monly call Bishops, can have any authority to minister in Sect. III. the Christian church. For that the power of ordination is solely lodged in that order, shall be proved from the institution of our Saviour, and the constant practice of the Apostles. That the power of ordination lodged in the Apostles was of divine institution, I suppose no one will question, who reads these words of our Saviour to them, after his resurrection: As my Father sent me, so send I you 94; and, Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world95: from whence it is evident, first, That it was by a divine commission, that our Saviour ordained or sent his Apostles. Secondly, That, by virtue of the same commission, the Apostles were at that time empowered to ordain or send others. And, thirdly, That this commission to ordain was always to continue in the Christian church, and to remain in such hands as the Apostles should convey it to. From whence it naturally follows, that whoever has a power to ordain, must derive it from the commission which our Saviour received from God, and gave to his Apostles, and was by them conveyed to their successors. The only way then to know in whose hands this commission is now lodged, is, to inquire what persons were appointed by the Apostles to succeed them in this office. Now it is plain to any one who will read the Scripture Three diswithout prejudice, that there were three distinct orders of tinct orders Ministers in the Christian church, in the Apostles' days, the miniwhich were designed to continue to the end of the world. stry by the For besides those two, which our adversaries allow, viz. Apostles. Deacons, and Presbyters or Elders, (which latter are also sometimes called Bishops,) we read of another order, which were superior to, and had authority over, both these: such as were the Apostles, and Timothy and Titus, and others. For it is plain from the epistles St. Paul wrote to the two last mentioned, that they presided over the Presbyters. They had power to enforce them to their duty, to receive accusations against them, and judicially to pass sentence upon them: which abundantly proves their superiority. And several others were constituted by the Apostles to the same office: such were St. James surnamed the Just, and Epaphroditus, who were termed Apostles or Bishops by all antiquity: such doubtless were those whom St. Paul calls Apostles of the Churches, and joins with Titus 96: and such also were

94 John xx. 21.

95 Matth. xxviii. 20,

96 2 Cor. viii. 23.

set apart to

Chap. II. those Angels of the churches, mentioned in the book of the Revelation.

Some indeed have been pleased to tell us, that "These "were extraordinary officers, and so of temporary insti"tution only." But this is said without any ground or plausible pretence. That they were sometimes sent upon extraordinary messages, and had a power, upon an occasion, to do extraordinary things, such as miracles, &c. is very true: but then the same is to be said of the other orders as well as this. Philip was only a Deacon, and yet God employed him in several extraordinary matters. And working of miracles was so common in the beginning of Christianity, that ordinary Christians were frequently endued with this power 97. So that, if this were an argument for the temporary institution of one order, it must be so too for all the rest; which they, who make the objection, dare not say, and therefore acknowledge there is no force in it.

But they farther urge, that "Timothy was an Evan"gelist; because St. Paul bids him do the work of an "Evangelist 98" But to this we answer, that an Evangelist was no distinct officer at any time in the Christian church. For the proper notion of an Evangelist in the Acts and St. Paul's Epistles is, one who was eminently qualified to preach the Gospel, and had taken great pains therein. Thus Philip was called an Evangelist 99, who was no more than a Deacon; and could only preach and baptize, and had not the power of laying on of hands, which Timothy had: and therefore the office of Philip was far inferior to that of Timothy. Whence it is evident, that allowing Timothy to be an Evangelist, yet his power over Presbyters did not accrue to him upon that account. Nor does Timothy's being an Evangelist prove the office of ruling and ordaining Presbyters to be peculiar to an Evangelist; any more than Philip's being called an Evangelist proves the office of preaching and baptizing to be so.

From what has been said therefore it plainly appears, that there were three distinct orders set apart to the ministry by the Apostles. Our next inquiry then is, to how many, or to which of these, the power of ordination was committed. Now that the lowest order (viz. that of Deacons) had not this power, is by all confessed: and that

97 Mark xvi. 17, 18. Acts x. 46. and xix. 6. 1 Cor. xii. 10, 28.

98 2 Tim. iv. 5.
99 Acts xxi. 8.

the highest order (of which Timothy and Titus were) had Sect. III. it, we are assured by the express testimony of St. Paul.. Presbyters The only question then is, whether the second order (viz. were never that of Presbyters) was ever invested with this power. The invested affirmative of which question can never be proved from with the Scripture or antiquity. For,

First, It is frivolous to argue from the community of names, to the sameness of office. For any reasonable man will grant, that the words Bishop and Presbyter being promiscuously used, and mere Presbyters being frequently called Bishops in Scripture, does not prove, that therefore all the powers, which belong to those we now call Bishops, were ever lodged in those Presbyters. The only method then, to prove that the power of ordination belongs to Presbyters, is, to shew, that whoever were in Scripture called by the name of Presbyters or Bishops were invested with that power: which can never be done. For if Presbyters or Elders had the power of ordination lodged in them, for what reasons can we suppose that St. Paul should leave Titus in Crete on purpose to ordain Elders in every city, (as he tells him he did',) when we know that that island had been converted to Christianity long before Titus came thither; and therefore doubtless had many Presbyters among them, to preach and administer the sacraments to the inhabitants? Nor,

