termed Divine from their authority the same reason will be for the next to them and so to the last and so even the Prescriptions of the now living Bishops should be Divine than which nothing can be more abhorring to reason Well then what I have said before will serve likewise here that is that what Divine Laws were established by the Apostles we may find in the Acts and Epistles now there is no such Decree observable any where in them The Commission given to the Apostles by which they and their Successors were and are authorized to send others was not given to them conjunctim as if they should act onely altogether much less was there specified that three of them should joyne in it but without doubt separately every one had this power given to punish to forgive Sins to Baptize give the Communion Ordain and we find upon this foundation it is that St. Paul gave Commission to particular persons to Titus to Timothy and the like But I need not trouble the Scriptures about it I do not find the Patrons of that opinion producing any And therefore I wonder that Vasques did term it a Divine Right when he attempts no where to prove it nor his Predecessors or Followers in this Conclusion The Consecration of St. James to be Bishop of Jerusalem discussed BUt they urge the Decretall Epistles of Anacletus and out of him Amcetus that St. Peter James and John I mean James the Great as the other is called James the Less that these three Apostles did Consecrate the other James Bishop of Jerusalem and St. Peter by whom he saith himself Anacletus was made Priest told him that it should always be a Law hereafter that there should be three Bishops to Consecrate one I do wonder if this were so how St. Peters pretended Successors should be bold to dispence with this Law of St. Peters of which we shall see more hereafter but it is well known by learned men how unlike these Epistles are to be these mens writings upon whom they are fathered But I acknowledge the story so far as it affirms the Consecration of St. James for by better authority then theirs it is justified which is by Eusebius lib. 1 cap. 1. But Eusebius sayth not that St. Peter gave it for a Rule for the future which this Anacletus seems to inforce Nay Eusebius doth not name this Anacletus in his Relation which if there had been any such Epistle extant in his time no doubt but he would have done as well as Clemens but I grant the story and as Adam Tanner a learned Jesuit speaks Tom. 4. Scholasticae theologiae disputatione prima Quest. 3. Dubio 2. Numero 3. It might be done ad quandem solemnitatem ordinis Episcopalis I may say Episcopatus ejus than whom never man deserved more honour in his Consecration for he is esteemed the father of that Epistle which goes under his name then he was the Brother that is the nearest kinsman of our blessed Saviour then a man so honoured for vertue that he was called James the just and so esteemed by Josephus a Jew who attributes the great Judgement of God upon the Jews in the destruction of Jerusalem to their iniquity of stoning that just man so that if ever there was a man to be honoured with so glorious a Consecration it was he But give me leave by the By to say that from this I can add one strong Scholastick reason to the excellent industry of Doctor Hammond who in his Preface to St. James the Apostle proves from antiquity that this Bishop of Jerusalem was none of the Twelve either the son of Zebedee or Alpheus I can add this for if he had been any of them it is not reasonable to think that he had need of a new Consecration to a Bishoprick whom Christ himself had ordained an Apostle or our Saviour made him onely Bishop of Jerusalem as many affirm let no man think that he could be Consecrated again by these three for Orders must not be given twice and no man can think that either our Saviours Ordination to make him an Apostle or Bishop was insufficient but let it be which you will it is not needfull to trouble the Reader with discussing the truth of it nor indeed in Actions so far remote where are such great Authorities of both sides Is it possible to conclude any thing peremptorily I therefore let it pass and for the present grant he was Consecrated by these three But what can follow but this that so great a Person of such an extraordinary merit was so honoured by these Apostles who as Clemens saith did not contend for the honour themselves but pitched upon him to be the first Bishop of that Sea which without doubt was then the most glorious Episcopal seat in the World but is there any rule given that every Bishop should have that honour done him which was given to St. James SECT II. The first of these are called Apostolicall Canons examined THe next thing in order to this dispute to be examined will be the first of those which are called Apostolicall Canons the words of which Canon are Let a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops this Canon comes next to be examined and by them who require three Bishops to the Consecration necessarily it is answered that these two Bishops are required but with an addition of an Archbishop two Bishops an Archbishop So Cardinall Bellarmine in his fourth Book de Ecclesia militante which is de notis Ecclesiae cap. 8. and from him the latter schoolmen with one consent But let a man consider whether this be not a violence to the Text when the name of Archbishop is not mentioned in these Canons nor in the Scripture for if these Canons were of the Apostles Constitution then they must be penned in the language of Scripture-phrase bearing the same date with them and so not to vary from their sence for although Archbishops are of great necessity and antiquity where there are many Bishops to keep them in peace and unity with Ecclesiastical discipline so a Patriarch over them yet neither he nor a Patriarch have any thing but jurisdiction by Ecclesiastical authority nothing of Order by divine right more than a Bishop and therefore no more necessity of him than another Bishop in the Consecrating of a Bishop but onely by the Canons of the Church and therefore it is a violence offered to that Canon by them who have a veneration of it SECT II. Some Canons of Councels examined THe next thing to be considered will be the fourth Canon of the first Councel of Nice Episcopum apparet maxime quidem ab omnibus qui sint provincia constituit si autem hoc sit difficile vel propter urgentem necessitatem vel viae longitudinem tres omnino in eundem locum congregatos absentibus quoque suffragium ferentibus scriptisque assentientibus tunc electionem fieri eorum autem quae
a Presbyter and see what peculiar Interest he hath in it distinct from other men First then without Question such a preaching as is Occasional by private Conference or in publike Assemblies when in publick Opportunity is offered to manifest the Glory of God or Convert or Confirm by Conference any soul to or in the Christian Religion or Godlinesse of living which indeed is a great part of Christianity when upon occasions of Discourse or otherwise Opportunities shall be granted to any man he may if he have abilities so Conferre as to perswade men to a newnesse of life and this is preaching in its latitude it is preaching the Gospel of Christ and each man that hath abilities ought to do it but each man is not bound to have abilities a private mans strength is chiefly discerned in holding fast the Word of Truth that so he be not carryed away with the wind of Doctrine he hath other Offices which are his Duties and in which he ought to expend his Studies and Endeavours but to have abilities or to endeavour to have some Abilities for this purpose is the Duty and Office of a Presbyter It is the Duty of the Shepherd to take care of his Masters sheep but it is a comely Charity in every Servant though he be not the Shepherd when he finds his Masters sheep run astray or ready to starve to throw them a lock of Hay or call them back to the fold Nay it is his Duty out of Charity though not out of Office but to take upon him the Office when he is not Authorized to it would be Intrusion and it would bring a great Confusion into the Church as it would into a great Family where every man or every man that would might take upon him the Manage of any Office he would St. Paul therefore saith of such How shall he preach unlesse he be sent that is how shall he take upon him the Office of doing it unlesse he be authorized for it let us then Consider who is authorized SECT XVIII Who is authorized to Preach THat this Authority must be joyned to every Presbyter that hath power to administer the Sacraments preaching must be taken in a large sense for reading Homilies for reading the Scriptures in known languages for it is not possible to find men of Abilities to do the other in such a Nation as ours is and yet it is necessary that they should have these Sacraments because by them men receive the Covenants of God concerning their Souls which to teach and incourage us to is the chief Duty of preaching and this is done I am perswaded more securely by the other way projected before but then if we will have men preach nothing but what they make themselves there had need be a mighty ability for a Weekly Preacher to do that and such indeed as cannot be expected from every Presbyter that may be fit for the other and therefore that way of penning their own Sermons is not nor can be exacted from every Presbyter And to preach Sermons not penned although upon urgency there hath been or may be such a Thing yet it is nothing but laziness and supine negligence and undervaluing of that great Work by those to do it Constantly and not worthy the thought of Christians But whether Presbyters alone may do this is a Question started in this Age but was disputed long since by learned men and how determined I will set down with mine observations upon it The Story is thus Origen a man most eminent for learning of any man in that Age both for humanity and Divinity and indeed such as may not only be accounted so for that Age in which he lived but deserved to be placed in the first rank of Scholars both of his own or any other Age when he lived at Cesarea by Authority given him from the Bishops of Palestine interpreted the Scriptures publikely in the Church when he was not a Presbyter nor that we know of had received any degree in Ecclesiastick Office Demetrius the Bishop of Alexandria who envyed the deserved glory of Origen and that honour which rather as a debt was paid to than given him for his Excellency in Preaching inveighs bitterly against him and having little else to be offended with him for saith it was an unheardâ—of thing that a Layman should preach and writes to the Bishops of Palestine about it They patronage that excellent Work of their own and gave him Instance in three or four that they knew of and no doubt say they there were more which had been licensed by Bishops to do so and did preach even before them I could have wished that the dispute had been larger set down that so the Arguments from Scripture or reason might have been set down for our Instruction but for defence of him who it is pity did not write his own Apology If any man object St. Pauls How can he preach unlesse he be sent I shall answer he was sent and by that power that had Authority to send that was the Bishops in that Province in which he lived who had authority to delegate as Apostles of which I shall treat hereafter by our Saviours Charter As my Father sent me so send I you to send others not with a plenipotency but as they saw expedient with divided powers to baptize and no more to administer the Sacraments and no more and why not preach and no more this way of preaching penning and contriving Orations to the people requires great abilities inherent acquired by mighty industry and pains and when men are found so Gifted and enabled although they think themselves not worthy to take a Pastoral Charge upon them or to administer the Sacraments yet when they find abilities for this and their Bishop think fit why should they not preach but not without the Bishop he is the Supream Pastor he may if he find an Inferiour fit for that place give him Authority to feed or fold or drive his Flock and no more and he that is authorized by the Supream Pastor may do it and others who without his leave undertake to do it are Intruders but he being so authorized doth it orderly lawfully thus did Origen who had he lived in our Age could have discoursed much more powerfully to this Theam and I can guesse that this may satisfie most of that which many in our Age object concerning their Gifts If they are Gifted let their Gifts be examined and if he the Bishop find them to be such as can enable them for such a Work let them be licensed otherwise not CHAP. XIX His Argument answered I Have been over tedious in this Discourse Here you may discern the vanity of his Argument from that Text if preaching be taken in that late sense as I have expounded it I deny that there are any Presbyters which are not Teachers If Preachers be taken in this strict sense for such as preach Studied Orations I say that there are many
