Common Prayer Book No Divine Service, Arguments
Arguments to prove, that Lord-Biſhops, or Dioceſan-Biſhops, &c. and their Authority, are contrary to the Word of God, and ſo conſequently unlawful. And the chiefeſt Objections for Dioceſan-Biſhops, anſwered.
Alſo a Diſcovery of the great Diſparity between Scriptural, Apoſtolical, Congregational (particularly Timothy and Titus) Biſhops, and Dioceſan-Biſhops.
THat which is abſolutely forbidden by Chriſt and his Apoſtle (viz. Peter) is unlawful:Argum. 1.
But for any Miniſters (extraordinary or ordinary) to exerciſe Lorſhip, or be Lords over one another, or the Heritage (or Church) of God is abſolutely forbidden both by Chriſt and his Apoſtle (viz. Peter.)
Therefore for any to be ſuch, or to exerciſe ſuch power, is utterly unlawful.
The Major, or firſt Propoſition, none can deny, But that which Chriſt and his Apoſtle do forbid, is utterly unlawful.
The Minor is clearly and ſtrongly proved out of Mat. 20.25. Luk. 22.25. 1 Pet. 5.1, 3. The words in Matthew are,foreign. But Jeſus called them unto him, and ſaid, Ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exerciſe Dominion (or as it is in the Greek there, and in Luke, exerciſe Lordſhip) over them. But it ſhall not be ſo among you: or, as Luke ſaith,foreign. But ye ſhall not be ſo. Obſerve here, to whom, of whom, and upon what occaſion Chriſt ſpoke theſe words. He ſpake theſe words to the ten Apoſtles or Diſciples, v. 24. concerning James and John; and the occaſion was the indignation of the other ten againſt their two Brethren. Where note, 1. That they were all Chriſtians, Brethren, (Judas excepted) Preachers and Apoſtles. 2. That thoſe that were offended were ten to two. 3. The ten had ſome ſeeming ground to exerciſe Authority over the two;A good Caution to Peters Succeſſor. Mark 10.35. for the two began to ſeek pre-eminence over them firſt, (yea, of Peter and Andrew that were called before them to be Apoſtles) in deſiring that they might ſit the one on Chriſts right hand, and the other on his left in his Kingdome: and yet mark how Chriſt allays that evil, proud, and Prelatical Spirit that was beginning to riſe in them; he beats it down with both hands, urging three ſtrong Arguments to diſſwade them from this Lordlineſs. Firſt, ſaith he, The Princes of the Gentiles do exerciſe dominion over them (not that Chriſt doth allow Princes and great men to exerciſe power over his Miniſters and people to perſecute them) and 'tis as if Chriſt had ſaid, Princes and not Preachers ſhould exerciſe Lordſhip; and the great ones among the Gentiles, to wit, ſinners, and not the good ones among the Saints, claim and exerciſe this Lordly-power: and they and you will have enough,A ſeaſonable Conſideration. The beſt way to make Preachers good, is to keep them low, and from medling with Lordly power. and too much indignation and perſecution from theſe; and therefore be not of a high and Lordly ſpirit over one another Secondly (ſaith he) Whoſoever would be greateſt and chiefeſt among them, ſhould be their Miniſters and Servants, v. 26, 27. Thirdly, He gives them his own example of humility towards them; Even as the Son of man came not to be miniſtered unto but to miniſter. Likewiſe that place be fore cited in Peter (better known than obſerved by the Clergy) is moſt pat, and like Davids ſtone,foreign. knocking this Goliah Epiſcopacy in the fore-head; Neither, ſaith he, being Lords over Gods Heritage, or not as though ye were Lords of the Heritages. Thus much for the firſt Argument.Argum. 2.
That which is directly contrary to what the Spirit of God hath appointed, muſt needs be unlawful:
But for one Biſhop to be over divers (or many particular Churches) is directly contrary to what the Spirit of God hath appointed.
Ergo, foreign.for one Biſhop to bee over divers particular Churches, is unlawful. The Major is larior ſole, clearer than the Sun, and needs no proof.
