewed minde consisteth of three Theo­logicall Vertues, Faith, Hope, and Charitie, which are the three di­mensions of every Christian soule: the bodily Substences of all crea­tures are composed of Three, Longitude, Latitude, and Profunditie; without the which the Creatures can have no Subsistence: There are also three degrees of Life, Vegetative, Sensitive, and Rationall, and all these in analogie to the three Persons of the Godhead; it were easie to shew you divers resemblances between them, if it were necessary, and to the purpose. It was more then the light of Nature that taught A­ristotle to esteeme the number of three to be the perfectest number of all numbers, yea to be all in all; Qui dicit tria (saith hee) dicit omnia, & qui dicit ter, dicit omnifariam; He that saith three, saith all, and he that saith thrice, saith always.

But to come to the Scriptures: saith not Iohn (1 John 5.7, 8) that there are three things that beare witnesse in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one: and that there are three things that beare witnesse on earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the Bloud; and these three agree in one. Christ loved three Disciples above all the rest, with whom he conversed most familiarly, Peter James, and Iohn, to them he shewed himselfe in his glory, at the Transfiguration, and also in his greatest agonie and humiliation in the Garden of Gethsemanie. Our Sa­viour fulfilled his Ministery, in the space of three yeeres; hee lay three days in the Grave, three times appearred to the eleven, after his Resur­rection; and many mo then these are to be found in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, you shall finde many numbers of three, where­in some mysterie may be found; wee read of three only that went to Heaven bodily, Enoch, Elias, and Christ: to teach us that salvation both in body and soule is obtained under all the three kinds of Church Go­vernment; for God hath governed his Church three severall wayes since the Creation, one way before the Law, another way under the Law, and a third way under the Gospell. The Worship of God hath been also of three severall formes, according to the severall ages of [Page 13]the World; Three men saved in the floud of Noah, of whom the World hath been replenished the second time, Sem, Ham, and Japhet; Three great Patriarchs, out of whose loins the Church of God did spring; Three great Sabbaths, the seven dayes Sabbath, the seven yeers Sabbath, and the yeer of Jubilee; Three great Feasts, the Feast of Ta­bernacles, Easter, and Pentecost; Three ranks of Church Governours, the high Priest, inferiour Priests, and Levits, and a number more; so that I say, if there be any number mysticall, it is the number of Three, wee have not so great reason to call Seven Mysticall, as for Nine, it is only thought Mysticall, because it contains thrice three.

But here my opponents will reply, That they keep this analogie of three, for they also maintain three Degrees of Churchmen, preaching Elders, Lay-Elders, and Deacons, who are all Governours of the Church, and preaching Elders the chiefe Governours. I answer, if preaching Elders be the chiefe Governours, then according to the Re­plyers opinion (who maintains that the High Priest was a Type and figure of Christ, as he was chief Governour of the Church) they must be cashiered; for wee cannot have chiefe Governours now under the Gospel, according to my opposites tenet, and so it will follow, we must have no publike Ministery at all, nor no publike Government nei­ther, but private in every man his own Family, or rather every man must doe according as hee is moved by the spirit. I answer further that those three Orders are neither Christs, nor his Apostles Ordinance, for any evidence that I can see in Scripture, no not so much as any shew, or appearance. As for Lay Elders, I can not find them once named in all the Scripture, although the Apostle Paul doth particularly make mention of all Church Governours, under the Apostolicall Order, in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus he particularly declares what preaching Elders and Deacons must be, how they must be qualified before they enter into holy Orders, but never one word of Lay Elders: Deacons indeed he nominates, but not Lay Deacons, but such as must preach the Gospel, and baptise, at their Superiours direction, and therefore the A­postle Paul requires that Deacons keep the mysterie of Faith, in a pure conscience, which cannot be required of Lay men; such a measure of knowledge as is understood by the mystery of Faith, is not re­quisite in these, to whom is only committed the over-sight of the poore.

More yet, Lay Elders cannot answer to the Priests, because the Priests sacrificed as well as the High Priest; and there was no diffe­rence between them, in regard of their office of sacrificing, except that the High Priest was only appointed by God, to offer sacrifice within the Veile once in the yeere, for his owne sinnes, and the sinnes of the people; but the High Priest, and the inferiour Priests, agreed in these particulars, They both burnt Incense and offered Sacrifice, 1 Chron. 6.49. They both sounded the Trumpets, Num­bers 10, and they both slue the Sacrifices, 2 Chron. 29.22. They both instructed the people, Malachie 2.5. They both judged of Leprosie, Leviticus 13.2. So that if Lay Elders will needs succeed in place of inferiour Priests, and be the second degree of Church Governours, they must preach and administer the Sacraments, and so turn Pastors and Doctors, and then the Preaching Elders must be Bishops, for they must be a degree above them.

Now follows to shew you the truth of the last branch of the As­sumption, That three Ranks of Church Governours have governed the Church of God, since the dayes of Christ and his Apostles, but because it would take up much time and paper, and might be wearisome to the Reader, I referre him to the Writings of many learned Divines, who have pro­ved that point to the full. I dare say, wee may as well deny all the humane Histories that ever were written, as deny the cleere evidence of so many Histories, whereby Episcopall Government is defended, and accounted by all the Ancients, except Aerius (who is enrolled among Heretikes, by Augustine and Epiphanius, for his pains) for the first order of Church Government, having alwayes two subordinate to it, inferiour Bishops and Deacons.

