<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2012-10-11</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Alexis Jakobson</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>*Proofed title page(s).
*Reviewed structure.
*Checked division-marking material at heads and feet of divisions (HEADS, CLOSER, OPENER, ARGUMENT, EPIGRAPH, SIGNED, BYLINE, etc.).
*Added TYPEs to DIVs in order to validate.
*Checked for N=""s.
*Checked ^s.
*Checked placement and completeness of PBs.
*Checked for foreign, damage and missing-page GAPs, #, --.
*Checked for LBs, startqs / endqs, q;s, &abque;s, ABBRs, LETTERs and Qs.
*Checked for FIGUREs and decorated initials.
*Checked proofsheets and made corrections found there.
*Corrected <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">s etc.
*Converted <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">s to GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="[vendor name]".
*Revalidated.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A85313">
<STC T="W">F961</STC>
<STC T="T">E1045_17</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99867022</BIBNO>
<VID>119312</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P><HI>Presbyterial Ordination</HI> VINDICATED. In a Brief and Sober DISCOURSE CONCERNING EPISCOPACY, As claiming <HI>greater Power,</HI> and <HI>more eminent Offices</HI> by DIVINE RIGHT, then Presbyterie.</P>
<P>The Arguments of the Reverend Bi&s;hop D^r <HI>Davenant</HI> in his Determination for &s;uch EPISCOPACY are mode&s;tly Examined. And Argu|ments for the Validity of Presbyterial Ordination added.</P>
<P>With a brief DISCOURSE concerning Impo&s;ed Forms of Prayer, and CEREMONIES.</P>
<P>Written by <HI>G.F.</HI> Mini&s;ter of the Go&s;pel in Defence of his own Ordination, being que&s;tioned, becau&s;e it was performed by PRESBYTERS.</P>
<Q><BIBL><HI>I&s;a. 8.20.</HI></BIBL> To the Law and to the Te&s;timony, If they speak not according to this word, it is becau&s;e there is no light in them.</Q>
<Q><HI>Patrum &s;criptanon &s;unt regulae, nee habent auctotitatem obligandi</HI> <BIBL>Bell. de Conc. <HI>l.<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> c. 12.</HI></BIBL></Q>
<Q>Is it &s;o horrible an here&s;ie as he <HI>[Harding]</HI> makes it, to &s;ay, that by the Scriptures of God, a Bi&s;hop and a Prie&s;t are all one? All the&s;e, S. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> S. <HI>Hierom,</HI> S. <HI>Augu&s;tine,</HI> S. <HI>Am|bro&s;e,</HI> and other more holy Fathers, together with S. <HI>Paul</HI> the Apostle, for thus &s;aying, by Mr. <HI>Hardings</HI> advice, must be holden for <HI>Hereticks.</HI> <BIBL>Bi&s;hop <HI>Jewell</HI> Defen. Apol. <HI>p. 202.</HI></BIBL></Q>
<P><HI>London,</HI> Printed for <HI>Nathanael Webb</HI> at the Kings head in S. <HI>Pauls</HI> Church yard. 1660.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="preface">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>THE PREFACE.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_THE</HI> waies of the Lord towards our KING in his Affliction, Pre&s;ervation, and Re&s;tauration, were &s;uch, as upon them all we may write <HI>wonderfull.</HI> Prayers were poured out for him in his Affliction, and for his Re&s;tauration Prai&s;es were not &s;ilent. Prayers, I &s;ay, were poured out from &s;ympathi&s;ing and enlarged hearts, they were not read out of a book: his Affliction was not <HI>common,</HI> no wonder though a prayer &s;utable could not be found in a <HI>Common-prayer Book:</HI> But had there been a Prayer in the Book an&s;werable to his Condition, we could not have been content with that, our hearts had not room to work, had we been &s;traitened by a Form: yet a Form of Prayer, when agreeable to Gods Word, I do not judg unlawfull.</P>
<P>But Who <HI>heard</HI> tho&s;e Prayers? Where were they made? &s;ay you: I tell you, God heard them, and men heard them: they were made in our Studies, between God &amp; our own &s;ouls, they were made in our families: they were made in our daies of private Fa&s;ting, and Prayer, which you call <HI>Conventicles</HI>] Would you have heard them in our Publick Congregations? it may be you would; but would you then have judged us <HI>prudent?</HI> Yet &s;ome of us were &s;o imprudent [knowing the tempers of our Congregators which could &s;ay heartily, <HI>Amen</HI>] to pray publickly for him in his lowe&s;t condition: The pri&s;on had witne&s;&s;ed it, had I not a friend who delivered me; and this year, had not his <HI>Maje&s;tie</HI> been re&s;tored, it had been proved, being threatned to my face, and the threats often repeated, That as &s;ure as God was in heaven I &s;hould be called into que&s;tion, only for praying for the afflicted Royall Family: If any de&s;ire other Proofs of Loyally to his <HI>Maje&s;ty</HI> in his low condition, I could give them, but I &s;pare to name
<PB REF="3">them, Such <HI>Subjects</HI> had his <HI>Maje&s;ty</HI> among the now despi&s;ed <HI>Presbyterians,</HI> who, had they not been <HI>faithfull</HI> and <HI>loyal</HI> to his <HI>Maje&s;ty,</HI> [as they were bound to be bythe <HI>Solemn Covenant</HI>] but would have clo&s;ed with the Army, doubtle&s;s they could have carried &s;uch a Party with them, that I believe as yet our <HI>King</HI> had not &s;et upon his <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> Throne, nor had the voice of Thanksgiving for his re&s;toring been heard in our <HI>Iland.</HI></P>
<P>The <HI>Lord</HI> then rebuke the <HI>&s;pirits</HI> of tho&s;e men who go about [notwith&s;tanding his <HI>Maje&s;ties</HI> gracious <HI>Declaration,</HI> to give Liberty to tender Con&s;ciences] to make &s;ad the hearts of tho&s;e men who have thus prayed, and prai&s;ed <HI>GOD</HI> for our <HI>King,</HI> by labouring to impo&s;e upon us again tho&s;e humane Inventions in the Wor&s;hip of God, which were the fir&s;t beginners of our troubles; I &s;ay, the fir&s;t beginners: for I dare &s;ay, had it not been for tho&s;e Humane devices, and tyrannical forcing upon the Mini&s;try of Chri&s;t, what men only invented, but God never appointed: and for their not yielding to their wills, &s;ilenced abundance, impri&s;oned divers, and forced into bani&s;hment many of the eminent Servants of Chri&s;t, God had not been as yet &s;o provoked (though I know there was guilt enough) the Spirits of people had not been &s;o exa&s;perated, to have rai&s;ed a Civil Warr, and therein &s;pill &s;o much <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> blood, much le&s;&s;e the bloud of our <HI>Soveraign King,</HI> a per&s;on of rare and Princely Endowments, as before the Warrs I was a little informed, in the Warrs further confirmed, but after the Warres certainly a&s;&s;ured, by that excellent Book of <HI>His,</HI> which who can read, and then think who did the fact, but mu&s;t needs lament, the wound, the &s;tain, the blot, which the Reformed Prote&s;tant Religion, accompanied (at lea&s;t &s;eemingly) with warm and powerfull profe&s;&s;ion received, alas, how &s;hall the glory of it be recovered again!</P>
<P>See what Tentations drive men to, &s;ome to &s;ecure their own Lives and E&s;tates, &s;uppo&s;ing they lay in danger: &s;ome from Ambition, &s;ome from a de&s;igne to carry on their one private intere&s;t, and others out of a fond conceit of another a <HI>Fifth Monarchy,</HI> ju&s;t now beginning, [Fools to phan&s;ie, as if, in that glorious time, which I doubt not the Church &s;hall have, before the ultimate day of judgment, [according to the Soriptures; not mens phan&s;ies] <HI>Kings,</HI> who are the &s;upream, <HI>1 Pet. 2.13.</HI> &s;hould not be <HI>Nur&s;ing Fathers,</HI> I&s;a. <HI>49.23.]</HI> Thus &s;everal men from &s;everal Tentations and Principles were carried to act that which my pen &s;hall not name, but only pray, <HI>Lead us not into temptation.</HI></P>
<P>How well this was re&s;ented among the <HI>Presbyterians,</HI> be&s;ides what is
<PB REF="3">publi&s;hed, and &s;hould have been publi&s;hed, but that they were &s;o quick in doing that, which I could not believe they dared to do, were but the &s;everal Sermons which they preached, (&s;ome choo&s;ing Texts on purpo&s;e) gathered together; Were the lamenting Prayers they made in publick and private recorded among men, as they are before God, no mode&s;t man that loveth truth would &s;ay, <HI>The Presbyterians brought,</HI> Him <HI>to the block,</HI> who ever did the next act which I love not to mention.</P>
<P>But to return to the fir&s;t Beginners which I mentioned of our troubles, as I have cau&s;e to judge them &s;o, chiefly from the Word of a jealous God, <HI>Exod. 20.5.</HI> So I am &s;omething the more enclined to judge, from the <HI>Predictions</HI> of two <HI>Divines,</HI> whom <HI>Bi&s;hop LAUD</HI> &s;ilenced. I heard them both utter them, <HI>one</HI> before the <HI>Troubles</HI> began, the <HI>other</HI> after; this al&s;o had foretold before the troubles, but I heard him &s;peak the words after, yet before the things fell out, or there were any &s;uch thoughts in the brea&s;ts of men, in&s;omuch that I was amazed to hear him, and how confidently he &s;pake; Neither of <HI>the&s;e</HI> had any hand in beginning the troubles, (I am &s;ure for <HI>one</HI>) both did dete&s;t with great abhorrency the death of the <HI>King,</HI> received the news with lamentation: I gave no great credence to them, for I thought we had no infallible Prophets living, but when I &s;aw their words &s;o exactly fulfilled, then I called to minde what I had heard them &s;ay, which I will not &s;et down, onely concerning <HI>Bi&s;hop LAUD,</HI> when he was in his height, one had the&s;e words, <HI>If that man die the ordinary death of men, then hath not God &s;poken by me;</HI> the man was an eminent <HI>Divine,</HI> a <HI>Ma&s;ter-workman,</HI> whether his words were not true you may judge. The Lord grant, that Reverend <HI>USHERS Prophe&s;ie</HI> come not to pa&s;s; I much fear it.</P>
<P>Shall the&s;e Soveraign and trembling Acts of a jealous God cau&s;e no aw upon our Spirits? Mu&s;t we pre&s;ently, before we are healed perfectly of our wounds, provoke God again? will you try to force the <HI>Nation</HI> into <HI>Perjury,</HI> by violating the <HI>&s;olemn Covenant?</HI> I be&s;eech you do not ca&s;t &s;uch &s;corn upon it: I remember, the la&s;t year, when the <HI>Army,</HI> and that piece of <HI>Parliament,</HI> (&s;o called) were united, and in their height, while one was dehorting me friendly from praying for the <HI>Royal Family,</HI> I &s;aid then, <HI>Though God may &s;uffer the&s;e men to go on a while; yet if God be not revenged for the breach of that Covenant, I will not believe my Bible.</HI> God made good my words &s;ooner than I was aware of: I do yet believe, The Lord will in his time have a regard to it, let men now de&s;pi&s;e it as they plea&s;e. I do prote&s;t, in the pre&s;ence of the living God, that it is not any envie that I beare to mens Honours, Riches,
<PB REF="4">Greatne&s;s, or Power in the Church, or that I affect a <HI>Panty,</HI> which makes me engage in this Controver&s;ie, upon my one Defence, (for if my Ordination be <HI>null,</HI> I can hardly look on my &s;elf as a Mini&s;ter) I can freely yield you the Honours and the Riches [though my poor <HI>Viccaridg</HI> doth afford one but half the Maintenance for my Family] and the <HI>power</HI> you &s;hould have al&s;o, would but that which you and we call the Rule of your and our Faith (the Scriptures) give you it. But if tho&s;e <HI>Officers</HI> our <HI>Covenant</HI> engages again&s;t mu&s;t be owned in the Church, then we mu&s;t not own our Bibles for <HI>a perfect Rule,</HI> for <HI>Regula non e&s;t, &s;i quid ei dee&s;t,</HI> &s;aith <HI>BASIL,</HI> Now all tho&s;e <HI>Officers</HI> mentioned in the <HI>Covenant,</HI> [even <HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> as di&s;tinct from a <HI>Presbyter,</HI> and &s;uperiour in power] <HI>De&s;unt,</HI> they are wanting in that Rule, where all the Officers and their names are distinctly &s;et down, and you cannot make new Officers by Con&s;equences.</P>
<P>The &s;cope of the <HI>Covenant</HI> (though I never took it) &s;o far as I can &s;ee as to the things of God, is to reduce all things to the <HI>Perfect Rule,</HI> the <HI>Holy Scriptures,</HI> which I think men do extreamly vilifie, in departing from it, and bringing in another <HI>Lesbian</HI> Rule of Antiquity, as if the Scriptures were not before the Fathers: and well may I call it <HI>Lesbian</HI> Rule, as <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> interprets the <HI>Adage. Lesbia Regula dicitur quoties pr<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">epo&s;ter&egrave;, non ad rationem factum, &s;ed ratio ad factum accornmodatur. Cum Lex moribus applicatur, non mores ad Legem emendantur.</HI> And is not this the practice of men in all the&s;e Controver&s;ies about the Officers of the Church, and the Wor&s;hip of God in this Nation, to tell us of the Fathers, and Primitive [but not Apo&s;tolicall] Churches, they alledg their Acts, [not in all things neither] and &s;o carry the Scriptures to their Acts, but not their Acts to the Scriptures, and &s;o judg them by the Perfect Rule. <HI>Calovius</HI> the <HI>Lutheran</HI> hath &s;trongly proved,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Sy&s;t. loc. Theol.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 422.</NOTE> that <HI>The Te&s;timony of the Church, or Con&s;ent of the Fathers in the five fir&s;t</HI> Secula, <HI>or Centuries, after Chri&s;t, is not the Rule of Interpretation of the Scriptures, nor a</HI> medium <HI>&s;o nece&s;&s;ary, that without it by</HI> the Scriptures alone, <HI>the mouths of Adver&s;aries cannot be &s;topped.</HI> I yield to the Fathers as much as he doth.</P>
<P>Forthe Common-Prayer-Book, I ever &s;aid there were &s;ome things in it good, nor did I ever condemn &s;ober and Godly men who u&s;ed it, yet I think, if a Litturgy were nece&s;&s;ary, [which I cannot learn from the Seriptures] we have Divires in <HI>England,</HI> endued with grace, and gifts, able to compo&s;e one, for the matter agreeable to the Word, and Forme, le&s;s
<PB REF="4">effen&s;ive, then to be beholding to the <HI>Popi&s;h Puddles.</HI> And &s;trange it is, that for the plea&s;ing of a few Papists (pray God they prove not numerous now) who will not yet be drawn by it, we mu&s;t di&s;plea&s;e and drive from the wor&s;hip of God thou&s;ands of the be&s;t Prote&s;tants. Impo&s;e Formes of Prayers who will, before I would do &s;uch an Act upon tho&s;e whom the Lord hath &s;o graciou&s;ly and excellently gifted, as are thou&s;ands in this Nation; I had rather with Gods love go to my grave.</P>
<P>I have di&s;cour&s;ed but briefly of the&s;e things: For Ceremonies I intended but to touch them. There is a <HI>Tract</HI> printed, entituled, <HI>A Mode&s;t Di&s;cour&s;e concerning the CEREMONIES of the Church of ENGLAND:</HI> It came to my hand when I had almo&s;t done: where you have the&s;e things more largely and Learnedly di&s;cu&s;&s;ed. The Lord divert our fears, and if it be his will, let us enjoy his Ordinances, in their <HI>purity</HI> and <HI>power,</HI> his <HI>Ordinances,</HI> and <HI>Him&s;elf</HI> in his <HI>Ordinances:</HI> So &s;hall we rejoyce in the Lord, and <HI>Prayers</HI> &s;hall not be <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">ing for our <HI>KING.</HI></P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>The unworhie&s;t of Chri&s;t Mini&s;ters G. F.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<PB REF="5">
<P>READER, There was &s;ome mi&s;carriage when the Sheets were &s;ent down to be corrected, for &s;ome came not to my hand, &s;o that I mu&s;t commit my &s;elf to thy Candor. The&s;e Faults I ob&s;erved;</P>
<P>Page 2. line 14. for <HI>them</HI> read <HI>him:</HI> for <HI>they</HI> r. <HI>he.</HI> p. 6. l. 28, 29. for <HI>more &s;uperiour,</HI> r. <HI>above.</HI> p. 22. l. 36. <HI>Caepit.</HI> p. 32. l. 37. <HI>formes.</HI> p. 38. l. 39. for <HI>none,</HI> r. <HI>wee.</HI></P>
<P>For the Ceremonies I intended but a few words, and but to name <HI>Kneeling at the Sacrament.</HI> I am told Mr <HI>Rutherford</HI> hath written &s;trongly again&s;t it.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB N="1" REF="5">
<HEAD>Presbyteriall Ordination VINDICATED.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. I. <HI>Of Epi&s;copacy,</HI> &amp;c.</HEAD>
<P>_IN all the changes which have pa&s;&s;ed over this Nati|on of late years, it hath been the portion of the Lords Mini&s;ters, to pa&s;s through unkind dealings, and reproachful &s;peeches from &s;everal &s;orts of men, no change proving to be on their &s;ide, but all changes again&s;t them. One while they were called <HI>Antichri&s;tian</HI> Mini&s;ters, becau&s;e they were ordained by <HI>Bi&s;hops,</HI> who being An|tichri&s;tian, all that were ordained by them, were &s;uch al&s;o: Hence Epi&s;copal Ordination mu&s;t be renounced, a new one taken [or Popular Election alone might &s;erve the turn] el&s;e the people, will renounce their Mini&s;try, &s;eparate from them, and &s;o did. In this unexpected change [though much de&s;ired and prayed for, as to our King and the Royal Family, with our Ancient Civil Govern|ment, unto which by &s;olemn Covenant we were engaged] many hundreds of Godly Mini&s;ters, and able for their work, are &s;aid to be <HI>no</HI> Mini&s;ters, becau&s;e they were ordained by <HI>Presbyters:</HI> And let me give you the words of one of the great Doctors, who asking a godly and able Mini&s;ter, who was ordained by Presbyters, Whe|ther he were ordained by a Bi&s;hop? Whether he had his In&s;tituti|on, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> from a Bi&s;hop? to which he an&s;wered, No; then &s;aid this Learned Doctor to him, <HI>Your Ordination and In&s;titution is not worth a Fart.</HI> Sweetly &s;poken Sir!</P>
<PB N="2" REF="6">
<P>According to the Talent the Lord hath lent me, I wrote a little in defence of Epi&s;copal Ordination, &s;o far as to prove it not to be Antichri&s;tian: But now the Controver&s;ie is come home to my own door; for though in the pre&s;ence of the people who elected me, with their hands lifted up to manife&s;t their Election, in a day of Fa&s;ting and Prayer, I was by five Ancient, Godly and Grave Divines [the greater part eminent in their Generation] &s;et apart to the work of the Mini&s;try by Impo&s;ition of hands, Prayer, and words &s;utable to the Ordinance, yet my Ordination is que&s;tioned by &s;uch in who&s;e defence I wrote before; (thank you Brethren) the ground being this, they judge Ordination to be a work proper to a Bi&s;hop, whom they make an Officer di&s;tinct from Presby|ters, having more <HI>eminent Offices,</HI> and <HI>greater power</HI> belonging to them than Presbyters have. How they come by this power, is the que&s;tion; that Reverend and Learned Bi&s;hop Dr. <HI>Davenant,</HI> in his 42 <HI>Determination,</HI> undertakes to prove that this <HI>eminency</HI> of the Bi&s;hop, is <HI>in verbo divino adumbrata, delineata, &amp; abip&s;is Apo|&s;tolis con&s;tabilita,</HI> and that it is an ea&s;ie thing to demon&s;trate it.</P>
<P>The rea&s;ons why I pitch upon this man rather than another, are the&s;e; 1. Becau&s;e he undertakes to prove this <HI>eminency</HI> of power by the <HI>holy Scriptures</HI> [I wi&s;h all would hold here.] 2. He &s;ums up all the Arguments that ever I heard for it. 3. He performes his work gravely, &s;oberly, like a Chri&s;tian, a Divine, not filling his Papers with &s;uch &s;corns, jeers and bitter Invectives, as the Epi&s;copal men have done, who have wrote of late, that a &s;ober man hath &s;carce patience to read them.</P>
