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
his Councels come to be Decrees in this Epistle there is not one word like a Decree but onely an Advice to him nothing like a Commission as Vasques and divers others phrase it for then it should be mandamus or concedimus potestatem we Command or grant you power nor of dispensation as Cardinall Bellarmine and others for then it should be in that language we dispence with you or non obstante notwithstanding any Law to the contrary but here is no such thing but sometimes he saith fraternibus vestra your brotherhood knows this or that and the like and here shews him the reason why he should come by more Bishops to assist him although I think he was deceived in his supposals for there were Bishops in Brittain at that time howsoever that reason was good to authorize Austin at that time and the like may be good for any man in the like Condition for this triplicity of Bishops to Consecrate cannot be necessary to Consecration according to any Divine Constitution but onely Ecclesiastical which cannot be understood to exact impossibilities or else to make a particular Church to lose all the benefit of Episcopall Government But then consider the language of all these men and see how inconsistent it is with their first principles that there must be three Bishops by Divine right to the Consecration of a Bishop can the Pope dispence with what is due by Divine authority or can he grant a Commission to act against Divine Laws I hope they will not say so unless they will set themselves against all that is called God and make an earthly god above our Father which is in â—eaven then let us consider how it was possible that Christian Religion could have been planted unless the power essentially had been in one Bishop to Consecrate when Timothy Titus and St. John who you will that went about with the power of Tongues into unknown Countreys to plant Religion and God blessing their industry the Churches increased learned Men were Converted fit to make Bishops of Can you think that these Itinerants would suffer them like Austin here in England to send to Rome for advice in such a matter or much less for a Commission or dispensation to use their Language it is not imaginable nay when a Church is in persecution I know a little what belongs to that can they send to many Bishops in the same Province to send their votes in writing or without that there can be no Consecration It cannot be I conclude thus although in a setled Church there is a great decency in practiseing according to that Rule of having three Bishops at a Consecration yet in these Cases it is not necessary and it may be validly acted by one alone and no Commission or dispensation is necessary And now Reader having walked through this intricacy I cannot think my self nor the Reader satisfied untill I have applied another Question which is what is it which so enables a Consecration that we may say when that is done this man is a Bishop CHAP. XII In which is discoursed what is essentially to the constitution of a Bishop THe Question introduced To understand which that I may write distinctly take this for a Praecognitum that since the power was given to the Apostles in these words As my Father sent me so send I you Therefore when this power is given by Apostles and Apostolicall men then this dignity is conferr'd upon Men But again because that it is necessary for the Church of Christians not onely that they have the power but that this power should be so administred as that other men who are to receive blessings from it should be able to take notice for else how is it possible to repair to the wells head unless they can know where it is that there is such a blessing bestowed upon them therefore this power must be given by some such means as are visible and that men may discern when it is granted for if it should be given by the Apostles without any outward sign onely with a vehitie a kind of secret grant it must be most uncertain to other men because each man may pretend to it and there is no confuting but by some outward sign which being proper to this Action may be an infallible assurance that then and not till then it is given and here will be required a diligent and curious inquest there are divers things pretended to which are not right and they being severed we may then safely pitch upon what is the truth to do which let us first consider that Adâ—m Tanner in his fourth Tome of Scholasticall Divinity upon the third of Thomas and the supplement Disp. 7. Quest. 2. Dubio 4. handling the doubt what is the matter and form of a Priest and Bishop at the last page 1900. he names as a Concessum and things to be supposed eight Actions at the consecration of a Bishop he quotes the Romane Pontificall for it I will not set them down the writing them is too much paines but what hath grown in reputation amongst Scholars I shall examine But yet I must make another pause SECT II. A discourse of Petrus Arcadius illustrated and applied THere is a learned man one Petrus Arcadius who hath writ a Book with a most pious title which is of the concord betwixt the occidentall Church or the Latine and orientall under which headâ— he reduceth the African and sometimes the Rutherian in the administration of the Sacraments which controvercy he hath very industriously and happily handled in very many things in particular in this business having handled before the form used in both Churches at the ordination title 6. de Sacramento ordinis cap. 4. he comes to reconcile them and doth it upon this foundâ—tion I am now handling that is that they agree in the essentialls that is the Doctrine of all the three Churches and the difference is onely in Accidentalls this saith he may be done first by saying our Saviour did so institute this Sacrament that the Consecration of Ministers should be by certain words and outward signs by which it should sufficiently appear to what part of Ministry they were ordained but he left it to the arbitrement of the Church what these signs and words must be this he illustrates by the Councell of Trent wherein Sâ—ssion 23. Canon 3. the Councell decrees the thing that holy ordination should be made with signs and words but determines not what so that it excludes not the Graecian or African Ordination Again he illustrates this by Marriage most rightly for they make Matrimony a Sacrament as well as ordination there the word of God establisheth for men how they should live in holy wedlock but never determines what shall be the manner with what words or signs they shall be married but leaves that to the determination of every Church yea Common-wealth thus you may perceive his Conclusion how strengthned I will set down my Judgements and reasons
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
portion which they superintended but rebounding back often where they had been before and diverting as Occasions offered themselves into other Precincts this they did and might do by that vast Authority was given them Go preach to all Nations and by that power Equalling their Authority which was Conferred at the Pentecost but it was not with other men that universal Authority would not besit the meaner powers of those who were to succeed and to follow them and therefore we will in the next place Consider in what proportions they Communicated these Authorities to others SECT II. How the Apostolical Power was Communicated THE virtue of which Communication we enjoy at this day some for place some for Authority some in part some in the Lump For the first we shall for place Consider that their Successors were confined in place Titus in Creet Timothy in Ephesus Epaphroditus in Philippi not that they were Confined or pegg'd here immovably So is no Bishop in his Diocesse no not quoad Officium as if his holy Duties which he performed out of his Diocesse were invalid or of no force for without doubt if a Bishop baptize preach celebrate the Communion give Holy Orders secundùm materiam formam Canonically according to Matter and Form out of his Diocesse they are firm and good to the receivers although perhaps without leave or extreme necessity they are not Commendable Nay without doubt if either Bishop or Presbyter remove to other Diocesse or Parish he takes not a new Ordination but an acceptation or just Election to that place sufficeth Now his Confining to that place is to restrain the Ministring of his Office out of Duty there so that he is out of Duty to have a Care of that place and to look to that flock which is Committed to his Charge which is part not the whole as it was Committed to the Apostles and no doubt that which Dr. Field hath learnedly discoursed upon this subject in Ancient Times Bishops were the Pastors of their Diocesse solely Presbyters their Assistants and Associates as the Apostles with that almost immense power were made Bishops of the World yet being men with Confined bodyes were forced to use Deputyes and the help of other men in their Charge even whilst they lived and certainly the Church was better Governed by that Subordination than if every one who hath not Apostolical Integrity should assume Apostolical Authority so it was by these they had great Diocesses committed by the Apostles and as I shall shew anon they had many Inferiors Assisting them but these were their places over which they were made Overseers and they had not Authority of Jurisdiction over others Thus I could set down how almost all the World was divided in the Apostolical Age but I let this alone SECT III. How the Apostolical Power was divided to Particulars and concerning the Office of Deacons NExt we will Consider how the very Office of the Apostleship was divided And the first thing that comes into our Consideration to begin at the foot and climb upward will be the Office of Deacon in handling which I find some matter of Dispute First about the Institution of him when this Function was first erected There is a general Claim to Acts 6. the Story may thus be observed In the Infancy of the Church when it pleased God by the preaching of the Word to encrease the Church beyond the expectation of men or lesse power than Apostolical there were many poor among the Disciples but the piety of the Christians was such as you may read Acts 4. 5. in ver 34. of the 4th Chapter there was no lack for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them and brought the price and cast it at the Apostles feet and Barnabas is presently particularly instanced in but in the 5th Chapter we read the fearfull Story of Ananias and Sapphira who would seem righteous to do as the fashion of Godly men was but being hypocrites were punished for their hypocrisies Now these Sales bringing in great sums for the relief of the poor the Apostles as it seems were troubled with it and the Care to relieve the poor took them off from attendance upon that mighty work of planting the Gospel this was the rather awakened by a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrâ—ws that is either such Grecians as were made Proselytes or else such Hebrews as lived and perhaps were born amongst the Greeks for as yet the Apostles had no Communication with the Gentiles now these Grecian Jews murmured because it seems the Apostles as I can guess had left the administration of this Charity to some who had dealt partially for I am confident they themselves would not wherefore they Convented the Disciples together and bid them with all Care who must needs know the Integrity of mens conversations better than the Apostles who could not search hearts select some men fit for such a purpose and appointed the Number of Seven the Disciples did accordingly and they chose Stephen and Philip c. as you may read in the 5. vers of the 6. Chap. and set them before the Apostles when the Apostles had prayed they laid their hands upon them no doubt rectifying their Choice and Authorizing them to the work Thus we see these men receiving Title to execute this Office SECT IV. Reasons why the Office of a Deacon was not Instituted Acts 6. BUT for my part salvo semper meliori judicio I cannot conceive how this should prove that Ministerial Office of a Deacon which was afterwards used in the Church from this place for these reasons First because this was an Occasional Office necessary for that Time in which there being many poor which lived under the correction and rod and persecution of the politick Magistrate no legal Course could be taken for the relief of them but such as came by Charity out of the bowels of their own Fraternity to wit from Christians who might be perswaded not compelled to that Duty and by reason of this there was a necessity to have some Officers chosen Overseers of the Poor which by a Religious Tie where could be no legal should be bound to the Execution of this Duty for which they instituted this Office but why these should be called Deacons that Ministerial Office used in the Church I see neither Authority nor Ground in the Scripture for it That they should not be annual Officers as our Overseers of the poor I can see no reason or why in a setled Commonwealth where the politick Lawes provide for the poor and Law makes such Charity a Duty to the Commonwealth there is no Ground It is true in the Times of persecution these things are necessary as there is often mention both in St. Pauls Epistles and the Ecclesiastical Story and Julian the Apostate himself in an Epistle to Arsalius the Heathen Pontifex or Chief Priest of Galatia The wicked Galileans saith he under which name he vented
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
