Argument is If Ordiâ—ation give the Essentials to an Officer before Election there may be a Pastor without people an Officer sine Titulo as they use to speak and a Pastor should be made a Pastor at large the rest is nothing but an Application to Mr. Rutherford's Simile of a Ring which concerns not us But this Argument of his invites me to speak of a pastoral Ordination which will perhaps give farther Illustration to the whole body of this Discourse A Pastor and a â—lock are relatives and do mutually se ponere tollere where one is the other must be where one is not the other cannot be Now then to be made a Pastor will require to have a flock this shall be presupposed and again every Pastor hath not all Pastoral Offices I can well suppose a mighty great flock which requires many Shepherds but one Chief above the rest he hath all Pastoral offices folds feeds drives to field prescribes pâ—stures medicines and doth all this by the Supream Pastoral power that is granted him either by his own hands or by the ministry of those Inferiours which are under him but they have partial Authorities only to feed or â—old or catch or drive as their several shares are dâ—signed the second part of the Division of the Pastoral Charge these men must grant who divide their Governours into several Offices Pastors Teachers Rulers which have their several Duties assigned them and it is most unreasonable for them to deny the first That one should have Superiority over the rest since as reason would direct without some body to over-look and attend them they would easily entrench upon one anothers duties or neglecting their own invite those others to put their hands to their work and what this reason directs that I think I have shewed the Scripture likewise Crowns with its approbation Now the first sort of Pastors are those we term Bishops the second Presbyters the flock they are to feed is the Church of Christ when they are admitted Pastors and so ordained according to their several Duties That which Hooker page 61. brings out of one Mr. Best as if St. Austin or some General Councel had dâ—creed it is absolutely to be denyed namely that an Apostle differeth from a Pastor that the Apostle is a Pastor throughout the whole Christian World but the Pastor is tyed to a certain Congregation out of which he is not to exercise Pastoral Acts. This I deny if he affirm it by Divine Right but if by Ecclesiastical Authority only which hath designed particular Bishops and Presbyters to particular places I shall yield much of it For the first part concerning the Apostles know that their Commission was universal as it is set down Mat. 28. 19. Go teach all Nations c. and John 20 As my Father sent me c. and we must conceive this to be divisim not conjunctim only every one had all this power not all only nor as Bellarmine would have Lib. 2. De Romano Pontifice Cap. 12. St. Peter only and the rest from him for we see the Commission granted to all but yet we must know that their Authority was habitu or potentia only in every one it was not actâ— in any they might Episcopize Apostolize in any place of the World They did Episcopize Apostolize only where they were râ—sident Just as I have Conceived if Adam had lived in his Integrity every man had had an habituâ—l and potential royalty over all the Creatures in the world yet he would have exercised that Royalty only where he lived yet he might have Travelled any where and have justly enjoyed any part of the World although actually he could possesse but his Share Now this was the Jurisdiction of every Apostle in all the whole Catholick Church habitually not actually as the Church of Rome would have their Apostolical Man as they call him the Pope and all this was necessary for them as Apostles which is men sent for the propagation of the Gospel to the planting and confirming of Churches other powers they had of Languages of Miracles which were necessary to the first plantation but no longer and therefore they were not peculiar to them but others had them besides as likewise that mighty power of being Inspired to write Scripture which did not appear in all of them and some others besides them had that power as St. Luke and Marke and some think St. James to be the Bishop of Jerusalem who writ that Epistle But now of those which were the Apostles it is evident that these Gifts were not Apostolical as belonging so to them as Apostles and it will appear in the other Cause That the Bishops succeeded them in every thing that was Apostolical although not in these extraordinary Endowments for the Apostolical power of planting setling Churches of propagating the Gospel throughout the whole World and enlarging the Kingdom of Christ must remain for ever and therefore though the manner of doing it by such Signs and Wonders be not communicated yet the Office must and therefore he who is a Bishop or Presbyter by divine right is such throughout the whole Word to this purpose you may observe in that famous place of Acts 20. 