<P>For my part, I have be&s;towed but very little time in this con|trover&s;ie, neither have I &s;o much as &s;een tho&s;e who have written mo&s;t largely and elaborately about it, as <HI>Blondel, Salmatius,</HI> nor others: Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> came to my hand when I had almo&s;t done, &s;o that I have not read him through, but ca&s;t my eye here and there upon him. I wi&s;h &s;ome body would an&s;wer him as &s;oberly as he writes; but I think he will never be an&s;wered. Leaving the Reader to &s;uch able men for fuller &s;atisfaction, I &s;hall communicate my meditations, &s;o far I hope, as to prove our Ordination by Pret|byters to be valid, holding weight in Gods Balance.</P>
<P>For tho&s;e Epi&s;copal men who have written of late, with &s;uch &s;corn, bitterne&s;s and confidence, the &s;tronge&s;t Arguments I find, are the&s;e:</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="3" REF="6">1. <HI>Thus it hath been for fifteen hundred years, before</HI> Calvin <HI>ro&s;e, the Churches had ever Bi&s;hops; name the Church that had not:</HI> Thus the&s;e Brethren think, <HI>&agrave; facto ad jus, valet con&s;equentia</HI> undenia|bly.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>The Fathers who lived in the Primitive times tell us, the Apo|&s;tles did con&s;titute Bi&s;hops in &s;everal Cities, as,</HI> Timothy, and Titus, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> This is all their &s;trength.</P>
<P>But in &s;ober words I be&s;eech you, What kind of Bi&s;hops were fifteen hundred years ago? [if you begin to reckon from the Apo&s;tles times] Bi&s;hops di&s;tinct from Presbyters in <HI>Power</HI> and <HI>Of|fices</HI> and that by <HI>Divine right?</HI> Verily you fall &s;hort in proving it. Or were they &s;uch Bi&s;hops that extended their power for forty miles &s;pace or more, over many hundred Presbyters, and over many hundred thou&s;and of per&s;ons, whom they never &s;aw? I be|&s;eech you name us &s;uch Bi&s;hops in the three or four fir&s;t Centuries, el&s;e you know what Bi&s;hops do not an&s;wer. I have read in a Learn|ed Author, that in <HI>Augu&s;tines</HI> time, there were in <HI>one</HI> Province under <HI>Carthage,</HI> of the <HI>Catholicks</HI> and <HI>Donati&s;ts,</HI> above nine hun|dred Bi&s;hops, the Author &s;ums up how many of each; &s;urely the&s;e Bi&s;hops did not extend their power much further than &s;ome great Pari&s;hes in &s;ome Countreys
<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Suppo&s;e <HI>Lan|ca&s;hire.</HI></NOTE>, or &s;ome &s;uch Towns as <HI>Ip&s;wich, Bri&s;tol, Colchester,</HI> &amp;c. If you will have &s;uch Bi&s;hops, and give them no more power than Chri&s;t hath given them, for <HI>Order &s;ake</HI> I will yield to them, and give them the <HI>Honour,</HI> and if more maintenance be conferred upon them by the King, than other Presbyters who joyn with them, I &s;hall be very willing and glad of it. So that I am not again&s;t an Imparity in <HI>honour</HI> nor <HI>mainte|nance,</HI> neither would I be in <HI>power</HI> and <HI>office,</HI> if Chri&s;t had given more to them than others.</P>
<P>As to the <HI>Second,</HI> I do honour the <HI>Fathers</HI> in their places. 1. <HI>Scri|pture.</HI> 2. <HI>Sound Rea&s;on.</HI> 3. <HI>Fathers</HI> or Antiquity.</P>
<P>But yet I cannot yield that St. <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Ignatius,</HI> St. <HI>Peter</HI> and <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome,</HI> &s;hould be of equal authority; I am &s;ure you make them but very little different, if any thing le&s;s, as will appear af|ter.</P>
<P>I am not a man ver&s;ed in the Fathers as others are, yet &s;ome of them (the mo&s;t ancient) I have read, and in them I find &s;o ma|ny &s;trange humane mixtures in the Wor&s;hip of God, that I can|not yield to this con&s;equence, <HI>The Fathers &s;ay it, or did it,</HI> ergo, <HI>It
<PB N="4" REF="7">is lawful:</HI> Much le&s;s in this controver&s;ie, finding what the holy Gho&s;t hath foretold of an Antichri&s;t that &s;hould ari&s;e, whom out Godly Bi&s;hops before, and Learned <HI>Whitaker,</HI> with others, have thought and proved to be the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> though Dr. <HI>Ham|mond</HI> and our latter Epi&s;copal Divines, will not have it &s;o: <HI>We fear, we fear,</HI> &amp;c. [What a pitiful interpretation hath D. <HI>Hum.</HI> made of 2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 2. and &s;o of &s;everal places of the <HI>Revelation,</HI> to the end the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> might be &s;pared.] But following worthy Bi&s;hops, and the Learned and holy Divines, in their judgment of that Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> I am not &s;o much carried with the &s;ayings not practi&s;es of the&s;e ancient Bi&s;hops in this point, for there mu&s;t be &s;ome preparation made to his ri&s;ing into that u&s;urped Chair, he came not there <HI>per&s;altum.</HI></P>
<P>To the&s;e Divines let me propound the&s;e que&s;tions.</P>
<P N="1">1. <MILESTONE UNIT="Quest."> Whether are not the Holy Scriptures the <HI>perfect</HI> and <HI>only</HI> Rule for our Faith and Manners? Are they not able to Make a <HI>man of God</HI> (a Mini&s;ter) <HI>perfect?</HI> 2 Tim. 3 17. If they be, I be|&s;eech you let us give more honour to them in the&s;e Controver|&s;ies.</P>
<P N="2">2. Were tho&s;e Fathers and Churches you &s;o much mention, &s;o guided, that they could not, or did not erre? Were not the holy Scriptures a Rule to them as well as to us? Erre they did in &s;ome points I am &s;ure.</P>
<P N="3">3. Will the Lord judge us at that great day by the&s;e <HI>Fathers?</HI> Will it be a &s;ufficient an&s;wer to give the Lord, if we &s;in in &s;etting up <HI>Humane Inventions</HI> in his Wor&s;hip, to &s;ay, Lord, <HI>thus the Fa|thers &s;aid, thus they did;</HI> Dare you &s;ay it is &s;ufficient to excu&s;e us?</P>
<P>I be&s;eech you then, Reverend Brethren, Why do you pre&s;s us &s;o much with the&s;e men, and with Antiquities, and not &s;tick to pure Antiquity, the <HI>holy Scriptures:</HI> Ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI> (whom I &s;o much honour and love of all the Fathers) knew how to value <HI>Cyprian</HI> enough,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Aug. tom.</HI> 7. <HI>pag.</HI> 240.390 <HI>F<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">b.</HI></NOTE> but when <HI>Cre&s;conius</HI> or other <HI>Donati&s;ts,</HI> would bring any thing out of him, to prove what <HI>Augu&s;tin</HI> judged an er|rour, he knew how to &s;et the Scri<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tures and Apo&s;tles above him. So doth <HI>Cyprian</HI> &s;harply &s;peak again&s;t tho&s;e who brought <HI>Tradition</HI> for their proof; <HI>qua i&s;ta obstinatio, qua pre&s;umptio, humanam tra|ditionem divine di&s;po&s;it&icirc;oni anteponere, &amp;c? &V;nde i&s;ta traditio? &V;trumne de dominica &amp; evangelica auctoritate de&s;cendens,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ep</HI> 74.</NOTE> &amp;c? So
<PB N="5" REF="7"><HI>Tertullian. Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de two infert. Bellar|mine</HI> &s;aith enough, <HI>Patrum &s;cripta non &s;unt regula, nec habent autho|ritatem obligandi.</HI></P>
<P>To the Scriptures then let us go, which &s;peak &s;o clear in this controver&s;ie, that all men, even the Papi&s;ts, who call tho&s;e men <HI>Hereticks,</HI> that deny this &s;uperiority of Bi&s;hops, yet are forced to yield it, that in the Apo&s;tles time, the <HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> and <HI>Presbyter</HI> were the &s;ame. Let <HI>Cajetan's</HI> interpretation be heard, upon <HI>Tit.</HI> 1.5, 7. <HI>&V;bi adverte eundem gradum, idemqu&egrave; officium &s;ignificari &agrave; Paulo, nomine Presbyteri &amp; nomine Epi&s;copi;</HI> as cro&s;s to Bi&s;hop <HI>Davenant</HI> as can be, <HI>An&s;elm</HI> the Archbi&s;hop of <HI>Canterbury,</HI> in his Com|ment upon the &s;ame ver&s;es, brings all <HI>Hierons</HI> Comment, where he proves Bi&s;hops and Presbyters to be the &s;ame, and no way op|po&s;eth it. <HI>E&s;tius,</HI> who in the beginning of his Di&s;putation, calls them Hereticks, who will not yield the &s;uperiority of Bi&s;hops, and that <HI>jure divino,</HI> in the mid&s;t of his Di&s;putation, hath the&s;e words, <HI>Quod autem jure divin<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;int Epi&s;copi Presbyteris &s;uperiores,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Senten. l.</HI> 4. <HI>d.</HI> 24. <HI>S.</HI> 25.</NOTE> et&s;i non ita clarum e&s;t &egrave; &s;aoris literis, aliunde ramen &s;atis efficaciter probari pote&s;t; probatur tam ratione, qu&agrave;m te&s;timoniis veterum.</HI> It &s;eems then the Scriptures are not clear enough to prove this &s;uperiority, in his opinion; and which is divinely &s;poken, though he could not prove the <HI>divine right</HI> of this Superiority out of the Scriptures, yet he would prove it by rea&s;on and te&s;timonies of Ancients: Had a Presbyterian written thus, he &s;hould have been &s;corned to pur|po&s;e.</P>
<P>Take the Papi&s;ts again, in their <HI>I. C. di&s;t.</HI> 60. <HI>Sacres Ordines dicimus, Diaconatum &amp; Pre&s;byteratum, hos enim&s;olos primitiva legitur habui&s;&s;e Eccle&s;ia.</HI> According to the&s;e then, your Antiqui|ty for Epi&s;copacy mu&s;t not go &s;o high as the Primitive Church. One more Papi&s;t, and I have done with them: I find <HI>Greg. de Valen.</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De Sacr. Ord. di&s;p.</HI> 9. <HI>q.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 2.</NOTE> quoting of <HI>Michael Medina</HI> (one of their own) affirming that <HI>Hierem,</HI> and all the Fathers he had named before, which were <HI>Angu&s;tin, Ambro&s;e, Chry&s;o&s;tom, Prima&s;ius, Theophylact</HI> and <HI>Otcumenius, fui&s;&s;e plan&egrave; in errore</HI> Acrii, but the Church did not condemn this errour in them, but bare with them, becau&s;e they were otherwi&s;e orthodox, but did condemn it in <HI>Acrius,</HI> being otherwi&s;e <HI>in multis nominibus hareticus.</HI> Then it &s;eems <HI>Acrius,</HI> who was again&s;t this Superiority by divine right, had the&s;e wor|thy men in that point to agree with him, in <HI>Medina's</HI> judgment,
<PB N="6" REF="8" MS="y">with whom <HI>Valentia</HI> is not plea&s;ed.</P>
<P>To conclude (as to Te&s;timonies) Learned and Sober <HI>Jewel,</HI> (a Jewel indeed) in his <HI>defence</HI> again&s;t <HI>Harding,</HI> p. 101, 202. quoting te&s;timonies out of <HI>Hierom, Ambro&s;e, Augu&s;tin,</HI> concludes that <HI>by the Scriptures of God, a Bi&s;hop and Pre&s;byter are all one:</HI> thus this Reverend Bi&s;hop. I wonder the&s;e Te&s;timonies ground|ed al&s;o on Scripture, could not moderate our Brethrens heat in this controver&s;ie. We hope Presbyterial Ordination will not be &s;o contemptible at la&s;t.</P>
<P>I have but one thing to add; and it is con&s;iderable, the <HI>Syri|ack</HI> Tran&s;lation, which is &s;o ancient, that in time it came near the Original, and is thought by &s;ome to have been made in the time of the fir&s;t <HI>Antiochian</HI> Chri&s;tians, do not u&s;e two words, one for Bi&s;hop, and another for Presbyter, as our Tran&s;lation and the Greek, but it hath only the word which &s;ignifies a <HI>Presbyter,</HI> [un|le&s;&s;e in one place] <HI>Tit.</HI> 1.5, 7. For a <HI>Presbyter mu&s;t be blamele&s;s,</HI> So 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.1. <HI>If a man de&s;ire the Office of a Presbyter.</HI> V. 2. <HI>A Presbyter then mu&s;t be blamele&s;s.</HI> So in <HI>Phil.</HI> 1.1. <HI>With the Pres|byters and Deacons.</HI> In <HI>Acts</HI> 20.28. There it alters, the word is originally Greek, the &s;ame with <GAP DESC="foreign">, only it hath a <HI>Syriac</HI> termination, being <HI>Nomen plurale emphaticum in prima Declinati|one.</HI> In 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 2. <HI>ult.</HI> Where <HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> is referr'd to Chri&s;t, there it hath another word.</P>
<P>Now this to me carries &s;trong proof that this di&s;tinction of Bi|&s;hop and Presbyter, was unknown, when that Tran&s;lation was made, for there is not &s;o much as any different names, but Presbyter is the only word. Whether any have taken notice of this before, I know not.</P>
<P>And though &s;ome &s;ay, that it is a <HI>Trite Argument,</HI> that is drawn from the words Presbyter and Bi&s;hop, being u&s;ed promi&s;cu|ou&s;ly, yet it is &s;uch an Argument as hath &s;o much &s;trength in it, that it was never an&s;wered. We u&s;e to &s;ay that <HI>Nomina &s;unt re|rum notae &amp; &s;ymbola,</HI> whence if the &s;ame per&s;ons are called Presby|ters or Bi&s;hops, &s;urely their power cannot be di&s;tinct. Officers are known by their names, and di&s;tinct Officers by di&s;tinct names in &s;ome places in the Scripture, though in others they may have a general name common to others: Though <HI>Paul</HI> in one place calls him&s;elf a <HI>Mini&s;ter,</HI> and <HI>Peter</HI> an <HI>Elder,</HI> yet in other places we find they are called Apo&s;tles: So the Officers have their di&s;tinctions,
<PB N="7" REF="8"><HI>Apo&s;tles, Prophets, Evangeli&s;ts, Pa&s;tors</HI> and <HI>Teachers,</HI> Eph. 4.11. But Presbyter and Bi&s;hop are never thus differenced, no not in the Epi&s;tles to <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus,</HI> where of all places they &s;hould have been, if in tho&s;e Epi&s;tles the Apo&s;tle lay the foundation of Epi&s;copacy (as &s;ay our Brethren) but there they are the &s;ame, as is plain to &s;ee, and confe&s;&s;ed by the <HI>Fathers, Papi&s;ts</HI> and <HI>Prote|&s;tants.</HI> Yea and be&s;ides the &s;ame Names, what qualifications are required of one, are required of the other, the &s;ame work is en|joyned both, <HI>Acts</HI> 20.28. 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 5.1, 2. <GAP DESC="foreign">. The &s;ame <HI>Names,</HI> the &s;ame <HI>Qualifications,</HI> the &s;ame <HI>Charge,</HI> con|clude the &s;ame <HI>Function.</HI> How then Reverend <HI>Davenant</HI> comes to find this <HI>eminency of power</HI> to be given and confirmed by the Apo|&s;tles, let us now con&s;ider.</P>
<P>His fir&s;t Argument is taken from the Jewi&s;h Church, thus,
<MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="Arg."></P>
<P><HI>God appointed the High Prie&s;t &s;uperiour in authority over the Prie&s;ts, and the Prie&s;ts over the Levites:</HI> Ergo,</P>
<P><HI>The like order is to be &s;tabli&s;hed in the Chri&s;tian Church.</HI></P>
<P>To which I An&s;wer,</P>
<P N="1">1. There <HI>was</HI> and <HI>is</HI> &s;till &s;uperiority of Officers in the Chri&s;tian Church; there <HI>was</HI> when there were <HI>Apo&s;tles, Prophets,
<MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> Evange|li&s;ts, Pastors,</HI> &amp;c. there <HI>is now</HI> the Preaching Elder above the Ru|ling Elder, and the Ruling Elder above the Deacon. But he means among&s;t the Preaching Elders; then I an&s;wer,</P>
<P N="2">2. This Argument will better prove a <HI>&V;niver&s;al</HI> Bi&s;hop,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Bellar. de Rom. Pont l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 9.</NOTE> than a <HI>Dioce&s;an</HI> Bi&s;hop, and is u&s;ed by <HI>Bellarmine</HI> for the &s;ame purpo&s;e, it is his third rea&s;on; the Jewi&s;h Church had not hundreds of High Prie&s;ts that met at one time, as there hath been of Bi&s;hops in one Synod, &s;o that all the Catholick Church vi&s;ible mu&s;t have one Catholick Bi&s;hop, el&s;e his Argument is lo&s;t.</P>
<P N="3">3. The High Prie&s;t being properly a Type of Chri&s;t, the mo&s;t eminent Type, is not &s;ufficient to make an argument here.</P>
<P N="4">4. Why not as well <HI>one Temple,</HI> though many Synagogues, if he will needs argue from the Jews, but we have more than one Ca|thedral in Chri&s;tendom.</P>
<P N="5">5. Chri&s;t the Builder of that hou&s;e then, hath built his hou&s;e now under the Go&s;pel: Why &s;hould we look back to that old building which in this &s;en&s;e is pulled down. Ob&s;erve how diffe|rently
<PB N="8" REF="9">he builds, there he &s;et up no Officer, but all the Officers continued &s;o long as that polity continued, but here his chief Of|ficers were but for a &s;hort time, &s;o that you &s;ee he makes a va&s;t difference in the building. Al&s;o the Deacon was properly ap|pointed to &s;erve Tables, to regard the poor: Were there Dea|cons for the poor among&s;t the Jews?</P>
<P N="6">6. Had the Dr. mentioned the Heads of the 24 Orders of Prie&s;ts appointed by <HI>David,</HI> which &s;ome &s;ay, were called <GAP DESC="foreign">, the Hebrews called them <HI>Ro&s;he aboth,</HI> the chief of the Family, there had been more likelihood of an Argument, and it is likely we &s;hould have yielded as much now to the Mini&s;ters of the Go&s;pel, if we were certain what the Head of the Order had more than the other Prie&s;ts of that Order, which was not eminency of power and of|fice &s;ure enough.</P>
<P>His &s;econd Argument is taken from Chri&s;t in the new Te&s;tament,
<MILESTONE N="2" UNIT="Arg."> <HI>Who appointed Twelve Apostles, &s;uperiour not only in gifts, but in amplitude of Authority and Power to the Seventy Di&s;ciples, Now Bi&s;hops are the Succe&s;&s;ors of the Apo&s;tles, and Presbyters of the Se|venty.</HI></P>
<P>This Argument I &s;ee is much in&s;i&s;ted upon by others,
<MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> let us try the &s;trength of it. I An&s;wer,</P>
<P N="1">1. Had the Apo&s;tles &s;hewn any of that power and authority in the <HI>mi&s;&s;ion</HI> of the Seventy, there had been &s;ome probability in this Argument, but there was not the lea&s;t appearance of any &s;uch thing, the Seventy had their Mi&s;&s;ion as <HI>immediatly</HI> from Chri&s;t, as had the Apo&s;tles, they contributing nothing towards it. But our Bi&s;hops tell us, our <HI>&s;ending</HI> depends upon them, we can be no Presbyters without them, &s;o that they will be ten times more &s;u|periour than the Apo&s;tles.</P>
<P N="2">2. As there was no difference in their <HI>Mi&s;&s;ion,</HI> &s;o neither in their <HI>Commi&s;&s;ion.</HI> Read both their Commi&s;&s;ions and you find the &s;ame; <HI>Preach the Gospel, Heal the &s;ick, Cu&s;t out Devils</HI> &amp;c. Bi|&s;hops then and Presbyters have the &s;ame Commi&s;&s;ion and Mi&s;&s;ion: <HI>Agreed.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. That Bi&s;hops are the Succe&s;&s;ors of the Apo&s;tles, <HI>Bellarmine</HI> &s;aith but <HI>impropri&egrave;:</HI> Had the Dr. drawn his Argument into form, I think I &s;hould have found a Fallacy in the Syllogi&s;m. Limit he
<PB N="9" REF="9">mu&s;t; then tell us how he can prove the Apo&s;tles were &s;uperiour to the Seventy in the power of Ordination and Juri&s;diction, &s;o that the Seventy had not this Power: For if the Seventy had this pow|er al&s;o, we are well enough, but this he cannot prove: Be&s;ides, to &s;ay, though the Bi&s;hops be not the Succe&s;&s;ors of the Apo&s;tles in all things, yet they are in Ordination and Juri&s;diction, is but the begging of the que&s;tion.</P>
<P N="4">4. Bi&s;hops are the Succe&s;&s;ors of the Apo&s;tles, but let the Bi|&s;hop in the que&s;tion be <HI>Ens</HI> fir&s;t, which we cannot find in divine Writ.</P>
<P N="5">5. How proves he this, that Bi&s;hops are the Apo&s;tles Succe&s;|&s;ors, and Presbyters of the Seventy, and not of the Apo&s;tles? This is his proof, it is <HI>omnium fer&egrave; patrum con&s;tans doctrina.</HI> Had he &s;aid <HI>unius Apo&s;toli,</HI> it had prevailed much more with me. We are &s;eeking for <HI>jus divinum,</HI> but he mentions &s;ome Fathers, and tho&s;e not the mo&s;t ancient neither. But have none ofthe Fathers &s;aid that Presbyters are the Succe&s;&s;ors of the Apo&s;tles al&s;o? Hath <HI>Irenaeus</HI> nothing to that purpo&s;e? the two Je&s;uits <HI>Bellarm</HI> and <HI>Greg.
