portion which they superintended but rebounding back often where they had been before and diverting as Occasions offered themselves into other Precincts this they did and might do by that vast Authority was given them Go preach to all Nations and by that power Equalling their Authority which was Conferred at the Pentecost but it was not with other men that universal Authority would not besit the meaner powers of those who were to succeed and to follow them and therefore we will in the next place Consider in what proportions they Communicated these Authorities to others SECT II. How the Apostolical Power was Communicated THE virtue of which Communication we enjoy at this day some for place some for Authority some in part some in the Lump For the first we shall for place Consider that their Successors were confined in place Titus in Creet Timothy in Ephesus Epaphroditus in Philippi not that they were Confined or pegg'd here immovably So is no Bishop in his Diocesse no not quoad Officium as if his holy Duties which he performed out of his Diocesse were invalid or of no force for without doubt if a Bishop baptize preach celebrate the Communion give Holy Orders secundùm materiam formam Canonically according to Matter and Form out of his Diocesse they are firm and good to the receivers although perhaps without leave or extreme necessity they are not Commendable Nay without doubt if either Bishop or Presbyter remove to other Diocesse or Parish he takes not a new Ordination but an acceptation or just Election to that place sufficeth Now his Confining to that place is to restrain the Ministring of his Office out of Duty there so that he is out of Duty to have a Care of that place and to look to that flock which is Committed to his Charge which is part not the whole as it was Committed to the Apostles and no doubt that which Dr. Field hath learnedly discoursed upon this subject in Ancient Times Bishops were the Pastors of their Diocesse solely Presbyters their Assistants and Associates as the Apostles with that almost immense power were made Bishops of the World yet being men with Confined bodyes were forced to use Deputyes and the help of other men in their Charge even whilst they lived and certainly the Church was better Governed by that Subordination than if every one who hath not Apostolical Integrity should assume Apostolical Authority so it was by these they had great Diocesses committed by the Apostles and as I shall shew anon they had many Inferiors Assisting them but these were their places over which they were made Overseers and they had not Authority of Jurisdiction over others Thus I could set down how almost all the World was divided in the Apostolical Age but I let this alone SECT III. How the Apostolical Power was divided to Particulars and concerning the Office of Deacons NExt we will Consider how the very Office of the Apostleship was divided And the first thing that comes into our Consideration to begin at the foot and climb upward will be the Office of Deacon in handling which I find some matter of Dispute First about the Institution of him when this Function was first erected There is a general Claim to Acts 6. the Story may thus be observed In the Infancy of the Church when it pleased God by the preaching of the Word to encrease the Church beyond the expectation of men or lesse power than Apostolical there were many poor among the Disciples but the piety of the Christians was such as you may read Acts 4. 5. in ver 34. of the 4th Chapter there was no lack for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them and brought the price and cast it at the Apostles feet and Barnabas is presently particularly instanced in but in the 5th Chapter we read the fearfull Story of Ananias and Sapphira who would seem righteous to do as the fashion of Godly men was but being hypocrites were punished for their hypocrisies Now these Sales bringing in great sums for the relief of the poor the Apostles as it seems were troubled with it and the Care to relieve the poor took them off from attendance upon that mighty work of planting the Gospel this was the rather awakened by a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrâ—ws that is either such Grecians as were made Proselytes or else such Hebrews as lived and perhaps were born amongst the Greeks for as yet the Apostles had no Communication with the Gentiles now these Grecian Jews murmured because it seems the Apostles as I can guess had left the administration of this Charity to some who had dealt partially for I am confident they themselves would not wherefore they Convented the Disciples together and bid them with all Care who must needs know the Integrity of mens conversations better than the Apostles who could not search hearts select some men fit for such a purpose and appointed the Number of Seven the Disciples did accordingly and they chose Stephen and Philip c. as you may read in the 5. vers of the 6. Chap. and set them before the Apostles when the Apostles had prayed they laid their hands upon them no doubt rectifying their Choice and Authorizing them to the work Thus we see these men receiving Title to execute this Office SECT IV. Reasons why the Office of a Deacon was not Instituted Acts 6. BUT for my part salvo semper meliori judicio I cannot conceive how this should prove that Ministerial Office of a Deacon which was afterwards used in the Church from this place for these reasons First because this was an Occasional Office necessary for that Time in which there being many poor which lived under the correction and rod and persecution of the politick Magistrate no legal Course could be taken for the relief of them but such as came by Charity out of the bowels of their own Fraternity to wit from Christians who might be perswaded not compelled to that Duty and by reason of this there was a necessity to have some Officers chosen Overseers of the Poor which by a Religious Tie where could be no legal should be bound to the Execution of this Duty for which they instituted this Office but why these should be called Deacons that Ministerial Office used in the Church I see neither Authority nor Ground in the Scripture for it That they should not be annual Officers as our Overseers of the poor I can see no reason or why in a setled Commonwealth where the politick Lawes provide for the poor and Law makes such Charity a Duty to the Commonwealth there is no Ground It is true in the Times of persecution these things are necessary as there is often mention both in St. Pauls Epistles and the Ecclesiastical Story and Julian the Apostate himself in an Epistle to Arsalius the Heathen Pontifex or Chief Priest of Galatia The wicked Galileans saith he under which name he vented
most ancient term Presbyter inferiour to the Supreaâ— called by the Scripture Apostles and to their Successors called Bishops among the Ancients therefore in the reading of Authors not the Institutions only but the usus loquendi is to be Considered in words Cambden in his Remains hath a long Discourse like a Lexicon where we may see to how various Senses in our English Language the same words have arrived by Tract of Time losing their old and gaining a new Sense especially in Offices so hath it happened with the words Bishop and Presbyter they were most frequently in Scripture taken for one and the same thing but the word Apostle or Angel I can never find given to the Inferiour Sort of Presbyters But now this word Apostle is appropriated in the Language of Divines to the Twelve and St. Paul only the word Bishop to the Superiour Sort the word Priest or Presbyter to the Inferiour Sort of Presbyters I shall leave therefore to discourse of the Names and come to examine the Text concerning the Thing whether there be in this Text a Parity of Ministers prescribed SECT VIII The First Argument for a Parity answered FOR this Parity he urgeth nothing but the Attributing these two names which we use in a distinct Sense to one and the same thing which proves no parity of Office but only the use of these words in those dayes But I will go further and prove this Office we call Bishop distinct from the Presbyter out of that very Text St. Paul saith I have left thee in Creet to do these two things that thou shouldest set in order the Things that are wanting and ordain Elders in every City Mark here St. Paul had been in Creet himself he had layd the foundation of the Gospel he being to go further into the World leaves Titus to build upon his Foundation and he leaves him to do two things that he should set in Order or Correct or supercorrect those things which were not perfected by himself here is Episcopacy in one piece he had Authority to correct to set in order things that were out of Order to Correct what was amisse then secondly to Ordain Elders in every City not to appoint only but to ordain authoritatively to sâ—ttle them I do not know how a Bishop could more exactly be described in so few words and I wonder much why these men should produce this Text which without a mind much prejudicated with another Opinion cannot be wrested to any other sense Hooker takes no notice of this but some others say That Titus was an Evangelist Their Exception that Titus was an Evangelist answered THey say so but do they produce one word out of Scripture or Antiquity for it they might say he was an Apostle as well and with much more semblance and I think he was of the Inferiour rank but then can they tell me what an Evangelist was This is a shrewd Question Those four that writ the Gospels are only known by that name amongst Ecclesiastical Writers so that if a man should say the â—vangelist saith so we would Conclude one of them Philip is indeed called an Evangelist Acts 21. but no man else in the New Testament it may be because he was an excellent and powerfull Preacher Beza with those who affect new Opinions makes an Evangelist to be one who was an Associate and Companion to the Apostles in their travell but there is nothing in Scripture or Antiquity to give light to that Conclusion I am sure St. Chrysostome Theophylact c. are against it in expresse Terms upon the 4th to the Ephes. St. Ambrose makes him a Deacon to the Apostles which hath some shew of reason for it because Philip was an Evangelist This word Evangelist is but three Times used in Scripture Acts 21. 8. where Philip is called an Evangelist Ephes. 4. 11. where an Evangelist is reckoned amongst the Ecclesiastical Officers 2 Tâ—m 4. 5. where he is bid do the work of an Evangelist which could be nothing but industrious preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ or as some of the Ancients suffering for Christ because he is bid in the same verse immediately before these words to endure Affliction and in the words followâ—ng to make full proof of his Ministry but is there the least Colour that this Office should enable him to ordain Presbyters or Correct Misdemeanors or to regulate things that are amisse which Titus was Commissioned to do Again it is generally agreed amongst them that this Office of an Evangelist was a Temporary Office but these Duties of Correcting of Ordaining Elders must needs be perpetual in the Church and therefore could not Constitute the nature of that temporal Office Well then to dispell that cloud that would darken the light of this Text for Episcopacy by saying that Titus was an Evangelist there is no word in Scripture nor any Author in Antiquity of any reputation in the World which offers any thing towards that Opinion 2dly If they did yet they would be at as great a losse to shew me that the Office of an Evangelist was to do such things as Titus is here commanded to do 3dly If they could shew Evangelizing to Consist in the performance of such Duties yet we might justly then Conceive them to he Bishops such as we require and a Standing Office in the Church because these Duties are so and it is evident that Titus had Authority in both these kinds Therefore there were some men which had such Authority above others But let us go on with Hooker as he doth Confirm his Mistaken Opinion SECT IX Hookers Illustration from Acts 20. answered PAul saith he Acts 20. sends for the Elders of Ephesus and professeth in the 28th verse that Christ had made them Overseers or Bishops where not only the Name is Common but the Thing signified by that Name is enjoyned as their Duty He means to take heed to all the flock over which the holy Ghost had made them Bishops or Overseers here as before are left Gaps or Interruptions I will fill them as well as I can to make up his Sense thus What he implyes or requires in a Bishop that they that is these Presbyters were to do If he shall require to lay on hands to exercise Jurisdiction in foro externo that they must do and should they have been reproved for so doing they might have shewed their Commission thus farr he But I wonder where that Commission was given or read I can find no such Thing in that place but that they should take heed or have a care of their flock which they might execute according to that Authority was dispensed before by labouring in the Word diligent baptizing administring the Communion but to Convent or Summon their Flock or Censure them or give Orders and a like Authority to others of this there is no one word in particular To expresse my self Although many men reasonably have thought that St. Paul Convented both Bishops and