But here I know it will bee said, that I confound Apostles and the chiefe Bishops together, and Evangelists and Inferiour Bishops; whereas Apostles and Evangelists were extraordinary callings, and cea­sed with themselves.

Ans. Truly this mistake is the cause of all our dissenting one from [Page 15]another in this point; for if wee did hold the callings of Apostles and Evangelists, to be appointed by Christ, to continue in the Christian Church, for the Government thereof, untill the end of the World, as they are indeed, this division that is amongst us had never beene: And therefore I will endeavour by Gods grace, to prove both by Rea­son and Scripture, that these callings are ordinary, and cannot without high sacriledge be cast out of Gods Church. I will shew you then in what respects their calling was ordinarie, and perpetually necessary for the Government of the Church, and for what respects it is called extraordinary. It is ordinary and perpetually necessary, in regard of that power which Christ conferred upon them, to preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments, and also in regard of the power of Absolution and Excommunication, Ordination, and Jurisdiction spirituall, which our Saviour also granted unto them, as all men confesse: and in regard of all those parts of the Episcopall Function to be continued untill the second comming of our Saviour, and I think no man should denie this neither. It is called extraordinary for these respects following; First, because they were extraordinarie persons, not being of the Tribe of Levi, who had only ordinary power in those days, to be instruments of Gods publike Worship, and to serve at the Altar. Next because their gifts were extraordinary: for Christ, who was anointed with the oile of gladnesse above his fellows, and had the spirit in super-abundance, hee gave his Apostles an abundant measure of the spirit; but to after-ages hee imparted only a certaine Sufficiencie, Grace for Grace. Thirdly, the extent of their charge was extraordinary, they were tyed to no setled Residence, but the whole World was their Diocesse: Go ye unto all the World, saith our Saviour. Fourthly, The manner of their calling was extraor­dinary, without Education, Tryall, or Ordination. Fifthly, they had the infallibilitie of the Spirit, in matters of Faith they could not erre. And lastly, their calling was extraordinary, quo ad ante, [...]ut not, quo ad post, even in respect of the ordinarie parts of the Ministeriall Function; quo ad ante, because the calling of Church­men in those dayes, was to offer up Sacrifices unto God, of Bul­locks, Rams and Lambs, and other Creatures, and to burne incense into him; but so was not the calling of Apostles; Their calling was [Page 16]to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments, open the Gates of Heaven to the Penitent, and shut them upon the impenitent, &c. and so I may say, Their Calling in Analogie to the Priests calling under the Law, is to offer up the Sacrifice of Prayer, Prayse, and Thanksgiving to God, and to teach every man to present their bodies in a living, holy, and acceptable Sacrifice. Quo ad post, it was not extraordinarie, because Christ established that government for the Christian Church in all Ages to come, or else none at all, for other wee see not, but this is manifest: yea, our Saviour continued the Apostolicall and Episcopall calling in regard of the substance of it, in the full latitude of Apostolicall Authoritie; and all this I will prove after this man­ner: and first,

The reason of the connexion of the Proposition is this, because those callings of Priests and Levits were newly established in the House of God, and the Church was not so governed before, and so although they were extraordinary, quo ad ante, in regard of the time by-past, yet not in regard of the time to come; so I thinke that these callings established by Christ, for the Government of the Church under the Gospel, although they were extraordinary in regard of the time past, yet not in regard of the time to come, more then the callings of the Priests and Levits under the Law. For why shall these Governours instituted by Christ in the insancie of the Church, cease to be of that Dignitie and Authoritie in after ages, that they were of in the first Constitution, more then those Governours which his Father appoin­ted to rule the Church of the Iews at the first promulgation of the Law? I would faine have my opposite to shew mee a reason for the one more then the other, Truly those who took offence at the Superioritie of Church Governours under the Law, might have alleaged, that after the dayes of Moses and Aaron, Churchmen were all to be of equall Authoritie, because their calling was extraordinary in regard of [Page 17]the time past. But I am confident, that as God the Father appointed the one government to remain untill his sonnes comming in the flesh, so God the Son appointed the other to continue until his second comming to judgement, and both to remaine in that same case, for Dignitie and Authoritie, wherein they were first established.

My second Argument is this.

I prove the Assumption, and first that their calling cannot be called extraordinary, in regard of their extraordinary gifts, the gift of Pro­phecie, and the gift of Miracles, &c. for then, if it shall please God to bestow extraordinary gifts upon ordinary Ministers of the Gospel, their calling should cease any longer to be ordinary, which is absurd to say; for it is evident in Scripture, That ordinary Ministers both of the Law & the Gospel have had extraordinary gifts: as Samuel who was a Priest, which was an ordinarie calling (for although Samuel was not of the Tribe of Levi, yet he was a Nazarite, who might by Gods own appoint­ment serve at the Altar) and yet he had extraordinary gifts, 1 Sam. 1.11. Zachary was a Priest, and yet he had the gift of Prophecie, Iohn 11.50, 51. so the Apostle Iames saith, That Elders in his time had the gift of Healing, Iam. 5.14, 15. and yet no man will say that the calling of an El­der was extraordinary other then are now: so the calling of a King is an ordinary calling, and yet David King of Israel was a Prophet as well as a King, and in a word, we read in ancient Histories, That many Church­men have had extraordinary gifts, and yet their callings were ordinarie, and so I conclude, that extraordinary gifts doe not make an extraordi­nary calling.