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Lib.</HI> 3. <HI>cap.</HI> 2. <HI>Lib.</HI> 4. <HI>cap.</HI> 23.</NOTE> de Val.</HI> are &s;o kind to us to tell us they have &s;aid &s;o.</P>
<P>I &s;ee the Dr. adds a Scripture at the bottom of the Paragraph, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.28, 29. But &s;urely this makes nothing to the proof of Epi&s;copal &s;ucce&s;&s;ion. <HI>Are all Apostles? are all Prophets? are all Teachers?</HI> I think this Text he brings will pluck up this Epi&s;co|pacy by the roots: <HI>God hath &s;et in his Church,</HI> Where &s;hall we find the Bi&s;hop in que&s;tion <HI>&s;et?</HI> not among the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> I hope, not among the <HI>Prophets,</HI> then it mu&s;t be among the <HI>Teachers,</HI> &s;o the Text, <HI>thirdly Teachers,</HI> but are not Presbyters <HI>Teachers?</HI> Well met honoured Dr.</P>
<P N="6">6. The Apo&s;tle <HI>Peter,</HI> 1 Ep. c 5. v. 1. Writing to the <HI>Presby|ters,</HI> calls him&s;elf a <HI>Presbyter:</HI> Had the Apo&s;tle written thus, <HI>The Bi&s;hops which are among you I exhort, whs al&s;o am a Bi&s;hop,</HI> this would have been cried up for an invincible Argument to prove that Bi&s;hops were the Apo&s;tles Succe&s;&s;ors, for he writes to Bi|&s;hops, and calls him&s;elf a Bi&s;hop. Gentlemen, give us fair play I be&s;eech you, the Argument is ours, to prove Presbyters are the Succe&s;&s;ors of <HI>Peter</HI> the Presbyter.</P>
<P>To &s;ay the Apo&s;tles and Seventy were extraordinary Officers, and &s;o we cannot draw any thing from them, there may be &s;om|thing in it, but I add no more.</P>
<PB N="10" REF="10">
<P>His third Argument is,
<MILESTONE N="3" UNIT="Arg."> <HI>The Apo&s;tles before they pa&s;&s;ed from earth to Heaven, did con&s;titute in great Cities one Bi&s;hop, &s;uperiour not on|ly over the Laicks, but al&s;o the Presbyters; as</HI> James <HI>in</HI> Jeru&s;alem, Timothy <HI>at</HI> Ephe&s;us, Titus <HI>in</HI> Creet, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>I hope he takes <HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> properly,
<MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> as we intend in the que&s;tion, el&s;e he deceives us. I An&s;wer,</P>
<P N="1">1. Why did not the Apo&s;tle <HI>Paul</HI> or &s;ome other Apo&s;tle con|&s;titute &s;uch a Bi&s;hop in <HI>Gorinth</HI> before his departure? I am &s;ure <HI>Corinth</HI> was none of the lea&s;t Cities: His Epi&s;tles to <HI>Corinth</HI> men|tion no &s;uch thing, and that is much if there were one. <HI>Paul</HI> wrote to them <HI>Anno</HI> 52, as <HI>Buchol.</HI> and <HI>Al&s;ted.</HI> Or about 54, as Dr. <HI>Hammond.</HI> When <HI>Clemens</HI> wrote his Epi&s;tle to them is un|certain, &s;aith Learned Mr. <HI>Young,</HI> but he &s;uppo&s;eth, not before his bani&s;hment, which was two years before his Martyrdom, and gives his rea&s;ons for his opinion; he &s;uffered Martyrdom in the third year of <HI>Trajan, Anno</HI> 103. &s;aith <HI>Sixtus Senen&s;is:</HI> Hence then almo&s;t fifty years pa&s;&s;ed between the Epi&s;tles of <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Cle|mens</HI> to the <HI>Corinthians, Clemens</HI> p. 8. mentions <HI>Pauls</HI> Martyr|dom, but in all his Epi&s;tle there is not one word to &s;hew that there was &s;uch a Bi&s;hop in his time, for in the winding up his Epi&s;tle, <HI>p.</HI> 73. he exhorts them, <GAP DESC="foreign">, it &s;hould have been <GAP DESC="foreign">, but not a word of &s;uch a Bi&s;hop, whom <HI>Clemens</HI> would not have forgotten had he been there. This Epi&s;tle is the mo&s;t pure piece of all Antiquity, next the Scriptures.</P>
<P N="2">2. Is the Dr. &s;ure that all tho&s;e he mentions were Bi&s;hops <HI>pro|pri&egrave; dicti,</HI> he &s;aith indeed afterward, <HI>p.</HI> 195. <HI>Certum e&s;t Timotheum, Titum, Jacobum, multosqu&egrave; alios propri&egrave; dictos Epi&s;copos fui&s;&s;e vi|ventibus Apo&s;tolis,</HI> &amp;c. yet adds in the conclu&s;ion, <HI>qua&s;i affixos.</HI> Well then <HI>certum e&s;t,</HI> but how I pray, <HI>certitudine fidei divinae?</HI> el&s;e 'tis not certain to us in this controver&s;ie, I regard not mens words without Scripture: but what mean the&s;e words <HI>qua&s;i affixos,</HI> this <HI>qua&s;i</HI> &s;poils the certainty, for if but <HI>qua&s;i affixi,</HI> they were but <HI>qua&s;i Epi&s;|copi,</HI> as I could &s;oon prove from the Scriptures, and the Canons of Councils.</P>
<P>I wonder the Dr. &s;hould &s;ay, that <HI>James</HI> was the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Je|ru&s;alem,</HI> and that <HI>propri&egrave; dictus.</HI> I &s;ee <HI>Lapide</HI> and <HI>Lorinus</HI> giving that the rea&s;on why <HI>James</HI> &s;pake next to <HI>Peter,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>James</HI> was Bi&s;hop of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> where the Council was held: But,</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="11" REF="10">1. He was an Apo&s;tle, one of the Pillars, <HI>Gal.</HI> 2.9. who&s;e &s;en|tence in this que&s;tion &s;wayed the Synod, but to have an Apo&s;tle a Bi&s;hop in our &s;en&s;e is &s;trange: Had the Dr. forgot that on this ground our Divines again&s;t the Papi&s;ts prove that <HI>Peter</HI> could not be Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> becau&s;e he was an Apo&s;tle, and &s;o not fixed.</P>
<P N="2">2. If <HI>James</HI> were a Bi&s;hop, why had he not his Title given him in <HI>Acts</HI> 15? For in <HI>v.</HI> 4, 6, 23. we have mention made of Apo&s;tles and Presbyters, but not a word of a Bi&s;hop, this is very far from this <HI>certainty:</HI> 'Tis certain indeed he was no Bi&s;hop.</P>
<P>As for <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus,</HI> there hath been a huge &s;tir about the&s;e: I have heard that Mr. <HI>Prin</HI> hath written a Treati&s;e, which he cals the <HI>unbi&s;hopping of Timothy and Titus,</HI> and that &s;o &s;trongly, that as none yet ever went about to an&s;wer him, &s;o none can: I could never &s;ee the Book, but refer the Reader to him. I &s;hall be the briefer.</P>
<P>I &s;ee &s;ome Divines prove that <HI>Paul</HI> did con&s;titute <HI>Timothy</HI> Bi|&s;hop of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> becau&s;e he &s;aid, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.3. <HI>As I be&s;ought thee to abide &s;till at</HI> Ephe&s;us. [Strange that a Bi&s;hop of a place &s;hould be <HI>be&s;ought</HI> to &s;tay in his Bi&s;hopprick.] And <HI>Titus</HI> becau&s;e he &s;aid, <HI>Chap.</HI> 1.5. <HI>For this cau&s;e I left thee in</HI> Crete. I pray ca&s;t the&s;e two Texts into Syllogi&s;ms, and let us &s;ee how invincibly <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus</HI> come out Bi&s;hops of tho&s;e places in the Conclu&s;ions. Could not <HI>Timothy</HI> &s;tay at <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> to oppo&s;e here&s;ies and ordain with others [or if not with others] Mini&s;ters, and <HI>Titus</HI> left at <HI>Crete,</HI> to do the &s;ame, but it mu&s;t follow nece&s;&s;arily, <HI>Ergo,</HI> they were con&s;titued fixed Bi&s;hops of tho&s;e places.</P>
<P><HI>But the Fathers &s;ay they were Bi&s;hops; that's a proof,</HI> not &s;ufficient to make <HI>jus divinum.</HI> The Papi&s;ts and Dr. <HI>Hammond</HI> &s;ay, they were <HI>Archbi&s;hops:</HI> both alike for truth.</P>
<P>Do the Fathers &s;peak properly when they &s;ay &s;o? It was the &s;aying of a great Bi&s;hop, that <HI>Hi&s;tories are not curious in calling men by their Ti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">les.</HI> Sure I am that <HI>Paul</HI> gives him another title, of which pre&s;ently.</P>
<P>If the Fathers did &s;o, might they not be deceived with the &s;ub|&s;criptions of the Epi&s;tles? which this Learned Dr. meddles not with, knowing they were not <HI>Canonical.</HI></P>
<P>Name I pray the mo&s;t ancient <HI>Fathers,</HI> and tell us if they call the&s;e &s;o in your &s;en&s;e. Sure I am that <HI>Ignatius</HI> cals <HI>Timothy</HI> a Dea|con,
<PB N="12" REF="11">and joynes <HI>Linus</HI> with him, <HI>Epi&s;t. ad Tral. p.</HI> 71.</P>
<P>But what if the <HI>Fathers</HI> call them &s;o, if I find &s;trong grounds in Holy Scripture to make me believe, they were of a higher order than ordinary Officers, if a hundred <HI>Fathers</HI> &s;ay they were ordinary Bi&s;hops, I regard them not. Searching the Scriptures, we find for <HI>Timothy,</HI> that,</P>
<P N="1">1. He is often joyned with <HI>Paul</HI> in the In&s;cription of his Epi&s;tles, as <HI>Phil.</HI> 1.1. <HI>Col.</HI> 1.1. 1. <HI>The&s;.</HI> 1. &amp; 2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 1. <HI>Philem.</HI> 1.</P>
<P N="2">2. We find him journeying with <HI>Paul,</HI> and &s;ent up and down by <HI>Paul.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. He is bidden to do the work of an <HI>Evangeli&s;t,</HI> 2 Tim. 4.5. Now though <GAP DESC="foreign"> is taken largely, yet, <GAP DESC="foreign">, which is u&s;ed but thrice in the New Te&s;tament, is never taken but for a peculiar Officer. He was one of tho&s;e <HI>Paul</HI> mentions <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.11. To confine the word <HI>Evangeli&s;ts</HI> to tho&s;e who wrote the <HI>Go&s;pels,</HI> is ab&s;urd: <HI>Matthew</HI> and <HI>John</HI> I hope were Apo&s;tles, and <HI>Philip</HI> was an Evangeli&s;t, <HI>Acts</HI> 21.8. yet wrote no Go&s;pel. If he were no Evangeli&s;t, but bidden to do the work of one this is &s;trange; an inferiour order do the work of a &s;uperiour: However I hope by this Presbyters may ordain as well, though they be of an inferiour Order. But if <HI>Timothy</HI> mu&s;t do the work of an Evangeli&s;t, he mu&s;t not fixe at <HI>Ephe&s;us.</HI></P>
<P>No more fixed at <HI>Crete</HI> was <HI>Titus,</HI> though for a time left at <HI>Crete.</HI> In 2. <HI>Cor.</HI> 8.23. <HI>Paul</HI> cals him his <GAP DESC="foreign">, and his <GAP DESC="foreign">, words &s;utable to an Evangeli&s;t, &s;ent up and down by <HI>Paul,</HI> as we may ob&s;erve in the Epi&s;tles, and journeying with <HI>Paul.</HI> After he was at <HI>Crete, Paul</HI> &s;ends to him to <HI>Nicopolis, Tit.</HI> 3.12. which was &s;ix hundred miles di&s;tant from <HI>Crete,</HI> as <HI>Bunting</HI> &s;aith, <HI>p.</HI> 566. How long he &s;tayed with him, or whither he went next, I find not. But towards the end of <HI>Pauls</HI> life, 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.10, 11. he was at <HI>Rome</HI> with <HI>Paul,</HI> and by <HI>Paul</HI> &s;ent to preach in <HI>Dalmatia,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Lapide.</HI> How the&s;e things &s;ute with a Bi&s;hop in our &s;en&s;e I know not: Hence <HI>Junius, Zanchy, Polanus, Beza, Calvin, Diodati,</HI> and the <HI>Lutherans</HI> conclude him to be an Evangeli&s;t.</P>
<P>As for Evangeli&s;ts, <HI>En&s;ebius</HI> will give us &s;ome light to un|der&s;tand them, <HI>Eccle&s;. Hi&s;t. lib.</HI> 3. <HI>cap.</HI> 37. He &s;peaks of divers then, <Q>who obtained the fir&s;t &s;tep of Apo&s;tolical &s;ucce&s;&s;ion, and being as divine Di&s;ciples of the chief and principal men, builded the Churches every where planted by the Apo&s;tles, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Taking their
<PB N="13" REF="11">journey fulfilled the work and office of <HI>Evangeli&s;ts, that is,</HI> they preached Chri&s;t unto them, which as yet heard not of the Do|ctrine of Faith: The&s;e men having planted the Faith in &s;undry new and &s;trange places, ordained there other Pa&s;tors, commit|ting unto them the tillage of the new ground, pa&s;&s;ing them&s;elves unto other people and Countries, being holpen thereunto by the Grace of God, which wrought with them; for as yet by the power of the Holy Gho&s;t they wrought miraculou&s;ly, &s;o that in|numerable multitude of men embraced the Religion of the Al|mighty, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></Q> Thus <HI>Eu&s;ebius.</HI> If this de&s;cription of Evangeli&s;ts &s;ute any, doth it not <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus,</HI> who were indeed divine Di&s;ci|ples of <HI>Paul,</HI> a principal man, &s;ent up and down by him; and if the&s;e <HI>wrought miraculou&s;ly,</HI> mu&s;t it be denied of <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus:</HI> as for the gift of Tongues, that was al&s;o needful, for men travelling and preaching in &s;o many &s;everal Countreys.</P>
<P>I <HI>find &s;ome forced to yield they were Evangeli&s;ts at fir&s;t, but after|wards were made Bi&s;hops of the&s;e places.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. Was the being made a <HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> a degree above an <HI>Evangeli&s;t,</HI>
<MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> was an ordinary Officer above an extraordinary Officer? then &s;ome truth may be in this. I find <HI>Concil. Sard. Can.</HI> 13. that the Bi&s;hop mu&s;t a&s;cend through all degrees <HI>ad culmen Epi&s;copatus,</HI> but what, mu&s;t &s;uch eminent men de&s;cend, be degraded, when as <HI>Ti|mothy</HI> al&s;o had a <HI>Prophe&s;ie</HI> concerning him, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.18? believe this who will.</P>
<P N="2">2. Was there need of the&s;e men to be Evangeli&s;ts in <HI>Pauls</HI> life time, and not as much after? Did the Seducers and Wolves cea&s;e or decline when <HI>Paul</HI> was gone? <HI>Acts</HI> 20.29. Surely there was more need of being Evangeli&s;ts now than before.</P>
<P N="3">3. After that time, when you &s;ay they were made Bi&s;hops, we find them &s;ent up and down by <HI>Paul.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. If &s;o, <HI>Titus</HI> had an advantage or honour above <HI>Timothy,</HI> to be made Bi&s;hop of an Iland of 270 miles long, 50 miles in breadth, a hundred Cities (whence called <HI>Hecatompolis</HI>) and not only &s;o, but Bi&s;hop of the Ilands adjacent, and <HI>Timothy</HI> to be made Bi&s;hop of one City <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> and it may be &s;ome Villages about there. But Dr. <HI>Hammond</HI> [if he &s;peak truth] will be too hard for me, he tels me <HI>Timothy</HI> was <HI>Metropolitan</HI> of <HI>A&s;ia:</HI> Then <HI>Timothy</HI> is equal; but take Metropolitan in our &s;en&s;e (el&s;e he &s;aith nothing) as we call &s;uch Bi&s;hops, you may believe him, who think him to
<PB N="14" REF="12">be one who could not erre.</P>
<P>But 3. Suppo&s;e they had been con&s;tituted thus, yet he hath not proved that they were inve&s;ted with power to do &s;uch Acts which Presbyters might not do; which he doth afterwards a&s;&s;ert indeed, how &s;trongly he proves, I will con&s;ider.</P>
<P>For the <HI>Angel</HI> in <HI>Rev.</HI> 2. what force is there in this to prove &s;uch a Bi&s;hop, I know not, though taken <HI>individually:</HI> Are not all Mini&s;ters (truly &s;uch) <HI>&s;ent?</HI> then they are <HI>Angels</HI> I think, <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.15.</P>
<P><HI>But this is Angel,
<MILESTONE UNIT="Object."> onely One.</HI></P>
<P>When our King &s;ent his Letters from <HI>Breda,</HI>
<MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> to the <HI>Speaker of the Hou&s;e of Commons,</HI> did it imply the <HI>Speaker</HI> had more power than other Members? When Chri&s;t &s;ends his Letters to this <HI>Angel,</HI> doth it imply more power? The Speaker is there for <HI>Order-&s;ake,</HI> and it is <HI>honour</HI> to him <HI>&amp;c.</HI> So if you be men &s;ound in the Faith, holy in your Conver&s;ations, Learned and able, fit for the place, I can allow you an Angel of the Church in <HI>London,</HI> in <HI>Ip&s;wich,</HI> in <HI>Exeter,</HI> &amp;c. So in the Countrey, you &s;hall have the Honour and Maintenance, to be our <HI>Speakers;</HI> I have declared my Opinion and Rea&s;ons for this before this turn came; if you will have more, win it by Scripture, and wear it.</P>
<P>Thus I have done with all his Arguments for the <HI>jus divinum;</HI> only I might mind him, that Bi&s;hop <HI>Jewel</HI> and <HI>An&s;elm,</HI> do &s;ub|&s;cribe to that of <HI>Jerom, Let Bi&s;hops understand that they are above Prie&s;ts, rather of custom, than of any truth or right of Chri&s;ts In&s;titu|tion:</HI> And to that of <HI>Augu&s;tine, The Office of a Bi&s;hop is above the Office of a Prie&s;t,</HI> not by authority of the Scriptures, but <HI>after the names of honour, which the cu&s;tom of the Church hath now obtained.</HI> I hope it will &s;till be &s;aid, fifteen hundred years Bi&s;hops have been &s;uperiour by Divine right. How did <HI>Jeroms</HI> and <HI>Augu&s;tins</HI> &s;en|tence e&s;cape the <HI>Index expurgatorius?</HI></P>
<P>Then the Dr. comes to the <HI>In&s;ignia Epi&s;coporum propria.</HI> Let us &s;ee if he prove the&s;e al&s;o by the Apo&s;tles.</P>
<P>His fir&s;t is this;</P>
<P><HI>That in large and populous Cities, in which were many Presbyters made, the Apo&s;tles ordained</HI> one only <HI>Bi&s;hop.</HI></P>
<P>For the Bi&s;hop in the que&s;tion,
<MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> the Apo&s;tles were &s;o far from ordaining <HI>unicum,</HI> that they ordained <HI>ne unum;</HI> not one Scripture or &s;ound rea&s;on brought to prove it</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="15" REF="12">2. That the Apo&s;tles did ordain but one <HI>Scripture-Bi&s;hop</HI> in a great City, is an a&s;&s;ertion point-blanck again&s;t the Scriptures, which &s;hew the contrary. Let <HI>Jerom</HI> &s;peak; &s;ome &s;ay he was angry, and I know not what, but the Scriptures he produces were not,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide Chemnit. exan. Concil Trid. de Sacr. ord.</HI> p. 224.</NOTE> [<HI>Chemnitius</HI> gives us a better ground for his writing] but thus <HI>Je|rom, Doth any one think it is our own opinion, and not the &s;entence of the Scriptures that a Bi&s;hop &amp; a Presbyter are one? Let him read</HI> Phil. 1.1. <HI>With the Bi&s;hops and Deacons. Philippi is one City of Macedonia, and certainly as Bi&s;hops are now called, there cannot be more than one in one City, but then there were.