is no where given Upon these reasons I cannot see a possible Colour to avoid this Text but that Titus had such a Commission Episcopal as Episcopacy is taken with us SECT XVII A Second Argument to prove Episcopacy MY next place shall be out of 1 Tim. in which we may discern the same Commission as fully delivered as before concerning Ordination Chap. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man The Qualities of the persons upon whom he should lay on hands described Chap. 3. from vers 1 to 14. for this all may be said as was before in the Case of Titus Here is a Command and Direction to Ordain the Clergy Officers given to one man and therefore by the way of Episcopizing It was a strange unlucky violence to the Text which the Glosse of Beza gives Do not lay hands saith he upon any suddenly Quantum in te est as much as in thee lies for saith he This power was not in Timothy alone but an Election being made by the Consent of the whole Church The Priest a chief man in the name of the Presbytery by Imposition of hands did Consecrate him who was chosen to the Lord Is not this a strange abusing of the Word of God and forcing it to serve mens carnal designes St. Paul bids him not do it suddenly that supposes he could and should do it Beza saith he cannot do it not at all but is only the Mouth of the rest he hath no power to do any thing more than another but never shews any reason for what he saith but referres the Reader to Chapter 4th ver 14th where Timothy is said to receive the power by the Imposition of hands of the Presbytery of which I have spoken somewhat already and God willing shall more hereafter but what is all this to the purpose Timothy is Commanded therefore he could do it yea he is commanded not to do it suddenly therefore he could do it both wayes leasurely and suddenly and he himself in his Short Notes upon the same Text saith that the Command is Neminem Antistes leviter Ordinato Do thou Bishop for so Antistes is often used Do thou ordain none lightly but this Exposition hath no Colour for it nor could St. Paul properly speak more distinctly for it had not been according to the usual Language of men to say Do thou alone do this when a man is authorized to do any thing or Do it by thy sole power they are not Languages used nor do we use to bid a man do any thing which he cannot Act alone but bid him joyn with others in doing such others who are necessarily Co-operators with him in the Work he is to do SECT XVIII Episcopal Jurisdiction proved FOR his Jurisdiction I need not speak much all that Epistle is full of it only â— will touch upon one place which being me thinks of great Brightnesse in it self will serve likewise to give light to the rest and that shall be 1 Tim. 5. 19 20. Against an Elder receive not an Accusation but before or as the Margin under two or three Witnesses Vers. 20. Them that sâ—n rebuke before all that others also may fear From whence thus I discourse Timothy was capable of receiving Accusations against Presbyters or not receiving which is a great piece of Judicial Authority he was likewise Authoritatively to rebuke or correct Presbyters in such sort as if they were Sinners and Guilty of the Accusation laid to their Charge that others by their punishment might learn to avoyd their faults Do these things sound like fellow Presbyters without a Superiority of Jurisdiction Can one fellow Presbyter Censure another or he who is barely a Temporal Speaker or Mouth of the rest This seems to me as full as could be how his Authority was not like Presbyters only over their flock but like a Superiour Shepherd over Inferiours But here with some more Colour in the Case of Timothy they plead he was an Evangelist because 2 Tim. 4. 5. he is bid do the Work of an Evangelist and therefore by the prerogatives belonging to that Office he might do these works of Jurisdiction surely although he was bid do the work of an Evangelist yet that may â—e without being one ex officio An Evangelist is nothing but either a Writer or a Preacher of the Gospel so that do the work of an Evangelist is no more but preach the Gospel and I cannot â—â—nd one man among the Ancients that makes Timothy an Evangelist by Office but I do find St. Chrysostome upon Ephes. 4. peremptorily saying That both Timothy and â—itus were not Evangelists and I find no one man among the Ancients nay I may adde Beza himself or Calvin no one man making it a part of an Evangelists Office either to give Orders or the power of Jurisdiction But these later make them a Subservient Office to the Apostles and if we should allow that what more proper Service than that their name implies to preach the Gospel about with them as they travelled So that it seems to me that these Writers when they utter such Things being learned men some of them and reasonable cannot deceive themselves with those Shadowes but think to drive on their Design with the people who â—earing the name of an Evangelist and not knowing what it is imagine any thing of it what they please to insinuate which in this particular is that an Evangelist had some transcendent power over Presbyters both to ordain and govern them which was not Communicable to others but they never shew that any such Authority is assigned them or any such Duty exacted from them Well it appears that Timothy had Episcopal Jurisdiction as well as Titus and this name Evangelist given by them for this Occasion only is but a meer Illusion I shall here therefore for a while leave St. Pauls Epistles and go to St. John in the Revelation Chap. 1. vers 20. The seven Stars are the Angels of the Seven Churches SECT XIX The Revelation asserâ—ing Episcopacy HEre these Angels were such men as had Episcopal Jurisdiction appears most reasonably to any Indifferent Reader upon these Grounds First because this word Angâ—l as I have shewed hath in its own signiâ—ication genuinely the same sense with Apostle and therefore may well be fitted to the same Office and as that was never applyed to any under a Bishop so neither this as any man can shew me in the whole New Testament That it is a name likewise appropriated to Spirits sent about Apostolical Employments and endowed by God who sends them with Apostolical Authority So that then whether Angel be applyed to Spirits or men it will in both or either receive this Common sense to be understood That these persons whether Spirits or bodies have divine Authority to act those things they are employed about Now then thus the word being of such a sense and no where otherwise understood we may from hence think it most reasonable that this
from him At primum ex concessis Ergo I set down his words and all his words where hath he shewed that Presbyters elected their Bishop which yet may be true and the consequence most weak for after their Ordination by Bishops they may elect their Bishop but not ordain him Elections may be and are various according to humane Constitutions assigning this or that Pastor to this or that particular Congregation sometimes the Parish sometimes the Patron sometimes a Bishop but the Ordination and giving him power to Officiate must be only by the Bishops the Bishop ordains and makes a man a Presbyter a Bishop of the Catholick Church he may by humane Laws and his own consent be tyed to Officiate and execute that Pastoral duty in this particular place nor can any man shew me Authority from Scripture or the times near to the Scripture-Writers where any man was instituted and ordained to do these spirituall duties by any other Authority than Episcopal Nay I think since the Apostles Age no considerable Church or body of Men did conceive Election to be of validity to do these duties till now Well then all the premisses considered which have a full consent of Scripture and the practice of all Ages to confirm them conceive with me that it must be a bold and impudent thing of such men who dare Officiate in these divine duties without Authority granted from Christ which he only gave to the Apostles and they to their Successors Bishops and it is a foolish rashness in those men who adventure to receive the Covenants of their eternall Salvation from such men who have no Atturnment from Christ to Seal them If the Case were dubious which to me seems as clear as such a practick matter can be I should speak more but it being clear I need write no more in this Theam I intended to have spoken to Mr. Hobs but lately there came to my hands a Book of learned Dr. Hammond entituled A Letter of Resolution to six Queries in the fifth of which which is about Imposition of hands you may find him most justly censured for that vain and un-scholastick Opinion pag. 384. But the business is handled sufficiently in the beginning of that Treatise pag. 318. wherefore my pains were vain in this Cause An APPENDIX c. CHAP. I. In which is an Introduction to the Discourse and the Question stated SInce I came back to my Study I found one conclusion delivered in this Treatise opposed by a learned Scotchman one Doctor Forbes in a Treatise intituled Ironicam and in it he hath divers Arguments not inserted in my former Papers against this proposition That it is a proper and peculiar act of Episcopacy to ordain Priests and Bishops which he denyes in his second Book Chap. 11. Proposition 13. in his Exposition and proofe of that proposition page 159. And I observing it whilest my Papers are with the Printer thought it â—it to interpose that which satisfied my self in his Arguments In the top of the page before named he begins thus Gradus quidem Episcopalis est juris divini here we agree Ita tamen ut Ecclesia esse non desinit Sed esse possit sit quandoque vera Ecclesia Christiana in qua non reperitur hic gradus Here we begin to differ I say there neither is nor ever was a Christian Church without a Bishop and I will now begin to distinguish there is the universal Church and there are particular Churches The particular Churches we may yea must conceive to be sometimes without Bishops yea without Presbiters as by the death of their Bishops or Presbiters or by such persecutions as may so scatter them that they dare not shew themselves in their Churches In such cases these places must needes be without these Magistrates And yet those Christians who are by such means defrauded of this divine and blessed government keeping their first faith continue members of the Catholick Church and of that universal Church which have and ever shall have Bishops as long as the World stands so that if that proposition be meant of particular Congregations It is true they may be without a Bishop But if the universal they shall never be by the promise of our Saviour I will be with you to the end of the World without a Bishop And those particular Churches which may by such means be without Bishops may be without Presbiters likewise upon the same occasions This I think is clear I shall now examine his Arguments which oppose this which I have delivered His first Argument drawn from Scripture answered HE saith he will prove it before the Institution of Bishops and after First before I am perswaded he can shew me no Church before the Institution for their Episcopal authority was given in its fulness to the Apostles in that language of our Saviour As my father send me so send I you as I have explained All the Commission was given to them and they imparted all or part of it as they pleased they were the first and only Bishops untill they setled Provincial Bishops they were of the whole world as those latter of particular Diocesses he proves that there were Churches before Bishops out of Scripture but it is ciphered Scripture first Acts 8. 12. There Philip the Deacon so he terms him converted Souls to Christ where was no Bishop And by his leave if Philip were but a Deacon there was no Presbiter neither and by the By the Independant Thomas Hooker of New England and his fellows may take notice that a Deacon may preach and baptize for so did Philip in Samaria in that verse But Reader take notice that although men may be converted by Presbiters yea Lay-men any and when they are converted and baptized are members of the Catholick Church and parts of the mystical body of Christ and have no Bishop resident in that place yet without a Bishop it cannot be for the providence of God over the Church is such as that there shall always be such an authority resident in the Church universal whither men may in convenient time such as will be accepted of God repair for Church-discipline The next place be vergeth is Acts 11. 20 21. But there is nothing observable to any such purpose but only that they who were scattered upon the persecution of Stephen converted many Souls to the true faith His third place is Acts 14. 20 21 22. He should have added the 23 without the which all the former were imperfect to his purpose and in that verse are the words which he argues out of that is they ordained Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now there was a Church he inâ—erâ—s and no Bishop I will tell him there was a Church and no Presbyter untill the Apostles ordained them and the Apostles Barnabas and Paul ordained these Presbiters not a Presbitery and they themselves â—ineranâ—â— throughout the World visited their Churches with letters and directions sometimes when they could not personally