Next the extent of their charge doth not make their calling extraor­dinary, because necessitie requireth that it should be so, untill the time that the Gospel should be propagated to the ends of the earth, so that if there be any Nation yet unconverted (as without doubt, there are too many) the Governours of the Church are bound so far as they are able to labour their conversion to the faith of Jesus Christ; for I thinke no man will say, but that, that charge given to the Apostles (goe teach all Nations, &c.) remayns still in force.

Thirdly, as for the manner of their calling, being without Educati­on, Triall, and Ordination, it makes it extraordinarie, in regard of the time past, but not in regard of the time to come; for the High Priest and Priests under the Law, the manner of their calling was extraordi­nary, in regard of the time past, and without both Triall and Educati­on, and yet notwithstanding their calling was Ordinary in regard of the time to come, and to be continued in the Church untill Christ his com­ming in the flesh.

And lastly, infallibilitie of Spirit, which the Apostles had, makes not their calling extraordinary, for they behoved to be infallibly gui­ded, because they were to lay the foundation whereupon others were to Build, they were to Plant, others only to Water that which they had planted, they were to establish the Faith, which all ages to come are bound to professe, and so it was most necessary, that they should be infallibly guided by the Spirit. Further Christs promise is, not only to be with his Apostles, but with them and their Successours untill the end of the World, And loe, I am with you, saith hee, untill, &c.

Now I will prove by evidence of Scripture, That the calling of the Apostles was an ordinary calling, and to be continued untill the second comming of our Saviour, with the same Power and Authoritie both for Ordination and Jurisdiction which they had themselves.

The reason of the Proposition is this, because the Apostles were not other wayes able to keepe this Commandement, but in their Succes­sors in the Generations to come: if it had pleased God by his Omni­potent Power to preserve them alive, and keep them in health of bo­die, and strength of Minde, for that end, I thinke none would have been more able then they, but it pleased him not to doe so, and there­fore it is most evident, that this Commandement must bee kept in their Successours, and consequently, That the calling of the Apostles was ordinary, in regard of the time to come.

My second Testimonie is in Marke 16.15. The Argument is this.

This Argument is of that same force with the former, for if they to whom our Saviour gives this charge, were to preach the Gospel to all and every man without exception, then the Apostles being not able to doe it themselves, were bound to deliver that commandement to faith­ful men, and they again to others, and so from age to age to be tradu­ced, as long as there is men upon earth, to whom the Gospel must be preached; and so still, The calling of the Apostles must be ordinary, and to be continued untill the end of the World.

The third Testimony is in Matthew 18.18. and John 20.23. The Ar­gument is this.

This has ever beene constantly maintained, That our Saviour Christ gave the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to the Apostles and their Successors, to this end, that as long as there were sinners upon earth, the gates of Hea­ven might be opened to the Penitent, and shut upon the impenitent ▪ so as long as there is a Sinner upon earth to repent, or a penitent Sinner to be pardoned, as long must there be men endued with Apostolicall pow­er, to preach Repentance to all Sinners, and pronounce Remission of Sins to all Penitent souls.

The fourth Testimony is in Matth. 28.20. and Iohn 14.16. the Ar­gument I frame thus.

Of necessity then, Christ his promise here, is not only made to his Apostles, because they were not to continue until the end of the world, but to their Successors in all the Ages and Generations to come, for Iohn saith, 14.16. That the Comforter would abide with them for ever, that is, to the end of the world; and so with their successors aswell as themselves.

The fift Testimonie is in Matth. 5.14. the Argument is this.

Although the Apostles themselves may in some respect be called, the light of the World, because by their Ministery chiefly the World was first enlightned with the light of the Gospel, yet in respect that this light might be in danger to go out, there behoved others to succeed the A­postles in the ages to come, to keep in this light, and still to hold it out as a Lanthorne, in the Ministery of the Word, and the exercise of the [Page 21]other parts of that Spirituall and Heavenly Function, that all men might see, how to walke in that narrow way that leads to life eternall: The fire in the Temple of Jerusalem, which the Priests were daily to at­tend, that it went not out, was a Type and figure of this spirituall and heavenly fire of Grace, which must be preserved by the Ministery and continuall attendance of the Apostles and their Successors.

The sixt Testimonie is in Matth. 10.40. and Luke 10.16. The argument is this.

By all men here we must not understand only all those men that lived in the Apostles times, but all men in all Ages following, and not gene­ra singulorum neither, but singula generum; for as the Apostles were com­manded to preach the Gospell to all and every man without excepti­on, so all and every man is bound to heare them and receive them; now none could beare the Apostles but those that lived in their dayes, and therefore necessarily our Saviour did understand the Apostles and their Successors in all Ages and Generations following; for they that heare not the Successors of the Apostles, heare not Christ, and they that receive not them, neither doe they receive Christ, and they that heare them, and receive them, receive Christ.

The seventh testimonie is in Matth. 24.42. and Marke 13.35. The Argu­ment is this.