The Minor I prove thus: The Holy Ghoſt hath appointed ſeveral Biſhops in one particular Church. The words are plain, in Act. 20.28. Take heed therefore to your ſelves, and to the whole flock over the which the Holy Ghoſt hath made you over-ſeers. Or more near the Greek, Take heed therefore to your ſelves, and feed the whole flock in which the Holy Ghoſt hath put you Biſhops. In that particular Church of Epheſus there were ſeveral Biſhops, or as they are called in the 17 verſ. Elders (which are the ſame; for Peter, though an Apoſtle, calls himſelf an Elder) ſo in the Church of Philippi, there were ſeveral Biſhops, as well as Deacous, 1 Pet. 5.7,Phil. 1.1. Then to appoint or ſet up one Biſhop over divers Congregations, as over three or four hundred, nay ſome over a hundred Pariſhes, is to do contrary to what the Spirit of the Lord hath done. Therefore 'tis unlawful.
That order which is contrary to the order which the Apoſtles ſet up in the Churches of the Gentiles, is unlawful:Argum. 3.
But the order of Lordly or Dioceſan-Biſhops is contrary to that order which the Apoſtles ſet up in the Churches of the Gentiles. … Therefore unlawful.
The Propoſition will not be denied; for what the Apoſtles received from Chriſt, they ſet up in the Churches, 1 Cor. 11.23. & 14.3.7. Act. 15.29. & 16.4.
The Aſſumption I prove thus: The order that the Apoſtles ſet up in the Churches of the Gentiles, was Biſhops or Elders (which were of equal power and authority, as is ſhewed before, and will more fully be afterward) in every Church, Act. 14.23. Tit. 1.5, 7. But Dioceſan order is to ſet up one Biſhop over many Churches; which order is contrary to the order ſet up by the Apoſtles, and ſo conſequentially unlawful. They that walk contrary to the Rules of the Apoſtles, walk contrary to the Lord himſelf, 1 Cor. 11.1. Epheſ. 5.1.2 Theſ. 3.9. and they that walk contrary to the Lord, the Lord will walk contrary to them, Lev. 26.21, 41.
That Office and Authority which makes a man utterly uncapable of performing the duties belonging properly to his Function, is unlawful:Argum. 4.
But Lordly or Dioceſan power makes a man utterly uncapable of performing the duties belonging to his Function.
Therefore Lordly or Dioceſan Power is unlawful.
The Major none but ſuch as are willing to ſhun performing their Duties, will deny.
The Minor is proved by conſidering what the Duties are which belong to the Function of Biſhops; to wit, to know their ſtocks, watch over them, feed, and comfort them; to reſolve their doubts, viſit them, and adminiſter the Lords Supper often unto them, &c. Prov. 27.23. 1 Theſ. 5.12, 13. Heb. 13.7, 17. Act. 20.28. 2 Cor. 1.4. James 5.14. 1 Cor. 11.23, 26. and how any Dioceſan-Biſhops (whoſe power extends in ſome Dioceſſes over ſeveral Counties) can poſſibly do this, let any judge.
That which doth neceſſarily introduce the Popes power over the Churches of Chriſt,Argum. 5. is unlawful:
But the office of Lord-Biſhops, or Dioceſan-Biſhops doth neceſſarily introduce the Popes power over the Churches of Chriſt.
Therefore the office of Lord-Biſhops and Dioceſan-Biſhops is unlawful.
None but Papiſts will oppoſe the firſt.
The ſecond I prove thus: They that have their Ordination from the Pope (and ſo conſequently their Miniſtry, for Ordinatio apud Epiſcopos, eſt cauſa ſine qua non, &c. for a man, though never ſo well qualified, is not accounted by them a Miniſter without it) do introduce the Popes power over the Churches of Chriſt: But Dioceſan or Lord-Biſhops have their Ordination from the Pope. Ergo. I prove they have their Ordination from the Pope: They that have their Ordination from the Archbiſhop, have their Ordination from the Pope, as holy Crunmer confeſſed they had (and as one lately made Biſhop,Mr. Nichols, formerly Miniſter in Carmarthen in South-Wales now (as they ſay) Biſhop of Gloceſter. acknowledged before many witneſſes, in a conference with mee in Carmarthen, for which ſome of his own friends blamed him.) For if the Archbiſhop hath not his Ordination from the Pope, then he hath none at all, and ſo is no Miniſter at all; and ſo hath no power to ordain other Biſhops, nor they any other Miniſters; for, Nemo dat quod in ſe non habet. So that it is eaſie to derive the Pedigree of our Dioceſan-Biſhops. And the learned Papiſts who are well verſed in this Genealogy, know their deſcent perfectly, that the Biſhops and themſelves have but one Grand-father, whoever their Grand-mother or Mother is,
Obj. But if it be objected, That one Biſhop hath power to ordain another, and ſo they need not have dependance upon the Pope for their Ordination.