taking Care of the poor thus ye may find it Acts 6. 1. In those dayes there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews because their widowes were neglected in the daily Ministration there is the same word again and upon that ground the Apostles insâ—ituted the Office of a Deacon as you may see afterwards and for that reason because of their Ministration they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as we use to call them Deacons but indeed is Ministers Again from hence it comes that this Office being the lowest and the foundation of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy because all that serve God for the good of mens Souls are at the least Deacons or Ministers That this word is sometimes in its general Notion applied to the very Apostleship Acts 1. 17. speaking of Judas who was one of the 12. Apostles He obtained part of this Ministry and verse the 25. speaking of him whom God should choose that he may take part of this Ministry and Apostleship from which c. where you see the Apostleship called Ministry so likewise 2 Cor. 11. 23. Are they Ministers of Christ I speak as a fool I am more speaking of the Apostles I am more more Ministerial more industrious Thus as we may say a man is a vegetable Creature which is the remote Genus so are these said to be Ministers but I can never observe that in any particular Application this word Minister is used for that second Order of Presbyter either in Scripture or Antiquity as in this corrupt Age by usurpation it is abused But I think in this question you understand by it the whole body of the Clergy by what Titles soever and in that sense I mean to speak of it and so addresse my self to the consideration of what a Minister is and I conceive that I may thus define him CHAP. II. What a Minister is in his Definition A Minister is an Officer ordained by God to do something conducing to the salvation of mens Souls In the first place his Genus is an Officer which nature he hath in Common with multitudes of others who are such either Magistratical or Servile I need not discourse now of that it is so apparent Secondly in his Difference the first phrase is ordained by God that is by the Command or Institution of God There are many Officers that are instituted and ordained by men who have power from God to do this Act of Instituting Officers but a Minister is an Officer instituted by God from him he hath power in Divine things these no man can have power over but he who hath this Authority granted him from God and that is it which St. Paâ—l affirms Heb. 5. 4. No man taketh this honor to himself but he who is called of God as was Aaron Nay presently after he affirmeth of Christ that he assumed the Priesthood not of himself but from the Father so then this Ministerial Function requireth Gods Ordination but by the word Ordination I not only conceive an Institution of God but likewise some Duty commanded which God orders thereunto So that by giving this Order so the School and we in English call these holy Functions God exacts a Duty in these men who exercise it For the graces given these men being such as the School calls gratis datae not sanctifying the person who hath them but such as are for the sanctification of others God who gives nothing in vain will require an Account of these graces and abilities And to this purpose St. Paul 1 Cor. 4. 1. Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ and Dispensators or Stewards of the mysteries of God Vers. 2. Moreover it is required in Stewards that they should be faithfull that is to lay out the moneys according to their Lords appointment and direction according to the Lords Ordinance but there is more intimated in this word Ordinance to wit an enabling the person who is ordained to do some supernatural Work but the enabling must be understood in Actu primo not secundo that is he is enabled with Authority to do that is required A man gives his keyes to his Steward bids him search such Rooms such Boxes for such occasions as he hath need here he hath Clavem the Authority and right power to do this Duty to open the doors in Actu primo but perhaps his hands are weak he cannot turn the key or he is ignorant he knows not how to do it yet what he doth is regular he hath Power and Authority to do it and should another who hath more ability do it in the second Act and not in the first he doth it like a Thief not like a Steward This first right is certainly Conveyed by the Ordinance of God with holy Orders but not the second and they who do these duties without this Authority given them from Christ are therefore called by Christ Thieves and Robbers John 10. 1. He that entreth not by the door into the Sheepfold but climbeth up another way he is a Thief and a Robber they are Thieves but they who come by the door by Authority from Christ are the right Shepherds and have Authority to go into the â—old and do their Duty there so that though a Minister have Authority given him to do holy Things yet he may not have the Science or Integrity to do accordingly but what he hath so far is ratifyed by God but others who have not this Authority though they do the same things yet they are responsible for a presumption as may appear out of Acts 19. v. 13. where certain Exorcists took upon them the power Divine of Casting out Devils which was Apostolical but they stole the keyes of this power had them not given them and the Devils rent and tare them from all which it appears that the enabling with this power such as may be justifyed comes from a Divine Ordination and not else The next Term is To do something conducing to the Salvation of mens Souls I put this phrase to do something more largely than the Schools and the great Consent of the Church of Rome use to do who restrain it only to the holy Communion as if holy Orders were only referred to that Mysterie and so with wresting bring in those little Ecclesiastical Officers into the Number but we may observe that for ought I find a Deacon by his Institution or Practice at the first in the New Testament had nothing to do with the Communion nor indeed hath more now than to assist with the Cup And the great Power of the Keyes toucheth not the Act of Communion immediately but by reason of admission or prohibiting such as shall or shall not Communicate I choose therefore this phrase to do something which comprehends all even that and Preaching and whatsoever else conduceth to mans Salvation but yet we must apply this to what went before likewise and take all together there are many Acts done by
men who are not Ministers which conduce to others Salvation and are very usefull and commendable in them nay are done out of Duty as the Example of a good life discreet admonishing men of their faults incouraging others to virtue and the like which are all Acts of Duty from one Christian man to another but not Acts of Office Acts of Charity as they are Christians not as they are this or that sort of men We must therefore recall the first Term that they must do something Conducing to the salvation of men This phrase must be a little farther cleared likewise There are things which Conduce accidentally to the Salvation of others as persecution affliction so it was with St. Paul sometimes assisting in villany which starts up some Divine Speech or Action so those wicked persons who assisted in the Crucifying of our Saviour their Wicked Act made them Spectators and Auditors of those supernatural words which then declared him to be God and made them receive that Faith in him and confesse that he was the Son of God But these persons are in themselves the Devils Ministers though Gods almighty power and providence Conjured them about as he will the very Devils themselves and draw his honour out of their Wickednesse his light out of their Darknesse These Acts in themselves Conduce to Hell but God wrought them miraculously about to Heaven and therefore not understood here but such as in themselves are disposed to it and because Heaven is not a result or an Effect naturally arising out of our Works but a blessing bestowed upon the Workers according to their Works for Christs sake therefore those things which Conduce to Heaven in themselves must be such as God is pleased to Covenant with us that upon them and the doing of them he will give this Salvation for no man can obtain that by Fraud or Violence and therefore it must be on such Terms as he Covenants for And these things are those of the Word and Sacraments as the whole Christian World hath named them though they have no such name given them in the New Testament to wit this God hath provided Salvation in Heaven for his Servants the Means for them to get this Heaven is by these Covenants Sealing these Deeds obeying these Ordinances of his â—or which he hath appointed Officers and given them Power and Authority to administer these Covenants Letters of Atturney for it is a Legal Juridical businesse and a legal phrase befits it to act these things betwixt him and men and teach them his Lawes and will by which they shall be Sharers of this blessing and they who have an Office and from that Office Authority to do All or Some of these things are the Ministers we speak of And I think this may suffice to speak what a Minister is How he is ordained and who they are will follow SECT II. These Powers must be given by God TO understand these heads we must first conceive that a man can receive or assume no such power that is effectual to himself unlesse it be given him from Heaven as St. John speaks John 3. 27. Heaven being Gods gift the powers the Covenants which bring men thither must be by his Appointment and the Officers who work and effect these powers must be by him authorized likewise I write these Conclusions briefly being of great Evidence in themselves and for ought I know denyed by none SECT III. The way to understand who these are AND now in my Conceit the readiest way to clear this truth will be to shew what Officers Christ hath appointed to this purpose and this must be done two wayes First to shew Historically what was done and Secondly to shew how that History shall agree with the Design it had to bring men to Heaven and how unfit other pretentions are to it The History I shall divide into two parts First to lay the Foundation of this glorious Building to shew what our Saviour acted himself in it what the Church Discipline was in Embrione in Ovo in the Foundation then to shew what Superstructures the Apostles built upon it what it was in the birth when it was a Chick The first must be sought out of the Gospells or the beginning of the Acts where the Story of our Saviours immediate Commerce with this World both in his life and after his Death is set down for us The second part must be cleared from the later part of the Acts and the Epistles and thus my design is layd CHAP. III. The Election of the Apostles and what to do THE first remarkable business in the Gospel is the Election of the Apostles which we may find recorded in the 3d. of St. Mark v. 13. and the 6th of St. Luke v. 13. In St. Mark we may observe that he ordained Twelve that they should be with him and that he might send them forth to preach and in St. Luke we may note that he gave these Twelve the Name of Apostles out of this we may Consider that our Saviour having many Disciples such as had leaned and listned to his Doctrine he chose out of them Twelve which he gave particular Favours to and gave them that name of Office to be Apostles That there was some Mystery in that Number of Twelve I am perswaded because that after the Apostacy of Judas in the 1. of the Acts v. 22. St. Peter saith That according to the Prophet David Psal. 109. 7. another should take his Office It was necessary another should succeed him in that Ministry and they chose one and no more to Compleat the Number What that Mystery is is not so apparent That which fits my Apprehension is this That our Saviour did in very many things lay the platform of his Ecclesiastical Government according to the pattern of the Jewish Polity and in this particular he resembled the Twelve Patriarchs but this he laid as Pillars only or a foundation intending it only to support the rest not to figure out the Number of these Officers which were afterwards to be a Number I know by none pretended to but yet they then were so many pillars to support this building and whatsoever Structure should be raised must be erected upon these But besides their Number we may mark their Office which was two-fold about our Saviour and about the Church or other men about our Saviour that they should be with him hearing and learning his Doctrine spectators of his Miracles and most exemplar manner of Life that so they being to bear Witnesse of him and his Actions afterwards might the more Constantly and Confidently do it when they had in such a manner been Conversant with him That which concerned other men was That he might send them forth to preach Here was an Office Instituted as St. Mark records it and to have power to heal sicknesse c. This Gift of Miracles was not the Office it self but a sign and token by which men might know that they
were sent from God for they taking upon them a new Office and pretending that they received it of God executing it for him it was necessary that they should bring with them some evidence that they had it from him and this evidence or sign of it was this power of Miracles which accompanyed them Thus St. Mark hath described the Office and because men should not be mistaken in these Officers St. Mark and St. Luke have set down the particular Names and Characters of many of them upon which I insist not as not material to my work But then it must be marked farther that St. Luke sets down the Name of the Office as well as the Officers and saith the Name was imposed by Christ which he called Apostles which Name is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is mitto to send and an Apostle is missus one sent thus the general nature of the word signifies and so the word is used John 13. 16. Neither is he that is sent greater than he that sent him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that is sent but in this place it is perpetually put for the Name of this Office and to the same sense is that word Angel which with Apostle Amen and divers other words all languages observe and derive from the Original Angel is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is Nuntius a Messenger to relate some Affairs to others now the Apostles received this Name as men sent about the most excellent Errand that ever was the Messengers the men sent In a word we see there were a certain Number of men chosen they are set down what they are what their Names were and the Number of the Committee and we see the names of their Office as likewise what their Authority hitherto was that is to preach No doubt but Beza's word which he interposeth to preach the Gospel is a good glosse though I think it not the right Text. But although they have Election into an Office provided for them and a power and Authority to execute this Office when they are sent yet they must not go before tâ—ey are sent we will consider therefore their Mission in the next place SECT II. How and to whom the Apostles were sent AND for that we must come to St. Matthew 10. 1. and to St. Luke 9. 1. there we may observe in either place that as before they had the power given them so in these places they were Commanded to execute this power In St. Mark it is said that he ordained Twelve that they might be with him that he might send them forth to preach ready they were for the bunesse they lacked nothing but Mission and that they had in the former places In St. Matthew 10. 5. we may observe these Twelve sent forth we shall see there the place where they were to execute the Commissions described First negatively verse the 5. Go not into the way of the Gentiles and into any City of the Samaritans enter ye not then positively but rather go ye to the lost Sheep of the house of Israel vers 6. Not that our Saviour would forbid Salvation to any Soul in the World for others besides Jews were Converted but accidentally the Office of the Apostles in our Saviours time was while he lived restrained to them And therefore we may observe that St. Peter himself in the 10th of the Acts until he was admonished by a Vision of his Errors was of Opinion that it was not lawfull for a Jew to have any Communication or keep Company with a Gentile as he expresseth it to Cornelius vers 28. So then you see their Commission restrained in place and Secondly you may observe their Commission explained what they were to preach SECT III. What they were to preach BEfore they had Commission to preach now a Command what to preach St. Luke the 9th ver 2. to preach the kingdom of God St. Matth. 10. 7. The Kingdom of heaven is at hand the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are the same called from God as the King as we may say Caesars Kingdom or Empire called from Heaven as the place the Empire of Rome the Kingdom of Jerusalem Now this Kingdom is from the Eminency of it called the Kingdom of Heaven because there is as it were the Court where Gods Glory is most manifestly apparent that is called his Kingdom as Rome but though his Court be there his Kingdom is on Earth though Heaven be the Court yet Earth is the Country of this Kingdom though Heaven be his Throne yet Earth is his Foot-stool So then by his Kingdom or the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand is meant that Christs Kingdom was comming near That now the time was Comming in which he should conquer the Devil and lead Captivity captive now the time was Comming in which he should Settle his Dominions in the World And this was much the same with the Subject of St. John Baptist his Sermons Mat. 3. 2. Repent ye for the Kingdom of God is at hand nor indeed could other Doctrine be preached for Christ had not yet Conquered the Devil nor setled his Government and therefore as their Commission was setled and restrained to a place so it was in the Doctrine much unlike what it afterwards came to Thus you see that the Apostles had now at the last a Commission to preach you see their Diocesse to the Lost Sheep of the house of Israel you see likewise what they were to preach The next thing to be Considered will be what other Officers our Saviour Instituted and what Enlargement he gave to this Commission whether any or no. SECT IV. What other Commission our Saviour gave to other men TO understand this let us consider Luke 10. 1. where we shall find that our Saviour called and sent Seventy or Seventy and two other Disciples besides these Twelve before named the diverse Lection of the Number is not material to any thing in hand but we may observe first that there was the same businesse in which they were employed as the very Apostles were out of the 9th verse where they were commanded to preach the same Doctrine The Kingdom of God is come nigh unto you That they had the same Assistance for their preaching the power of Miracles That they had the same way of Congratulating Cities or houses whither they came That there was the same Curse upon them that received them not that they were so to demean themselves both to the receivers and them who did not receive them But herein we see some difference the Apostles were first ordained and then sent these ordained and sent together Secondly the Apostles were taken into a Near attendance about Christ and from that had a more Intimate Acquaintance with both his Life and Doctrine and from thence although these were sent equally with them in all respects yet they only had the Name of Apostles given them by a prerogative Eminence which throughout