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>non adver&s;atur &s;acris eloquiis plures in una civitate appel|lari tunc tempo|ris Presbyteros &s;eu Epi&s;copos, ut</HI> Acts 10.</NOTE> Doth it &s;till &s;eem doubtful unle&s;&s;e it be confirmed by another te&s;timony,</HI> then take <HI>Acts</HI> 20.17, He calls them Elders. <HI>v.</HI> 28. calls them Bi&s;hops. <HI>Ob&s;erve diligently, the Elders of one City he cals Bi&s;hops,</HI> then adds, <HI>Heb.</HI> 13.17. Thus he in <HI>Tit.</HI> 1. When in his <HI>Epi&s;t. ad Evagr.</HI> he had been proving the Identity of Bi&s;hop and Presbyter, from <HI>Phil.</HI> 1. <HI>Tim.</HI> 4. <HI>Tit.</HI> 1. <HI>Pet.</HI> 5. He &s;aith to him, <HI>Parva tibi videntur tantorum virorum Te&s;timonia?</HI> To us the&s;e te&s;timonies are not &s;mall, but more than if a thou&s;and Bi&s;hops &s;ay the contrary. What <HI>Jerom</HI> &s;aith,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cajetan.</HI> Tit. 1.5.</NOTE> <HI>po&s;tea nuns electus,</HI> we regard not, being after the Apo&s;tles, and yet then not &s;uperiour in power; that crept in by degrees.</P>
<P>His Second is, <HI>The Right and Power of Ordination, which is de|nied to inferiour Presbyters,</HI> 1. Tim. 5.22. Tit. 1.5.</P>
<P N="1">1. He hath not &s;hewn us &s;uch a Bi&s;hop as he &s;peaks of,
<MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> as yet in all the Scripture; how then can this be true?</P>
<P N="2">2. If denied to Presbyters, then to Bi&s;hops al&s;o: for they were both one in the&s;e Epi&s;tles to <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus. &V;nde &amp; ad Titum &amp; ad Timotheum de ordinatione Epi&s;copi &amp; Diaconi dicitur:
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Hieron. ad E vagr.</NOTE> de Presbyteris omnino reticetur, quia in Epi&s;copo &amp; Presbyter conti|netur,</HI> Hieron, ad Evagr.</P>
<P N="3">3. Was not <HI>Timothy</HI> him&s;elf ordained by a Presbytery? 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.14. How then was it denied? The laying on of <HI>Pauls</HI> hands did not de|ny the laying on their hands.</P>
<P N="4">4. According to this, <HI>One</HI> Bi&s;hop alone may ordain, which as it is, 1. Contrary to the In&s;tance before in <HI>Timothies</HI> Ordination. So, 2. Contrary to the <HI>Canon</HI> 3. <HI>Concil Carthag.</HI> 4. Where no Bi&s;hop alone mu&s;t impo&s;e, but Presbyters with him. 3. And contrary to the 35 <HI>Canon</HI> of our <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> Bi&s;hops. Whence Dr. <HI>Featly</HI> in his <HI>Annotat.</HI> on 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.14. &s;aith, <Q><HI>Timothy</HI> though he were ordained by St. <HI>Paul,</HI> 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.6. yet this Ordination
<PB N="16" REF="13">was performed in the A&s;&s;embly of the Elders, and with the lay|ing on of their hands al&s;o: agreeable whereunto is the Canon of the fourth Council of <HI>Carthage,</HI> and the practi&s;e of the Church of <HI>England:</HI></Q> So he. 4. Contrary to <HI>Cyprians</HI> practi&s;e, <HI>Ep.</HI> 33. Al&s;o what means the Con&s;titution of <HI>&V;rban? Ordinationes factae &s;ine communi &s;en&s;u clericorum, irritae,</HI> Take al&s;o the 22 <HI>Canon</HI> of the <HI>Council of Carthage,</HI> before-named; <HI>&V;t Epi&s;copus &s;ine con&s;ilio clericorum &s;uorum clericos non ordinet,</HI> &amp;c. Now what is meant by <HI>con|&s;ilium,</HI> the 3 <HI>Canon</HI> &s;hews: <HI>All the Presbyters pre&s;ent were to impo&s;e hands with the Bi&s;hop.</HI> Much it is, that when we cannot find the Apo&s;tles did ordain <HI>alone, Paul</HI> had the Apo&s;tle <HI>Barnabas</HI> with him, <HI>Acts</HI> 14.23. that now a &s;ingle Bi&s;hop can ordain alone. The Dr. forgat him&s;elf much, but this power of Ordination and Juri&s;dicti|on he had need to prove to re&s;ide as he &s;aith, <HI>in illis &s;olis,</HI> el&s;e he hath lo&s;t his cau&s;e: But &s;ee how much authority he oppo&s;eth; what woful mi&s;chief might this &s;oon produce to the Church?</P>
<P N="5">5. It may as &s;trongly be gathered, that to <HI>preach in &s;ea&s;on and out of &s;ea&s;on</HI> [as do all Bi&s;hops] to <HI>meditate,</HI> to <HI>read,</HI> to <HI>oppo&s;e</HI> he|reticks, <HI>&amp;c,</HI> do only belong to Bi&s;hops, becau&s;e the&s;e Commands are given (the fir&s;t I am &s;ure) <HI>only</HI> to <HI>Timothy;</HI> as to gather, be|cau&s;e <HI>Timothy</HI> is directed in Ordination how to act, that therefore Presbyters mu&s;t not impo&s;e hands: Why this proper to him above all the re&s;t?</P>
<P N="6">6. Con&s;ider I pray, that which is added, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.22. <HI>Neither be partakers of other mens &s;ins,</HI> whether it may not infer the contra|ry thus, <HI>Timothy, though other Ministers may be ra&s;h, and not con|&s;ider what they do in Ordination, but would ordain unfit, unworthy per&s;ons, yet do not thou lay on hanas &s;uddenly, do not thou partake of their &s;ins, in ra&s;h Ordinations, joyning with them.</HI> A man may par|take of the &s;ins of <HI>Ordainers,</HI> as well as of the <HI>Ordained.</HI> I know nothing contrary to the Analogy of Faith, nor to the Context, if that &s;en&s;e be given.</P>
<P>Why &s;aith the Dr. <HI>Could not the Mini&s;ters of Ephe&s;us ordain be|fore Timothy arrived, or of Crete before Titus came thither?</HI></P>
<P>I cannot learn but <HI>Titus</HI> went along with <HI>Paul</HI> to <HI>Crete</HI> the fir&s;t time of his preaching there,
<MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> and having laid the Foundations of Churches, as <HI>Jerom</HI> &s;aith, left <HI>Titus</HI> there <HI>ut rudimenta na&s;centis Eccle&s;iae confirmaret, ip&s;e pergens ad alias Nationes,</HI> &amp;c. But how|ever,</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="17" REF="13">1. There is a difference between the arrival of Evangeli&s;ts and the Bi&s;hops in que&s;tion.</P>
<P N="2">2. There being abundance of enemies and errours &s;pread about, as we &s;ee, it was the very rea&s;on why <HI>Paul</HI> be&s;ought <HI>Timothy</HI> to &s;tay at <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> 1 Tim. 1.3. The&s;e men being &s;o able and qualified above others, might very well there be le&s;t for a time, as to op|po&s;e the here&s;ies and errours, &s;o to look to the Mini&s;try, that none but &s;ound and able men came into it: but becau&s;e the&s;e be|ing Evangeli&s;ts, were far more able, does it conclude the Presby|ters had not the <HI>Right</HI> to ordain with them?</P>
<P N="3">3. Remember, that <HI>Cajetan</HI> confe&s;&s;eth even in the&s;e Epi&s;tles, Presbyter and Bi&s;hop &s;ignifie the <HI>&s;ame degree</HI> and the <HI>&s;ame of|fice.</HI> Had not the Churches been in danger, <HI>Timothy</HI> had not need been there, &s;o this denies not their power.</P>
<P>The Dr. goes on to prove this &s;ole power of Ordination from humane Authority.</P>
<P N="1">1. From that Saying of <HI>Jerome, Excepta Ordinatione quid facit Epi&s;copus quod Pre&s;byter non faciat?</HI>
<MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."></P>
<P><HI>Jerom</HI> &s;peaks <HI>de facto,</HI> the Bi&s;hops had engro&s;&s;ed this power, but he does not &s;ay <HI>de jure,</HI> it ought to be &s;o, for he had &s;trongly proved the Bi&s;hop and Presbyter from &s;everal Scriptures to be the &s;ame.</P>
<P N="2">2. It &s;hould &s;eem it was not a univer&s;al Cu&s;tom: For it was one great complaint again&s;t <HI>Chry&s;ostom</HI> (&s;aith Bi&s;h. <HI>Downam</HI>) that he made Ordinations without the Presbytery: And in the year 398, about which time <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> flouri&s;hed, that fourth Council of <HI>Carthage,</HI> which oppo&s;eth Bi&s;hops &s;ole power of Ordination, was held. However this is but humane.</P>
<P N="2">2. He brings in the example of one <HI>Colythus</HI> a Presbyter of <HI>Alexandria, who ordained Presbyters, but their Ordination was made void, and the Ordained returned into the Order of Laicks.</HI></P>
<P>Still this is but a humane Act grounded on no Scripture,
<MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> and yet there is &s;omthing more to be &s;aid about this. For,</P>
<P N="1">1. I find this <HI>Colythus</HI> is reckoned among the Hereticks by <HI>Au|gu&s;tine</HI> and others. One of his Opinions <HI>Augu&s;tin</HI> mentions, but what more he held I know not.</P>
<P N="2">2. He was a man <HI>infamis ambitione,</HI> &s;ay the <HI>Hi&s;torians,</HI> and would make him&s;elf a Bi&s;hop, as the Epi&s;tle of the Presbyters of <HI>Mareotis,</HI> in the &s;ame <HI>Apol.</HI> of <HI>Athana&s;</HI> intimates, whence they call
<PB N="18" REF="14">him <HI>non verum &s;ed imaginarium epi&s;copum;</HI> whence the general Council commanded, <HI>ut &s;e pro Presbytero haberat, qualis antea fu|i&s;&s;et.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. It appears in both places of <HI>Athana&s;ins</HI> that this <HI>Colythus</HI> or|dained <HI>alone,</HI> there are none mentioned that joyned with him.</P>
<P N="4">4. That <HI>I&s;chyras</HI> who was ordained by <HI>Colythus,</HI> and about whom there was &s;o much trouble, was not cho&s;en of a Church; for &s;o the words, <GAP DESC="foreign">, p. 570.</P>
<P>Now for a <HI>Heretick, alone, ambitiou&s;ly making him&s;elf a Bi&s;hop.</HI> to ordain a per&s;on <HI>not elected by a Church,</HI> is not the &s;ame with five Orthodox Presbyters, ordaining a Presbyter elected by a true Church.</P>
<P>The Dr. before he hath done, does allow this which is &s;o pro|per to Bi&s;hops, to be common to Presbyters in &s;ome ca&s;es, then it &s;eems, the power may be ours, and whether our ca&s;e be not as weighty, I will con&s;ider anon.</P>
<P>The Third and la&s;t is, <HI>The power of Juri&s;diction over both Laick<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> and Presbyters: and in&s;tanceth in Excommunication.</HI></P>
<P><HI>He will allow indeed Presbyters to be con&s;ulted with from</HI> Cyprians <HI>example</HI> [he might have added the 23 <HI>Canon Concil. Carthag.</HI> 4. which make el&s;e <HI>Sententia Epi&s;copi irrita</HI>] but <HI>for the cen&s;ure, this proceeds only from Epi&s;copal Authority.</HI></P>
<P>Hence then Presbyters have not the power of Excommunicati|on, nor are <HI>Judges</HI> in it, &s;o he &s;aith.</P>
<P N="2">2. A Bi&s;hop <HI>alone</HI> may excommunicate Presbyters.</P>
<P>For the fir&s;t, Presbyters have the power of Excommunica|tion.</P>
<P N="1">1. Why el&s;e are they called Pa&s;tors and Rulers, <HI>Heb.</HI> 13.17. and the people commanded to obey them; they mu&s;t feed the flock, and <GAP DESC="foreign">, 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 5.1. So 1 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 5.12. They are over them in the Lord.</P>
<P N="2">2. There was no Bi&s;hop in <HI>Corinth</HI> when <HI>Paul</HI> wrote to have the ince&s;tuous per&s;on ca&s;t out, yet they had the power of Excom|munication, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.7, 12, 13. <HI>purge, judge, put away.</HI> Had they done it before, <HI>Paul</HI> would not have written &s;o &s;harply.</P>
<P N="3">3. Tho&s;e who have the power of the Keyes have the power of Juri&s;diction: but Presbyters have the power of the Keyes; not denied by the Papi&s;ts,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Sent. l.</HI> 4. <HI>di&s;.</HI> 18. <HI>S.</HI> 14.</NOTE> but affirmed, in&s;omuch that <HI>E&s;tius</HI> moves this Que&s;tion; <HI>&V;trum Sacerdotes &s;oli habent pote&s;tatem excommu|nicandi?</HI>
<PB N="19" REF="14">and tels us &s;ome were of that opinion. Now by <HI>&s;oli<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> E&s;tius</HI> does not mean, whether they alone without a Bi&s;hop: For the que&s;tion he is about, is this, <HI>Penes quos &s;it excommunicandi pote&s;tas?</HI> and his &s;cope is to prove, that others <HI>be&s;ides Prie&s;ts</HI> have the power, but for the Prie&s;ts, that is taken for granted, that they had the power, and quotes 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.5, 13. And <HI>Augu&s;tine,</HI> l. 3. <HI>contra Epi&s;t. Parmen.</HI> c. 2. <HI>Aquinas</HI> he al&s;o tels us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Supplem. q.</HI> 22. <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</HI> 1.</NOTE> that &s;ome were of that opinion, that <HI>the Parochial Prie&s;ts might excommu|nicate;</HI> but thinks his own opinion to be more rational, that the Bi&s;hop &s;hould do it, had his di&s;tinction a foundation in Scri|pture.</P>
<P N="4">4. Tho&s;e that have power to take into the Church, have pow|er to ca&s;t out of the Church: Are the Keyes given to Pa&s;tors to turn them but one way? Ridiculous.</P>
<P N="5">5. How does this agree with <HI>Jerom</HI> before quoted, <HI>excepta Or|dinatione,</HI> &amp;c. It &s;eems Juri&s;diction was not excepted, when they had engro&s;&s;ed Ordination, Presbyters had that power, and <HI>at fir&s;t the Churches were governed by the common advice of the Presby|ters,</HI> thus he, <HI>Tit.</HI> 1.</P>
<P N="6">6. The Prie&s;ts had that power not only to di&s;cern between Le|pers and Lepers, but as they could judge, they could &s;eparate them from the Camp of <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> which did &s;hadow out our excom|munication.</P>
<P N="7">7. It &s;eems very &s;trange, that when a Pa&s;tor who hath taught (it may be baptized) a per&s;on, and now fallen into &s;in, the Church and he have dealt with that per&s;on according to rule, that now the Church mu&s;t go to a Bi&s;hop to excommunicate this per&s;on, to whom yet he never bare relation: How came this Bi&s;hop to have power over this Church, which he never &s;aw it may be? But let Dr. <HI>Fulks</HI> &s;peak. <HI>It is manife&s;t that the Authority of binding and loo&s;ing, committing and retaining, pertaineth generally to all the Apo&s;tles alike, and to</HI> every Pa&s;tor <HI>in his Cure, An&s;w.</HI> to <HI>Rhem.</HI> 2 Cor. 2.</P>
<P>Bi&s;hop <HI>Jewel, Reply</HI> p. 178. quotes <HI>Ba&s;il,</HI> &s;peaking thus, Chri&s;t ap|pointed <HI>Peter</HI> to be the Pa&s;tor of the Church after him, and &s;o con|&s;equently gave the &s;ame power unto all Pa&s;tots and Doctors: A Token whereof is this, that <HI>all Pa&s;tors do equally both bind and loo&s;e as well as he,</HI> So <HI>Ba&s;il.</HI></P>
<P N="8">8. In &s;uch Cities as <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> &amp;c. where the Church was one,
<PB N="20" REF="15">and divers Elders in common governed that Church, let the <GAP DESC="foreign"> pronounce the &s;entence of excommunication, I deny it not.</P>
<P>For his Proofs, becau&s;e <HI>Timothy mu&s;t charge &s;ome that they teach no other Doctrine,</HI> 1 Tim. 1.3. So <HI>Tit.</HI> 1.11. <HI>Mouths mu&s;t be stop|ped.</HI></P>
<P>But I be&s;eech you what is there in this more than Presbyters might do, who govern the Church in common? that <HI>&s;topping</HI> may be meant partly, if not chiefly there by Argument, <HI>convince gain&s;ayers,</HI> v. 9. I mu&s;t confe&s;s I cannot &s;ee the Logick of this Argument; though it doth prove Juri&s;diction, does it prove Pres|byters have not the power? I thought he would have quoted 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.19. But becau&s;e he doth not, I let it alone.</P>
<P><HI>His next is, the Angel of Pergamus and Thiatira, blamed</HI> Rev. 2. for &s;uffering of <HI>Jezebel,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P N="1">1. <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> Does this exclude the other Presbyters? What mean tho&s;e words, <GAP DESC="foreign">, v. 24. <HI>But to you I &s;ay.</HI> If the King writes to the <HI>Speaker,</HI> and reproves &s;omthing ami&s;s, or complains &s;omthing is not done, does it lay the blame on him only, and not on the Members of the Hou&s;e as well?</P>
<P N="2">2. Suppo&s;e the&s;e Angels had been guilty of &s;ins for which them|&s;elves had de&s;erved excommunication, who &s;hould have ca&s;t them out? Are they Lords Paramount above all Chri&s;ts Laws in his Church? I know not but the other Presbyters with the con&s;ent of the Chur|ches, obeying their Presbyters, might have ca&s;t the&s;e Angels out, or no way that I know of. The Scriptures know no Archbi&s;hops, though the Papi&s;ts and Dr. <HI>Hammond</HI> do.</P>
<P>But to have one Bi&s;hop alone excommunicate Presbyters, this would make as brave work as we have known before the wars begun. Let the <GAP DESC="foreign"> with the Presbyters, excommunicate a Presbyter, the Church con&s;enting.</P>
<P>Thus far the Dr. goeth, and then undertakes to an&s;wer our Arguments, but becau&s;e I &s;ee nothing is there &s;aid which I have not &s;poken to before, and I am loath to exceed in this di&s;cour&s;e, I &s;hall only take notice of what he &s;aith in his An&s;wer to the third Objection, where he tels us the nece&s;&s;ity of Bi&s;hops in the&s;e re|&s;pects.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>To ordain Ministers, le&s;t the Evangelical Ministry &s;hould fail.</HI></P>
<PB N="21" REF="15">
<P>Cannot this evil be prevented by Presbyters as well?
<MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> Are not divers thou&s;ands of Presbyters in <HI>England</HI> more likely to keep up a &s;ucce&s;&s;ion of Mini&s;ters in <HI>England,</HI> than 24 Bi&s;hops, of whom, how few now were left? Had the &s;ucce&s;&s;ion of Mini&s;ters de|pended upon them, in what a &s;ad ca&s;e had the Church been?</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>For the Governing of Presbyters, le&s;t by their impure manners, here&s;ies and &s;chi&s;mes, they &s;hould de&s;troy the Church.</HI></P>
<P>And are not Bi&s;hops equally liable to the&s;e?
<MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> How &s;hall the Church now be &s;aved? May we not read with our eyes in Hi&s;tories, and hear with our ears what Bi&s;hops have been? Have we not &s;een the excellency of this Government in <HI>England?</HI> as to the impure manners of Mini&s;ters being corrected: Is it not a <HI>Cordoli|um</HI> to the godly in <HI>England</HI> to have &s;o many who were ju&s;tly ca&s;t out for <HI>&s;candal</HI> by the Parliament [though &s;ome were wronged I know, and do as much dete&s;t their ejectment] to return again, not one whit purged that we can fee?</P>
<P N="2">2. For <HI>Here&s;ie</HI> and <HI>&s;chi&s;m.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. We know what <HI>Bellarmine</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Certe Here&s;iarchae fer&egrave; om|nes aut Epi&s;copi, aut Presbyteri fuerunt;</HI> and from the&s;e Here&s;ies ri&s;e <HI>Factions</HI> among the people, &s;aith he, &s;o that Bi&s;hops are as deep in the mire for <HI>here&s;ie</HI> and cau&s;ing <HI>&s;chi&s;m,</HI> as the Presbyters. Hence he will have a Pope; but that Monarchical Government hath not cured <HI>Schi&s;m</HI> we know, much le&s;s Here&s;ie.</P>
<P N="2">2. As for <HI>Here&s;ie</HI> and <HI>Schi&s;m</HI> both, name any National Church under Heaven more free from them, than the Church of <HI>Scotland,</HI> before the&s;e troubles began, and yet there Bi&s;hops are not appro|ved of.</P>
<P N="3">3. For <HI>Schi&s;m,</HI> read but the life of <HI>Con&s;tantine,</HI> and there &s;ee whether Bi&s;hops were not guilty of Schi&s;m, and the <HI>Concil. Tola|ta</HI> 1. was called upon &s;ome Schi&s;m among the Bi&s;hops.</P>
<P N="4">4. We &s;ay that <HI>Rome</HI> is guilty of the Schi&s;m between us and them, becau&s;e <HI>Rome</HI> gave the cau&s;e: I leave the Reader to en|quire who gave the fir&s;t cau&s;e of the Schi&s;ms now in <HI>Eng|land.</HI></P>
<P N="5">5. Why then did not <HI>Paul</HI> appoint a Bi&s;hop in <HI>Corinth,</HI> when Schi&s;m was there, both in his time, and <HI>Clemens</HI> his time, but <HI>Clemens</HI> mentions none: <HI>Jerom</HI> &s;aith indeed, that upon the&s;e Schi&s;ms Bi&s;hops were &s;et up <HI>afterwards.</HI> [I write not his known word] <HI>po&s;ted:</HI> But it is much that the&s;e ends of a Bi&s;hop, which
<PB N="22" REF="16">are &s;o great for the good of the Church, and it &s;eems can be per|formed by none but him, &s;hould not be fore&s;een by Chri&s;t at fir&s;t, and &s;o this Bi&s;hop at fir&s;t appointed; but the ordinary main Stud of Chri&s;ts Hou&s;e &s;hould be forgot to be &s;et up, till many years af|ter the Hou&s;e was up. Sure this means was none of his, and &s;o it proves.</P>
<P N="6">6. How can the Bi&s;hop be a fit means to cure Schi&s;m or prevent it? I know no way but this, that Presbyters mu&s;t re&s;ign all their judgments up to his Chair, and he infallibly determine, which is right or wrong, and &s;o all mu&s;t yield to his &s;entence. This were brave indeed.</P>
<P N="7">7. Let our King withdraw his tender and healing hand, and his power from a&s;&s;i&s;ting Bi&s;hops, &amp; let us now &s;ee how the Bi&s;hops will &s;hew forth that wonderful vertue of Epi&s;copacy in healing our Schi&s;ms: I doubt our King who is, as <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> &s;aid of him&s;elf, the Bi&s;hop <HI>extra Eccle&s;iam,</HI> mu&s;t be the great healer, under God, of our Schi&s;ms, el&s;e the Bi&s;hops within the Church will make them much wor&s;e, but never heal I am &s;ure by all power Epi&s;copal. If the Keyes of the <HI>Gate-hou&s;e</HI> and other Pri&s;ons be at their command, then they may do more with tho&s;e Keyes than their Epi&s;copal Keyes. Yet I think Pri&s;ons will hardly heal us.</P>
<P N="8">8. There was an hone&s;t way found out how to cure wrangling, &s;chi&s;matical Bi&s;hops; and the &s;ame cure is proper and very apt for Schi&s;matical Presbyters, <HI>Concil. Carthag.</HI> 4. <HI>Can.</HI> 25. <HI>Di&s;&s;identes epi&s;copos &s;i non timor Dei, Synodus reconciliet:</HI> A more apt means than a Bi&s;hop, becau&s;e that is Apo&s;tolical.</P>
<P>To wind up all my Di&s;cour&s;e concerning this Epi&s;copacy, which the Dr. hath a&s;&s;erted, &amp; now commended as nece&s;&s;ary again&s;t <HI>Schi&s;m,</HI> I will only give the Reader the judgment of <HI>Mu&s;culus</HI> upon the que&s;tion, how effectual it is towards the cure. After he had pro|ved, <HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> and <HI>Pre&s;byter</HI> to be the &s;ame by Scripture, then he comes to give the original of the Bi&s;hop out of <HI>Jorom,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Loc. com. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</HI> 195.</NOTE> and thus he writes; <HI>Verum po&s;t Apo&s;tolorum tempora, cum inter &s;eniores Ec|cle&s;iarum, &s;icuti Hieronymo placet, di&s;&s;entiones &amp; &s;chi&s;mata &s;ubna&s;|cerentur, &amp; ut mihi vere &s;imile e&s;t, tentatio illa de majoritate mentes &s;eniorum, pa&s;torum at doctorum invaderet, paulatim capit de numero &s;eniorum unus aliquis eligi, qui reliquis praeponeretur, &amp; in &s;ublimiori gradu po&s;itus, Epi&s;copus nominaretur: atque ita quod caeteri antea com|muniter ip&s;e &s;olus ac &s;ingulariter vocaretur. Profueritus vel &s;eous hoc
<PB N="23" REF="16">con&s;ilium Eccle&s;i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Christi, quo tales &s;int Epi&s;copi, magis con&s;uetudine, ut</HI> Hieronymi <HI>verbis utar, quam Dominioa di&s;po&s;itionis veritate introducti, qui majores o&s;&s;ent Pre&s;byteris, melius e&s;t po&s;terioribus &s;eculis deelaratum, quam dum haec con&s;uetudo primum introduceretur, cui debe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">us omnem illam principalium &amp; eque&s;trium Epi&s;coporum in&s;ole<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tiam, opulentiam, &amp; tyrannidem, imo omnium Eccle&s;iarum Chri&s;ti corruptione<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, quam &s;i</HI> Hier. <HI>cerneret, dubio procul con&s;ilium agno&s;ceret non Spiritus Sancti ad tollenda Schi&s;mata, &s;icuti praetexebatur, &s;ed ip&s;ius Satanae, ad va&s;tanda &amp; perdenda pri&s;ca pa&s;cendi Dominici gregis mini&s;teria; quo fieret ut haberet Eccle&s;ia, non veros Pa&s;tores, Doctores Pre&s;byteros &amp; Epi&s;copos, &s;ed &s;ub <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ominum i&s;torum larvis oci<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;os ventres ac magnificos Principes, qui non modo non pa&s;cant ip&s;i populum Domini doctrina &s;ana &amp; Apo&s;tolica, &s;ed &amp; improbi&s;&s;ima violentia caveant ne id per quenquam <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">lium fiat,</HI> &amp;c. I am far from applying this to all our Bi&s;hops; no verily, This Learned <HI>Davenant, Hall, Brownrig;</HI> I do much reverence their names now dead and gone, and no man upon earth have I &s;o much honoured as that Archbi&s;hop <HI>U&s;her;</HI> but what talk I of him? he was in all Re&s;pects, for Learning, &s;oundne&s;&s;e in the Faith, Humility, and Holine&s;&s;e, a <HI>None-&s;uch:</HI> In what an ill time (as to us) was he taken away! but God is wi&s;e.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. II. <HI>Of Pre&s;byterial Ordination.</HI></HEAD>
<P>VVHether that which made the greate&s;t Argument again&s;t our Presbyterial Ordination be not taken away, I leave to the Chri&s;tian Reader, who makes the Holy Scriptures his Rule to judge by. Now then for a few Arguments to prove, <HI>The validity of Pre&s;byterial Ordination.</HI></P>
<P>The&s;e two Propo&s;itions, however denied by &s;ome, yet I pre&s;ume they will be granted by the&s;e &s;corners of our Presbyterial Ordination.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. That Ordination is &s;till an Ordinance of God, in force in the Church; and &s;o &s;hall be while there is a Mini&s;try.</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. That it is an Act of Authority, and can be performed by none but by tho&s;e who are in Authority in the Church.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>Hence then I thus argue,
<Q>Scripture Ordination is valid Ordination:
<MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="Arg."> But Presbyterial
<PB N="24" REF="17">Ordination is Scriptural Ordination; <HI>Ergo.</HI> Deny the <HI>major</HI> who dare: The <HI>minor</HI> I thus prove;</Q></P>
<P>That Ordination which is performed by per&s;ons inve&s;ted with the power thereof by Scripture Authority, is Scriptural Ordination: But Presbyterial Ordination is Ordination performed by Per&s;ons inve&s;ted with the power thereof by Scripture authority. <HI>Ergo.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Minor,</HI> If the Scripture hath now inve&s;ted any others with the power of Ordination, they are per&s;ons either of an Inferiour or Superiour Order, But neither: <HI>Ergo.</HI> Not Inferiour is granted, not Superiour, the whole Di&s;cour&s;e before proves, by the judgment of the Scriptures, and many agreeing thereto; Presbyter and Bi&s;hop are the &s;ame.</P>
<P>Objection, <HI>Presbyters are no where commanded to ordain.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;wer,</HI> Prove that your Bi&s;hops are: and I will prove my Presbyters are.</P>
<P N="2">2. Where are Presbyters commanded to Admini&s;ter the Lords Supper, or Baptize? Finde that Command; and I will finde other Authoritative Acts in it. I doubt not our Authority de&s;cends from that Command and Commi&s;&s;ion to the Apo&s;tles <HI>Matth.</HI> 28. What|ever Acts are requi&s;ite to encrea&s;e, to edifie, or continue the Church, we have the Authority by Succe&s;&s;ion; and &s;o are Pa&s;tors and Rulers.</P>
<Q>II.
<MILESTONE N="2" UNIT="Arg."> That Ordination which is performed by per&s;ons which have the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven committed to them, that is valid Ordination.</Q>
<P>But Presbyterial Ordination is performed by &s;uch,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Nomine clavi|um &s;igni&s;ic. tur omnis pote&s;tas Eccle&s;iallica.</HI> Suppl. cham. <HI>lib.</HI> 4. <HI>chap.</HI> 4.</NOTE> <HI>Ergo.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Major,</HI> The Keyes of the Kingdome do contain in them the power of Ordination, &s;aith <HI>Cor. &agrave; Lapide, Chemnitius Bucer,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>Minor,</HI> Though the Pope, Bi&s;hops and Presbyters contend for the Keyes, yet that Presbyters have the Keys committed to them, is confe&s;&s;ed by the Papi&s;ts.</P>
<P>Objection, <HI>The Key of Knowledg.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;wer.</HI> I proved before the Key of Juri&s;diction. I adde, That Di&s;tribution of the Keyes which is not grounded on the Scripture is a vain Di&s;tribution, (as we &s;ay) <HI>Di&s;tinguendum e&s;t ubi Scriptura di&s;tinguit: Sic di&s;tribuendum e&s;t, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>But this di&s;tribution of the Keyes, &s;o as to give but the <HI>Key of Knowledge</HI> to the Presbyter, is not grounded on Scripture; <HI>Ergo,</HI> It is vain.</P>
<P><HI>To thee do I give the Keyes,</HI> &s;aid our Lord; he did not civide the
<PB N="25" REF="17">Keyes, give one <HI>key</HI> to one, and both to another, he gives no &s;ingle <HI>key</HI> to any per&s;on, but <HI>keyes,</HI> and &s;o whatever tho&s;e Keys &s;erve for: <HI>Bu&s;il</HI> and Dr. <HI>Fulk</HI> &s;peak fully for the Keys of juri&s;diction belonging to all Pa&s;tors, then the Key of Order as well.</P>
<Q>III. <HI>Timothies</HI> Ordination was valid Ordination,
<MILESTONE N="3" UNIT="Arg."> but <HI>Timothies</HI> Ordination was Presbyterial Ordination, <HI>Ergo.</HI></Q>
<P><HI>Laying on of the hands of the Pre&s;byterie,</HI> 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.14. Again&s;t this is objected;</P>
<Q>1. <HI>Paul did impo&s;e his hands in Timothies Ordination, and that was &s;ufficient without the Pre&s;bytery.</HI></Q>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. <HI>Diodati</HI> conceives, That by <HI>Pauls</HI> hands the miraculous <HI>gift</HI> was conveyed; by the Presbytery <HI>Timothy</HI> was in&s;talled in the Mini&s;try. See him on 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.6. I have &s;poken to this in another Treati&s;e.</P>
<P N="2">2. However the Presbytery impo&s;ed hands, they had a power to do the work, el&s;e <HI>Paul</HI> would no have called them to it, <HI>Paul</HI> did not ordain <HI>Timothy, quatenus</HI> Apo&s;tle; then your Bi&s;hop is gone.</P>
<P N="3">3. In re&s;pect of the Pre&s;ident, and perpetual Order which was to be left to the Church of Chri&s;t, it was nece&s;&s;ary that the Presbytery &s;hould impo&s;e their hands. <HI>Nec tantum dicit mearum manuum,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Exam. Conc. Trid. de Sacra. ord. p.</HI> 226.</NOTE> &s;ed addit etiam Pre&s;byterii,</HI> 1 Tim. 4. <HI>ne exi&s;timetur di&s;crimen e&s;&s;e, &s;ive ab Apo&s;tolis, &s;ive &agrave; Pre&s;byteriis quis ordinetur</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Chemnitius.</HI></P>
<Q>Object. 2. <HI>But who knows what Pre&s;byters the&s;e were? Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> &s;aith <HI>Bi&s;hops.</HI></Q>
<P><HI>An&s;wer,</HI> So &s;aith <HI>Lorinus, Intelligit chorum Pre&s;byterorum,</HI> i. e. <HI>Epi&s;coporum:</HI> Be it &s;o; for now I am &s;ure Presbyters and Bi&s;hops were the &s;ame. Some &s;ay, It was the Presbytery of <HI>Ephe&s;us,;</HI> if they could prove this it were to the purpo&s;e indeed. <HI>Junius</HI> &s;aith, the Presbytery of <HI>Lystra,</HI> whence <HI>Paul</HI> took him. What Presbyters are, we know by the Scripture, and <HI>Pre&s;byterium</HI> is a company of Presbyters, as <HI>Lorinus</HI> &s;aid: If it plea&s;e you not, I pray teach us better. The <HI>Rhemi&s;ts</HI> render the word <HI>Prie&s;thood,</HI> and quote the 3^d Canon, <HI>Concil. Carth.</HI> 4. before named, to open it by: This is more for us again&s;t <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome:</HI> Thus al&s;o <HI>Cajetan, Dicit pluraliter manuum Pre&s;byterii, fort&egrave; ad &s;ignificandum plurium</HI> Sacerdotum <HI>concur&s;um.</HI> &amp;c. This Presbytery impo&s;ing hands on <HI>Timothy</HI> was no doubt the ground of <HI>Cyprians</HI> practice, &s;o of that Canon in the Council of <HI>Carthage,</HI> and of our Bi&s;hops Canons,
<PB N="26" REF="18">whence I wonder, any rational man &s;hould &s;o &s;corn Presby|terial Ordination.</P>
<P>Object. <HI>But there was</HI> Pauls <HI>Impo&s;ition, and &s;o there was the Bi|&s;hops Impo&s;ition, but not Presbyters alone.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> As for <HI>Paul,</HI> the an&s;wer to the fir&s;t Objection will &s;atisfie: For the Bi&s;hop, true he was there, but how came he there? <HI>Jerome</HI> tells us, and we have rea&s;on to believe him, becau&s;e he groundeth his di&s;cour&s;e upon the Scriptures. However the Bi&s;hop did not &s;uperadd any thing to the perfection of the Ordinance, he put forth no more power than the other Presbyters, only for Order|&s;ake he carried on the work: So had we our <GAP DESC="foreign"> in our A&s;&s;ocia|tion, who was &s;o, and &s;hould have continued &s;o <HI>dur ante vit&acirc;</HI> for me: But as in the ab&s;ence of a Bi&s;hop, the &s;ufftagan might &s;upply his room, &s;o as well in the ab&s;ence of our Pre&s;ident another might &s;upply his, being e&s;pecially cho&s;en, and earne&s;tly de&s;ired by his fel|low Presbyters to do it.</P>
<Q>IV.
<MILESTONE N="4" UNIT="Arg."> If Prophets and Teachers may &s;eparate Apo&s;tles to their work by Fa&s;ting, Prayer, and Impo&s;ition of hands, then may Presbyters ordain Presbyters, and that Ordination is valid; but the Antecedent is true, <HI>Acts</HI> 13.1, 2, 3. <HI>Ergo.</HI></Q>
<P>Teachers are inferiour to Prophets, and all preaching Presbyters I hope are <HI>Teachers,</HI> but the&s;e impo&s;ed hands, the Prophets were inferiour to Apo&s;tles.</P>
<P>Object. <HI>But this was not Ordination.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I have &s;poken to this in another Treati&s;e more largely: but I could name (and have named there) &s;everal of the Fathers, Lutherans, and Calvini&s;ts, who &s;ay it was Ordination; and for the Papi&s;ts, divers of tho&s;e I could mention, who call it Ordination.</P>
<P>If it was not Ordination, I pray what was it? We find <HI>Barnabas</HI> after this Act is called an <HI>Apo&s;tle, Acts</HI> 14.14. but &s;o he was never before, he was at the highe&s;t but a <HI>Prophet,</HI> as the Text declares. So <HI>Jerom,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Catal. Script. Keele&s;.</NOTE> &s;peaking of <HI>Barnahas,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. It was a <HI>&s;eparation</HI> to a work, and what do you more in Or|dination than is here &s;et down? But I &s;peak no more of it in this place, becau&s;e (as I &s;aid) I have done it before.</P>
<Q>V.
