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
the Character left in Baptism is and the Definition of it 205. In what Predicament this Charaâ—â—er is 207. The Foundation of this Character is the Will of God 213. 218. Durandus holds this Character to be Ens Rationis 215. Is opposed by all the Schoolmen but their Arguments do not confute him ibid. The Subject of this Character is the whole man 221. THE TABLE OF THE Appendix A The Apostles were Bishops prov'd 233. The first of the Apostolical Canons examined 249. The anointing the Bishops hand no necessary essential to his Constituion 258. Sect. 6. Athanasius's testimony that meer Presbyteers could not Ordain even in Alexandria 27â— The Council of Antioch Schismatical and Illegal 274. B Bishops have ever been in the Church 231. Whether three Bishops be necessary to the Consecration of a Bishop 246. Sect. 1. Ans. Reg. The Consecration of St. James Bishop of Jerusalem objected and answered 248. What is essential to Constitute a Bishop 263. 264. Baptism not void by different circumstances in the Celebration of it P. 256. Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch's interpretation of the Canon of that Council approved 274 277. Bellarmine too hardly dealt withall by Dr. Forbes 278. Not confuted by him 279 280. St. Basil's Opinion of the Chori-Episcopi 286. C The Church Universal never was nor can be without a Bishop 231. The Church of Ephesus not governed by meer Elders but Bishops 233. The Church was without Elders till the Apostles Ordained them 232. Christianity may be continued but Church-communion and Ordinances cannot without Bishops 235. The Consecration of St. James Bishop of Jerusalem discussed 247. Three Bishops are not by Divine Right necessary to a Bishops Consecration 246. The Canon called the Apostles Canon about the Consecration of Bishops examined 249. The Canon of the Council of Nice examined 250 251. And proved to concern the Election not the Consecration of Bishops ibid. The second Canon of the Council of Carthage concerning the Consecration of Bishops 259. The Catholike Church does concentre in this conclusion that when words importing the Blessing are delivered by a Consecrating Bishop and those words are sealed by an imposition of Hands then those Holy Orders are effectually given 265. in the begin No Church in the Christian world ever gave simple Presbyters power to Ordain 270. The Chori-Episcopi have not power to Ordain proved 274. Unless they be Suffragans 279. 282. Cresperius's reading of the Canon of Antioch alledged for the Chori-Episcopi viz. not praeter but propter Conscientiam Episcopi 278. Chori-Episcopi were but Presbyters because Ordained by one Bishop alone 282. S. 7. ☞ Two sorts of Chori-Episcopi P. 283. What they were 284. D Dr. Forbes's arguments answered from P. 232 to 284. Deacons not necessary in every Parochial Church 240. Difference in the Form or words does not disanull a Sacrament 256. The distinction of Orders is known by the manner of the laying on of Hands and the form of words as in our Church used in the pronunciation of the Blessing 265. Sect. 2. Damasus his reading upon the Canon of Antioch 276. vid. 279. Which doth sufficiently answer Dr. Forbes his Arguments against all Chori-Episcopi having power of Ordination answered 281. His second Argument answered 282. Decrees of divers Councils examined 284 285. E The Church of Ephesus not Governed by meer Elders but Bishops 233. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated Eligi to be Elected or chosen 251. lin 13 Elders were not in the Church till the Apostles Ordained them 232 What is essential to the Constitution of a Bishop 254. Explicatory additions do not destroy the notion of that which they explain 257. in the end The only essential ceremony if any be in the Consecration of Bishops is the laying on of Hands 264. The essence of Ordination cheifly consists in the pronouncing the Blessing with the notes of distinction of the Orders then conferred 265. vid. 268. S. 4. The Errors committed in the Inauguration of Popes no President for reformed Churches in the Consecration â—f Bishops 269. The Church of England's Rites of Consecration defended Sect. 4. 268. F Dr. Forbes's first Argument from Scripture answered 232. His first Argument to prove their Ordination after Bishops were instituted answered 235. His Argument taken out of Johannes Major answered from 235. to 238. His Argument from the Church of Rome answered 239. His Argument from Deacons answered 240. His Argument from Scripture answered ibid. His Argument out of St. Hierome answered 242. His Argument from Pelagius's Ordination answered 244. 245. His Argument from St. Ambrose and St. Augustine answered 271. His Argument from the council of Antioch 274. to 284. G Gasper Hurtado's opinion about the Consecration of Bishops examined 261. ☞ The Gospel laid upon the Bishops Neck not essential to his Consecration because there were Bishops befoâ—e the Gospel was written 260. vid. 266. to 268. Gentianus Hervetus his reading of the Canon of Antioch 277. the begin H Henricus Henriques opinion that some papers wherein the Gospel was written might be given to the primitive Bishops in their Consecrations is found invalid 261. I Imposition of Hands the only necessary and essential ceremony if any be to the Consecration of Bishops 264. Inauguration of Popes no President for the Consecration of reformed Bishops P. 243. vid. 269. Imposition of the Hands of Presbyters alone is not sufficient for â—rdination 270. Ischyras was no Priest because Ordained by no Bishop 272. the begin Isidore Hispalensis his reading of the Canon of Antioch makes nothing for Dr. Forbes 277. L The laying on of Hands only essentially necessary to the constitution of a Bishop 264. Linus and Clemens were Chori-Episcopi to St. Peter 284 about the midst Laodicean Canon forbids the Chori-Episcopi to act any thing without the leave of their Diocesan 285. M The manner of the imposition of Hands distinguisheth what Orders are conferr'd 265. S. a. Moderation to be used towards every opponent though never so much mistaken 278. S. 4. N Necessity only can justify the Ordination of Presbyters 270. No Church ever gave meer Presbyters power to Ordain ib. The Canon of Nice examined 250 251. The Eighth Canon of the Council of Nice 285. O Objections against the Authors opinion concerning the Consecration of Bishops answered 265. The first Objection answered ib. Objection from the Council of Carthage answered from 266. to 268. Objection against the Church of Englands Rites of Consecration answered 268. objection taken from the Council of Antioch answered From 272 to 274. P Panormitan's Argument answered 234 Presbyters may Elect not Ordain a Bishop 242. Pelagiu ' s Ordination related Sect. 1. P. 243. The Patriarch of Antioch his interpretation of the Canon of the Council of Nice 250. c. The Pope cannot dispence with Divine Laws 253. Petrus Arcadius's discourse illustrated and applied Sect. 2. 255 c. The Pontifical differs in many things from the Canon of the Carthaginian Council in the rites of Consecration 267. Presbyters alone could