Service without Compulsion and since he was to leave the World himself he took Order with his Servants to Act as if he were present and Negotiate the great Work of Salvation of Souls by a Delegate power from him Therefore in the 16th of St. Mark v. 14. you may observe that he appeared to the Eleven that is to the Eleven Apostles for one of them Judas had apostatized and had hanged himself and in the 15th verse he gave them Commission Go ye into all the World and preach the Gospel to every Creà ture that is to every Creature that is Capable of it c. there was their Commission The same Story is thought by many to be a little more fully described by St. John Chap. 20. 21. after he had appeared to them as before he said Peace be unto you as my Father sent me so send I you and then he breathed on them the Holy Ghost Mark this phrase As my Father sent me It is a particular phrase not used elsewhere and therefore intimates some extraordinary matter God had sent many men before but never any besides Christ with the fulnesse of Authority as it is described Mat. 28. 18. All power is given me in Heaven and Earth All power was never given to any before I send you therefore with all power as my Father sent me So the power then of Giving powers to others which was never given before but to my self and therefore in that place of St. Matthew before cited in the last verse too I am with you to the end of the World with you teaching baptizing giving Orders to others for that is mightily enforced out of the word Sicut as my Father sent me and indeed else he could not be with them in their persons to the end of the World but in their Succession by which means he might well be said to be with them to the Worlds end Having now touched upon these places I will Collect this here was in the 28 of Matthew vers 19. Baptism Instituted Matter and Form In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which we read not prescribed before we see the Officers appointed these Eleven in their personal bodies or succession wee see their Diocesse enlarged preach to all Nations and as preaching so baptizing as large they go together we see the Subjects of their Sermons enlarged before Christs Death When they had to do with the Jews only it was the Kingdom of God is at hand Now it is to observe all things that I have commanded you So that then we see first before our Saviours Death two sorts of Officers Apostles Disples their Office at the first limited to preaching and that to the Israelites that they did baptize we are assured but not in what Form nor by what Commission untill after our Saviours Death then we have seen the Holy Communion Instituted just before his Death in Matter and Form and Commissioners appointed to Celebrate it to wit the Apostles we see after his Death a full and Absolute Commission granted to these persons to whom the Communion was committed to do all things Baptise preach celebrate forgive Sins to choose and send forth others and for ought I can collect in this Story the whole Ministerial power invested in them But because something may be objected against this which hath been delivered which I take to be the foundation of what shall follow I will clear those objections which seem most troublesom to me and so proceed to shew how the Apostles managed this Stewardship committed to them SECT II. Whether the power of preaching was given only to the Apostles FIrst It may be questioned whether the power of preaching was given to the Apostles and them only To understand this we must look back and remember that the Seventy likewise were sent but that was to the Israelites only their Commission extended no farther before our Saviours Death and after his Death we find no Commission given but to the Apostles and what Authority they or any else could have to preach the Gospel it must be from them let no man trouble this or any other part of my discourse with that frivolous Objection which is often intruded into these Controversies We read not that these or these men that these Presbyters received new Commissions from the Apostles and yet find them preaching for Answer once for many other times in which it may be needfull it was impossible that the Acts or Epistles could keep a Register of all that were ordained by the Apostles or Bishops in their Age it is enough for us to know that all power for these things was given to the Apostles and we may reasonably think that of these 70. which were chosen by our Saviour such as proved worthy should be Commissioned by the Apostles and such as were unworthy as some were should be suspended ab Officio but for these particular Registers and how and when each man was is not apparent nor to be expected Well then now it seems the Apostles had all the power of preaching none others being sent in this Embassy to the World but themselves But could none else preach not gifted men Consider these men never any so Extraordinarily gifted as these were yet see as I observed they preached not without an outward Calling by Christ nor then untill he sent them Again it is observable that by his outward Word he directed their Doctrine to the Jews that they should preach the Kingdom of God was at hand and to the Gentiles Mat. 28. 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have Commanded you So then Christ had given them Command before what they should preach I do not find no not in these yet any inspired Sermon but upon Direction and although these men had no doubt the most immediate Call that ever any had and the most extraordinary Gifts in the most extraordinary way yet for to enable them for their preaching they had Conversation with Christ which doth the most resemble the most Industrious life of Studious Scholars which in Books Converse with God as possibly a thing can do so that in that time in the time of our Saviours Life and untill his Ascention we can find no place for inward Calling without an outward nor an outward execution without means to enable them for this great Ministry of preaching but throughout a most Methodical Course SECT III. Whether these and these only were Commissioned for Baptism THE next thing to be looked upon is Whether these and these onely had the power of baptizing No doubt we may say of this that they had the Duty only none other obliged to either but they and when I have named the Duty I think I may justly adde the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The right and Authority will go along for it seems to be a branch and a main one of that Great Commission Mat. 28. and without doubt a great piece of the Power of
the Keyes John 20. Now then they and they only that we read of had from Christ this Commission those Questions come not to be handled whether Bishops Priests or Deacons have this power there was yet no such distinction of them as I find but whether the Apostles only or no I do not find any other the Seventy had a Commission to baptize among the Hebrews as well as they their Commission of preaching and baptizing equal but what that was I know not but here all the power is granted to the Apostles In whom and whom alone I can discern all the Ministerial power belonging to mens Souls so that they or men sent by them have this power or none I know there is a great dispute whether Laymen can baptize and the Church of Rome is mightily offended with Calvin for saying they cannot but I do not find the least Argument out of Scripture to confute him and certainly this place of Mat. 28. seems exceeding strong for his Cause and they themselves grant that the ordinary Minister of Baptism is Sacerdos by which word they understand Bishop and Priest that in their Absence a Deacon may and so go on to the little Orders but in extremity a Layman For my part I grant for certain that the Apostles were the only men Ordained for it I conclude that baptism is necessary and that it is a great Mercy of God to the Children of believing parents that they are capable of it that baptism is necessary is evident out of the Dialogue betwixt our Saviour and Nicodemus John 3. 3. Except a man be born agaiâ— he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God vers 5. Except a man be born of Water and the Spirit he cannot c. vers 6. A reason is given That which is born of the Flesh is Flesh as if he should sâ—y nothing can work ultra sphaeram Flesh there ore cannot inherit more than Flesh nor be in a better than â—â—eshly estate and that is not the State of Heaven therefore there must be some way by which that which is flesh and blood may become Spiritual which alone is by baptism That which Calvin most â—â—gâ—niously urgeth That Children which dye uncircumâ—ised are not to be judged damned may thus be Answered That their bond of Circumcision was dated the eighth dâ—y and therefore nor due before the date but ours of baptism being without daâ—e is due presently So that then ours is like the State of those who were not Circumcised the eighth day when Circumcision was due not of those before the eighth day when it was not due Now upon this reason the Care of the Church layd a mighty Charge upon all preachers to be diligent to preach all dangers which might surprise Children before they come to do their Duty Now although I place such a necessity as that we see no ordinate means without it of Assurance of Heaven yet I will not despair of Gods mercy to such who adde not evil of their own Acting which should hinder the Effect of Christs Death and the daily prayers of the Church for all men And therefore with Calvin I think it a rash adventure of any man to open the Gate of Heaven who hath not the key committed to him which was not given to him yet I question if he hath turned the key in the Lock whether it do not open the door although he hath not the legal power which Calvin cannot deny but that it hath been an universal Opinion of the Church and for all â— see in his 18th Section of his 4th Book of his Institutes he doth not deny but it is valid and I believe he would not allow to reâ—bâ—ptize such a Child which he knew had true bâ—ptism according to matter and form but I am confident no man ever had â—his power given him from God but the Apostles and therefore it must needs be a mighty presumption in that Man who without Authority â—ven him should dare â—o put Gods Seal to any Article or Covenant by which he might be obliged to any Duty SECT IV. Whether administring the Communion was appropriated to the Apostles in our Saviours life THE next thing to be examined would be Whether in his Life-time our Saviour did appropriate the Administration of the Communion to the Apostles only and because we see that Commission only given to them nor ever semblance of any thing to the Contrary because it is a Work of so great height in its self because as the other so this Sacrament Conveys with it a Covenant on Gods part and because from Christs time downward the right of Consecrating was never pretended to by any Man untill now I cannot but think it a monstrous pride in such men who having no Authority from the Apostles should dare to undertake it and although I have heard of such an Opinion yet I never heard or read any reason for it SECT V. Whether the Power of the Keyes was given to them only AND then next I will examine Whether the power of the Keyes was given to them and them only by which power I understand the power of binding and loosing the power of Government and ruling in the Church and Church Affairs Here are two pretenders the onâ— that it was given to St. Peter only the other that it was given to the whole Church I will examine both First for St. Peter this Controversie betwixt the Church of Rome and Us hath been so vastly handled in such large Volumes as it would be a little impudence to offer at it in these few sheets and to stop my intended Course with tedious disputes which have so often been repeated and Canvased by others only I will point my singer at that which I think may Occasion a Reader in Studying this Controversie to fix himself upon what is pertinent and to take notice of such Things as may easily induce him to the Truth for though I am perswaded I could adde something at least â—llustrations to some Arguments which are Discussed in this Controversie yet that would drive me from satisfying your doubt and make my few lines swell to a Volume I only say thus much That in all those places Mat. 18 19. John 21. 15 16 17. which are the main pillars upon which St. Peters prerogative is setled no man living can shew me other power which a man can Conceive reasonably to be Conferred on him than on the whole body of the Apostles In those two places 28 Mat. 19. c. and 20. John 21. if we should understand him a Rock in the 16. of St. Matthew which yet without Partiality a man cannot do But rather think that St. Peters Confession was that Rock upon which the Church was built or that our Saviour who by his Confession was acknowledged the Son of God was that Rock hath with some a great Consent of Antiquity yet should we grant him there to be termed a Rock yet it must be no otherwise than derivativè
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