28. so much and so often canvased by them who handle these Controversies in other points but not thought on in this you may observe that St. Paul speaking to divers Presbyters or Bishops which you will he saith Take heed therefore to your selves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers or Bishops to feed the Church of God which he purchased with his own blood Observe here that he spake to many and diverse Bishops or Presbyters I stand not upon thâ—t now he spâ—ke to them in the plural Number but when he speaks of the flock they were to pastorize over he puts it in the singular Number now if the Holy Ghoâ— had made them Bishops of particular Congregations only it must have been the flock every one his several but being all made Pastors of the Catholick Church he names it one flock and so likewise to feed or Sheperdizâ— over not the Churches but the Church of Christ which indeed were no way congruous if the Holy Ghost had made them Officers of particular Churches and confined them there but making them Officers of the Vniversal Church which Christ had purchased with his blood and all Officers of that it is rightly put in the singular number flock and Church This likewise the Holy Ghost intimates every where describing the Church to us by the name of a â—ield a Vineyard a City and multitudes of such Expressions which as much as this of a flock intimate the unity of that Body which is his Church his â—lock over which these are Pastors in their several wayes not only their little Congregations Now the wisdom of the Church finding that although the potential and habitual power is universal yet the actual cannot be exercised further
the Gospel is not attributed to these later Disciples Besides these I read not of any persons which had any Mission from Christ to do these great Works concerning mans Salvation But hitherto we find onely the Authority of preaching given We will therefore in the next place Consider who were made Ministers of these Covenants of Heaven called Baptism and the Lords Supper whether these all these or other besides them SECT V. Who were made Ministers of the Sacraments TO begin with Baptism that Baptism was instituted in our Saviours life time is very evident out of the 3d. of St. John v. 22. where it is said That our Saviour camo into Judea and there tarried with them and baptized that 's expounded Chapter 4. v. 2. that he did not baptize but his disciples out of which it is evident besides the Conference he had with Nicodemus in the beginning of the 3d. Chapter That there was a Baptism used and instituted by our Saviour and they who were the Ministers of it were his Disciples But now when it was instituted and what it was that was Instituted are mighty difficulties not fully cleared For the first part I leave all those parties which fix it to any times which are these two either when St. John baptized our Saviour of which we may read Mat. 3. 13. or else in his Conference with Nicodemus John 3. 5. where he uttered these words Except a man be born again of Water and the holy Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven I can consent to neither of these Not to the first for we find nothing like an Ordination but indeed by the descending of the Holy Ghost and the voice from Heaven a foundation for an Ordinance but not an Ordinance it self Not the second for it was a private Conference between our Saviour and that man wherein he might well declare that there had been some such Thing or that there should be such a power given but this did not settle any such power nor any form or Minister of it I conclude therefore that as many things were done without doubt which are not written as St. John speaks in the last Chapter of his Gospel and the last verse so amongst many things this is one which yet was done we may safely Conclude because it would be a mighty presumption for the Disciples to usurp a power of baptizing without a Commission and that they did baptize is apparent I therefore Conclude that it was done but when is not apparent and now let us examine what was done SECT VI. Concerning Baptisme THis Question seems to me to be very unsatisfactorily handled by those who have treated of it To understand what can be comprehended in it conceive with me that there comes a three-fold Baptism in Consideration in this Question the Baptism which we are baptized with which in expresse terms was ordained by our Saviour after his resurrection the Baptism of John Baptist and the Baptism of the Disciples of our Saviour in the time of his residence upon Earth the Baptism of John and the Baptism of our Saviour have been disputed with a great deal of vehemency betwixt Calvin and the Church of Rome whether it were the same with our Saviours or no and I am in this Conclusion against Calvin and do think that he causlesly rejects the Fathers with a sleight in his Institutes when certainly in it self the Question is of no great use to any Design of faith or piety I will not trouble the Controversie now but shall be ready to give an Account of it to any man that shall require it but hint out to the Reader that one place Acts 19. 2. Where St. Paul finding Disciples at Ephesus asked them whether they had received the Holy Ghost They answered that they had not so much as heard that there was an Holy Ghost and he replying to what were ye then baptized they answered unto Johns Baptism Then in the 4th verse St. Paul tells them that John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance saying unto the people that they should believe on him who should come after him that is on Jesus Christ. When they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Observe that it could not be the same which was instituted by our Saviour because they had not heard of the Holy Ghost which is an expresse phrase appointed by our Saviour and then that they were baptized by St. Paul which was a sign the first was not perfect This particular is miserably shifted off by Beza and that shift wonderfully extolled by Chamier when the Text is evident that they were rebaptized SECT