No man will say that our Saviour did mean here, that the Apostles in their proper persons behoved to attend his second comming, for Christ knew well enough, that the Apostles were not to live untill that time, but his meaning is, that they and their Successors in all Ages and Gene­rations to come, and in generall all men, in all Ages following, should thus attend their Masters comming; and therefore Christ saith, Marke 13.37. What I say unto you I say unto all men (watch:) so that our Saviour speaketh principally to the chiefe Governours of the Church, who should still be going about their Masters businesse, that when hee comes hee may finde them well employed: so that I may unanswerably con­clude by the cleer evidence of all these former Texts, and many more then these, registred in the Book of God, That the calling of the Apostles was ordinary, and to be continued untill the end of the world.

Now for further strengthening of this Doctrine, I will use two Ar­guments, which naturally flow from the former Doctrine.

By the first, I prove, That these Commandements set down in these texts of Scripture, are not only given to the apostles.

By the second, I prove affirmatively, That these directions are given to the apostles and their Successors in all the following Generations.

The first Argument is this.

I prove the Assumption, because the Apostles could not live unto the end of the World, and so it was impossible to them to keep these Commandements by themselves: They might keep them during their own life, but no longer, all that they were able to doe was, to commit them to other faithfull men, to be propagated unto the end of the World, and so my conclusion is good, That these Commandements were not only given to the Apostles.

The second Argument is affirmative, and proves, That these Com­mandements were given to the apostles and their Successors in all ages and Gene­rations to come.

This argument is a plain demonstration à causa ad effectum, the strength whereof none that will oppose me shall ever be able to evade: for the cause why these Commandements are not only given to the Apostles, but to them and their Successors, is, because Christ knew that onely they and their Successors were able to keep them.

Now to end this point, I will here affirme, That I am so confident of the strength of these Reasons, that no Divine is able to answer, or rebate the force of them: their only Refugium must be this, That inferi­our Bishops or Presbyters are the Apostles Successours, by which wee obtain at first, That the calling of the Apostles is an ordinary calling, & not extraordinary, which they before maintained; but I shall prove by Gods grace, That inferiour Bishops cannot be the Apostles Successors; first by Scripture, and next by demonstrative Reasons. Beside many other places of Scripture, read but Acts 15.2.4.6.22.23. where yee shall finde Apostles and Elders cleerly distinguished, I intreat you to see the places, and I doubt not but ye shall receive satisfaction: and far­ther I remember not that ever I heard any Divine affirme, Elders and inferiour Bishops to be in rank and degree with the Apostles, but that all Di­vines, ancient and moderne accounted Elders to bee inferiour in de­gree to the Apostles: but I will prove by three unanswerable Reasons, That Presbyters did not succeed the Apostles.

My first Reason, I will form thus.

The Proposition I take for granted, for I hope no man will deny it, I prove the assumption first by the cōsent of all the divines that ever were in this World, next by the cleer evidence of Scripture, throughout all [Page 24]the book of God, where the Apostles, who were chiefe Bishops and Over-seers both of the Pastors and the people are cleerly distin­guished from inferiour Bishops, who only have the oversight of the people, as is evident by the Apostle Paul his directions to the Elders of Ephesus, Acts 20.

My second Reason I will form thus.

If any man deny the Proposition, I will aske him, how it can be pos­sible that Elders can be the Apostles Successors, unlesse they succeed them in that same Power and Authoritie? Truly it is beyond my ca­pacitie to conceive and understand it; I know they cannot succeed them in those things that are extraordinary, but in their ordinary power and authoritie, and that which is perpetually necessary for the Government of the Church of Christ under the Gospel, they must succeed them, and they be their successors.

I prove the Assumption. Any one of the Apostles might ordaine Elders, so Paul ordained twelve Elders at one time at Ephesus, Acts 19. any one might ordain Bishops, so Paul ordained Timothy and Titus Bi­shops of Ephesus and Creet, for Timothy it is cleer, 2 Tim. 1.6. any one of the Apostles might command Elders and Deacons to preach the Go­spel any where, as is evident throughout all Pauls Epistles, and in the Acts of the Apostles, and which I think no Divine will deny; any one of them might prescribe Rules and Laws to inferiour Elders, so did the Apostle Paul to the Elders of Ephesus, Acts 20. to Archippus, Col. 4.17. who by the declaration of all the Ancients was Bishop, and so superiour to an Elder; any one of Apostles might Command, Rebuke, Censure, and correct Elders, at their own pleasure, as is most evident in Scriptures, and in particular in Saint Paul his Epistles, now those [Page 25]things no Elder can do by himself, and therefore, That some ordinary and necessary power which the Apostles had, is not committed to inferiour Bishops, but to Superiour.

Here it may be objected, That by this Reason, Bishops Superiour cannot be the Apostles Successors, because they doe not exercise their power and authoritie without the concurrence of the inferiour Bishops, they joyne with them in the Or­dination of Ministers, so they should also in the exercise of Jurisdiction.

Answer. There is no warrant for this in the Scripture; it is true, wee read the Apostles tooke the concurrence of Ministers in decision of doubts and controversies, and also in Ordination, so Paul saith that Ti­mothy was ordained by the Presbyterie, but there was no direction from Christ for so doing, it pleased the Apostles to take their concurrence, which they needed not to have done, and therefore they did sometimes exercise their Episcopall power by themselves alone, as wee may see in the Acts of the Apostles, and 2 Tim. 1.6. and many other places of Scripture, and did very seldome crave the concurrence of Presbyters; so that Bishops do not exercise their power without the concurrence of Presbyters, it is not because they are commanded so to doe by Christ and his Apostles, but their own voluntary yielding of their right, and submitting of themselves to their own Ecclesiastick Laws, and Canons of ancient Councels; it is as cleer as the Sun, That an Elder hath no power of Ordination or Jurisdiction granted to him in the Scriptures, what he hath it is but by humane Ordination, and hee hath not in any ways Supreame Power granted him by any ancient Councell; This is most certaine, That a Bishops Ordination is valid and good without a Presbyter, and hath warrant from the example of the Apostles; but a Presbyter to or­dain without the command of a Bishop, is not warranted by any exam­ple in Scripture, nor the Canon of any ancient Councell: and so my conclusion stands good, That inferiour Bishops are not the Successors of the Apostles.

