EPISCOPAL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTED BY CHRIST, And confirmed by clear evidence of Scripture, and invincible Reason.  
Collected by the pains of R. R. Preacher of the Gospel.  DEUT. 42. 
Ye shall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you.  REVEL. 22.18, 19 
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book▪  
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy City, and from the things that are written in this book.  
LONDON, Printed, Anno Domini, 1641.   

Episcopal Government instituted by Christ.  
The first Argument.  
THat whatsoever degrees of Church Governors, as God established under the Law, that Christ and his Apostles continued under the Gospel, and that hath governed the Christian Church since the days of Christ and his Apostles, They are and must be of Divine Ordination.  
But God established three degrees of Church Governors under the Law, Christ and his Apostles continued three degrees under the Gospel, and three degrees hath governed the Christian Church since the days of Christ and his Apostles.  
And therefore three degrees of Church Governors are and must be of Divine Ordination.  
The proposition I will take for granted, for I know no man will deny it. The assumption I must prove, which hath three branches: The first is, That God established three degrees under the Law, the High Priest, inferior Priests, and Levits; the High Priest to be in the first order, Inferior Priests in the second, and Levits in the third: and this I hope will be granted. The second branch of the Proposition, that Christ and his Apostles continued three degrees under the Gospel, I prove thus: Christ chose Apostles for one order, and Evangelists for another, called at the first the seventy Disciples, to distinguish them from the other twelve, who were also called Disciples, as long as Christ lived (for they were seldom before Christ his Resurrection distinguished by their proper names) and Christ filled the room of the high Priest himself, as long as he served in the Ministry of the Gospel: And after his Ascension immediately, the Apostles by the direction of the Spirit made choice of a third Order of Churchmen, whom they called by the name of Deacons, Act. 6. so that the Apostles were appointed to be of the first Order after Christ his Resurrection, at which time they were only endued with stolicall authority, being before Christ's death in the order and rank of Evangelists, and the Evangelists inferior to them, for the twelve were ever distinguished from the seventy, both in Place & Estimation, as any man may perceive that can read the Scriptures: but when Christ was to as●end up unto the Father, he made the Apostles chief Governors of the Church, and put them in his own place, and said to them, He that heareth you, heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; after which time they were called by the name of Apostles ordinarily, and the other seventy got the name of Evangelists, and were the second order of Church Governors, & at all times remembered in the second place; howsoever, the twelve Disciples were called Apostles, as chief sent of God, although the other seventy were sent too, as we read, Luke 10. yet they were not consecrate with so great solemnity as the other twelve, nor got not so strict a charge, nor so great authority and power conferred upon them; the truth of all this you will find in the last Chapter of Saint John's Gospel, and the first of the Acts; so that since the twelve Disciples are thus advanced, and not the seventy, it is more than evident, that Christ would have the seventy to be still inferior to the Twelve.  
And this also appears by the election of Mathias, who was taken out of the number of the seventy, and advanced to the Apostolical charge, if the twelve had not been in degree above the seventy, to what end should this distinction have been made? no man will say I hope, that the Twelve would have advanced themselves, above the Seventy, if Christ himself had made no difference before; for Christ no question if they had been wrong would have reproved their arrogancy; but on the contrary, Christ gives testimony of his approbation of that which they did, by consenting to Mathias election, yea, it appears that they had a commandment so to do, for Peter saith, Acts 1.22. that one (must) be ordained, to be a witness with us of the Resurrection; the word (〈◊〉,) in the 21 Verse is very emphatical, so that it would seem, that it was not left arbitrary to them, to do it, or not to do it, at their pleasure; but of necessity it behoved to be done, as being commanded by Christ their Master.  
Moreover, it is evident by the words of the 25 Verse, where the Apostle makes a clear distinction between Apostles and Evangelists: That he may take part (saith he) of this Ministry and Apostleship; now the Apostle could not call it this Ministry, except it had been distinct from that which Mathias had before; he was one of the Seventy Disciples before, and had power to preach the Gospel of Christ: so that it is most sure, if the calling of the twelve, had not been particularly differenced by Christ, from the calling of the seventy, the Apostles would never have put a distinction between the one Ministry, and the other. But the Apostle Peter adds yet a clearer distinction, and he calls the Ministry whereunto Mathias was advanced Apostleship (this Ministry, and Apostleship saith he) now the Ministry of the seventy Disciples was never called Apostleship unto this day, as all men know.  
Further this distinction appeareth, that the Apostle, with the consent of the rest of the twelve, would have the number made up before the coming of the Holy Ghost; for the Holy Ghost did not visibly descend upon any but upon the twelve; well, they did always attend his coming, they could not tell how soon, and therefore they thought it necessary, that Mathias should be elected withal expedition, so that any man may conceive, if there had not been a wide difference between the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples, the Apostle would never have made such haste.  
By the former doctrine we find, that our Saviour differenced the 12, from the seventy, thrice; in the time of his life once, for by taking the twelve to be of his counsel (as it were) and guard of his body, he made a manifest distinction, Luke 6.13. Next after his Resurrection he put a difference between them, in that he installed them solemnly in their Apostolical charge, which he did not unto the seventy; and thirdly, after his Ascension, he sent the Holy Ghost chief to the twelve, and caused him to descend visibly even to the view of all the beholders upon their heads in the likeness of cloven tongues of fire, which, for any thing we read, he did not to the seventy.  
In the thirteenth of the Acts, Verse 1. we may behold this distinction, with our eyes; where Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, and Saul, are called Prophets and Teachers, and not Apostles, for I think as yet Saul was not joined to the number of Apostles, at least he was not accounted one: so Paul makes this distinction, when he takes to himself the honour to plant the Gospel, and to lay the foundation, and makes Apollo's a waterer only, and a builder upon the foundation, Paul plants, saith he, Apollo waters, but God gives the increase, 1 Cor. 2.6.  
Moreover, Acts 8. we see a manifest distinction, in Philip the Evangelist, who converted the Samaritans, and baptised them, but Peter and John behoved to be sent out of jerusalem, to lay on hands and confer the Holy Ghost; but my opponent may say, that Philip was a Deacon, and one of the seven mentioned, Acts 6. I answer, we read of Philip the Apostle, and of Philip the Deacon, and why not a third Philip an Evangelist? read Acts 21.8. he that was Deacon was there after advanced to be an Evangelist. Always we gain thus much, that Deacons must preach and administer the Sacrament of Baptism, and therefore they are not Laymen.  
That Deacons are not Laymen, but Preachers, and a third order of Church Governors, it is evident, Acts 6. for as soon as there was any need of men of that office (that was, when the number of the Disciples was multiplied) they were chosen and elected by the Apostles, yea, they were elected too before the Apostles went out of Jerusalem, & separated themselves to preach the Gospel to all Nations; for they behoved to be helpers of the Apostles, and to assist them in the work of Ministry, to have a care of the poor under them, and to baptise new converts at their command; that so the Apostles might give themselves to prayer, and the Ministry of the Word, Acts 6.4. The truth of this may be seen, Acts 10.48. where the Apostle Peter gives commandment (no question to the Deacons) to baptise Cornelius, and those who were with him; so we may see, 1 Cor. 1. that the Apostle Paul attributes the care of Baptism to others than the Apostles, where he saith, that he was not sent to Baptise, it being chief the charge of the Deacons, but to preach the Gospel; not that he might not baptise, for we see the contrary in the words, but because the Apostles gave themselves chief to Prayer and the Ministry of the Word, and committed the care of Baptism to the Deacons, and the administration of the Sacrament of the Supper to the Evangelists, called hereafter Elders, as may be gathered out of 1 Cor. 10.11.  
We see also Col. 1.1. a manifest distinction between Bishops and Deacons; for the Apostle writes to them as their chief Bishop and Overseer, for as yet the Apostle reserved the chief care of that Church to himself, although some think, that Epaphroditus was chief Bishop of that place; howsoever, we see two Orders here of Churchmen, and I hope none will deny but the Apostle was in order and degree above them; we see them also made mention of in the Epistles of Paul to Timothy, and Titus, over whom Timothy and Titus are placed as their chief Governors, so that it is more than evident that Christ and the Apostles continued three Orders of Church Governors under the Gospel.  