most ancient term Presbyter inferiour to the Supreaâ— called by the Scripture Apostles and to their Successors called Bishops among the Ancients therefore in the reading of Authors not the Institutions only but the usus loquendi is to be Considered in words Cambden in his Remains hath a long Discourse like a Lexicon where we may see to how various Senses in our English Language the same words have arrived by Tract of Time losing their old and gaining a new Sense especially in Offices so hath it happened with the words Bishop and Presbyter they were most frequently in Scripture taken for one and the same thing but the word Apostle or Angel I can never find given to the Inferiour Sort of Presbyters But now this word Apostle is appropriated in the Language of Divines to the Twelve and St. Paul only the word Bishop to the Superiour Sort the word Priest or Presbyter to the Inferiour Sort of Presbyters I shall leave therefore to discourse of the Names and come to examine the Text concerning the Thing whether there be in this Text a Parity of Ministers prescribed SECT VIII The First Argument for a Parity answered FOR this Parity he urgeth nothing but the Attributing these two names which we use in a distinct Sense to one and the same thing which proves no parity of Office but only the use of these words in those dayes But I will go further and prove this Office we call Bishop distinct from the Presbyter out of that very Text St. Paul saith I have left thee in Creet to do these two things that thou shouldest set in order the Things that are wanting and ordain Elders in every City Mark here St. Paul had been in Creet himself he had layd the foundation of the Gospel he being to go further into the World leaves Titus to build upon his Foundation and he leaves him to do two things that he should set in Order or Correct or supercorrect those things which were not perfected by himself here is Episcopacy in one piece he had Authority to correct to set in order things that were out of Order to Correct what was amisse then secondly to Ordain Elders in every City not to appoint only but to ordain authoritatively to sâ—ttle them I do not know how a Bishop could more exactly be described in so few words and I wonder much why these men should produce this Text which without a mind much prejudicated with another Opinion cannot be wrested to any other sense Hooker takes no notice of this but some others say That Titus was an Evangelist Their Exception that Titus was an Evangelist answered THey say so but do they produce one word out of Scripture or Antiquity for it they might say he was an Apostle as well and with much more semblance and I think he was of the Inferiour rank but then can they tell me what an Evangelist was This is a shrewd Question Those four that writ the Gospels are only known by that name amongst Ecclesiastical Writers so that if a man should say the â—vangelist saith so we would Conclude one of them Philip is indeed called an Evangelist Acts 21. but no man else in the New Testament it may be because he was an excellent and powerfull Preacher Beza with those who affect new Opinions makes an Evangelist to be one who was an Associate and Companion to the Apostles in their travell but there is nothing in Scripture or Antiquity to give light to that Conclusion I am sure St. Chrysostome Theophylact c. are against it in expresse Terms upon the 4th to the Ephes. St. Ambrose makes him a Deacon to the Apostles which hath some shew of reason for it because Philip was an Evangelist This word Evangelist is but three Times used in Scripture Acts 21. 8. where Philip is called an Evangelist Ephes. 4. 11. where an Evangelist is reckoned amongst the Ecclesiastical Officers 2 Tâ—m 4. 5. where he is bid do the work of an Evangelist which could be nothing but industrious preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ or as some of the Ancients suffering for Christ because he is bid in the same verse immediately before these words to endure Affliction and in the words followâ—ng to make full proof of his Ministry but is there the least Colour that this Office should enable him to ordain Presbyters or Correct Misdemeanors or to regulate things that are amisse which Titus was Commissioned to do Again it is generally agreed amongst them that this Office of an Evangelist was a Temporary Office but these Duties of Correcting of Ordaining Elders must needs be perpetual in the Church and therefore could not Constitute the nature of that temporal Office Well then to dispell that cloud that would darken the light of this Text for Episcopacy by saying that Titus was an Evangelist there is no word in Scripture nor any Author in Antiquity of any reputation in the World which offers any thing towards that Opinion 2dly If they did yet they would be at as great a losse to shew me that the Office of an Evangelist was to do such things as Titus is here commanded to do 3dly If they could shew Evangelizing to Consist in the performance of such Duties yet we might justly then Conceive them to he Bishops such as we require and a Standing Office in the Church because these Duties are so and it is evident that Titus had Authority in both these kinds Therefore there were some men which had such Authority above others But let us go on with Hooker as he doth Confirm his Mistaken Opinion SECT IX Hookers Illustration from Acts 20. answered PAul saith he Acts 20. sends for the Elders of Ephesus and professeth in the 28th verse that Christ had made them Overseers or Bishops where not only the Name is Common but the Thing signified by that Name is enjoyned as their Duty He means to take heed to all the flock over which the holy Ghost had made them Bishops or Overseers here as before are left Gaps or Interruptions I will fill them as well as I can to make up his Sense thus What he implyes or requires in a Bishop that they that is these Presbyters were to do If he shall require to lay on hands to exercise Jurisdiction in foro externo that they must do and should they have been reproved for so doing they might have shewed their Commission thus farr he But I wonder where that Commission was given or read I can find no such Thing in that place but that they should take heed or have a care of their flock which they might execute according to that Authority was dispensed before by labouring in the Word diligent baptizing administring the Communion but to Convent or Summon their Flock or Censure them or give Orders and a like Authority to others of this there is no one word in particular To expresse my self Although many men reasonably have thought that St. Paul Convented both Bishops and
necessary for the gathering which are not necessary for the perfecting the body of Christ we see Prophets were necessary for the Gathering and the Extraordinary part of Apostles which are not necessary for the perfecting Now here is a Conjunction Gathering and Perfecting His second Consequence is as bad If the Church can be perfected without these there is no need of these this doth not follow things may be necessary ad esse ad perfectum esse and yet other things may be necessary to the easie obtaining this Esse I do but give you the non-consequence of his manner of Argument observe his Minor But there is no Minister necessary for the Gathering and Perfecting of the Church besides that of the Presbyters He proves this Because the Apostle setting down the several Ministries which Christ had purchased and by Ascention bestowed upon his Church when he gave Gifts to men for that end they are only comprehended in these two Pastors and Teachers Ephes. 4. 12 13. and they who are given for this end can and shall undoubtedly attain it Consider here the Inconsequence of this Argument Because saith he the Apostle in that place sets down none other therefore there is no other We have examined that Text sufficiently I thought already but this Starts another Negative note The Apostle doth not say there that there are no other but what he sets down nor doth he put any Exclusive Term as these and these only are they I am sure in the 12. to the Romans he hath another reckoning of things like Offices and so in the 1 Cor. 12. 28. I know he may say that with a Trick of Wit these may be brought about by subordination to amount to the same thing and number and so I can reduce them to two only Extraordinary and Ordinary or ruling and teaching a principal and subservient but unlesse he can shew a Negative or exclusive Term in the Text he cannot draw a Negative inference So that although the means that our Saviour appoints shall attain its end yet the means he appoints must be totally taken not one piece without another and this Text doth not say that is the Total means this is known in Logick posita Causa ponitur effectus but it must be totalis Causa not partialis But now suppose his Consequence were good in Logick will the Text bear him out in the matter Doth the Text name none but these Pastors and Teachers Yes sure and although these two as I have shewed are but one yet Apostles are different and these seem without distinction to be necessary to the perfecting of the body of Christ and Bishops by all Consent succeed the Apostles in tâ—is Duty I will not desâ—ant upon Prophet to shew the sense and meaning of it as not pertinent this is enough to shew the weaknesse of his Argument if the Text were granted to allow his deduction out of it But he proceeds as unluckily as if all this were granted Where saith he the Issue is if Pastors and Doctors be sufficieâ—t Teaching Ministryes to perfect the Church then there needs no more but these I will not lose my self in his long period Suppose these were sufficient Teaching Ministries is there no more requisite but teaching Yes to look to them that they do teach and teach right Doctrine But saith he if these be enough all others be superfluous I answer these are enough for their own Work if they would be good and all industrious workmen but there is necessity for some Custodire Custodes I am weary with this SECT XII His Fourth Argument concerning Jurisdiction answered HIs Fourth Argument is thus framed Distinct Offices must have distinct Operations Operari sequitur esse But they that is Bishops have no distinct Operations from Presbyters if there be any they must be Ordination and Jurisdiction but both these belong to Presbyters Jurisdiction John 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit c. Binding and loosing imply a power of Censuring as well as preaching and both are given in the Apostles to their Successors the rulers and Elders of the Churches who succeed them in their Commission Let him prove that these who are here Elders of the Inferiour rank Succeed the Apostles in that part of their Commission and his Conclusion is granted but that he can never do and therefore labours not for it otherwise I have shewed that there were parts of the Apostles fulnesse of power imparted to one and part to another as the Divine Wisdom directed them to divide it for the good of the Church this they must grant who make Pastors Rulers Teachers distinct Offices SECT XIII Ordination not given by Presbyters FOR the Second Ordination he brings Scripture 1 Tim. 4. 14. He only Ciphers the Text I will put down the words Neglect not the Gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophesy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbyters His Collection hence is That this Gift was his Presbyterial or Episcopal Office and that this power was Conveyed to him by the laying on of the hands of the Presbyters and therefore Presbyters have power of Ordination I will not here dispute what is meant by Prophesie as not pertinent to this Cause nor will I trouble my discourse with what is meant by this Gift which hath received another Interpretation by some of best Authority but will pitch upon the word Presbytery and it may be of Imposition of hands For this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is used only three times in the New Testament Luke 22. 66. where we render it the Elders of the people but it is in the Original in the Abstract not the men but the Presbytery of the people The second place is Acts 22. 5. where we read all the Estate of the Elders the word is the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Presbytery now the Third place is this in my Text. In the two first places Presbytery is taken for the Magistrates or Senate of the people of the Jewes no Christian Order then from the use of the word in other places it cannot be Collected that this should particularize this lower Order which he fancieth sith there is no place to parallel it But because Presbytery doth signifie an Ecclesiastical Order in the Ministery therefore this Presbytery should do so likewise but in as large a sense as Presbyter not more restrained Now Presbyter takes in its latitude the whole Order of Priestood both Bishop and Presbyter it were in vain to insist upon particular places So then must this be would be know which I am Confident all Antiquity understand it of that rank of Presbyters which we term Bishops St. Chrysostome Theophylact Theodoret no man contradicting but these late Expositors Then let us adde one word more Were that Gift understood for the Ecclesiastical Authority which he had or secondly were Presbytery understood for a Synod of Presbyters as they call them which none but themselves affirm
is no where given Upon these reasons I cannot see a possible Colour to avoid this Text but that Titus had such a Commission Episcopal as Episcopacy is taken with us SECT XVII A Second Argument to prove Episcopacy MY next place shall be out of 1 Tim. in which we may discern the same Commission as fully delivered as before concerning Ordination Chap. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man The Qualities of the persons upon whom he should lay on hands described Chap. 3. from vers 1 to 14. for this all may be said as was before in the Case of Titus Here is a Command and Direction to Ordain the Clergy Officers given to one man and therefore by the way of Episcopizing It was a strange unlucky violence to the Text which the Glosse of Beza gives Do not lay hands saith he upon any suddenly Quantum in te est as much as in thee lies for saith he This power was not in Timothy alone but an Election being made by the Consent of the whole Church The Priest a chief man in the name of the Presbytery by Imposition of hands did Consecrate him who was chosen to the Lord Is not this a strange abusing of the Word of God and forcing it to serve mens carnal designes St. Paul bids him not do it suddenly that supposes he could and should do it Beza saith he cannot do it not at all but is only the Mouth of the rest he hath no power to do any thing more than another but never shews any reason for what he saith but referres the Reader to Chapter 4th ver 14th where Timothy is said to receive the power by the Imposition of hands of the Presbytery of which I have spoken somewhat already and God willing shall more hereafter but what is all this to the purpose Timothy is Commanded therefore he could do it yea he is commanded not to do it suddenly therefore he could do it both wayes leasurely and suddenly and he himself in his Short Notes upon the same Text saith that the Command is Neminem Antistes leviter Ordinato Do thou Bishop for so Antistes is often used Do thou ordain none lightly but this Exposition hath no Colour for it nor could St. Paul properly speak more distinctly for it had not been according to the usual Language of men to say Do thou alone do this when a man is authorized to do any thing or Do it by thy sole power they are not Languages used nor do we use to bid a man do any thing which he cannot Act alone but bid him joyn with others in doing such others who are necessarily Co-operators with him in the Work he is to do SECT XVIII Episcopal Jurisdiction proved FOR his Jurisdiction I need not speak much all that Epistle is full of it only â— will touch upon one place which being me thinks of great Brightnesse in it self will serve likewise to give light to the rest and that shall be 1 Tim. 5. 19 20. Against an Elder receive not an Accusation but before or as the Margin under two or three Witnesses Vers. 20. Them that sâ—n rebuke before all that others also may fear From whence thus I discourse Timothy was capable of receiving Accusations against Presbyters or not receiving which is a great piece of Judicial Authority he was likewise Authoritatively to rebuke or correct Presbyters in such sort as if they were Sinners and Guilty of the Accusation laid to their Charge that others by their punishment might learn to avoyd their faults Do these things sound like fellow Presbyters without a Superiority of Jurisdiction Can one fellow Presbyter Censure another or he who is barely a Temporal Speaker or Mouth of the rest This seems to me as full as could be how his Authority was not like Presbyters only over their flock but like a Superiour Shepherd over Inferiours But here with some more Colour in the Case of Timothy they plead he was an Evangelist because 2 Tim. 4. 