Anſ. I anſwer, If one Biſhop ordain another, either hee ordains him as another ordinary Miniſter (or Prieſt, as they ſay) or as a Biſhop: If as another ordinary Miniſter, then a Biſhop is not of another or higher Order than the ordinary Miniſter is of; but they are Equal in degree, and then par in parens non habet imperium. And this will not ſatisfie the Biſhops.
If he ordained him firſt as a Miniſter, and afterwards as a Biſhop, he hath had two Ordinations, for which there is no Rule in Scripture.
Obj. But the Archbiſhop doth but conſecrate and confirm the Biſhop.
Anſ. Suppoſe that were a diſtinct thing from Ordination (which cannot be proved from the Word of God) yet who ſhall conſecrate the Archbiſhop? either it muſt be his Inferiour, Equal, or Superiour: ſurely it will not be admitted that his Inferiour ſhould do it, for by that Rule and Reaſon, ordinary Miniſters (which they call Prieſts, and account to be of a lower rank than Biſhops) may ordain Biſhops. An Equal cannot do it, becauſe that the Archbiſhop of Canterbury hath no Fellow (unleſs the Archbiſhop of York) then of neceſſity there muſt be application to a Superiour, and there is no ſuch (that aſſumes any Authority to adminiſter Eccleſiaſtical Ordinances) except the Pope himſelf. So that by cloſe purſuit, you may finde where theſe Foxes are, or will be kennell'd. Let us therefore with the Church pray, Take us (or as it is in the Hebrew, gnalu for us) the little Foxes that ſpoil the Vines, for our Vines have tender Grapes, Cant. 2.15.
That Order and Office which hath many unſcriptural Inferiour Officers depending thereon,Argum. 6. and are as branches thereof, is unlawful.
But the Order and Office of Dioceſan and Lord-Biſhops hath many unſcriptural Officers depending thereon, and are branches thereof. Therefore it is unlawful.
The former is proved, 2 Chron. 13.9. Ezek. 43.3. Act. 23.3. when Paul ſaid to Ananias the High Prieſt, Thou whited wall, &c. doubtleſs he looked upon him to be irregular in the Office (as the corruption was grown among the Jews to have a Sagan; anſwerable thereto, ſure are Suffragans) and when he ſaid, I wiſt not that he was the High Prieſt, he ſpake it Ironically, and 'tis as if he had ſaid, I knew him not to be an High Prieſt, but I looked upon him as one that doth uſurp the place. Surely Paul knew the High Prieſt, and his power well enough; but he ſpake to him as Diogenes ſaid to Alexander the Great, I do not know Alexander the King, but I know Alexander the Tyrant.
The Minor or latter, that the Dioceſan and Lord-Biſhops have many unſcriptural inferiour Officers, as Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, Commiſſaries, Chancellors, Canons, Reſidents, Prebendaries, Peticanons, &c. ſuch a rabblerout, that ſome (who have ſearched the Neſt) affirm, that there are from the bottom to the top, from the Van to the Rear, thirty eight diſtinct Officers, that is, thirty above what Chriſt hath put in his Church. So having done with theſe Syllogiſtical Arguments, I will now lay down a few more plain Reaſons againſt Dioceſan Lord-Biſhops, and their Power.
Becauſe there is no difference made in the Scripture between Biſhops and other Goſpel-Miniſters, Argum. 7.called Elders. See Act. 20.17. and 28. Mat. 6.37. Col. 1.23. Phil. 1.1. Tit. 1.5, 6, 7. Note, that where the Church-Officers are mentioned in Scripture, the Biſhops are never named as a diſtinct Order from the Elders, but onelyonly from the Deacons, Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. Epheſ. 4.11, 12.
Obj. Yea there is mention made of Helps and Governments, 1 Cor. 12.28.
Anſ. Though he ſpeaks of Helps and Governments, yet it is in the fifth or ſixth place after Apoſtles, Prophets, Teachers, &c. and not in the firſt nor ſecond rank. So that if any can ſpy out Epiſcopacy here, I am ſure they can neither in this place, nor elſewhere in Scripture finde Lord-Biſhop, neither in name nor power, nor in that Rank and Order they place themſelves no though you thus reckon. Firſt the Pope; ſecondly, the Cardinal; thirdly, the Archbiſhop; fourthly, the Dioceſan-Biſhop; there you finde them in their proper place, but not in the Scripture.