be present untill they setled Bishops amongst them His next place urged is Acts the 20. he leaves me to looke the verse but affirmes that the Church of Ephesus was governed first by Presbiters only from that Chap. afterward they had a Bishop who was called The Angel of the Church of Ephesus Apocalyps 2. That which hath any colour for this in this Chap. must be deduced out of the 17 th verse where it is said That from Miletum Paul sent to Ephesus for the Elders of the Church Therefore it seems the Church was governed by Elders at that time but let the Reader consider whether St. Paul did not Episcopize over them conventing the Elders before him and giving them that most heavenly charge And then consider that these men in the 28. verse are called Bishops Take heed to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath madâ— you Overseers we read it but it is Bishop in the Original indeed as I have shewed in this Treatise The words were not distinguished at the first but they were promiscuously used untill the great increase of Christianity when the name of Apostles began to weare away and they had more generally setled Churches and planted Bishops over the other Presbiters in the chief Cities and then these were called Bishops and indeed every Presbiter who hath a charge of Souls is a little Bishop in the Superintendency of his parish though noâ— in the nature of the office he must look to his little flâ—ck as Bishop over them so that nominally every Presbiter with charge of Soals is a little Bishop superintendâ—ing them for their Souls good But a Bishop is higher over them and their flocks to take care that he doth his duty in these places of Scripture I see no manner of Argument to shew that a Church may exist without a Bishop for they had Apostles and then Bishops in their places CHAP. III. His Argument drawn from Panormitan answered HE then urgeth a Sentence out of Panormitan Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam ordinabant sacerdotes consecrabant omnia Sacramenta Sed postmodum ad schismata sedanda fecerunt seâ— ordinaverunt Apostoli crearentur Episcopi Let me examine this bold assertion of Panormitan and of St. Hierom who hath much the same word Olim that was in the first plantation of the Churches I know no record of any authentick authority in the case but the Acts of the Apostles or their Epistles in which I can never find that any man or Company of men who were barely Presbiters did ordain Priests or did perform any Act of Jurisdiction in communi as he speakes which would intimate a Sentorian Government of which as they urge none so I cannot imagine what words in these Acts or Epistles should tend thereunto but then his last Clause I in part yeeld to that the Apostles did ordain Bishops and am confident they did it by divine Right which was given them by our Saviour saying As my Father sent me so send I you but whether only as they say ad sedanda schismata to appease schisme upon the occasion of some that said they were Pauls or else for the absolute better government of the Church which I rather adhere to I leave to the Readers Judgement but in general think it too great a boldness for men to limit Gods designes to their weake measures when God hath not determined or exprest them therefore such a passage in Panormitan is of no vallidity CHAP. IV. His first Argument to prove their ordination after Bishops were instituted answered HE proceeds with the second Number of his distinction to shew that not onely this was done before Bishops were instituted but after likewise the same was done and he gives this reason for saith the Doctor Non enim ad esse sed ad melius esse Ecclesiae necessaria est haec oeconomia This discipline is not necessary to the being but well-being of the Church suppose I grant it 't is true no discipline is necessary to the being of a Christian but Baptisme by which we are made members of that mystical body of Christ of which he is the head political Lawes Civil or Ecclesiastical are not necessary to our being Men or Englishmen of this Country but to our happy being in it we may be Christians and members of Christs Church where is no Presbiter as well as no Bishop As suppose a Diocess and Kingdom conquered by a Pagan as alass too many have been not a Bishop or a Priest left remaining Those noble Christians who remain without them have the being of Christians but not the well-being of Church-communion enjoying the blessed Sacrament which requires sacerdotal administration and likewise Church-discipline which conduce to the well-being of a Church but here we see the same necessity of one as the other for Bishops as Presbiters CHAP. V. An Argument out of Johannes Major answered BUt he proceeds and produceth a place out of Johannes Major de gestis Scotorum that he should write that the Scots were governed by Priests and Monks until Anno Domini 429. from whence he collects that they were two hundred and thirty yens without Bishops he might have urged other late Writers likewise in it But I answer to this that the Registers of that illiterate age were very ill preserved throughout Christendom but worse in those parts amongst the Picts and Scots then almost any where by reason that they were miserably oppressed with the almost perpetual Warrs they had with their Neighbours Brittaines and Romanes the Saxons and scarce any eminent man for learning who recorded any thing was acted amongst them and in that Gap of time in which they place this lack of Bishops their troubles were at the height for as there was all that space Warrs for dominion so there was persecution for destruction of Christianity and the Scots in general were banished that Country The Christians fled every where for safety to the adjacent Isles to Ireland from whence they came to Normandy to Denmarke any where for safety which it may be although unhappy to their wordly content yet advanced the propagation of the Gospel as it was in the Apostles time upon the persecution of St. Stephen Well then I think in this unhappy season they can find good Record for neither Bishops nor presbiters but every Chriâ—â—ian shifting for himself and especially those who were in authority and in Christian office because they of all others were sought after and therefore were concerned to hide their heads besides this it being the custome of Bishops to place themselves in some eminent Cities whereby they might be the more eminent and the better oversee their Diocesses There were few such in Scotland then but these Bishops which were then in the Kingdom were forced to inhabit many obscure places All which considered it is not possible for any man to expect a pedigree of their Bishops as it hath been preserved in more eminent Churches
his Councels come to be Decrees in this Epistle there is not one word like a Decree but onely an Advice to him nothing like a Commission as Vasques and divers others phrase it for then it should be mandamus or concedimus potestatem we Command or grant you power nor of dispensation as Cardinall Bellarmine and others for then it should be in that language we dispence with you or non obstante notwithstanding any Law to the contrary but here is no such thing but sometimes he saith fraternibus vestra your brotherhood knows this or that and the like and here shews him the reason why he should come by more Bishops to assist him although I think he was deceived in his supposals for there were Bishops in Brittain at that time howsoever that reason was good to authorize Austin at that time and the like may be good for any man in the like Condition for this triplicity of Bishops to Consecrate cannot be necessary to Consecration according to any Divine Constitution but onely Ecclesiastical which cannot be understood to exact impossibilities or else to make a particular Church to lose all the benefit of Episcopall Government But then consider the language of all these men and see how inconsistent it is with their first principles that there must be three Bishops by Divine right to the Consecration of a Bishop can the Pope dispence with what is due by Divine authority or can he grant a Commission to act against Divine Laws I hope they will not say so unless they will set themselves against all that is called God and make an earthly god above our Father which is in â—eaven then let us consider how it was possible that Christian Religion could have been planted unless the power essentially had been in one Bishop to Consecrate when Timothy Titus and St. John who you will that went about with the power of Tongues into unknown Countreys to plant Religion and God blessing their industry the Churches increased learned Men were Converted fit to make Bishops of Can you think that these Itinerants would suffer them like Austin here in England to send to Rome for advice in such a matter or much less for a Commission or dispensation to use their Language it is not imaginable nay when a Church is in persecution I know a little what belongs to that can they send to many Bishops in the same Province to send their votes in writing or without that there can be no Consecration It cannot be I conclude thus although in a setled Church there is a great decency in practiseing according to that Rule of having three Bishops at a Consecration yet in these Cases it is not necessary and it may be validly acted by one alone and no Commission or dispensation is necessary And now Reader having walked through this intricacy I cannot think my self nor the Reader satisfied untill I have applied another Question which is what is it which so enables a Consecration that we may say when that is done this man is a Bishop CHAP. XII In which is discoursed what is essentially to the constitution of a Bishop THe Question introduced To understand which that I may write distinctly take this for a Praecognitum that since the power was given to the Apostles in these words As my Father sent me so send I you Therefore when this power is given by Apostles and Apostolicall men then this dignity is conferr'd upon Men But again because that it is necessary for the Church of Christians not onely that they have the power but that this power should be so administred as that other men who are to receive blessings from it should be able to take notice for else how is it possible to repair to the wells head unless they can know where it is that there is such a blessing bestowed upon them therefore this power must be given by some such means as are visible and that men may discern when it is granted for if it should be given by the Apostles without any outward sign onely with a vehitie a kind of secret grant it must be most uncertain to other men because each man may pretend to it and there is no confuting but by some outward sign which being proper to this Action may be an infallible assurance that then and not till then it is given and here will be required a diligent and curious inquest there are divers things pretended to which are not right and they being severed we may then safely pitch upon what is the truth to do which let us first consider that Adâ—m Tanner in his fourth Tome of Scholasticall Divinity upon the third of Thomas and the supplement Disp. 7. Quest. 2. Dubio 4. handling the doubt what is the matter and form of a Priest and Bishop at the last page 1900. he names as a Concessum and things to be supposed eight Actions at the consecration of a Bishop he quotes the Romane Pontificall for it I will not set them down the writing them is too much paines but what hath grown in reputation amongst Scholars I shall examine But yet I must make another pause SECT II. A discourse of Petrus Arcadius illustrated and applied THere is a learned man one Petrus Arcadius who hath writ a Book with a most pious title which is of the concord betwixt the occidentall Church or the Latine and orientall under which headâ— he reduceth the African and sometimes the Rutherian in the administration of the Sacraments which controvercy he hath very industriously and happily handled in very many things in particular in this business having handled before the form used in both Churches at the ordination title 6. de Sacramento ordinis cap. 4. he comes to reconcile them and doth it upon this foundâ—tion I am now handling that is that they agree in the essentialls that is the Doctrine of all the three Churches and the difference is onely in Accidentalls this saith he may be done first by saying our Saviour did so institute this Sacrament that the Consecration of Ministers should be by certain words and outward signs by which it should sufficiently appear to what part of Ministry they were ordained but he left it to the arbitrement of the Church what these signs and words must be this he illustrates by the Councell of Trent wherein Sâ—ssion 23. Canon 3. the Councell decrees the thing that holy ordination should be made with signs and words but determines not what so that it excludes not the Graecian or African Ordination Again he illustrates this by Marriage most rightly for they make Matrimony a Sacrament as well as ordination there the word of God establisheth for men how they should live in holy wedlock but never determines what shall be the manner with what words or signs they shall be married but leaves that to the determination of every Church yea Common-wealth thus you may perceive his Conclusion how strengthned I will set down my Judgements and reasons
a Presbyter and see what peculiar Interest he hath in it distinct from other men First then without Question such a preaching as is Occasional by private Conference or in publike Assemblies when in publick Opportunity is offered to manifest the Glory of God or Convert or Confirm by Conference any soul to or in the Christian Religion or Godlinesse of living which indeed is a great part of Christianity when upon occasions of Discourse or otherwise Opportunities shall be granted to any man he may if he have abilities so Conferre as to perswade men to a newnesse of life and this is preaching in its latitude it is preaching the Gospel of Christ and each man that hath abilities ought to do it but each man is not bound to have abilities a private mans strength is chiefly discerned in holding fast the Word of Truth that so he be not carryed away with the wind of Doctrine he hath other Offices which are his Duties and in which he ought to expend his Studies and Endeavours but to have abilities or to endeavour to have some Abilities for this purpose is the Duty and Office of a Presbyter It is the Duty of the Shepherd to take care of his Masters sheep but it is a comely Charity in every Servant though he be not the Shepherd when he finds his Masters sheep run astray or ready to starve to throw them a lock of Hay or call them back to the fold Nay it is his Duty out of Charity though not out of Office but to take upon him the Office when he is not Authorized to it would be Intrusion and it would bring a great Confusion into the Church as it would into a great Family where every man or every man that would might take upon him the Manage of any Office he would St. Paul therefore saith of such How shall he preach unlesse he be sent that is how shall he take upon him the Office of doing it unlesse he be authorized for it let us then Consider who is authorized SECT XVIII Who is authorized to Preach THat this Authority must be joyned to every Presbyter that hath power to administer the Sacraments preaching must be taken in a large sense for reading Homilies for reading the Scriptures in known languages for it is not possible to find men of Abilities to do the other in such a Nation as ours is and yet it is necessary that they should have these Sacraments because by them men receive the Covenants of God concerning their Souls which to teach and incourage us to is the chief Duty of preaching and