5. he is bid do the Work of an Evangelist and therefore by the prerogatives belonging to that Office he might do these works of Jurisdiction surely although he was bid do the work of an Evangelist yet that may â—e without being one ex officio An Evangelist is nothing but either a Writer or a Preacher of the Gospel so that do the work of an Evangelist is no more but preach the Gospel and I cannot â—â—nd one man among the Ancients that makes Timothy an Evangelist by Office but I do find St. Chrysostome upon Ephes. 4. peremptorily saying That both Timothy and â—itus were not Evangelists and I find no one man among the Ancients nay I may adde Beza himself or Calvin no one man making it a part of an Evangelists Office either to give Orders or the power of Jurisdiction But these later make them a Subservient Office to the Apostles and if we should allow that what more proper Service than that their name implies to preach the Gospel about with them as they travelled So that it seems to me that these Writers when they utter such Things being learned men some of them and reasonable cannot deceive themselves with those Shadowes but think to drive on their Design with the people who â—earing the name of an Evangelist and not knowing what it is imagine any thing of it what they please to insinuate which in this particular is that an Evangelist had some transcendent power over Presbyters both to ordain and govern them which was not Communicable to others but they never shew that any such Authority is assigned them or any such Duty exacted from them Well it appears that Timothy had Episcopal Jurisdiction as well as Titus and this name Evangelist given by them for this Occasion only is but a meer Illusion I shall here therefore for a while leave St. Pauls Epistles and go to St. John in the Revelation Chap. 1. vers 20. The seven Stars are the Angels of the Seven Churches SECT XIX The Revelation asserâ—ing Episcopacy HEre these Angels were such men as had Episcopal Jurisdiction appears most reasonably to any Indifferent Reader upon these Grounds First because this word Angâ—l as I have shewed hath in its own signiâ—ication genuinely the same sense with Apostle and therefore may well be fitted to the same Office and as that was never applyed to any under a Bishop so neither this as any man can shew me in the whole New Testament That it is a name likewise appropriated to Spirits sent about Apostolical Employments and endowed by God who sends them with Apostolical Authority So that then whether Angel be applyed to Spirits or men it will in both or either receive this Common sense to be understood That these persons whether Spirits or bodies have divine Authority to act those things they are employed about Now then thus the word being of such a sense and no where otherwise understood we may from hence think it most reasonable that this
should elect a Worthy man to be Priest not elect a Worthy Priest to a Benefice of which St. Cyprian seems to speak and which is his Aym for his other Quotations they are of such men as are of little use with me or with any their Adversaries and therefore I trouble not my self to examine them SECT VII His Argument from the Election of Deacons Acts 6. examined AT the last he urgeth Page 41 Acts 6. About the Election of the Deacons that were chosen first by the people and after Ordained by the Apostles I set down mine opinion of that Act before never dreaming then of this Design which it is aymed at here but what I said then will serve my Turn now First that Election was Occasional and therefore cannot be drawn to a President but when there is the like Occasion 2dly It was to such an Office which might easily fall under the Cognizance of the people to wit the Caring for the poor and they might better discern the sufficiency of men for such a purpose than the Apostles themselves First then we see here falls to the Ground that if the people had this liberty in an under Officer there was much greater reason they should have it in an Officer of higher degree in whom they had greater Interest and by whose administration they were to receive greater good This follows not for this Office was of such a Thing as they might best know the Integrity of those men with whom they Conversed but the other of an higher nature they could not be Judges of so well and therefore there is a diverse Case the people may be fit to choose a Collector for the Poor a Tithing-man but can they be fit to choose a Judge And indeed it favours of an high presumption which his delight in this Conceit transports him with when he saith as he doth in that page That the liberty of the Apostles in ordaining was not so great as the peoples in choosing when the Apostles had all Divine Authority from Christ solely delegated to them and the Apostles did not only ordain these men but their very Office it self I may adde to this that the people in this inferiour office did not authoritativè of themselves choose these but by particular direction and command from the Apostles I have answered as I conceive all that he speaks concerning his first Question Whether Ordination or Election be first He Conceives it not much material and therefore concludes the proof of this will appear in the Explication of the other particulars which he undertakes and I will follow him SECT VIII Whether Ordination gives all the Essentials to an Officer HIS Second Question is Whether Ordination gives all the Essentials to an Officer In handling of which he examines two things First how farr the Essentials of the Ministry or Minister may be given by Man If they may be given and Conveyed by man by what means men may be said to do this whether by Ordination or any other Appointment of Christs How their Ministerial Offices may be given by men COncerning the first of these he makes his first Conclusion thus There is a Causal virtue put forth in a Subordinate way by some under Christ to bring the formality or specifical being of an Ecclesiastical Office to a person or party that is Called thereunto or stands possessed thereof Alas what mighty words are these and how easily might the businesse of this Proposition have been expressed to the Capacity of any Reader if he had said there is some power under Christ to Constitute Ecclesiastical Officers there is no need of such high and difficult Terms of Causal virtue Formality or Ecclesiastical being which do amuse a weak Capacity and no way satisfie an Intelligent The Drift of his Conclusion is to prove that there is an outward Call necessary to a Minister which he saith is by none denyed but by Anabaptists and Familists which folly and madnesse labours as he saith with the loathsomnesse of it self so he contemns them but truly they are now grown a Considerable Enemy but I let them passe to answer for themselves which I am considenâ— they cannot justly and indeed I grant this whole Conclusion and let alone his proofs of it But yet because he placeth a necessity upon it as surely is Truâ—h I would ask whether the necessity be not required out of the part of such as are to receive the Pastor or Elder and I am sure he must yield it for there is no reason Men should receive such a Pâ—stor who is not lawfully called to use his own phrase but then why doth he despise the Bishops Seal and Parchment in a Box as he speaks page 40. when there can be none other Evidence to the people of his Call but this And again because this is a◠〈…〉 a Causal virtue which he useth I shall adde something 〈◊〉 Explication of it which he hath omitted there is a physical Cause and a Moral Cause This word Cause at the first reading sounds like a Physical Operation and although in his second Conclusion he addes this Term Instrument or means yet that is not to be allowed in a physical notion for these powers in men have no physical influx into these Effects no not as Instruments for as the Philosophers speak an Instrument hath its particular work in the Effect so a knife or axe which be both Instruments have their several wayes of Operation though used by the same hand and do their work according to their particular and proper dispositions but now these Agents have no Influence on the Subject but only as moral Instruments as a hand and feal have no physical Nature to pay a Debt but only a moral force which is granted it by the Law of the Realm and from thence it hath this moral force not a physical Of this nature I conceive this power granted to men to give Orders and it is founded upon that great Commission As my Father sent me so send I you with that Authority to grant powers to other men so that the powers the Authority granted by them are Confirmed by God they having a moral Causality to do such Things which God will Confirm but they working not so much as Instrumentally any physical Effect Thus the Conclusion being explained I grant it but in his handling of it many things deserve Censure for although he bragg at the Top of the 44th Page that he will lend such help to the weakest Reader that he may lay his finger upon the several Things yet indeed he is mightily perplexed and intricate which I passe and granting his Conclusion will not disturb his manner of handling it only repeate what he saith at the bottom of the 45 page whoever in a Compleat way hath received this outward Call he is then a Compleat and true Officer and may act any part of his Office though not inwardly graced or fitted worthy of such a place or Work by God this
cannot puâ— him out but the Justices who cannot choose him may A Barrester who received his Degree at the Innes of Court is degraded by the Judges who cannot make him a Barrester I think I speak Law if I do not I am sure this may be Law without any prejudice to the policy of this Nation and then I am sure this rule is false and indeed besides Instances there is reason that that which gives life should preserve not destroy and that men should look for other hands to pluck down besides those that set up but as it is not universally true so it is not universally false and I think will not be false in this instance he speaks of and therefore I will apply my self to his Antecedent concerning which he saith it is as certain as the other by warrant from the Word and no more certain His places out of Scripture are Beware of Wolves Mat. 7. 15. Beware of false Prophets Phil. 3. 2. Here I expected to have found these two Texts in these two places but it is not so both in the same manner are in the first and something like that he saith in the other The words of the first are Beware of false Prophets which come to you in sheeps cloathing but inwardly they are ravening Wolves A man may wonder how he could deduce hence that Conclusion That it is lawfull for a people to reject or put a Pastor out of his Office Consider the words Suppose it had been said Beware of a wicked Judge when your Cause is to be heard or beware of false Lawyers which will come to you in sheeps cloathing with fair and excellent Language but within are ravening Wolves will secretly destroy you would any man think that here were Commission granted to put either out of their Office It is Just so here beware of false Prophets such as pretend they are Prophets but are not or false Prophets such as prophesie fâ—lse Things nor can there be more meant in this than that we should not be deceived by them for though they come in sheeps cloathing speak never so fair words commend their Doctrine never so much it will destroy you there can be no more in it This Speech is spoke no doubt to all and every person in singular yet I hope Mr. Hooker doth not think that although every man must beware he is not deceived by them yet that every man every pâ—rticular Man can depose his Pastor The same reasons which have disproved the force of this Allegation will likewise overthrow the Strength of the second against this Cause The 2d Text is Phil. 3. 2. Beware of Dogs beware of evil Doers beware of the Concision Suppose all or some of these were Pastors which can in no strength of reason be induced yet what can this word beware enforce Can it imply depose there was never such an Exposition but only take heed of them that ye be not deceived by them so that there is not the least thing in the Word of God to prove that the people may depose their Pastor and yet all his discourse which follows in page 65. is as if this were most true sublato uno relatorum tollitur alterum but where is either relatum taken away or by whom Again saith he this rejection cuts him off from being a Member of that Congregation where he was and so from every visible Congregation and therefore cuts him off from having any visible Church-Communion with Christ c. Consider how he builds upon a foundation in the Air hath no reality nor indeed were his foundation good are his Consequences and see what an unhappy Condition such a Pastor were in sâ—th it is evident these Texts of Cautions are directed to every particular man and then the malice of one particular man may destroy a Pastors Interest in heaven because he can put him from Church-Communion with Christ but suppose these Texts were understood of whole Congregations yet sometimes they are very few or if an hundred it is hard that the Opinion and Error for the most part of Ignorant men though an hundred should shut a man out of the pale of Church-Communion these things fall of themselves beware therefore depose is not cannot be admitted amongst reasonable men yea the clean contrary might rather be urgent Beware therefore they cannot depose for what a man can depose he need not much Caution about it the work is quickly done But here if any should ask What must the people submit to any Pastor though heretical though scandalous in his life If not what can they do Certainly to the first there are some things which Heresie or wickednesse of life do not hinder that is administring the Seals of Gods Covenants in the holy Sacraments To this purpose he himself speaks as I think I forewarned in the latter end of page 45. and the beginning of page 46. in higher and fuller Expressions than I make but I need not set down only Consider this that such Heresies as deny the Trinity because they will not nor can baptize in the form prescribed by our Saviour that is the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost their baptism is not valid and by their Ministry erring in the root cannot effectually apply those Seals but for other mistakes in opinion not fundamental nor such as immediately reflect upon that Seal they administer so they set the Seal rightly to according to matter and form their Act is good and a man a Lay-man may submit unto them but take care not to be misled either by his false Doctrine or wicked life of which he is not to take upon him like a Judge to censure his person but like a Cautelous hearer to avoid what is ill and suck out what is good The sheep do not refuse the good hay though they swallow not the worse which the Shepherd delivers they may complain to them who have Authority the Bishops who are to receive the Complaints made against Elders and so have him soberly Convented and adjudged but without this course they have no power to depose him and this I think they ought to do and more than this they have no power granted them to do His Third Argument answered I Come now to his 3d. Argument into which he enters slowly himself with a long Discourse the heads of which being examined will remove the difficulty pag. 69. he saith this Argument is taken from the manner of the Communication and Conveyance of this power To expresse this He bids you know that Conveyance of power is done two wayes either by Authoritative Commission or Delegation from Office or Office power or voluntary Subjection The first is when a particular person or body and Corporation delegates a power to another of themselves and from themselves alone leave an Impression of Authority upon another Here he hath a mighty tedious Discourse of the Way of Communicating this power of many little Inferences and Consequences which