name should be affixed to such men nor do I find any man adventuring to shew any place where this word doth lesse than signifie a Bishop Then let us Consider that they are called after in the second Chapter The Angel of the Church of Ephesus the Angel of the Church of Smyrna c. which being great and populous regions could not reasonably but have many Presbyters in them and then to write to one Angel if the name Angel did stoop so low as Presbyter were to write to no man knew whom because there were so many there but if Angel as it is be understood of one in an higher and more exalted State than the rest who might be known by this name Angel as peculiarly due to him then and then only we may understand who it is that is meant by it but if any man should allow nothing but Scripture to prove so clear truth and say there was but one Presbyter in each of these Churches he may find that Acts 20. ver 17 18. St. Paul sent for the Presbyters in the plural number of the Church of Ephesus and when they were come to him he said to them still they and them in the plural number That Text will require a further Examination perhaps hereafter In the mean time take this because it is urged for a Unity of Office betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter from the 28th verse where St. Paul saith Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers that is Bishâ—ps then those that were called Presbyters before were called Bishops afterwards I have often said before that the name Bishop and Presbyter I conceive to be taken promiscuously in the New Testament for the same Office That the word Apostle was solely that name which was used by the way of propriety to that Office both to themselves who were originally such and to those who by their Appointment succeeded them But this is it I contend for That amongst them which they made their Successors they gave to some of them a greater and fuller power than to others both to govern and to ordain which since the Church hath called Bishops Now then from hence whether there were many Bishops in the Province of Ephesus or many Presbyters only yet many there were and these many were so inferiour to one that he is called the Angel which name was so appropriated to him as he might know to whom the Letter was directed or else as if a Man should write a Letter and superscribe it to the Alderman of London where are many no man could know whither to send it or who should receive it but if a man superscribe it to the Mayor every man knows who that is Thus must it be with these he to whom this Letter is superscribed must have this Angelical Condition so fitted to him that he must be known by that name that name solely agreeing to him But some here offer at an Answer That he might be like a Mayor have a superiour Dignity above the rest such as is notified by that name Angel which yet may not make a Bishop such as we require He may be a Temporary Governour such as the Presbyterian allows a President of a Synod who this year governs but the next resigâ—s his place and when he is there he hath no more to do but regulate the Synod no greater Authority than the rest To both these in their Order No Temporary Bishop or Superiour I am Confident that I never read of any such Thing and therefore am perswaded that no man can shew me out of Ecclesiastical Story that any man was outed of his Bishoprick but for Heresie Schism or Gross Impiety of Life when men have grown through old Age or Infirmities otherwise incapable of â—xecuting their Office they have had Coadjutors and helpers in their Office but not been deposed but by Death or some such occasion as before described and those that by Ecclesiastical Story were reckoned Bishops of these places at this time are recorded to dye Bishops And it seems a mighty Selfishnesse to me that any man should oppose his reasonlesse Conjectures against all Story when indeed these Epistles cannot be expounded but by Story as in particular the 13th verse of the 2d Chapter where speaking to the Angel or Bishop I may call him most Conâ—idently of the Church of Pergamus He commends him because thou hast not denyed my Faith even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithfull Martyr If a man would ask what Commendation of his Faith was this What was the Excellency of it Can any man answer me but out of Ecclesiastical Story where it is recorded that after a long and pious life full of all virtue led in Pergamus he was in the dayes of Domitian for the Testimony of his Religion put into a brazen Bull and in that Bull burnt now then this Bishops faith was Eminent that in such a cruel and fiery Tryal he kept his Integrity even in such a Time when thaâ— horrid President of the death of Antipas was set before him Thus I say Ecclesiastical Story is necessary for the Exposition of these Epistles as you may find prophane Story necessary for the Exposition of the Prophets in the Old Testament for a man then to talk of such an Officer concerning which there is no mention in the Word nor any in Story but a Poem a fictioâ— of their own Imagination is not like men that guided themselves by Scripture to undertake I close therefore with the 2d Exception which is that their Government was not such as is Episcopal but only such as is the president of a Synod to direct the businesse not Command more than others and this certainly the frame of these Letters doth Confute mightily for they make the Angâ—ls responsible for the faults and heresies which were under the Government which they could not be if they had only the Authority of Presidents but not of Bishops for a President of a Synod hath no Coercive power in himself but as conjoyned with the rest of the Synod and involved Nor hath he any particular Interest in the ruling or swaying the Affairs of the Church but is the mouth of the Synod therefore although if he neglect his duty in the Synod he may well be censured for it yet he cannot have the faults of the Inferiour Clergy or people layd to his Charge in particular take one Instance in the 15th verse of the 2d Chapter the Angel of the Church of Pergamus is censured because he had them which held the Doctrine of the Nicholaitans which Christ hates Should any one ask why the President should be Censured for these things He could answer I am but one man perhaps they can master me in the Synod I have nothing to do alone but a Bishop who hath Coercive power and can both examine and censure any who are in his Diocesse he may be punished because he did
his Major now let us examine his Minor In nostrâ tamen Ecclesia reformata Scotanica id haberi nondum potuit propter Ecclesiasticam paâ—pertatem bonis Ecclesiasticis laicorum hominum sacrilegio dirâ—ptis The force of this Argument runs thus Although Deacons be a divine ordinance yet the Scots by reason of their poverty are not able to maintaine such an Officer and there is the like reason for Bishops in such places where the supream authority will not allow them so that necessity may excuse men even where the divine Laws requires any thing I must confess that invincible necessity excuseth many Acts but it will lie upon the Souls of these Churches who live without Bishops to answer at the last day to Allmighty God and make it good before him that their Omission is such but the difference betwixt Bishops and Deacons is exceeding great I do not find any one place so much as directing that Deacons should be in every particular Church in many there is no need of them where a small congregation of twenty or a hundred may well be osâ—iciated in the meanest duty by a Presbiter onely but in Cathedral Churches where are many little offices for which perhaps we cannot find Presbiters so fit or that it is not fit that we should take them from their greater imployments to bestow their time upon those lesser duties in such cases there is a necessity for those lesser offices to be used but if they shall think their Deacons to be ordained for that imployment mentioned in the sixth of the Acts to minister to the poor I may say that such an imployment can hardly complain of necessity by sacriledge since that out of the collection for the poor he may be allowed a stipend competent for such an office but then to consider that which he would have to paralel a Bishop where is any such a small congregation as I have before specified all things may well be regulated by a Presbiter and he alone supply all the duties belonging to the Salvation of Souls But if there should be many such congregations or that Presbiter who did govern there die in that Government it is necessary for him or them to seek out some Bishop to authorize him or them for this duty The upshot of all this is that Deacons are not instituted as necessary for all lesser Congregations that Bishops are authorized to give Orders to dispose of such affairs as are usefull or necessary to the Government of little or great Congregations but especially in the latter where are usually more and more dangerous exorbitancies That which follows in that page is onely a Discourse but no Proof and so I passe to 161. page where he labours to prove that the Presbitery as he calls it or Company of Presbiters gathered together may give Orders thus CHAP 8. An Argument drawn from Scripture answered APostolus Paulus manuum impositionem per quam ordinatus est Timotheus modo vocat impositionem manuum sâ—arum 2. Tim. 1. 6. Modo impositionem manuum Presbiterii 1. Tim. 4. 14. Idest concessus Presbiterorum sic enim in Novo testamento passim et apud antiquissimos Scriptores Ecclesiasticos The effect of which is that St. Paul in those two places termes the giving Orders to Timothy in one place the laying on of his hands and in another the Laying on the hands of the Presbitery which saith he was the Company or Colledge of Presbiters as that word is often used in the New Testament and amongst the most antient Ecclesiastical Writers I have expounded these two places already and though he say Presbitery is often used for a Colledge or Concessus of Presbiters I have shewed it is no where so used in Scripture and for the most ancient Ecclesiastical Writers I would have been glad to have Read where I should seek them for remember them I do not I will trouble the Reader no further with this Argument it would be but a Repetition CHAP. 9. An Argument drawn from Saint Hierome answered HE comes next to the formerly examined place of St. Hierome and Evagrinus but he puts it down more truly than Thomas Hooker doth and after adds one phrase which the New-England-man left out which is Sicut exercitus imperatorem faciaet quibus verbis non abscurè indicat Presbiteros Alexandrinos initio ordinasse sibi Episcopum by which words as an Army makes an Emperour he doth not obscurely intimate that they did ordain their Bishops Thus Forbes if instead of Ordain he had said Elect I should not have been offended but to take upon them the power to ordain was too much unless they had the Armies to maintain their Act by force as they did The Souldiers upon the death of the Emperour proclaim and cry up commonly their General to be the Emperour and make it good with their sword but would Doctor Forbes or Hierom think that they did ordain or make him Emperour or rather according to their power elect it was often seen even in the age about St. Hierom that two or three Armies in their several places chose so many Emperours And it is not impossible that the Presbiters in Alexandria might have the Election of their Bishop as in most places but the Consecration of him was by others and mark this place of St. Hierom the phrase he useth is Presbiteri not Presbiterium which he calls the antient Language howsoever there is nothing in these words which can instance a Consecration from Presbiters no not in the Simile of an Army unless a Rebellious Election might pass for a Consecration I think I need not speak no more to that at this time but if there be any further need I foresee that the answering other Arguments will further illustrate this business CHAP. X. An Answer to the Argument drawn from the Consecration of Pelagius the first Pope of that name in which is discussed the Story of his Consecration as likewise that no Argument can be drawn from that Act That Popes Consecrations and Elections have been erronious HE proceeds page 162. Pellagium hujus nominis primum Romanum Episcopum ordinarunt duo Episcopi unus Presbiter Ostiensis nomine Andreas qui tanquam Episcopus munus illud ordinationis obivit dum non invenientur tres Episcopi qui secundum Canones Pelagium ordinarent The summe is that this Pope when there could not be three Bishopâ— got which according to Canons should joyn together in the ordination of a Bishop there being no more to be found they took in a Presbiter to officiate with them and therefore he thinks Presbiters may ordain for answer let no man think that I will undertake to defend the Consecrations of Rome it is a task too hard for me to manage or I think any other and materially no doubt but this was irregular yet it may be excused and perhaps justified by what I shall say take therefore the Story of these times SECT I. Where is the Story of