this is done I am perswaded more securely by the other way projected before but then if we will have men preach nothing but what they make themselves there had need be a mighty ability for a Weekly Preacher to do that and such indeed as cannot be expected from every Presbyter that may be fit for the other and therefore that way of penning their own Sermons is not nor can be exacted from every Presbyter And to preach Sermons not penned although upon urgency there hath been or may be such a Thing yet it is nothing but laziness and supine negligence and undervaluing of that great Work by those to do it Constantly and not worthy the thought of Christians But whether Presbyters alone may do this is a Question started in this Age but was disputed long since by learned men and how determined I will set down with mine observations upon it The Story is thus Origen a man most eminent for learning of any man in that Age both for humanity and Divinity and indeed such as may not only be accounted so for that Age in which he lived but deserved to be placed in the first rank of Scholars both of his own or any other Age when he lived at Cesarea by Authority given him from the Bishops of Palestine interpreted the Scriptures publikely in the Church when he was not a Presbyter nor that we know of had received any degree in Ecclesiastick Office Demetrius the Bishop of Alexandria who envyed the deserved glory of Origen and that honour which rather as a debt was paid to than given him for his Excellency in Preaching inveighs bitterly against him and having little else to be offended with him for saith it was an unheardâ—of thing that a Layman should preach and writes to the Bishops of Palestine about it They patronage that excellent Work of their own and gave him Instance in three or four that they knew of and no doubt say they there were more which had been licensed by Bishops to do so and did preach even before them I could have wished that the dispute had been larger set down that so the Arguments from Scripture or reason might have been set down for our Instruction but for defence of him who it is pity did not write his own Apology If any man object St. Pauls How can he preach unlesse he be sent I shall answer he was sent and by that power that had Authority to send that was the Bishops in that Province in which he lived who had authority to delegate as Apostles of which I shall treat hereafter by our Saviours Charter As my Father sent me so send I you to send others not with a plenipotency but as they saw expedient with divided powers to baptize and no more to administer the Sacraments and no more and why not preach and no more this way of preaching penning and contriving Orations to the people requires great abilities inherent acquired by mighty industry and pains and when men are found so Gifted and enabled although they think themselves not worthy to take a Pastoral Charge upon them or to administer the Sacraments yet when they find abilities for this and their Bishop think fit why should they not preach but not without the Bishop he is the Supream Pastor he may if he find an Inferiour fit for that place give him Authority to feed or fold or drive his Flock and no more and he that is authorized by the Supream Pastor may do it and others who without his leave undertake to do it are Intruders but he being so authorized doth it orderly lawfully thus did Origen who had he lived in our Age could have discoursed much more powerfully to this Theam and I can guesse that this may satisfie most of that which many in our Age object concerning their Gifts If they are Gifted let their Gifts be examined and if he the Bishop find them to be such as can enable them for such a Work let them be licensed otherwise not CHAP. XIX His Argument answered I Have been over tedious in this Discourse Here you may discern the vanity of his Argument from that Text if preaching be taken in that late sense as I have expounded it I deny that there are any Presbyters which are not Teachers If Preachers be taken in this strict sense for such as preach Studied Orations I say that there are many
necessary for the gathering which are not necessary for the perfecting the body of Christ we see Prophets were necessary for the Gathering and the Extraordinary part of Apostles which are not necessary for the perfecting Now here is a Conjunction Gathering and Perfecting His second Consequence is as bad If the Church can be perfected without these there is no need of these this doth not follow things may be necessary ad esse ad perfectum esse and yet other things may be necessary to the easie obtaining this Esse I do but give you the non-consequence of his manner of Argument observe his Minor But there is no Minister necessary for the Gathering and Perfecting of the Church besides that of the Presbyters He proves this Because the Apostle setting down the several Ministries which Christ had purchased and by Ascention bestowed upon his Church when he gave Gifts to men for that end they are only comprehended in these two Pastors and Teachers Ephes. 4. 12 13. and they who are given for this end can and shall undoubtedly attain it Consider here the Inconsequence of this Argument Because saith he the Apostle in that place sets down none other therefore there is no other We have examined that Text sufficiently I thought already but this Starts another Negative note The Apostle doth not say there that there are no other but what he sets down nor doth he put any Exclusive Term as these and these only are they I am sure in the 12. to the Romans he hath another reckoning of things like Offices and so in the 1 Cor. 12. 28. I know he may say that with a Trick of Wit these may be brought about by subordination to amount to the same thing and number and so I can reduce them to two only Extraordinary and Ordinary or ruling and teaching a principal and subservient but unlesse he can shew a Negative or exclusive Term in the Text he cannot draw a Negative inference So that although the means that our Saviour appoints shall attain its end yet the means he appoints must be totally taken not one piece without another and this Text doth not say that is the Total means this is known in Logick posita Causa ponitur effectus but it must be totalis Causa not partialis But now suppose his Consequence were good in Logick will the Text bear him out in the matter Doth the Text name none but these Pastors and Teachers Yes sure and although these two as I have shewed are but one yet Apostles are different and these seem without distinction to be necessary to the perfecting of the body of Christ and Bishops by all Consent succeed the Apostles in tâ—is Duty I will not desâ—ant upon Prophet to shew the sense and meaning of it as not pertinent this is enough to shew the weaknesse of his Argument if the Text were granted to allow his deduction out of it But he proceeds as unluckily as if all this were granted Where saith he the Issue is if Pastors and Doctors be sufficieâ—t Teaching Ministryes to perfect the Church then there needs no more but these I will not lose my self in his long period Suppose these were sufficient Teaching Ministries is there no more requisite but teaching Yes to look to them that they do teach and teach right Doctrine But saith he if these be enough all others be superfluous I answer these are enough for their own Work if they would be good and all industrious workmen but there is necessity for some Custodire Custodes I am weary with this SECT XII His Fourth Argument concerning Jurisdiction answered HIs Fourth Argument is thus framed Distinct Offices must have distinct Operations Operari sequitur esse But they that is Bishops have no distinct Operations from Presbyters if there be any they must be Ordination and Jurisdiction but both these belong to Presbyters Jurisdiction John 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit c. Binding and loosing imply a power of Censuring as well as preaching and both are given in the Apostles to their Successors the rulers and Elders of the Churches who succeed them in their Commission Let him prove that these who are here Elders of the Inferiour rank Succeed the Apostles in that part of their Commission and his Conclusion is granted but that he can never do and therefore labours not for it otherwise I have shewed that there were parts of the Apostles fulnesse of power imparted to one and part to another as the Divine Wisdom directed them to divide it for the good of the Church this they must grant who make Pastors Rulers Teachers distinct Offices SECT XIII Ordination not given by Presbyters FOR the Second Ordination he brings Scripture 1 Tim. 4. 14. He only Ciphers the Text I will put down the words Neglect not the Gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophesy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbyters His Collection hence is That this Gift was his Presbyterial or Episcopal Office and that this power was Conveyed to him by the laying on of the hands of the Presbyters and therefore Presbyters have power of Ordination I will not here dispute what is meant by Prophesie as not pertinent to this Cause nor will I trouble my discourse with what is meant by this Gift which hath received another Interpretation by some of best Authority but will pitch upon the word Presbytery and it may be of Imposition of hands For this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is used only three times in the New Testament Luke 22. 66. where we render it the Elders of the people but it is in the Original in the Abstract not the men but the Presbytery of the people The second place is Acts 22. 5. where we read all the Estate of the Elders the word is the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Presbytery now the Third place is this in my Text. In the two first places Presbytery is taken for the Magistrates or Senate of the people of the Jewes no Christian Order then from the use of the word in other places it cannot be Collected that this should particularize this lower Order which he fancieth sith there is no place to parallel it But because Presbytery doth signifie an Ecclesiastical Order in the Ministery therefore this Presbytery should do so likewise but in as large a sense as Presbyter not more restrained Now Presbyter takes in its latitude the whole Order of Priestood both Bishop and Presbyter it were in vain to insist upon particular places So then must this be would be know which I am Confident all Antiquity understand it of that rank of Presbyters which we term Bishops St. Chrysostome Theophylact Theodoret no man contradicting but these late Expositors Then let us adde one word more Were that Gift understood for the Ecclesiastical Authority which he had or secondly were Presbytery understood for a Synod of Presbyters as they call them which none but themselves affirm
name should be affixed to such men nor do I find any man adventuring to shew any place where this word doth lesse than signifie a Bishop Then let us Consider that they are called after in the second Chapter The Angel of the Church of Ephesus the Angel of the Church of Smyrna c. which being great and populous regions could not reasonably but have many Presbyters in them and then to write to one Angel if the name Angel did stoop so low as Presbyter were to write to no man knew whom because there were so many there but if Angel as it is be understood of one in an higher and more exalted State than the rest who might be known by this name Angel as peculiarly due to him then and then only we may understand who it is that is meant by it but if any man should allow nothing but Scripture to prove so clear truth and say there was but one Presbyter in each of these Churches he may find that Acts 20. ver 17 18. St. Paul sent for the Presbyters in the plural number of the Church of Ephesus and when they were come to him he said to them still they and them in the plural number That Text will require a further Examination perhaps hereafter In the mean time take this because it is urged for a Unity of Office betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter from the 28th verse where St. Paul saith Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers that is Bishâ—ps then those that were called Presbyters before were called Bishops afterwards I have often said before that the name Bishop and Presbyter I conceive to be taken promiscuously in the New Testament for the same Office That the word Apostle was solely that name which was used by the way of propriety to that Office both to themselves who were originally such and to those who by their Appointment succeeded them But this is it I contend for That amongst them which they made their Successors they gave to some of them a greater and fuller power than to others both to govern and to ordain which since the Church hath called Bishops Now then from hence whether there were many Bishops in the Province of Ephesus or many Presbyters only yet many there were and these many were so inferiour to one that he is called the Angel which name was so appropriated to him as he might know to whom the Letter was directed or else as if a Man should write a Letter and superscribe it to the Alderman of London where are many no man could know whither to send it or who should receive it but if a man superscribe it to the Mayor every man knows who that is Thus must it be with these he to whom this Letter is superscribed must have this Angelical Condition so fitted to him that he must be known by that name that name solely agreeing to him But some here offer at an Answer That he might be like a Mayor have a superiour Dignity above the rest such as is notified by that name Angel which yet may not make a Bishop such as we require He may be a Temporary Governour such as the Presbyterian allows a President of a Synod who this year governs but the next resigâ—s his place and when he is there he hath no more to do but regulate the Synod no greater Authority than the rest To both these in their Order No Temporary Bishop or Superiour I am Confident that I never read of any such Thing and therefore am perswaded that no man can shew