2. It is ſaid, Aquila and Urbane, (nay, Priſcilla a woman) were Helpers (of Paul) in Chriſt Jeſus, Rom. 16.3, 9. and yet they were no Biſhops. It were to be wiſhed that the Biſhops were as good Helpers as they were, and as like Timothy (whom they would have to bee a Biſhop) bee ready to carry a poor painful perſecuted Preachers Cloak, Books, &c. as he did Pauls. And thus they would obey the commands of Chriſt, who ſaid, Whoſoever will be great among you, let him be your Miniſter; and, Whoſoever will be chief among you, let him be your ſervant, Mat. 20.26, 27. I ſuppoſe all know who would be greateſt and chiefeſt among the Miniſters: but do any know which of them will be content to learn this Leſſon of Chriſt? for ſuch a Biſhop would we give our voice: nay, I am contented that the Biſhops ſhould have the chiefeſt care of ſo many as they have converted, or fed. This granted, it is ſuppoſed their power will not be too great.
Becauſe they are created by men, (viz. by the Kings or Princes, Argum. 8.in whoſe Dominions they are) and I may ſay to them, as the Boy ſaid to the Doctor, That God made his Fathers Ox a Bull, but his Father made him an Ox: God made them men, but the King made them Biſhops. See Cook, De Jure Regis Eccleſiaſtico.
Becauſe they depend upon man,Argum. 9. which the true Miniſters of Chriſt never did. Epiſcopacy is a Noune Adrective, that cannot ſtand by it ſelf, but it muſt be ſupported by the hand of the chief Magiſtrate: And they ſhelter themſelves under that Maxime of theirs, No Biſhop, no King. And the Biſhops ſay, No Ceremonie, no Biſhop, whether this be not to lay a weak foundation to Regal Authority, let any judge. The Proverb would be truer, No King, no Biſhop; for the King may very well ſubſiſt without them,Simile. but they like Colewerts cloſe to the Vine, draw the fatneſs of the earth from it to themſelves: Or like the Ivy to the Oak, Simile.ſheltring it ſelf under its arms and boughs, but in the mean time, keeping much of the vertue of the Sun from the Tree.
A tenth Reaſon to prove Dioceſan Biſhops to be unlawful,Argum. 10. is, becauſe they do imitate the Prieſts of the Law ſo much in reſpect of their different degrees, order, &c. as Archbiſhops anſwering the High Prieſts, the Presbyters, the other Priests, and the Deacons the Levites, and the Choriſter and Cantors the Jewiſh Singers; ſo their Organs and other Inſtrument. They have alſo their Pauls anſwerable to the Temple; their Garments, Girdle, Mytre, &c. like thoſe which the Prieſts did uſe;Exod. 28.4, 5, 6. alſo their Tables, Altars, Sacrifices, Oblations, Purifications of Women: and their Holy-days, Feaſts, with many ſuch things, anſwering to the Jewiſh Feaſts:Heb. 9.7, 8, 9. but this is to ſet up the Legal Prieſt-hood again, that was weak, and thoſe things which were but ſhadows, and continued onelyonly till the time of Reformation; And is not this to do altogether as bad as the Jewiſh Teachers did,Gal. 3.4. who indeavoured to bring back the Diſciples, who had begun in the Spirit, to end in the fleſh?
Obj. But how can they be Jewiſh, and yet Popiſh?
Anſ. Very well; for the Pope and Papiſts are in a manner Imitators of the Jews; onelyonly they borrow ſome Heatheniſh Cuſtomes, and create ſome of their own for outward advantage. And doubtleſs it was the aim and indeavour of ſome of the late Biſhops, as might eaſily be ſeen by their Writings and works, that they intended to unite England to Rome: and what ſome of the preſent ones may do (being Birds of the ſame feather) when their wings grow longer; Time (which is the diſcoverer of things) will ſhew.
Becauſe Lordly and Dioceſan power is more than the Apoſtles of Christ did exerciſe either joyntly or apart. Argum. 13.For they impoſed no Canons or Decrees (except the pure Scriptures, the true Rule and Standard) upon any of the Churches (no, though a whole Synod of them were gathered together to make ſuch) but delivered, and left them to the Churches with this Recommendation, If you keep your ſelves, ye ſhall do well, Act. 15.29. Likewiſe Paul an Apoſtle, and Timothy a Biſhop (if you will have him ſo) would not exerciſe Dominion over the Faith of the Chriſtians,foreign, Lordſhip. 2 Cor. 1.1. compared with 24.
