seven of the said ministers, their names shall be returned to both Houses of Parliament, to be dealt with as they, in their wisdom, shall think fit." It was noted further, that " no minister be allowed to preach, unless he has a certificate of his ordination, or at least of his being examined and approved by the assembly."

Neal.

The following is an account of the debate upon ordination, A.D. 1645.

When the passage in Timothy, of laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, was voted a full proof for Presbyters ordaining without a Bishop, Mr. Seldon, Lightfoot, and some others, entered their dissent, declaring, that the imposition of hands there spoken of, was only for admission to be an elder; and though elders might ordain elders, it did not necessarily follow that they might ordain a Bishop.

The Independents argued for the right of every particular congregation to ordain its own officers; this was debated ten days. The arguments on both sides were afterwards published by consent of the several parties, in a book entitled, "The Grand Debates between Presbytery and Independency." At length the question being put, that it is requisite no single congregation that can conveniently associate with others, should assume to itself the sole right of ordination, it was carried in the affirmative.

While the affair of ordination was depending in the assembly, committees were chosen to prepare materials for a new form of discipline and church government; a point of the greater consequence, because the old form was dissolved, and no other as yet established in its room. Here the Independents

agreed with the Presbyterians, that there was a certain form of church government laid down in the New Testament, which was of divine institution; but when they came to the question, what that government was? and, whether it was binding in all ages of the church? both the Erastians and Independents divided against them. The proposition was this that the Scripture holds forth, that many particular congregations may, and, by divine institution, ought to be, under one Presbyterial governThe debate lasted thirty days; the Erastians did not except against the Presbyterial government, as a political institution, proper to be established by the civil magistrate; but they were against the claim of a Divine Right.

ment.

*The Erastians derived their name from Erastus, a German divine of the sixteenth century.

The pastoral office, according to Erastus, was only persuasive, like a professor of the sciences over his students, without any power of the keys annexed. The Lord's Supper, and other ordinances of the Gospel, were to be free and open to all. The minister might dissuade the vicious and unqualified from the communion, but might not refuse it, or inflict any kind of censure; the punishment of all offences, either of a civil or religious nature, being reserved to the magistrate. The assumed advantage of this scheme was, that it avoided the erecting Imperium in Imperio, or two different powers in the same civil government; it effectually destroyed all the spiritual Jurisdiction and coercive power over the consciences of men, which had been challenged by Popes, Prelates, Presbyteries, &c. and made the government of the church a creature of the state.

At this period, (1645), the Independents composed a third party, and made a bold stand against the proceedings of the high Presbyterians; their numbers were small at first, but increased prodigiously in a few years, and grew to a considerable figure under the protectorship of Oliver Cromwell.

and

King Charles' First Paper to the Parliament Divines. he b

as

"Charles Rex.-I conceive that the episcopal in government is most consonant to the word of God in Cre and of an apostolical institution, as it appears by theery c Scripture to have been practised by the Apost 27, 28 themselves, and by them committed and derived charg particular persons as their substitutes or success the Hol

therein (as for ordaining presbyters and deace! The p giving rules concerning Christian discipline, a pres

exercising censures over presbyters and others,) forming

Tere extr

tas, (viz.) bishops to Eph

has ever since, till these last times, been exerc by bishops in all the churches of Christ; and t fore I cannot in conscience consent to abolis said government.

Notwithstanding this my persuasion, I w

to set

glad to be informed, if our Saviour and his Aserve furt

did so leave the church at liberty, as they totally alter or change the government at the sure, which if you can make appear to me, will confess that one of my great scruples taken away, and then there only remains,

"That being by my coronation oath ob maintain episcopal government, as I found i to my hands, whether I may consent to lishing thereof, until the same shall be ević me to be contrary to the word of God."

bove an A

* one dea

The Parliament Divines, in answer to part of his Majesty's paper admit, that th did exercise the extraordinary powers he but deny, that they conferred them upo ticular persons as their substitutes or and insist, that in Scripture there ar

is of the

ON 1 TIMOTHY iv. 14.

383

orders of officers (viz. bishops and deacons, Phil. i. 1. To the saints at Philippi that are in Christ Jesus, with the bishops and deacons; and that the name, 48 office, and work of a bishop and a presbyter is the same; as in Titus i. 5, and 7. "For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst ordain presbybrters in every city; for a bishop must be blameless, Acts xx. 27, 28. Paul called the presbyters toregether, and charged them to take heed to the flock cerer which the Holy Ghost had made them bishops, Pet. v. 1, 2. The presbyters among you I exhort; ho also am a presbyter, feed the flocks of God mong you, performing the office of bishops.) As Apostles were extraordinary officers, so were mothy and Titus, (viz.) evangelists, but neither of en were called bishops in Scripture, much less e they affixed to Ephesus or Crete, but traMed up and down to settle churches in several ntries. They observe further, that in the same of officers, there was not any one superior to ber; no Apostle above an Apostle, no presbyter a presbyter, nor one deacon above another. add, that the angels of the churches, in the dations are never called bishops, nor is the word day of St. John's writings, who calls himabyter; from whence they argue the tind these offices in Scripture, and the equa Wyde oficers. They admit, that not long after The dates times, bishops are reported to have We pionity above presbyters, but this was not his but an ecclesiastical institution, as is evithe must considerable writers in de tatimony of the most ancient fathers,

Maish

Erudition of a Christian Man, printed 1643, says expressly that the Scripture mentions but two orders, i. e. bishops or priests, and deacons. They conclude with observing, that the modern episcopacy is very different from that which began to obtain in the second and third ages of the church, insomuch that the present hierarchy, which is but an human institution, might be abolished, and the other remain.

After three days, his Majesty, with the assistance of his learned divines, replied to the foregoing paper, and acknowledged, "That the words bishop and presbyter are sometimes confounded in Scripture; he admits, that presbyters are Episcopi Gregis, bishops of the flock; but that bishops are Episcopi Gregis et Pastorum within their several precincts, i. e. bishops of the flock and of their pastors too; and that soon after, common usage appropriated bishop to the ecclesiastical governor, leaving presbyter to signify the ordinary minister or priest, as appears from the ancient fathers and councils. admits the calling of the Apostles and their gift to be extraordinary, but adds that their mission to govern and teach was ordinary and perpetual; and that the bishops succeeded them in the former, and presbyters in the latter function.

He

"His Majesty still insists, That Timothy and Titus, were bishops, as appears from antiquity, and by a catalogue of twenty-seven bishops of Ephesus, lineally descended from Timothy, as is avouched by Dr. Reynolds against Hart, and therefore the distinction between an evangelist and a bishop is without a foundation; the work of an evangelist being no more than diligence in preaching the word, notwithstanding all impediments, according to the Apostle,