reason that they should and why should others do it Yes much differenâ—â— one Sermon of the Apostles and prayer of theirs is of greater power and force with God than twenty others they out of Duty must travell through the whole world they cannot attend the Care of the poor in a particular City the others though being Evangelists may upon particular Occasions be called off from their place yet they shall return again and overview their Charge the people therefore when they could not have their particular eyes over that blessed work took those that were next them in that dubious time to take Care of the poor and these men could not therefore be chosen to an Inferiour Constant Office such as they feign their Deacons to be because â—hey were men of higher Employment and greater Concernment in the Church but were chosen for that Occasion how long I know not to attend that Duty SECT X. Another Argument for the former Conclusion A Fourth reason may be drawn from the Design which Mr. Hooker takes for this Office which is such as would make any Nation tremble to think upon an Erection of the greatest Tyranny which ever was exercised in any Commonwealth you shall find it described in the 36 37 pages where before For first he is Treasurer this may be without exception Secondly he must addresse himself to receive what is brought into the Treasury but mark not what is but what ought to be brought into the Treasury to be committed to his Trust for this briefly I will set down his sense purpose he must inform himself by advice and counsel from the body what every mans Free-will Offerings should be this upshot results out of his Discourses that only Free-will Offerings should be accepted yet because the maintenance of Church and poor must not be arbitrary they must understand mens Estates as well as they can if they be negligent admonish them then if they stirr not go to Christs Discipline tell the Church and so upon contempt of that to Eccleliastical Censure To this purpose he cites two places Deut. 16. 10. and Levit. 22. 18 19. In both which places if he had transcribed the words without further trouble there could have no more appeared but that men should bring their Free-will Offerings and then do this or this but the Sin lay upon him who was to bring it in he was not to be compelled to it nor do they perhaps they will say but I will reply Ecclesiastical Censure of putting out of the Church making a man an Heathen is the greatest Compulsion in the World and as they order it upon the Consultation and Advice of the Deacon it will arise to be upon the Imagination of the Deacon and instead of his Judgement perhaps oftentimes unlesse they be better than those the Apostles used before this election the partial Affection of the Deacon which would betray Souls to a most unhappy and arbitrary Government for Religion for Estates SECT XI The opposing Arguments answered UPon these reasons I am perswaded that the Office of a Deacon was not established in that of Acts 6. to be as a rule for all Churches but only these 〈…〉 of and Authorized in this great 〈…〉 that diâ—y in the Church at that time and thus I have disproved those Answers which Mr. Hooker seems to frame to my reasons his Arguments for confirmation of his Cause I shall undertake in a more proper place presently yet least men may think I introduce a new Opinion into the world know that this was the Opinion of St. Chrysostom and Oecumenius Estius in 4 Sent. dist 24. Sect. 18. observes as much and for Oecumenius throws him out with Cujus Authoritas non ita magni est momenti For St. Chrysostom it is in his 14 Homily upon the Acts about the middle he saith it is so obscure that it may be suspected of Corruption I answer it is very clear and no man will corrupt a Father without a design which cannot appear in this what it should be but rather than yield he will charge the rest of his Doctrine because saith he he affirms non fuisse Episcopos tunc in Ecclesia when Acts 1. it is said let another take his Bishoprick To this I reply that he saith not there were no Bishops but Apostolos solos only the Apostles and this is true nor Presbyter neither yet as will appear hereafter But now it may be enquired Was there no such Office as that of a Deacon proper to the Church SECT XII Whether there be such an Office as a Deacon proper to the Church YEs without question in the 1 of Tim. 3. 8. St. Panl describes at large the Qualifications of such a man who must be chosen to that Office I shall need no proof of it because all consent to this Conclusion but if a man should enquire when and where he was Ordained I must answer I know not nor do I find any Register of it in the New Testament nor amongst any learned men any Consent the greatest is upon that place in the 6. of the Acts which seems to me to be built upon weak grounds the Church of Rome in general makes all their seven Ordeâ— to be erected at the Institution of the Communion by our Saviour but I leave that imagination as of no moment since there is no word in Scripture which seems to countenance it and I will passe from this Question to the other What his Office was to do CHAP. VI. What is the Office of a Deacon THE Office what it was receives the greatest Illustration from his Name which signifies a Minister a Servant to the Ecclesiastical Officers Bishops or Presbyters so that as when a man is known to be a Minister or Servant to another he is by that made apparent to do such things as Conduce to the assistance of him who is his Superiour or Prelate in his Office so do these in respect of their Superiours Bishops and Presbyters I do not find one word in Scripture setting down what their Office was we can therefore have no knowledge of it but from the History of the Church from which we receive that their Office was to Baptize to assist at the Communion with delivering the Cup and sometimes the Body but not to Consecrate so likewise to assist in the Divine Service some other things we find various according to the Customs of Churches but all these are subordinate and ministerial Offices likewise they had power to preach upon particular occasions and licenses given to wit by that Order they had a qualification to receive a License these things I can particularly give an Account to be the sense of the Ancient Church if any man require it but am loath also to lose Time about it only I will now undertake Mr. Hooker SECT II. Mr. Hookers opinion concerning a Deacon examined HE therefore Part 2. Chap. 1. falsly printed for Chap. 2. page 33. in his third Acception of his
