Episcopal Government, Argument

Episcopal Government · Argument

EPISCOPAL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTED BY CHRIST, And confirmed by cleere evidence of Scripture, and invincible Reaſon.

Collected by the pains of R. R. Preacher of the Goſpell.

DEVT. 42.

Yee ſhall not adde unto the Word which I command you, neither ſhall yee diminiſh ought from it, that yee may keep the Commandements of the Lord your God, which I command you.

REVEL. 22.18, 19

For I teſtifie unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecie of this booke, if any man ſhal add unto theſe things, God ſhal add unto him the plagues that are written in this book ▪

And if any man ſhall take away from the words of the book of this prophecie, God ſhall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy City, and from the things that are written in this book.

LONDON, Printed, Anno Domini, 1641.

Epiſcopall Government inſtituted by Chriſt.

The firſt Argument.

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

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

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

The propoſition I will take for granted, for I know no man will deny it. The aſſumption I muſt prove, which hath three branches: The firſt is, That God eſtabliſhed three degrees under the Law, the High Prieſt, inferiour Prieſts, and Levits; the High Prieſt to be in the firſt order, Inferiour Prieſts in the ſecond, and Levits in the third: and this I hope will be granted. The ſecond branch of the Propoſition, that Chriſt and his Apoſtles continued three degrees under the Goſpell, I prove thus: Chriſt choſe Apoſtles for one order, and Evangeliſts for another, called at the firſt the ſeventy Diſciples, to diſtinguiſh them from the other twelve, who were alſo called Diſciples, as long as Chriſt lived (for they were ſeldome before Chriſt his Reſurrection diſtinguiſhed by their proper names) and Chriſt filled the room of the high Prieſt himſelf, as long as he ſerved in the Miniſtery of the Goſpell: And after his Aſcention immediatly, the Apoſtles by the direction of the Spirit made choice of a third Order of Churchmen, whom they called by the name of Deacons, Act. 6. ſo that the Apoſtles were appointed to be of the firſt Order after Chriſt his Reſurrection, at which time they were only endued with p. 4ſtolicall 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 p. 5that 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 p. 6the 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 p. 7continued 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 p. 8of 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 p. 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 p. 10the Sacrament of the Supper was celebrated, as the onelyonly 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.

p. 11Secondly, 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 p. 12be 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 p. 13the 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.

p. 14More 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 p. 15another 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 p. 16to 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,

If the callings of the High Prieſt, Prieſts, and Levits, was not extraordinary quo ad poſt, in the dayes of Moſes: then the callings of Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, and Deacons, was not extraordinary quo ad poſt, in the dayes of Chriſt.

But the firſt is true, and therefore the ſecond.

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 p. 17the 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.

If the callings of the Apoſtles, &c. cannot be called extraordinary, quo ad poſt, neither in regard of their extraordinary gifts, nor extraordinary manner of calling, nor the extent of their charge, nor their infallibilitie of Spirit, then it is not extraordinary at all, in regard of the time to come.

But for none of theſe foreſaid reſpects, can their calling be called extraordinary, in regard of the time to come.

And therefore it was not extraordinary, in regard of the time to come.

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.

p. 18Next 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.

My firſt teſtimony is in Mat. 28.19. out of which I form this argument.

They that were commanded to teach and baptize all Nations untill the end of the World, their calling was ordinary, and to continue untill the end of the World.

But the Apoſtles were commanded to teach and baptiſe all Nations, untill the end of the World.

And therefore their calling was ordinary, and to continue untill the end of the World.

p. 19The 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.

They who were commanded by Chriſt to preach the Goſpel to every creature, that is to all men without exception, untill the end of the World, their calling was ordinary, and to continue untill the end of the World.

But the Apoſtles were commanded by Chriſt to preach the Goſpel to all men without exception, untill the end of the World.

And therefore their calling was ordinary, and to continue untill the end of the World.

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.

They to whom our Saviour Chriſt gave the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven, their calling was ordinarie, and to continue untill the end of the World.

But our Saviour Chriſt gave to his Apoſtles the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven.