and so pass on first then that our Saviour did institute many holy offices in themselves you may say even his Sacraments so as there may be divers Ceremonies according to the prudence of divers Churches is appâ—rent for let us consider Baptisme the matter as it is positively set down in the Institution is water this must not be altered and that which is called the form which is the words by which this Baptisme is administred are in part set down it must be In the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost but now whether it should be I Baptize thee as the Latine Church or let the Servant of God be Baptized or he is Baptized which are severally used in other Churches is not determined by our Saviour and the words of either do fully express the meaning of Baptisme so that neither doth the Latine Church re-baptize those who are Baptized by the Graeciâ—ns nor the Graecians such as are Baptized by the Latines although both are bitter enough one against another so that you may see there may be variation in the administration of these duties in their Circumstances where there is a Communion in the Substance and truly for my part I think in such a man who lives in either of these Churches it would be a Schismatical Act for any of them to vary from that usage which is in the Churches wherein he lives for although these things are indifferent in themâ—elves yet when they are determined in the Greeâ— Euthology and the Roman Rituals they are not indifferent to them which live amongst them in their several Churches but a varying from the Church wherein they live makes a breach of Charity and violates the Band of peace SECT III. Another Precognitum explained ANother Introduction may be that whatsoever is instituted by Scripture in any of these holy performances whether as form or matter must not be altered nor can lawfully by any man for since the blessing which is bestowed is onely Gods gift and Man is only ministerial in it he must act according to that Method whicâ— God hath prescribed and that only having his Covenant can bring the blessing SECT IV. Another Observation expounded ANother note may be that Additions explicatory so they are certainly such and are not intruded for essentials do not destroy the notion of that which they explain it is necessary for otherwise why should men expound the Scriptures in Sermons or otherwise yea our Saviour expounded his own Parables and after his exposition to his Disciples we write further Comments our selves but that there is in none of these an alteration but a dilatation of the conceit of them these things being premitted I shal return where I left at Tanner and the Roman pontiâ—ical SECT V. Many mistakes about Ceremonies in the Church of Rome IT is an apparent truth that the Church of Rome doth very ofâ— clog Divine duties with so many Ceremonies and its mischief is frequent in that mischance that even their learned writers do in a little time grow o such mistakes as to think that some of those which are Ecclesiastical Ceremonies only instituted by the authority of the Church to be the essentials and that which is essential to be but accidents this particular business I have in hand will demonstrate this conclusion SECT VI. It is an Error to think that the Anointing the Bishops Hand is a necessary Essential THe third Ceremony by Tanner out of the pontiâ—ical is the Anointing of the Bishops hand which is to be Consecrated in these words ungantur manus istae oleo Consecrato that is when he Anoints his hands he saith let these hands be anointed with holy oyl And Francis Silvius I must say truly a learned man and most perspicuous writer in his fortieth Quest. upon the supplement of Thomas Art 5. in resp ad 8 m. saith that the essential Consecration of a Bishop consists in this unction and the words pronounced with it for the Church of Rome calls the oâ—tward sign the matter and the words the form and this to be it he proves by a very strong Argument against the Romanist because in the whole frame of Ordination the Bishop Consecrated is calâ—ed in the pontiâ—ical untill then Bishop Elect only But then absolutely Bishop from that time and his Argument is as weakly answered by Tanner where before quoted that Neque obstat quod in pontisicali ordinandus Episcopus post unctionem primum vocatur Consecratus antea vero solum Electus id â—nim ad scriptorem Rubrici modum lâ—quendi pertinent plus non significat quam ante unctionem nondum esse plene Consecratum That is that the Language of the Pontiâ—ical ought to be attributed to the writer of the Rubrick and that there is no more imported in it but that before the Unction he is not fully Bishop Truly I think Silvius doth desire no more but if men can shift off such grave and weighty observations with saying it was a fault in the Writer or Printer there can no authority be produced but may be so answered But he is more to blâ—me who transcribed it false but why hath it not been amended and that fault corrected The truth is the Pontiâ—ical it self is to blame there is no such thing in that much more antient Pontiâ—icâ—i I mean the fourth Councel of Carthage Canon 2. I will put down tâ—e words because I am likely to make use of them hereafter the words are these Episcopus quum ordinatur duo Episcopi ponant teneant Evangeliorum codicem super caput cervicem ejus uno fundente benedictionem reliqui omnes Episcopi qui adsunt manibus suis caput ejus tangant That is a Bishop when he is ordained two Bishops shall put and hold the Book of the Gospel over his head and neck and one giving him the blessing the other Bishops shall put and hold the Book of the Gospel over his head and neck and one giving him the blessing the other â—ishops which are present shall touch his head with their hands here is not any word of anointing and therefore according to this Canon neither of these Unctions I mean head and hand are necessary for although the Canon may name somethings which are not necessary yet it is not to be imagined that it should leave out any thing which is necessary SECT VII Another Error concerning the Book confuted THere is therefore another opinion which has gained great Reputation with many Schoolmen and that is of some who place the essentials of a Bishops Ordination in the first â—eremony named in the Pontifical and that is the same with that of the Councel of Carthage to wit the putting the Book upon the Head of the Consecrated Bishop and the laying on of Hands and the Benediction this certainly is most conform to that Canon of Carthage but as I said before as it is not reasonable to think that these Canons should omit any essential thing
to act since after his departure to the end of the world It is necessary therefore for us to think that such things as are delivered by them are Divine for although Canons of Councels general or particular are excellent Guides for the establishing Peace and Unity in the Church and so may require obedience from their Subjects yet because they are but men without an annexed infallibility without doubt they may vary in their practice and Discipline and their Dictates being introduced upon occasions may be altered and therefore cannot add essentials to any thing for the essences of things are always certain and necessary This is my Major Now to search what is Apostolical in this business we must examine the Scriptures where first we find our Saviour authorizing his Apostles As my Father sent me so send I you to give power to others We find him using no Ceremony but breâ—thing upon them gave them the Holy Ghost and truly that Breathing was most significative of that blessing he bestowed upon them but from thence we find not the Apostles using that Ceremony for they being enabled with this plenarty of power to give others that blessing they only gave it and for a sign that they did establish it laid their hands upon them so that as we conceive these two places 1 Tim. 1. 6. by the laying on of my hands or the 1 Tim. 4. 14. with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery to be Ordination so likewise we shall find this Ceremony taken for the whole 〈◊〉 or Ordâ—nation Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man Now then without doubt if any outward Act must be essential to this Heavenly work this only being Apostolical must be esteemed most essential and there I think it most proper for men to conceive that this is the only Ceremony essentially necessary if any be to the performance of that duty for the power originally being given to the Apostles nakedly and absolutely without any qualification or mode in what manner they should use it to others we are to receive the manner at their acting it for our best Rule and guidance which is only in Scripture delivered to be imposition of Hands Thus much for that which the Doctors of the Church of Rome called the material part in the essence of Consecration and we may truly term the outward sign Let us now examine that which they call the form and we may term the words which express it the words which our Saviour used John 20. 22. are Receive ye the Holy Ghost these words expresly are used in the Roman Consecration and Ordination but in the Graecian the words are varied but the sence reserved not giving this blessing in the Imperative-mood which is much stood upon by many Schoolmen and Casuists but in a more humble stile The Grace of God Creates or Promotes thee to this Dignity of a Bishop or Priest or Deacon where we find the truth more largly expounded though materially the same for certainly the Grace of God is that which impowers men with these authorities are given and men are only Instrumental but that they are and therefore there is added how this is given by the suffrage of the Bishops which denotes them instrumental for the African Church you may discern in the Canon of Carthage before cited that the Consecration is expressed in a Language of such extent as may be applied to them both which is uno fundente benedictionem one of them pouring out the benediction or blessing but implying strongly the sence such as is proper for this work to Confirm which all the present Bishops lay on their hands and this universally so consented unto as agreeing to the Holy Scripture that although in the heat of disputation I find men sometimes over peremptorily asserting their own opinions yet I do not find that either Church did refuse such as were Consecrated in either although in wayes and modes differing from their own so that I may justly say that the whole Catholick Church Concenters in this Conclusion that when words importing the blessing are Delivered by a Consecrating Bishop and those words are sealed by imposition of Hands then these holy Orders are effectually given I shall then need to do little more in this Point than to answer such objections which are commonly made against it or I can apprehend proper to be opposed to it SECT II. The first Objection against the Truth answered THe first is common in the School made against the pontiâ—ical in this point because that in all that part of the Pontiâ—ical it is said only Receive ye the Holy Ghost and that Language is the same in the Ordination of Priests as likewise the Imposition of Hands so that by this no man can know what Order is given in the Church of Rome it is answered that the design which they are about will shew it whether to one or to the other Order and again the manner of the Imposition of Hands in the Consecration of a Bishop divers Bishops Impose Hands in the Ordination of a Priest one Bishop only with some Presbyters in the Ordination of a Deacon the Bishop alone but in our Church that scruple is clearly taken away by a great Prudence where at the Ordination of a Priest the Consecrating words are Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest and at the Consecration of a Bishop the words are Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God where wee see that universal cause of all Spiritual blessings I mean the Holy Ghost applied to that particular duty in which at that time he works and therefore the Consecration is free from that Exception SECT III. Another Objection drawn from the Councel of Carthage answered ANother Ojection may be that the Councel of Carthage before cited mentions the laying on the Book by two Bishops upon the head and shoulders of the Bishop to be Consecrated and therefore that is necessary I answer that I much reverence that Councel in which was St. Augustine and divers other Bâ—shops famous for learning and piety in their Generations but yet as I have said before this was never practiced any remarkable time as sundry Doctors in the Church of Rome observe and again it is impossible to be essential because not Apostolical and that because the Holy Bible and that highest part of it the New Testament was not writ when Bishops and Priests were Ordained it is therefore worth our marking that there is a difference in the decrees of Councels concerning Doctrine and Discipline or Ceremonies of the Church in a point of Doctrine they shew in what sence they understand such and such a Conclusion but in the other they set down what is to be practiced to preserve Orders and decency in those Churches where they have to do and indeed there can be no more required of obedience than in quiet and setled times in which
secondarily Christ is the Chief Corner Stone the Spiritual Rock 1 Cor. 10. 4. and then there was no more sâ—id to him that St. Paul expounds of them all Ephes. 2. 20. and are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the Chief Corner Stone to them all the Apostles were secondary foundations and Rocks as well as he were that place to be understood to call him a Rock Nor can there be any stronger foundation affirmed of him either in person or Succession than of the rest Mat. 28. I will be with you to the end of the World that is assisting them in executing their Duty For the second place Mat. 16. 19. I will give thee the Keyes of Heaven it is but a promise and he performed it to him and the rest John 20. 22. For the Third Feed my Sheep it is a poor Argument drawn from a meer Simile of pastorizing but let it be what it can there can be no more in it but preach baptize give the Communion give Orders govern the Church all which are involved in those two places insisted upon before and therefore I desist from further discourse of them and supposing that the Apostles had equal Authority to minister Divine Mysteries to the whole World with St. Peter we will now come and enquire whether any other men had any such Commission given them by Christ or not SECT VI. How it is to be understood that the Power of the Keyes is given to the Church THe Chief place if not the only which I have observed in the Gospel pretended to be wrested to any such Intent is Mat. 18. 