But I know that it will be objected, that there should be but two Orders of Church Governors now under the Gospel, because Christ himself appointed but two, Apostles and Evangelists, both of them called at first Disciples, only distinguished by their number, twelve, and seventy.  
Answ. Christ appointed but two indeed, because he supplied the room of the High Priest himself: neither would he have any more during his own Ministry; he was chief Governor of the Church himself, and he would have no Suffragans as long as he lived. Where the King is present himself, he needs not a Commissioner, nor a Viceroy. Again, had Christ chosen three Orders in his own time, then there should have been four Orders of Church Governors, all the while of Christ his Ministry upon earth: First Christ himself (for I hope no man will refuse Christ for one, and for the chief too) and the other 3 ordained by Christ. Now our blessed M. & Saviour, because he would keep Analogy (so fare as I can conceive) with the number and degrees of Church Governors under the Law, he would choose but two, and leave the third to be added by the Apostles after his departure; which they did with all diligence, as we may see, Acts 6.  
That our Saviour used this analogy in this, I will prove by other particulars, wherein he observed the like analogy, and first in the number of the Sacraments; as his Father appointed but two under the Law, Circumcision, and the Paschall Lamb, so he appointed but two under the Gospel, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord; the one to succeed in place of Circumcision, the other in place of the Paschall Lamb. And again, as Circumcision did represent unto us the guilt of sin, so our Saviour would have Baptism to represent to us remission of sins; And as the Passeover represented to the people of Israel their bodily deliverance from the bondage of Egypt, so our Saviour would have his last Supper to represent to us our spiritual deliverance from the bondage of sin and Satan.  
When our Saviour instituted Baptism he devised no new Ceremony, but took that Ceremony of Washing which the Jews used in their Purification, & appointed it to represent our spiritual washing from sin. So likewise in the Institution of the other Sacrament he did not devise any new Ceremony to represent his Death and Passion, but took the last part of the Paschall Supper, and appointed it for that us●e. The custom of the jews was, after the Supper was ended, and the Paschall Lamb eaten, he that was Master of the Feast took as many pieces of bread as there were people present at the eating of the Lamb (and there behoved to be between the number of ten, and the number of twenty, for there might not be fewer than ten, nor more than twenty) and gave every one a piece, saying these words, This is the bread of affliction, which your Fathers eat in the wilderness; and thereafter he took the Cup, and gave it to them, saying, This is the cup of affliction, which your Fathers drank in the wilderness. Now our Saviour Christ reserved the same Ceremony; for the Text saith, that first he took bread, and after that He had given thanks, he broke it, and gave to every one a portion, and said, This is my body which is broken for you, Do this in remembrance of me; And in like manner, He took the Cup, saying, this Cup is the new Testament and Covenant in my blood, drink ye all hereof, and as oft as you eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, you show the Lords death till he come, saith the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 11.  
Moreover, Christ chose twelve Apostles in Analogy to the twelve Patriarches, that like as the whole people of God, under the Law, did proceed out of the loins of the twelve Patriarches, so also God's children, under the Gospel, should be begotten by the Ministry of the twelve Apostles, and their Successors: He chose also seventy Disciples, in Analogy to the seventy Elders of the jews, whom Moses elected, to govern the people of Israel under himself; so our Saviour would have those seventy Disciples, and their Successors, to be spiritual Governors of the people of God, under the Gospel. Moreover, Christ fasted forty days in the wilderness, in reference to Moses, fasting forty days upon Mount Sinai. Christ entered into his Ministry, in the thirtieth year of his age, in similitude of the Priests and Levits entering in their several Functions. So that there is nothing more probable in the Scriptures, then that as Christ, by way of Analogy, did imitate the jews in many things, so also would he have as many degrees of Church Governors under the Gospel, as there was under the Law, and that he would be chief Governor himself of both Churches.  
But that ye may believe the truth of these things the better, I will let you see, that the Apostles also followed the example of their Master, in the imitation of the jews in many things: As in the use of Lots, conform to the ancient custom of the jews, Mathias is chosen to be an Apostle, so also they continued the use of an holy Kiss at their meetings (yet if they had been as precise, as many people now adays, they would have abolished that Ceremony, because Judas betrayed his Master with a Kiss) and gave it in Commandment, Greet one another with an holy Kiss, saith the Apostle Paul: so also, the use of Love-feasts proceeded from the Jews, for, as after their Sacrifices, they feasted one another, so after the celebration of the Lords Supper, they had their Agapae, and Love-feasts, which the Apostle Paul did not discharge, but forbade them in public, and licentiates them in their own private families; Have ye not Houses to eat and drink in, or despise ye the Church of God, saith he? The day of Celebration of the Sacrament of the Supper, was ever a Festival day to them, but not a day of fasting, as it is with many now: So also, the Custom, of laying on of Hands, was borrowed from the Jews, Numb. 8. in these, and some other forms and Ceremonies, the Apostle did imitate the Nation of the jews, but let these serve for an example.  
The Primitive Church also followed the example of Christ and his Apostles in this Analogizing, and in particular, as in the Consecration of Priests, some pieces of the Sacrifices were put in the Priest's hands, Exod. 29.9. Even so, they put the Bible in the hands of the Minister at his Ordination, this was done both by the Jewish Church, and the Christian; to teach both, That no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God: so also, they erected a Mother-church, wherever there was a Bishop, even as the jews had but one Mother-church, the Temple of jerusalem, because they had but one High Priest; and therefore in respect that Bishops succeeded in the room of the High Priest in the government of the Church, where ever there was a Bishop, there they built a Mother-church, and all the rest of the Churches of the Diocese were but pendicles of her, as the Jewish Synagogues were to the Temple of jerusalem: yea & these Mother-churches, they built them according to the similitude of the Temple of Jerusalem; for as the Temple had the Most holy Place, Holy place, and atrium, called the Court of the Temple, or Sal. porch, this for the people, the Holy place for the Priests, and the Most holy place for the Lord of Hosts, to be as it were, the place of his habitation, to dwell between the wings of the two Cherubims, there to give his Oracle; even so in the Christian Churches, there was a place appointed for the people, another for Churchmen, the third as the most holy place, where the Sacrament of the Supper was celebrated, as the only memorial of his presence, left by himself under the new Testament, as the Ark of the Covenant was under the Old. So then, since both the Apostles and the Churches of Christ, in the Primitive Times, did imitate the jewish forms by way of Analogy, it seems to me that in so doing, they followed the example of Christ, who kept an Analogy himself with the jewish Church, in many things, but in special in the number and degrees of Church Governors.  
Now I would ask my Author, by what reason he thinks Christ should have diminished the number of Church Governors? was the number of three Typical, or was the Church Government Typical? truly neither; the number of three is mystical indeed, but not Typical, neither was the Government Typical, but as necessary now under the Gospel, as it was under the Law; for, as Christ did not govern his Church, immediately by his spirit, under the Law, so no more doth he govern his Church, immediately by his spirit, under the Gospel; but as he committed the government, to certain Governors, under the Law, so hath he committed it, to certain Governors, under the Gospel. But it may be answered, that he hath not committed it, to so many degrees of Church Governors, now under the Gospel, as he did under the Law; I persuade myself, that my opponent shall never be able to prove, that Christ behoved to do this de jure, or show me a reason, why it behoved to be so: yes, he will say, of necessity the first degree behoved to be taken away, because the High Priest was a type and figure of Christ; and all types and figures were abolished by Christ's coming.  
Reply, I grant all types and figures were abolished, by Christ's coming; but I deny that the High Priest was a type and figure of Christ, as he was chief Governor of the Church: and that for these reasons.  
First, because then, all Church Government should have been abrogated by Christ's coming, for if Aaron's Government, was a type and figure of Christ's Government, than it will follow, that Christ now under the Gospel, should govern his Church, immediately by himself, without any subordinate Governors; for if Church Government, under the Law, was typical, and all types abrogate, it follows necessarily that there should be no Church Government now, but Christ's only.  
Secondly, If Aaron, as he was chief Governor under the Law, was a type and figure of Christ, than it will follow, that Christ was not Supreme Governor of his Church under the Law: for Types are of things to come, and neither of things present, nor bypast.  