times only Councels can be Congregated and in other times as things necessary by Divine right must always be kept close unto so what is only humane may be spared it is not possible for humane power to add any thing of absolute necessity to Divine justice which cannot be altered now of this Nature in this Ceremony of the Gospel as is most apparent For first the Pontifical varyes extreamly much in this very point from the Councel of Carthage not only in adding to it that the Book must be open which is not expresed in Carthage but by Changing those few Circumstances which are particularized there as first where it is said in Carthage that two Bishops shall lay on the Gospel the Pontiâ—ical saith that it must be done by the Consecrator and the assisting Bishop Antonius is peremptory out of Hostiensis that it must be done by three in the third part of his sums Tit. 14. Cap. 16. Sect. 9. towards the end of that Section secondly where the Councel saith that the Book shall be put upon the head and the neck of the Consecrated Bishop The Pontiâ—ical saith super scapulam cervicem upon the shoulders and the neck thirdly whereas the Councel saith uno fundente benedictionem one pouring out the blessing they make them altogether to give it in these words Receive the Holy Ghost Antonius where before is peremptory that three must do it thus you see how in the Doctrine of the Church of Rome the Compiler of that Book is prefer'd before that ever to to be honoured Councel consisting of above two hundred Bishops amongst which were many most eminent men and indeed the Popes legates likewise although they could only keep up his pretensions to it not prevail for his universal superiority besides this I observe in the Ceremoniale Romanum put out by Pope Leo the tenth and licensed by him in the second Sect. litera Charta as the Printer calls it or as we fol. 11. the Ordinator and the rest put the Book only upon the neck of the Elect Pope when he is made Bishop so that here in these Records of the Church of Rome besides these other practices of Chaplaines or â—eacons before mentioned we find a great liberty taken in varying from the Councel of Carthage and amongst themselves the Councel appointing the Book to be put upon the head and neck the Pontifical upon the shoulders and the neck the Ceremonial names only the neck which evidently makes it appear that this Clause hath been looked upon only as an humane ordinance subject to Change and alteration but the other of imposition of Hands as Divine which no humane power could abrogate or alter Give me leave since I am in the canvasing of the Canon to make one observation for the further illustration of a Conclusion before treated of that is the Phrase uno fundente benedictionem the blessing is given by one when the Pontifical makes it to be given at the same time by many and so divers Doctors in the Church of Rome which certainly may be very confused one begining sooner and so ending but to avoid that the Ceremonial before cited saith that the Consecrator with the rest of the Bishops saith Accipe Spiritum Sanctum receive the Holy Ghost but he adds the Consecrator alte the rest submisse he with a loud voice the rest with a soft and now consider that one is called the Consecrator as surely he must be and the rest do but come into his assistance to lay on their Hands in token of the assurance of it and therefore they speak lowly and humbly he that is the Consecrator doth Consecrate the rest come in as assistants and to this purpose they speak lowly and submissly and to this purpose Vasques after a long discourse about this Question concludes Disp. 240. Number 65. that it is enough that one speaks the words and lays on his Hands likewise where we may observe by him that the Consecrators words are that they call the form of Consecration we may say conveigh the Consecrating virtue this being received in all Christian Churches but the other unconstant amongst themselves Another Argument may be objected against us of the Church of England who use a giving of the Bible to the Bishop who is to be Ordained in our Consecration SECT IV. An Objection against our practice answered and the force of the Argument satisfied IT is true and it is according to the first Ceremony used in the Pontisical where it is said that the Consecrating Bishop takes the Book from the shoulders of the Consecrated and with the other assisting Bishops gives it shut to the Consecrated with these words Accipe Evangelium receive the Gospel we use this and with it a godly exhortation to the Bishop but it is after his Consecration for that is perfected in the first Act Receive the Holy Ghost for the office of a Bishop in the Churches of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our Hands In the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost this only is essentially the Consecration and if the Arch-bishop should be struck dead immediately after the pronouncing these words the Consecrated Bishop should receive no other Consecration we use likewise an examination before the Consecration according to the first Canon in the fourth Councel of Carthage although not punctually the same yet virtually containing all substantial matter in it that reflected principally upon those Heresies which afflicted that Church at that time our examination as it included these so it particularizeth upon such as more neerly concerned the disturbance of our own but neither that proceeding nor this subsequent exhortation are essentially necessary ad esse to the Being of a Bishop but conduce to the gravity and decency of the Administration of so high a duty as likewise for a memorial to every Bishop to put him in mind of the bene esse the well and good execution of his Order which is a most excellent office and being no where forbid but indeed in many places of the New Testament taught yea commanded no man can think but that at such a Holy time as his Consecration it is seasonable to put the Bishop to be Consecrated in mind of such performances which the Holy Ghost requires of him this is all I hope is needful for the satisfaction of that Argument drawn from the Consecration of Pope Pelagius the first who was Consecrated by the imposition of Hands from two Bishops and one Presbyter first it is evident thâ—t one particular act cannot satisfie a Right to do that again which hath been done once because there is no rule or law against which no man ever trespassed Secondly that the Errors committed in elections and Consecrations of Popes are no Presidents because they have too often much transgressed in that kind Thirdly that Consecration in necessary occasions when more cannot be had may be by two or one only Bishop and yet be essentially good Fourthly