<MILESTONE N="5" UNIT="Arg."> Tho&s;e who have Authority to perform the greate&s;t mini&s;te|rial Acts, they have power to perform the le&s;s.</Q>
<P>But Prebyters have Authority to perform the greate&s;t. <HI>Ergo.</HI></P>
<P>For the <HI>Major,</HI> tho&s;e who will deny it, give us a &s;ound and con|vincing
<PB N="27" REF="18">rea&s;on why they do &s;o, I cannot imagine one, <HI>&agrave; majore ad minus valet con&s;equentia</HI> in this ca&s;e &s;ure.</P>
<P>For the <HI>Minor:</HI> When <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aith, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.17. Chri&s;t did not &s;end him to baptize, but <HI>to preach the Gespel,</HI> &s;urely <HI>Paul</HI> mentioned the highe&s;t Mini&s;terial Act; el&s;e <HI>Paul</HI> mu&s;t &s;ay, not to baptize, nor to preach, <HI>but to ordain Mini&s;ters.</HI> Reverend <HI>Davenant</HI> &s;aith,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Pag. 194.</NOTE> that <HI>in rebus maximi momenti ad &s;alutem hominum,</HI> Presbyters have power as well as Bi&s;hops, and therefore the name, <HI>Bi&s;hop,</HI> may well agree to them, &s;aith he, why not then <HI>in rebus minoris momenti?</HI> I wi&s;h he had given a &s;ound rea&s;on for it; it &s;eems they can do tho&s;e Acts which tend to the <HI>end</HI> of the Mini&s;try mainly and principally, and not the le&s;&s;er; What rational man can &s;wallow this? If <HI>Abi|lity</HI> be the que&s;tion, I think the Presbyters have &s;hewn enough to an&s;wer it. Compare Epi&s;copal Ordinations and Presbyterial, where did the Maje&s;ty of Gods Ordinance appear mo&s;t? And as for the <HI>Or|dained</HI> by them, compare them with others and &s;ee if not able for the work.</P>
<P>I will adde two or three Arguments <HI>ad homi nem.</HI></P>
<Q>VI. If Ordination by Bi&s;hops be valid,
<MILESTONE N="6" UNIT="Arg."> then ordination by Presbyters is valid: but you &s;uppo&s;e the fir&s;t is true, and we wi&s;h you had proved it more &s;ufficiently, that our-people might not have &s;eparated from us upon that account.</Q>
<P>The con&s;equence I prove thus:</P>
<P N="1">1. For Presbyters we are &s;ure they are the Officers of Chri&s;t, but for your Bi&s;hops, e&s;pecially &s;uch as are in <HI>England,</HI> extending their power (as I &s;aid in the beginning) after that manner &s;o va&s;tly, I dare &s;ay <HI>qu&acirc; tales,</HI> they are none of Chri&s;ts Officers, nor, as they take to them&s;elves a power above other Mini&s;ters.</P>
<P N="2">2. Take Bi&s;hops in the faire&s;t &s;ence, &s;o Bi&s;hops and Presbyters are of the &s;ame <HI>Order:</HI> If of the &s;ame Order, then Presbyters Or|dination is as valid as the Bi&s;hops.</P>
<P>That they are of the &s;ame Order, Learned <HI>Davenant</HI> doth, in the beginning of his Determination, name <HI>Gulielmus Pari&s;ien&s;is, Ger|&s;on,</HI> and <HI>Durandus</HI> among the Papi&s;ts affirming it; to which, as a further confirmation, I may add that &s;aying of <HI>Ambro&s;e,</HI> on 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3. <HI>Po&s;t Epi&s;copum tamen Diaconatus Ordinationem &s;ubject; quare? Ni&s;i quia Epi&s;copi &amp; Presbyteri una Ordinatio e&s;t, uterque enim Sacerdos e&s;t:</HI> for that he adds, <HI>Epi&s;copus e&s;t qui inter Presbyte|ros primus e&s;t.</HI> I &s;hall not &s;tick at that, &s;till they are the fame Or|der.
<PB N="28" REF="19">For the Con&s;equence, I borrow this <HI>only</HI> out of Mr. <HI>Baxter,</HI> who &s;aith, he had it from Bi&s;hop <HI>U&s;her,</HI> to prove Ordination by meer Presbyters, without a Prelate, is valid, for <HI>ad ordinem pertinet ordinare.</HI></P>
<Q>VII.
<MILESTONE N="7" UNIT="Arg."> Ordination by Presbyters in ca&s;e of nece&s;&s;ity is valid: So &s;aith learned <HI>Davenant,</HI> 191. But</Q>
<P>The Ordination by Presbyters now was in a ca&s;e of nece&s;&s;ity.</P>
<P>The <HI>Minor:</HI> 1. Bi&s;hops were now put down by Authority. 2. So|lemn Covenant again&s;t them (in part) taken, being impo&s;ed by Authority. 3. Bi&s;hops dared not to Ordain openly, why not we as much afraid to go to them? 4. The eye of the State not &s;o favoura|ble upon tho&s;e who were ordained by them, and unle&s;s we were &s;a|tis&s;ied they were Officers of Chri&s;t, we had no rea&s;on to hazard our &s;elves for them. 5. We could not tell where to have them. 6. And how many were corruption Doctrine. 7. And what divers had been in per&s;ecution we know; &s;o that we had no rea&s;on to feek to &s;uch. 8. Be&s;ides, the State &s;et up Presbyterial Ordination. 9. Suc|ce&s;&s;ion of Mini&s;ters mu&s;t be continued.</P>
<Q>VIII.
<MILESTONE N="8" UNIT="Arg."> That Ordination which by the mo&s;t learned and godly, Epi&s;copall men is judged valid, cannot be denied by others to be invalid, without great defect of mode&s;ty, and humility, Unle&s;s they have good Scripture again&s;t it, which be &s;ure they have not. But thus have a Presbyterial Ordination been judged by the mo&s;t Learned, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> as by that flower of all Epi&s;|copal men, Bi&s;hop <HI>U&s;her;</HI> &s;o all our Bi&s;hops, and Epi&s;copal men, who have a&s;&s;erted the Mini&s;try of other Churches where no Bi&s;hops are, to be lawful and valid.</Q>
<P>And to go yet a little higher to Antiquity: tho&s;e places in <HI>Au|gu&s;tine</HI>
<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg"><HI>Tom.</HI> 4. <HI>p.</HI> 780 <HI>Fro.</HI></NOTE> and <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI>
<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Ephe&s;. 4.</NOTE> are well known, both of them &s;peak to the &s;ame purpo&s;e: <HI>Nam in Alexandria &amp; per totam Aegyptum &s;i de&s;it Epi&s;copus, con&s;ecrat Presbyter,</HI> &s;o &s;aith <HI>Augu&s;tine. Con&s;ignant Presby|teri &s;i prae&s;ens non &s;it Epi&s;copus,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Ambro&s;e.</HI> Yea, it &s;eems, that this Ordination by Presbyters did trouble <HI>Durandus,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Sent. l.</HI> 4. <HI>Di&s;t.</HI> 24. <HI>q.</HI> 5.</NOTE> for &s;peaking to this que&s;tion. <HI>Utrum in Eccle&s;ia &s;it aliqua pote&s;t as major Sacerdo|tali?</HI> In point of Juri&s;diction he will allow the Bi&s;hop to be &s;upe|riour, but <HI>De pote&s;tate Con&s;ecrationis vel Ordinis e&s;t magnum dubium.</HI> By <HI>Jeroms</HI> Authority from the Scripture, and by a rea&s;on he brings him&s;elf, he could conclude Bi&s;hop and Prie&s;t in this point to be <HI>Pares,</HI> but that the Authority of the Church had determined it
<PB N="29" REF="19">otherwi&s;e; Thus the Church is above Scripture and Rei&s;on, ei&s;e <HI>Du|randus</HI> will own our Ordination.</P>
<P>I will conclude with the &s;aying of that learned Lutheran <HI>Ger|hard,</HI> who alloweth &s;ome Bi&s;hops:
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Loc com. de mi|ni&s;t. Eccle&s;. p.</HI> 261.</NOTE> <HI>Ex toto codice biblico ne apex quidom proferri potest, quo demon&s;tretur, immutabili quadam nece&s;&s;ita|te, a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters">ip&s;ius Dei Institutione pote&s;tatem ordinandi en modo competere Epi&s;copo, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t &s;i Mini&s;ter ab Epi&s;copo ordinetur, ejus vocatio &amp; ordinatio oen&s;eatur rata, &s;in &agrave; Presbytero, quod tunc irrita coram Deo, &amp; fru&s;tra|nea &s;it habenda.</HI></P>
<P>My Prayer is, <HI>Lord lead me not into temptation:</HI> But if it comes to this, that I mu&s;t renounce my Presbyterial Ordination and be ordained by a Bi&s;hop, or I mu&s;t be &s;ilenced, I &s;hall de&s;ire grace from the Lord, and re&s;olve to lay down my Mini&s;try, before I will my Ordination: for in being re-ordained by Bi&s;hops,</P>
<P N="1">1. I mu&s;t plainly condemn all Mini&s;ters of other Churches, who are ordained only by Presbyters: how abominable is this? To null all other Mini&s;ters that have not Epi&s;copal Ordina|tion.</P>
<P N="2">2. I mu&s;t e&s;tabli&s;h an officer in the Church which Chri&s;t never did, not his Apo&s;tles, yea, and this the chief Officer.</P>
<P N="3">3. Epi&s;copal Ordinations have other Appendices, of &s;ub&s;cri|ptions which the Lord deliver us from. I omit the &s;lightine&s;s of Bi&s;hops in their Ordinations, above that I have &s;een among Pres|byters.</P>
<P N="4">4. And with this I conclude: If they can prove us to be Here|ticks let them, el&s;e I give them the 67 <HI>Canon Apo&s;tol. Si quis Epi&s;|copus, aut Presbyter, aut Diaconus &s;ecundam ab aliquo ordinationem &s;u&s;ceperit, deponitor tam ip&s;e, qu&agrave;m qui ip&s;um Ordinavit.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. III. <HI>Concerning Impo&s;ed Forms of Prayer.</HI></HEAD>
<P>HOw different mens opinions are concerning Forms of Prayer their Tongues, Pens, and Practi&s;es declare. Some are carri|ed vehemently again&s;t them, and will own none but conceived Prayers, made by the Spirit; others are as high for Forms of Prayer, again&s;t conceived Prayer.
<GAP DESC="missing" EXTENT="2 pages"></P>
<PB N="32" REF="20">
<P> us his Scriptures, he could have conveyed all his minde to us by Tradition, who doubts it? But I may go &s;o farr, and de&s;ire you to &s;hew us, in the very next Churches to the Apo&s;tles, that &s;uch things were in u&s;e, in the wor&s;hip of God; and that tho&s;e Churches affirme, they had them from the Apo&s;tles by Tradition. What? neither Apo&s;tolical Writings, nor Apo&s;tolical Traditions: Whence came the&s;e then? not that I will build my Faith upon a Tradition.</P>
<P>When I read the&s;e words in <HI>Just. martyr,</HI> Apol. 2. <GAP DESC="foreign">, I thought, po&s;&s;ibly &s;ome body might lay hold upon them for our Common-Prayers; and not long after, I found them u&s;ed for that purpo&s;e by a Learned Doctor, But how do the&s;e words prove an <HI>Impo&s;ed form of Prayer:</HI> or, that they read them out of a Book: why he calls them <HI>common,</HI> the next words will give us a Rea&s;on, but they prove not the impo&s;ed forme: Be&s;ides, had he turned over the leaf, in the next Page he might have found, that the <GAP DESC="foreign"> did pray. <GAP DESC="foreign">, which if <HI>Langus</HI> had any skill to tran&s;late, is, <HI>quantum pro virili &s;ua pote&s;t. Tertullians</HI> words are commonly known, That they prayed <HI>&s;ine Monitore, Apol.</HI> c. 30. Then no Forms of Prayer were impo&s;ed.</P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI>
<MILESTONE N="2" UNIT="Arg."> If the grounds for impo&s;ing Forms of Prayer <HI>now</HI> were of as much or more force in the Apo&s;tles time, and yet they did not impo&s;e Forms of Prayer, then tho&s;e grounds are in&s;ufficient now, and &s;o the Act unwarrantable:</P>
<P>But the Grounds that now are alledged had as much, yea and &s;ome of them more force then, then now. <HI>Ergo.</HI></P>
<P>For the Antecedent name your Grounds, the main one that I hear, is <HI>Uniformity;</HI> but this was of much more force in the Apo&s;tles time; for they, travelling into <HI>Europe, A&s;ia, Africa,</HI> and planting of Churches in all the&s;e parts of the world, had they made &s;uch a Liturgie, and Forms of Prayer for the whole Catholique Church, there had been a <HI>Uniformity</HI> in all the Churches of the world; there &s;hould not have been &s;o many Liturgies as there is now, every Nation following their own, what abundance have been and are? Yea, but <HI>Paul</HI> wanted wi&s;dome, had he lived longer he might have learned from other men. Thus I wil carry all tho&s;e Arguments which the Scorners of conceived Prayer bring, and &s;hew they had as much force then as now: But had there been &s;uch form of Prayer in all the Churches, they would not all have been lo&s;t &s;ure enough, &s;ome would have been re&s;erved til now.</P>
<PB N="33" REF="20">
<P>One thing it may be will be alledged, <HI>Inability of men:</HI> But this &s;peaks ill; it &s;eems, neither the Apo&s;tles, nor Evangeli&s;ts would ordain tho&s;e to the Mini&s;try, who had not a gift of Prayer, it being as requi&s;ite as a gift of preaching.</P>
<P N="2">2. However that troubles not my Que&s;tion, for I &s;peak of impo&s;ing upon men gifted and able.</P>
<P>To &s;ay, <HI>The Churches were then newly planted;</HI> Therefore &s;ay I, the more need of Formes of Prayer, if needfull at all, and yet the Apo&s;tles lived many years after the Churches were planted, and did not impo&s;e or appoint Forms of Prayers.</P>
<Q>III.
<MILESTONE N="3" UNIT="Arg."> That Act which in great part doth fru&s;trate one fruit of Chri&s;ts A&s;cention is an unlawfull Act.</Q>
<P>But the impo&s;ing Forms of Prayer on men already qualified, is in great part a fru&s;trating of one fruit of Chri&s;ts A&s;cention, <HI>Ergo,</HI> it is unlawfull.</P>
<P>The <HI>major</HI> I think cannot be denied:</P>
<P>The <HI>minor;</HI> One fruit of his A&s;cen&s;ion was <HI>to give gifts to men,</HI> Ephe&s;. 4.8. and as Gifts for Apo&s;tles, &s;o for <HI>Pa&s;tors</HI> and <HI>Teachers,</HI> ver&s;. 11. among which Gifts, I am &s;ure <HI>Prayer</HI> is one; and this Gift, as he hath be&s;towed it variou&s;ly, &s;o he bath eminently, upon &s;ome men, and without pride it may be &s;poken (for it is a gift, <HI>ergo</HI> free) as eminently upon the Engli&s;h Mini&s;try, as any now this day in the world: But the impo&s;ing of Formes of Prayers doth fru&s;trate this gift of Chri&s;t; for they are thereby hindered from the exerci&s;e of it; there needed no gifts to have been conferred, but upon tho&s;e wh<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> compo&s;e the Formes of Prayer.</P>
<Q>IV.
<MILESTONE N="4" UNIT="Arg."> That Act which takes off a Mini&s;ter from his duty is not lawfull:</Q>
<P>But impo&s;ing of Forms of Prayer takes off a Mini&s;ter from his Duty, <HI>Engo.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Minor,</HI> A Mini&s;ters Duty is, <HI>to &s;tir up the gift of God which is in him,</HI> 2 Tim. 1.6. Unle&s;s you will &s;ay, the Epi&s;tle was written to a Bi&s;hop, and &s;o doth not belong to Presbyters. But there is no place to &s;tir up the Gift of Prayer; for he mu&s;t read Prayer, the effect of the gift of others.</P>
<Q>V. That Act which directly fomenteth a corrupt frame,
<MILESTONE N="5" UNIT="Arg."> to which we incline, is unlawfull, [Means and occa&s;ions of &s;in mu&s;t be avoided].</Q>
<P>But impo&s;ing of Formes of Prayers do directly foment a corrupt frame to which we incline; that is lazine&s;s. <HI>Ergo.</HI></P>
<PB N="34" REF="21">
<P>Do but impo&s;e Homilies al&s;o to be read, and a lazy heart will think you: And why not Forms of Preaching as well as of Praying? if hinder one gift, why not the other: A bare Form of Prayer doth not &s;o directly foment lazine&s;s, but the impo&s;ing and tying to it will.</P>
<Q>VI.
<MILESTONE N="6" UNIT="Arg."> That Act which expo&s;eth the Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t to contempt is unlawfull:</Q>
<P>But the impo&s;ing of Prayers for Mini&s;ters to read, expo&s;e them to conteinpt, <HI>Ergo.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Minor,</HI> Mini&s;ters are &s;uppo&s;ed to be per&s;ons gifted above others, and ought to be &s;o I am &s;ure; [notably doth Mr. <HI>Cartwright</HI> &s;peak to this in his Comment upon Chri&s;ts words to <HI>Nicodemus, John</HI> 3.]</P>
<P>But for a Mini&s;ter to read Prayers [Prayer being a great part of his work] is to do no more than a <HI>boy of eight years</HI> old may do; and a <HI>reading Prie&s;t</HI> hath been the &s;corne ca&s;t upon Mini&s;ters.</P>
<Q>VII.
<MILESTONE N="7" UNIT="Arg."> That Act which will keep away many, and di&s;courage the be&s;t wor&s;hippers of God; [I may add, and does but nouri&s;h carnal and formal wor&s;hippers in their &s;in] is unlawfull:</Q>
<P>But &s;o does this impo&s;&s;ing of Forms of Prayer:</P>
<P>How many are there of Gods &s;ervants who walk holily with him, whom he hath endued with the gift and &s;pirit of Prayer, even private men, for the&s;e to come to the publick Wor&s;hip of God, and there to hear Prayers read over, which their Children at home can do, but they them&s;elves can pour out their hearts to God, without reading their Petitions, will they not be di&s;couraged? I know, and it is already proved, many will <HI>not come,</HI> as judging it unlawfull, and others will be much di&s;couraged, that do come: and why &s;hould Gods be&s;t wor&s;hippers be offended: For others, if they can but &s;ay after a Mini&s;ter, in a book, will not que&s;tion but they have &s;erved God as well as the be&s;t, and in this their formal wor&s;hip re&s;t.</P>
<Q>VIII.