VII Whether the. Baptism of the Disciples before Christs death was the same with Johns THere is a second Controversie whether the baptism of the Disciples before Christs Death differed from Johns sure it seems to differ because Johns Disciples came to him in the 3d. of John v. 26. and told him how Christ baptized and seemed enviously to clamour that he and his baptism was followed more than St. Johns which if it had been the same they would never have done because by that their own Church was encreased but wherein this Difference was placed we can hardly discern by the Gospel for as I have shewed their Doctrine was the same that the Kingdom of God was at hand and they could not go further but as Prophets for yet it was not Come but Comming Now there could be no baptism into any other Faith than that was taught Thus briefly of that second Question SECT VIII Whether our Sacramental Baptism be the same with that before Christs death NOW the third may be betwixt that Sacramental Baptism which we have and that which they administred before our Saviours death whether they are the same For my part I am against it and not I alone but many more both Ancient and later Writers First because that preaching the Word was only out of Office to be done to the Jews and they retained Circumcision still the legality of the Ceremonial Law being not yet abolished untill our Saviour put a period to it with his Consummatum est It is finished at his Death for although there might be an use of both together yet both could not be used Sacramentally and although Baptism might have an Institution and have Laws made and Directions for it before as must needs almost be in the Making of any Laws yet these Laws had not their legal force till the execution was ordained which could not be untill the Abolishing of the old which was not as I say untill our Saviours Death So Heb. 9. 16. For where a Testament is there must be the Death of the Testator for a Testament is of force after men are dead otherwise it is of no force while men are living Now although Christ might make these Covenants and this Will and Testament in his Life yet it is of no force untill after his Death Again the
signification and mystery of Baptism which it imparts to every baptized Man is not nor could be before his Death for as St. Paul speakâ— Rom. 6. 3. Know you not that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his Death baptized into Iâ—sus Christ that is by Baptism Incorporated into his mystical body or as he speaks planted verse 5. were baptized into his Death by the same phrase incorporated into his Death dead with him and this enforceth the 4th verse therefore we are buried with him by baptism into Death If we be incorporated into him by Baptism if incorporate into his Death by Baptism then we must be buried with him and then we must be raised with him Now this mystery could not effected untill our Saviours Death and Resurrection For although I doubt not that the Death of Christ was powerfull to the saving of believers which believed in his Death to come before it came yet it was a diverse way of Faith which looked upon Christ to Come and Christ already Come And again as the Faith was diverse so the Means to get this Faith and the Covenants by which Christ was imparâ—ed were diverse Now this Baptism looks upon Christ dead it could not therefore in this Notion be applyed to them before his Death and after his Death too And to Confirm this we may observe that the very Apostles themselves were slow in the belief of this Fundamental Truth the Death and Resurrection of Christ untill after it was done as you may observe Luke 24. 25. where our Savour chides their slownesse of belief in these Articles Now if they had not a Strong â—aith in these Articles themselves it is not reasonable to believe that they preached them to others and then not baptized others into it These reasons are not observed by Bellarmine or Gamacheus or Estius or any others I meet with who handle this Gamacheus in general affirmeth something to this last Argument that Christs Death was powerfull to the salvation of Souls even before it was which I grant but not by that means which takes his Death for a Pattern or a Stock in which it must be grafted for the Graft supposeth the Stock and the thing drawn the pattern to such means as are Types or Figures of Christ to Come not Impressions or Signs of Christ already Come Again he answers that it were enough without his Death if he institute such a power but it must be proved then that he did institute such a power for it is most certain that whatsoever Covenant God makes that he will perform and since God hath pleased to make such Expressions of this Baptism as have their foundation upon his Death it is not probable nor can we be easily induced to think that he should do it without his Death Another Answer he hath which bears some shew of prosecution of the first Argument that although Baptism was not Compleat omni ex parte in all Circumstances in respect of its remote Effect which is to open the Gate of Heaven untill the resurrection of Christ yet it was essentially perfect to the production of Original Grace which is its nearest and formal Effect I reply Neither could it do this For since Circumcision was yet on foot which had that Effect proper to it these two had not both the same Operation at the same time and again since the Introduction of Original or any Grace must be by the Death and Merit of Christ men must receive this blessing by that and that communicated by