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
Ordination of Christ and in this I should place the Difference betwixt these Apostles and others That they are made such by an Immediate Ordination of Christ for it is not enough that some saâ— to be an Apostle was to be such a Minister as conversed with Christ in his humanity or saw him in the Flesh for this did all the Seventy which yet were not called Apostles nor is it sufficient which others say they were such whose Office extended to the whole world for so we shall find in the Acts almost none Confined to any place but that others as well as St. Paul had a Care of all Churches But upon this a man may justly enquire why St. Paul should in such distinct Terms not of men nor by man describe himself since it seems every Apostle was such To clear this and give further Illustration to this Truth Observe that others besides these were called Apostles so you may find first Barnabas as well as St. Paul Acts 14. 14. which when the Apostles Barnabas and Paul heard c. Apostles in the plural Number some have thought that this Barnabas was the same with Barsabas who Acts 1. 23. wâ—s Competitor with Mathias for the Apostleship but methinks missing the place then it were strange he should be called an Apostle afterwards and indeed their Names differ their Original Names and their Additional Names for Acts 1 his Name was Joseph called Barsabas sirnamed Justus but in Acts 4. 36. instead of Joseph is Joses and instead of Barsabas is Barnabas but besides him we read Rom. 16. 7. of Andâ—onicus and Junia of whom St. Paul saith that they were his kinsmen his fellow prisoner and of Note among the Apâ—stles which words although they have received a double sense either that they were Eminent persons among the Apostles or else esteemed and noted by them to be such persons of Esteem yet there are many both ancient and Modern Writers both such as are for and against Bishops that agree they were Apostles as the words very naturally bear it and to take away the Scruple both the Centuries and Baronius agree upon it which if there were scruple they would not have done then turn to Phil. 2. 25. there you shall find St. Paul calling Epaphroditus my brother and Companion in labour and fellow souldier but your Messenger Here I cannot but wonder at our Translators who render it Messenger such a mean phrase intimating any common or trivial man who is sent on an errand Beza did much better who called him Legatum an Embassador a nobler phrase but indeed the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Apostle and so those Epithetes before express him my brother c. This may likewise be shewed â—ut of the 1 Cor. 4. 9. God hath set forth us the Apostles last the Translation here likewise is not good for it is not he hath set forth us last but us last Apostles us that were the last Apostles who are they in particular vers 6. he names Apollo these things I have in a figure transcribed to my self and to Apollo that ye might learn of us not to think of men above that which is written Now then although he may mean others beside himself and Apollo yet it is sit to conceive that he should be in the number of those are called Apostles because he is one of those from whom they must learn not to think of men above what is written and among other Arguments this is a main one That we the last Apostles Apollo and my self and perhaps more are unhappy wretched people marked out for misers to be made a spectacle of contemptible people to the World to Angels and men I could here likewise treat of Gal. 1. 19 where James the brother of the Lord is called an Apostle who by many is thought and from good reason to be none of the two James's which were of the Twelve but a third who was made Bishop of Jerusalem but I desist it is evident out of Scripture that the holy Writ mentioneth more Apostles besides the Twelve and St. Paul and if besides the Scripture any mans Language may be heard consider that of Ignatius who was Contemporary as he speaks with the Apostles Paul John and Timothy in his Epistle to the Ephesians who there speaks in the language of the times and by that language calls Timothy an Apostle SECT IX A Reason of this NOW then to draw this Discourse to some period there were other Apostles besides the first Twelve and St. Paul the Thirteenth but why so because as Theodoret speaks upon Phil. 2. 25. in the case of Epaphroditus before handled that he was called their Apostle to whom the Care of them was Committed And again upon the 1 Tim. 3. 1. Heretofore they called Presbyters Bishops and those which we call Bishops they called Apostles but saith he in processe of time they left the name of Apostles to them who were truly Apostles and they gave the name of Bishops to those which were formerly called Apostles So likewise St. Hierome on Gal. 1. 9. Procedente Tempore alii ab his quos Dominus elegerat ordinati sunt Apostoli In progresse of time other Apostles were ordained by those which the Lord had Choseâ— and this is the reason why St. Paul where before Gal. 1. 1. saith he was an Apostle not of men nor by man but by Jesus Christ to distinguish him from those others who were Apostles by Constitution of Apostles not immediately by God and to the same purpose may that be understood of St. Paul 2 Cor. 11. 5. I suppose I was not a whit behind or lesse or inferiour to the Chiefest Apostles Amongst the Apostles the Twelve there were not some Chief and some Inferiour but the Twelve were the Chief and the rest Inferiour Now he having his calling and enabling from Christ immediately was not inferiour to them And though I read I know not where the Authority of Theodoret slighted yet I do not remember what Satisfaction is given to his Reason Nor can well Conceive how these Scriptures can in any other sense be reasonably expounded CHAP. V. The Extent of the Apostolical Power AND now me-thinks I see the Apostles in the Church as Divines say Adam if he had lived innocent and his posterity would have been in the World they had been Emperors of the whole World and all the World would have been every mans yet being in their Integrity would have so enjoy'd all that it should have been to the good of all and hurt of none So these holy men were Bishops Apostles of all the World all the Churches throughout the World had absolute not order only as the School speaks to give holy Sacraments to any any where but Jurisdiction to Govern and rule all That which Eusebius saith hath some truth That they divided themselves into several parts of the World but not appropriating to themselves any piece nor excluding any other from that Share or
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