Thirdly, the High Priest, as he was chief Governor, he could not be a type and figure of Christ, because if there had been but two ranks of Church Governors, one of them behoved to be chief, and so still there should have been a chief Governor.  
And lastly, the order that was among Church Governors was not Ceremonial but Moral, and as necessary for the Government of the Christian Church, as the Jewish; for God is the God of Order now, I am sure, as well as he was then: now nothing that was Moral, was typical, and therefore Aaron was not a type and figure of Christ, as he was chief Governor of the jews.  
Now I will show you, in what respect he was a type and figure of Christ. First, as the High Priest was one man, he did typify Christ as the one High Priest of our profession, and therefore Christ would not commit the chief Government of the Church to one any more, but to many in one and the same rank and order. Next, the High Priest his offering of one Sacrifice, once in the year within the Veil, was a Type of that only one propitiatory Sacrifice once offered up for the sins of the quick and the dead, by our Saviour Christ: Thirdly, the High Priest his once in the year only entering within the Veil, was a type of our Saviour his once entering into Heaven, to make intercession for us: For these respects then, AARON was a type and figure of Christ, but no ways in relation to his Government, for the Reasons before alleged.  
I have another Reason yet that moves me to think that there can be no fewer than three Ranks of Church Governors now under the Gospel: and it is this. The number of Three is mystical, as is evident by many examples, both in Scripture, things above Nature, Natural things, and Spiritual things. In Supernatural things we see the truth of this assertion, in the Divine Essence, which subsists in the number of three Persons, which is the mystery of all mysteries: in the Divine Essence also, there are three Communicable properties, Goodness, Power, and Wisdom, to these three all the rest may be referred, as Life, Love, Justice, etc. three incommunicable properties, Simplicity, Eternity, Ubiquity, of These no creature is capable. According to this similitude, the faculties of the Soul were form by God himself; for the Soul hath three chief faculties, Judgement, Memory, and Will, yea, the renewed mind consisteth of three Theological Virtues, Faith, Hope, and Charity, which are the three dimensions of every Christian soul: the bodily Substences of all creatures are composed of Three, Longitude, Latitude, and Profundity; without the which the Creatures can have no Subsistence: There are also three degrees of Life, Vegetative, Sensitive, and Rational, and all these in analogy to the three Persons of the Godhead; it were easy to show you divers resemblances between them, if it were necessary, and to the purpose. It was more than the light of Nature that taught Aristotle to esteem the number of three to be the perfectest number of all numbers, yea to be all in all; Qui dicit tria (saith he) dicit omnia, & qui dicit ter, dicit omnifariam; He that saith three, saith all, and he that saith thrice, saith always.  
But to come to the Scriptures: saith not john (1 John 5.7, 8) that there are three things that bear witness in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one: and that there are three things that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood; and these three agree in one. Christ loved three Disciples above all the rest, with whom he conversed most familiarly, Peter James, and john, to them he shown himself in his glory, at the Transfiguration, and also in his greatest agony and humiliation in the Garden of Gethsemanie. Our Saviour fulfilled his Ministry, in the space of three years; he lay three days in the Grave, three times appearred to the eleven, after his Resurrection; and many more than these are to be found in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, you shall find many numbers of three, wherein some mystery may be found; we read of three only that went to Heaven bodily, Enoch, Elias, and Christ: to teach us that salvation both in body and soul is obtained under all the three kinds of Church Government; for God hath governed his Church three several ways since the Creation, one way before the Law, another way under the Law, and a third way under the Gospel. The Worship of God hath been also of three several forms, according to the several ages of the World; Three men saved in the flood of Noah, of whom the World hath been replenished the second time, Sem, Ham, and Japhet; Three great Patriarches, out of whose loins the Church of God did spring; Three great Sabbaths, the seven day's Sabbath, the seven year's Sabbath, and the year of Jubilee; Three great Feasts, the Feast of Tabernacles, Easter, and Pentecost; Three ranks of Church Governors, the high Priest, inferior Priests, and Levits, and a number more; so that I say, if there be any number mystical, it is the number of Three, we have not so great reason to call Seven Mystical, as for Nine, it is only thought Mystical, because it contains thrice three.  
But here my opponents will reply, That they keep this analogy of three, for they also maintain three Degrees of Churchmen, preaching Elders, Lay-Elders, and Deacons, who are all Governors of the Church, and preaching Elders the chief Governors. I answer, if preaching Elders be the chief Governors, then according to the Replyers opinion (who maintains that the High Priest was a Type and figure of Christ, as he was chief Governor of the Church) they must be cashiered; for we cannot have chief Governors now under the Gospel, according to my opposites tenet, and so it will follow, we must have no public Ministry at all, nor no public Government neither, but private in every man his own Family, or rather every man must do according as he is moved by the spirit. I answer further that those three Orders are neither Christ's, nor his Apostles Ordinance, for any evidence that I can see in Scripture, no not so much as any show, or appearance. As for Lay Elders, I can not find them once named in all the Scripture, although the Apostle Paul doth particularly make mention of all Church Governors, under the Apostolical Order, in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus he particularly declares what preaching Elders and Deacons must be, how they must be qualified before they enter into holy Orders, but never one word of Lay Elders: Deacons indeed he nominates, but not Lay Deacons, but such as must preach the Gospel, and baptise, at their Superiors direction, and therefore the Apostle Paul requires that Deacons keep the mystery of Faith, in a pure conscience, which cannot be required of Lay men; such a measure of knowledge as is understood by the mystery of Faith, is not requisite in these, to whom is only committed the oversight of the poor.  
More yet, Lay Elders cannot answer to the Priests, because the Priests sacrificed as well as the High Priest; and there was no difference between them, in regard of their office of sacrificing, except that the High Priest was only appointed by God, to offer sacrifice within the Veil once in the year, for his own sins, and the sins of the people; but the High Priest, and the inferior Priests, agreed in these particulars, They both burnt Incense and offered Sacrifice, 1 Chron. 6.49. They both sounded the Trumpets, Numbers 10, and they both slew the Sacrifices, 2 Chron. 29.22. They both instructed the people, Malachi 2.5. They both judged of Leprosy, Leviticus 13.2. So that if Lay Elders will needs succeed in place of inferior Priests, and be the second degree of Church Governors, they must preach and administer the Sacraments, and so turn Pastors and Doctors, and then the Preaching Elders must be Bishops, for they must be a degree above them.  
Now follows to show you the truth of the last branch of the Assumption, That three Ranks of Church Governors have governed the Church of God, since the days of Christ and his Apostles, but because it would take up much time and paper, and might be wearisome to the Reader, I refer him to the Writings of many learned Divines, who have proved that point to the full. I dare say, we may as well deny all the humane Histories that ever were written, as deny the clear evidence of so many Histories, whereby Episcopal Government is defended, and accounted by all the Ancients, except Aerius (who is enroled among Heretics, by Augustine and Epiphanius, for his pains) for the first order of Church Government, having always two subordinate to it, inferior Bishops and Deacons.  
But here I know it will be said, that I confound Apostles and the chief Bishops together, and Evangelists and Inferior Bishops; whereas Apostles and Evangelists were extraordinary callings, and ceased with themselves.  