<MILESTONE N="8" UNIT="Arg."> That Act which hinders the actings of the Spirit of God in the hearts of his people, is an unlawfull Act.</Q>
<P>But the impo&s;ing of Forms of Prayer do hinder the actings of the Spirit in the hearts of Gods people, <HI>Ergo.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Major,</HI> What the Word hath &s;poken of the Spirits helping the people of God in Prayer I need not mention, the places are well known in the Old and New Te&s;tament. But this hinders.</P>
<P>It is commonly an&s;wered, <HI>The Spirit doth help, in working the heart and affections into a &s;utable gracious frame, fit for Prayer, which may be though we u&s;e a Form of Prayer.</HI></P>
<PB N="35" REF="21">
<P>I deny it not, but yet as the Spirit doth &s;tirt up affections, and &s;ighs, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> in the &s;oul, &s;o tho&s;e Affections would expre&s;s them&s;elves in other words than I finde in the Book.</P>
<P>I can tell, (if the Lord hath gifted me) how to expre&s;&s;e my own de&s;ires and affections in my own words; and the words oftentimes have a reflection, and help to &s;tirre up the affection more. But when I am tyed to the words of other men, I am &s;traitened, they will not &s;erve to expre&s;&s;e what lies upon my heart; and who is it that knows what the work of the Spirit of God, and the workings of a heart are in prayer, that will not &s;oon finde the&s;e hindered by being tied up to other mens words.</P>
<P N="2">2. The Spirit doth not only help to the Grace of Prayer, but the Gift of prayer, and that is hindered be &s;ure in the&s;e Forms altogether.</P>
<P N="3">3. The Method in Prayer u&s;e to be this. 1. I feel my wants. 2. My De&s;ires are &s;tirred up to get the&s;e wants &s;upplyed. 3. My minde frameth words to expre&s;s tho&s;e de&s;ires to God. 4. Tho&s;e words are uttered. But in Formes of Prayers, the heart mu&s;t follow the words, they are fir&s;t; in the other, words follow, and interpret my heart, where Prayer begins.</P>
<P>I de&s;ire to know of the&s;e Impo&s;ers of Forms of Prayer, whether if they &s;ent a Servant on their Me&s;&s;age, and the &s;ervant is hail, lu&s;ty, and can go very well; if another man &s;hould meet this &s;ervant, who is going on his journey, and force him to go with crutches, which hinder him extreamly, would you take it well? Why do you force the &s;ervant of God in his work to u&s;e your crutches, which are his hindrance in his Ma&s;ters work, he can go better without them? I am afraid the bottom of this lieth here, that <HI>many</HI> of our great men, if you take away a Prayer-book, know not how to pray, wanting a praying heart, and they think it &s;ome di&s;honour to them to have other men, over whom they would tyrannize, to exceed them in a gift of Prayer; and &s;o force men to their book, that no difference might appear. We leave the&s;e men to God.</P>
<P>Do not the&s;e Compo&s;ers of Formes of Prayer &s;uppo&s;e their Gifts to be better than any Mini&s;ters upon whom they impo&s;e their Forms? If other Mini&s;ters can expre&s;&s;e the &s;ame Petitions in other words, as well, may be better, more lively, why are they hindered? Do they know the Gifts of all Mini&s;ters? do they know how the Spirit may a&s;&s;i&s;t them &s;ometimes over other times? To think your Gifts to be the be&s;t, &s;avours of &s;uch pride as becomes not a Chri&s;tian.</P>
<PB N="36" REF="22">
<P>Object. <HI>But we finde Forms of Prayer in the Scripture.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> What will you inferr from thence? <HI>Ergo,</HI> Ordinary men now may impo&s;e their Forms of Prayer upon Mini&s;ters already gifted by God? I deny your Con&s;equence.</P>
<P N="1">1. Will you compare your Formes now compo&s;ed by you, with tho&s;e Forms which the Penmen of the Scriptures were directed by the Spirit to compo&s;e?</P>
<P N="2">2. Impo&s;e no other Prayers upon us but Scripture-forms, and we &s;hall not refu&s;e to u&s;e them, though not them only. The Lords Prayer is the mo&s;t compleat of all the Forms; yet we are not bound to that form only; I hope, we may u&s;e other prayers, keeping that &s;ub&s;tance.</P>
<P N="3">3. The 102 <HI>P&s;al.</HI> which was made for the afflicted Church a little before the time of their return out of Captivity, as the 13, 14, 15, 16 <HI>Ver&s;es</HI> declare, did not hinder <HI>Daniel,</HI> Chap. 9. to pray by his own gift upon the &s;ame occa&s;ion, where there is great difference in the Petitions and matter of prayer.</P>
<P>Object. <HI>But other Churches have their Formes.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Not all Churches, where men are as orthodox, and holy as ours are.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>Irenaeus</HI> bids us have recour&s;e to tho&s;e Churches in which the Apo&s;tles were conver&s;ant, and in them we finde no &s;uch thing.</P>
<P N="3">3. Tho&s;e who have Forms, do yet condemn ours: as witne&s;s <HI>Apollonius,</HI> in the name of the <HI>Walacrian Cla&s;&s;is,</HI> p. 172. who rejecting Forms of Prayer, and Admini&s;trations of Sacraments, where the matter is vicious, or any Super&s;tition cleaves to them, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> He adds, <HI>For this cau&s;e we reject the Ceremonies, and Forms of Publick Wor&s;hip in the Church of</HI> England, <HI>in the&s;e la&s;t corrupt times, brought in by the Hierarehical Bi&s;hops: as tho&s;e which being Super&s;titious and Idolatrous, have deformed the Church, and the wor&s;hip of God, &amp; ob&s;curarunt glorio&s;a Reformationis facem &amp; faciem,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>In the next Section, the &s;ame Divines do reject tho&s;e Forms of Prayer, though in re&s;pect of the matter of them good, whenas they are impo&s;ed tyrannically, and with violent command upon the con&s;ciences of men, as being ab&s;olutely nece&s;&s;ary, and e&s;&s;ential parts of Gods Wor&s;hip, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> They &s;peak more, and that notably, what cruelty they have been made the in&s;truments of; and, <HI>Hath not ENGLAND felt it?</HI> See more in that Learned Author, <HI>page</HI> 173. though he maintains the lawfulne&s;&s;e of a Form. So do
<PB N="37" REF="22">the <HI>Leyden Profe&s;&s;ors,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Synop pu. the.</HI> p. 499.</NOTE> and yet &s;ay it is <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> that Pa&s;tors of Churche; &s;hould &s;tirr up them&s;elves to pray without forms, <HI>p.</HI> 499.</P>
<P>And once more for our Common-Prayer Book lately u&s;ed, Bi&s;hop <HI>Davenant</HI> hath commended it to us upon this ground, <HI>What is there in it that is not approved of the Papi&s;ts them&s;elves!</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Determ.</HI> 27.</NOTE> and he confirms the truth of it thus, <HI>That &s;ome of the Bi&s;hops of Rome have offered to approve our forme of Prayers, provided that we would accept it by their authority;</HI> A notable Argument to bring Orthodox and holy Chri&s;tians to hear it; though his &s;cope is to prove, <HI>Ergo,</HI> the Papi&s;ts ought to be pre&s;ent at our wor&s;hip, and the Magi&s;trate neglects his Office, if he doth not compell them.</P>
<P>Object. <HI>But the totall u&s;e of Mini&s;ters gifts is not taken away.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I think it was in &s;ome places; and every where it was in Bapti&s;me, and the Lords Supper, only before Sermon, and after, men had the u&s;e of their gifts, &s;carce that.</P>
<P>Object. <HI>But all Mini&s;ters are not able.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Who&s;e fault is that? &s;hew us &s;uch Mini&s;ters ordained by the Presbyterians, that are not in &s;ome good mea&s;ure able to pray without their book, though there is difference of Gifts: There are a Generation coming in again, that I think indeed are not, all of them, and but very few. I deny not but there was wrong offered to &s;ome, who were turned out, and let them come in withall my heart: But I &s;peak of Super&s;tititous men, pot-companions, &s;wearers, &amp;c. men who have not the Gift of Prayer, and de&s;pi&s;e it in others.</P>
<P N="2">2. But what is this to tho&s;e who are able? why mu&s;t they be forced to read, as other in&s;ufficient men mu&s;t, wanting Gifts.</P>
<P><HI>Que&s;tion,</HI> But what if a Form of prayer be impo&s;ed, &s;o as not to take away the total u&s;e of Mini&s;ters Gifts in any Ordinance, they may have their liberty of their own gifts, but &s;ometimes u&s;e that Forme.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I &s;hould a little de&s;ire to know the Authority that enjoins it, if a Synod of &s;uch Divines as ought to be (I mean not &s;uper&s;titious Arminians) Orthodox and holy men, did order &s;uch a thing in a &s;ober way, not tyrannically, as ab&s;olutely nece&s;&s;ary (as &s;aid <HI>Apollonius</HI> before) then I confe&s;&s;e it would trouble me to refu&s;e it, though I finde, and have heard &s;ome of my Brethren &s;ay, Let the Forms of Prayer be what they will, they will &s;ubmit to none; it is an offence,
<PB N="38" REF="23">they conceive, and a wrong to that good &s;pirit, who hath plea&s;ed to be&s;tow on them the Gift of Prayer, to have that hindered, by &s;ubmitting to mens injunctions: But I am not &s;atisfied in this.</P>
<P N="1">1. Becau&s;e you have the u&s;e of your gift in all Ordinances only &s;ometimes you are required to u&s;e a Form.</P>
<P N="2">2. A Form of Prayer, in <HI>it &s;elf,</HI> the matter of it being agreeable to the Word, is not unlawfull: thus godly and wi&s;e men judge.</P>
<P N="3">3. I finde that the old holy Non-Conformi&s;ts were not offended at a bare form of Prayer, but &s;ome particular things in the Common prayer-Book, and truly tho&s;e are many. Yea, I finde the Congre|gationall Divines, in <HI>New-England,</HI> though they u&s;e no forms, [they are able indeed] yet they dare not condemn all Forms of prayer in the Church,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Defen&s;e of the</HI> 9 <HI>Po&s;itions, p.</HI> 34.</NOTE> divers of them at lea&s;t would not do it; &s;o Ma&s;ter <HI>Shephard, Though all of us could not concurr to condemn all &s;et Forms as unlawfull, yet for the Engli&s;h Liturgy,</HI> &amp;c. And &s;o after, in the &s;ame <HI>Page,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><P>Thus al&s;o M^r <HI>Norton,</HI> in his An&s;wer to <HI>Apollonius,</HI> alloweth of a form of prayer for Mini&s;ters, but if they be gifted, then to impo&s;e is unlawfull.</P>
<P>But whether he means it is &s;o, though they u&s;e their own gift, and the Forms &s;ometimes, I finde not. <HI>p.</HI> 138, 139.</P></NOTE> But do any we now &s;peak of condemn all u&s;e thereof?</HI> &amp;c. So again, <HI>page</HI> 38. only there they &s;ay, <HI>That though the thing it &s;elf be lawfull, yet, if not duly circum&s;tantiated, it may be evil and &s;candalous in the u&s;e,</HI> as Meats, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 8.13. This to me (if we have liberty as in the Que&s;tion) is the greate&s;t trouble, how to an&s;wer the offence it will give to other Chri&s;tians, in ca&s;e we cannot &s;atisfie there, being we have no command in the Word to u&s;e the&s;e Forms; how will you help us here? Will men give the An&s;wer which Bi&s;hop <HI>Land,</HI> when he &s;ilenced my Father in law, gave to him? My Father pleaded that Text of <HI>Paul,</HI> He would not offend his weak Brother, Why then &s;hould the Bi&s;hop offend him by impo&s;ing the Surplice? To that &s;peech of <HI>Paul,</HI> Bi&s;hop <HI>Laud</HI> an&s;wered, <HI>Yea, Paul &s;aid &s;o when he was alone, but do you think Paul would have &s;aid &s;o, if he had been in a Convocation?</HI> A rare An&s;wer, worthy of a Bi&s;hop.</P>
<P N="4">4. What think you of this? Do we not many times when we are beaten with tentations, pray our own conditions more than the Congregations? though I know God hath his hand in this, and we do pray the conditions of others, though we know it not, while we pray our own: But yet way we not then u&s;e the&s;e Forms al&s;o, which are common to the whole Congregation, as it were to make amends? Burdened &s;ouls, when indeed tentations ly heard, cannot but minde them&s;elves, though none &s;hould be the mouth of the Congregation.</P>
<P N="5"><PB N="39" REF="23">5. The thing being in it &s;elf good, and doubtle&s;&s;e a man may pray graciou&s;ly, though he doth u&s;e a form. Why may we not yield in &s;uch a point, to take off prejudices from our Mini&s;try, and if they would join with us more willingly in Prayer, why &s;hould this be wholly denied.</P>
<P>If you look on it as being &s;uch a thing as you will rather lay down your Mini&s;try than u&s;e any form at all, I de&s;ire we might &s;ee tho&s;e grounds which may warrant you and us thereunto, and we &s;hall thank you</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. IV. <HI>Of Ceremonies, and in particular of the Surplice.</HI></HEAD>
<P>I Intend but a few words; We are told, <HI>the Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies,</HI> and this is &s;wallowed down &s;o rea|dily, as if there were no bones in it. What they mean by the am|biguous word, <HI>Ceremony,</HI> and what by the Church, we mu&s;t learn from their practice: And I pray &s;ee through all <HI>Pauls</HI> Epi&s;tles where the Church is often mentioned, whether you can find &s;uch a Church as decreed our Ceremonies. God having appointed his Day for Wor&s;hip, what time of the day is fitte&s;t for it, we doubt not the Church may determine; &s;o for place, and other things, which of nece&s;&s;ity mu&s;t be; as if there mu&s;t be Wine and Bread at the Supper, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> then Ve&s;&s;els mu&s;t be, whether Woodden, (as when they had their golden Prie&s;ts) or Pewter, or Silver, there is no de|termination by God, the Church may here appoint, but the&s;e de|&s;erve not the names of Ceremonies: Were we in our pure&s;t e&s;tate in <HI>Adam,</HI> had God appointed &s;uch Ordimnces, the&s;e things mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity follow, the&s;e things mu&s;t be, place and ve&s;&s;els, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> but it would not then have nece&s;&s;arily followed we mu&s;t have gar|ments; Con&s;idering &s;in indeed which hath brought this &s;hame up|on us, we mu&s;t now from <HI>&s;in</HI> have garments, but it doth not follow properly <HI>from the Ordinance</HI> it &s;elf we mu&s;t have Garments, as if <HI>Wine and Bread,</HI> we mu&s;t have ve&s;&s;els to put the Wine into; <HI>if &s;in,</HI> then garments, is true; not properly <HI>if ordinances,</HI> then garments; though now it is true.</P>
<P>The only Text brought for the&s;e Ceremonies is, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. <HI>ult.</HI></P>
<PB N="40" REF="24">
<P><HI>Let all things be done decently and in Order;</HI> whence thus the Argu|ment runs.</P>
<P>If all the Wor&s;hip of God (for that I think the Apo&s;tle, by <HI>All things,</HI> properly aimes at) mu&s;t be performed decently in the Church, then the Church may decree Ceremonies.</P>
<P>But the Con&s;equence is denied; For,</P>
<P N="1">1. The Wor&s;hip of God may be decently performed without humane Ceremonies, deny it if you can, I will prove it after|wards.</P>
<P N="2">2. The Wor&s;hip of God may be very undecently performed though humane Ceremonies be annexed; we need not to prove what eyes have &s;een among your white Wor&s;hippers in your Ca|thedrals, and Colledges, how rudely have divers carried them|&s;elves? very much unbecoming the Wor&s;hip of God I am &s;ure.</P>
<P N="3">3. Had Ceremonies been &s;o nece&s;&s;ary, &s;urely the Lord would have appointed them him&s;elf, and not leave his Wor&s;hip to be dre&s;&s;ed by a vain wretched head of man, oppo&s;ite to him in all things: He who&s;e <HI>name is Jealous, Exod.</HI> 34.14. and that in his in|&s;tituted Wor&s;hip, would not let man have this refuge to run to, while he was &s;inning again&s;t his Second Commandment, to &s;ay, <HI>I do it for decency.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. God would not &s;uffer his Church of old to add one Ceremo|ny; <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> did as <HI>he was commanded,</HI> repeated &s;even times over in <HI>Exod.</HI> 40. Did God take care of the pins of the Tabernacle then, and will he not now of the Curtains? Since Gods wi&s;dom &s;eeth meet to appoint <HI>none,</HI> mans wi&s;dome &s;eeth meet to appoint what he plea&s;e: yea, thus it mu&s;t be, el&s;e he is not <HI>Man-fallen; i.e.</HI> Cro&s;s to God in every thing. It &s;eems, God &s;ends his wor&s;hip into the Church under the New Te&s;tament <HI>naked,</HI> and we mu&s;t make Gar|ments to hide the &s;hame of it, and with other Ribbands of our Inventions dre&s;s it up fine; Will the great God thank you for this, <HI>you, pot&s;heard, man,</HI> who will mend his work?</P>
<P N="5">5. What the Apo&s;tle meaneth by <HI>decency</HI> and Order you may &s;ee in the eleventh <HI>Chapter,</HI> and this fourteenth <HI>Chapter;</HI> in which Chapters you &s;hall find <HI>Undecency</HI> and <HI>Di&s;order,</HI> but not for want of Ceremonies.</P>
<P N="6">6. If from hence we may appoint Ceremonies, where &s;hall we &s;tand,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Determ.</HI> 20.</NOTE> may we not go <HI>in infinitum?</HI> What hinders? B. <HI>Davenant</HI>
<PB N="41" REF="24">&s;aith of the&s;e Ceremonies, <HI>Si nimis excreverint, in hoc graviter peccant,</HI> and quotes <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> in his 119. <HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> Complaining of the burden of Ceremonies, preferring the Jews Ceremonies, being Gods own In&s;titutions, before theirs: But what &s;aith the Ceremo|ny-maker, all the&s;e make the wor&s;hip to be performed <HI>decently?</HI> So this month he invents the&s;e, the next month he invents others: for &s;o we are taught if we will believe, the Church may alter and change the Ceremonies, if &s;he &s;ee cau&s;e; yea, and ca&s;t them out al&s;o, if &s;he be &s;o true to her husband as &s;he &s;hould be.</P>
<P>As for Apparel, I think people commonly come decently enough, &s;ome el&s;e will not come at all: And I &s;ee not but if a Mini&s;ters civil Garments, with his gown, be cleanly, as commonly they are; in the&s;e his Civil Garments he is decent enough, as to apparel. Such Decency and Order, as who&s;e contrary is undecency and di&s;order, I think is there meant, and nothing more; but I hope that is not want of a Surplice, which I thus prove:</P>
<P N="1">I. If different Garments, appropriated to the wor&s;hip of God,
<MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="Arg."> [as a Surplice] be requi&s;ite to the decent performance of it, then neither the Apo&s;tles, nor the Primitive Churches did wor&s;hip God decently.</P>
<P>But they did, deny it if you dare; <HI>Ergo,</HI> Such Garments are not requi&s;ite, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>For the Apo&s;tles, and tho&s;e Churches, will any &s;ay they had Surplices? no man will I am &s;ure. About the year 261. I finde indeed Pope <HI>Stephen</HI> decreed, The Garments for Divine Wor&s;hip &s;hould be con&s;ecrated, and u&s;ed only in the Church: But his Decree is not early enough by many years to reach the Primitive Churches. Bi&s;hop <HI>Jewel</HI> quoting <HI>Valafredus Abbas,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De&s;. Apol.</HI> 326.</NOTE> tells us out of him, that <HI>the old Fathers mini&s;tred the Holy Communion having on their own common apparel:</HI> very undecently certainly: It is a wonder that holy <HI>Paul</HI> could not &s;ee his exhortation to <HI>decency</HI> did force in a Surplice, which he and others &s;hould have u&s;ed; but older and wi&s;er: I pray let the Rule of <HI>Irenaeus</HI> before mentioned here take place.</P>