reason that they should and why should others do it Yes much differenâ—â— one Sermon of the Apostles and prayer of theirs is of greater power and force with God than twenty others they out of Duty must travell through the whole world they cannot attend the Care of the poor in a particular City the others though being Evangelists may upon particular Occasions be called off from their place yet they shall return again and overview their Charge the people therefore when they could not have their particular eyes over that blessed work took those that were next them in that dubious time to take Care of the poor and these men could not therefore be chosen to an Inferiour Constant Office such as they feign their Deacons to be because â—hey were men of higher Employment and greater Concernment in the Church but were chosen for that Occasion how long I know not to attend that Duty SECT X. Another Argument for the former Conclusion A Fourth reason may be drawn from the Design which Mr. Hooker takes for this Office which is such as would make any Nation tremble to think upon an Erection of the greatest Tyranny which ever was exercised in any Commonwealth you shall find it described in the 36 37 pages where before For first he is Treasurer this may be without exception Secondly he must addresse himself to receive what is brought into the Treasury but mark not what is but what ought to be brought into the Treasury to be committed to his Trust for this briefly I will set down his sense purpose he must inform himself by advice and counsel from the body what every mans Free-will Offerings should be this upshot results out of his Discourses that only Free-will Offerings should be accepted yet because the maintenance of Church and poor must not be arbitrary they must understand mens Estates as well as they can if they be negligent admonish them then if they stirr not go to Christs Discipline tell the Church and so upon contempt of that to Eccleliastical Censure To this purpose he cites two places Deut. 16. 10. and Levit. 22. 18 19. In both which places if he had transcribed the words without further trouble there could have no more appeared but that men should bring their Free-will Offerings and then do this or this but the Sin lay upon him who was to bring it in he was not to be compelled to it nor do they perhaps they will say but I will reply Ecclesiastical Censure of putting out of the Church making a man an Heathen is the greatest Compulsion in the World and as they order it upon the Consultation and Advice of the Deacon it will arise to be upon the Imagination of the Deacon and instead of his Judgement perhaps oftentimes unlesse they be better than those the Apostles used before this election the partial Affection of the Deacon which would betray Souls to a most unhappy and arbitrary Government for Religion for Estates SECT XI The opposing Arguments answered UPon these reasons I am perswaded that the Office of a Deacon was not established in that of Acts 6. to be as a rule for all Churches but only these 〈…〉 of and Authorized in this great 〈…〉 that diâ—y in the Church at that time and thus I have disproved those Answers which Mr. Hooker seems to frame to my reasons his Arguments for confirmation of his Cause I shall undertake in a more proper place presently yet least men may think I introduce a new Opinion into the world know that this was the Opinion of St. Chrysostom and Oecumenius Estius in 4 Sent. dist 24. Sect. 18. observes as much and for Oecumenius throws him out with Cujus Authoritas non ita magni est momenti For St. Chrysostom it is in his 14 Homily upon the Acts about the middle he saith it is so obscure that it may be suspected of Corruption I answer it is very clear and no man will corrupt a Father without a design which cannot appear in this what it should be but rather than yield he will charge the rest of his Doctrine because saith he he affirms non fuisse Episcopos tunc in Ecclesia when Acts 1. it is said let another take his Bishoprick To this I reply that he saith not there were no Bishops but Apostolos solos only the Apostles and this is true nor Presbyter neither yet as will appear hereafter But now it may be enquired Was there no such Office as that of a Deacon proper to the Church SECT XII Whether there be such an Office as a Deacon proper to the Church YEs without question in the 1 of Tim. 3. 8. St. Panl describes at large the Qualifications of such a man who must be chosen to that Office I shall need no proof of it because all consent to this Conclusion but if a man should enquire when and where he was Ordained I must answer I know not nor do I find any Register of it in the New Testament nor amongst any learned men any Consent the greatest is upon that place in the 6. of the Acts which seems to me to be built upon weak grounds the Church of Rome in general makes all their seven Ordeâ— to be erected at the Institution of the Communion by our Saviour but I leave that imagination as of no moment since there is no word in Scripture which seems to countenance it and I will passe from this Question to the other What his Office was to do CHAP. VI. What is the Office of a Deacon THE Office what it was receives the greatest Illustration from his Name which signifies a Minister a Servant to the Ecclesiastical Officers Bishops or Presbyters so that as when a man is known to be a Minister or Servant to another he is by that made apparent to do such things as Conduce to the assistance of him who is his Superiour or Prelate in his Office so do these in respect of their Superiours Bishops and Presbyters I do not find one word in Scripture setting down what their Office was we can therefore have no knowledge of it but from the History of the Church from which we receive that their Office was to Baptize to assist at the Communion with delivering the Cup and sometimes the Body but not to Consecrate so likewise to assist in the Divine Service some other things we find various according to the Customs of Churches but all these are subordinate and ministerial Offices likewise they had power to preach upon particular occasions and licenses given to wit by that Order they had a qualification to receive a License these things I can particularly give an Account to be the sense of the Ancient Church if any man require it but am loath also to lose Time about it only I will now undertake Mr. Hooker SECT II. Mr. Hookers opinion concerning a Deacon examined HE therefore Part 2. Chap. 1. falsly printed for Chap. 2. page 33. in his third Acception of his
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