yet it would not follow that they received it from their Imposition of hands but with it saith the Text with the Imposition of hands of the Presbytery when in 2 Tim. 1. 6. he speaking I think of the same Gift he saith which thou hast received by the Imposition of my hands here by as there with and so is the phrase varied in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Pauls imposition had some signal force but theirs was only a Circumstance by the by not operative But I enforce not this although I am perswaded the Text would make it good but answer peremptorily That Presbytery there meant was not a Presbytery of the Inferiour Order and I speak no more than St. Chrysostome in expresse words This is not understood of Presbyters but Bishops and all the Ancients if he shall require me to prove it out of Scripture That Presbytery ever signifies a Company of Bishops which kind of Disputing is used amongst some I answer in this place I am not to prove but answer and I reply that neither they nor any I think can shew me this word Presbytery used in any other place than these I have named and then I am sure it cannot be proved that it should signifie that inferiour Order Thus have I done with this reason of his I could collect even hence a Strong Argument against them but I will referr it SECT XIV Mr. Hookers Argument out of St. Hierome answered AT the last Hooker comes to that Canvased place of St. Hierome and here he begins to boast of Antiquity If saith he we look to ancient Times that prime place of Hierome ad Evagrium shews the Charter whence all the Authority is derived Unum ex se electum in altiori Gradu collocarunt quem Episcopum nominaverunt This piece of St. Hierome somewhat amazed me upon the first view of it not but he was a man and might by passion be somewhat transported but although I have read it in him before and often urged in the School yet me thought not in such significant words To understand him therefore Conceive that he writ this Epistle to Evagrius against a Custom that had crept into the Church of Rome as it seems that some men did prefâ—rre Deacons before Presbyters this I can guesse to happen upon the rise of Cardinal Deacons which began to flourish in those days upon this St. Hierome magnifies the Presbyterian Order shews how Presbyters and Bishops were one and were called by the same name in Scripture which elsewhere he affirmeth likewise and there he seems to make the difference betwixt a Bishop in respect of Jurisdiction not to be as two Orders but Gradus in ordine and therefore he saith that in Alexandria which was founded by St. Mark in the time of Heraclius and Dionysius Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori Gradâ— collocatum Episcopum nominabant But presenâ—ly he makes a Bishop in the same Epistle like a General in an Army and yet comes off Quid enim facit Episcopuâ— exceptâ Ordinatione quod non facit Presbyter and at the Conclusion of that Epistle compares Bishops Presbyters and Deacons to Aaron the Inferiour Priests and Levites Whence it abundantly appears that not only St. Hierome otherwhere but even here opposeth these men expresly in the Case of Ordination and surely evidently enough in the business of Jurisdiction Comparing the Bishops to Generals and Aaron But then mark these mistakes in his Quotation where he puts Collocaverunt for Collocatum as if the Presbyters had given him his place or Dignity when it is no more but this that from St. Marks time down-ward the Presbyters of Alexandria had one chosen out of their Presbytery which was elected above the rest and called Bishop which was that their Bishop was chosen among them whether by them or no I dispute not now So that this Epistle of Hierom being read and this place Considered I know no reason why it should be urged against their power of Ordination or Jurisdiction First because this was the Practice only of a particular Church and as he disputes concerning Rome in the same Epistle may much easier be objected to Alexandria Si Authoritas quaeritur Orbis major est urbe And again in the same Epistle Quid mihi praeter unius urbis Câ—nsuâ—tudinem This might be but I yield not that there is any force to this purpose out of St. Hieromes phrase but only that they had one elected out of their number which was placed in an higher degree and called a Bishop not naming who ordained him or who elected him but suppose they should Elect him would it follow that they had power of Ordination Certainly no the people or Patron may elect their Parson but not ordain him or if they should elect and ordain him which will never be granted yet would it follow that he had Jurisdiction and sole power of ordaining others a Master of a Colledge is elected to his Office by the Fellows and ordained according to the Lawes yet unlesse by Authority delegated from him no Fellow can choose much lesse make the least Fellow or Scholar in the House Take St. Hieroms Instance The Emperor or General of an Army dies in his place the Army chooseth and Constitutes another Emperor as often happened in Rome when they had made their Election then he had power both of Jurisdiction in Governing them who chose him and of Ordaining inferiout Officers which were under him but over the rest of the Army So that although it be true in Nature that which can do the greater can do the lesse yet it is not true in Politick Affairs as thus In an Elective Kingdom or the Empire they who have power to choose the Emperour himself yet when they have chosen him have not power to choose the least Constable or Inferiour Officer but the Emperor only so that here are wonderfull Inconsequences in this Discourse if much more were granted than indeed is any way true and yet as if all were true he deduceth strange Conclusions Whence it followes saith he first that Bishops were first Presbyters I grant it secondly that they had their first Constitution and Election from them I deny that proposition First St. Paul and the Apostles Constituted many Bishops in their several precincts Timothy Titus many more Then I deny the Consequence or Dependance it hath upon the premisses â—or although all that were true in Alexandria yet that is no rule to the whole World besides that the same Method was used any where â—lse which is apparently grosse his next Deduction is as bad Ergo saith he Presbyters had their rise and Ordination before Bishops If they had what would follow It is possible the Apostles might make Presbyters first and chuse and make Bishops out of them if not the Apostles we have and shall prove were Bishops who were before Presbyters He saith If they can give Ordination
not oversee the flock of Christ over which the Holy Ghost had made him a Ruler And now here again discern the necessity of Ecclesiastical Story to expound this Scripture What can any man tell is the Doctrine of the Nicholaitans which God hates and so we ought to hate but by Ecclesiastical Story which sets it down to be as well in the Error of Opinion the Doctrine concerning the Creation that it was not by God as likewise that of practise that it was lawfull to have Wives in Common now by Ecclesiastical Story we are taught that these things were the Nicholaitans Opinions and these are they which God abhorrs And now Consider what fault would it be in the Angel that these things were heâ—d in his Church but that he had Coâ—rcive Authority to Command and hinder the proceedings of these Opinions A Third Exception is That these Epistles were written to the Angels the Presidents but by Name but to the whole Synod by Intention so that although he direct his Epistle but to one yet it is intended unto all as when a man should send a Letter to the Speaker which is to be read in Parliament But this is Confuted in the Text most evidently because all these things that are Commended or censured in any of these Epistles are in the singular number so Chap. 2. vers 2. I know thy works and thy labour c. thy in the singular number and so in the rest now if he had meant it to the whole Synod although directed to the President it would have been your works nor could the Speech be proper to say thy works when the whole body was intended nay it is not imaginable that those eminent virtues with which he and the other Bishops are honoured should appertain to the whole Assembly or Synod of them so likewise the fault he condemns that Angel of vers 4. that he should forsake his first love is not likely to be affirmed of the Synod so it is most remarkable in the Epistle to the Bishop of Smyrna vers 10. when he speaks of the rest he changeth his phrase The Devil shall cast some of