me out of Ecclesiastical Story that any man was outed of his Bishoprick but for Heresie Schism or Gross Impiety of Life when men have grown through old Age or Infirmities otherwise incapable of â—xecuting their Office they have had Coadjutors and helpers in their Office but not been deposed but by Death or some such occasion as before described and those that by Ecclesiastical Story were reckoned Bishops of these places at this time are recorded to dye Bishops And it seems a mighty Selfishnesse to me that any man should oppose his reasonlesse Conjectures against all Story when indeed these Epistles cannot be expounded but by Story as in particular the 13th verse of the 2d Chapter where speaking to the Angel or Bishop I may call him most Conâ—idently of the Church of Pergamus He commends him because thou hast not denyed my Faith even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithfull Martyr If a man would ask what Commendation of his Faith was this What was the Excellency of it Can any man answer me but out of Ecclesiastical Story where it is recorded that after a long and pious life full of all virtue led in Pergamus he was in the dayes of Domitian for the Testimony of his Religion put into a brazen Bull and in that Bull burnt now then this Bishops faith was Eminent that in such a cruel and fiery Tryal he kept his Integrity even in such a Time when thaâ— horrid President of the death of Antipas was set before him Thus I say Ecclesiastical Story is necessary for the Exposition of these Epistles as you may find prophane Story necessary for the Exposition of the Prophets in the Old Testament for a man then to talk of such an Officer concerning which there is no mention in the Word nor any in Story but a Poem a fictioâ— of their own Imagination is not like men that guided themselves by Scripture to undertake I close therefore with the 2d Exception which is that their Government was not such as is Episcopal but only such as is the president of a Synod to direct the businesse not Command more than others and this certainly the frame of these Letters doth Confute mightily for they make the Angâ—ls responsible for the faults and heresies which were under the Government which they could not be if they had only the Authority of Presidents but not of Bishops for a President of a Synod hath no Coercive power in himself but as conjoyned with the rest of the Synod and involved Nor hath he any particular Interest in the ruling or swaying the Affairs of the Church but is the mouth of the Synod therefore although if he neglect his duty in the Synod he may well be censured for it yet he cannot have the faults of the Inferiour Clergy or people layd to his Charge in particular take one Instance in the 15th verse of the 2d Chapter the Angel of the Church of Pergamus is censured because he had them which held the Doctrine of the Nicholaitans which Christ hates Should any one ask why the President should be Censured for these things He could answer I am but one man perhaps they can master me in the Synod I have nothing to do alone but a Bishop who hath Coercive power and can both examine and censure any who are in his Diocesse he may be punished because he did
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
his Major now let us examine his Minor In nostrâ tamen Ecclesia reformata Scotanica id haberi nondum potuit propter Ecclesiasticam paâ—pertatem bonis Ecclesiasticis laicorum hominum sacrilegio dirâ—ptis The force of this Argument runs thus Although Deacons be a divine ordinance yet the Scots by reason of their poverty are not able to maintaine such an Officer and there is the like reason for Bishops in such places where the supream authority will not allow them so that necessity may excuse men even where the divine Laws requires any thing I must confess that invincible necessity excuseth many Acts but it will lie upon the Souls of these Churches who live without Bishops to answer at the last day to Allmighty God and make it good before him that their Omission is such but the difference betwixt Bishops and Deacons is exceeding great I do not find any one place so much as directing that Deacons should be in every particular Church in many there is no need of them where a small congregation of twenty or a hundred may well be osâ—iciated in the meanest duty by a Presbiter onely but in Cathedral Churches where are many little offices for which perhaps we cannot find Presbiters so fit or that it is not fit that we should take them from their greater imployments to bestow their time upon those lesser duties in such cases there is a necessity for those lesser offices to be used but if they shall think their Deacons to be ordained for that imployment mentioned in the sixth of the Acts to minister to the poor I may say that such an imployment can hardly complain of necessity by sacriledge since that out of the collection for the poor he may be allowed a stipend competent for such an office but then to consider that which he would have to paralel a Bishop where is any such a small congregation as I have before specified all things may well be regulated by a Presbiter and he alone supply all the duties belonging to the Salvation of Souls But if there should be many such congregations or that Presbiter who did govern there die in that Government it is necessary for him or them to seek out some Bishop to authorize him or them for this duty The upshot of all this is that Deacons are not instituted as necessary for all lesser Congregations that Bishops are authorized to give Orders to dispose of such affairs as are usefull or necessary to the Government of little or great Congregations but especially in the latter where are usually more and more dangerous exorbitancies That which follows in that page is onely a Discourse but no Proof and so I passe to 161. page where he labours to prove that the Presbitery as he calls it or Company of Presbiters gathered together may give Orders thus CHAP 8. An Argument drawn from Scripture answered APostolus Paulus manuum impositionem per quam ordinatus est Timotheus modo vocat impositionem manuum sâ—arum 2. Tim. 1. 6. Modo impositionem manuum Presbiterii 1. Tim. 4. 14. Idest concessus Presbiterorum sic enim in Novo testamento passim et apud antiquissimos Scriptores Ecclesiasticos The effect of which is that St. Paul in those two places termes the giving Orders to Timothy in one place the laying on of his hands and in another the Laying on the hands of the Presbitery which saith he was the Company or Colledge of Presbiters as that word is often used in the New Testament and amongst the most antient Ecclesiastical Writers I have expounded these two places already and though he say Presbitery is often used for a Colledge or Concessus of Presbiters I have shewed it is no where so used in Scripture and for the most ancient Ecclesiastical Writers I would have been glad to have Read where I should seek them for remember them I do not I will trouble the Reader no further with this Argument it would be but a Repetition CHAP. 9. An Argument drawn from Saint Hierome answered HE comes next to the formerly examined place of St. Hierome and Evagrinus but he puts it down more truly than Thomas Hooker doth and after adds one phrase which the New-England-man left out which is Sicut exercitus imperatorem faciaet quibus verbis non abscurè indicat Presbiteros Alexandrinos initio ordinasse sibi Episcopum by which words as an Army makes an Emperour he doth not obscurely intimate that they did ordain their Bishops Thus Forbes if instead of Ordain he had said Elect I should not have been offended but to take upon them the power to ordain was too much unless they had the Armies to maintain their Act by force as they did The Souldiers upon the death of the Emperour proclaim and cry up commonly their General to be the Emperour and make it good with their sword but would Doctor Forbes or Hierom think that they did ordain or make him Emperour or rather according to their power elect it was often seen even in the age about St. Hierom that two or three Armies in their several places chose so many Emperours And it is not impossible that the Presbiters in Alexandria might have the Election of their Bishop as in most places but the Consecration of him was by others and mark this place of St. Hierom the phrase he useth is Presbiteri not Presbiterium which he calls the antient Language howsoever there is nothing in these words which can instance a Consecration from Presbiters no not in the Simile of an Army unless a Rebellious Election might pass for a Consecration I think I need not speak no more to that at this time but if there be any further need I foresee that the answering other Arguments will further illustrate this business CHAP. X. An Answer to the Argument drawn from the Consecration of Pelagius the first Pope of that name in which is discussed the Story of his Consecration as likewise that no Argument can be drawn from that Act That Popes Consecrations and Elections have been erronious HE proceeds page 162. Pellagium hujus nominis primum Romanum Episcopum ordinarunt duo Episcopi unus Presbiter Ostiensis nomine Andreas qui tanquam Episcopus munus illud ordinationis obivit dum non invenientur tres Episcopi qui secundum Canones Pelagium ordinarent The summe is that this Pope when there could not be three Bishopâ— got which according to Canons should joyn together in the ordination of a Bishop there being no more to be found they took in a Presbiter to officiate with them and therefore he thinks Presbiters may ordain for answer let no man think that I will undertake to defend the Consecrations of Rome it is a task too hard for me to manage or I think any other and materially no doubt but this was irregular yet it may be excused and perhaps justified by what I shall say take therefore the Story of these times SECT I. Where is the Story of
termed Divine from their authority the same reason will be for the next to them and so to the last and so even the Prescriptions of the now living Bishops should be Divine than which nothing can be more abhorring to reason Well then what I have said before will serve likewise here that is that what Divine Laws were established by the Apostles we may find in the Acts and Epistles now there is no such Decree observable any where in them The Commission given to the Apostles by which they and their Successors were and are authorized to send others was not given to them conjunctim as if they should act onely altogether much less was there specified that three of them should joyne in it but without doubt separately every one had this power given to punish to forgive Sins to Baptize give the Communion Ordain and we find upon this foundation it is that St. Paul gave Commission to particular persons to Titus to Timothy and the like But I need not trouble the Scriptures about it I do not find the Patrons of that opinion producing any And therefore I wonder that Vasques did term it a Divine Right when he attempts no where to prove it nor his Predecessors or Followers in this Conclusion The Consecration of St. James to be Bishop of Jerusalem discussed BUt they urge the Decretall Epistles of Anacletus and out of him Amcetus that St. Peter James and John I mean James the Great as the other is called James the Less that these three Apostles did Consecrate the other James Bishop of Jerusalem and St. Peter by whom he saith himself Anacletus was made Priest told him that it should always be a Law hereafter that there should be three Bishops to Consecrate one I do wonder if this were so how St. Peters pretended Successors should be bold to dispence with this Law of St. Peters of which we shall see more hereafter but it is well known by learned men how unlike these Epistles are to be these mens writings upon whom they are fathered But I acknowledge the story so far as it affirms the Consecration of St. James for by better authority then theirs it is justified which is by Eusebius lib. 1 cap. 1. But Eusebius sayth not that St. Peter gave it for a Rule for the future which this Anacletus seems to inforce Nay Eusebius doth not name this Anacletus in his Relation which if there had been any such Epistle extant in his time no doubt but he would have done as well as Clemens but I grant the story and as Adam Tanner a learned Jesuit speaks Tom. 4. Scholasticae theologiae disputatione prima Quest. 