17. If he shall neglect to hear them tell it to the Church Thence it is by some enforced that the Church is made the Judge in Ecclesiastiâ—al Discipline and by the Church they will understand others besides the Apostles To apprehend which conceive with me First that this was one of those things which our Saviour delivered for a Rule to govern the Church and Christian men by not at that present but afterwards when Church Discipline was setled for as yet there was no such Thing as any Discipline setled but like a Commonwealth in the â—raming by degrees Laws projected yeâ— Contrived and enacted which might take their rise and force afterwards when established It is a poor Conceit methinks of Beza on this place who would have it understood of the Jewish Synagogue since he himself Confesseth that the word Church is no where else used for the Synagogue nor indeed can it be and why it should be forced to that meaning here I see no reason and therefore the true understanding of it must be taken from those setled Laws which our Saviour made after his Death of which I have discoursed Now that this Law could not extend to any other men but these Apostles who had all the powers given them as I have explained will appear first First because it seems to be a Juridical way of proceedings and it is impossible that the multitude should have Juridical Discretion to make a man as an Heathen or a Publican being many of them illiterate men and we should conâ—ine the limits of Christian men and Religion in much too narrow bounds to say it belong only to the learned or men enabled for such or so high a work But there must be Officers in a Church to hear and judge of such a Cause which Officers we understood by the Church and although this Censure ought to be done in publick in the face of the Church or the Court where such Matters are discussed yet it is not necessary nor can have a face of reason with it that every one of the Church should be there present or they who are present should have the Nature of Judges only such Men as are Officers enabled to act in this power then if Officers these men who hâ—d the power given them in the 20th of St. John are these which are here in the 18th verse said to bind and loose So that then I can see nothing that can hinder us from agreeing that after our Saviours Death all Ecclesiastical power was seated in the Apostles how they understand it we shall Consider in the future Discourse by their Actions set down to us which must be our next undertaking SECT VII The Apostles Authority and Management of it NOW we see the Eleven inthroned in the Chair of Ecclesiastical power They and they only having Interest in it but yet they had only power the right and Authority they received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the vertue and qualities enabling them to execute this power according to the Extent throughout the world afterwards when the power of Tongues was given them Acts 2. 4. and you may find this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for this virtue Acts the 1. v. 8. where it is promised so that they had all Power and Authority before but this Faculty of Tongues they had not untill then and this will be of little use in our Discourse being a Gift of no constant Succession in the Church but only those Authorities of Administring the Sacraments of Preaching of Giving Orders of Governing these will always be necessary in the Church and therefore must be insisted upon For this therefore the first thing we find them Acting in this kind was to settle their own Society and Compleat the Number of Twelve and this you may find recorded in the 1. of the Acts v. 13. where we may observe first that they referred the Election of this Apostle to God by â—asting Lotts they Chose two Barsabas and Mathias and referred it to Divine Election the reasons of which guessed at by Divines rather than demonstrated I omit But now there are Twelve Apostles Bishops for if Judas was a Bishop by being an Apostle as he is termed vers 20. the rest likewise were or Twelve Deacons or Ministers for that phrase is affirmed of Judas in regard of his Apostleship vers 25. SECT VIII What Additions were made to the Apostles BUT yet we must not leave them but examine Whether there were any Addition made to these Apostles and what that was To understand this We may find St. Paul in abundance of places called an Apostle instead of many take this one Instance Galat. 1 1. Paul an Apostle not of men neither by man but by Jesus Christ An Apostle not of men not by man that is who received my Apostleship not from the Authority given to men as before when Christ sent his Apostles as his Father sent him with power to give these powers John 20. As my Father sent me so send I you not then of men that is from this Authority given to them nor by man that is by any Ministerial Act of mans He received his Baptism by the Ministery of man as you may find Acts 9. 18. But his Apostleship he received of God and by God as the other Apostles did by the immediate
Ordination of Christ and in this I should place the Difference betwixt these Apostles and others That they are made such by an Immediate Ordination of Christ for it is not enough that some saâ— to be an Apostle was to be such a Minister as conversed with Christ in his humanity or saw him in the Flesh for this did all the Seventy which yet were not called Apostles nor is it sufficient which others say they were such whose Office extended to the whole world for so we shall find in the Acts almost none Confined to any place but that others as well as St. Paul had a Care of all Churches But upon this a man may justly enquire why St. Paul should in such distinct Terms not of men nor by man describe himself since it seems every Apostle was such To clear this and give further Illustration to this Truth Observe that others besides these were called Apostles so you may find first Barnabas as well as St. Paul Acts 14. 14. which when the Apostles Barnabas and Paul heard c. Apostles in the plural Number some have thought that this Barnabas was the same with Barsabas who Acts 1. 23. wâ—s Competitor with Mathias for the Apostleship but methinks missing the place then it were strange he should be called an Apostle afterwards and indeed their Names differ their Original Names and their Additional Names for Acts 1 his Name was Joseph called Barsabas sirnamed Justus but in Acts 4. 36. instead of Joseph is Joses and instead of Barsabas is Barnabas but besides him we read Rom. 16. 7. of Andâ—onicus and Junia of whom St. Paul saith that they were his kinsmen his fellow prisoner and of Note among the Apâ—stles which words although they have received a double sense either that they were Eminent persons among the Apostles or else esteemed and noted by them to be such persons of Esteem yet there are many both ancient and Modern Writers both such as are for and against Bishops that agree they were Apostles as the words very naturally bear it and to take away the Scruple both the Centuries and Baronius agree upon it which if there were scruple they would not have done then turn to Phil. 2. 25. there you shall find St. Paul calling Epaphroditus my brother and Companion in labour and fellow souldier but your Messenger Here I cannot but wonder at our Translators who render it Messenger such a mean phrase intimating any common or trivial man who is sent on an errand Beza did much better who called him Legatum an Embassador a nobler phrase but indeed the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Apostle and so those Epithetes before express him my brother c. This may likewise be shewed â—ut of the 1 Cor. 4. 9. God hath set forth us the Apostles last the Translation here likewise is not good for it is not he hath set forth us last but us last Apostles us that were the last Apostles who are they in particular vers 6. he names Apollo these things I have in a figure transcribed to my self and to Apollo that ye might learn of us not to think of men above that which is written Now then although he may mean others beside himself and Apollo yet it is sit to conceive that he should be in the number of those are called Apostles because he is one of those from whom they must learn not to think of men above what is written and among other Arguments this is a main one That we the last Apostles Apollo and my self and perhaps more are unhappy wretched people marked out for misers to be made a spectacle of contemptible people to the World to Angels and men I could here likewise treat of Gal. 1. 19 where James the brother of the Lord is called an Apostle who by many is thought and from good reason to be none of the two James's which were of the Twelve but a third who was made Bishop of Jerusalem but I desist it is evident out of Scripture that the holy Writ mentioneth more Apostles besides the Twelve and St. Paul and if besides the Scripture any mans Language may be heard consider that of Ignatius who was Contemporary as he speaks with the Apostles Paul John and Timothy in his Epistle to the Ephesians who there speaks in the language of the times and by that language calls Timothy an Apostle SECT IX A Reason of this NOW then to draw this Discourse to some period there were other Apostles besides the first Twelve and St. Paul the Thirteenth but why so because as Theodoret speaks upon Phil. 2. 25. in the case of Epaphroditus before handled that he was called their Apostle to whom the Care of them was Committed And again upon the 1 Tim. 3. 1. Heretofore they called Presbyters Bishops and those which we call Bishops they called Apostles but saith he in processe of time they left the name of Apostles to them who were truly Apostles and they gave the name of Bishops to those which were formerly called Apostles So likewise St. Hierome on Gal. 1. 9. Procedente Tempore alii ab his quos Dominus elegerat ordinati sunt Apostoli In progresse of time other Apostles were ordained by those which the Lord had Choseâ— and this is the reason why St. Paul where before Gal. 1. 1. saith he was an Apostle not of men nor by man but by Jesus Christ to distinguish him from those others who were Apostles by Constitution of Apostles not immediately by God and to the same purpose may that be understood of St. Paul 2 Cor. 11. 5. I suppose I was not a whit behind or lesse or inferiour to the Chiefest Apostles Amongst the Apostles the Twelve there were not some Chief and some Inferiour but the Twelve were the Chief and the rest Inferiour Now he having his calling and enabling from Christ immediately was not inferiour to them And though I read I know not where the Authority of Theodoret slighted yet I do not remember what Satisfaction is given to his Reason Nor can well Conceive how these Scriptures can in any other sense be reasonably expounded CHAP. V. The Extent of the Apostolical Power AND now me-thinks I see the Apostles in the Church as Divines say Adam if he had lived innocent and his posterity would have been in the World they had been Emperors of the whole World and all the World would have been every mans yet being in their Integrity would have so enjoy'd all that it should have been to the good of all and hurt of none So these holy men were Bishops Apostles of all the World all the Churches throughout the World had absolute not order only as the School speaks to give holy Sacraments to any any where but Jurisdiction to Govern and rule all That which Eusebius saith hath some truth That they divided themselves into several parts of the World but not appropriating to themselves any piece nor excluding any other from that Share or
lowlinesse of mind which should be amongst fellow Members I answer therefore That the Gifts of Deacons are not such as qualifie a Bishop of which St. Paul spake there but I will tell you very like them and as that Clause is not inserted to a Deacon that he should be apt to teach so it is not required of him but when he is found fit to teach and it is required he may I think I have spoken enough to him If I knew any more of this kind I would not account it lost time to handle it although tyred with this CHAP. VIII SECT I. Of a Ruling Elder THE next particle or Branch of Ecclesiastical Authority which I will undertake to handle is that they call a ruling Elder or a Lay Elder he is called an Elder but I am confident that the Name is new and the Office not known in the Primitive Church nor hath any mention in Scripture but by phansy Now to understand this I shall first shew what manner of Office this man is imagined to have and then answer such Arguments as are brought for him and so Conclude with mine own reasons against him First the Examination of his Office what it is to do is set down by Mr. Hooker Part 2. Chap. 1. pag. 16. I will not transcribe all he saith but set down the heads SECT II. What those Lay Elders are according to Hooker BEfore the Assembly meet he is of the Common Council and his voyce is to be taken in with the rest in the Consultation and Consideration of the businesse by which I think he means the businesse should be agitated that day Here he ciphers out 3. places of Scripture I think to no such purpose read them he that will Heb. 13. 17. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Acts 20. 28. When Offences are to be brought to the Congregation it belongs to them to ripen and prepare the businesse by way of praeconsideration to state the Cause right c. Thirdly when the Church is met he may interpose his Judgment without asking leave These he hath in Common with other Elders what he hath peculiar to himself is First visiting the Sick and such as are any way under Spiritual wants these men should send for these Elders and they shall be the Physitians of their Souls for this he quotes James 5. 14. but no word there of a Lay Elder Secondly by the same reason he should seek out such and visit them Thirdly He is to make peace amongst Members Fourthly If there be a Fame of a Member that he misbehaves himself towards such as are without that is I think not of their Church by which the Church may be scandalized he is to enquire of the Truth and I think inform or else all is in vain Fifthly He is to Consider of the persons that are to be admitted into the Church and to pronounce Excommunications Thus in general we see what manner of Office this is let us now examine whether there be semblances of any such thing in Scripture which they pretend should be the Guide in these Affairs And â—irst I will begin where I left for that in the first place he cites Romans 12. 8. As he found a word for his Deacon He that distributes so he hath another for his Elder He that ruleth with diligence SECT III. Whether any such Elders truly in Scripture THis Question Mr. Hooker enters upon in the same 1st Chapter of the 2d Part pag. 8. Here he saith he hath nothing to doe but with the Hierarchical party whose main Arguments are a Pursuivant and a Prison armed with Authority of an High Commission This man I observe though civil in many places to others yet very passionately bitter when any thing crosses him to speak against that Cause which I conceive right and do not doubt but I shall prove it First he undertakes to prove this Office that there is such an Office from the former place but goes now somewhat higher Rom. 12. 