you into prison and the like So likewise to the Angel of the Church of Thyatira vers 24. To you I say and unto the rest in Thyatira as many as have not this Doctrine c. Here it is evident that when the Things concern others he advertiseth the Bishop to acquaint them with it and he changeth his manner of Speech that notice may be taken what was personal to him and what to others Thus you see with how much wit and with what shuffling the Intention of these Scriptures hath been diverted but to little purpose among such as Consider and weigh them CHAP. VIII SECT I. Concerning Ordination I Come now at the last to handle Ordination because I find many things discussed about that the Clearing of which will Conduce much to the opening my businesse in hand and then that being finished I shall review my Work and if there appear any thing unsatisfied I shall insert such Discourses as shall be usefull to remove those Scruples Mr. Hooker undertakes this where before Part 2. Chap. 2. pag. 38. and in the handling of it pag. 39. he proposeth these Questions Whether 1. Ordination be before Election 2. Ordination gives all the Essentials to an Officer 3. What this Ordination is and wherein lies the full breadth and bounds of the being thereof 4. In whom the right of dispensing it lyes and by whom it may be dispensed I have put down his very words and do intend God willing to handle all these Questions but because he seems to me to follow an unjust method I shall begin with his Third Question To shew what that Ordination is of which we dispute for till that be Cleared we dispute de non Concessis as he doth in this Discourse I will first examine his Definition because I will not multiply unnecessary Contentions He defines it thus SECT II. His Definition of Ordination confuted ORdination is an Approbation of the Officer and Solemn setling and Confirmation of him in his Office by Prayer and laying on of hands In this Definition that which I can blame is first that which he makes the Genus to wit an Approbation of the Officer This is a prevenient Circumstance not an Essential part Constituting Ordination First men are Approved then Ordained and although he calls it a Description not a Definition which phrase abides a larger sense than Definition doth yet even there this Term is faulty for it must be a Description of Ordination of which this is no part no more than many other Circumstances belonging to it Again where he saith it is a Setling and Confirming him in his Office If by Office he Conceive a particular Congregation as by his whole discourse he seems to do then that is not large enough to contain that Act which it is directed to for men may yea must be Ordained before they are setled in particular Congregations So that as his Genus Approbation on precedes Ordination so setling thus in his Office is Consequent to it last of all the whole Description is too wide for the Thing described He takes setling in his Office in that sense I have shewed for it agrees to the Mission of Barnabas and Saul Acts 13. 2 3. who were ordained before as will appear after and is yielded elsewhere by him This Description of his is page 75. where before SECT III. My Definition set down and explained HIS Definition being thus briefly perused now take mine Ordination is an Act by which some Man is Constituted in some Ecclesiastick Order of Divine Institution This I conceive to be a Logical Definition for Definitions should be as short as may be so they be full and explain the nature of the Thing defined The Genus is an Act in General which agrees to it and diverse others The Object of this Act is a Man the Immediate Effect and End it Aims at is the Constitution of an Ecclesiastical Order the Explication of which will be the Chief businesse to understand the whole Definition Order is the disposition of things either accorâ—ing to their place or time For time as yesterday to day Order disposeth when it should be done or in place before behind at the right hand or the left above below Now because there are many degrees in Church Affairs where one is above or below another therefore when any man is put into any degree of these this is called a Church Order that which hath no degrees but is where it was is the lay sort of men These are as we speak in Logick of Individuums they are not in serie praedicamentali Now therefore it is said Ecclesiastical Order because there are Orders which are not Ecclesiacal as Kings Judges c. where there is a sub supra in the Common-wealth but belong not to our businesse Again because there are many Ecclesiastick
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
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
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
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-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
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
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
seated in the Apostles and none else from those words As my Father sent me so send I you and therefore they had power to settle Offices for the Church as they pleased and there is no Office which had not its foundation from them so that although this question be often handled under these Terms whether Bishops be a distinct Order Jure Divino yet they that hold it Affirmatively must defend it with this phrase Apostolico Divino Apostolical by such a Divine Right not as if Christ immediately instituted it for he instituted none but the Apostles as we read of for the whole World but by such a Divine Right as Christ gave his Apostles power to Institute and they did institute Thirdly Let us Conceive that although perhaps there can be found no Law or Decree by either one or more Apostles which shall in expresse Terms say that by the Authority given us we do erect and institute such an Office for such Registers as I have said we have not yet when it shall appear to be the Apostles practice to ordain such Officers so qualified we may be Confident it was not without Authority for men of such Exemplar obedience and humility even to death would not in their practice act without Law and Authority Fourthly That where any place of Scripture that directs our Practice shall abide a double Interpretation because Quisque abundat sensu suo there the doctrine and practice of such men who were Apostolical conversed and lived with those Apostles themselves must needs be the best Glosse upon such a Text because as it is reasonable to think that they should best understand the Apostles meaning for when Laws are newly made their sense likewise how they should be understood is fresh in mens apprehension but Laws antiquated or grown old must be intrusted to the letter so likewise it is most reasonable to think that they could not write or do amisse in these publike Acts or Writings without Controll and therefore certainly it must needs be the best Comment when the Text abides a doubtful Interpretation to shew that the Apostles disciples which Conversed with them did so understand them Fifthly That the preheminence that I place in a Bishop over a Presbyter consists in these two things The power of giving these Orders which a bare Presbyter hath not and secondly The power of Jurisdiction over such as are only Presbyters of the lower rank These Truths being granted as they must without impudence I addresse my self to the Question wherein I can Complain for lack of mine Adversaries books for such as write for the Opinion I professe I care for none the Scriptures and Antient Fathers which I have by me serve my turn but I have their Hooker and I shall I think in reâ—utation of his Arguments discusse most of that matter which is necessary to this Question if I find any thing unhandled which is necessary to this Question I shall treat of it afterwards SECT V. Mr. Hooker undertaken in this Controversie FOR their Hooker he undertakes this Controversie Part 2. Chap. 1. pag. 22. in which he wastes that Page and the 23d upon a bitter invective distinction of a three-fold Bishop Divine Humane and Sathanical and his description of them which I let alone as impertinent â—roth and Fury of a man that is angry not charitable and as one inquisitive after truth disputing but Page 24. he comes to some sober dispute and to bring reasons against this Vsurped Order as he calls it which I undertake at this present His â—irst reason is as he saith the expresse Testimony of Scripture than which nothing can be more pregnant Titus 1. 