Section 5

I justly fetch the pedigree of our holy calling from no less than Apostolical (and in that right, Divine) institution, and prove it from the clear practice of their immediate successors, and justly triumph in that confidence. They tell me of one scruple yet remaining; it is well, if there be no more: and what may that be? That in original authority of Scripture, Bishops and Presbyters went originally for the same. Alas, brethren, what needed this to be a scruple in your thoughts, or your words, when it is in express terms granted by us? That there was at first a plain identity in their denomination; here is one page, and that not without some labor of proofs, idly lost.

It is true, that the Remonstrant undertakes to show a clear and received distinction of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, (out of the undeniable writings of those holy men, which lived in the times of the Apostles, and after them) with an evident specification of their several duties: and what say my Answerers to this? Yet, say they, let us tell him, that we never find in Scripture these three orders, Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons. Brethren, you might have spared to tell me that which I had told you before: I speak of the monuments of immediate succession to the Apostolic times; you, of the writings of the Apostles themselves: how then do you either answer, or oppose my assertion? Although I must also tell you, that though in the Apostolic Epistles there be no nominal distinction of the titles, yet there is a real distinction and specification of the duties, as we shall see in due place.

That you may seem not to say nothing, and may make your readers believe you are not quite forsaken of Antiquity, you call Hierome, Chrysostome, Theophylact, Irenaeus, and Cyprian, to the book: and what evidence will they give for you? That the names of Bishops and Presbyters were not at first distinguished, but used [in non-Latin alphabet], in a promiscuous sense, and that some succeeding Bishops of Rome were styled Presbyters; this is all: but that your trifling may appear to all the world, name but any one of our writers, who have hitherto stood up in the cause of Episcopacy, that has not granted and proclaimed this which you contend for. Although withal, let me tell you, that you could not have brought a stronger argument against yourselves: for hence the world shall see how little force can be drawn from the name to the thing, since the mentioned Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, Bishops of Rome, are so famously known to have been in a height of elevation above Presbyters. And since Cyprian, who is styled by his Presbyters, Frater, is never found to style his Presbyters, Bishops; and being a holy Bishop himself, in many Epistles, stiffly maintains the eminence of his superiority. And is sometimes honored with the title of Beatissimus Papa Cyprianus, which I suppose was never given to a mere Presbyter. But what do I here follow them who confess themselves out of the way? At last acknowledging, that their adversaries confess, that which they would needs spend time to prove; let the names pass; all the question is of the distinction of their offices, which they will follow as tediously as loosely.

And first they would fain know what we make the distinct office of a Bishop, wherein they fall somewhat unhappily, upon the very words of that branded Aerius. Is it, say they, to edify the Church by Word and Sacraments? Is it to ordain others to that work? Is it to rule, to govern by admonition, and by other censures? Any, or all of these belong to the Presbytery. Compare now the words of Aerius, as they are related by Epiphanius, whom that Father brings in speaking thus, concerning Episcopacy and Presbytery, There is one order of both, one honor, one dignity; the Bishop imposes hands, so does the Presbyter; the Bishop does administer God's worship or service, so does the Presbyter; the Bishop sits on the throne, so does also the Presbyter. See, reader, and acknowledge the very phrases of that man, whom holy antiquity censured even in this point both for a frantic man, and a heretic. Brethren, God speed you well with your question; as for the first, which is edifying the Church by Word, and Sacraments, we make no difference, your distance may; we both hold it our work and make it so; and if any one has been slack herein, the fault is personal, we neither defend, nor excuse it. The main quarrel you grant to be in the second, which is the power of Ordination; appropriated (as you enviously and untruly speak) to ourselves: this you say was in former times in the hands of the Presbyters, and undertake to prove it from (1 Timothy 4:14): Neglect not the gift which was given you by Prophecy, and by laying on the hands of Presbytery, a place that has received answer [in non-Latin alphabet]; which I wonder you can so press, when Calvin himself, (as you well know) in his learned Institutions, even in his last, and ripest judgment, construes it quite otherwise; taking it of the office, and not of the men; (however elsewhere otherwise) wherein he also follows the judgment of Jerome, Primasius, Anselme, Haymo, Liranus, Erasmus, and others; as our learned Bishop Downam has largely showed.

To countenance this sense of yours, you tell us, you find [in non-Latin alphabet], so taken in Scripture; and cite (Luke 22:66) and (Acts 22:5). Wherein you do merely delude the reader; you find indeed the elders of the people so called, but the elders of the Church never; to make good your own construction therefore, you must maintain that laymen did and must lay on hands in Ordination, which Calvin himself utterly abominates.

Neither need we to give any other satisfaction to the point, than that which we have from Saint Paul himself, (1 Timothy 3:6): Stir up the gift of God which is in you by the imposition of my hands; mine, not others. I ask then, was Timothy ordained more than once? Once surely Saint Paul's hands were laid upon him, when therefore the Presbyters? Yes, you say, this was a joint act of both, else the harmony of Scripture is not maintained. Pardon me, brethren, if I think Mr. Calvin was more skilled in the harmony of Scripture than ourselves, yet in his ear it sounded well, that [in non-Latin alphabet], should be the office to which Timothy was ordained by Paul, and not a company of men that ordained him. Yet give me leave to marvel how you can have the boldness to say, this power is communicated to Presbyters, when you know that not only other Antiquity, but even Jerome himself and that Council of Aquisgrane which you cite, do still except Ordination, which yet we do not so appropriate, as to lay our hands alone upon the head of any Presbyter.

The third part of our office consists in ruling; which though our Bishops (you say) assumed to themselves, you will discover to have been committed to, and exercised by Presbyterial hands. For evidence whereof you cite (Hebrews 13:17): Obey them that have the rule over you, for they watch for your souls. Brethren, what an injurious imputation is this? Do we not give you the title of Rectores Ecclesiarum? Do we not in your institution commit to you regimen animarum? Why will you therefore bear your readers in hand, that we herein rob you of your right? It is true, that here is a just distinction to be made, between the government of souls, in several congregations, and the government of the Church, consisting of many congregations; that task is yours, this is the Bishops', wherein their rule yet, is not lordly, but brotherly, or paternal. Your argument reaches not home to this, and yet you strain that place of (1 Thessalonians 5:12) beyond the due breadth, while you stretch it out to either a parity, or community of censure.

Enjoy now what you have so victoriously purchased, but give me leave to sum up my reckonings also. Since then (however the name was at first promiscuously used, yet) the office of Bishops, and Presbyters differed, even by Apostolic institution: and the acts pertaining thereto, of Ordination, and power of ordinary government and censures, were in that very first age of the Church manifestly distinguished; therefore Bishops and Presbyters were not one.