7. He argues for it first thus The Gifts here mentioned and considered are not such as have reference to a Civil but to an Ecclesiastical Condition so the words vers 5. We are one body in Christ. This is no strong Argument we are one body in Christ therefore that which is spoken of that body or members must be Ecclesiastical not Civil In the same body consisting of the members of Christs Church his mystical body there are many Civil Duties even as they are Christians exacted from them and as members of that body Duties of Kings to Subjects of Subjects to Kings Husbands to Wives and theirs to their Husbands betwixt Masters and Servants and so they mutually a little of this Divinity will make all things Ecclesiastical and reduce all Obedience for Christs sake to a Pastor or Teacher an Elder or Deacon Secondly the Operations which issue from these Functions evidence as much Prophesying c. Exhorting c. I would he had put in shewing mercy too but we see they do not shewing mercy giving ruling may relate to any member of this body There is nothing therefore in these Arguments that enforce these should be Ecclesiastical duties of members in the mystical body of Christ. He hath another Figure of 2 I think he means by it another Argument for the Cause that is pag. 9. An Argument of his answered GIfts here are not such as are Common and belong to all Christians as Faith Hope Charity c. What if they are not are they Ecclesiastical Orders that will never follow but he proves it although to no purpose if it were proved First those Gifts are here meant by which the Members of the body are distinct one from another and have several Acts appropriate to them He proves that because verse 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. all members have not the same office this I have said is not parallel'd in the Simile and therefore not to be urged further But saith he Common Graces are not so distinct for in them they do agree I answer these are not Common nor yet Ecclesiastical only nor the duties required witnesse this one which is instanced in He that ruleth with Diligence To be a Ruler is not only in Ecclesiastical Affairs but Civil and he that ruleth in Civil affairs is to do it with diligence so Origen upon this very place so St. Ambrose St. Hierom Theophylact Anselm H. Rabanus Maurus out of them all of which use phrases to this purpose qui praest vel fratribus vel Ecclesiae So that by this although there is not a Common Grace that is universal to all Christians yet it is so Common as that it belongeth to all Governors whether Lay or Ecclesiastical nemine contradicente but these late men and the duty enjoyned is as Common as the Grace given to wit to govern or rule not barely but with diligence So that this Conclusion is Confuted out of this very Instance and may as easily out of any other but
Presbyters under that general name of Presbyters as Writs are sent out â—o summon the Barons of the Kingdom to Parliaments by which word was understood both Earls and Dukes although by the Name and Notion called the house of Lords So Bishops were called along being Presbyters under that name they are all called both from Ephesus and the Adjacent Parts though that be put down only and then St. Paul gave them all their Charge to look to their Several Duties and execute their several Commissions which they had before received which is all that these words can enforce although this is reasonable yet methinks this is more probable that they were all or for the most part but bare Presbyters for in the first Age of the Church when the Conversion of men to Christ was new and there were but few Christians few Presbyters were necessary and then much sewer Bishops especially the Apostles living and Episcopizing one of them enough for Twenty of us and therefore one Bishop for a great Nation as Titus for Creet where were an hundred Cities was sufficient but Religion increasing in the hearts of men more Presbyters are necessary and they increasing there must be a greater necessity likewise of Bishops but that any of these should be such as we call Bishops to have power over other Presbyters and to give them orders is no way apparent This therefore proves nothing for their parity But he addes that the word Bishop is never used in the New Testament but the Actions therein required belong to any Presbyter He excepts the Case of Judas Acts 1. 20. For my part it is not material how the word is used but what I labour for is that there is such a Thing as the word Bishop now used doth signifie and that the more he or any other Trouble themselves against it it will appear the more clearly as hitherto it doth I will proceed therefore with him page 25. He frameth his Second reason thus SECT X. His Second Argument answered IF they be distinct the Bishop is Superiour but he cannot be superiour every Superiour Order hath superiour Acts and honours belonging thereunto above the Inferiour but Bishops have neither above those that are Presbyters for if labouring in the Word and Doctrine be an Act above ruling and is most worthy of Double honour then the Act and honour of a Presbyter is above the Act and honour of a Bishop for they only assume the Acts of rule but give the Presbyters leave to labour in the Word and Doctrine I have at large discoursed what labouring in the Word and Doctrine is I will not repeat now but begin with his last For they only assume c. which is the foundation upon which this whole discourse is built and I answer that the Bishops do not only assume the Acts of rule but esteem it their duty to labour in the Word And if Mr. Hooker would without prejudice Consider even of that kind of labouring which he and his Sort understand it Pulpit-preaching the World never yielded more fruitfull Industries than those of our Bishops whose Works live to bear witnesse for them being dead and therefore I conceive this to be an Argument of spleen rather than reason and for the second Clause of this foundation that they give the Presbyter leave to labour in the Word they do much more for they Episcopize over them and look to them and by Authority over them make them do it encourage them who do and punish those who do not If men have misdemeaned themselves in their Office no doubt but Twenty Presbyters have done so for one Bishop but yet neither the one nor the other are lesse Jure Divino for that Judas his Office was good he was an ill Officer Nicholas his Office was good he an ill Officer this chose by the Apostles that by Christ himself thus Offices are not disparaged by the Officers But Consider further that although labouring in the Word with the people may be a more Excellent Work than governing or ruling the people as it is more excellent to perswade than to compell men to vertuous Actions They are but half vertues that are forced yet governing Presbyters which is a proper act of Bishops is more excellent than labouring in the Word to the people by how much the Extent of the benefit is more General It produceth the Good of a Diocesse as that of a â—arish But once again although I had thought enough had been said to that Text 1 Tim. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of Double honour but especially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine yet I will adde somewhat for illustration Suppose this speech were turned from the Church to the Army and a man should say thus Let the Elders the Officers of the Army who govern or rule well their Regiments or the Army be worthy of double honour but especially they who labour and toyl in the heat of the battel could any man Collect from hence that it were a better Act to labour in the Act of fighting than to steer and direct the fighting No sure it is an Act becomming a private Officer and concerns a few but the other who rules well hath the whole fortune of the day the fate of a whole Kingdom sometimes depending on him yet if he can and do upon desperate occasions thrust himself into great hazard he hath an especialty of this Double honour due to him and yet it would not befit him to hazard the day which depends on his providence by neglecting direction to thrust himself into perpetual dangers These Bishops are the Generals of this Spiritual Militia they are to direct and oversee their Diocesse to encourage to command Inferiour Officers to their Duties when they do this well they are worthy of double honour but if when great occasions shall require they act themselves what at other Times they command and take care that others shall do it likewise they have an Especialty of Double honour due to them which is the full Sense of that Text Elders which rule well have a double honour because they have a double excellency both do their own and make others do their duty but if they who have abilities do rule well and labour too then especially much more is that honour due SECT XI His Third Argument answered I Come now to examine his Third Argument which I am sorry to read for it is so full of illogical deductions as methinks it should not be possible for any man to think he could perswade by them It is thus framed If they differ from Presbyters Jure Divino then there are some Ministers by Divine Authority necessary for the gathering of the Church and perfecting the body of Christ besides that of the Presbyter for if the Church can be perfected without these there is no need of these I will stay here a while This Consequence is not good for Ministers may be
Orders in the Church of Rome which are not truly such but only additions of human Invention according as their Church fancyed would conduce to the Decorum of Gods Service I adde this Term of Divine Institution which must be understood of divine Apostolical constitution and then it may again be put in these Prases that Ordination is an Act by which a Man is Constituted a Minister as at the beginning of this Treatise the Minister is defined for the Man ordained and the Minister before will be all one And so now the nature of Ordination being explained I shall encounter with Hooker in his first Question Whether Ordination is in nature before Election SECT IV. Ordination is not before Election IN answering this Question we shall agree to say No it is not before Election nor surely can it possibly be for a Man must be elected and chosen as fit to be ordained before he is ordained But because Mr. Rutherford as he expresseth it page 39 doth conceive this Election belongs to the People and that Ordination is like the making of a King the Election of the people like the giving and appropriating this ring to the finger by choosing this man to this place which Hooker opposeth I shall quit my self from Rutherford and then apply my self to Hooker I say therefore that first a man must be chosen before he is ordained a Presâ—yter but it is not necessary he should be Chosen by the people there is no semblance of any such Thing in the Scripture nor indeed do Rutherford or Hooker exact it but out of his mistake That they suppose no man should be made a Presbyter which should not at that instant or before be Elected to some benefice of the which the people should be Electors SECT V. Men may be Ordained without the Election of the People NOW the Contrary is most apparent in some Case As suppose Mr. Hooker and Mr. Cotton were adjudged fit men for the Conversion of the Indians they had need be sent with Presbyterial Aâ—thority for else they could not have right Authority to admit Converted men into Christs Church but the people to whom they were sent could not choose them these men must be ordained Presbyters before they are sent and elected before Ordained but not by the people to whom they are sent or the people that is the Commonalty from whom they are sent who are not Capable to discern the fitnesse for such a Work but their Drift is the people over whom they are to Pastorize Thus then it is evident that in some Cases Election of the Congregation or Church over which a Presbyter is put cannot alwayes precede his Ordination But suppose again a Company of Christians whose Presbyter is dead in many Cases they may elect one to be ordained before he is ordained and in many cases they may elect one to this Charge after he is ordained supposing that the power of Election were in them as thus in the first Case they find an able and fit man they desire to have him ordained in the second they find an able man already ordained sine Curâ I put the Casâ— without Exception As suppose his or Mr. Cottons Congregation destroyed by Enemies cannot he be elected to another Church or if Elected must he have another Ordination I believe he will not say so Well then in this Question the Answer must be the Election must precede Ordination but Election to Ordination not Election to a Cure in the second sense Election to a Cure may and may not precede Ordination SECT VI. St. Cyprian explained IN all Hookers Discourse upon this businesse I find nâ—thing remarkable produced to Confirm this Conclusion but some flashes against the Papists and then against the Prelates but page 42. he brings certain Quotations of Authors to which he assents amoâ—g which there is only one worth the insisting on and that is St. Cyprian out of whom Lib. 1. Epist. 