5. 7. he only Ciphers out the place I will put down the words For this cause left I thee in Creet that thou shouldest set in order the things which are wanting and Ordain Elders in every City as I had appointed thee then verse 7. For a Bishop c. Now saith he the Apostle having enjoyned his Scholar to Appoint Elders in every City and how they must be qualified he adds â—he reason of his Advice For a Bishop c. Where the Dispute of the Apostle shews not only the Community of the Name but likewise the Identity of the Thing signified thereby otherwise his Argument had not only been a false reason but false in form having four Terms but in truth had not reasoned at all for it had been ready to reply here is a Gap as if the Copy had been imperfect but may easily be made up thus a Bishop is another thing from Presbyter SECT VI. His expressions very unhandsome I Will examine this Discourse and see how partial his expressions are to trouble the Truth First he disparageth Titus with although a true yet a diminishing Term He calls him St. Pauls Scholar only St. Paul in the 4th verse calls him his Son yea his own Son after the Common Faith and the Postscript or Direction is to Titus ordained the first Bishop of the Cretians Secondly He diminisheth likewise that phrase which is of great force to this purpose that is the phrase to ordain Elders he saith to appoint Elders Thus when they Cipher Scripture for the most part Scripture is abused and the heedlesse Reader swallowes in a Misconstruction before he is aware thus having examined his misrepeating the Story in things of importance we will sift his Arguments SECT VII His Argument examined THE force of it is this that there a Bishop and Elder are one thing as well as name I grant it for this dispute but let us see what will result out of it no more but this that in the Apostolical Age this name of Bishop and Presbyter was used for one Office the name Apostle was that which was used for the Superiour Dignity which as I shewed before out of Theodoret when I treated of the Name Apostle that in their Time many were called Apostles which were none of the Twelve but afterwards to avoid Confusion and an Indistinction betwixt the Original Apostles and the Derivative for such as were made by men the Church used this name of Bishops and reserved the Name of Apostle to those men who were so Constituted by our Saviour and that one who was made by Election of Lott into Judas his place So we find diverse phrases not used to such purpose in the New Testament yet prevailed with the Succeeders of the Apostles in such a manner as they gained a Constant use among Ecclesiastical Writers such is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the Grecians and Sacerdos amongst the Latines words not used for any Order in the Church of Christ any where in the New Testament and yet amongst the Ancients are used for the whole Order of Priesthood as it includes Bishops and sometimes for Bishops alone but as they are the superiour Order in that sort of men and in the latter Age are solely appropriated by the use of Writers to that Order which the Scriptures and the
to Bishops they may to Presbyters Both the Proposition and the Deduction have been Confuted already Last of all he deduceth They who have the same Commission have the same power from Christ. But they all have the same Commission John 20. 21. Prout misâ—â— me Pater ego mitto vos I put the words as he doth in Latine it was said to all the Apostles Equally and to all their Successors indifferently I deny that the plenipotence spoken there was spoken to all that succeeded the Apostles in any part of their Oâ—fice there are diverse Things communicated to one which were not to another according to their very Doctrine only Bishops succeeded them in their fulnesse of power in Ruling and Giving Orders and therefore these are bold Conclusions which are only spoken not proved by him SECT XV. The Truth explained I Have done with his Arguments and now apply my self to seâ— down what I Conceive â—it to prove my Conclusion which is That there was such a Thing as Episcopacy setled by the Apostles in the Church If I had no other reason â—t might perswade men easily to credit it because that the Church in the old Law seems to be governed by such a Discipline where as I said out of St. Hierome there was Aaron the Priests and the Levites for although this Argument be not necessary yet because the Wisdom of God is not to be parallel'd in Polity so well as Nature it should be reasonable for men to think that where is no Ground for a Difference in this second Church under the New Testament from that former under the Old there God should not vary in the Discipline and I think no man can shew me a reason for such a Difference either that men are more united or that the Church doth require a lesse Union now than then which two as they are the heads from which we enforce Episcopacy in that matter of Government so they must be the heads from which any strong Argument of force must be deduced to shew the difference This being so it is fit for us to Conceive without strong reason against it that there is such a Conformity especially if to this be added the great uniformity and convenience that the Ancient Levitical Law had to our Ecclesiastical which might abundantly be shewed in other things without some Language expressing a difference in a dubious Case it were â—it we should adhere to Gods former practice But then again our Saviour in his life-time hatching a Church in Embrione He as I have shewed made two distinct Orders Apostles and the Seventy and these both Preaching Orders without there were some main reason to the Contrary we cannot easily subscribe to another Discipline nor surely would have quarrell'd at that but by reason of pride in themselves that they would be all Bishops like the Conspirators against Moses Numbers 16. who being men of Quality in Israel were not Content to be Princes in their Condition but would be Equal to the Supream So these men are not Content with their rank which is high and great in the Church of God unlesse they shall pluck down the highest of all and not be subordinate but supream in their Prelatical Principalities or else which is a spice of the same vice there is amongst them an Abhorring of Obedience which indeed is the Mother and Ground of all Virtue and although they would have all their Subjects obey them in an Insolent manner yet they would obey none other themselves and for a Countenance to this pridâ— and stubbornenesse study Scripture and wrest it to their purpose which how weak it is for them hath been shewed how strong against them I shall now urge SECT XVI My First Argument from Scripture to prove Episcopacy MY First Argument from Scripture shall be thus framed That Government which the Apostles did settle in their Government of Churches that is Apostolical But the Apostles did settle such an Episcopacy as I require Ergo such an Episcopacy is Apostolical My Major â— conceive not to be denyed for as I have shewed we ought not to seek for expresse Terms to shew that they made a Law in such peremptory Words That this or this we enact perpetually for the Government of all Churches this or the like is not to be found any where nor doth any Government pretend to it There is no Book unquestionable of their Canons extant but only Registers of their Acts and certain Epistles which set down what they did do and from that Assure us what we should do The first place I shall insist on will be that I formerly touched Tit. 1. 