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
setting out and can proceed no further but to understand the Text and so more abundantly the weaknesse of this Argument SECT III. What is meant by Church FIrst know that by the Church we must understand the visible Catholick Church which hath this power and indeed almost all the promises of Christ which is his City his house his spouse his body but then it is understood of her according to that part which hath that faculty of receiving Complaints he who bids you tell a man any Story bids you not speak it to its â—eet or hands but his Ears which are fit parts to receive the Story or if he be deaf you must do it by writing that his Eyes which are organized for that purpose may entertain that relation Again when a man commands he doth it not with his Eyes or Ears but his Tongue which is the part fitted for that purpose The Church is Christs body it hath many parts when you are bid tell the Church you are not bid tell the feet or hands but the Ear those who are proper for that work when the Church speaks it is not with hands or eyes but with the Churches Tongue which are the Officers for that purpose these men would make the body of Christ all Ear all Tongue every member of the Church fit to receive Complaints and fit to Judge and Censure which is ridiculous Take his own Simile Suppose the Church universal a Corporation there was never any such where every man was a Judge It cannot be therefore so here Tell the Church that is tell those Officers in the Church who are designed and organized authorized for such a purpose and then if he refuse to hear them let him be c. and this that very word brother which he introduceth for the prop of his cause evinceth for all Christians throughout the Catholique Church are brethren and the Duty belongs to them this I think doth satisfie and what he adds is of no moment for he being full with his conceit that by Church is meant a particular Congregation and each man in it labours to build upon that foundation which being overthrown his building perisheth He urgeth a place out of Whitaker to prove that Lay-men have Authority of Censuring pag. 52. but because he confesseth That Whitakers meaning is of a General Council that it hath power over any particular Pastor in the Conclusion of that page and the top of the 53. he forms this Syllogism SECT IV. Another Argument of his answered EVery Member of a General Council hath power in the Censuring of a Delinquent Brethren or Lay men as they are termed are Members of a General Council I deny this Minor he brings no proof although if he had studied this question he could not choose but know it is generally denyed by such Writers as Treat of it Although he is extraordinarily Confuted I am unwilling to let any thing slip which may disturb a Reader He saith the Proposition is proved by Instance and Experience but I know not where He addes immediately If others had not Church power over this or that party if he would have refused to have come into their fellowship and joyned with them then it was his voluntary Subjection and Engagement that gave them all the power and Interest they have To understand this there is voluntary engagement in Baptism and besides this there is no more needfull for it is true he who lives in Scotland cannot be governed by the Bishops of England because they cannot have cognizance of his State and because that the Church hath confined the Exercise of that habitual power which they have every where that it shall not break out into Act in such places and upon such causes which they cannot have a full knowledge of but if he who now lives in Scotland will come and live in England and receive the blessings of Gods mercies in his Covenants from the Church of England if he offend he must be admonished and convented before the â—hurch quoad hoc that is the Church Officers and if he obey them not be as an Heathen If he refuse to Communicate with us in these Spiritual blessings he makes himself as an Heathen So that in some Sence there is a Covenant required that which he calls implicite even in a baptized man for else he makes himself an Heathen towards us in regard of us but this implicite is not like their Covenant which seems to be perpetual This is only pro tempore for the time of his abode and no â—onger That which he yet urgeth that men travell into farre Counâ—ries where are Churches planted certainly that man if they be Protestant Churches he will claim a right in the Church Seals if he be a Protestant if a Papist and they Papists he will do so likewise or else he will be as an Heathen To conclude this he brings some places of Scripture to shew that some would not joyn with the Apostles as Acts 5. 13. where Heathens refused to joyn with the Apostles Luke 7. 30. The Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the Council c. But can he shew me that any who were Christians refused Communion with them of what Church soever It is not imaginable His Third Argument is only against Presbyterians I meddle not with it His Fourth Argument is thus framed SECT V. Another Argument of his answered THat Society of Men who may enjoy such priviledges Spiritual and Ecclesiastical unto which none can be admitted but by Approbaâ—ion of the whole that Society must be in an Especial Combination But a particular Combination is such a Society who enjoy such Spiritual priviledges c. Ergo. I deny this Minor Laymen in a particular Congregation have no such power to admit allow and approve of every man who comes into that Congregation they may inform but they cannot judge His last Argument from an Induction avails nothing where he saith If the Inventory of all other respects being brought in none can constitute a Church visible then this only must he reckons up mutual Affection and Cohabitation only which are insufficient to make his Induâ—ion I shall therefore set down what makes a Church visible CHAP. XI SECT I. What makes a Church Visible COnsider what makes a Church that if it be visible constitutes a Church visible and certainly for the first if we consider the Church to be the body of Christ the City of God the Heavenly Jerusalem then as we must conceive it consisting of many men we must conceive it likewise having these men united in some form of Government under Christ and like a City an house a body ruled by their King and head Christ who by his Inferiour Ministers and Officers rules and governs this body this City he is of this City who is ruled and governed by the Lawes of this City of this House who is governed by the Oeconomical discipline of this house of this body who is guided and governed by the
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
more than the other that this Character is a spirituall indelible Sign so that were I of the Church of Rome according to their own principles even in this Age for he is excused from heresie by them writing before these Decrees but his opinion is condemned by most now after these Canons yet I say even now amongst themselves he might be defended by these Canons much better than they who hold it to be a reall absolute quality for if it be a Sign a Sign is a relation and that is but a shift to say this word Sign is put for an explicatory term not as the Genus since in these two Councills it enjoys the place of a Genus as is evident in these Canons and then Signs may be Entia Rationis as most be which are not natural Signs but by Institution of which nature this is The chief reason that I find may be that of Pitigianus in Theol. spec moral Dist. 6. Quest. 10. Art 1. That if the Characters of these Sacraments should be Entia Rationis only then the Priesthood of the new Testament should no othewise impress its Character than the Priesthood of the old Law To this I answer That I know no need that it should but yet Vasquez Quest. 63. Art 3. Disp. 134. Cap. 2. Num. 34. in 3. saith That this Character differs from the other because that was delible this not but this is weak because delibility or indelibility are extrinsecall things to the nature of a Character and both what is delible and what is indelible may have their beings upon reason or else be real Cabrera in 3 Quest. 63. Art 2. Disp. 1. Sec. 2. urgeth Arguments as before against relation so here against this Characters being Ens Rationis first a real action hath a real term but this Character doth terminate a real action therefore The Major is so extreamly false that indeed there is no Ens Rationis in the world which doth not terminate a real act take the most fictitious Chymaera that ever was which is the most purely the work of humane reason yet even when I say it is the work of reason I make it the effect and term of a real act which is mans reason Again saith he If a Character should be Relatio rationis then the effect of every Sacrament should be a Character because there are relations of reason in them all This hath no consequence at all for although a Character were a relation of reason yet it doth not follow that every relation of reason should be a Character Thus I conceive the Arguments opposed to Durand answered out of their own principles who contend against him SECT II. The constitution of Man and likeness to God NOw to understand the truth of this Question Paulo Majora Canamus conceive as it is described in the first of Genesis that God made all the world and the things that are in it when he had done he made man after his own image as it is described there a little God to govern the world which he had made under God and not so only but this image did gloriously appear in the soul of man not only that as God made the creatures so he gave man the authority to give them their names but likewise that he gave his soul a power to make another world as he had done this so that as God hath made one world so man in the power of his imagination of his reasonable imagination hath made a thousand more and can imagine that the infinite power may and hath made so many worlds that this to that number should be but as a mote to this He can make a world in the Moon and as wise men do concerning this so such men can and have philosophized what men do and ought to do in that he can make nations of Pigmies Silves Nymphs and philosophize what their natures are and what their manners yea some have told what their religion and duty to God is he can go further and take in pieces this world and joyn a man an horse and a bird together and his busie fancie can bring forth births monstrous to all the effects of God in nature yea you may observe these expressions wonderfull in the Prophets Now as the works of God which he made are such as we call reall things both those absolute entities and those which are relations for those relations which God hath made by the hand of nature as smoak and fire father and son and the like are reall relations so those works which are wrought by mens reason alone those are Entia rationis the things of reason all Chimaera's all men in the Moon all imagined things which have no existence in the world out of mans head and intellect these are things of mans making and attain not that excellency of Gods works to be reall things but barely things of reason Yet besides this God hath not only given man power to make these strange beings existing in mans own intellect but likewise to mix them and joyn them with his own reall things So we may see amongst men which are Gods creatures and reall things men make by the power of their intellect this man a master that a servant this humane power gives the particular interests which severall men have in these reall estates for although the right of dominion which one hath over another or over any of the creatures is confirmed by God and the duties belonging to those relations the reall duties exacted by him yet the particular way of interest is allowed to humane institution Thus have men power to adde to divine works and beings their relations which so far as they are of humane making are things of reason nor reall and these are the works Rationis ratiocinatae which reason finds some foundation in the things for but not ratiocinantis only which have not being out of mans soul which made them Now then to apply this to our purpose this relict of Baptism is a relation of Gods constituting barely where man hath nothing to do but meerly as a morall instrument to administer of himself giving no influence making no constitution concerning it and therefore cannot be Ens rationis all such things as exist without humane power without humane invention are reall such is this did no man in the world contribute any thing to it but only that instrumentall application did no man think upon it yet God had a near particular interest in that baptized person and would exact his proper duties from him which were not in a man unbaptized So then this being a work of Gods must be a reall relation not only of reason SECT III. Baptism hath all things necessary to a real Relation AGain observe that it hath all things requisite to a real relation The â—irst requisite is that it have Subjectum capax a Subject capable of it this I mean to be man as I intend to demonstrate anon Secondly That it