And therefore their calling was ordinarie, and to continue untill the end of the World.

p. 20This 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.

They with whom Chriſt promiſed to be always, untill the end of the World, Their calling was ordinary, and to continue untill the end of the World.

But Chriſt promiſed to be with his Apoſtles alwayes, untill the end of the World.

And therefore their calling was ordinary, and to continue untill the end of the World.

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.

They whom Chriſt appointed only to be the light of the World, their calling was ordinary, and to continue untill the end of the World.

But Chriſt appointed his Apoſtles to be the light of the World.

And therefore their calling was ordinary, and to continue untill the end of the World.

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 p. 21other 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.

Whomſoever all men are bound to heare and receive in Chriſts ſtead, their calling was ordinary, and to be continued untill the end of the World.

But to heare and receive the Apoſtles in Chriſts ſtead, all men are bound.

And therefore the calling of the Apoſtles was ordinary, and to continue untill the end of the World.

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.

They who are commanded by Watching and Prayer to attend the ſecond comming of our Saviour, their calling was ordinary, and to continue untill the end of the World.

But the Apoſtles were commanded by Watching and Prayer to attend the ſecond comming of our Saviour.

And therefore the Apoſtles calling was ordinarie, and to continue untill the end of the World.

p. 22No 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.

That which the Apoſtles were not able to do by themſelves alone, Chriſt would not command them to do it by themſelves alone.

But the apoſtles were not able to keep theſe Cōmandements by themſelves alone.

And therefore Chriſt would not command them to keep them by themſelves alone.

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.

p. 23That which Chriſt knew was only poſsible to the Apoſtles and their Succeſſors, Chriſt gave it in Commandement to the Apoſtles and their Succeſsors.

But Chriſt knew, that it was only poſsible to the Apoſtles and their Succeſſors to keep theſe Commandements.

And therefore Chriſt gave theſe Commandements to the Apoſtles and their ſucceſſors.

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 onelyonly 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.

They that were inferiour in degree to the apoſtles, were not the apoſtles ſucceſſors in that ſame order and degree.

But Presbyters were inferiour in degree to the apoſtles.

And therefore Presbyters were not the apoſtles ſucceſsors in that ſame order and degree.

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 p. 24the 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 Elders be the Apoſtles Succeſsors, then that ſame power and authoritie neceſsary for the government of the Church, is committed to them by the Apoſtles, as amply as they themſelves had it.

But that ſame power and authoritie neceſſary for the government of the Church, is not committed unto Elders, as amply as the Apoſtles themſelves had it.

And therefore Elders are not the Succeſsors of the Apoſtles.

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 p. 25things 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.

They who were inferiour to thoſe in dignitie and degree, who were inferiour to the apoſtles in place and eſtimation, were not the apoſtles Succeſsors in all the parts of the Miniſteriall Function.

But Presbyters were inferiour in dignitie and degree to thoſe who were inferiour to the apoſtles in place and eſtimation.

p. 26And therefore Presbyters were not Succeſsors to the Apoſtles in all the parts of the Miniſteriall Function.

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.

Either the callings of the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts were ordinary callings, or elſe we have no ordinary Miniſters of the Goſpel by Chriſts inſtitution.

But this were abſurde to ſay, that we had not ordinary Miniſters of the Goſpel by Chriſts inſtitution.

And therefore it is as abſurd to ſay, that the callings of Apoſtles and Evangeliſts are not ordinary callings.

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.

Either Biſhops are the Succeſsors of the Apoſtles, or the Apoſtles have no Succeſsors at all.

But that the Apoſtles have no Succeſsors at all, it is falſe, as I have in my judgment unanſwerably proved.

And therefore Biſhops are their Succeſsors, for I have proved alſo that Preſbyters cannot be their Succeſsors.

My next argument is this.

Timothy and Titus were Biſhopt.

Timothy and Titus ſucceeded unto the Apoſtles.

And therefore Biſhops ſucceeded to the Apoſtles.

p. 27I prove the propoſition by this argument, that is, That Timothy and Titus were Biſhops.

They whoſe calling was ordinary, and had the power of Ordination and Iuriſdiction over Presbyters, were Biſhops.