My third Reason is this.

The Proposition I know will be granted; I prove the assumption, That Presbyters were inferiour in dignitie and degree to those who were inferiour to the Apostles in place and estimation. Timothy and Ti­tus were inferiour to the Apostles in place and estimation, so were all the Evangelists, as all Divines acknowledge, and yet those were Superiour in dignitie and degree even in the judgment of those who op­pose the doctrine delivered in this Treatise. That Timothy and Titus were superiour to Presbyters, I shall prove it by and by: but I will use one Argument yet for the ordinary callings of Apostles and Evange­lists, and this it is briefly.

I desire all those who oppose this doctrine to loose this knot. Now it remayneth to prove that the Bishops succeeded in place of the Apo­stles, and in place of Evangelists inferiour Presbyters, and I will begin with this Argument.

My next argument is this.

I prove the proposition by this argument, that is, That Timothy and Titus were Bishops.

The proposition will be granted, I prove the assumption, and first that Timothy and Titus Calling was ordinary.

The proposition will be granted, I prove the assumption.

I prove the assumption thus; Tim. & Tit. had neither the gift of Mira­cles, nor the gift of Prophecie, nor the gift of Tongues, nor the gift of Healing, nor any extraordinary gift at all for any thing we read; neither were they infallibly guided by the Spirit; for if they had had the infal­lible assistance of the Spirit, the Apostle Paul would not have bin so ear­nest to exhort them to do their dutie in their calling; Timothy is exhorted to war a good warfare, holding faith & a good conscience, 1 Tim. 1.18, 19. & to be an example of Believers, in Word, in Conversation, in Cha­ritie, in Spirit, in Faith, in Puritie, 1 Tim. 4.12. and to give attendance to [Page 28]Reading, to Exhortation, to Doctrine and Meditation, and not to neg­lect the gift that was given him by Prophecie, 1 Tim. 4.13, 14, 15. Titus had also the like exhortations, so that it is most certain, neither of them had the spirit of infallibilitie, nor no extraordinary gift of the Spirit, but the only ordinary parts of the Ministerial Function, and consequent­ly their calling was ordinary.

Next I prove their calling was ordinary by this argument.

The Proposition needs no probation, for they who are called to be Preachers of the Gospell, by ordinary means, without all question their calling was ordinary: for Tim. it is cleere, for he had his educati­on under his Grandmother Lois, and his Mother Eunice, he was tryed by the Apostle, and he had the approbation and commendation of the Brethren who were at Listra and Iconium, before he would receive him in his companie, thereafter he had his breeding, for a greater progress in knowledge, under the Apostle Paul, before he was made a Presby­ter, much more before he was made a Bishop, for this cause Paul saith to him, Hold fast the forme of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in Faith and Love which is in Christ Jesus; as for his ordination, it is without all question most cleere and evident; all this also may bee said of Titus, and therefore I conclude both their callings to bee ordi­nary, Titus his calling as well as Timothies.

Thirdly I prove their calling to be ordinary by this Argument.

I prove the Assumption.

The Proposition will be granted, I prove the assumption.

The Proposition is evident, because the parts of the Ministeriall function cannot be otherwise kept but by propagation; and for this cause, the Apostle commands Timothy to propagate 2 Tim. 2.2. The things that thou hast heard of mee (saith he) before many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithfull men, who shall be able to teach others.

The Assumption is also manifest by that strict charge which he gi­veth unto Timothy in the latter end of the first Epistle cap. 6.13.14. I charge thee (saith he) in the sight of God, who quickneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession, that thou keepe this Commandement without spot, unre­bukable, untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now this Commandement that he would have Timothy to keepe doth comprehend all the particulars conteined in his Epistle, both con­cerning Doctrine and Government, and in particular the whole parts of the Episcopall function, which is most obvious to any reader, and so still my conclusion stands good, That the calling of Timothy and Titus is to bee propagated in the persons of their successors untill the second comming of our Saviour, and consequently their calling was an ordi­nary calling.

It rests to prove the second part of the assumption of the principall [Page 30]argument, that Tim. and Titus had the power of ordination and juris­diction over presbyters; and first I will use this argument ad hominem, for all the opposers of Episcopacie maintain That Tim. was an Evange­list, and that his power was Apostolicall, and so in order and degree above Presbyters; and thus upon these grounds I reason after this manner.

Next I will prove Timothy and Titus to have the power of ordination of Presbyters; This is the Argument.

The Proposition cannot in reason be denied, for Paul would never have commanded them to do that which they had not power to doe, yea the same power of ordination is a part of that Commandement which he is bidden commit to faithfull men, to be kept and propaga­ted untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Assumption is manifest 1. Tim. 5.22. and Tit. 1.5.

That they had the power of jurisdiction is proved thus.