Baptism for although these mercies were given by other Covenants before his Death which related to his Death to come yet not by those which referred to his Death passed as this Complanting by Baptism did Gamach in 3. quâ—st 66. cap. 4. SECT IX Another Objection answered BUT what I find not Objected by them troubled me more than their Arguments untill I studyed the reason of it which was What meant all our Saviours Covenants and Promises concerning Baptism before his Death which are understood by all Consent to be applicable to our Baptism which we use if then this Sacrament was not ordained to be exhibited And to this we shall find this Answer I think most reasonable That our Saviour did settle Laws and Rules and Covenants for Baptism in his life which had not their Life and Operation till his Death when he setled the frame and manner of it So you may find the Doctrine and Law and Covenant concerning eating his body and blood delivered in the 6th of St. Johns Gospel ver 26 48 c. which yet had not its truth and force untill the Institution of the Communion and Commission to Celebrate So likewise for the power of the Keyes Matth. 18. 27. Tell the Church which could not be in force till Churches were setled and so must needs these places be understood I will examine one John 3. 5. Except a man be born of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God this cannot be understood at that Instant according to that Generality a man any man in general which must be taken indeâ—initely as the Context doth mightily evince because in the 3d. verse preceding it is said except a man be born again which hath an indefinite truth so likewise in the following 6th verse That which is born of Flesh is Flesh that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit this involves all that are in the World Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God therefore that which is not born again and so not of Water and the Spirit Now this cannot have this Extent at this time for as I said before Circumcision was not yet abolished for it was impossible that this Law could at this time be divulged and communicated to men and therefore it was impossible that a Law made in a Corner without publication of it could exact an obedience and therefore it could not be but like other Laws it was then made Christ taught Nicodemus the Doctrine which afterwards should have its force and vigor when the time came that it should be divulged and taught Well then out of this that hath been said it may appear that although there might be an Institution of this Sacramental Baptism whâ—ch we now use by the Mercy of God for our Admittance into the Church for our Incorporation into his body although this might be instituted and many Laws concerning it made in his life yet those Lawes were not of force till after his death and the promulgation of them then We will in the next place Consider the Communion and examine what Minister was appointed for that in the Gospel for we find none for Baptism yet in Christs life CHAP. IV. What Minister was appointed for the Communion THis Communion was Instituted by our Saviour a little before his Death in those famous places of three of the Evangelists for only three mention it Mat. 26. 26. Mark 14. 22.
Presbyters under that general name of Presbyters as Writs are sent out â—o summon the Barons of the Kingdom to Parliaments by which word was understood both Earls and Dukes although by the Name and Notion called the house of Lords So Bishops were called along being Presbyters under that name they are all called both from Ephesus and the Adjacent Parts though that be put down only and then St. Paul gave them all their Charge to look to their Several Duties and execute their several Commissions which they had before received which is all that these words can enforce although this is reasonable yet methinks this is more probable that they were all or for the most part but bare Presbyters for in the first Age of the Church when the Conversion of men to Christ was new and there were but few Christians few Presbyters were necessary and then much sewer Bishops especially the Apostles living and Episcopizing one of them enough for Twenty of us and therefore one Bishop for a great Nation as Titus for Creet where were an hundred Cities was sufficient but Religion increasing in the hearts of men more Presbyters are necessary and they increasing there must be a greater necessity likewise of Bishops but that any of these should be such as we call Bishops to have power over other Presbyters and to give them orders is no way apparent This therefore proves nothing for their parity But he addes that the word Bishop is never used in the New Testament but the Actions therein required belong to any Presbyter He excepts the Case of Judas Acts 1. 