7 8. He that teacheth on reaching he that exhorteth on exhortation This place I have at large shewed in the Case of their Deacon not to signifie distinct Offices but diversities of Gifts and it imports no more than that he who finds in himself Abilities of Teaching or Exhorting should use his Talent as a member of the same body to the good of his brother But I wonder why they should not rather distinguish thâ—se Offices by the Names of Teacher and Exhorter because these Names in this place signifie distinct Abilities and Endeavours in those two wayes which they intend them to but there is nothing in either word which intimates the nature of a Pastor which is to goveâ— as well as feed But these words are found Eph. 4. 1. where the words Pastor and Teacher are used and are urged for this distinction in his Treatise of the Preachers Office Part 2. Chap. 1. pag. 20. but how unluckily let any man Consider The words are these And he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers let any man Consider this place and think whether the Apostle should put these as distinct Those which are distinct he distinguishes with this phrase some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors now mark he doth not say some Teachers but some Pastors and Teachers Coupling these together as one not distinguishing them as the other and therefore let him not dare to sever them whom God hath joyned But he â—ites Beza upon this place to answer mine Argument which he toucheth let us examine therefore what he saith I assent saith he to Ambrose who makes these Offices distinct for ratio parum firma est for saith he the reason is not firm which moved Hierom and Austin to Confound them that is because the Copula is put without the Article he saith it is not firm but he offers no reason why it is not firm the Apostlâ— distinguisheth the rest with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and joyns these with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is put to joyn these together can any man imagine these to be severed he names Hierome and Austin but he might have cited St. Crysostome Theophylact Theodoret all the Greek Fathers whom any man would credit in the Greek Tongue before Beza when he hath no reason for what he saith But the Trick of these men when they have no reason they speak great words in Commendation or Disparagement of what is for or against them It is parum firma ratio saith Beza but gives no reason when besides the propriety of Speech he hath all learned men against him I but Beza hath Ambrose it is true Ambrose doth in his Comments upon this place distinguish these but Beza will not stand to Ambrose for first he begins with Apostles they saith he are Bishops Prophets Expounders of Scripture Evangelists Deacons Pastors Lectors that is Readers Magistri Masters which we translate Teachers were Exorcists this last Beza mentioneth to be not agreeing with his Opinion I may say nor any one of the rest But take this note of Ambrose he took the words as they lay and so expounded them but not observing that Criticism which perhaps he looked not on he gave an Exposition such as was agreeing to the present face of the Church in which he lived which it is possible easily for any man to do but did ever any man who observed and marked the language of St. Paul think it fit to be cast off with a parum firma est ratio amongst these I have named who marked it amongst the Latinet as Beza Hierom Austin I can adde to them Anselm most punctually and our Bede likewise upon the place so that sense is invincible with an uninterrupted Exposition and a strong literal sense of the Text for St. Ambrose although Beza agree with him in the division yet his Authority prevails not with him for the Office what it should be nor Beza's opinion with Hooker so they serve one anothers Turn so far as their own design leads them but no further for Beza makes this Teachers place to be such as should read a Divinity Lecture Scholam regere Ecclesiasticam but Hooker denyes this There is saith he Doctor in Schola Doctor in Ecclesia and saith he the second is here meant but I would fain know the difference betwixt a Teacher in the Schools and in the Church for I conceive these men not putting difference in the places and if they take the Church for the Congregation of men I know no difference betwixt one and the other nor can there be this Exposition of Mr. Hookers which as it is most singular so it is farre from the language of St. Paul I will adde this only note That he nor any other can shew me that place of Scripture directing any Duty to either of these Offices in their distinct Notions as they expresse them which will not agree to both and therefore they have no ground upon which to build this phansie SECT IV. Whether there be a distinction of Offices I Come now to the other dispute Whether there be any distinction amongst these Offices by Apostolical right This is a Question which hath been mightily debated and therefore a man can scarce handle any thing which hath not been often discoursed on before yet if by varying the Method of Handling it or by other manner of expressions or applying other mens expressions in another way than they have done that which I shall write shall fit some mens understandings better than other mens words before me have done I shall think it an happy work and not repent me of my pains and although I think that other men have abundantly spoken of this question and so fully that they have satisfied my self yet because I find others are not satisfied I conceive our blessed Saviours Command to St. Peter to be a Precept to all of us when thou art confirmed strengthen thy brethren Luke 22. 32. and although it be but little I can speak yet put in that little For the understanding therefore of this Question First Know that although this Question about that Order we now term Bishops whether they have distinction and a right of preheminence beyond Presbyters that are barely such yet it is not de nomine barely of the Name whether this word Bishop be such as must alwayes be applied to that Office but of the Thing whether there be such a Thing as a Degree Instituted by the Apostles which hath a preheminence above other Presbyters and then because the word Bishop or Superior or Superintendent or Superinspector being a word applyed to this Office will by Consent of a perpetual Language in the Church be well fitted to the Expression of that Office we may use it often in this Discourse without prejudice as we shall see occasion Secondly Let us Conceive as was before taught that all Ecclesiastical power was
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