The strength of this Argument I refer to the consideration of the learned for I hope no wise man will say, that these priviledges can bee divided from the power of jurisdiction. Now I will use one Argument [Page 31]yet, to prove that Timothy and Titus had the power of ordination and ju­risdiction jointly.

But the first is true, and therefore the second is true also.

The connexion of the proposition is valid enough, for if inferiour Bishops (whom the Apostle calleth also Elders in that place) recei­ved the power of ordination and jurisdiction (as is asserted by all the opposers of Episcopacie) by the Apostles injunctions in those Epistles, much more have superiour Bishops (as Timothy and Titus were) this twofold power by those injunctions: this is an argument strong e­nough ad hominem, although I confesse, That properly Timothy and Ti­tus have not this twofold power here by the Apostle Paul, but only are commanded to put that power in execution which the Apostle Paul before had conferr'd upon them at their ordination, which also they are commanded to propagate and transmit unto others, for the preservati­on of the calling, and propagation of the Gospell of Christ vntill his second comming to judgement.

Now for the better cleering of this Doctrine, I will prove, That Presbyters or inferior Bishops have no ways the power of Ordinati­on and Jurisdiction. I desire any Opponent to shew mee the place where it is recorded in the Scripture: in the Epistles to Timothy and Ti­tus they find it not; Tim. and Tit. are commanded to put all the parts of the Apostolicall power in execution, but not those Elders and Dea­cons of whom the Apostle speakes there, they get no Commandement to use that power; for it is more then evident, That all the injunctions set down in those Epistles are given to Timothy and Titus, and all those who were to succeed them in that same order and degree, yea to them as they are singular men, and as Superiour in Order and Degree to all those towards whom they are to exercise that power, and the reason is this, because one man in that same Order and Degree cannot have power over an other in that same rank and order, one Bishop cannot have power over an other, one Presbyter cannot have power over ano­ther; [Page 32]That man that hath power over an other must be superior unto him in degree, or he can have no authority over him, that is his own properly, delegate he may have, but that is not his, it is his in whose name he exercises that power.

But it will be replied, That this power is given to a company of Pres­byters, and not to one in particular. Answer. This power is given here to Timothy and Titus as singular persons, and therefore I will make the matter manifest by a formall argument.

The proposition cannot be denied, for that which is committed to one singular man in a calling, cannot bee said to bee committed to the whole company and trade indefinitely: for example, that power which is committed to one Alderman in the Citie, to wit the Master, or Lord Major, is not committed to the whole councell of Aldermen, he hath a different and superiour power to all the rest.

As to the assumption, That this power was committed to certain sin­gular men, as to Timothy and Titus, and all those who were to succeed them in the same ranke and order, it is more then evident. Now to note this by the way, since Presbyters doe not succeed to Timothy and Titus, in that same order and degree, the power of Ordination cannot be committed unto them.

Furthermore, If the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction be com­mitted to Presbyters, as they are singular men, then every Presbyter hath alike power and authoritie within his own Charge, every one is Pope in his own Parish, and may command, rule, and governe as hee thinks good: for who can controll him? none of his brethren have any more power over him, then hee hath over them, for every one hath equall power and authoritie transinitted unto them, and this is down­right Brownisme.

But it may be replyed, That the Presbytery hath power over all par­ticular Ministers.

Answ. Who hath given them this power? It is not given them by Christ, nor his Apostles.

If you reply, it is agreed upon by common consent. I Answer. Then at least, Presbyteriall Government is not of divine Ordina­tion; But I would ask this question, what if I should refuse to give my consent to such a government, or to subject my self to it, how can I be forced to obey their Canons and Laws, by whose authoritie? the representative Church (such as the Presbytery is) cannot compell me, before I subject my selfe to her authoritie, the civill Magistrate can­not do it neither, by the doctrine of all my opposites; and some would say if any should usurpe authoritie, and compell by violence, it should be the destroying of our Christian Libertie, and tying us whom Christ hath made free, and in a word the demolishing of that platforme of government, which Christ himselfe did establish, any defender of Pa­rochiall government may reason in this kind.

But it will be againe replyed, That this authoritie is given to a com­pany of Presbyters, Acts 8.14. and 11.22. and 15.6, 7, 8. to the 30. and 1 Cor. 5.3, 4, 5.

Answer. These things were done in the infancie of the Church, before the Government was established, and so can be no rule for after ages, some will so answer.

I answer further; there is not a word there that will confirme Pres­byteriall government, for none of the meetings spoken of in those pla­ces consist of persons having the like and equall authoritie, but all that was done in them was done by Apostolicall power, by the power of the Apostles they were convened together, by the Apostles mo­deration those meetings were governed, by their authoritie all things were concluded, they had full and absolute power in their own hands, although it pleased them to do nothing without the consent of their Brethren of an inferiour Order; yee will find all that I have said true, if yee will be pleased to see the places.