4. which is a true Quotation according to the old and Erasmus his Edition but according to Pamelius in 68 Epist. Lib. 4. The words are Videmus de Divina Authoritate descendere ut Sacerdos plebâ— praesente sub omnium oculis delegatur dignus idoneus publico Judicio Testimonio comprobatur This place he cites rightly but what is here but that the people must be present as they are at our Consecrations to this purpose to know whether they have any thing to object against the Man or his life but here is no word of his Election and I must Commend the Ingenuity of the man for it is evident out of the following part of the Epistle that he meant no more because his Arguments inforce no more but the presence of the people yet indeed the words immediately preceding do seem upon the first view to carry another meaning they are these speaking of the people Quando saith he ipsa maximrâ— habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi which words if they be understood of more than a Custom of the Church which is confirmed by many Canons That there should be no clandestine Consecration as well as Marriage but that the Consecration of Priests and Bishops should be in the publick Church where any man may except against them if they have any thing to that purpose I say if this potestas eligendi recusandi be more than this which St. Cyprians Arguments do not enforce yet if there be more meant it is nothing but that the people did Elect their Sacerdos which is understoâ—d of a Bishop as I have intimated heretofore and is clear in this place because the Case disputed of in which St. Cyprian is consulted is concerning a Bishop now it is apparent in Story that many times it was indulged to the People to choose their Bishop especially abouâ— that Age wherein there was a kind of Impossibility of doing otherwise when the World was divided into so many great Schismes and the Emperors peremptorily abetting none nor destroying any so that you might know three Bishops together in a City one Orthodox the other Arian another Novatian now in these casâ—s thâ— people chose their Bishop when the old was dead and adhered to whom they would when he was alive unlesse the Emperor interposed as oft he did or some Council Provincial which likewise was used but for Divine right St. Cyprian speaketh of nothing but plebe praesente they were chosen in the presence of the people but to the Benefice whether Bishoprick or Parsonage the Electors have been various in all Ages and may be so there being nothing determined by Apostolical Constitution or practise yet there is nothing in all this that shews that Election to a Benefice must be before Ordination not the least word but rather after for if it lies in the people to elect a worthy Priest I so translate Sacerdos to his Benefice then he must be a worthy Priest before for else it should be they
such yet men are as partial to their Opinions as their Children and will expound every Thing that comes in their way to the Advantage of them yea it will seem so to them and therefore even these Propositions are not to be swallowed without Examination But yet suppose this were granted that one Relate as he phrases it did give the Essentials to another would this prove That the Election of the people by the rule of Christ did it Certainly no for the Pastor and people are the two relates not the Pastor and Election of the people People and the Election of the people are two Things This latter an Act of the former He sayes Mr Rutherford seems to be much moved with this Argument I have not seen his books but by that I have heard of him it would be strange he should but I leave them together and see what he urgeth for Confirmation of this Argument which may concern my businesse Pag. 68. He saith the Proposition is supported by the Fundamental Principles of Reason so that he must raze out the received rules of Logick that must reject it High language But why so I ask He answers immediately Relata sunt quorum unum constat mutua alterius Affectione This is non-sense for should I ask if Vnum which of the two he could not answer the reason is because as relates there is the same reason of one as of the other But I think he means utrumque but Consider then what is this to his purpose Suppose they did Consist in a mutual Affection one of another could one properly be said to give the Essentials to the other The Father indeed gives the Essentials to his Son and Father and Son do mutually as Father and Son depend upon a reciprocal Affection as he calls it one upon the other but the Son cannot be said properly to give the Essentials to the Father no not as Father because all he hath he hath from his Father as Suppose again a Master and Servant are relates neither of these give the Essentials one to another But properly that Covenant which engaged them in their mutual Duties that Covenant gave them the Essentials of that relation not one another and therefore this Discourse though he think it very Evident yet begets no Acceptance in me although declared with the name of a fundamental principle That which he deduceth that relata are simul natura is most true but not deduced yea it is against that principle he deduceth it from for that which Constitutes anothers being is prius natura to that which is Constituted but these are simul and therefore cannot give Essentials one to another His Assumption that Pastor and Flock are relates no man saith he that hath sip'd in Logick can deny I grant it Then saith he the Conclusion follows but he sets not down what I am sure his doth not That this Election gives the Essentials to an Officer In the Conclusion he saith Hence again it follows that Ordination which comes after he means Election is not for the Constitution of the Officer but the Approbation of him so Constituted in his Office for relata are unum uni saith the rule there is no Connexion in this neither and for unum uni that must be understood in that particular relation a Father may have many sonnes and so One to Many but there are distinct paternities and the Logicians say that although absolute Accidents Numero tantùm distincta cannot exist in the same Subject at the same Time yet relative may So one flock may have many pastors the Catholick Church a Thousand visible ones invisible only Christ. The Church of Rome would desire no more but that you grant one â—lock must have but one Pastor they will quickly prove the Catholick Church one Flock and then will follow the Pope to be the Universal Pastor for none else pretends to it but indeed they themselves grant many Pastors to the same slock for their Teachers are Pastors and their Lay-Elders have Pastoral Authority of Governing But now punctually after a long Discourse A Paster and Flock are relates there may be many Pastors to one Flock where the Flock is great there must be the Flock of Christ is the Vniversal Church in which he hath placed many Pastors and there is no Christian man who is a Member of Christs Flock wheresoever he is in the World and finds any Pastor but he may receive and require the Duty of a Pastor from him and he ought to give it him Again there is no Pastor wheresoever he is in the world if he find any of his Masters Flock in any place who have need of him but he ought out of duty if he can to supply his lack And thus are the mutual bondâ— and relations betwixt Christs Pastors and his Flock supplyed as soon as he is made a Pastor the Church of Christ is his Flock and which way he can advance the good of it he ought and iâ— bound in Duty to do it His Second Argument answered AND so I passe to his Second Argument which is this It is lawfull for a people to reject a Pastor upon Just Causes if he prove pertinaciously scandalous in his Life or haeretical in his doctrine and put him out of his Office Ergo it is in their power to call him outwardly and to put him into his Office The Consequence is plain from the Staple rule Ejusdem est Instituere he would say I think destruere The Antecedent is as certain by Gods word Beware of Wolves Mat. 7. 15. Beware of false Prophets Phil. â— 2. Now because he begins with his Consequence I will so likewise and that which he so highly commends for a Staple Rule I will examinâ— and from henceforth receive this rule That great words with him are forced to be the Cloaks of least performances I do not believe he read that Staple rule in any Logick Author and am very Confident it is absolutely false in all Sciences In nature it is most evident that water which destroyes fire cannot make it If he answer that in general the power of Nature which by Water doth destroy fire by another hand of power doth make I will apply this to our particular and say that in general men destroy it therefore men give it by the same way as Nature by water destroyes fire and by fire makes it If we look into Policy we shall find that sometimes when Kings have setled power the people have pluckt them down Those whom the people have Instituted Kings have destroyed but perchance he may say that lawfully out of right the same power can destroy that did institute perhaps there may be Legality in some of these Instances but see a Clearer A Tithing man is elected by his parish like as he would have Pastors afterwards he is sworn by the Steward of the Court like his Ordination or perhaps by some Justice of Peace The Parish for his misdemeanours
he drawes from his Imagination of no such power left to men which lest I should vex the Reader I omit and direct him to page 70 71 72. for the foundation being destroyed the Invective and Scorning of his â—nemies as many have done with an imagination only or rumor of Victory when there was no such thing will fall of its self There is a power left by Christ to men by which they communicate powers to others FIrst then I shall shew that there is such an Office power amongst men whereby they can Convey an Office power Authoritativâ— to others This may appear out of our Saviours Commission As my Father sent me c. John 20. and the like Now then if our Saviour was sent to appoint Officers then so were they I will be with you to the end of the World that cannot be understood of their persons it must be of their Succession and that Succession they communicated by the former Authority So Acts 13. they sent Baâ—nabas and Saul so 14. 21. They ordained Elders in every Church so Titus was by St. Paul left in Crete Timothy received from Imposition of his hands his power so in succession Timothy and Titus are directed to lay on hands themselves upon others which is by all understood of Ordination So then there is evident a delegate power given by men of Authority by which others are Authorized to operate in this Divine Administration I need say no more to this but enter his Second Conclusion which he is briefer in but is indeed the foundation of this other This you may find page 72. thus Secondly There is a Communicating power by voluntary Subjection when though there be no Office power formaliter in the people yet they willingly yielding themselves to be ruled by another desiring and calling him to take that rule he accepting of what they yield possessing that right which they put upon him by free Consent I put down his very words which are not sence making no Compleat Proposition but it may be the fault of the Printer and therefore read it possesseth that right c. for possessing The reason saith he is those in whose Choice it is whether any shall rule over them or no from their voluntary subjection it is That the party Chosen hath right and stands possessed of rule and Authority over them This Argument is mighty Lame for the Minor which is not set down if produced would be that the Case stands thus with Christians That it is in their Choice whether any shall rule over them or no which is absolutely false taking Christians for such men who have given themselves and their names to Christ in baptism and supposing that they intend to be saved by persevering according to that Covenant for without doubt such must submit to this Government and indeed I wondered how any man had Confidence to obtrude such a Conclusion concerning so high and material points without pretence of reason or Scripture as he doth in this place but I remember how heretofore I had read something to this purpose in his First Part and it seems he supposeth this granted out of his former Grounds although he might have done well to have eased the Reader with a reference to it but I have hunted it out and God willing will pursue the Chase wheresoever CHAP. IX SECT I. Mutual Covenanting of the Saints gives not being to a Visible Church IN his first part therefore of this Book page 46. he discourseth of the formal Cause of a visible Church and he puts this Conclusion Mutual Covenanting and Confederating of the Saints in the fellowship of the faith according to the Order of the Gospel is that which gives Constitution and being to a Visible Church This Term Consederating of the Saints is indefinite and seems therefore that he should mean all the Saints should Confederate which is impossible in any of their Congregations if he had meant of any limited Company of Saints he should have said of a Company of Saints or a number of them which he did not but puts it indefinite of the Saints Secondly observe that whereas he interposeth in his Conclusion according to the Order of the Gospel neither doth he nor can any man living shew any likenesse or resemblance of any such Order in the Gospel nor doth he in his whole discourse endeavour to shew any such Thing Upon my perusal of this Discourse I find that I have treated of it already in some papers which passed betwixt me and another who is since as I hear dead and I think I sent them you therefore I shall speak only briefly to it first setting down his Conceit then answering his Arguments then Consuting his Conclusion SECT II. His Opinion explained HIS Conceit is as I apprehend it That a Company of Saints as he calls them enter into a Covenant one with another and with one which they call Pastor to submit to him in Pastoral duties and he to perform Pastoral Offices among them as likewise in respect of themselves to submit to and exercise Churchly Censures one towards another some such Covenant if I can reach his sence is that which gives to the receivers an Obligation and bond and it is in Conscience one towards another which bond is the formal Essence and being of a Church I conceive this but for lack of some Copy of one of their Covenants I can only guesse at it by the main drift of his Discourse he denyes Baptism or Profession to give the being to a Member and only makes a Covenant to be it a superadded Covenant beyond Baptism Page 47. he delivers that this Covenant is either Explicite or Implicite Explicite when there is an open expression and profession of this Engagement in the face of the Assembly Implicite when in their practice they do that whereby they make themselves engaged to walk in such a Society according to such rules of Government which are executed amongst them and so submit themselves thereto but do not make any verbal profession thereof And thus he saith the people in the Parishes of England where there is a Minister put upon them by the Patron or Bishop they constantly hold them to the Fellowship of the people in such a place c. This being warned that upon their grounds there could be no Church in the Christian World but in New England he could not choose but allow this Implicite Covenant to be sufficient which is the common opinion among them although I doubt in some other Things he will reject an Argument drawn from an universal practice SECT III. His Conclusions concerning this Covenant PAge 48. he addes some Conclusions First an Implicite Covenant preserves the true nature of the Visible Church Secondly which is much the same an Implicite Covenant in some Cases may be fully sufficient Thirdly it is much agreeing to the Compleatnesse of the rule what rule I would know and for the better being of the Church that there be