5. For this Cause left I thee in Creet that thou shouldest set in Order the Things that are wanting and Ordain Elders in evâ—ry City as I have appointed thee This Text I have handled before and have shewed that in more expâ—esse Terms St. Paul could not Authorize one man to that Office which we pretend to than he did here I have spoken likewisâ— of that Shift they have for it to say he was an Evangelist and by that Authority did Act these things to which I think may be irresistably objected that it can no where be shewed that he was an Evangelist and 2dly it can no wherâ— be shewed that an Evangelist had such an Autâ—ority belonging to his Offâ—ce and therefore that must needs be but a weak refuge to fly unto A Second Shift of some is That this Commission was giâ—â— to Titus but in Common with others as one of the Presbyters conjunctim not divisim joyned with them not severed 〈◊〉 them but by such Tricks men may cast off all Scripture but 〈◊〉 I would have them shew me where ever there was such a Commission given to a Presbytery which they can never do Secondly Let them Consider it would be as safe nay much safer for me to say that power given to the Presbytery must be by the Sole virtue of Association with the Supreame as they can when I shew a Commission given to one Man say it is meant of him in the Company of others and the more agreeing to sense because when this Commission is granted it implyes at the least that he must be of the Quorum which to none others could be enforced And again when we read such a Precept given to any man it must be understood that he must have power to execute that Authority which certainly if he could only Act in Commission with others he could not because suppose St. Paul Chargeth him to Ordain Elders in every City such and so qualified he might answer in many Cases the others will not joyn Suppose he should stop the mouths of Deceivers It is likely the great deceivers would be amongst the Presbytery themselves he can do nothing without their Consent which is nothing of himself not he but they therefore must have the Charge given them for he is not by these men capable of performing it and as for their Charge it
tottering foundation Then he proceeds which is most pertinent to his intent to shew what is meant by Prophesy and concludes pag. 57. that Prophesy is taken here for a dictate of the Spirit to the Apostle to ordain Timothy I will not oppose this as not prejudicial to this cause Then he comes to his 3d. Term Eldership or Presbytery which he saith notes not the Office but Officers I will yield it although unconstrained to it Then he sayes that this Imposition of hands added not to the Constitution of Timothy his Office gave not essentials thereunto but only a solemn Approbation I will yield it but not his reasons that which was saith he beyond the power of the Presbytery that they could not communicate but to give the Essentials to Timothies place was beyond the power and place of the Presbytery where can he read that He proves it because his Office was extraordinary and theirs Ordinary by this Office extraordinary he intends an Evangelist I suppose which he cannot prove to be an Extraordinary Office Much inconstancy is in this Discourse just now he brought this Instance to prove that an Evangelist might be called by the mediation of Men now he is above their reach and then his second reason confounds this For he saith he hath proved that an Office was not meant by this but by Gift was meant an Ability to do it A strange uncouth way of Argument He concludes pag. 58. the outward gifting and fitting an Officer to his place especially extraordinary as beyond the power and place of a Presbytery But the first is here This is most fearfull incongruous stuff to abuse Readers with Who can but guesse by his unusual language there is something in it but he cannot tell what Who can tell what that is which he calls the outward gifting and sitting an Officer for his Call I thought this Gift here spoken of had been an Inward as he calls it elsewhere a gracious endowment of the soul which enabled him to serve God in his Bishoprick which Gift was bestowed upon him as St. Paul describes not an outward thing nor can any man imagine what that outward thing should be Then he draws this Conclusion that the sense of the place is Despise not those gracious Qualifications which God by his Spirit in the Extraordinary way of Prophesy hath furnished and betrusted thee withall the laying on of the hands of the Eldership by way of Consent and approbation concurring therewith to thy farther Incouragement and Confirmation in this work Now suppose all this were true will this prove that the scope of Ordination by Gods appointment is not to give the Essentials of an Officers Call which was his antecedeâ—t to be Confirmed from this Text there is no manner of Coherence betwixt these two Propositions suppose this were not an Ordination of Timothy to an Office yet doth this prove that the word of St. Paul 2 Tim. 1. 6. By the laying on of my hands mark the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I before observed and indeed he now observes out of Didoclavius although I wonder what use they can make of it against us though perhaps it may be of force against Mr. Rutherfords Presbyterian Ordination I say all this doth not prove that Timothy was not ordained by St. Pauls laying on of his hands or if it did doth it prove that Timothy was not ordained at all because we do not read of it Or that he could not ordain without a Prae-election of some Congregation to a Cure when he is Commanded 1 Tim. 5. 22. not to lay hands suddenly on any These things are all silently passed over and the inference from the Tedious vaunting Discourse can be nothing to this purpose whosoever will read it â—t large with these notes must needs loath it as unreasonable His Inferences pag. 59. are without all relation to the former Discourse Hence it is plain saith he that Ordination therefore prae-supposeth an Officer Constituted doth not Constitute The rest are like this in which there is no manner of Dependance betwixt the Antecedent and the Consequent So that I cannot imagine that a man of so fine words could have so little reason but that these things were fragments found in his Study and crowded into this place SECT XIII His Third Argument answered HIS third Argument is That action which is Common to persons and performances or imployments and applyed to them when there is no Office at all given that Action cannot properly be called a Specificating Act to make an Officer or give him a Call But the Act of Imposition of handâ— is applyed to persons and performances as special Occasion is offered when there is no Office given nor intended therefore it is not an Act which gives in the Essentials to an Officer Consider in this Argument how it never enforceth the Conclusion which he is to prove His Conclusion is this Ordination aâ— preceding the Election of the people doth not give Essentials to the Call of a Minister Now instead of Ordination he brings in only an outward Ceremony which is Imposition of hands as if a man disputing of the efficacy of the Lords Supper should say other men may take bread and breâ—k it which do not Communicate for such and such only is the force of his Argument Imposition of handâ— is used in such Acts where Orders are not given therefore the Essentials are not given by the Imposition of hands To understand this therefore Conceive That Imposition of hands may be and hath been used in Apostolical Times for other purposes than this for Confirmation and in that instance he gives Acts 13. 