Ans. Truly this mistake is the cause of all our dissenting one from another in this point; for if we did hold the callings of Apostles and Evangelists, to be appointed by Christ, to continue in the Christian Church, for the Government thereof, until the end of the World, as they are indeed, this division that is amongst us had never been: And therefore I will endeavour by God's grace, to prove both by Reason and Scripture, that these callings are ordinary, and cannot without high sacrilege be cast out of God's Church. I will show you then in what respects their calling was ordinary, and perpetually necessary for the Government of the Church, and for what respects it is called extraordinary. It is ordinary and perpetually necessary, in regard of that power which Christ conferred upon them, to preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments, and also in regard of the power of Absolution and Excommunication, Ordination, and Jurisdiction spiritual, which our Saviour also granted unto them, as all men confess: and in regard of all those parts of the Episcopal Function to be continued until the second coming of our Saviour, and I think no man should deny this neither. It is called extraordinary for these respects following; First, because they were extraordinary persons, not being of the Tribe of Levi, who had only ordinary power in those days, to be instruments of Gods public Worship, and to serve at the Altar. Next because their gifts were extraordinary: for Christ, who was anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows, and had the spirit in super-abundance, he gave his Apostles an abundant measure of the spirit; but to after-ages he imparted only a certain Sufficiency, Grace for Grace. Thirdly, the extent of their charge was extraordinary, they were tied to no settled Residence, but the whole World was their Diocese: Go ye unto all the World, saith our Saviour. Fourthly, The manner of their calling was extraordinary, without Education, Trial, or Ordination. Fifthly, they had the infallibility of the Spirit, in matters of Faith they could not err. And lastly, their calling was extraordinary, quo ad ante, ●ut not, quo ad post, even in respect of the ordinary parts of the Ministerial Function; quo ad ante, because the calling of Churchmen in those days, was to offer up Sacrifices unto God, of Bullocks, Rams and Lambs, and other Creatures, and to burn incense into him; but so was not the calling of Apostles; Their calling was to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments, open the Gates of Heaven to the Penitent, and shut them upon the impenitent, etc. and so I may say, Their Calling in Analogy to the Priests calling under the Law, is to offer up the Sacrifice of Prayer, Praise, and Thanksgiving to God, and to teach every man to present their bodies in a living, holy, and acceptable Sacrifice. Quo ad post, it was not extraordinary, because Christ established that government for the Christian Church in all Ages to come, or else none at all, for other we see not, but this is manifest: yea, our Saviour continued the Apostolical and Episcopal calling in regard of the substance of it, in the full latitude of Apostolical Authority; and all this I will prove after this manner: and first,  
If the callings of the High Priest, Priests, and Levits, was not extraordinary quo ad post, in the days of Moses: then the callings of Apostles, Evangelists, and Deacons, was not extraordinary quo ad post, in the days of Christ.  
But the first is true, and therefore the second.  
The reason of the connexion of the Proposition is this, because those callings of Priests and Levits were newly established in the House of God, and the Church was not so governed before, and so although they were extraordinary, quo ad ante, in regard of the time bypast, yet not in regard of the time to come; so I think that these callings established by Christ, for the Government of the Church under the Gospel, although they were extraordinary in regard of the time past, yet not in regard of the time to come, more than the callings of the Priests and Levits under the Law. For why shall these Governors instituted by Christ in the infancy of the Church, cease to be of that Dignity and Authority in after ages, that they were of in the first Constitution, more than those Governors which his Father appointed to rule the Church of the jews at the first promulgation of the Law? I would feign have my opposite to show me a reason for the one more than the other, Truly those who took offence at the Superiority of Church Governors under the Law, might have alleged, that after the days of Moses and Aaron, Churchmen were all to be of equal Authority, because their calling was extraordinary in regard of the time past. But I am confident, that as God the Father appointed the one government to remain until his sons coming in the flesh, so God the Son appointed the other to continue until his second coming to judgement, and both to remain in that same case, for Dignity and Authority, wherein they were first established.  
My second Argument is this.  
If the callings of the Apostles, &c. cannot be called extraordinary, quo ad post, neither in regard of their extraordinary gifts, nor extraordinary manner of calling, nor the extent of their charge, nor their infallibility of Spirit, than it is not extraordinary at all, in regard of the time to come.  
But for none of these foresaid respects, can their calling be called extraordinary, in regard of the time to come.  
And therefore it was not extraordinary, in regard of the time to come.  
I prove the Assumption, and first that their calling cannot be called extraordinary, in regard of their extraordinary gifts, the gift of Prophecy, and the gift of Miracles, etc. for then, if it shall please God to bestow extraordinary gifts upon ordinary Ministers of the Gospel, their calling should cease any longer to be ordinary, which is absurd to say; for it is evident in Scripture, That ordinary Ministers both of the Law & the Gospel have had extraordinary gifts: as Samuel who was a Priest, which was an ordinary calling (for although Samuel was not of the Tribe of Levi, yet he was a Nazarite, who might by Gods own appointment serve at the Altar) and yet he had extraordinary gifts, 1 Sam. 1.11. Zachary was a Priest, and yet he had the gift of Prophecy, john 11.50, 51. so the Apostle james saith, That Elders in his time had the gift of Healing, jam. 5.14, 15. and yet no man will say that the calling of an Elder was extraordinary other than are now: so the calling of a King is an ordinary calling, and yet David King of Israel was a Prophet as well as a King, and in a word, we read in ancient Histories, That many Churchmen have had extraordinary gifts, and yet their callings were ordinary, and so I conclude, that extraordinary gifts do not make an extraordinary calling.  
Next the extent of their charge doth not make their calling extraordinary, because necessity requireth that it should be so, until the time that the Gospel should be propagated to the ends of the earth, so that if there be any Nation yet unconverted (as without doubt, there are too many) the Governors of the Church are bound so far as they are able to labour their conversion to the faith of Jesus Christ; for I think no man will say, but that, that charge given to the Apostles (go teach all Nations, etc.) remains still in force.  
Thirdly, as for the manner of their calling, being without Education, Trial, and Ordination, it makes it extraordinary, in regard of the time past, but not in regard of the time to come; for the High Priest and Priests under the Law, the manner of their calling was extraordinary, in regard of the time past, and without both Trial and Education, and yet notwithstanding their calling was Ordinary in regard of the time to come, and to be continued in the Church until Christ his coming in the flesh.  
And lastly, infallibility of Spirit, which the Apostles had, makes not their calling extraordinary, for they behoved to be infallibly guided, because they were to lay the foundation whereupon others were to Build, they were to Plant, others only to Water that which they had planted, they were to establish the Faith, which all ages to come are bound to profess, and so it was most necessary, that they should be infallibly guided by the Spirit. Further Christ's promise is, not only to be with his Apostles, but with them and their Successors until the end of the World, And lo, I am with you, saith he, until, etc.  
Now I will prove by evidence of Scripture, That the calling of the Apostles was an ordinary calling, and to be continued until the second coming of our Saviour, with the same Power and Authority both for Ordination and Jurisdiction which they had themselves.  
My first testimony is in Mat. 28.19. out of which I form this argument.  
They that were commanded to teach and baptise all Nations until the end of the World, their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end of the World.  
But the Apostles were commanded to teach and baptise all Nations, until the end of the World.  
And therefore their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end of the World.  
The reason of the Proposition is this, because the Apostles were not other ways able to keep this Commandment, but in their Successors in the Generations to come: if it had pleased God by his Omnipotent Power to preserve them alive, and keep them in health of body, and strength of Mind, for that end, I think none would have been more able than they, but it pleased him not to do so, and therefore it is most evident, that this Commandment must be kept in their Successors, and consequently, That the calling of the Apostles was ordinary, in regard of the time to come.  
My second Testimony is in Mark 16.15. The Argument is this.  
They who were commanded by Christ to preach the Gospel to every creature, that is to all men without exception, until the end of the World, their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end of the World.  
But the Apostles were commanded by Christ to preach the Gospel to all men without exception, until the end of the World.  
And therefore their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end of the World.  
This Argument is of that same force with the former, for if they to whom our Saviour gives this charge, were to preach the Gospel to all and every man without exception, than the Apostles being not able to do it themselves, were bound to deliver that commandment to faithful men, and they again to others, and so from age to age to be traduced, as long as there is men upon earth, to whom the Gospel must be preached; and so still, The calling of the Apostles must be ordinary, and to be continued until the end of the World.  
The third Testimony is in Matthew 18.18. and John 20.23. The Argument is this.  
They to whom our Saviour Christ gave the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end of the World.  
But our Saviour Christ gave to his Apostles the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.  
And therefore their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end of the World.  
This has ever been constantly maintained, That our Saviour Christ gave the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to the Apostles and their Successors, to this end, that as long as there were sinners upon earth, the gates of Heaven might be opened to the Penitent, and shut upon the impenitent▪ so as long as there is a Sinner upon earth to repent, or a penitent Sinner to be pardoned, as long must there be men endued with Apostolical power, to preach Repentance to all Sinners, and pronounce Remission of Sins to all Penitent souls.  
The fourth Testimony is in Matth. 28.20. and john 14.16. the Argument I frame thus.  
They with whom Christ promised to be always, until the end of the World, Their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end of the World.  
But Christ promised to be with his Apostles always, until the end of the World.  
And therefore their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end of the World.  