answer them if there were need but the Argument from them is of no force at all and that the very quotations are of no force were the persons See his collection from them page 77. which perhaps he means a third Proposition because he saith Thirdly In case the face and form of all the Churches are generally corrupted c. I need adde no more Posito quolibet sequitur quidlibet suppose impossibilities and you may collect untruth enough Christ hath promised not to leave his Church destitute it is true there is no promise to their particular Congregations but to his Church in generall and therefore to dispute upon an impossible ground yeelds little or no strength to that Argument and so I desist from it His second Argument begins in the end of that page and proceeds in the next It is thus urged If the Church can do the greater then she may do the less the acts appertaining to the same thing and being of the same kind But the Church can do the greater namely give the essentials to a Pastor ut supra Ergo I put his words down verbatim but now he should have named the less which must be or he speaks nothing dispence this Ordinance of Ordination and then I would know what that is if not giving the essentials to this Officer So here is idem per idem the Conclusion proved by it self and therefore must be denyed upon the same grounds which I spake of before and this is all he puts down for his second Argument His third Argument page 78. is thus framed That which is not an act of power but of order the Church can do he proves this Proposition for saith he the reason why it is conceived and concluded that it is beyond the power of the people is because it is an act of supream jurisdiction But this is an act of order not of power Suppose I should deny his Major have the people power to do any thing that is an act of order Indeed I know no Ecclesiastick power they have or any spirituall power of acting any thing that concerns more than their particular demeanour and all the rest is obedience But then to his Minor To dispence Ordination is an act of power for although the thing dispensed as I have shewed is called an order yet it is an act of power that gives it as in a Civil State the precedency of place is meerly an order but yet it is an act of power in the supream Magistrate that gives it Now such is this although we should conceive it meerly an order yet it must be given by an act of power but this besides that notion of order hath in it self great powers which are conveyed by it of which I have treated somewhat in their distinct notions and this Argument is absolutely unvalid He hath another Argument which follows but it concerns only the Presbyterians yet from thence he takes occasion to asperse Bishops thus It is as certain saith he that it cannot firstly belong to a Bishop which by humane invention and consent is preferred before a Presbyter in dignity only if they will hold themselves either to the precedent he writes but I think he means president or pattern whence they raise their pedigree and it is from Hierom ad Evagrium Vnum ex se electum in altiori gradu collocarunt How many to speak modestly weaknesses may be observed in this Discourse First That it is imputed and obtruded upon the defenders of Episcopacy that they should consent that it is an humane invention than which nothing is more against their Discourses Secondly That they found their opinion only upon this place of St. Hierome which is as flat against apparent reason as the other since this place is commonly objected against them and although St. Hierome hath spoken enough otherwhere yet in this Epistle being pressed somewhat with the pâ—ide of Deâ—cons who were lifted up above Presbyters by the sloath and vanity of many he somewhat passionately defended the cause of Presbyters and here of all other places speaks the least for Bishops making the name be used reciprocally in Scripture But then lastly he quotes the place false and by the change of a letter makes him speak what he meant not to whom it may be answered in this as Bishop Andrews did to Bellarmine in the like case Verbum caret litera Cardinalis fide he saith Vnum ex se electum in altiori gradu collocâ—runt when it is Câ—llocatum Episcopum nominaverunt in which sence there is a mighty difference in the first as if they had placed and given their Bishop his authority which he had in the other only that they called him Bishop who was set over the other Presbyters so that it intimates that the name grew distinct not from the first instant of the Office I am sure I have spoke of this place before and let us consider it in its fullest and most averse sence that it can abide consider that just there in the heat and height of his Disputation against Deacons and upon that ground his extolling of Presbyters to which only Order he was exalted he proves that the difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters and the exaltation of them was Apostolical and from the Apostles derived to his age from the Church of Alexandria which was founded by St. Mark where to his time from St. Mark was a succession of Bishops above Presbyters and it is a derogation from the reverence due to the Apostles to call their institutions meerly humane inventions in such things which concern Ecclesiasticall Government concerning which they had that great Commission As my Father sent me c. and in this case it is most weak of all other since concerning Ordination St. Hierome in this very Epistle immediately after these words saith Quid facit Episcopus excepta Ordinatione quod non faciat Presbyter thus in English What doth a Bishop except Ordination which a Presbyter cannot do Here then a Presbyter cannot ordain and yet to shew the full sence of the words understand that a Presbyter may do any thing I upon a sudden can except nothing not it may be he when he wrote that Sentence I say he can do any thing that a Bishop doth except ordain but the affairs of ruling other Elders or judging them he cannot do by an original or to use Hookers language by an Authority firstly â—eated in him or given to him but by a delegated but no delegation can serve the turn in Ordination because it was given to the Apostles by Christ in those words As my Father sent me so send I you to give Authority to ordain and they and they only who were so authorized by the Apostles can do it Thus you see that place out of St. Hierome expounded his Arguments deduced from thence falls of its self If Presbyters elected and gave first being to a Bishop then were they before him and could not receive Ordination
be present untill they setled Bishops amongst them His next place urged is Acts the 20. he leaves me to looke the verse but affirmes that the Church of Ephesus was governed first by Presbiters only from that Chap. afterward they had a Bishop who was called The Angel of the Church of Ephesus Apocalyps 2. That which hath any colour for this in this Chap. must be deduced out of the 17 th verse where it is said That from Miletum Paul sent to Ephesus for the Elders of the Church Therefore it seems the Church was governed by Elders at that time but let the Reader consider whether St. Paul did not Episcopize over them conventing the Elders before him and giving them that most heavenly charge And then consider that these men in the 28. verse are called Bishops Take heed to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath madâ— you Overseers we read it but it is Bishop in the Original indeed as I have shewed in this Treatise The words were not distinguished at the first but they were promiscuously used untill the great increase of Christianity when the name of Apostles began to weare away and they had more generally setled Churches and planted Bishops over the other Presbiters in the chief Cities and then these were called Bishops and indeed every Presbiter who hath a charge of Souls is a little Bishop in the Superintendency of his parish though noâ— in the nature of the office he must look to his little flâ—ck as Bishop over them so that nominally every Presbiter with charge of Soals is a little Bishop superintendâ—ing them for their Souls good But a Bishop is higher over them and their flocks to take care that he doth his duty in these places of Scripture I see no manner of Argument to shew that a Church may exist without a Bishop for they had Apostles and then Bishops in their places CHAP. III. His Argument drawn from Panormitan answered HE then urgeth a Sentence out of Panormitan Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam ordinabant sacerdotes consecrabant omnia Sacramenta Sed postmodum ad schismata sedanda fecerunt seâ— ordinaverunt Apostoli crearentur Episcopi Let me examine this bold assertion of Panormitan and of St. Hierom who hath much the same word Olim that was in the first plantation of the Churches I know no record of any authentick authority in the case but the Acts of the Apostles or their Epistles in which I can never find that any man or Company of men who were barely Presbiters did ordain Priests or did perform any Act of Jurisdiction in communi as he speakes which would intimate a Sentorian Government of which as they urge none so I cannot imagine what words in these Acts or Epistles should tend thereunto but then his last Clause I in part yeeld to that the Apostles did ordain Bishops and am confident they did it by divine Right which was given them by our Saviour saying As my Father sent me so send I you but whether only as they say ad sedanda schismata to appease schisme upon the occasion of some that said they were Pauls or else for the absolute better government of the Church which I rather adhere to I leave to the Readers Judgement but in general think it too great a boldness for men to limit Gods designes to their weake measures when God hath not determined or exprest them therefore such a passage in Panormitan is of no vallidity CHAP. IV. His first Argument to prove their ordination after Bishops were instituted answered HE proceeds with the second Number of his distinction to shew that not onely this was done before Bishops were instituted but after likewise the same was done and he gives this reason for saith the Doctor Non enim ad esse sed ad melius esse Ecclesiae necessaria est haec oeconomia This discipline is not necessary to the being but well-being of the Church suppose I grant it 't is true no discipline is necessary to the being of a Christian but Baptisme by which we are made members of that mystical body of Christ of which he is the head political Lawes Civil or Ecclesiastical are not necessary to our being Men or Englishmen of this Country but to our happy being in it we may be Christians and members of Christs Church where is no Presbiter as well as no Bishop As suppose a Diocess and Kingdom conquered by a Pagan as alass too many have been not a Bishop or a Priest left remaining Those noble Christians who remain without them have the being of Christians but not the well-being of Church-communion enjoying the blessed Sacrament which requires sacerdotal administration and likewise Church-discipline which conduce to the well-being of a Church but here we see the same necessity of one as the other for Bishops as Presbiters CHAP. V. An Argument out of Johannes Major answered BUt he proceeds and produceth a place out of Johannes Major de gestis Scotorum that he should write that the Scots were governed by Priests and Monks until Anno Domini 429. from whence he collects that they were two hundred and thirty yens without Bishops he might have urged other late Writers likewise in it But I answer to this that the Registers of that illiterate age were very ill preserved throughout Christendom but worse in those parts amongst the Picts and Scots then almost any where by reason that they were miserably oppressed with the almost perpetual Warrs they had with their Neighbours Brittaines and Romanes the Saxons and scarce any eminent man for learning who recorded any thing was acted amongst them and in that Gap of time in which they place this lack of Bishops their troubles were at the height for as there was all that space Warrs for dominion so there was persecution for destruction of Christianity and the Scots in general were banished that Country The Christians fled every where for safety to the adjacent Isles to Ireland from whence they came to Normandy to Denmarke any where for safety which it may be although unhappy to their wordly content yet advanced the propagation of the Gospel as it was in the Apostles time upon the persecution of St. Stephen Well then I think in this unhappy season they can find good Record for neither Bishops nor presbiters but every Chriâ—â—ian shifting for himself and especially those who were in authority and in Christian office because they of all others were sought after and therefore were concerned to hide their heads besides this it being the custome of Bishops to place themselves in some eminent Cities whereby they might be the more eminent and the better oversee their Diocesses There were few such in Scotland then but these Bishops which were then in the Kingdom were forced to inhabit many obscure places All which considered it is not possible for any man to expect a pedigree of their Bishops as it hath been preserved in more eminent Churches
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
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
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
that nothing is essential but giving the proper blessing with imposition of Hands for the addition of one Presbyter to the two Bishops is served only to fill a gap and to comply with an unnecessary received Ceremony it added no virtue of its self noâ— impeded the virtue of the Consecration CHAP. XIV His Discourse examined and an Argument from some Father answered SECT I. The Preface to his Argument examined NOw we will enter upon another Argument being Page 164. towards the bottom a discourse unnecessary for me to write down at large but I will set down what is material in it and so pass to his Argument thus saith he Habent Presbyteri Presbyters have by a Divine right the power of Ordaining Sicut like as they have the power of Preaching and Baptizeing he expounds this that where there is a Bishop there this should be done sub regimine inspectione Episcopi under the government and eye of the Bishop but in other places where the Church is governed by the common Councel of Presbyters that Ordination is valid and good which is made by the imposition of the Hands of the Presbytery Thus he but I desire and so do many more to know where that Church was ever in the Christian world that gave simple Presbyters power to Ordain others before these latter times the practice whereof I think nothing can excuse in some Reformed Churches but a meer necessity in which Case the vote supplies the Act but I will proceed no further with this all to the midst of the next Page is only Discourse his conclusion there is that Presbyters may Ordain I come with him and will consider his following Arguments SECT II. His Argument from St. Ambrose and St. Augustine answered HE begins with St. Ambrose upon the Epistle to the Ephesians Cap. 4. the words are truly cited by him which are apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus I will not disturb this before I observe his second Quotation and make one answer serve both which is Augustinus sive quicunque sit author in quaestionibus ex utroque testamento mixtum Quest. 10. In Alexandria inquit Presbyter Consecrat the force of this Argument is this that in Alexandria and throughout Egypt in the absence of a Bishop a Presbyter or Presbyters do Consecrate by these Fathers in the Citation of St. Augustine he ingeniously saith sive quicunque author est illius operis whether he or whosoever is Author of that work indeed it is evident that it is not his and he might have said as much of St. Ambrose as is appâ—renâ— because these Comments are much suspected upon strong grounds but indeed are thought to be some Author of that age and then though an Heretique or Schismatique in a matter of Story which concerns not that business for which he is branded I see no reason why that matter of fact may not be credited I therefore must allow that authority neither will I quarrel at that word in him which is not Consecrat as in the counterseit Augustine but Consignat which is of a largersence but ye because that word is often used for Consecration I will allow that likewise yea I will add that which some Schoolmen who incline to Doctor Forbes his opinion have observed which is that the word Consecrat cannot here be taken for Consecrating the holy Eucharist of the Consecrating the Lords Supper for that was allowed lawful in any place now this seems to intimate a peculiar custom in Alexandria and Egypt for that therefore know that other things are in Ecclesiastical Story said to be Consecrated besides these of Bishops or the Elements of the Communion to wit Holy houses Churches Virgins and Utensils but some may object that this Consâ—â—ration may be understood of Bishops I answer no out of a famous Story recorded by Athanasius which is in his second Apologue and a letter writ by the Marcotici Praesbyteri Diaconi as they stile themselves to Curiasus and Evagrius It is there Registred that one Colluthus counterfeiting himself to be a Bishop when he was none but only a Presbyter Ordained divers persons amongst others one Ischyras for which he was condemned by Hosius and other Bishops in a general Councel that he should leave off Episcopising and be reduced into his former Order and therefore saith the letter Ischyras could be no Priest who was Ordained only by him who was no Bishop give me leave now to shew the truth of this Story it hath so great authority for it as Athanasius who was Bishop of Alexandria in his Apology for himself writ to his adversaries both Lay and Ecclesiastical if he had been a man of less Sanctity yet out of policy he durst not tell such an errant Lie granting this I say that if the other authorities were authentique which they are not that word Consecration must be understood of other Consecrations not of Bishops or Priests because in Alexandria this act was condemned And so I think that there is enough said to that Argument drawn from the pretended Ambrose and Augustine CHAP. XV. SECT I. His Argument drawn from the Councel of Antioch answered ANd now I proceed to another Argument drawn from the Councel of Antioch Canon 10. in which it is Ordained that Chori Episcopi which saith he were only Presbyters might Ordain Readers Sub-deacons and Exorcists but neither Priests nor Deacons as Dionisius Eriquus translates it pâ—aeter Civitatis Episcopum we may render it besides the Bishop of the City Gentianus Hervetus renders it absque Vrbis Episcopo without the Bishop of the City but he saith Hidorus Hispalensis hath a third Reading which he favours above all that is praeter â—anscientiam Episcopi as I may say without the Conscience of the Bishop here he puts down three various Translations or Readings I can add a fourth which is of another Isidore Isidori Mercator who put out the Councels by the advice of Fourscore Bishops as he himself writes in his Epistle before them but indeed hath no remarkable difference from the rest although it varyes from them Now saith Doctor Forbes Pope Damasus in his first Epistle to Purisper Bishop of the Prime Seat of Numidia and other Orthodox Bishops he condemns the Chori-Episcopi as an irregular Order being in themselves but Praesbyteri and taking upon them Episcopal power To go methodically in the examination of this Argument I propose to my self three things 1. The Consideration of the authority of the Canons made in this Councel next the examination of Pope Damasus his decree and last the Nature of those Chori-Episcopi or Country Bishops who are therein mentioned And first I apply my self to the Councel which I am content to admit because the Canons thereof were antiently received into the Code of the Universal Church and mentioned both in the Councel of Chalcedon and the Councel in Trullo though Estius in Quartum Distinct. 25. Sect. 2. is bold to reject the