Laſtly, It will evidently appear that the Lordly Dioceſan-Biſhops, and their power are unwarrantable and unſcriptural, if we compare them with the Biſhops mentioned in Scripture; and particularly with Timothy and Titus, who are urged by them for Authority and Example.
Timothy and Titus were
1. Begotten again, and converted by the Goſpel, 1 Tim. 1.1. Titus 1.4.
2. True Diſciples and Servants of Jeſus Chriſt, Act. 16. Phil. 1.1.
3. Men of good report, Act. 16.2. 2 Cor. 8.6.
4. Inwardly and really affected to the people of God, 2 Cor. 7.15. Titus 1.8. as Brethren, Col. 1.1.
5. Well acquainted with the Scriptures, and the Word of God, and having a gift to prophecy, 2 Tim. 3.15. and 1 Tim. 4.14.
6. Doubtleſs choſen by the ſuffrages or voices of Church-members, as the manner was in chuſing Officers, Acts. 6.3. and 14.22.
7. Ordained ſolemnly by faſting and prayer, either by the Apoſtles, Presbyters, or Elders of the ſame Church or Churches they were of, Act. 6.6. and 13.3. 1 Tim. 4.14.
8. Itinerant Preachers, going from Country to Country to preach the Goſpel, Act. 17.14. 1 Theſ. 1.3.
9. Diligent Labourers in the Work of Chriſt and his Goſpel, called, Pauls work-fellows, Rom. 6.21. 1 Cor. 16.10.
10. Naturally careful of the things of Chriſt, and of the welfare of Chriſtians, Phil. 1.19. 2 Cor. 8.16.
11. Attendants and Miniſters to the Apoſtles, Act. 18.5. and 19.22. Gal. 2.1. 2 Tim. 4.10. but not their Chaplains.
12. Meſſengers of the Churches of Chriſt, going from one Church to another, and carrying contribution to the poor Saints, 2 Cor. 8.23. and 2 Cor. 8.6.
13. Much refreſhed in and among the Saints and Churches of Chriſt, 2 Cor. 7.14.
14. Perſecuted, impriſoned, and in bondage, for profeſſing, preaching, and practiſing the Doctrine of the Goſpel of Chriſt, Heb. 13.17. Col. 4.10.
15. Such as did ordain Biſhops or Elders in the Churches of Chriſt according to the appointment of the Apoſtles, Tit. 1.5.
16. Doubtleſs blameleſs, vigilant, ſober, of good behaviour, &c. 1 Tim. 3.23. Tit. 1.2. 1 Tim. 3.2.
Timothy and Titus (as appears in Scripture)
1. Were not choſen to their Office by Dean and Chapter.
2. Were not created by any earthly Kings or Princes.
3. Were not conſecrated and confirmed by any Arch-biſhop or Pope.
4. Did not call themſelves, neither were they called Lords. Though theſe men call themſelves ſo, as Dr. Godwyn, &c. whereas Chriſt forbids his Apoſtles to be called Maſters, Mat. 23.8, 10. See James 3.1.
5. Did not ſwear Canonical Obedience to any Archbiſhop.
6. Did not require any that they did ordain, to ſwear Canonical obedience to them.
7. Did not ask the Miniſters they ordained at their Ordination, Will you reverently obey the Ordinary and other chief Miniſters unto whom the Government and Charge is committed over you? &c.
8. When they did ordain other Miniſters, they did not ſay to them, Recipe Sanctum Spiritum, Receive the Holy Ghoſt, and, Take thou Authority to preach the Word of God.
9. Tendred no Book of Articles, Canons, or Common-Prayer-Books to theſe they ordained, nor required any to ſwear to ſuch things.
10. Did not lay hands upon any to ordain them before they were elected; much leſs ordain, or licenſe any to be meer Readers.
11. Did not intermeddle with Civil and Secular Affairs: they were neither honourable in Parliaments, nor Councils: nor Worſhipful Juſtices in the Countries.