1 2 3. It was a Confirmâ—tion of that Mission of Paul and Barnabas Now although Imposition of hands be sometimes taken for that most holy Rite which we call Confirmation as Acts 8. 17. and sometimes for this holy Mystery of giving Oâ—ders as we have had it oft repeated in this Discourse or some expression of a designment to a particular Duty as in this place Acts 13. yet we find the Adjacent Cirumstances easily â—ixing a Mans understanding upon which particular he should look and breaking of bread is an Action common to diverse Occasions yet is sometimes used in Scripture for the Communion so likewise Imposition of hands which is used in other duties is sometimes particularly proposed to signifie Ordination although it be used in other Religious Duties and be but a Ceremony of this yet it is a Ceremony used by the Apostles and pointed out by St. Paul Lay not hands negligently on any man to Timothy as before and therefore Argues a Spirit of Opposition in the Church of Scotland which as Hooker saith reject this Ceremony and use it not in Ordination Well there is no force in this Argument to prove his Conclusion but only that Imposition of hands is a Ceremony Common to other Duties which I grant and passe to his next SECT XIV His Fourth Argument answered HIS Fourth
than where they have some manner of residence hath therefore restrained the execution of it in other places than where they have that residence both to avoid Confusion which otherwise must necessarily arise out of the Intermedling in other mens precincts and likewise because the main scope of their endeavours may be applyed to that place in a near Obligation every one being for the most part worthy of the Incumbents utmost labour And this they did by the Apostles own example who appointed Timothy Titus Epaphroditus their several Diocesse yet we must further Conceiâ—e that this Alotment of the Church is not such as doth lay any restraint upon the power given by the Spiris but directs it only for although a Particular man may offend by intruding into another mans Pastoral precincts and Officiating there yet factum valet so that if a Bishop give Orders in another mans Diocesse as was the famous Case of Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus in St. Chrysostoms Diccesse at Constantinople or a Presbyter Administer the Communion in anothers Parish which is the common practice these things although done without leave from the peculiar Pastor are valid to the receivers although punishable in the Actors Yea yet once again although a man be placed in a Pastoral Charge and shall either find upon his own certain experience or the Judgement of his Superiours that he can advance the Glory of God or improve his own Commission by removing to another place either for a time as Timothy and Titus and the rest beneficed in particular places were yet upon urgencies of the publick good called aside from the more particular Charge to the more publick where they were employed or else if their whole residence may more advance the general Good of the whole Flock over which they are made Overseers they ought to remove totally to that great Occasion So when a man of great Abilities shall be beneficed in a private Corner where perhaps lesse Abilities would as well if not better agree it becomes him to be removed to a place better befitting his Qualifications or a man indowed with the strength of rational Divinity such a man to be sent to the propagating the Gospel in the Indies among the Heathen and he ought to endeavour to put himself into such an employment because he is a Pastor of the whole flock for which Christ dyed So that now I think it appears manifestly that an Apostle and another Pastor differ not in this that one was an Universal Pastor and the other a Particular but contrarywise they are both habitually or Potentià Pastors of the whole Word actually pastorizing in some particular only This caused all those admonitions from one Bishop to another of which the Fathers are full This made sometimes Contentions because it was the Duty of every man that was a Pastor to take care of the whole flock he is Pastor over and therefore to endeavour their good So that here you see his Argument fully answered by a flat denial of his Minor he is not a Pastor without a Flock nor an Officer sine Titulo he hath Title to the whole Catholick Church he is Pastor at large He hath a long Dispute with Mr. Rutherford about Preaching and Administring the Communion out of his own Congregation and the Communication of Sister Churches which touch me not yet I will give the Reader a Note that whereas before he made Preaching almost the whole Act of a Presbyter he now seemes to make it no proper duty of a Pastor pag. 63 64. But I let these things passe as not pertinent and apply my self to his fifth and last Argument pag. 67. which is SECT XV. His Fifth Argument answered IF Ordination gives Essentials to a Pastor before Election then by that alone he hath Pastoral power Against which he disputes thus He that hath Compleat power of an Office and stands an Officer without Exception he cannot be hindred Justly from doing all Acts of that Office but this is the Condition of a Pastor Ordained without the Election of the people he may according to rule be justly hindred from Executing any Act of a Pastor I could quarrel were I pinched with this Argument with almost every word as first the changing of the Terms of that Proposition he was to prove In the Proposition he was to prove the Terms were give the Essentials of a Pastor now they are a Compleat power and an Officer without Exception Many things are essentially right which lack Completion and are not without Exception Then again where it was in his first Proposition A Pastor before Election here is added in his second Election of the people But I insist upon this upon which the Ground of his Argument is founded That an Ordained Officer may according to rule be hindred from executing any part of his Office as he enforceth Suppose all Congregations full To which I answer Ordination doth not give the Act but the Jus or right to execute and a man may have the Essentials when these do not work Mark Mr. Hooker was a Pastor when asleep and had the Essentials of it but not the Operation Essentials do work their proper work omnibus positis ad agendum requisitis The fire it self although it have the Essentials of sire cannot burn things too remote or such Things which are not combustible the reason is that those things which are requisite to burning as fit distance disposure of the matter are not rightly disposed I may say the same of the Eye Place the Object too near too far in the dark it