But most cleerly it appeareth, 1 Cor. 5.3, 4, 5. where the Apostle, by his power and authoritie, cōmandeth the Corinthian Ministers to excom­municate the incestuous person in an open assembly, or rather to intimate that excommunication which he had already pronounced, for thus he spea­keth: For I verily as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged alreadie, as though I were present, concerning him that hath done this deed; In the name of [Page 34]our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. I hope this meeting was enjoyned by the Apostle upon an extraordinary occasion, & nothing was done but by his speciall appointment. Here is nothing to warrant the authority of Presbyteriall Government, there seems some­thing to be in the words for Parochiall; If there had been Parishes, and Lay-elders in those days, and truly, if I were not of that judgement, That the Calling of the Apostles were an ordinary Calling, and to be continued with the same latitude of power and authoritie in their Suc­cessors untill the end of the World, I might easily be moved to approve of Parochiall Government, but never of Presbyteriall; and truly, if the Callings of the Apostles and Evangelists be not acknowledged to be instituted by Christ for the perpetuall Government of Gods Church, Parochiall Government is that which hath greatest shew of warrant in the Scriptures; as for Presbyteriall, it hath not so much as any shew at all in the whole book of God.

Now follows, that I cleere the doubts, and first I know it will be ob­jected, That by this doctrine I condemne all the Churches of Christ that are governed after that manner.

Ans. I condemne not the Churches, but the Government. Some per­haps may reply, That since I make Episcopal government to be Christs institution, I charge them with a very grosse errour. I answer, Let them see to that, I cannot call evill good, nor good evill, unlesse I make my selfe lyable to the curse pronounced; neither will any thing excuse them except necessity, for both Gods Law and mans Law doth di­spence with it, but because there is no necessitie, let men beware, for, Ego liberavi animam meam.

Furthermore, it will be alleaged, That Timothy and Titus, and the Bi­shops of old, were not like our Bishops, They had not that power and au­thoritie, nor that Lordly Government that Bishops have now, They were not Barons, Lords, Earles, Princes, in such kind as they are now, They had not power over the bodies and estates of offenders, as Bishops have now, They might not punish with the Civill Sword as well as the Spirituall.

Ans. In Episcopall Government there are two things, The one is Spirituall, and de jure divino, by divine right: The other is Civill, and de dono humano, of humane gift, and by the donation of Kings and Prin­ces, [Page 35]That is, their Civill Honour, their Civill Power, their Temporali­ties, their Revenues, as to be Barons in Parliament, to judge in causes Temporall, to inflict temporall punishment, all these they have by the free gift of Kings and Princes, and many Kings have been very liberall in this kind to Churchmen, and not without warrant from God nei­ther, according to that of the Apostle, The Elders that rule wel are worthy of double honour, and in speciall they that labour in the Word & Doctrine, 1 Tim. 5.

And why should any man be offended to see Honor given to Church­men? May not Kings and Princes give honour to any subject they please? or are not Churchmen capable of Civill Honour and Power now under the Gospell, as­well as they were under the Law? As to the first, I think no man will deny but Kings and Princes may advance such of their Subjects as they please, it is their speciall prerogative, I make no question of it.

And truly I see no more reason that any man should make question of the other, but that Churchmen are as capable of Civill Honour and Power now under the Gospel, as they were under the Law, it is for­bidden in no part of the New Testament I am sure: hath God forbid­den Ministers to give their advice to Kings and Princes, for the better correcting of Vice and Sin, and for managing all things in the State, so that God thereby may be the more glorified, and the Kingdome of Jesus Christ advanced? or hath God forbidden Princes to crave their advice? It was well said of a Divive, That it is well with the Church, when godly Prophets hang as precious Earings at the Princes eares. Erasmus said well in an Epistle to Iohn Alasco, If we had moe Bishops like Ambrose, we should have more Emperours like Theodosius.

But I would aske any man this question, Have not Christian Kings as great need of the concurrent Counsell, and Assistance, of the Go­vernours of the Church now, as the Kings of Israel had under the Law? and was there ever any religious King among the Iews, who had not con [...]inually the High priest to second him in all his affaires? was not Aaron next unto Moses? was not Eleazar next unto Iosua? Had not David, Zador, and Abiather, continually in his company? Was not Azariah next unto Salomon? and did not Ioash that which was right in the sight of the Lord, as long as Iehoida lived? and was not Hilkia chief Coun­sellour to Iosia, and Amaria chief Judge under Jehosaphat? Truly I hold this for a sure ground, That what ever was done under the Law, not being [Page 36]commanded by God then, it is as lawfull for us now under the Gospell to doe the same except it be forbidden us, and wee need not doubt, but it will be as well ap­proved by God now, as it was then.

But which is more yet, If any thing be commanded by God under the Law, which is not ceremoniall and typicall, it is then much more lawfull I think for us to do now. Did not the Lord himselfe command the people of Israell Deut. 17. to go to the Priests and Levits, and the Judge that shall be in those days, and aske, and they would shew them the sentence of judgement, yea did not both these Offices to be Judge and Priest jump in one man many times? before the Law we read that Melchizedec was both King and Priest, Gen. 14. Heb. 7. and it is constantly believed also that the eldest Sons of the Patriarks were both Kings and Priests; was not Eli both high Priest and Judge of the People for the space of 40. yeeres, and Samuel for the space of thirty yeeres, and it is well known that the Macabees after the captivity were Rulers both in Civill and Ecclesiasticall causes.

Truly I will say thus much, If the civill places of Church-men be unlawfull now, it is either because Princes now stand not in so much need of the counsell and advice of the Messengers of God as Princes did thē, or God doth not inable now his Embassadors with such a measure of wisdome and understanding as hee did the Priests under the Law: Truly to say the first, were to derogate from the wisdome and religion of the Godly and religious Kings in those dayes, and to say the second, were to derogate from the providence, favour, and goodnesse of God, most abundantly bestowed upon his servants under the Gospell.