3. Dubio 2. Numero 3. It might be done ad quandem solemnitatem ordinis Episcopalis I may say Episcopatus ejus than whom never man deserved more honour in his Consecration for he is esteemed the father of that Epistle which goes under his name then he was the Brother that is the nearest kinsman of our blessed Saviour then a man so honoured for vertue that he was called James the just and so esteemed by Josephus a Jew who attributes the great Judgement of God upon the Jews in the destruction of Jerusalem to their iniquity of stoning that just man so that if ever there was a man to be honoured with so glorious a Consecration it was he But give me leave by the By to say that from this I can add one strong Scholastick reason to the excellent industry of Doctor Hammond who in his Preface to St. James the Apostle proves from antiquity that this Bishop of Jerusalem was none of the Twelve either the son of Zebedee or Alpheus I can add this for if he had been any of them it is not reasonable to think that he had need of a new Consecration to a Bishoprick whom Christ himself had ordained an Apostle or our Saviour made him onely Bishop of Jerusalem as many affirm let no man think that he could be Consecrated again by these three for Orders must not be given twice and no man can think that either our Saviours Ordination to make him an Apostle or Bishop was insufficient but let it be which you will it is not needfull to trouble the Reader with discussing the truth of it nor indeed in Actions so far remote where are such great Authorities of both sides Is it possible to conclude any thing peremptorily I therefore let it pass and for the present grant he was Consecrated by these three But what can follow but this that so great a Person of such an extraordinary merit was so honoured by these Apostles who as Clemens saith did not contend for the honour themselves but pitched upon him to be the first Bishop of that Sea which without doubt was then the most glorious Episcopal seat in the World but is there any rule given that every Bishop should have that honour done him which was given to St. James SECT II. The first of these are called Apostolicall Canons examined THe next thing in order to this dispute to be examined will be the first of those which are called Apostolicall Canons the words of which Canon are Let a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops this Canon comes next to be examined and by them who require three Bishops to the Consecration necessarily it is answered that these two Bishops are required but with an addition of an Archbishop two Bishops an Archbishop So Cardinall Bellarmine in his fourth Book de Ecclesia militante which is de notis Ecclesiae cap. 8. and from him the latter schoolmen with one consent But let a man consider whether this be not a violence to the Text when the name of Archbishop is not mentioned in these Canons nor in the Scripture for if these Canons were of the Apostles Constitution then they must be penned in the language of Scripture-phrase bearing the same date with them and so not to vary from their sence for although Archbishops are of great necessity and antiquity where there are many Bishops to keep them in peace and unity with Ecclesiastical discipline so a Patriarch over them yet neither he nor a Patriarch have any thing but jurisdiction by Ecclesiastical authority nothing of Order by divine right more than a Bishop and therefore no more necessity of him than another Bishop in the Consecrating of a Bishop but onely by the Canons of the Church and therefore it is a violence offered to that Canon by them who have a veneration of it SECT II. Some Canons of Councels examined THe next thing to be considered will be the fourth Canon of the first Councel of Nice Episcopum apparet maxime quidem ab omnibus qui sint provincia constituit si autem hoc sit difficile vel propter urgentem necessitatem vel viae longitudinem tres omnino in eundem locum congregatos absentibus quoque suffragium ferentibus scriptisque assentientibus tunc electionem fieri eorum autem quae
and so pass on first then that our Saviour did institute many holy offices in themselves you may say even his Sacraments so as there may be divers Ceremonies according to the prudence of divers Churches is appâ—rent for let us consider Baptisme the matter as it is positively set down in the Institution is water this must not be altered and that which is called the form which is the words by which this Baptisme is administred are in part set down it must be In the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost but now whether it should be I Baptize thee as the Latine Church or let the Servant of God be Baptized or he is Baptized which are severally used in other Churches is not determined by our Saviour and the words of either do fully express the meaning of Baptisme so that neither doth the Latine Church re-baptize those who are Baptized by the Graeciâ—ns nor the Graecians such as are Baptized by the Latines although both are bitter enough one against another so that you may see there may be variation in the administration of these duties in their Circumstances where there is a Communion in the Substance and truly for my part I think in such a man who lives in either of these Churches it would be a Schismatical Act for any of them to vary from that usage which is in the Churches wherein he lives for although these things are indifferent in themâ—elves yet when they are determined in the Greeâ— Euthology and the Roman Rituals they are not indifferent to them which live amongst them in their several Churches but a varying from the Church wherein they live makes a breach of Charity and violates the Band of peace SECT III. Another Precognitum explained ANother Introduction may be that whatsoever is instituted by Scripture in any of these holy performances whether as form or matter must not be altered nor can lawfully by any man for since the blessing which is bestowed is onely Gods gift and Man is only ministerial in it he must act according to that Method whicâ— God hath prescribed and that only having his Covenant can bring the blessing SECT IV. Another Observation expounded ANother note may be that Additions explicatory so they are certainly such and are not intruded for essentials do not destroy the notion of that which they explain it is necessary for otherwise why should men expound the Scriptures in Sermons or otherwise yea our Saviour expounded his own Parables and after his exposition to his Disciples we write further Comments our selves but that there is in none of these an alteration but a dilatation of the conceit of them these things being premitted I shal return where I left at Tanner and the Roman pontiâ—ical SECT V. Many mistakes about Ceremonies in the Church of Rome IT is an apparent truth that the Church of Rome doth very ofâ— clog Divine duties with so many Ceremonies and its mischief is frequent in that mischance that even their learned writers do in a little time grow o such mistakes as to think that some of those which are Ecclesiastical Ceremonies only instituted by the authority of the Church to be the essentials and that which is essential to be but accidents this particular business I have in hand will demonstrate this conclusion SECT VI. It is an Error to think that the Anointing the Bishops Hand is a necessary Essential THe third Ceremony by Tanner out of the pontiâ—ical is the Anointing of the Bishops hand which is to be Consecrated in these words ungantur manus istae oleo Consecrato that is when he Anoints his hands he saith let these hands be anointed with holy oyl And Francis Silvius I must say truly a learned man and most perspicuous writer in his fortieth Quest. upon the supplement of Thomas Art 5. in resp ad 8 m. saith that the essential Consecration of a Bishop consists in this unction and the words pronounced with it for the Church of Rome calls the oâ—tward sign the matter and the words the form and this to be it he proves by a very strong Argument against the Romanist because in the whole frame of Ordination the Bishop Consecrated is calâ—ed in the pontiâ—ical untill then Bishop Elect only But then absolutely Bishop from that time and his Argument is as weakly answered by Tanner where before quoted that Neque obstat quod in pontisicali ordinandus Episcopus post unctionem primum vocatur Consecratus antea vero solum Electus id â—nim ad scriptorem Rubrici modum lâ—quendi pertinent plus non significat quam ante unctionem nondum esse plene Consecratum That is that the Language of the Pontiâ—ical ought to be attributed to the writer of the Rubrick and that there is no more imported in it but that before the Unction he is not fully Bishop Truly I think Silvius doth desire no more but if men can shift off such grave and weighty observations with saying it was a fault in the Writer or Printer there can no authority be produced but may be so answered But he is more to blâ—me who transcribed it false but why hath it not been amended and that fault corrected The truth is the Pontiâ—ical it self is to blame there is no such thing in that much more antient Pontiâ—icâ—i I mean the fourth Councel of Carthage Canon 2. I will put down tâ—e words because I am likely to make use of them hereafter the words are these Episcopus quum ordinatur duo Episcopi ponant teneant Evangeliorum codicem super caput cervicem ejus uno fundente benedictionem reliqui omnes Episcopi qui adsunt manibus suis caput ejus tangant That is a Bishop when he is ordained two Bishops shall put and hold the Book of the Gospel over his head and neck and one giving him the blessing the other Bishops shall put and hold the Book of the Gospel over his head and neck and one giving him the blessing the other â—ishops which are present shall touch his head with their hands here is not any word of anointing and therefore according to this Canon neither of these Unctions I mean head and hand are necessary for although the Canon may name somethings which are not necessary yet it is not to be imagined that it should leave out any thing which is necessary SECT VII Another Error concerning the Book confuted THere is therefore another opinion which has gained great Reputation with many Schoolmen and that is of some who place the essentials of a Bishops Ordination in the first â—eremony named in the Pontifical and that is the same with that of the Councel of Carthage to wit the putting the Book upon the Head of the Consecrated Bishop and the laying on of Hands and the Benediction this certainly is most conform to that Canon of Carthage but as I said before as it is not reasonable to think that these Canons should omit any essential thing
to act since after his departure to the end of the world It is necessary therefore for us to think that such things as are delivered by them are Divine for although Canons of Councels general or particular are excellent Guides for the establishing Peace and Unity in the Church and so may require obedience from their Subjects yet because they are but men without an annexed infallibility without doubt they may vary in their practice and Discipline and their Dictates being introduced upon occasions may be altered and therefore cannot add essentials to any thing for the essences of things are always certain and necessary This is my Major Now to search what is Apostolical in this business we must examine the Scriptures where first we find our Saviour authorizing his Apostles As my Father sent me so send I you to give power to others We find him using no Ceremony but breâ—thing upon them gave them the Holy Ghost and truly that Breathing was most significative of that blessing he bestowed upon them but from thence we find not the Apostles using that Ceremony for they being enabled with this plenarty of power to give others that blessing they only gave it and for a sign that they did establish it laid their hands upon them so that as we conceive these two places 1 Tim. 1. 6. by the laying on of my hands or the 1 Tim. 4. 14. with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery to be Ordination so likewise we shall find this Ceremony taken for the whole 〈◊〉 or Ordâ—nation Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man Now then without doubt if any outward Act must be essential to this Heavenly work this only being Apostolical must be esteemed most essential and there I think it most proper for men to conceive that this is the only Ceremony essentially necessary if any be to the performance of that duty for the power originally being given to the Apostles nakedly and absolutely without any qualification or mode in what manner they should use it to others we are to receive the manner at their acting it for our best Rule and guidance which is only in Scripture delivered to be imposition of Hands Thus much for that which the Doctors of the Church of Rome called the material part in the essence of Consecration and we may truly term the outward sign Let us now examine that which they call the form and we may term the words which express it the words which our Saviour used John 20. 22. are Receive ye the Holy Ghost these words expresly are used in the Roman Consecration and Ordination but in the Graecian the words are varied but the sence reserved not giving this blessing in the Imperative-mood which is much stood upon by many Schoolmen and Casuists but in a more humble stile The Grace of God Creates or Promotes thee to this Dignity of a Bishop or Priest or Deacon where we find the truth more largly expounded though materially the same for certainly the Grace of God is that which impowers men with these authorities are given and men are only Instrumental but that they are and therefore there is added how this is given by the suffrage of the Bishops which denotes them instrumental for the African Church you may discern in the Canon of Carthage before cited that the Consecration is expressed in a Language of such extent as may be applied to them both which is uno fundente benedictionem one of them pouring out the benediction or blessing but implying strongly the sence such as is proper for this work to Confirm which all the present Bishops lay on their hands and this universally so consented unto as agreeing to the Holy Scripture that although in the heat of disputation I find men sometimes over peremptorily asserting their own opinions yet I do not find that either Church did refuse such as were Consecrated in either although in wayes and modes differing from their own so that I may justly say that the whole Catholick Church Concenters in this Conclusion that when words importing the blessing are Delivered by a Consecrating Bishop and those words are sealed by imposition of Hands then these holy Orders are effectually given I shall then need to do little more in this Point than to answer such objections which are commonly made against it or I can apprehend proper to be opposed to it SECT II. The first Objection against the Truth answered THe first is common in the School made against the pontiâ—ical in this point because that in all that part of the Pontiâ—ical it is said only Receive ye the Holy Ghost and that Language is the same in the Ordination of Priests as likewise the Imposition of Hands so that by this no man can know what Order is given in the Church of Rome it is answered that the design which they are about will shew it whether to one or to the other Order and again the manner of the Imposition of Hands in the Consecration of a Bishop divers Bishops Impose Hands in the Ordination of a Priest one Bishop only with some Presbyters in the Ordination of a Deacon the Bishop alone but in our Church that scruple is clearly taken away by a great Prudence where at the Ordination of a Priest the Consecrating words are Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest and at the Consecration of a Bishop the words are Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God where wee see that universal cause of all Spiritual blessings I mean the Holy Ghost applied to that particular duty in which at that time he works and therefore the Consecration is free from that Exception SECT III. Another Objection drawn from the Councel of Carthage answered ANother Ojection may be that the Councel of Carthage before cited mentions the laying on the Book by two Bishops upon the head and shoulders of the Bishop to be Consecrated and therefore that is necessary I answer that I much reverence that Councel in which was St. Augustine and divers other Bâ—shops famous for learning and piety in their Generations but yet as I have said before this was never practiced any remarkable time as sundry Doctors in the Church of Rome observe and again it is impossible to be essential because not Apostolical and that because the Holy Bible and that highest part of it the New Testament was not writ when Bishops and Priests were Ordained it is therefore worth our marking that there is a difference in the decrees of Councels concerning Doctrine and Discipline or Ceremonies of the Church in a point of Doctrine they shew in what sence they understand such and such a Conclusion but in the other they set down what is to be practiced to preserve Orders and decency in those Churches where they have to do and indeed there can be no more required of obedience than in quiet and setled times in which