yet it would not follow that they received it from their Imposition of hands but with it saith the Text with the Imposition of hands of the Presbytery when in 2 Tim. 1. 6. he speaking I think of the same Gift he saith which thou hast received by the Imposition of my hands here by as there with and so is the phrase varied in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Pauls imposition had some signal force but theirs was only a Circumstance by the by not operative But I enforce not this although I am perswaded the Text would make it good but answer peremptorily That Presbytery there meant was not a Presbytery of the Inferiour Order and I speak no more than St. Chrysostome in expresse words This is not understood of Presbyters but Bishops and all the Ancients if he shall require me to prove it out of Scripture That Presbytery ever signifies a Company of Bishops which kind of Disputing is used amongst some I answer in this place I am not to prove but answer and I reply that neither they nor any I think can shew me this word Presbytery used in any other place than these I have named and then I am sure it cannot be proved that it should signifie that inferiour Order Thus have I done with this reason of his I could collect even hence a Strong Argument against them but I will referr it SECT XIV Mr. Hookers Argument out of St. Hierome answered AT the last Hooker comes to that Canvased place of St. Hierome and here he begins to boast of Antiquity If saith he we look to ancient Times that prime place of Hierome ad Evagrium shews the Charter whence all the Authority is derived Unum ex se electum in altiori Gradu collocarunt quem Episcopum nominaverunt This piece of St. Hierome somewhat amazed me upon the first view of it not but he was a man and might by passion be somewhat transported but although I have read it in him before and often urged in the School yet me thought not in such significant words To understand him therefore Conceive that he writ this Epistle to Evagrius against a Custom that had crept into the Church of Rome as it seems that some men did prefâ—rre Deacons before Presbyters this I can guesse to happen upon the rise of Cardinal Deacons which began to flourish in those days upon this St. Hierome magnifies the Presbyterian Order shews how Presbyters and Bishops were one and were called by the same name in Scripture which elsewhere he affirmeth likewise and there he seems to make the difference betwixt a Bishop in respect of Jurisdiction not to be as two Orders but Gradus in ordine and therefore he saith that in Alexandria which was founded by St. Mark in the time of Heraclius and Dionysius Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori Gradâ— collocatum Episcopum nominabant But presenâ—ly he makes a Bishop in the same Epistle like a General in an Army and yet comes off Quid enim facit Episcopuâ— exceptâ Ordinatione quod non facit Presbyter and at the Conclusion of that Epistle compares Bishops Presbyters and Deacons to Aaron the Inferiour Priests and Levites Whence it abundantly appears that not only St. Hierome otherwhere but even here opposeth these men expresly in the Case of Ordination and surely evidently enough in the business of Jurisdiction Comparing the Bishops to Generals and Aaron But then mark these mistakes in his Quotation where he puts Collocaverunt for Collocatum as if the Presbyters had given him his place or Dignity when it is no more but this that from St. Marks time down-ward the Presbyters of Alexandria had one chosen out of their Presbytery which was elected above the rest and called Bishop which was that their Bishop was chosen among them whether by them or no I dispute not now So that this Epistle of Hierom being read and this place Considered I know no reason why it should be urged against their power of Ordination or Jurisdiction First because this was the Practice only of a particular Church and as he disputes concerning Rome in the same Epistle may much easier be objected to Alexandria Si Authoritas quaeritur Orbis major est urbe And again in the same Epistle Quid mihi praeter unius urbis Câ—nsuâ—tudinem This might be but I yield not that there is any force to this purpose out of St. Hieromes phrase but only that they had one elected out of their number which was placed in an higher degree and called a Bishop not naming who ordained him or who elected him but suppose they should Elect him would it follow that they had power of Ordination Certainly no the people or Patron may elect their Parson but not ordain him or if they should elect and ordain him which will never be granted yet would it follow that he had Jurisdiction and sole power of ordaining others a Master of a Colledge is elected to his Office by the Fellows and ordained according to the Lawes yet unlesse by Authority delegated from him no Fellow can choose much lesse make the least Fellow or Scholar in the House Take St. Hieroms Instance The Emperor or General of an Army dies in his place the Army chooseth and Constitutes another Emperor as often happened in Rome when they had made their Election then he had power both of Jurisdiction in Governing them who chose him and of Ordaining inferiout Officers which were under him but over the rest of the Army So that although it be true in Nature that which can do the greater can do the lesse yet it is not true in Politick Affairs as thus In an Elective Kingdom or the Empire they who have power to choose the Emperour himself yet when they have chosen him have not power to choose the least Constable or Inferiour Officer but the Emperor only so that here are wonderfull Inconsequences in this Discourse if much more were granted than indeed is any way true and yet as if all were true he deduceth strange Conclusions Whence it followes saith he first that Bishops were first Presbyters I grant it secondly that they had their first Constitution and Election from them I deny that proposition First St. Paul and the Apostles Constituted many Bishops in their several precincts Timothy Titus many more Then I deny the Consequence or Dependance it hath upon the premisses â—or although all that were true in Alexandria yet that is no rule to the whole World besides that the same Method was used any where â—lse which is apparently grosse his next Deduction is as bad Ergo saith he Presbyters had their rise and Ordination before Bishops If they had what would follow It is possible the Apostles might make Presbyters first and chuse and make Bishops out of them if not the Apostles we have and shall prove were Bishops who were before Presbyters He saith If they can give Ordination