beings as Seals transient it may be further doubted how Seals can be forms This I urge though not a Book-Objection as indeed I do not find the Question disputed in the School under this Notion but only which started it self in my thoughts whilest I was writing and indeed may do so with others for I am unwilling to let any thing pass which may disturb a Readers assenting and therefore in Answer to this Objection do say that although the Seal be gone yet its image its likeness when it is gone remains in the Wax which is as valid to all its intentions as it self and is the Seal effective in its morall existence to all those morall effects which it produceth so it is in Baptism there is that the School calls the Character which remains after the act of Baptism is gone and is powerfull to all its effects I did avoid to speak of this intricate business hoping I might have escaped it but since I cannot do thus undertake it now and define it thus CHAP. XIII What the Character left in Baptism is and this Character defined THe Character or Relict of Baptism by which a Christian is constituted a member of the Catholick Church is a spiritual power by which the baptized man is interessed with right both to receive and do what belongs to a member of Christs Church First It is a power Powers are either active or passive active to do as fire to burn passive to suffer or receive as wood hath a passive power to receive the ignifying nature of fire which gold hath not This relict of Baptism doth both these both enable a man to demand and receive Confirmation to joyn with the Christian Congregation in devoâ—ions and prayers to demand and receive absolution the Communion with all other things which a Christian man doth in his severall duties and occasions But we must here distinguish betwixt natural powers and moral the first are faculties in man by which he is enabled by that internall principle to act what the power directs him to and no man obtains any such but by a reall change and alteration in himself to some absolute quality as a power to walk to speak or the like that he had not before But in moral powers as the right to an Estate or to an Office these may come to a man without any such alteration As the father dyes the son is immediately invested with the power of his fathers Estate and yet the son is the same in all absolute things hath no such change in himself Again a man is chose a Generall a King he hâ—â—h in himself no such change no such alteration but is the same he was before in all absolute things In moral powers we are not to expect an alteration in the party who receives them to any absolute reality so that although in a baptized person who receives these mighty powers we can discover no alteration yet these powers are in him by the force of this moral form which enables him to act or receive such or such things Next let us consider that it is a spiritual power that Attribute is given it in regard of its object and end because the power aims at spirituall blessings and is conversant about spirituall means to obtain this end for as it is called morall because it considers not naturall actions but such as concern a mans manners his doing well or ill in relation to God and that Christian Community in which he lives so it is spirituall in respect of the spirituall conversation it hath with God and those men of whose society it is And now we seeing the genus in this definition let us examine the difference a power by which he is interessed with right here is apparent that which was implyed before that it is not a naturall but a morall power naturall powers enable a man to do as the power to move to speak but the morall power gives him not ability but authority and right to move or speak thus or now he hath interest and right to do it to receive and do this power is both active and passive as before what belongs to a member of Christs Church This gives him interest in no civill right nor Office in the Church but only a right as a member that is such a right as by Christs Laws appertain to him If a sinner in such a degree he is shut out of the Communion if a penitent he may require absolution and by his being baptized he is made capable of these which otherwise before and without Baptism he was not SECT II In what Predicament this Character is THus this Definition being explained there is a great Question what manner of thing in what Predicament this relict power is For my part without disparagement of my great Master in Philosophy Aristotle I think that these spiritual theological powers need not be tugged into any of his Predicaments nor was he to be blamed as insufficient in his number because he being acquainted only with naturall things found out names for them in his Ten but being ignorant of spirituall must of necessity leave them â—nd such as studied them to shift for their room elsewhere and we might therefore with more ease invent another for them than be forced with unjust violence to hale them to these which were only provided for naturall things But yet because those old names would better please a Reader I will keep my self to them And first I opine that this relict is of a relative nature in its proper being for it is that interest which a man hath as before in Christ as his head and the rest of the Church as his fellow-members which is a relation for pars totum part and the whole are relates so are head and member in such bodies as have heads and in this consists the nature of this relict and therein are seated all the interests and powers which a baptized man hath Aquinas with that great Army of learned men who follow his colours sight against this Conclusion vehemently with many Arguments seemingly powerfull the nature of which consisting of such matter as is not usuall in English Authors it may chance not be unpleasing to him who reads this to study a little that Christian Philosophy which will be opened in this discourse and I am confident it will by drawing aside such curtains as are interposed give admittance to such light as will illustrate the business in hand to any easie sight and therefore I undertake them The first Argument urged by Cabrera for I will take them where I find them strongest maintained Cabrera in 3. Quest. 63. Art 2. Disp. 1. Sect. 3. Conclus 3. thus argues There is no motion to a bare relation ad relationem per se is his phrase for this he produceth Aristotle 5. Phys. Text. 10. for saith he all change is to an absolute form but there is a motion to this Character as he and the
from him At primum ex concessis Ergo I set down his words and all his words where hath he shewed that Presbyters elected their Bishop which yet may be true and the consequence most weak for after their Ordination by Bishops they may elect their Bishop but not ordain him Elections may be and are various according to humane Constitutions assigning this or that Pastor to this or that particular Congregation sometimes the Parish sometimes the Patron sometimes a Bishop but the Ordination and giving him power to Officiate must be only by the Bishops the Bishop ordains and makes a man a Presbyter a Bishop of the Catholick Church he may by humane Laws and his own consent be tyed to Officiate and execute that Pastoral duty in this particular place nor can any man shew me Authority from Scripture or the times near to the Scripture-Writers where any man was instituted and ordained to do these spirituall duties by any other Authority than Episcopal Nay I think since the Apostles Age no considerable Church or body of Men did conceive Election to be of validity to do these duties till now Well then all the premisses considered which have a full consent of Scripture and the practice of all Ages to confirm them conceive with me that it must be a bold and impudent thing of such men who dare Officiate in these divine duties without Authority granted from Christ which he only gave to the Apostles and they to their Successors Bishops and it is a foolish rashness in those men who adventure to receive the Covenants of their eternall Salvation from such men who have no Atturnment from Christ to Seal them If the Case were dubious which to me seems as clear as such a practick matter can be I should speak more but it being clear I need write no more in this Theam I intended to have spoken to Mr. Hobs but lately there came to my hands a Book of learned Dr. Hammond entituled A Letter of Resolution to six Queries in the fifth of which which is about Imposition of hands you may find him most justly censured for that vain and un-scholastick Opinion pag. 384. But the business is handled sufficiently in the beginning of that Treatise pag. 318. wherefore my pains were vain in this Cause An APPENDIX c. CHAP. I. In which is an Introduction to the Discourse and the Question stated SInce I came back to my Study I found one conclusion delivered in this Treatise opposed by a learned Scotchman one Doctor Forbes in a Treatise intituled Ironicam and in it he hath divers Arguments not inserted in my former Papers against this proposition That it is a proper and peculiar act of Episcopacy to ordain Priests and Bishops which he denyes in his second Book Chap. 11. Proposition 13. in his Exposition and proofe of that proposition page 159. And I observing it whilest my Papers are with the Printer thought it â—it to interpose that which satisfied my self in his Arguments In the top of the page before named he begins thus Gradus quidem Episcopalis est juris divini here we agree Ita tamen ut Ecclesia esse non desinit Sed esse possit sit quandoque vera Ecclesia Christiana in qua non reperitur hic gradus Here we begin to differ I say there neither is nor ever was a Christian Church without a Bishop and I will now begin to distinguish there is the universal Church and there are particular Churches The particular Churches we may yea must conceive to be sometimes without Bishops yea without Presbiters as by the death of their Bishops or Presbiters or by such persecutions as may so scatter them that they dare not shew themselves in their Churches In such cases these places must needes be without these Magistrates And yet those Christians who are by such means defrauded of this divine and blessed government keeping their first faith continue members of the Catholick Church and of that universal Church which have and ever shall have Bishops as long as the World stands so that if that proposition be meant of particular Congregations It is true they may be without a Bishop But if the universal they shall never be by the promise of our Saviour I will be with you to the end of the World without a Bishop And those particular Churches which may by such means be without Bishops may be without Presbiters likewise upon the same occasions This I think is clear I shall now examine his Arguments which oppose this which I have delivered His first Argument drawn from Scripture answered HE saith he will prove it before the Institution of Bishops and after First before I am perswaded he can shew me no Church before the Institution for their Episcopal authority was given in its fulness to the Apostles in that language of our Saviour As my father send me so send I you as I have explained All the Commission was given to them and they imparted all or part of it as they pleased they were the first and only Bishops untill they setled Provincial Bishops they were of the whole world as those latter of particular Diocesses he proves that there were Churches before Bishops out of Scripture but it is ciphered Scripture first Acts 8. 12. There Philip the Deacon so he terms him converted Souls to Christ where was no Bishop And by his leave if Philip were but a Deacon there was no Presbiter neither and by the By the Independant Thomas Hooker of New England and his fellows may take notice that a Deacon may preach and baptize for so did Philip in Samaria in that verse But Reader take notice that although men may be converted by Presbiters yea Lay-men any and when they are converted and baptized are members of the Catholick Church and parts of the mystical body of Christ and have no Bishop resident in that place yet without a Bishop it cannot be for the providence of God over the Church is such as that there shall always be such an authority resident in the Church universal whither men may in convenient time such as will be accepted of God repair for Church-discipline The next place be vergeth is Acts 11. 20 21. But there is nothing observable to any such purpose but only that they who were scattered upon the persecution of Stephen converted many Souls to the true faith His third place is Acts 14. 20 21 22. He should have added the 23 without the which all the former were imperfect to his purpose and in that verse are the words which he argues out of that is they ordained Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now there was a Church he inâ—erâ—s and no Bishop I will tell him there was a Church and no Presbyter untill the Apostles ordained them and the Apostles Barnabas and Paul ordained these Presbiters not a Presbitery and they themselves â—ineranâ—â— throughout the World visited their Churches with letters and directions sometimes when they could not personally