20. For my part it is not material how the word is used but what I labour for is that there is such a Thing as the word Bishop now used doth signifie and that the more he or any other Trouble themselves against it it will appear the more clearly as hitherto it doth I will proceed therefore with him page 25. He frameth his Second reason thus SECT X. His Second Argument answered IF they be distinct the Bishop is Superiour but he cannot be superiour every Superiour Order hath superiour Acts and honours belonging thereunto above the Inferiour but Bishops have neither above those that are Presbyters for if labouring in the Word and Doctrine be an Act above ruling and is most worthy of Double honour then the Act and honour of a Presbyter is above the Act and honour of a Bishop for they only assume the Acts of rule but give the Presbyters leave to labour in the Word and Doctrine I have at large discoursed what labouring in the Word and Doctrine is I will not repeat now but begin with his last For they only assume c. which is the foundation upon which this whole discourse is built and I answer that the Bishops do not only assume the Acts of rule but esteem it their duty to labour in the Word And if Mr. Hooker would without prejudice Consider even of that kind of labouring which he and his Sort understand it Pulpit-preaching the World never yielded more fruitfull Industries than those of our Bishops whose Works live to bear witnesse for them being dead and therefore I conceive this to be an Argument of spleen rather than reason and for the second Clause of this foundation that they give the Presbyter leave to labour in the Word they do much more for they Episcopize over them and look to them and by Authority over them make them do it encourage them who do and punish those who do not If men have misdemeaned themselves in their Office no doubt but Twenty Presbyters have done so for one Bishop but yet neither the one nor the other are lesse Jure Divino for that Judas his Office was good he was an ill Officer Nicholas his Office was good he an ill Officer this chose by the Apostles that by Christ himself thus Offices are not disparaged by the Officers But Consider further that although labouring in the Word with the people may be a more Excellent Work than governing or ruling the people as it is more excellent to perswade than to compell men to vertuous Actions They are but half vertues that are forced yet governing Presbyters which is a proper act of Bishops is more excellent than labouring in the Word to the people by how much the Extent of the benefit is more General It produceth the Good of a Diocesse as that of a â—arish But once again although I had thought enough had been said to that Text 1 Tim. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of Double honour but especially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine yet I will adde somewhat for illustration Suppose this speech were turned from the Church to the Army and a man should say thus Let the Elders the Officers of the Army who govern or rule well their Regiments or the Army be worthy of double honour but especially they who labour and toyl in the heat of the battel could any man Collect from hence that it were a better Act to labour in the Act of fighting than to steer and direct the fighting No sure it is an Act becomming a private Officer and concerns a few but the other who rules well hath the whole fortune of the day the fate of a whole Kingdom sometimes depending on him yet if he can and do upon desperate occasions thrust himself into great hazard he hath an especialty of this Double honour due to him and yet it would not befit him to hazard the day which depends on his providence by neglecting direction to thrust himself into perpetual dangers These Bishops are the Generals of this Spiritual Militia they are to direct and oversee their Diocesse to encourage to command Inferiour Officers to their Duties when they do this well they are worthy of double honour but if when great occasions shall require they act themselves what at other Times they command and take care that others shall do it likewise they have an Especialty of Double honour due to them which is the full Sense of that Text Elders which rule well have a double honour because they have a double excellency both do their own and make others do their duty but if they who have abilities do rule well and labour too then especially much more is that honour due SECT XI His Third Argument answered I Come now to examine his Third Argument which I am sorry to read for it is so full of illogical deductions as methinks it should not be possible for any man to think he could perswade by them It is thus framed If they differ from Presbyters Jure Divino then there are some Ministers by Divine Authority necessary for the gathering of the Church and perfecting the body of Christ besides that of the Presbyter for if the Church can be perfected without these there is no need of these I will stay here a while This Consequence is not good for Ministers may be
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
and yet in the best of them there are mighty difficulties to make them certain but yet they may know that they might have Bishops in that time and Presbiters ordained by them although the Register's not apparent for it is evident out of such stories as we have that King Lucius the first Christian King we read of in our Nation when he setled Christianity here he was to extirpate the former Pagan Religion used by the Druids in these Countreys Now they had here three Arch-flamins besides divers other Flamins inferior according to their Method so he setled Christianity he made three Arch-bishops Yorke London Caerlyon this last governed Wales and divers adjâ—cent Countreys London the Mediterranean part of this Island of Brittaine but York had the Northern part of England and Scotland for his government and this lasted untill Anno 1470 or thereabouts at which time there was erected one Arch-bishop at St. Andrews so that there was a place to which in case of necessity men might repair for Orders when they would as we know by our late sad experience in these last sad times and no doubt but many did where they knew were Bishops as