to Bishops they may to Presbyters Both the Proposition and the Deduction have been Confuted already Last of all he deduceth They who have the same Commission have the same power from Christ. But they all have the same Commission John 20. 21. Prout misâ—â— me Pater ego mitto vos I put the words as he doth in Latine it was said to all the Apostles Equally and to all their Successors indifferently I deny that the plenipotence spoken there was spoken to all that succeeded the Apostles in any part of their Oâ—fice there are diverse Things communicated to one which were not to another according to their very Doctrine only Bishops succeeded them in their fulnesse of power in Ruling and Giving Orders and therefore these are bold Conclusions which are only spoken not proved by him SECT XV. The Truth explained I Have done with his Arguments and now apply my self to seâ— down what I Conceive â—it to prove my Conclusion which is That there was such a Thing as Episcopacy setled by the Apostles in the Church If I had no other reason â—t might perswade men easily to credit it because that the Church in the old Law seems to be governed by such a Discipline where as I said out of St. Hierome there was Aaron the Priests and the Levites for although this Argument be not necessary yet because the Wisdom of God is not to be parallel'd in Polity so well as Nature it should be reasonable for men to think that where is no Ground for a Difference in this second Church under the New Testament from that former under the Old there God should not vary in the Discipline and I think no man can shew me a reason for such a Difference either that men are more united or that the Church doth require a lesse Union now than then which two as they are the heads from which we enforce Episcopacy in that matter of Government so they must be the heads from which any strong Argument of force must be deduced to shew the difference This being so it is fit for us to Conceive without strong reason against it that there is such a Conformity especially if to this be added the great uniformity and convenience that the Ancient Levitical Law had to our Ecclesiastical which might abundantly be shewed in other things without some Language expressing a difference in a dubious Case it were â—it we should adhere to Gods former practice But then again our Saviour in his life-time hatching a Church in Embrione He as I have shewed made two distinct Orders Apostles and the Seventy and these both Preaching Orders without there were some main reason to the Contrary we cannot easily subscribe to another Discipline nor surely would have quarrell'd at that but by reason of pride in themselves that they would be all Bishops like the Conspirators against Moses Numbers 16. who being men of Quality in Israel were not Content to be Princes in their Condition but would be Equal to the Supream So these men are not Content with their rank which is high and great in the Church of God unlesse they shall pluck down the highest of all and not be subordinate but supream in their Prelatical Principalities or else which is a spice of the same vice there is amongst them an Abhorring of Obedience which indeed is the Mother and Ground of all Virtue and although they would have all their Subjects obey them in an Insolent manner yet they would obey none other themselves and for a Countenance to this pridâ— and stubbornenesse study Scripture and wrest it to their purpose which how weak it is for them hath been shewed how strong against them I shall now urge SECT XVI My First Argument from Scripture to prove Episcopacy MY First Argument from Scripture shall be thus framed That Government which the Apostles did settle in their Government of Churches that is Apostolical But the Apostles did settle such an Episcopacy as I require Ergo such an Episcopacy is Apostolical My Major â— conceive not to be denyed for as I have shewed we ought not to seek for expresse Terms to shew that they made a Law in such peremptory Words That this or this we enact perpetually for the Government of all Churches this or the like is not to be found any where nor doth any Government pretend to it There is no Book unquestionable of their Canons extant but only Registers of their Acts and certain Epistles which set down what they did do and from that Assure us what we should do The first place I shall insist on will be that I formerly touched Tit. 1. 5. For this Cause left I thee in Creet that thou shouldest set in Order the Things that are wanting and Ordain Elders in evâ—ry City as I have appointed thee This Text I have handled before and have shewed that in more expâ—esse Terms St. Paul could not Authorize one man to that Office which we pretend to than he did here I have spoken likewisâ— of that Shift they have for it to say he was an Evangelist and by that Authority did Act these things to which I think may be irresistably objected that it can no where be shewed that he was an Evangelist and 2dly it can no wherâ— be shewed that an Evangelist had such an Autâ—ority belonging to his Offâ—ce and therefore that must needs be but a weak refuge to fly unto A Second Shift of some is That this Commission was giâ—â— to Titus but in Common with others as one of the Presbyters conjunctim not divisim joyned with them not severed 〈◊〉 them but by such Tricks men may cast off all Scripture but 〈◊〉 I would have them shew me where ever there was such a Commission given to a Presbytery which they can never do Secondly Let them Consider it would be as safe nay much safer for me to say that power given to the Presbytery must be by the Sole virtue of Association with the Supreame as they can when I shew a Commission given to one Man say it is meant of him in the Company of others and the more agreeing to sense because when this Commission is granted it implyes at the least that he must be of the Quorum which to none others could be enforced And again when we read such a Precept given to any man it must be understood that he must have power to execute that Authority which certainly if he could only Act in Commission with others he could not because suppose St. Paul Chargeth him to Ordain Elders in every City such and so qualified he might answer in many Cases the others will not joyn Suppose he should stop the mouths of Deceivers It is likely the great deceivers would be amongst the Presbytery themselves he can do nothing without their Consent which is nothing of himself not he but they therefore must have the Charge given them for he is not by these men capable of performing it and as for their Charge it
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
not oversee the flock of Christ over which the Holy Ghost had made him a Ruler And now here again discern the necessity of Ecclesiastical Story to expound this Scripture What can any man tell is the Doctrine of the Nicholaitans which God hates and so we ought to hate but by Ecclesiastical Story which sets it down to be as well in the Error of Opinion the Doctrine concerning the Creation that it was not by God as likewise that of practise that it was lawfull to have Wives in Common now by Ecclesiastical Story we are taught that these things were the Nicholaitans Opinions and these are they which God abhorrs And now Consider what fault would it be in the Angel that these things were heâ—d in his Church but that he had Coâ—rcive Authority to Command and hinder the proceedings of these Opinions A Third Exception is That these Epistles were written to the Angels the Presidents but by Name but to the whole Synod by Intention so that although he direct his Epistle but to one yet it is intended unto all as when a man should send a Letter to the Speaker which is to be read in Parliament But this is Confuted in the Text most evidently because all these things that are Commended or