Of necessity then, Christ his promise here, is not only made to his Apostles, because they were not to continue until the end of the world, but to their Successors in all the Ages and Generations to come, for john saith, 14.16. That the Comforter would abide with them for ever, that is, to the end of the world; and so with their successors aswell as themselves.  
The fift Testimony is in Matth. 5.14. the Argument is this.  
They whom Christ appointed only to be the light of the World, their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end of the World.  
But Christ appointed his Apostles to be the light of the World.  
And therefore their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end of the World.  
Although the Apostles themselves may in some respect be called, the light of the World, because by their Ministry chief the World was first enlightened with the light of the Gospel, yet in respect that this light might be in danger to go out, there behoved others to succeed the Apostles in the ages to come, to keep in this light, and still to hold it out as a Lantern, in the Ministry of the Word, and the exercise of the other parts of that Spiritual and Heavenly Function, that all men might see, how to walk in that narrow way that leads to life eternal: The fire in the Temple of Jerusalem, which the Priests were daily to attend, that it went not out, was a Type and figure of this spiritual and heavenly fire of Grace, which must be preserved by the Ministry and continual attendance of the Apostles and their Successors.  
The sixth Testimony is in Matth. 10.40. and Luke 10.16. The argument is this.  
Whomsoever all men are bound to hear and receive in Christ's stead, their calling was ordinary, and to be continued until the end of the World.  
But to hear and receive the Apostles in Christ's stead, all men are bound.  
And therefore the calling of the Apostles was ordinary, and to continue until the end of the World.  
By all men here we must not understand only all those men that lived in the Apostles times, but all men in all Ages following, and not genera singulorum neither, but singula generum; for as the Apostles were commanded to preach the Gospel to all and every man without exception, so all and every man is bound to hear them and receive them; now none could bear the Apostles but those that lived in their days, and therefore necessarily our Saviour did understand the Apostles and their Successors in all Ages and Generations following; for they that hear not the Successors of the Apostles, hear not Christ, and they that receive not them, neither do they receive Christ, and they that hear them, and receive them, receive Christ.  
The seventh testimony is in Matth. 24.42. and Mark 13.35. The Argument is this.  
They who are commanded by Watching and Prayer to attend the second coming of our Saviour, their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end of the World.  
But the Apostles were commanded by Watching and Prayer to attend the second coming of our Saviour.  
And therefore the Apostles calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end of the World.  
No man will say that our Saviour did mean here, that the Apostles in their proper persons behoved to attend his second coming, for Christ knew well enough, that the Apostles were not to live until that time, but his meaning is, that they and their Successors in all Ages and Generations to come, and in general all men, in all Ages following, should thus attend their Masters coming; and therefore Christ saith, Mark 13.37. What I say unto you I say unto all men (watch:) so that our Saviour speaketh principally to the chief Governors of the Church, who should still be going about their Master's business, that when he comes he may find them well employed: so that I may unanswerably conclude by the clear evidence of all these former Texts, and many more than these, registered in the Book of God, That the calling of the Apostles was ordinary, and to be continued until the end of the world.  
Now for further strengthening of this Doctrine, I will use two Arguments, which naturally flow from the former Doctrine.  
By the first, I prove, That these Commandments set down in these texts of Scripture, are not only given to the apostles.  
By the second, I prove affirmatively, That these directions are given to the apostles and their Successors in all the following Generations.  
The first Argument is this.  
That which the Apostles were not able to do by themselves alone, Christ would not command them to do it by themselves alone.  
But the apostles were not able to keep these Commandements by themselves alone.  
And therefore Christ would not command them to keep them by themselves alone.  
I prove the Assumption, because the Apostles could not live unto the end of the World, and so it was impossible to them to keep these Commandments by themselves: They might keep them during their own life, but no longer, all that they were able to do was, to commit them to other faithful men, to be propagated unto the end of the World, and so my conclusion is good, That these Commandments were not only given to the Apostles.  
The second Argument is affirmative, and proves, That these Commandments were given to the apostles and their Successors in all ages and Generations to come.  
That which Christ knew was only possible to the Apostles and their Successors, Christ gave it in Commandment to the Apostles and their Successors.  
But Christ knew, that it was only possible to the Apostles and their Successors to keep these Commandments.  
And therefore Christ gave these Commandments to the Apostles and their successors.  
This argument is a plain demonstration à causa ad effectum, the strength whereof none that will oppose me shall ever be able to evade: for the cause why these Commandments are not only given to the Apostles, but to them and their Successors, is, because Christ knew that only they and their Successors were able to keep them.  
Now to end this point, I will here affirm, That I am so confident of the strength of these Reasons, that no Divine is able to answer, or rebate the force of them: their only Refugium must be this, That inferior Bishops or Presbyters are the Apostles Successors, by which we obtain at first, That the calling of the Apostles is an ordinary calling, & not extraordinary, which they before maintained; but I shall prove by God's grace, That inferior Bishops cannot be the Apostles Successors; first by Scripture, and next by demonstrative Reasons. Beside many other places of Scripture, read but Acts 15.2.4.6.22.23. where ye shall find Apostles and Elders clearly distinguished, I entreat you to see the places, and I doubt not but ye shall receive satisfaction: and farther I remember not that ever I heard any Divine affirm, Elders and inferior Bishops to be in rank and degree with the Apostles, but that all Divines, ancient and modern accounted Elders to be inferior in degree to the Apostles: but I will prove by three unanswerable Reasons, That Presbyters did not succeed the Apostles.  
My first Reason, I will form thus.  
They that were inferior in degree to the apostles, were not the apostles successors in that same order and degree.  
But Presbyters were inferior in degree to the apostles.  
And therefore Presbyters were not the apostles successors in that same order and degree.  
The Proposition I take for granted, for I hope no man will deny it, I prove the assumption first by the consent of all the divines that ever were in this World, next by the clear evidence of Scripture, throughout all the book of God, where the Apostles, who were chief Bishops and Overseers both of the Pastors and the people are clearly distinguished from inferior Bishops, who only have the oversight of the people, as is evident by the Apostle Paul his directions to the Elders of Ephesus, Acts 20.  
My second Reason I will form thus.  
If Elders be the Apostles Successors, then that same power and authority necessary for the government of the Church, is committed to them by the Apostles, as amply as they themselves had it.  
But that same power and authority necessary for the government of the Church, is not committed unto Elders, as amply as the Apostles themselves had it.  
And therefore Elders are not the Successors of the Apostles.  
If any man deny the Proposition, I will ask him, how it can be possible that Elders can be the Apostles Successors, unless they succeed them in that same Power and Authority? Truly it is beyond my capacity to conceive and understand it; I know they cannot succeed them in those things that are extraordinary, but in their ordinary power and authority, and that which is perpetually necessary for the Government of the Church of Christ under the Gospel, they must succeed them, and they be their successors.  
I prove the Assumption. Any one of the Apostles might ordain Elders, so Paul ordained twelve Elders at one time at Ephesus, Acts 19 any one might ordain Bishops, so Paul ordained Timothy and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Crect, for Timothy it is clear, 2 Tim. 1.6. any one of the Apostles might command Elders and Deacons to preach the Gospel any where, as is evident throughout all Paul's Epistles, and in the Acts of the Apostles, and which I think no Divine will deny; any one of them might prescribe Rules and Laws to inferior Elders, so did the Apostle Paul to the Elders of Ephesus, Acts 20. to Archippus, Col. 4.17. who by the declaration of all the Ancients was Bishop, and so superior to an Elder; any one of Apostles might Command, Rebuke, Censure, and correct Elders, at their own pleasure, as is most evident in Scriptures, and in particular in Saint Paul his Epistles, now those things no Elder can do by himself, and therefore, That some ordinary and necessary power which the Apostles had, is not committed to inferior Bishops, but to Superior.  
Here it may be objected, That by this Reason, Bishop's Superior cannot be the Apostles Successors, because they do not exercise their power and authority without the concurrence of the inferior Bishops, they join with them in the Ordination of Ministers, so they should also in the exercise of Jurisdiction.  