since the first plantation of Christianity there was in Wales But to come nearer to this Crathling King of Scots in Dioclesians time which was in this Interim he mentions entertained all Christians who fled out of these parts of Brittaine and gâ—ve them the Isle of Man to plant in and setled Amphibolus their Bishop there and built a Church and endowed it nobly who governed all the adjacent Isles and had a succession of Bishops after him so that they could never lack Bishops either to give orders to Priests or to order any thing that were amisse Beside this in this time I read of Ninias who was Bishop of Candida Casa and of Regulas amongst the Picts and I think it would be hard if not impossible for John Major or any of his followers to shew me so many Presbiters men of Note as I have shewed Bishops It is true for a while after Maximus had extirpated the Scots upon the cruel mercyless malicious and indeed foolish instigâ—tion of the Picts against the disposition and manners of a Roman Conquerour there was about forty years in which there was not seen in that territory so much as a Scotchman or Woman but all forced to â—ly their Countrey and therefore Hollandsilde might well say that their Bishops and Priests were forced to fly away but that is a signe there they had Bishops then yet as soon as Fergusus that gallant person came with his conquering Army thither no doubt he brought all such persons with him as were â—it for the plantation fo the Church as well as his Kingdome and therefore I may affirm that there were Bishops within this time prefixed by Major before the extirpation of the Scots in the time and after by the Bishop of Man and his successors As likewise those which that gallant heroique King Fergusius did bring with him and certainly throughout the world where were Presbiters there were Bishops either in particular Diocesses or hard by from whom men might receive orders or somewhere in Christendom where they might hunt them out if there were any number of Christians which might provoke that industry if particular persons as heretofore have been and may be cast away or cast in a Pagan or impeopled Land they may be without a Presbiter although that may be more easily purchased yet they may be without him or having one he may die and they still continue in a Christian condition Man or Men and all the defects of these Officers may be supplied with soliloquies and a holy conversation with godly Prayers but the same though a greater misfortune is theirs who cannot have so much as a Priest with them who may be sufficient for a â—ew Christians but if many the other is necessâ—ry both to ordain their Priests and to govern Priests and them likewise so that in answer to John Major Hector Boethius Bacanan and all others of that Crew I answer there was never any time I mean any considerable time in which the Scots lacked Bishops after there was a considerable conversion of them to Christ. But they had Bishops to repair to at York or at Man Candida Casa or other where and then because Major saith that they were governed by Priests only and not Bishops I think it will be a mighty hard thing for him to shew any judicial Act of Government performed by Presbiters unless they were commissioned by some Bishop and therefore all he said is only said and cannot be proved I have done with this CHAP. VI. Another Argument drawn from the Church of Rome answered HIs next Argument begins page 165 where he says Ecclesiae etiam Romanae sede vacante Presbiteri per undecem menses quindecem dies post caedem secundi Romani pontificis immanissima persecutione comitia pontificalia Romae prohibente Anno Domini 259. I will yeeld all this and perhaps that Sea may be vacant a longer space at another time or any other Sea but what then the Colledge of Presbiters may govern but what can he shew from Onuphrius or Platina Binius or any other who write those stories that they gave orders which they set down constantly at the end of every Popes life what orders they gave or can they shew that they did confirm which are proper to Episcopal duties or only order the pontifical affairs which they might do but not as Bishops they never say they did his next Reason followes CHAP. VII His Argument answered drawn from Deacons DE Iure divino est ut in Ecclesiis Diaconi sint Clerici Canonici per manuum impositionem ordinati per totam vitam adstricti here he ciphers two places of Scripture Acts 6. Tim. 1. 3. Now consider that he saith that these are Jure divino then I have shewed Bishops to be by Apostolical constitution I could trouble this speech but I let it alone only this must be questioned what he meanes by this ut in Ecclesiis Diaconi sint Clerici there is no question but every Church throughout the world acknowledgeth that Deacons are an inferior sort of Clergy which is all that these words imports but I think his meaning is ut sint in Ecclesiis Diaconi Clerici that there should be in every Church such inferior Clergy as Deacons and this the following words with the force of his Argument will make good and then I can reply to him that there is no such divine Law that there should be Deacons in every Parochial Church that he speakes of in the Acts was an occasional office set up for that purpose and that cannot be a Law no not a president but upon the like occasion That in Tim. hath no one word of the ceremonies of ordaining in particular Churches but onely what manner of persons they should be who are to be ordained this is
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