cannot see the requisites to sight are not sittingly disposed although the Eye have all the Essentials belonging to sight So I may â—ay of a man Ordained If there be not a place not any piece of the flock of Christ which hath need of him or having need he knoweth not of their need or knowing their need cannot by distance or some such moral Impediment come to supply then need the Circumstances required to his Operations are so taken away that he cannot do the Duties in Act which he hath power to do St. Paul himself could not officiate any where where others of Authority were labouring yet he had Authority and was ordained by God but saith he if all places are full he may according to rule be hindred from executing any part of Pastoral Office I would fain know by what rule the Apostles were Authorized by Christ to preach to all Nations and so are all Pastors by Ordination they have Authority over the world but are restrained by Ecclesiastical Law founded upon the Law of Nature which forbids any thing to go into a full place which with another Law saith Deus Natura nihil faciunt frustra And again non sunt multiplicandae Entia sine necessitate so that when one looks to this part then the other should not intermeddle without the first give way to him yet he hath the power and can do the work of
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
times only Councels can be Congregated and in other times as things necessary by Divine right must always be kept close unto so what is only humane may be spared it is not possible for humane power to add any thing of absolute necessity to Divine justice which cannot be altered now of this Nature in this Ceremony of the Gospel as is most apparent For first the Pontifical varyes extreamly much in this very point from the Councel of Carthage not only in adding to it that the Book must be open which is not expresed in Carthage but by Changing those few Circumstances which are particularized there as first where it is said in Carthage that two Bishops shall lay on the Gospel the Pontiâ—ical saith that it must be done by the Consecrator and the assisting Bishop Antonius is peremptory out of Hostiensis that it must be done by three in the third part of his sums Tit. 14. Cap. 16. Sect. 9. towards the end of that Section secondly where the Councel saith that the Book shall be put upon the head and the neck of the Consecrated Bishop The Pontiâ—ical saith super scapulam cervicem upon the shoulders and the neck thirdly whereas the Councel saith uno fundente benedictionem one pouring out the blessing they make them altogether to give it in these words Receive the Holy Ghost Antonius where before is peremptory that three must do it thus you see how in the Doctrine of the Church of Rome the Compiler of that Book is prefer'd before that ever to to be honoured Councel consisting of above two hundred Bishops amongst which were many most eminent men and indeed the Popes legates likewise although they could only keep up his pretensions to it not prevail for his universal superiority besides this I observe in the Ceremoniale Romanum put out by Pope Leo the tenth and licensed by him in the second Sect. litera Charta as the Printer calls it or as we fol. 11. the Ordinator and the rest put the Book only upon the neck of the Elect Pope when he is made Bishop so that here in these Records of the Church of Rome besides these other practices of Chaplaines or â—eacons before mentioned we find a great liberty taken in varying from the Councel of Carthage and amongst themselves the Councel appointing the Book to be put upon the head and neck the Pontifical upon the shoulders and the neck the Ceremonial names only the neck which evidently makes it appear that this Clause hath been looked upon only as an humane ordinance subject to Change and alteration but the other of imposition of Hands as Divine which no humane power could abrogate or alter Give me leave since I am in the canvasing of the Canon to make one observation for the further illustration of a Conclusion before treated of that is the Phrase uno fundente benedictionem the blessing is given by one when the Pontifical makes it to be given at the same time by many and so divers Doctors in the Church of Rome which certainly may be very confused one begining sooner and so ending but to avoid that the Ceremonial before cited saith that the Consecrator with the rest of the Bishops saith Accipe Spiritum Sanctum receive the Holy Ghost but he adds the Consecrator alte the rest submisse he with a loud voice the rest with a soft and now consider that one is called the Consecrator as surely he must be and the rest do but come into his assistance to lay on their Hands in token of the assurance of it and therefore they speak lowly and humbly he that is the Consecrator doth Consecrate the rest come in as assistants and to this purpose they speak lowly and submissly and to this purpose Vasques after a long discourse about this Question concludes Disp. 240. Number 65. that it is enough that one speaks the words and lays on his Hands likewise where we may observe by him that the Consecrators words are that they call the form of Consecration we may say conveigh the Consecrating virtue this being received in all Christian Churches but the other unconstant amongst themselves Another Argument may be objected against us of the Church of England who use a giving of the Bible to the Bishop who is to be Ordained in our Consecration SECT IV. An Objection against our practice answered and the force of the Argument satisfied IT is true and it is according to the first Ceremony used in the Pontisical where it is said that the Consecrating Bishop takes the Book from the shoulders of the Consecrated and with the other assisting Bishops gives it shut to the Consecrated with these words Accipe Evangelium receive the Gospel we use this and with it a godly exhortation to the Bishop but it is after his Consecration for that is perfected in the first Act Receive the Holy Ghost for the office of a Bishop in the Churches of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our Hands In the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost this only is essentially the Consecration and if the Arch-bishop should be struck dead immediately after the pronouncing these words the Consecrated Bishop should receive no other Consecration we use likewise an examination before the Consecration according to the first Canon in the fourth Councel of Carthage although not punctually the same yet virtually containing all substantial matter in it that reflected principally upon those Heresies which afflicted that Church at that time our examination as it included these so it particularizeth upon such as more neerly concerned the disturbance of our own but neither that proceeding nor this subsequent exhortation are essentially necessary ad esse to the Being of a Bishop but conduce to the gravity and decency of the Administration of so high a duty as likewise for a memorial to every Bishop to put him in mind of the bene esse the well and good execution of his Order which is a most excellent office and being no where forbid but indeed in many places of the New Testament taught yea commanded no man can think but that at such a Holy time as his Consecration it is seasonable to put the Bishop to be Consecrated in mind of such performances which the Holy Ghost requires of him this is all I hope is needful for the satisfaction of that Argument drawn from the Consecration of Pope Pelagius the first who was Consecrated by the imposition of Hands from two Bishops and one Presbyter first it is evident thâ—t one particular act cannot satisfie a Right to do that again which hath been done once because there is no rule or law against which no man ever trespassed Secondly that the Errors committed in elections and Consecrations of Popes are no Presidents because they have too often much transgressed in that kind Thirdly that Consecration in necessary occasions when more cannot be had may be by two or one only Bishop and yet be essentially good Fourthly