12. Had no Stately Palaces, Biſhops Lands, or thouſands to maintain them yearly.
13. Had no High-Commiſsion-Courts, Court of Audience, Prerogative-Court, Court of Faculties, &c. nor power to convene people at their pleaſures before them.
14. Had no ſuch Officers under them as Deans, Archdeacons, Prebends, Chancellours, Commiſſaries, Advocates, Proctors, Purſevants, Apparitors, &c.
15. Uſed no ſuch Oaths, as the Oath ex Officio (to examine a man againſt himſelf) or the Etcaetera Oath, to ſwear to what ſhould, be added and put in afterwards by them.
16. Did not impoſe penance, fines, impriſonment, &c. upon people at their pleaſure.
17. Did not wear Scarlet Gowns, Mytres, Launſleeves, &c.
18. Did not ſell Livings for money, nor give them as Dowries or Portions with their Daughters or Kinſwomen to Miniſters.
19. Did not ſilence any of the Miniſters of the Goſpel under the notion of Puritans and Factious perſons, but if they ſilenced any, it was by Scriptures, and ſound Arguments, as Titus was commanded, Tit. 1.
20. They did not preſent Miniſters (as the Biſhops uſed to do) for preaching without licenſe, or in a Coat, or Cloak, or godly people for going out of their own Pariſhes to hear Sermons; or for meeting in private to read the Scriptures, repeat Sermons, pray, &c. or for not ſtanding at the Creed, not bowing at the Name of Jeſus, for wearing ones hat at Sermon-time, for not obſerving Popiſh-Holy-days, &c.
21. Did not cauſe any of the Beleevers to be fined, impriſoned, ſtigmatized, and to have their ears cut off, &c. or baniſhed under the notion of Sectaries, or Schiſmatical perſons.
22. Did not require the ſole power of Ordination and Juriſdiction, like Demetrius.
23. Did not neglect to preach the Goſpel, or think it enough to appoint others under, or for them to do it. Did not make Preachers, Phyſicians, School-Maſters, Clerks, Midwives, &c. buy and often renew their licences, &c.
24. Were not given to Wine, or greedy of filthy lucre: not ſoon angry, brawlers, ſelf-will'd, proud, contentious, and ill Examples in their Families or Country.
25. Did not remove from one Dioceſs to another for greater preferment.
26. Had not under them dumb, lazy, prophane, Popiſh Prieſts, and Parſons, that have not onelyonly pluralities of Livings, but pluralities of Offices belonging to their Hierarchy.
Having thus laid down the Reaſons againſt Archbiſhops and Dioceſan Lord Biſhops, and likewiſe having ſhewed you the difference between theſe Worldly Monſters, and true Goſpel-Biſhops: it will in the laſt place be neceſſary to anſwer ſome of the main Objections: and they are not many (as I apprehend) that can be made, nor any but may be eaſily and ſoon anſwered; though mens wanton and worldly wit, ſelf-intereſt, and ſinful ſophiſtry would imagine more than are real.
Obj. But were there not Biſhops in the daies of the Apoſtles? Was not Timothy Biſhop of Epheſus, and Titus Biſhop of Crete?
Anſ. There is no Scripture that proves either of them to be Biſhops at all, much leſs Biſhops of thoſe places.
Obj. What? Doth not Paul in his ſuperſcription or ſubſcription direct his Epiſtle to them as ſuch? 2 Tim. 4. end Tit. 3. end.
Anſ. Firſt, the ſuperſcriptions (or ſubſcriptions) in the end of all Pauls Epiſtles ſeem, (and are judged by many learned) to be added by men ſince, and were not written by Paul. And it is evident, that ſome of thoſe ſuperſcriptions are contradictory to the very Epiſtles to which they are ſuffixed. As the 1 Epiſt. to the Corinth. by comparing the ſubſcription with Act. 19 9, 22. with 1 Cor. 16.8.
Secondly, It is very probable that thoſe particular ſubſcriptions to Timothy and Titus were not written by Paul, For,
1. Timothy and Titus were Evangeliſts, 2 Tim. 4.5. 2 Cor. 8.23. that is, men not ty'd to one place or Church, but ſometimes accompanied the Apoſtles in their Journies from Country to Country, and aſſiſted them in the work of the Goſpel, by preaching, viſiting, and helping to ſettle Officers and good Order in the Churches, as appears, Act. 17.14. & 19.22. 1 Theſ. 3.12. 2 Cor. 2.12. Gal. 2.1. 2 Cor. 5.6. 1 Tim. 1.3. Tit. 1 5. and as more fully (and particularly) appears in the poſitive part of the parallel (to wit, what Timothy and Titus were) between them and Dioceſan-Biſhops.