Answer. There is no warrant for this in the Scripture; it is true, we read the Apostles took the concurrence of Ministers in decision of doubts and controversies, and also in Ordination, so Paul saith that Timothy was ordained by the Presbytery, but there was no direction from Christ for so doing, it pleased the Apostles to take their concurrence, which they needed not to have done, and therefore they did sometimes exercise their Episcopal power by themselves alone, as we may see in the Acts of the Apostles, and 2 Tim. 1.6. and many other places of Scripture, and did very seldom crave the concurrence of Presbyters; so that Bishops do not exercise their power without the concurrence of Presbyters, it is not because they are commanded so to do by Christ and his Apostles, but their own voluntary yielding of their right, and submitting of themselves to their own Ecclesiastic Laws, and Canons of ancient Counsels; it is as clear as the Sun, That an Elder hath no power of Ordination or Jurisdiction granted to him in the Scriptures, what he hath it is but by humane Ordination, and he hath not in any ways Supreme Power granted him by any ancient Council; This is most certain, That a Bishop's Ordination is valid and good without a Presbyter, and hath warrant from the example of the Apostles; but a Presbyter to ordain without the command of a Bishop, is not warranted by any example in Scripture, nor the Canon of any ancient Council: and so my conclusion stands good, That inferior Bishops are not the Successors of the Apostles.  
My third Reason is this.  
They who were inferior to those in dignity and degree, who were inferior to the apostles in place and estimation, were not the apostles Successors in all the parts of the Ministerial Function.  
But Presbyters were inferior in dignity and degree to those who were inferior to the apostles in place and estimation.  
And therefore Presbyters were not Successors to the Apostles in all the parts of the Ministerial Function.  
The Proposition I know will be granted; I prove the assumption, That Presbyters were inferior in dignity and degree to those who were inferior to the Apostles in place and estimation. Timothy and Titus were inferior to the Apostles in place and estimation, so were all the Evangelists, as all Divines acknowledge, and yet those were Superior in dignity and degree even in the judgement of those who oppose the doctrine delivered in this Treatise. That Timothy and Titus were superior to Presbyters, I shall prove it by and by: but I will use one Argument yet for the ordinary callings of Apostles and Evangelists, and this it is briefly.  
Either the callings of the Apostles and Evangelists were ordinary callings, or else we have no ordinary Ministers of the Gospel by Christ's institution.  
But this were absurd to say, that we had not ordinary Ministers of the Gospel by Christ's institution.  
And therefore it is as absurd to say, that the callings of Apostles and Evangelists are not ordinary callings.  
I desire all those who oppose this doctrine to lose this knot. Now it remaineth to prove that the Bishops succeeded in place of the Apostles, and in place of Evangelists inferior Presbyters, and I will begin with this Argument.  
Either Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles, or the Apostles have no Successors at all.  
But that the Apostles have no Successors at all, it is false, as I have in my judgement unanswerably proved.  
And therefore Bishops are their Successors, for I have proved also that Presbyters cannot be their Successors.  
My next argument is this.  
Timothy and Titus were Bishopt.  
Timothy and Titus succeeded unto the Apostles.  
And therefore Bishops succeeded to the Apostles.  
I prove the proposition by this argument, that is, That Timothy and Titus were Bishops.  
They whose calling was ordinary, and had the power of Ordination and jurisdiction over Presbyters, were Bishops.  
But Timothy and Titus their calling was ordinary, and had the power of Ordination and jurisdiction over Presbyters.  
And therefore Timothy and Titus were Bishops.  
The proposition will be granted, I prove the assumption, and first that Timothy and Titus Calling was ordinary.  
They who had the only Ordinary parts of the Ministerial Function, their Calling was ordinary.  
But Timothy and Titus had the only ordinary parts of the Ministerial Function.  
And therefore the Calling of Timothy and Titus was ordinary.  
The proposition will be granted, I prove the assumption.  
They who had only power to preach the Word, and administer the Sacraments, etc. had only the ordinary parts of the Ministerial Function.  
But Timothy and Titus had only power to preach the Word, and administer the Sacraments, etc.  
And therefore Timothy and Titus had the only ordinary parts of the Ministerial Function.  
I prove the assumption thus; Tim. & Tit. had neither the gift of Miracles, nor the gift of Prophecy, nor the gift of Tongues, nor the gift of Healing, nor any extraordinary gift at all for any thing we read; neither were they infallibly guided by the Spirit; for if they had had the infallible assistance of the Spirit, the Apostle Paul would not have been so earnest to exhort them to do their duty in their calling; Timothy is exhorted to war a good warfare, holding faith & a good conscience, 1 Tim. 1.18, 19 & to be an example of Believers, in Word, in Conversation, in Charity, in Spirit, in Faith, in Purity, 1 Tim. 4.12. and to give attendance to Reading, to Exhortation, to Doctrine and Meditation, and not to neglect the gift that was given him by Prophecy, 1 Tim. 4.13, 14, 15. Titus had also the like exhortations, so that it is most certain, neither of them had the spirit of infallibility, nor no extraordinary gift of the Spirit, but the only ordinary parts of the Ministerial Function, and consequently their calling was ordinary.  
Next I prove their calling was ordinary by this argument.  
They whose calling was by Education, Trial, and Ordination, their calling was ordinary.  
But Timothy and Titus their calling was by Education, Trial, and Ordination.  
And therefore their calling was ordinary.  
The Proposition needs no probation, for they who are called to be Preachers of the Gospel, by ordinary means, without all question their calling was ordinary: for Tim. it is clear, for he had his education under his Grandmother Lois, and his Mother Eunice, he was tried by the Apostle, and he had the approbation and commendation of the Brethren who were at Listra and Iconium, before he would receive him in his company, thereafter he had his breeding, for a greater progress in knowledge, under the Apostle Paul, before he was made a Presbyter, much more before he was made a Bishop, for this cause Paul saith to him, Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in Faith and Love which is in Christ Jesus; as for his ordination, it is without all question most clear and evident; all this also may be said of Titus, and therefore I conclude both their callings to be ordinary, Titus his calling as well as Timothy's.  
Thirdly I prove their calling to be ordinary by this Argument.  
That calling which was to continue unto the end of the World was an ordinary calling.  
But Timothy and Titus calling was to continue unto the end of the World,  
And therefore Timothy and Titus calling was an ordinary Calling.  
I prove the Assumption.  
That which was to be propagated until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Persons of Tim. and Tit. successors, was to continue unto the end of the World.  
But Timothy and Titus calling was to be propagated in the persons of Tim. and Titus successors until the appearing of our Lord jesus Christ.  
And therefore Timothy and Titus calling was to continue until the end of the World.  
The Proposition will be granted, I prove the assumption.  
That which must be kept until the appearing of our Lord jesus Christ, must be propagated by Timothy and Titus successors until his appearing.  
But the calling of Tim. and Tit. (in all the particular parts of it) must be kept until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.  
And therefore their calling was to be propagated in the persons of their successors until his appearing.  
The Proposition is evident, because the parts of the Ministerial function cannot be otherwise kept but by propagation; and for this cause, the Apostle commands Timothy to propagate 2 Tim. 2.2. The things that thou hast heard of me (saith he) before many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others.  
The Assumption is also manifest by that strict charge which he giveth unto Timothy in the latter end of the first Epistle cap. 6.13.14. I charge thee (saith he) in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession, that thou keep this Commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.  
Now this Commandment that he would have Timothy to keep doth comprehend all the particulars contained in his Epistle, both concerning Doctrine and Government, and in particular the whole parts of the Episcopal function, which is most obvious to any reader, and so still my conclusion stands good, That the calling of Timothy and Titus is to be propagated in the persons of their successors until the second coming of our Saviour, and consequently their calling was an ordinary calling.  
It rests to prove the second part of the assumption of the principal argument, that Tim. and Titus had the power of ordination and jurisdiction over presbyters; and first I will use this argument ad hominem, for all the opposers of Episcopacy maintain That Tim. was an Evangelist, and that his power was Apostolical, and so in order and degree above Presbyters; and thus upon these grounds I reason after this manner.  
They whose function was Apostolical had the power of ordination and jurisdiction over Presbyters.  
But Tim. and Titus function was Apostolical.  
And therefore they had the power of ordination and jurisdiction over Presbyters.  
Next I will prove Timothy and Titus to have the power of ordination of Presbyters; This is the Argument.  
They who are commanded to ordain Elders have the power of ordination.  
Timothy and Titus are commanded to Ordain Elders.  