that nothing is essential but giving the proper blessing with imposition of Hands for the addition of one Presbyter to the two Bishops is served only to fill a gap and to comply with an unnecessary received Ceremony it added no virtue of its self noâ— impeded the virtue of the Consecration CHAP. XIV His Discourse examined and an Argument from some Father answered SECT I. The Preface to his Argument examined NOw we will enter upon another Argument being Page 164. towards the bottom a discourse unnecessary for me to write down at large but I will set down what is material in it and so pass to his Argument thus saith he Habent Presbyteri Presbyters have by a Divine right the power of Ordaining Sicut like as they have the power of Preaching and Baptizeing he expounds this that where there is a Bishop there this should be done sub regimine inspectione Episcopi under the government and eye of the Bishop but in other places where the Church is governed by the common Councel of Presbyters that Ordination is valid and good which is made by the imposition of the Hands of the Presbytery Thus he but I desire and so do many more to know where that Church was ever in the Christian world that gave simple Presbyters power to Ordain others before these latter times the practice whereof I think nothing can excuse in some Reformed Churches but a meer necessity in which Case the vote supplies the Act but I will proceed no further with this all to the midst of the next Page is only Discourse his conclusion there is that Presbyters may Ordain I come with him and will consider his following Arguments SECT II. His Argument from St. Ambrose and St. Augustine answered HE begins with St. Ambrose upon the Epistle to the Ephesians Cap. 4. the words are truly cited by him which are apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus I will not disturb this before I observe his second Quotation and make one answer serve both which is Augustinus sive quicunque sit author in quaestionibus ex utroque testamento mixtum Quest. 10. In Alexandria inquit Presbyter Consecrat the force of this Argument is this that in Alexandria and throughout Egypt in the absence of a Bishop a Presbyter or Presbyters do Consecrate by these Fathers in the Citation of St. Augustine he ingeniously saith sive quicunque author est illius operis whether he or whosoever is Author of that work indeed it is evident that it is not his and he might have said as much of St. Ambrose as is appâ—renâ— because these Comments are much suspected upon strong grounds but indeed are thought to be some Author of that age and then though an Heretique or Schismatique in a matter of Story which concerns not that business for which he is branded I see no reason why that matter of fact may not be credited I therefore must allow that authority neither will I quarrel at that word in him which is not Consecrat as in the counterseit Augustine but Consignat which is of a largersence but ye because that word is often used for Consecration I will allow that likewise yea I will add that which some Schoolmen who incline to Doctor Forbes his opinion have observed which is that the word Consecrat cannot here be taken for Consecrating the holy Eucharist of the Consecrating the Lords Supper for that was allowed lawful in any place now this seems to intimate a peculiar custom in Alexandria and Egypt for that therefore know that other things are in Ecclesiastical Story said to be Consecrated besides these of Bishops or the Elements of the Communion to wit Holy houses Churches Virgins and Utensils but some may object that this Consâ—â—ration may be understood of Bishops I answer no out of a famous Story recorded by Athanasius which is in his second Apologue and a letter writ by the Marcotici Praesbyteri Diaconi as they stile themselves to Curiasus and Evagrius It is there Registred that one Colluthus counterfeiting himself to be a Bishop when he was none but only a Presbyter Ordained divers persons amongst others one Ischyras for which he was condemned by Hosius and other Bishops in a general Councel that he should leave off Episcopising and be reduced into his former Order and therefore saith the letter Ischyras could be no Priest who was Ordained only by him who was no Bishop give me leave now to shew the truth of this Story it hath so great authority for it as Athanasius who was Bishop of Alexandria in his Apology for himself writ to his adversaries both Lay and Ecclesiastical if he had been a man of less Sanctity yet out of policy he durst not tell such an errant Lie granting this I say that if the other authorities were authentique which they are not that word Consecration must be understood of other Consecrations not of Bishops or Priests because in Alexandria this act was condemned And so I think that there is enough said to that Argument drawn from the pretended Ambrose and Augustine CHAP. XV. SECT I. His Argument drawn from the Councel of Antioch answered ANd now I proceed to another Argument drawn from the Councel of Antioch Canon 10. in which it is Ordained that Chori Episcopi which saith he were only Presbyters might Ordain Readers Sub-deacons and Exorcists but neither Priests nor Deacons as Dionisius Eriquus translates it pâ—aeter Civitatis Episcopum we may render it besides the Bishop of the City Gentianus Hervetus renders it absque Vrbis Episcopo without the Bishop of the City but he saith Hidorus Hispalensis hath a third Reading which he favours above all that is praeter â—anscientiam Episcopi as I may say without the Conscience of the Bishop here he puts down three various Translations or Readings I can add a fourth which is of another Isidore Isidori Mercator who put out the Councels by the advice of Fourscore Bishops as he himself writes in his Epistle before them but indeed hath no remarkable difference from the rest although it varyes from them Now saith Doctor Forbes Pope Damasus in his first Epistle to Purisper Bishop of the Prime Seat of Numidia and other Orthodox Bishops he condemns the Chori-Episcopi as an irregular Order being in themselves but Praesbyteri and taking upon them Episcopal power To go methodically in the examination of this Argument I propose to my self three things 1. The Consideration of the authority of the Canons made in this Councel next the examination of Pope Damasus his decree and last the Nature of those Chori-Episcopi or Country Bishops who are therein mentioned And first I apply my self to the Councel which I am content to admit because the Canons thereof were antiently received into the Code of the Universal Church and mentioned both in the Councel of Chalcedon and the Councel in Trullo though Estius in Quartum Distinct. 25. Sect. 2. is bold to reject the
who was Patriarch of Antioch although a good while after should not be thought â—itter to understand the practice of that Church than those who lived after him in other Churches I apprehend not His Comment upon the Text is this Sine Vrbis Episcopo without the Bishop of the City is not to be understood without his Command as we term it his Fiat but saith he his Ordination or Consecration for saith he if the Bishop Command the Chori-Episcopus to Ordain and he should do it that Ordination were void so that by this learned Author this perplexed Canon must be understood against Doctor Forbes but he hath a third Edition of Isidore Hispalensis which reads it praeter conscientiam Episcopi without the conscience of the Bishop and here he magnifies this Edition and calls it probatissima Versio the most approved version but he doth not set down by whom this is approved besides himself neither do I think he can nor doth shew any reason why it should be so approved but his own Authority and let us see what he hath got by it for certainly it seems not to me to inforce his interpretation which is that he may Ordain these offices with the leave of the Bishop for it is not praeter consensum but conscientiam now conscience is not the same with consent consent is most proper to another mans action Conscience to his own the great actions of Conscience being to accuse or excuse a mans self or to judg of a mans own act or whether they have been done according to right science but it meddles not with what concerns other men either to judge accuse or excuse them unless we are authorized in foro publico or privato in confession and then it is an act of the Confessors Conscience only out of this regard that he is bound in duty to apply his knowledg to others and therefore to understand this Phrase better let us conceive that Praeter or beside the Conscience of the Bishop is non-sence but if he or any others are delighted with this word Conscience in this Canon I will shew them a fourth reading where he may find it used most properly and significantly which is Cresperius his sum word Chori-Episcopus where he quotes this Canon and therein saith that a Chori-Episcopus must not Ordain Priests or Deacons propter Conscientiam Episcopi for the conscience he hath of the Bishop of his City that is because his Conscience tells him that the Bishop is only to Ordain such thus I think that it is no way evident from the Canon that these men did Ordain Priests or Deacons we come next to the second whether any of these Chori-Episcopi had Episcopal Ordination and so might in a case of necessity Ordain SECT IV. Doctor Forbes to blame for Censuring Bellarmine too sharply in this point IN this Question Doctor Forbes falls soul upon Cardinal Bellarmine which I was sorry to read gives him ill language calls his opinion ridiculous and childish and again Page 170. detestanda est Bellarmini impudentia Bellarmines impudence is to be abhorr'd or else miseranda imperitia his Ignorance is to be pityed for although the Cardinal may seem to deserve such language himself after giving learned men who differ from himself in judgment as bad or worse yet these Pen-Combates should in that resemble those with swords where the first engagers in the quarrel being high with animosities against each other will give no Quarter but after the experience of a continued warr hath taught that what happens to one this day may be the fortune of the other to morrow they manage the warr more civilly in the future so it should be with us now when the warrs have continued a long time and experience hath taught us that the most learned writer is a man and subject to error may be mistaken in his judgment may sometimes in Quotations miss the right conceit of them we should spare such reproachful languages and deal with one another even our enemies more courteously but let us see why he is so severe against Bellarmine because saith he Bellarmine doth oppose Damasus and all antiquity in saying that there are some Chori-Episcopi which had Episcopal Consecration and some which had only Presbyterial to this I say Bellarmine may be mistaken and so may Vasques the Jesuit who opposeth him in that conclusion but I doubt it doth not clearly appear out of antiquity Which is mistaken Bellarmine de Clericis in his seventeenth Cap. conceives that these Chori-Episcopi which he and all writers make to be vicarii Episcoporum may be of two sorts either such as are meer Presbyters or else such as are suffragans or titular Bishops the first sort are they which Pope Damasus condemns and will not suffer to encroach upon the Episcopal office the other he saith which were suffragan Bishops or titular might do it with leave from the Bishop of the City the fault of this saying appears not to me for they being vicarii may be of either sort or both and I spoke it knowingly as will appear presently in the next Cap. if they were such as are called suffragans as is reasonable to think then they were Ordained Episcopally and might Ordain Priests yea Bishops and did do it nor doth any thing in Vasques or Doctor Forbes necessarily confute it first for Cardinal Bellarmine he seems to be of opinion that this Canon doth approve of the Consecration of these Chori-Episcopi and that they might give the Order of Priesthood with leave from the chief Bishop to avoid that that they who were presbyters might then do it he puts down this distinction that some had but Presbyterian Ordination and some Episcopal and this he thinks this Canon implyes when it saith speaking of the Chori-Episcopi etiamsi manus impositionem Episcoporum acceperint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mark it is in the Plural number they had the imposition of Hands of Bishops not of one only as Presbyters and then again it is said ut Episcopi consecrati fuerunt and are Consecrated as Bishops which words saith Doctor Forbes were by the translator added and are not in the original Greek it is probable Pope Damasus who lived near that time a thousand years and more nearer than he and is reported to be learned in the Greek as well as Latin should know the words of the Councel as well as he or any other yet he puts down these words and they are in both the Lections of Peter Crabb I will not trouble my self to look further but Pope Damasus writing against them and condemning them would not have put down this Argument against himself if it had not been the Language used in that Canon what force his Arguments have I shall examine speedily but now let us consider the Argument which is only touched by Bellarmine if they were a sort of Chori-Episcopi which had the imposition of Hands from divers Bishops what reason can be imagined why such