Secondly, Can this be proved from that often quoted passage, where St. Paul exhorts Timothy not to neglect the gift that was in him, which was given him by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. For, allowing that Timothy's ordination is here spoken of, (which yet many learned men have questioned,) it is manifest that the Apostles themselves were often called by the name of Presbyters. And so the Presbyters here mentioned may very probably be the Apostles. We are sure that St. Paul was one of them, and that he ascribes the whole of Timothy's ordination to his own laying on of hands3: and therefore the utmost that can be deduced from this text is this, viz. That one or more of such as were mere Presbyters might lay on their hands in concurrence with him, to testify their consent and approbation; as is the custom at this day in the ordination of a Presbyter, and has been sometimes done at the consecration of a Bishop1. Nor, Thirdly, Can it be inferred from any of the charges or

r Titus i. 5.

21 Tim. iv. 14.

32 Tim. i. 6.

H

4 Vid. Bevereg. in Can. Apost. I. p. 11. ad fin. col. 2.

power of ordination.

Chap. II. directions given by St. Paul in his epistles to either Bishops or Presbyters, that they had ever any thing like the power of ordination: which makes it more than probable, that wherever the word Bishop is found in Scripture, as applied to an ecclesiastical officer after our Saviour, the middle order is always meants. For though the Apostles are sometimes called Presbyters and Deacons, yet they are never called Bishops. Their office is once indeed called 'ETIσXOT, i. e. a Bishopric: but wherever we meet with 'Eloxonо, i. e. Bishops, either in the Acts of the Apostles, or the Epistles, we may very well understand the middle order, which we now call Presbyters. And as for those whom we now call Bishops, they were, in the first age of the church, styled Apostles. For so St. Paul, speaking to the Philippians concerning Epaphroditus', calls him his brother and companion in labour, ὑμῶν δὲ ̓Απόςολον, but your Apostle; (for so the word ought to be rendered, and not Messenger, as in our translation ;) an office which it is probable St. Paul ordained him to, when he sent him with this epistle for which reason, he charges them to receive him in the Lord with all gladness, and to hold such in reputation. And Epaphroditus is accordingly, by all antiquity, reckoned the first Bishop of Philippi. So that the apostolical office was not temporary, but designed to continue in the church of Christ. And therefore the Apostles took care to ordain some to succeed them, who were at first called by the same name, though they afterwards in modesty declined so high a title; as is expressly affirmed by Theodoret, who tells us, "That formerly the same persons were called both Presbyters and Bishops; and "those now called Bishops were then called Apostles: "but in process of time the name of Apostle was left to "those Apostles strictly so called, and the name of Bishops "ascribed to all the rest." And Pacianus, a writer in the fourth century, affirms the same thing. So that, granting mere Presbyters to be Scripture-Bishops, which some have so earnestly contended for; yet nothing can from

66

thence be inferred, to prove them to have equal power Sect. III. with those we now call Bishops, who are successors of a higher order.

And to what has been said, we might, for farther proof, add the joint testimony of all Christians for near fifteen hundred years together; and challenge our adversaries to produce one instance of a valid ordination by Presbyters in all that time. It seems therefore very strange, that, if Presbyters ever had the power of ordination, they should so tamely give up their right, without any complaint, or so much as leaving any thing upon record, to witness their original authority to after-ages. In short, we have as much reason to believe that the power of ordination is appropriated to those we now call Bishops, as we have to believe the necessary continuance of any one positive ordinance in the Gospel.

And now, (to sum up all that has been said in few words,) a commission to ordain was given to none but the Apostles, and their successors. And to extend it to any inferior order, is without warrant in Scripture or antiquity. For every commission is naturally exclusive of all persons, except those to whom it is given. So that, since it does not appear, that the commission to ordain, which the Apostles received from our Saviour, was ever granted to any but such as must be acknowledged to be of a superior order to that of Presbyters, which superior order is the same with that of those we now call Bishops; therefore it follows, that no others have any pretence thereunto; and consequently none but such as are ordained by Bishops can have any title to minister in the Christian church.

SECT. IV. Of the Ministerial Ornaments.

meant in

THE second part of this rubric is concerning the or-What ornanaments of the church, and the ministers thereof, at all ments are times of their ministrations: and to know what they are, the rubric. we must have recourse to the Act of Parliament here mentioned, viz. in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth; which enacts, That all and singular Ministers, in any Cathedral or Parish-church, &c. shall, after the feast of Pentecost next coming, be bounden to say the Mattens, Evening Song, &c. and the administration of the Sacraments, and all the common and open Prayer, in such order and form as is mentioned in the said book, (viz. first book of Edward VI.) and not other or otherwise. So that by this Act we are again referred to the first Common Prayer Book of King