<P N="2">II. <MILESTONE N="2" UNIT="Arg."> If a Surplice be requi&s;ite to the decent performing of the wor&s;hip of God, Then all the Congregation ought to wear Surplices. The Rea&s;on is, Becau&s;e they are all wor&s;hippers (at lea&s;t pretend &s;o) they come thither to wor&s;hip, and have their acts of wor&s;hip as well as the Mini&s;ter: now <HI>Decency</HI> is as much
<PB N="42" REF="25">enjoyned them as the Mini&s;ter, for <HI>All things mu&s;t be done in decency:</HI> [this would be a hand&s;ome &s;ight] So all tho&s;e who have not Surplices, wor&s;hip undecently, for they have not that Garment which is requi&s;ite to Decency, and &s;uch undecent Wor&s;hippers have our Congregations ever been.</P>
<P N="3">III. <MILESTONE N="3" UNIT="Arg."> That humane Invention which is &s;uppo&s;ed to make the wor&s;hip of God better in it &s;elf, and more acceptable unto God, is unlawfull: But the humane invented Surplice is &s;uppo&s;ed to make the Wor&s;hip of God better in it &s;elf, and more acceptable to God: <HI>Ergo,</HI> It is unlawfull.</P>
<P>For the <HI>major,</HI> It &s;uppo&s;eth the wi&s;dome of the Commander to be defective, for here comes in a creature who can adde a degree of goodne&s;&s;e to his wor&s;hip, which he hath not commanded, [and &s;urely the more goodne&s;&s;e in his wor&s;hip, the more acceptance that wor&s;hip mu&s;t have] &s;o that the Divine Rule for wor&s;hip is not perfect. <HI>Regula non e&s;t, &s;i quid ei dee&s;t: Regula &amp; amu&s;&s;is neque appo&s;itionem neque ablationem admittit.</HI> But the Rule which Infinite wi&s;dom hath given, which we &s;uppo&s;e &s;hould provide be&s;t for what concerns him&s;elf, is &s;hort in this re&s;pect, for man may add a degree of goodne&s;&s;e, and that is better.</P>
<P>I know not how to free &s;uch an Invention from Super&s;tition, concerning which I intend not now to di&s;cour&s;e: But that which &s;ome &s;ay concerning the&s;e Ceremonies, to &s;ave them, and other inventions, <HI>They are not oppo&s;ite to the Word, though not commanded;</HI> I confe&s;&s;e, a Surplice, as it lyeth in the che&s;t, is not oppo&s;ite to the Word, but when the Surplice is appropriated only to the Wor&s;hip of God, and makes it better, &amp;c. now in the u&s;e of it it is oppo&s;ite; for <HI>Exce&s;&s;us Religionis,</HI> which is Super&s;tition, is oppo&s;ite to the Second Commandement, and this <HI>Exce&s;&s;us Religionis e&s;t in ordine ad actus, &amp; media Religionis externa, &amp; vanae ob&s;ervantia circa onltum, aut cum aliquo respectu ad cultum, qua formaliter non &s;unt indebitus &s;eu fal&s;us cultus:</HI> The&s;e by learned and godly Divines abroad are charged with <HI>Super&s;tition,</HI> I know not how our Ceremo|nies will e&s;cape the charge.</P>
<P>I pray prove unto us, <HI>That the wa&s;hing of pots, cups,</HI> &amp;c. in <HI>Mark</HI> 7.8. were forbiden by the Word: Had not the Phari&s;ees the &s;ame An&s;wer to give, <HI>We are not Super&s;titious in the&s;e, for they are not oppo&s;ite to the Word:</HI> but the Lord charges them with vain wor&s;hip|ping, <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 7. So &s;ay you, The Surplice and Ceremonies are not
<PB N="43" REF="25">oppo&s;ite to the Word: <HI>But they put Religion in &s;uch wa&s;hings.</HI> They made no more of them, than ours have done of their Ceremonies. Al&s;o, I pray &s;hew us where the Word had commanded, that they mu&s;t <HI>touch, ta&s;te, and handle</HI> tho&s;e mears or things which their Men-Teachers taught them they mu&s;t <HI>not touch, not ta&s;te, nor handle, Col.</HI> 2.21. if they meant of not eating Hoggs, Conies, Hares fle&s;h, as the <HI>Rhemi&s;ts</HI> interpret it, [I know various Interpretations, but pa&s;&s;e them by] might not they &s;ay, when <HI>Paul</HI> charged them with <HI>will-wor&s;hip,</HI> and Super&s;tition, <HI>Why</HI> Paul <HI>the&s;e things are not oppo&s;ite to the Word, May we not forbear to eat the&s;e, as well as eat them?</HI> this who could deny; but <HI>&s;uch</HI> ab&s;tinence the Apo&s;tle blames, and other things there in the general mentioned; For men to put any Religion, Holine&s;&s;e, in what God hath not, and think to add to him, <HI>or mend his Rules</HI> or wor&s;hip, as our men do in Ceremonies, <HI>the jealous God</HI> will not be plea&s;ed.</P>
<P>But then the <HI>Minor</HI> will be denyed: <HI>We do not &s;uppo&s;e the wor&s;hip of God to be better, or to have the lea&s;t acceptance more with God</HI> for a Surplice, no, no?</P>
<P N="1">1. Why then do you u&s;e the&s;e Ceremonies, if the wor&s;hip be not one whit the better, nor God accept the more? but that the wor&s;hip is every whit as good, and God fully as well plea&s;ed with his wor&s;hip, <HI>without</HI> the&s;e, as <HI>with</HI> the&s;e, then we &s;hall &s;hew our &s;elves <HI>vain in our Imaginations indeed,</HI> and very fooli&s;h, having no rational end of our actions. <HI>Cui bono?</HI> To what end then &s;erve they? You do u&s;e to quote the 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. for your ground, and end. It is true, <HI>Decent</HI> Wor&s;hip is better than <HI>Undecent</HI> Wor&s;hip, and we may conceive more acceptable to God. Now, if you by your humane Ceremonies, can make it Decent, and without them it is Undecent, Then your Ceremonies add &s;ome goodne&s;&s;e to the wor&s;hip of God, and tend more to acceptation with him.</P>
<P N="2">2. If not, Why then have people been debarred from the Wor&s;hip of God, becau&s;e the Surplice hath been wanting? I read in the Writings of an eminent Mini&s;ter of Chri&s;t [whom I knew when he lived] that in <HI>Suffolk</HI> the Surplice was lo&s;t in one Pari&s;h, There was a &s;trict in junction to the poor Countrymen, that there might not be any Service or Sermon till they had got another, for which they were appointed Ten dayes, and this being upon a Friday, there were two Sabbaths without any Service. Now if the wor&s;hip of God had been as good in it &s;elf, and as acceptable to God
<PB N="44" REF="26">without the Surplice, why were the people hindered from wo&s;hip|ping of God, and God denyed his due? See what men put in their Ceremonies.</P>
<P N="3">3. If not, what is the Rea&s;on &s;o many eminent Servants of God, holy wor&s;hippers of God, have been &s;ilenced, mouths &s;topped, that they mu&s;t not wor&s;hip God at all in publick, and other troubles and Per&s;ecutions befallen them, and that becau&s;e of tho&s;e Ceremonies? If the Wor&s;hip was not the better, nor more accepted with God for the Ceremonies, What &s;hould cau&s;e this?</P>
<P>Objection, <HI>No, they would not be obedient.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;wer,</HI> No men in the world &s;o obedient to their Superiours, [&s;uch as God had made Superiours] for con&s;cience &s;ake. But that was not the end of the injunction to try obedience, that came in accidentally. I never yet heard that our Civil Power did command Ceremonies in the wor&s;hip of God, meerly to try the obedience of the Subject: No nor tho&s;e who took that power upon them, which God never gave them in the Church; it is not &s;aid in their Books, We enjoyn the&s;e to try your obedience to us. So that there is an other End; of which before.</P>
<P N="4">4. Let us &s;ee whether our Ceremony-makers can better free them&s;elves from <HI>Super&s;tition,</HI> than tho&s;e whom <HI>Tertullian</HI> charged with it, in his Expo&s;ition of the Lords Prayer; we &s;hall find there, that the Mini&s;ters were not forced to read their Prayers out of a Book: After he had &s;hown what frame we ought to bring with us to Prayer, as to our Brother, then he comes to &s;peak of &s;ome who when they went to prayer <HI>wa&s;hed their hands,</HI> and &s;ome their whole bodies, which cleanne&s;&s;e, &s;aith he, <HI>pleri&abque; &s;uper&s;titio&s;&egrave; curant adomnent orationem:</HI> yet it &s;eems they had their Rea&s;on for it, as he alledgeth. Then he adds,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">This Rule cut off tho&s;e Ceremonies which were in u&s;e in <HI>Tertulliaxs</HI> time; and out of u&s;e with us: (&s;ome at lea&s;t)</NOTE> <HI>Sed quoniam unum aliqued attigimus vacuae ob&s;ervationis, non pigebit caetera quoque denotare, quibus merito vanitas exprobranda est, &s;i quidem &s;ine ullius aut Dominici, aut Apo&s;tolici Praecepti auctoritate fiunt, huju&s;modi enim non Religioni &s;ed &s;uper&s;titioni deputantur, affectata &amp; coacta, &amp; curio&s;i potius quam rationalis officii. Cert&egrave; vel eo coercenda quod Gentilibus adaquent.</HI> Then he names &s;ome who put off their cloaks when they went to prayer, and others had their vain Ob&s;ervations. <HI>Tertullian</HI> here &s;peaks like a Chri&s;tian, one who took his Bible for a perfect Rule. The&s;e things we may ob&s;erve in him: 1. What ought to guide and rule us in Wor&s;hip; the Authority of the Lords, and the Apo&s;tles Precepts.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="45" REF="26">2. What he judged of &s;uch things that were practiced in Prayer, and had not this Authority; he chargeth them with vanity, and Super&s;tition, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Now let us examine, why the wa&s;hing of hands before Prayer &s;hould not be as warrantable, as a Surplice in Prayer, to &s;hew how we <HI>lift up pure hands,</HI> 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> and to &s;hew <HI>innocency,</HI> the &s;ame I think which the Surplice doth, as good, as rational: And what is there more in putting on a Surplice, than putting off a Cloak; a man might fancy &s;ome &s;piritual thing in that, to &s;ignifie the putting off the <HI>cloak of maliciou&s;ne&s;&s;e,</HI> 1 Pet. 2.16. or of hypocri&s;ie, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> enough we may imagine; you may call this <HI>Religion,</HI> I call it <HI>Super&s;tition,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Tertullian:</HI> Then let the Surplice go under <HI>Tertullians</HI> Cen&s;ure.</P>
<P N="4">IV. <MILESTONE N="4" UNIT="Arg."> To follow Heatheni&s;h and corrupt Wor&s;hippers in the wor&s;hip of the Holy God, is contrary to the Word of God.</P>
<P>But to wor&s;hip God in white Garments, appropriated only to the Wor&s;hip of God, is to follow Heatheni&s;h and corrupt wor&s;hippers; <HI>Ergo.</HI></P>
<P>I know, Heathens may wor&s;hip their Idols as God is, in &s;ome particulars; when Heathens follow God [as the Devil is Gods Ape, to imitate his wor&s;hip, as <HI>Justin Martyr,</HI> and <HI>Tertullian</HI> &s;hew] then the Wor&s;hippers of God are clear, for they follow Gods command in what he hath appointed, and they cannot hinder the Devil from imitating of Gods wor&s;hip, to &s;et up him&s;elf: but when we have no command from God, but it is only our own wills which &s;ets up &s;uch a Ceremony, and therein we make God to be &s;erved in that manner which Heathens and Idolatrous per&s;ons wor&s;hip, this cannot be without &s;ome &s;pot of &s;in: <HI>not hating the garment &s;potted with the fle&s;h.</HI> It was upon this ground al&s;o, that <HI>Tertullian,</HI> in the place fore|quoted, did condemn the&s;e Ob&s;ervations about prayer; and in his Book, <HI>de Coro. mil.</HI> he rea&s;oneth vehemently, that a Chri&s;tian man ought not to go with a <HI>Lawrel Garland</HI> upon his head, and that for none other cau&s;e, but only for that the Heathens u&s;ed &s;o to go.</P>
<P>How the Lord warned his people again&s;t this we know, and hence would not allow them to pray towards the Ea&s;t, <HI>Ezek.</HI> 8.16. they mu&s;t not be like the Heathens, wor&s;hipping the Sun ri&s;ing in the Ea&s;t. <HI>Arias Montanus,</HI> in his Treati&s;e of the <HI>Fabrick of the Temple</HI> &s;aith, That the Jews report of thirteen Tables of &s;tone, that were in the outward Court of the Temple, at which men were wont to pray, and all of them were made, &s;aith he, &s;o as &s;ome looked to the North,
<PB N="46" REF="27">and &s;ome to the South, and &s;ome to the We&s;t, but not one to the Ea&s;t. How many Ea&s;t-wor&s;hippers do <HI>England</HI> afford?</P>
<P>Now for the Surplice; whence we took it, and how in it we follow the corrupt <HI>Romanists,</HI> whom our Epi&s;copal men cannot deny but they are corrupt Wor&s;hippers, and how they did conform in their Ceremonies to Heathen Idolaters, to win them over to the Chri&s;tian Religion; this is well known from Learned men who have written upon that Subject. But I add no more; the&s;e are only a few thoughts which ran in my minde, others have written more largely upon the&s;e &s;ubjects, whom I have not read, but only have heard of them.</P>
<P>For the Cro&s;s in Bapti&s;m, which hath proved &s;uch a cro&s;&s;e to many holy men, I only &s;ee Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> in his <HI>Di&s;put.</HI> about <HI>Church-Govern|ment,</HI> p. 418. expre&s;&s;ing him&s;elf very much again&s;t it, but I have not had time as yet to read him over; I &s;uppo&s;e the Reader may there finde &s;atisfaction.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Fox,</HI> in his <HI>Martyrol.</HI> Vol. 3. p. 909. relates a Story concerning one <HI>Blomefield,</HI> a Per&s;ecutor, whom God followed with judgments upon his body and e&s;tate, This <HI>Blomefield</HI> a little before his death bragged, and threatned a good man, one <HI>Simon Herle&s;tone,</HI> to put him forth to the Officers, becau&s;e he did wear no Surplice when he &s;aid Service. Upon which Mr. <HI>Fox</HI> thus, <HI>Wherefore it is pitty &s;uch baits of Popery are left to the enemies to take Chri&s;tians in: God take them away, or el&s;e us from them; for God knoweth they be the cau&s;e of much blindne&s;&s;e and &s;trife amongst men.</HI> There is a notable Example of Gods dealing with one who urged a gracious Mini&s;ter to read the Book of Common-prayer, and &s;et him Whit&s;unday for the day, by which day if he did not read it, he threatned to complain of him; but for all his threats was in the grave before the day came, and glad to get that worthy Mini&s;ter whom he threatned to pray with him in his &s;ickne&s;s, but then no words of the Book of Common-prayer. This a fre&s;h act of Gods. I thought to have added more Arguments, but that I intended brevity.</P>
<P><HI>Ravanel</HI> in his <HI>Biblioth. &s;acra,</HI> upon the word <HI>Mel,</HI> gives the Rea&s;on why <HI>Hony</HI> was forbidden in the Sacrifices, <HI>Lev.</HI> 2.11. <HI>To &s;ignifie</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>that all divi&s;ed Wor&s;hips &s;hould be avoided, becau&s;e &s;incere Religion is defiled with them, though they appear beautifull and plea&s;ing to humane rea&s;on, as hony to the ta&s;te,</HI> &amp;c. What he &s;aith I am &s;ure is true, namely, That devi&s;ed Wor&s;hip is very beautifull and plea&s;ing to humane
<PB N="47" REF="27">rea&s;on, &s;weet as hony; this is fully proved by &s;ad experience, and the pure Wor&s;hip of God is as ba&s;ely contemned: al&s;o it is as true, that &s;incere Religion is defiled by &s;uch wor&s;hip; but whether this was the Rea&s;on why <HI>Hony</HI> was forbidden I go not about to prove.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. V. <HI>Of Kneeling at Sacrament.</HI></HEAD>
<P>FOR <HI>Kneeling</HI> at the Sacrament, it being but of later date, I thought,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Irenaeus, p.</HI> 515.</NOTE> tho&s;e men who glory &s;o much in Antiquity would not have hept &s;uch a &s;tirr about it, knowing that the ge&s;ture of the Chri&s;tians in the Primitive times on the Lords day was quite oppo&s;ite; for they <HI>&s;tood,</HI> and <HI>mu&s;t not kneel</HI> on that day; for <HI>not bowing of the knee on that day did &s;ignifie their Re&s;urrection:</HI> and thus <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> holds it forth, as one of the <HI>nece&s;&s;ary Traditions,</HI> and &s;aith, it was given us in &s;ecret charge by the Apo&s;tles of Chri&s;t, <HI>That it is not lawfull for any man to kneel in the Church upon the Sunday, but every man is bound by the &s;ame Tradition, at Sermon, at Prayer,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Reply, p.</HI> 282.</NOTE> and at the Communion to &s;tand upright.</HI> Gentlemen, How is it, that you who tell us &s;o much of <HI>Antiquity,</HI> for the proof of your Epi&s;copacy, do you now make &s;o light of your own Bible?</P>
<P><HI>Harding</HI> tells Bi&s;hop <HI>Jewell,</HI> That if the ble&s;&s;ed Sacrament of the Altar were no other than he and the re&s;t of the Sacramentarians think of it, then were it not well done for the people to bow down to it. <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation</HI> was that which brought in Kneeling, and it &s;eems, the Papi&s;ts think if we do not own that, there is no rea&s;on to Kneel, nay, we do not well to bow down to the Bread and Wine.</P>
<P>But that which hath much run in my minde is this, Suppo&s;e in the Mahometane wor&s;hip, there were &s;ome di&s;pute what ge&s;ture there &s;hould be u&s;ed in it, and the Mahometanes &s;hould find in their Alcoran, that Mahomet and &s;ome of his chiefe&s;t followers whom they mo&s;t reverence, did u&s;e &s;uch a ge&s;ture in the wor&s;hip, and this is recorded in the Alcoran; do we think the Mahometans would not give &s;o much honor to Mahomet, his chief followers, &amp; their Alcoran, as to &s;ay, That is the ge&s;ture we mu&s;t and will u&s;e, which by our Alcoran we finde, our great Prophet and his Followers u&s;ed? I am confident they would not di&s;grace their Alcoran, Mahomet, nor
<PB N="48" REF="28">his Followers &s;o much, to &s;ay, becau&s;e we are not bound to it, we will u&s;e another. I be&s;eech you Brethren, when as we finde in our Holy Bible, that Je&s;us Chri&s;t admini&s;tred, and the Apo&s;tles received the Sacrament, not kneeling, but with another ge&s;ture &s;uting a fea&s;t. If the Que&s;tion be now moved, What ge&s;ture mu&s;t we u&s;e at the Sacrament? do we when we have the ge&s;ture of <HI>&s;itting</HI> [to be &s;ure it an&s;wered &s;itting at our fea&s;ts] recorded in our Bibles, that thus the Apo&s;tles received it, give due honour to our Bibles, and the Apo&s;tles with our Lord, when we ca&s;t by that, and u&s;e another? For the honor of my Bible, which I take to be the rule for my Religion, and for the honor of the Apo&s;tles, who fir&s;t received it, and were the Lords Pen-men, I would chu&s;e rather to u&s;e this ge&s;ture, becau&s;e I would &s;urely give as much honor to my Bible, as a Turk to his Alcoran.</P>
<P>For <HI>CHRISTMASSE-Day,</HI> Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> hath &s;poken very fully to it, in my apprehen&s;ion, &s;ome of the Arguments he u&s;eth again&s;t it were in my own thoughts, he hath added more, and &s;hewn more Learning and Reading than I am acquainted with.</P>
<P>If the Day be kept to &s;hew our <HI>Love to Christ,</HI> or our <HI>Thanks</HI> for Chri&s;t, Did not the Apo&s;tles love him as much as we? were not they as thankfull for him as we? did they not exceed us abundantly in both? and had not they the &s;ame cau&s;e for a day that we have? Yet we never finde that they kept &s;uch a day: For us to &s;eem to be more wi&s;e, more holy, more enlarged in love to Chri&s;t, than the Apo&s;tles, is &s;o abhorred in my thoughts, that this is it which hath kept me off from ob&s;erving the Day as &s;ome men do, though I condemn not other Godly men who do keep it. To conclude;</P>
<P N="1">1. In things belonging to God, if we keep clo&s;e to the Holy Scriptures, there is <HI>no</HI> danger: Why do we not chu&s;e the &s;afe&s;t?</P>
<P N="2">2. If we &s;et up that in his Church, for which we have not good warrant from the Word, there <HI>may be</HI> danger.</P>
<P N="3">3. To force others to yield to that in Religious things for which there is not &s;ufficient warrant in the Word; or el&s;e to force them from their Mini&s;try and wor&s;hip of God, <HI>is</HI> certainly very &s;infull, and therefore <HI>very dangerous.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
<PB REF="28">
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