should not Ordain Priests Vasques in answer to this saith that the imposition of the Hands of Bishops is not to be understood of many Bishops laying on their Hands at the same time upon the same man but that several Bishops at several times laid their Hands upon several Chori-Episcopi but to this may be urged that word quamvis as one or etiamsi as another Edition why should the Canon say although he be Ordained by the imposition of Hands of Bishops and Consecrated as a Bishop this although would there signifie nothing for he should not be by it distinguished from a Presbyter but because some were and some were not Ordained by Bishops it reacheth even those who were so Ordained Doctor Forbes is not content with this answer of Vasques but adds another of his own at the bottom of Page 171. and throughout 172 where before cited the sence of which is that the imposition of Hands here mentioned is not to be understood passively for the imposition of Hands which they receive themselves but actively for that imposition of Hands which they had power of to give I think I have set it down as clearly as his words can be rendered for indeed his Language is as obscure as the Canon it self but this is most forced nor indeed can a man conceive Canonically how a Chori-Episcopus could receive that active which he mentions unless he had received it passively first by the imposition of Hands of divers Bishops nor can a man well imagine in that Language ut Episcopi Ordinantur what that ut should mean if it did not come to explain the former Phrase of imposition of Hands of divers Bishops so that then for ought I see Bellarmines exposition against both these adversaries is the most clear and congruous to the Canon let us now examine Pope Damasus's Arguments as they are scholastically urged by Vasques and that is the marrow of all that is in this Epistle SECT V. Damasus his first Argument against the Chori-Episcopi answered Damasus seems to me eitheir with Bellarmine to think there were two sorts of Chori-Episcopi in the time of making the Canon which may be perswaded because although he begins with this Argument from the Plural number before urged yet he never endeavours an answer to it or else believing them all but Presbyters he thinks that his other Argument may invalid this and notwithstanding this being deficient in other things they are not Bishops by it His first Argument is drawn from the word Chori which signifies Countrey they were but country Bishops when as all Bishops should be of a City To this I answer that although such Canons may be made for the establishment of the government of Churches in a setled Kingdom where are such Cities for the Decorum and honour of the Episcopal Sea yet it cannot be in unsetled States as suppose the Gospel should be preached in the barbarous places of the West-Indies where are no such places to give Episcopacy that honour yet the Church may and ought to be planted and governours put into them to regulate their discipline oâ— else things will go backward faster than forward in the matters of Religion Again we may conceive if such Canons be insisted upon that they should be understood of prime and chief Bishops not such as are Vicarii Episcoporum that is vicars of the chief Bishops Now it may happen that there be a necessity of such vicars and they may be of great use to the Bishop of the City whose Diocess is large as will appear shortly and these Chori-Episcopi although they may be impeded in the execution of their office by the superior authority of the Bishop of the City yet with his consent are impowred to Ordain in these cases which is most agreeing to the letter of the Canon according to any Edition either sine or praeter or whatsoever it is This is enough I think for the first Argument of Pope Damasus SECT VI. His next Argument answered ANother is thus framed there are but two Orders of Priesthood Bishops and Presbyters this he enlargeth and proves from the Church under the Law where were Aaron and his Sons only in the Priesthood as likewise from our Saviour himself who had only Apostles and Disciples so saith he it should be in the present Church now it seems these Chori-Episcopi are neither they esteem themselves greater than Presbyters and yet are not Bishops wherefore nothing in answer what they esteem themselves I know not but we have good reason to think some were Bishops and some only Presbyters and they who were Bishops might act these great offices of Ordaining Priests and Deacons with leave of the Bishop of the Diocess those who were only Priests could not Thus Damasus his Arguments are are of no force against that Canon of Antioch and therefore Vasques himself acknowledgeth in that 238. Disp. Cap. 7. That Damasus did conceive that in the time of the Council of Antioch some Chori-Episcopi were Bishops and he affirms that if they had Episcopal Consecration although they were but titular Bishops and so had no place assigned at their Consecration where they should officiate yet they had that power granted them at their Consecration which might be reduced into act whensoever a place was assigned them and yet Damasus condemns them for the future which was never obeyed SECT VII One word in the Canon more explained THere is one word more in the Canon which may abide a misinterpretation and is somewhat insisted upon by Doctor Forbes that is in the latter end of the Canon it is said that he the Chori-Episcopus must be Ordained by the Bishop to whom he and his possession are subject Now if he be Ordained by one Bishop only certainly he is but a Presbyter for although as I have said in a case of necessity one Bishop hath been allowed to Consecrate and the power Apostolical was to them Separative to every one to Ordain yet when Laws were substituted by Ecclesiastique authority for the well government of the Church and severe punishments inflicted upon the violation of them as are in this case it is not reasonable to think that men living in obedience to that Church should dare â—o break them in publique and that constantly as it seems this is for answer to this I say that this makes it evident that this Canon is delivered concerning a double sort of Chori-Episcopi some that were made by the imposition of Hands of divers Bishops and others that were ordained by one only which is all is required and so I will pass to my last proposal to shew what these Chori-Episcopi were CHAP. XVI What the Chori-Episcopi were IT is a hard task which I do not find clearly delivered by any what I find shall be set down and leave the determination to others In general my conceipt of them is this that as it happens in other Parisnes where Presbyters have the charge that where they are large and
require Chappels of ease the Parson sometimes gets a Deacon to officiate in a Chappel and do all the lesser duties for him Reads the Prayers and Lessons yea Baptize where he cannot be present to act it himself yet if he have a Chappel at which he cannot reside as it is too often in my Diocess he must have a compleat Presbyter to do that work so it was in those greater Parishes of Bishops which we call Diocesses but were heretofore called Parishes when they are large and cannot well be super-intended by a Bishops care he had Chori-Episcopi such as being Presbyters only might do his work of which they were capable by Commission But yet if they were very large for which it would be troublesome for the Diocess to receive the Episcopal duties which were beyond the Presbyterian authority there it was necessary to have such Chori-Episcopi which were Bishops And as that Country Parson may restrain his Curate in the exercise of his authority you shall not absolve such and such faults nor give the Communion at such and such times without my particular leave because I mean to be present at those times so may be the case of those Chori-Episcopi who were Bishops they might Ordain those lesser Orders as they are called Sub-deacons and Readers but not Priests or Deacons which indeed are Orders but by leave from their superior Bishops And this I think may fairly meet with the Council of Antioch and all that I can find any where in antiquity spoken of them That this may appear more clearly consider first That this office is by some made as antient as the Apostles times they say that Linus and Clemens were Chori-Episcopi to St. Peter at Rome so Platina with others and there may appear some reasons for it because when St. Peter had pitched upon that place for his Diocess if he did so and was necessarily to prosecute his great Apostolical design about the world in other places as well as Rome it was necessary that he should have some men of eminent worth to Episcopize for him in his absence but then I find not that they in his life time did Ordain any to these Orders although perhaps they might do it until they came to be Bishops themselves at Rome SECT II. The decrees of divers Councils examined THe next piece I find concerning them is in Concilio Ancirano Canon 13 the effect of which is that Chori-Episcopi should not Ordain Priests or Deacons or Priests act any thing without leave from the Bishops letters or under his hand here is nothing whether they were Bishops or no The next the Council of Neocaesarea in which it is thought were the same Bishops as in the other and did immediately follow that at Ancira Canon 13. where the Chori-Episcopi are compared with the seventy which amounts to nothing whether they were Bishops appears not by that but that they were assistants to the supreme Bishops as the seventy were to the Apostles The nâ—xt shall be the Council of Laodicea the two former are mentioned by Doctor Forbes but not this this Council in the fifty seventh Canon decrees this Quod non oporteat in villis pagis Episcopos constitui sed visitatores veruntamen jamdudum constituti nihil facient praeter conscientiam Episcopi Civitatis saith one Edition sine mente Episcopi saith another We may perceive in this Canon two things first that it forbids these Chori-Episcopi or country-Country-Bishops secondly that although it forbids them yet it supposeth that of themselves they had authority to Episcopize and therefore restrains the Execution of that authority to the leave from the Bishop of the City and therefore from that time they were to be regulated by him The next thing I meet with in Order is the Eighth Canon of that great and glorious Council of Nice the first where I find that upon the reconciliation of the Novations which called themselves Catharei or Puri as more holy than other men when these came into the Church and were received if they had been Ordained by the Novations as Bishops before they were admitted upon repentance into favour they were admitted into the same Order in which they were before but if there were an Orthodox Bishop in that Diocess he might allow him the honour and name of a Bishop if he would if not he might allow him the place of Presbyter or Country Bishop in his Diocess but to avoid a clashing of Competitors in the same City he must have no power there in the City where I observe that Chori-Episcopus may be such as his Episcopal Consecration would have been good in a vacant Bishoprick to entitle him to it although if he was where was a full Bishoprick he would be but a Chori-Episcopus That which follows next is that canvased Council of Antioch which occasioned all this Discourse and then comes in the decree of Damasus to which I have spoken and I may add the Epistle of St. Basil which is writ Chori-Episcopis and that contains a sharp reproof of their negligence in giving Orders and a prohibition that there should not any from thenceforth be admitted without his examination and that these unworthy persons who had been brought into the list of the Clergy should be separated with much more tending to that purpose where I observe that not the defect of power but their abuse of their poweâ— was it they were blamed for that which Isidore Hispalensis or Hrabarus Maurus delivers concerning it is not more than was in the former Councils Balsamon saith they were almost worn out in his time the Meldensian allows them to be but abridgeth their power yet commands Bishops not to authorize them by their own negligence or infirmities so now although Pope Damasus his decree could not prevail to extirpate them yet this Council thought fit to restrain their practice this Councel was Eight hundred years after Christ and more I will not write how Vasques remembers some in his time but come close to our own Age and Country if these men were the same with Suffragans which I know no reason to deny then no doubt but they had Episcopal Ordination and did Consectate not Priests only but Bishops also To prove this let any man peruse that excellent piece of Francis Mason de ministerio Anglicano he shall find that in the dayes of Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth the Suffragans of Bedford Chichester Taunton were Episcopally Consecrated and did joyn in the Consecration of other Bishops So now I have finished this undertaking out of this debate concerning the 10. Canon of Antioch in which I have shewed that if the Council it self be admitted yet that Particular Canon to be most perplexed but if it lean any way it is against Doctor Forbes since it is most reasonable to think by that story which I have set down concerning them that there were at the least divers of the Chori-Episcopi which had Episcopal Consecration