And therefore Tim. and Tit. had the power of Ordination.  
The Proposition cannot in reason be denied, for Paul would never have commanded them to do that which they had not power to do, yea the same power of ordination is a part of that Commandment which he is bidden commit to faithful men, to be kept and propagated until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Assumption is manifest 1. Tim. 5.22. and Tit. 1.5.  
That they had the power of jurisdiction is proved thus.  
They who are commanded to rebuke, censure, and correct, with all authority, and not suffer themselves to be despised, to stay foolish questions and vain babble, to excommunicate the obstinate, to try and prove those who desire the office of a Bishop, and either to admit or reject them according to their weakness or ability, have the power of jurisdiction spiritual.  
But Timothy and Titus are commanded to do all these things 1 Timothy 4.11, 12. 1 Tim. 3.9.17.19.20. 1 Tim. 6.17. Tit. 1.11.13. and Tit. 3.10.  
And therefore Timothy and Titus have the power of jurisdiction spiritual.  
The strength of this Argument I refer to the consideration of the learned for I hope no wise man will say, that these privileges can be divided from the power of jurisdiction. Now I will use one Argument yet, to prove that Timothy and Titus had the power of ordination and jurisdiction jointly.  If those Bishops of whom the Apostle Paul speaks in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus received the power of ordination and jurisdiction, by those instructions and precepts which the Apostle Paul sets down in those Epistles, than Timothy and Titus much more received the power of ordination and jurisdiction by those instructions of the Apostle Paul set down in those Epistles. 
But the first is true, and therefore the second is true also.  
The connexion of the proposition is valid enough, for if inferior Bishops (whom the Apostle calleth also Elders in that place) received the power of ordination and jurisdiction (as is asserted by all the opposers of Episcopacy) by the Apostles injunctions in those Epistles, much more have superior Bishops (as Timothy and Titus were) this twofold power by those injunctions: this is an argument strong enough ad hominem, although I confess, That properly Timothy and Titus have not this twofold power here by the Apostle Paul, but only are commanded to put that power in execution which the Apostle Paul before had conferred upon them at their ordination, which also they are commanded to propagate and transmit unto others, for the preservation of the calling, and propagation of the Gospel of Christ until his second coming to judgement.  
Now for the better clearing of this Doctrine, I will prove, That Presbyters or inferior Bishops have no ways the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction. I desire any Opponent to show me the place where it is recorded in the Scripture: in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus they find it not; Tim. and Tit. are commanded to put all the parts of the Apostolical power in execution, but not those Elders and Deacons of whom the Apostle speaks there, they get no Commandment to use that power; for it is more than evident, That all the injunctions set down in those Epistles are given to Timothy and Titus, and all those who were to succeed them in that same order and degree, yea to them as they are singular men, and as Superior in Order and Degree to all those towards whom they are to exercise that power, and the reason is this, because one man in that same Order and Degree cannot have power over an other in that same rank and order, one Bishop cannot have power over an other, one Presbyter cannot have power over another; That man that hath power over an other must be superior unto him in degree, or he can have no authority over him, that is his own properly, delegate he may have, but that is not his, it is his in whose name he exercises that power.  
But it will be replied, That this power is given to a company of Presbyters, and not to one in particular. Answer. This power is given here to Timothy and Titus as singular persons, and therefore I will make the matter manifest by a formal argument.  
That power which is committed to certain particular and singular men in the Ministry, is not committed to a representative body of Ministers.  
But the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction is committed to certain particular and singular men in the Ministry.  
And therefore it is not committed to a representative body of Ministers.  
The proposition cannot be denied, for that which is committed to one singular man in a calling, cannot be said to be committed to the whole company and trade indefinitely: for example, that power which is committed to one Alderman in the City, to wit the Master, or Lord Major, is not committed to the whole council of Aldermen, he hath a different and superior power to all the rest.  
As to the assumption, That this power was committed to certain singular men, as to Timothy and Titus, and all those who were to succeed them in the same rank and order, it is more than evident. Now to note this by the way, since Presbyters do not succeed to Timothy and Titus, in that same order and degree, the power of Ordination cannot be committed unto them.  
Furthermore, If the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction be committed to Presbyters, as they are singular men, than every Presbyter hath alike power and authority within his own Charge, every one is Pope in his own Parish, and may command, rule, and govern as he thinks good: for who can control him? none of his brethren have any more power over him, than he hath over them, for every one hath equal power and authority transinitted unto them, and this is downright Brownism.  
But it may be replied, That the Presbytery hath power over all particular Ministers.  
Answ. Who hath given them this power? It is not given them by Christ, nor his Apostles.  
If you reply, it is agreed upon by common consent. I Answer. Then at least, Presbyterial Government is not of divine Ordination; But I would ask this question, what if I should refuse to give my consent to such a government, or to subject myself to it, how can I be forced to obey their Canons and Laws, by whose authority? the representative Church (such as the Presbytery is) cannot compel me, before I subject myself to her authority, the civil Magistrate cannot do it neither, by the doctrine of all my opposites; and some would say if any should usurp authority, and compel by violence, it should be the destroying of our Christian Liberty, and tying us whom Christ hath made free, and in a word the demolishing of that platform of government, which Christ himself did establish, any defender of Parochial government may reason in this kind.  
But it will be again replied, That this authority is given to a company of Presbyters, Acts 8.14. and 11.22. and 15.6, 7, 8. to the 30. and 1 Cor. 5.3, 4, 5.  
Answer. These things were done in the infancy of the Church, before the Government was established, and so can be no rule for after ages, some will so answer.  
I answer further; there is not a word there that will confirm Presbyterial government, for none of the meetings spoken of in those places consist of persons having the like and equal authority, but all that was done in them was done by Apostolical power, by the power of the Apostles they were convened together, by the Apostles moderation those meetings were governed, by their authority all things were concluded, they had full and absolute power in their own hands, although it pleased them to do nothing without the consent of their Brethren of an inferior Order; ye will find all that I have said true, if ye will be pleased to see the places.  
But most clearly it appeareth, 1 Cor. 5.3, 4, 5. where the Apostle, by his power and authority, commandeth the Corinthian Ministers to excommunicate the incestuous person in an open assembly, or rather to intimate that excommunication which he had already pronounced, for thus he speaketh: For I verily as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath done this deed; In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. I hope this meeting was enjoined by the Apostle upon an extraordinary occasion, & nothing was done but by his special appointment. Here is nothing to warrant the authority of Presbyterial Government, there seems something to be in the words for Parochial; If there had been Parishes, and Lay-elders in those days, and truly, if I were not of that judgement, That the Calling of the Apostles were an ordinary Calling, and to be continued with the same latitude of power and authority in their Successors until the end of the World, I might easily be moved to approve of Parochial Government, but never of Presbyterial; and truly, if the Callings of the Apostles and Evangelists be not acknowledged to be instituted by Christ for the perpetual Government of God's Church, Parochial Government is that which hath greatest show of warrant in the Scriptures; as for Presbyterial, it hath not so much as any show at all in the whole book of God.  
Now follows, that I clear the doubts, and first I know it will be objected, That by this doctrine I condemn all the Churches of Christ that are governed after that manner.  
Ans. I condemn not the Churches, but the Government. Some perhaps may reply, That since I make Episcopal government to be Christ's institution, I charge them with a very gross error. I answer, Let them see to that, I cannot call evil good, nor good evil, unless I make myself liable to the curse pronounced; neither will any thing excuse them except necessity, for both God's Law and man's Law doth dispense with it, but because there is no necessity, let men beware, for, Ego liberavi animam meam.  
Furthermore, it will be alleged, That Timothy and Titus, and the Bishops of old, were not like our Bishops, They had not that power and authority, nor that Lordly Government that Bishops have now, They were not Barons, Lords, Earls, Princes, in such kind as they are now, They had not power over the bodies and estates of offenders, as Bishops have now, They might not punish with the Civil Sword as well as the Spiritual.  
Ans. In Episcopal Government there are two things, The one is Spiritual, and de jure divino, by divine right: The other is Civil, and de dono humano, of humane gift, and by the donation of Kings and Princes, That is, their Civil Honour, their Civil Power, their Temporalities, their Revenues, as to be Barons in Parliament, to judge in causes Temporal, to inflict temporal punishment, all these they have by the free gift of Kings and Princes, and many Kings have been very liberal in this kind to Churchmen, and not without warrant from God neither, according to that of the Apostle, The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour, and in special they that labour in the Word & Doctrine, 1 Tim. 5.  