who was Patriarch of Antioch although a good while after should not be thought â—itter to understand the practice of that Church than those who lived after him in other Churches I apprehend not His Comment upon the Text is this Sine Vrbis Episcopo without the Bishop of the City is not to be understood without his Command as we term it his Fiat but saith he his Ordination or Consecration for saith he if the Bishop Command the Chori-Episcopus to Ordain and he should do it that Ordination were void so that by this learned Author this perplexed Canon must be understood against Doctor Forbes but he hath a third Edition of Isidore Hispalensis which reads it praeter conscientiam Episcopi without the conscience of the Bishop and here he magnifies this Edition and calls it probatissima Versio the most approved version but he doth not set down by whom this is approved besides himself neither do I think he can nor doth shew any reason why it should be so approved but his own Authority and let us see what he hath got by it for certainly it seems not to me to inforce his interpretation which is that he may Ordain these offices with the leave of the Bishop for it is not praeter consensum but conscientiam now conscience is not the same with consent consent is most proper to another mans action Conscience to his own the great actions of Conscience being to accuse or excuse a mans self or to judg of a mans own act or whether they have been done according to right science but it meddles not with what concerns other men either to judge accuse or excuse them unless we are authorized in foro publico or privato in confession and then it is an act of the Confessors Conscience only out of this regard that he is bound in duty to apply his knowledg to others and therefore to understand this Phrase better let us conceive that Praeter or beside the Conscience of the Bishop is non-sence but if he or any others are delighted with this word Conscience in this Canon I will shew them a fourth reading where he may find it used most properly and significantly which is Cresperius his sum word Chori-Episcopus where he quotes this Canon and therein saith that a Chori-Episcopus must not Ordain Priests or Deacons propter Conscientiam Episcopi for the conscience he hath of the Bishop of his City that is because his Conscience tells him that the Bishop is only to Ordain such thus I think that it is no way evident from the Canon that these men did Ordain Priests or Deacons we come next to the second whether any of these Chori-Episcopi had Episcopal Ordination and so might in a case of necessity Ordain SECT IV. Doctor Forbes to blame for Censuring Bellarmine too sharply in this point IN this Question Doctor Forbes falls soul upon Cardinal Bellarmine which I was sorry to read gives him ill language calls his opinion ridiculous and childish and again Page 170. detestanda est Bellarmini impudentia Bellarmines impudence is to be abhorr'd or else miseranda imperitia his Ignorance is to be pityed for although the Cardinal may seem to deserve such language himself after giving learned men who differ from himself in judgment as bad or worse yet these Pen-Combates should in that resemble those with swords where the first engagers in the quarrel being high with animosities against each other will give no Quarter but after the experience of a continued warr hath taught that what happens to one this day may be the fortune of the other to morrow they manage the warr more civilly in the future so it should be with us now when the warrs have continued a long time and experience hath taught us that the most learned writer is a man and subject to error may be mistaken in his judgment may sometimes in Quotations miss the right conceit of them we should spare such reproachful languages and deal with one another even our enemies more courteously but let us see why he is so severe against Bellarmine because saith he Bellarmine doth oppose Damasus and all antiquity in saying that there are some Chori-Episcopi which had Episcopal Consecration and some which had only Presbyterial to this I say Bellarmine may be mistaken and so may Vasques the Jesuit who opposeth him in that conclusion but I doubt it doth not clearly appear out of antiquity Which is mistaken Bellarmine de Clericis in his seventeenth Cap. conceives that these Chori-Episcopi which he and all writers make to be vicarii Episcoporum may be of two sorts either such as are meer Presbyters or else such as are suffragans or titular Bishops the first sort are they which Pope Damasus condemns and will not suffer to encroach upon the Episcopal office the other he saith which were suffragan Bishops or titular might do it with leave from the Bishop of the City the fault of this saying appears not to me for they being vicarii may be of either sort or both and I spoke it knowingly as will appear presently in the next Cap. if they were such as are called suffragans as is reasonable to think then they were Ordained Episcopally and might Ordain Priests yea Bishops and did do it nor doth any thing in Vasques or Doctor Forbes necessarily confute it first for Cardinal Bellarmine he seems to be of opinion that this Canon doth approve of the Consecration of these Chori-Episcopi and that they might give the Order of Priesthood with leave from the chief Bishop to avoid that that they who were presbyters might then do it he puts down this distinction that some had but Presbyterian Ordination and some Episcopal and this he thinks this Canon implyes when it saith speaking of the Chori-Episcopi etiamsi manus impositionem Episcoporum acceperint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mark it is in the Plural number they had the imposition of Hands of Bishops not of one only as Presbyters and then again it is said ut Episcopi consecrati fuerunt and are Consecrated as Bishops which words saith Doctor Forbes were by the translator added and are not in the original Greek it is probable Pope Damasus who lived near that time a thousand years and more nearer than he and is reported to be learned in the Greek as well as Latin should know the words of the Councel as well as he or any other yet he puts down these words and they are in both the Lections of Peter Crabb I will not trouble my self to look further but Pope Damasus writing against them and condemning them would not have put down this Argument against himself if it had not been the Language used in that Canon what force his Arguments have I shall examine speedily but now let us consider the Argument which is only touched by Bellarmine if they were a sort of Chori-Episcopi which had the imposition of Hands from divers Bishops what reason can be imagined why such
require Chappels of ease the Parson sometimes gets a Deacon to officiate in a Chappel and do all the lesser duties for him Reads the Prayers and Lessons yea Baptize where he cannot be present to act it himself yet if he have a Chappel at which he cannot reside as it is too often in my Diocess he must have a compleat Presbyter to do that work so it was in those greater Parishes of Bishops which we call Diocesses but were heretofore called Parishes when they are large and cannot well be super-intended by a Bishops care he had Chori-Episcopi such as being Presbyters only might do his work of which they were capable by Commission But yet if they were very large for which it would be troublesome for the Diocess to receive the Episcopal duties which were beyond the Presbyterian authority there it was necessary to have such Chori-Episcopi which were Bishops And as that Country Parson may restrain his Curate in the exercise of his authority you shall not absolve such and such faults nor give the Communion at such and such times without my particular leave because I mean to be present at those times so may be the case of those Chori-Episcopi who were Bishops they might Ordain those lesser Orders as they are called Sub-deacons and Readers but not Priests or Deacons which indeed are Orders but by leave from their superior Bishops And this I think may fairly meet with the Council of Antioch and all that I can find any where in antiquity spoken of them That this may appear more clearly consider first That this office is by some made as antient as the Apostles times they say that Linus and Clemens were Chori-Episcopi to St. Peter at Rome so Platina with others and there may appear some reasons for it because when St. Peter had pitched upon that place for his Diocess if he did so and was necessarily to prosecute his great Apostolical design about the world in other places as well as Rome it was necessary that he should have some men of eminent worth to Episcopize for him in his absence but then I find not that they in his life time did Ordain any to these Orders although perhaps they might do it until they came to be Bishops themselves at Rome SECT II. The decrees of divers Councils examined THe next piece I find concerning them is in Concilio Ancirano Canon 13 the effect of which is that Chori-Episcopi should not Ordain Priests or Deacons or Priests act any thing without leave from the Bishops letters or under his hand here is nothing whether they were Bishops or no The next the Council of Neocaesarea in which it is thought were the same Bishops as in the other and did immediately follow that at Ancira Canon 13. where the Chori-Episcopi are compared with the seventy which amounts to nothing whether they were Bishops appears not by that but that they were assistants to the supreme Bishops as the seventy were to the Apostles The nâ—xt shall be the Council of Laodicea the two former are mentioned by Doctor Forbes but not this this Council in the fifty seventh Canon decrees this Quod non oporteat in villis pagis Episcopos constitui sed visitatores veruntamen jamdudum constituti nihil facient praeter conscientiam Episcopi Civitatis saith one Edition sine mente Episcopi saith another We may perceive in this Canon two things first that it forbids these Chori-Episcopi or country-Country-Bishops secondly that although it forbids them yet it supposeth that of themselves they had authority to Episcopize and therefore restrains the Execution of that authority to the leave from the Bishop of the City and therefore from that time they were to be regulated by him The next thing I meet with in Order is the Eighth Canon of that great and glorious Council of Nice the first where I find that upon the reconciliation of the Novations which called themselves Catharei or Puri as more holy than other men when these came into the Church and were received if they had been Ordained by the Novations as Bishops before they were admitted upon repentance into favour they were admitted into the same Order in which they were before but if there were an Orthodox Bishop in that Diocess he might allow him the honour and name of a Bishop if he would if not he might allow him the place of Presbyter or Country Bishop in his Diocess but to avoid a clashing of Competitors in the same City he must have no power there in the City where I observe that Chori-Episcopus may be such as his Episcopal Consecration would have been good in a vacant Bishoprick to entitle him to it although if he was where was a full Bishoprick he would be but a Chori-Episcopus That which follows next is that canvased Council of Antioch which occasioned all this Discourse and then comes in the decree of Damasus to which I have spoken and I may add the Epistle of St. Basil which is writ Chori-Episcopis and that contains a sharp reproof of their negligence in giving Orders and a prohibition that there should not any from thenceforth be admitted without his examination and that these unworthy persons who had been brought into the list of the Clergy should be separated with much more tending to that purpose where I observe that not the defect of power but their abuse of their poweâ— was it they were blamed for that which Isidore Hispalensis or Hrabarus Maurus delivers concerning it is not more than was in the former Councils Balsamon saith they were almost worn out in his time the Meldensian allows them to be but abridgeth their power yet commands Bishops not to authorize them by their own negligence or infirmities so now although Pope Damasus his decree could not prevail to extirpate them yet this Council thought fit to restrain their practice this Councel was Eight hundred years after Christ and more I will not write how Vasques remembers some in his time but come close to our own Age and Country if these men were the same with Suffragans which I know no reason to deny then no doubt but they had Episcopal Ordination and did Consectate not Priests only but Bishops also To prove this let any man peruse that excellent piece of Francis Mason de ministerio Anglicano he shall find that in the dayes of Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth the Suffragans of Bedford Chichester Taunton were Episcopally Consecrated and did joyn in the Consecration of other Bishops So now I have finished this undertaking out of this debate concerning the 10. Canon of Antioch in which I have shewed that if the Council it self be admitted yet that Particular Canon to be most perplexed but if it lean any way it is against Doctor Forbes since it is most reasonable to think by that story which I have set down concerning them that there were at the least divers of the Chori-Episcopi which had Episcopal Consecration