the Character left in Baptism is and the Definition of it 205. In what Predicament this Charaâ—â—er is 207. The Foundation of this Character is the Will of God 213. 218. Durandus holds this Character to be Ens Rationis 215. Is opposed by all the Schoolmen but their Arguments do not confute him ibid. The Subject of this Character is the whole man 221. THE TABLE OF THE Appendix A The Apostles were Bishops prov'd 233. The first of the Apostolical Canons examined 249. The anointing the Bishops hand no necessary essential to his Constituion 258. Sect. 6. Athanasius's testimony that meer Presbyteers could not Ordain even in Alexandria 27â— The Council of Antioch Schismatical and Illegal 274. B Bishops have ever been in the Church 231. Whether three Bishops be necessary to the Consecration of a Bishop 246. Sect. 1. Ans. Reg. The Consecration of St. James Bishop of Jerusalem objected and answered 248. What is essential to Constitute a Bishop 263. 264. Baptism not void by different circumstances in the Celebration of it P. 256. Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch's interpretation of the Canon of that Council approved 274 277. Bellarmine too hardly dealt withall by Dr. Forbes 278. Not confuted by him 279 280. St. Basil's Opinion of the Chori-Episcopi 286. C The Church Universal never was nor can be without a Bishop 231. The Church of Ephesus not governed by meer Elders but Bishops 233. The Church was without Elders till the Apostles Ordained them 232. Christianity may be continued but Church-communion and Ordinances cannot without Bishops 235. The Consecration of St. James Bishop of Jerusalem discussed 247. Three Bishops are not by Divine Right necessary to a Bishops Consecration 246. The Canon called the Apostles Canon about the Consecration of Bishops examined 249. The Canon of the Council of Nice examined 250 251. And proved to concern the Election not the Consecration of Bishops ibid. The second Canon of the Council of Carthage concerning the Consecration of Bishops 259. The Catholike Church does concentre in this conclusion that when words importing the Blessing are delivered by a Consecrating Bishop and those words are sealed by an imposition of Hands then those Holy Orders are effectually given 265. in the begin No Church in the Christian world ever gave simple Presbyters power to Ordain 270. The Chori-Episcopi have not power to Ordain proved 274. Unless they be Suffragans 279. 282. Cresperius's reading of the Canon of Antioch alledged for the Chori-Episcopi viz. not praeter but propter Conscientiam Episcopi 278. Chori-Episcopi were but Presbyters because Ordained by one Bishop alone 282. S. 7. ☞ Two sorts of Chori-Episcopi P. 283. What they were 284. D Dr. Forbes's arguments answered from P. 232 to 284. Deacons not necessary in every Parochial Church 240. Difference in the Form or words does not disanull a Sacrament 256. The distinction of Orders is known by the manner of the laying on of Hands and the form of words as in our Church used in the pronunciation of the Blessing 265. Sect. 2. Damasus his reading upon the Canon of Antioch 276. vid. 279. Which doth sufficiently answer Dr. Forbes his Arguments against all Chori-Episcopi having power of Ordination answered 281. His second Argument answered 282. Decrees of divers Councils examined 284 285. E The Church of Ephesus not Governed by meer Elders but Bishops 233. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated Eligi to be Elected or chosen 251. lin 13 Elders were not in the Church till the Apostles Ordained them 232 What is essential to the Constitution of a Bishop 254. Explicatory additions do not destroy the notion of that which they explain 257. in the end The only essential ceremony if any be in the Consecration of Bishops is the laying on of Hands 264. The essence of Ordination cheifly consists in the pronouncing the Blessing with the notes of distinction of the Orders then conferred 265. vid. 268. S. 4. The Errors committed in the Inauguration of Popes no President for reformed Churches in the Consecration â—f Bishops 269. The Church of England's Rites of Consecration defended Sect. 4. 268. F Dr. Forbes's first Argument from Scripture answered 232. His first Argument to prove their Ordination after Bishops were instituted answered 235. His Argument taken out of Johannes Major answered from 235. to 238. His Argument from the Church of Rome answered 239. His Argument from Deacons answered 240. His Argument from Scripture answered ibid. His Argument out of St. Hierome answered 242. His Argument from Pelagius's Ordination answered 244. 245. His Argument from St. Ambrose and St. Augustine answered 271. His Argument from the council of Antioch 274. to 284. G Gasper Hurtado's opinion about the Consecration of Bishops examined 261. ☞ The Gospel laid upon the Bishops Neck not essential to his Consecration because there were Bishops befoâ—e the Gospel was written 260. vid. 266. to 268. Gentianus Hervetus his reading of the Canon of Antioch 277. the begin H Henricus Henriques opinion that some papers wherein the Gospel was written might be given to the primitive Bishops in their Consecrations is found invalid 261. I Imposition of Hands the only necessary and essential ceremony if any be to the Consecration of Bishops 264. Inauguration of Popes no President for the Consecration of reformed Bishops P. 243. vid. 269. Imposition of the Hands of Presbyters alone is not sufficient for â—rdination 270. Ischyras was no Priest because Ordained by no Bishop 272. the begin Isidore Hispalensis his reading of the Canon of Antioch makes nothing for Dr. Forbes 277. L The laying on of Hands only essentially necessary to the constitution of a Bishop 264. Linus and Clemens were Chori-Episcopi to St. Peter 284 about the midst Laodicean Canon forbids the Chori-Episcopi to act any thing without the leave of their Diocesan 285. M The manner of the imposition of Hands distinguisheth what Orders are conferr'd 265. S. a. Moderation to be used towards every opponent though never so much mistaken 278. S. 4. N Necessity only can justify the Ordination of Presbyters 270. No Church ever gave meer Presbyters power to Ordain ib. The Canon of Nice examined 250 251. The Eighth Canon of the Council of Nice 285. O Objections against the Authors opinion concerning the Consecration of Bishops answered 265. The first Objection answered ib. Objection from the Council of Carthage answered from 266. to 268. Objection against the Church of Englands Rites of Consecration answered 268. objection taken from the Council of Antioch answered From 272 to 274. P Panormitan's Argument answered 234 Presbyters may Elect not Ordain a Bishop 242. Pelagiu ' s Ordination related Sect. 1. P. 243. The Patriarch of Antioch his interpretation of the Canon of the Council of Nice 250. c. The Pope cannot dispence with Divine Laws 253. Petrus Arcadius's discourse illustrated and applied Sect. 2. 255 c. The Pontifical differs in many things from the Canon of the Carthaginian Council in the rites of Consecration 267. Presbyters alone could