There is but one place in all the new Testament that seemes to op­pose the Doctrine I have delivered, viz, the words of our Saviour, Mat. 20.25. The Lords of the Gentiles (saith he) have dominion over them, and they that are great exercise Authority over them; but it shall not bee so a­mong you, &c. Ans. The best interpreters both ancient and moderne understand the words so as is forbidden all greedie desire of governing, and tyrannicall dominion, and the word [...] signifies to bear rule Tyranically, according to the interpretation of most learned Divines, but al sort of power is not forbidden here, a paternall is not forbidden; the truth of this will appeare to any man that will but take a strict view of the words; for first ye see Christ forbids such domination as [Page 37]the Lords of the Gentiles exercised towards their inferiours, and not that moderate and lawfull power exercised by Church-men under the Law: for if Christ had meant of the Priestly jurisdiction, he [...] would have said out of all question, I will not have degrees and ranks among you, one above another, as it is betweene the High Priest, in feriour Priests, and Levits, no, I will have you all of alike power and au­thority.

Again, our Saviour saith, that they that are great exercise authoritie o­ver their subjects, that is, great and mighty men, proud men, they domi­neere over their inferiours, and make slaves of them, but saith our Sa­viour, It must not be so among you, yee must not domineere in that kinde but hee (saith he) that will be great among you, let him be servant to the rest, that is, Let him so demean himself, that yee may be defended, maintained protected, and cared for both in Soul and body, so that in my judge­ment, these words doe necessarily imply a Superiority, and that not in dignity, but in all Authority, Power, and Jurisdiction, lawfull and lau­dable; and therefore this text was never used by any Divine, but a­gainst the tyrannicall power of the Church of Rome, and the Popes u­surped authority, who takes upon him to depose Kings, and translate Kingdomes, and tyrannize over mens consciences. Would to God that such doings might not also be laid to the charge of some others, who pretend greater humility and loyalty.

Moreover, we see in the New Testament, that the Apostles did no [...] denude themselves of all civill employment, for the Scripture saith that many fold their Land and came and laid the monies downe at the Apostles feete, whereof no doubt they had a speciall care that it was well employed, and distributed according to every ones necessity; s [...] that it would seeme that the civill power of Churchmen is not alto­gether unlawfull; truly in my judgement, it is as unlawfull for a Mi­nister to take the charge of a House and Family, for it carrieth with it as great distraction, yea, more worldly incumbrances, more troubles and turmoyles, then to be a Counsellor of State. And so I may reason, If that charg which involves a man in infinit worldly cares, troubles, & perplexities, be no sin to a Minister to take upon him, then far lesse is it a sinne to a Minister to take upon him a charge and employment which doth not involve him in any intricate or distracting cares and busines­ses, as to be a Counsellor of State, a Justice of Peace, a Judge of Con­troversies [Page 38]between brother and brother: Well, Calvin and Beza both thought it not unlawfull to be chief Counsellors of Geneva, & that mir­rour of Religion & Learning S. Aug. many hundred yeers before them, thought it not unlawfull neither, yea, not to be burdened with civill in­cumbrances, heare what he saith, and I will end with it. I call the Lord Jesus to witnesse (saith he) upon my soul, in whose name I boldly utter these words, that touching my own commoditie, I had much rather every day work some­thing with my own hands, as it is appointed in well governed Monasteries, and to have the houres free to read and to pray, and to doe some exercise in the holy Scriptures, then to suffer the tumultuous perplexities of other mens causes, touch­ing Secular affaires, either in determining them by judging, or in cutting them off by intreaties. To which molestations the Apostle tied us, not by his own judg­ment, but by his judgement who spake in him: which troubles for all that, himself did not undergo, because his course Apostolicall had another respect: which labour, notwithstanding, we endure with consolation in the Lord, for the hope of eternall life, that wee may bring forth fruit with patience: for we are servants of the Church, & especially to the weak members, how mean members soever we are in the same bodie. I referre to the consideration of the learned and religious Reader the weight and authority of this Fathers Testimony.

Further, if our Saviour Christ understands an equality of Church­men in these words, It must be understood only to be among the Apo­stles, whom our Saviour Christ would have all of the same rank and degree, but they cannot be so understood as importing an equality be­twixt them and the other 70. whom hee so manifestly distinguished from the 12. as I have told you before. Lastly, was not Christ him­selfe superiour to the 12? and yet no man will say that Christ did trans­gresse that Commandement which he gave unto them. Christ did ex­ercise paternall authority over them, and the same authority hee com­mitted unto them over other inferiour Ministers, yea, and the same also they exercised over them, for the which cause our Saviour Christ said to them, He that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me; he committed to them his owne place in the chiefe government of the Church, and gave chiefly unto them the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven, he said not to the 70. whose sinnes yee remit shall be remitted, and whose sinnes yee retain shall be retained, but to the 12. They had all power granted them immediatly from Christ, and they committed that pow­er to others according to their own pleasure.

Now I say no more, but these reasons have prevailed with mee, to sway and settle my judgment in the points before discussed, which I commend to the consideration of the judicious and imprejudicate reader, for no reason can prevaile against prejudice, and I pray God to enlighten the eys of our understanding, and to remove all prejudices of flesh and bloud, and of this deceitfull World, that we may more and more perceive the hidden truths of Scriptures, and Mysteries of the Kingdome of Heaven.

Amen, Amen.