And why should any man be offended to see Honour given to Churchmen? May not Kings and Princes give honour to any subject they please? or are not Churchmen capable of Civil Honour and Power now under the Gospel, aswell as they were under the Law? As to the first, I think no man will deny but Kings and Princes may advance such of their Subjects as they please, it is their special prerogative, I make no question of it.  
And truly I see no more reason that any man should make question of the other, but that Churchmen are as capable of Civil Honour and Power now under the Gospel, as they were under the Law, it is forbidden in no part of the New Testament I am sure: hath God forbidden Ministers to give their advice to Kings and Princes, for the better correcting of Vice and Sin, and for managing all things in the State, so that God thereby may be the more glorified, and the Kingdom of Jesus Christ advanced? or hath God forbidden Princes to crave their advice? It was well said of a Divive, That it is well with the Church, when godly Prophets hang as precious Earring at the Prince's ears. Erasmus said well in an Epistle to john Alasco, If we had more Bishops like Ambrose, we should have more Emperors like Theodosius.  
But I would ask any man this question, Have not Christian Kings as great need of the concurrent Counsel, and Assistance, of the Governors of the Church now, as the Kings of Israel had under the Law? and was there ever any religious King among the jews, who had not continually the High priest to second him in all his affairs? was not Aaron next unto Moses? was not Eleazar next unto josua? Had not David, Zador, and Abiather, continually in his company? Was not Azariah next unto Solomon? and did not joash that which was right in the sight of the Lord, as long as jehoida lived? and was not Hilkia chief Counsellor to josia, and Amaria chief Judge under Jehosaphat? Truly I hold this for a sure ground, That what ever was done under the Law, not being commanded by God then, it is as lawful for us now under the Gospel to do the same except it be forbidden us, and we need not doubt, but it will be as well approved by God now, as it was then.  
But which is more yet, If any thing be commanded by God under the Law, which is not ceremonial and typical, it is then much more lawful I think for us to do now. Did not the Lord himself command the people of Israel Deut. 17. to go to the Priests and Levits, and the Judge that shall be in those days, and ask, and they would show them the sentence of judgement, yea did not both these Offices to be Judge and Priest jump in one man many times? before the Law we read that Melchizedec was both King and Priest, Gen. 14. Heb. 7. and it is constantly believed also that the eldest Sons of the Patriarches were both Kings and Priests; was not Eli both high Priest and Judge of the People for the space of 40. years, and Samuel for the space of thirty years, and it is well known that the Macabees after the captivity were Rulers both in Civil and Ecclesiastical causes.  
Truly I will say thus much, If the civil places of Churchmen be unlawful now, it is either because Princes now stand not in so much need of the counsel and advice of the Messengers of God as Princes did then, or God doth not enable now his Ambassadors with such a measure of wisdom and understanding as he did the Priests under the Law: Truly to say the first, were to derogate from the wisdom and religion of the Godly and religious Kings in those days, and to say the second, were to derogate from the providence, favour, and goodness of God, most abundantly bestowed upon his servants under the Gospel.  
There is but one place in all the new Testament that seems to oppose the Doctrine I have delivered, viz, the words of our Saviour, Mat. 20.25. The Lords of the Gentiles (saith he) have dominion over them, and they that are great exercise Authority over them; but it shall not be so among you, etc. Ans. The best interpreters both ancient and modern understand the words so as is forbidden all greedy desire of governing, and tyrannical dominion, and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to bear rule Tyranically, according to the interpretation of most learned Divines, but all sort of power is not forbidden here, a paternal is not forbidden; the truth of this will appear to any man that will but take a strict view of the words; for first ye see Christ forbids such domination as the Lords of the Gentiles exercised towards their inferiors, and not that moderate and lawful power exercised by Churchmen under the Law: for if Christ had meant of the Priestly jurisdiction, he● would have said out of all question, I will not have degrees and ranks among you, one above another, as it is between the High Priest, in feriour Priests, and Levits, no, I will have you all of alike power and authority.  
Again, our Saviour saith, that they that are great exercise authority over their subjects, that is, great and mighty men, proud men, they domineer over their inferiors, and make slaves of them, but saith our Saviour, It must not be so among you, ye must not domineer in that kind but he (saith he) that will be great among you, let him be servant to the rest, that is, Let him so demean himself, that ye may be defended, maintained protected, and cared for both in Soul and body, so that in my judgement, these words do necessarily imply a Superiority, and that not in dignity, but in all Authority, Power, and Jurisdiction, lawful and laudable; and therefore this text was never used by any Divine, but against the tyrannical power of the Church of Rome, and the Pope's usurped authority, who takes upon him to depose Kings, and translate Kingdoms, and tyrannize over men's consciences. Would to God that such do might not also be laid to the charge of some others, who pretend greater humility and loyalty.  
Moreover, we see in the New Testament, that the Apostles did no● denude themselves of all civil employment, for the Scripture saith that many fold their Land and came and laid the moneys down at the Apostles feet, whereof no doubt they had a special care that it was well employed, and distributed according to every one's necessity; s● that it would seem that the civil power of Churchmen is not altogether unlawful; truly in my judgement, it is as unlawful for a Minister to take the charge of a House and Family, for it carrieth with it as great distraction, yea, more worldly encumbrances, more troubles and turmoils, then to be a Counsellor of State. And so I may reason, If that charge which involves a man in infinite worldly cares, troubles, & perplexities, be no sin to a Minister to take upon him, then far less is it a sin to a Minister to take upon him a charge and employment which doth not involve him in any intricate or distracting cares and businesses, as to be a Counsellor of State, a Justice of Peace, a Judge of Controversies between brother and brother: Well, Calvin and Beza both thought it not unlawful to be chief Counsellors of Geneva, & that mirror of Religion & Learning S. Aug. many hundred years before them, thought it not unlawful neither, yea, not to be burdened with civil encumbrances, hear what he saith, and I will end with it. I call the Lord Jesus to witness (saith he) upon my soul, in whose name I boldly utter these words, that touching my own commodity, I had much rather every day work something with my own hands, as it is appointed in well governed Monasteries, and to have the hours free to read and to pray, and to do some exercise in the holy Scriptures, then to suffer the tumultuous perplexities of other men's causes, touching Secular affairs, either in determining them by judging, or in cutting them off by entreaties. To which molestations the Apostle tied us, not by his own judgement, but by his judgement who spoke in him: which troubles for all that, himself did not undergo, because his course Apostolical had another respect: which labour, notwithstanding, we endure with consolation in the Lord, for the hope of eternal life, that we may bring forth fruit with patience: for we are servants of the Church, & especially to the weak members, how mean members soever we are in the same body. I refer to the consideration of the learned and religious Reader the weight and authority of this Father's Testimony.  
Further, if our Saviour Christ understands an equality of Churchmen in these words, It must be understood only to be among the Apostles, whom our Saviour Christ would have all of the same rank and degree, but they cannot be so understood as importing an equality betwixt them and the other 70. whom he so manifestly distinguished from the 12. as I have told you before. Lastly, was not Christ himself superior to the 12? and yet no man will say that Christ did transgress that Commandment which he gave unto them. Christ did exercise paternal authority over them, and the same authority he committed unto them over other inferior Ministers, yea, and the same also they exercised over them, for the which cause our Saviour Christ said to them, He that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me; he committed to them his own place in the chief government of the Church, and gave chief unto them the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, he said not to the 70. whose sins ye remit shall be remitted, and whose sins ye retain shall be retained, but to the 12. They had all power granted them immediately from Christ, and they committed that power to others according to their own pleasure.  
Now I say no more, but these reasons have prevailed with me, to sway and settle my judgement in the points before discussed, which I commend to the consideration of the judicious and imprejudicate reader, for no reason can prevail against prejudice, and I pray God to enlighten the eyes of our understanding, and to remove all prejudices of flesh and blood, and of this deceitful World, that we may more and more perceive the hidden truths of Scriptures, and Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven.  
Amen, Amen.  
FINIS.