should not Ordain Priests Vasques in answer to this saith that the imposition of the Hands of Bishops is not to be understood of many Bishops laying on their Hands at the same time upon the same man but that several Bishops at several times laid their Hands upon several Chori-Episcopi but to this may be urged that word quamvis as one or etiamsi as another Edition why should the Canon say although he be Ordained by the imposition of Hands of Bishops and Consecrated as a Bishop this although would there signifie nothing for he should not be by it distinguished from a Presbyter but because some were and some were not Ordained by Bishops it reacheth even those who were so Ordained Doctor Forbes is not content with this answer of Vasques but adds another of his own at the bottom of Page 171. and throughout 172 where before cited the sence of which is that the imposition of Hands here mentioned is not to be understood passively for the imposition of Hands which they receive themselves but actively for that imposition of Hands which they had power of to give I think I have set it down as clearly as his words can be rendered for indeed his Language is as obscure as the Canon it self but this is most forced nor indeed can a man conceive Canonically how a Chori-Episcopus could receive that active which he mentions unless he had received it passively first by the imposition of Hands of divers Bishops nor can a man well imagine in that Language ut Episcopi Ordinantur what that ut should mean if it did not come to explain the former Phrase of imposition of Hands of divers Bishops so that then for ought I see Bellarmines exposition against both these adversaries is the most clear and congruous to the Canon let us now examine Pope Damasus's Arguments as they are scholastically urged by Vasques and that is the marrow of all that is in this Epistle SECT V. Damasus his first Argument against the Chori-Episcopi answered Damasus seems to me eitheir with Bellarmine to think there were two sorts of Chori-Episcopi in the time of making the Canon which may be perswaded because although he begins with this Argument from the Plural number before urged yet he never endeavours an answer to it or else believing them all but Presbyters he thinks that his other Argument may invalid this and notwithstanding this being deficient in other things they are not Bishops by it His first Argument is drawn from the word Chori which signifies Countrey they were but country Bishops when as all Bishops should be of a City To this I answer that although such Canons may be made for the establishment of the government of Churches in a setled Kingdom where are such Cities for the Decorum and honour of the Episcopal Sea yet it cannot be in unsetled States as suppose the Gospel should be preached in the barbarous places of the West-Indies where are no such places to give Episcopacy that honour yet the Church may and ought to be planted and governours put into them to regulate their discipline oâ— else things will go backward faster than forward in the matters of Religion Again we may conceive if such Canons be insisted upon that they should be understood of prime and chief Bishops not such as are Vicarii Episcoporum that is vicars of the chief Bishops Now it may happen that there be a necessity of such vicars and they may be of great use to the Bishop of the City whose Diocess is large as will appear shortly and these Chori-Episcopi although they may be impeded in the execution of their office by the superior authority of the Bishop of the City yet with his consent are impowred to Ordain in these cases which is most agreeing to the letter of the Canon according to any Edition either sine or praeter or whatsoever it is This is enough I think for the first Argument of Pope Damasus SECT VI. His next Argument answered ANother is thus framed there are but two Orders of Priesthood Bishops and Presbyters this he enlargeth and proves from the Church under the Law where were Aaron and his Sons only in the Priesthood as likewise from our Saviour himself who had only Apostles and Disciples so saith he it should be in the present Church now it seems these Chori-Episcopi are neither they esteem themselves greater than Presbyters and yet are not Bishops wherefore nothing in answer what they esteem themselves I know not but we have good reason to think some were Bishops and some only Presbyters and they who were Bishops might act these great offices of Ordaining Priests and Deacons with leave of the Bishop of the Diocess those who were only Priests could not Thus Damasus his Arguments are are of no force against that Canon of Antioch and therefore Vasques himself acknowledgeth in that 238. Disp. Cap. 7. That Damasus did conceive that in the time of the Council of Antioch some Chori-Episcopi were Bishops and he affirms that if they had Episcopal Consecration although they were but titular Bishops and so had no place assigned at their Consecration where they should officiate yet they had that power granted them at their Consecration which might be reduced into act whensoever a place was assigned them and yet Damasus condemns them for the future which was never obeyed SECT VII One word in the Canon more explained THere is one word more in the Canon which may abide a misinterpretation and is somewhat insisted upon by Doctor Forbes that is in the latter end of the Canon it is said that he the Chori-Episcopus must be Ordained by the Bishop to whom he and his possession are subject Now if he be Ordained by one Bishop only certainly he is but a Presbyter for although as I have said in a case of necessity one Bishop hath been allowed to Consecrate and the power Apostolical was to them Separative to every one to Ordain yet when Laws were substituted by Ecclesiastique authority for the well government of the Church and severe punishments inflicted upon the violation of them as are in this case it is not reasonable to think that men living in obedience to that Church should dare â—o break them in publique and that constantly as it seems this is for answer to this I say that this makes it evident that this Canon is delivered concerning a double sort of Chori-Episcopi some that were made by the imposition of Hands of divers Bishops and others that were ordained by one only which is all is required and so I will pass to my last proposal to shew what these Chori-Episcopi were CHAP. XVI What the Chori-Episcopi were IT is a hard task which I do not find clearly delivered by any what I find shall be set down and leave the determination to others In general my conceipt of them is this that as it happens in other Parisnes where Presbyters have the charge that where they are large and
by Divine Apostolical institution so it is reasonable to conceive it may add something Ecclesiastical to that which is Divine so it be not destructive to the foundation of which nature I shall show there is somewhat in this Canon For the Book which was imposed on the head and shoulders of the Bishop to be Consecrated is the Book of the Gospel or four Evangelists Now it is impossible that that Ceremony should be necessary because what is necessary to any thing must agree to all of that kind which this cannot because there were Bishops when this Book was not written yea when not one of the â—ospels were written this therefore cannot be essential to the Consecration of a Bishop which must needs follow his Consecration this Argumenr is taken notice of by divers although not in this â—ase but in that which concerns a Deacon where the Book of the Gospels is delivered at his Ordination to the Deacon and by most of the Church of Rome is made the matter essential to that Ordination as they call it or as we the outward sign of it you see this Argument which they are pinched with Let us consider how they shift from it Vasques in his 238 Disp. Cap. 4. Number 43. and Ochogamia in his Book of Sacraments in his title of Orders Cap. 4. out of him affirmed that this Order of Deacons as well as is evident of Bishops was before the Gospels were written and they were then ordained without that Ceremony but by a Dispensation of Christ that is Ochogamia's Phrase but Vasques by a Commission of his the Phrase doth not materially differ with these kind of shifts any thing may be affirmed can they shew any the least word in the New Testament intimating any such probability a dispensation must be upon a former Law there could be no Law made to ordain with giving Gospels before either all or any of them were written and it is most evident that none of them were writ when the first Bishops were made Gasper Hurtado goes therefore another way to work and although he grants that at first they were ordained only by the imposition of Hands yet he saith that it is probable that afterwards Christ instituted that when the Gospels were writ they should be delivered to the ordained it is an easy thing to say it is probable but he should give a reason why we should think it reasonable I have reason to think that when the Gospels do abundantly deliver to us such things which are necessary for us to know concerning the will of Christ and there is no such thing in the Gospels and they would be of great ease to the satisfaction of such men as expect to receive Divine blessings from some men in holy Orders It is necessary that they should have some means chalked out to them by which they might be assured that these are such hands by which they expected those blessings are promised to be given them but above all others I wonder at Henricus Henriques who is so bold in his sum of moral Divinity Lib. 1â— Cap. 8. Tit. 1. in his Comment to affirm that probabilius videtur quod in primitiva Ecclesia dabatur Diacono charta in qua continebantur Mysteria fidâ—i quae habentur in Evangâ—lio which is that it seems probable that in the primitive Church there was given to the Deâ—con somâ— paper in which were contrived written the Mysteries of Faith which are in the Gospel He saith it seems so I would ask to whom it seems so certainly to no man living fifteen hundred years after and upwards nor did ever any man say he saw any such Scripture nor heard of it before It cannot therefore seem probable to any man for sure such a Scripture would have given a Glorious light to many other Doctrines which now lye in darkness I therefore love occandus for a clear and ingenious conâ—ession in this point who in quartum sententiarum â—ist 24. Proposition 1. Page 83. saith thus Contra hoc est unum Argumentum cujus solutionem fateor me nescire gaudenter libentur ignorabo Against this Conclusion which is that the delivery of the Book should be essential to the Order of a Deacon against this there is one Argument whose answer I know not and am chearfully and willingly ignorant of And then he urgeth this Argument of mine and shews that even St. Mathews Gospel who was his tutelar Saint was not writ when Deacons were instituted he calls him Pater meus Spiritualis this â—s it was honest so it was ingenious and then he quotes Durandus rightly in Quartum Dist. 24. Quest 3. who agrees with me much in my opinion conceâ—ning this matter and saith that in the Arician Diocess where he was Bishop this Ceremony of the Book was never used so that there is neither Scripture for it nor any universal Traâ—ition and therfore hath no strong â—oundâ—tion the chiefest argument that â—ives me any consideration is that Canon of the fourtâ— Councel of Carthage of which I spake before where in express terms the use of the Book of the Evangelists is enjoyned in the ordination of a Bishop but doth that follow it is therefore necessâ—ry essentially I think I have writ before that it is reasonable to think that Eminent Councell consiâ—â—ing of 200. and odd Bishops many of them as eminent for learning and piety as the world hâ—d we may justly think that such a Councel would omit no essentially materâ—all circumstance but that it should add nothing to the Apostolical Canons is not reasonable and this might now be because now that Book was extant which â—t the first in the Apostles time was not so that I am confident that such who lived in obedience to that Church ought to observe it there being no opposition to the essential part but indeeed rather an explication of it and yet I may say that the Church of Rome did not doth not observe the manner of using the â—ook there enjoyned for as Huâ—tado difficultate decima de ordine olim saith he heretofore the Book was not imposed by Bishops as that Canon requires but by Deacons and now by the Bishops â—haplâ—ines for the use of the Book was impossible to be Apostolical as it is before proved it may be used and ought to be when ordained in a well governed and setled Church but it is not essential to the Ordination or Consecration CHAP. XIII In which what is essential to this Consecration is set down THus having removed the principal Rubbige which might impede my structure I come now to lay my foundation concerning the Building first then let us conceive that what is essential must be Apostolical and what is so may probably be thought to be essential for although it is a most assented Conclusion that the Sacraments which conveigh Grace must be of Divine Institution of which Nature they make Orders I contend not about words and the Apostles were instituted with full authority