But Timothy and Titus their calling was ordinary, and had the power of Ordination and Iuriſdiction over Presbyters.

And therefore Timothy and Titus were Biſhops.

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

They who had the only Ordinary parts of the Miniſteriall Function, their Calling was ordinary.

But Timothy and Titus had the only ordinary parts of the Miniſteriall Function.

And therefore the Calling of Timothy and Titus was ordinary.

The propoſition will be granted, I prove the aſſumption.

They who had only power to preach the Word, and adminiſter the Sacraments, &c. had only the ordinary parts of the Miniſteriall Function.

But Timothy and Titus had only power to preach the Word, and adminiſter the Sacraments, &c.

And therefore Timothy and Titus had the only ordinary parts of the Miniſteriall Function.

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

Next I prove their calling was ordinary by this argument.

They whoſe calling was by Education, Triall, and Ordination, their calling was ordinary.

But Timothy and Titus their calling was by Education, Triall, and Ordination.

And therefore their calling was ordinary.

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

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

That calling which was to continue unto the end of the World was an ordinary calling.

But Timothy and Titus calling was to continue unto the end of the VVorld,

And therefore Timothy and Titus calling was an ordinary Calling.

I prove the Aſſumption.

p. 29That which was to bee propagated untill the appearing of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt in the Perſons of Tim. and Tit. ſucceſſors, was to continue unto the end of the World.

But Timothy and Titus calling was to be propagated in the perſons of Tim. and Titus ſucceſſors untill the appearing of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt.

And therefore Timothy and Titus calling was to continue untill the end of the World.

The Propoſition will be granted, I prove the aſſumption.

That which muſt be kept untill the appearing of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt, muſt be propagated by Timothy and Titus ſucceſsors untill his appearing.

But the calling of Tim. and Tit. (in all the particular parts of it) muſt be kept untill the appearing of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt.

And therefore their calling was to be propagated in the perſons of their ſucceſſors untill his appearing.

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

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

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

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

They whoſe function was Apoſtolicall had the power of ordination and juriſdiction over Presbyters.

But Tim. and Titus function was Apoſtolicall.

And therefore they had the power of ordination and juriſdiction over Preſbyters.

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

They who are commanded to ordaine Elders have the power of ordination.

Timothy and Titus are commanded to Ordaine Elders.

And therefore Tim. and Tit. had the power of Ordination.

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

That they had the power of juriſdiction is proved thus.

They who are commanded to rebuke, cenſure, and correct, with all authority, and not ſuffer themſelves to be deſpiſed, to ſtay fooliſh queſtions and vain bablings, to excommunicate the obſtinate, to try and prove thoſe who deſire the office of a Biſhop, and either to admit or reject them according to their weakeneſſe or ability, have the power of juriſdiction ſpirituall.

But Timothy and Titus are commanded to do all theſe things 1 Timothy 4.11, 12. 1 Tim. 3.9.17.19.20. 1 Tim. 6.17. Tit. 1.11.13. and Tit. 3.10.

And therefore Timothy and Titus have the power of juriſdiction ſpirituall.

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

If thoſe Biſhops of whom the Apoſtle Paul ſpeaks in his Epiſtles to Timothy and Titus received the power of ordination and jurisdiction, by thoſe inſtructions and precepts which the Apoſtle Paul ſets downe in thoſe Epiſtles, then Timothy and Titus much more received the power of ordination and juriſdiction by thoſe inſtructions of the Apoſtle Paul ſet downe in thoſe Epiſtles.

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

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

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

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

That power which is committed to certain particular and ſingular men in the Miniſtery, is not committed to a repreſentative body of Miniſters.

But the power of Ordination and Juriſdiction is committed to certain particular and ſingular men in the Miniſtery.

And therefore it is not committed to a repreſentative body of Miniſters.

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

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

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

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

p. 33Anſw. 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 p. 34our 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, p. 35That 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 p. 36commanded 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 foreign 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 p. 37the 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 p. 38between 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.

p. 39Now 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.

FINIS.

End of the text · Robert Rollock, Episcopal Government (1641)