2. It is clear, that in Epheſus (which was but one Church in one City, Act. 18.19. Rev. 2.1.) there were divers Biſhops, Act. 20 17. compared with verſ. 28. Biſhops (ſo it is in the Greek) See Reaſ. firſt. And if there were divers Biſhops there, how could Timothy be a ſingle Biſhop there? And if thoſe Biſhops were choſen and ordained in Epheſus, whilſt Timothy was attending upon Paul in his Journies and Voyages, how could he be the firſt Biſhop there? as the ſubſcription ſaith, that he was ordained the firſt Biſhop of the Church of the Epheſians.
3. If Titus were Biſhop of Crete, Crete called foreign, that is a hundred Cities.as the ſubſcription ſaith, he muſt be Archbiſhop: For, 1. Crete had a hundred Cities in it (if we may credit divers Hiſtorians and Expoſitors.) 2. He ordained Biſhops (or Elders, which is the ſame as was ſhewed before) and that was one of the main ends, why Paul left him in Crete, Tit. 1.5. compared with verſ. 7. And why Titus ſhould be Biſhop of many Cities, and that Timothy who was his equal at leaſt in moſt or all regards, and that had that commendation from Paul himſelf, That he had no man like-minded, &c. and Timothy Biſhop but of one City or Church,Phil. 2.20. as Epheſus was, let the next Synod of Biſhops reſolve and determine if they can.☜
Obj. But in the Epiſtle directed to the ſeven Churches of Aſia, there is mention onelyonly of one Angel.
Anſ. 1. It hath been ſhewed already, that in one of thoſe ſeven Churches, (viz. Epheſus) there were divers Biſhops; and ſo in the Church of Thyatira, The Holy Ghoſt writes, to you, and the reſt in Thyatira, which were more than one, cap. 2.24.
2. Many good Angels termed one, as in Pſal. 34.7. & 91.11. 2 King. 6.16, 17. & 19.35. So one Prieſt or Prophet is put for many, Iſa. 3.2. Jer. 6.18, 19. Ezek. 7.26. Hoſ. 4.6. One Angel is here taken for divers; ſhewing, that all the Officers in the Congregation were entire and one.
3. If there were but one Biſhop in thoſe Churches; then the order in thoſe Churches, and in other Churches, would not be the ſame, as was ſhewed before, Phil. 1.1. Act. 14.23. & 20.28. But,
4. Laſtly, ſuppoſe it be granted that there was but one Biſhop in every one of thoſe particular Churches, and that their power did extend no further (as there is no ground to beleeve it did) than in their particular Churches, then they were not Dioceſans.
Obj. The Government of Biſhops is antient, of fifteen hundred years ſtanding; therefore lawful.
Anſ. 1. The Devil and Antichriſt may make that Plea as well as they, John 8.44. 2 Theſ. 2.4. 1 John 4.3.
2.See the differences clearly and fully ſhewn in Smethy Annuus. They that read the Hiſtory of the Church (written by Euſebius, Sympſon, &c.) will eaſily diſcern the differences between the Biſhops of the three firſt Centuries, and our Dioceſan-Biſhops. The controverſie is not about the …me (as is acknowledged by all) but about the power of Biſhops.
3.Mea entiquetas Chriſtus eſt. Auguſt. Conſuetudo ſine veritate, eſt vetuſtas erroris. If the word of God be a perfect Rule (as it is) what need we go any further? Bring your Epiſcopal Metal to this Touch-ſtone, and if it will hold here, we will honour it with its Gray hairs, and receive and reverence it as the right Heir; If not, we muſt ſay with Gerhard, Antiquity without truth, is but a cypher.
1 Theſ. 5.21. Prove all things, hold faſt that which is good. Iſa. 8.20. To the Law, and to the Teſtimony, if they speak not according to this Word, it is becauſe there is no light in them.
Is qui praeeſt, ſi praeter voluntatem Dei, vel praeter quod in ſanctis Scripturis evidenter praecipitur, vel dicit aliquid, vel imperat tanquam falſus aut ſacrilegus habeatur, Can. Law.
FINIS.
End of the text · Vavasor Powell, Common Prayer Book No Divine Service (1661)