censured in any of these Epistles are in the singular number so Chap. 2. vers 2. I know thy works and thy labour c. thy in the singular number and so in the rest now if he had meant it to the whole Synod although directed to the President it would have been your works nor could the Speech be proper to say thy works when the whole body was intended nay it is not imaginable that those eminent virtues with which he and the other Bishops are honoured should appertain to the whole Assembly or Synod of them so likewise the fault he condemns that Angel of vers 4. that he should forsake his first love is not likely to be affirmed of the Synod so it is most remarkable in the Epistle to the Bishop of Smyrna vers 10. when he speaks of the rest he changeth his phrase The Devil shall cast some of you into prison and the like So likewise to the Angel of the Church of Thyatira vers 24. To you I say and unto the rest in Thyatira as many as have not this Doctrine c. Here it is evident that when the Things concern others he advertiseth the Bishop to acquaint them with it and he changeth his manner of Speech that notice may be taken what was personal to him and what to others Thus you see with how much wit and with what shuffling the Intention of these Scriptures hath been diverted but to little purpose among such as Consider and weigh them CHAP. VIII SECT I. Concerning Ordination I Come now at the last to handle Ordination because I find many things discussed about that the Clearing of which will Conduce much to the opening my businesse in hand and then that being finished I shall review my Work and if there appear any thing unsatisfied I shall insert such Discourses as shall be usefull to remove those Scruples Mr. Hooker undertakes this where before Part 2. Chap. 2. pag. 38. and in the handling of it pag. 39. he proposeth these Questions Whether 1. Ordination be before Election 2. Ordination gives all the Essentials to an Officer 3. What this Ordination is and wherein lies the full breadth and bounds of the being thereof 4. In whom the right of dispensing it lyes and by whom it may be dispensed I have put down his very words and do intend God willing to handle all these Questions but because he seems to me to follow an unjust method I shall begin with his Third Question To shew what that Ordination is of which we dispute for till that be Cleared we dispute de non Concessis as he doth in this Discourse I will first examine his Definition because I will not multiply unnecessary Contentions He defines it thus SECT II. His Definition of Ordination confuted ORdination is an Approbation of the Officer and Solemn setling and Confirmation of him in his Office by Prayer and laying on of hands In this Definition that which I can blame is first that which he makes the Genus to wit an Approbation of the Officer This is a prevenient Circumstance not an Essential part Constituting Ordination First men are Approved then Ordained and although he calls it a Description not a Definition which phrase abides a larger sense than Definition doth yet even there this Term is faulty for it must be a Description of Ordination of which this is no part no more than many other Circumstances belonging to it Again where he saith it is a Setling and Confirming him in his Office If by Office he Conceive a particular Congregation as by his whole discourse he seems to do then that is not large enough to contain that Act which it is directed to for men may yea must be Ordained before they are setled in particular Congregations So that as his Genus Approbation on precedes Ordination so setling thus in his Office is Consequent to it last of all the whole Description is too wide for the Thing described He takes setling in his Office in that sense I have shewed for it agrees to the Mission of Barnabas and Saul Acts 13. 2 3. who were ordained before as will appear after and is yielded elsewhere by him This Description of his is page 75. where before SECT III. My Definition set down and explained HIS Definition being thus briefly perused now take mine Ordination is an Act by which some Man is Constituted in some Ecclesiastick Order of Divine Institution This I conceive to be a Logical Definition for Definitions should be as short as may be so they be full and explain the nature of the Thing defined The Genus is an Act in General which agrees to it and diverse others The Object of this Act is a Man the Immediate Effect and End it Aims at is the Constitution of an Ecclesiastical Order the Explication of which will be the Chief businesse to understand the whole Definition Order is the disposition of things either accorâ—ing to their place or time For time as yesterday to day Order disposeth when it should be done or in place before behind at the right hand or the left above below Now because there are many degrees in Church Affairs where one is above or below another therefore when any man is put into any degree of these this is called a Church Order that which hath no degrees but is where it was is the lay sort of men These are as we speak in Logick of Individuums they are not in serie praedicamentali Now therefore it is said Ecclesiastical Order because there are Orders which are not Ecclesiacal as Kings Judges c. where there is a sub supra in the Common-wealth but belong not to our businesse Again because there are many Ecclesiastick
Orders in the Church of Rome which are not truly such but only additions of human Invention according as their Church fancyed would conduce to the Decorum of Gods Service I adde this Term of Divine Institution which must be understood of divine Apostolical constitution and then it may again be put in these Prases that Ordination is an Act by which a Man is Constituted a Minister as at the beginning of this Treatise the Minister is defined for the Man ordained and the Minister before will be all one And so now the nature of Ordination being explained I shall encounter with Hooker in his first Question Whether Ordination is in nature before Election SECT IV. Ordination is not before Election IN answering this Question we shall agree to say No it is not before Election nor surely can it possibly be for a Man must be elected and chosen as fit to be ordained before he is ordained But because Mr. Rutherford as he expresseth it page 39 doth conceive this Election belongs to the People and that Ordination is like the making of a King the Election of the people like the giving and appropriating this ring to the finger by choosing this man to this place which Hooker opposeth I shall quit my self from Rutherford and then apply my self to Hooker I say therefore that first a man must be chosen before he is ordained a Presâ—yter but it is not necessary he should be Chosen by the people there is no semblance of any such Thing in the Scripture nor indeed do Rutherford or Hooker exact it but out of his mistake That they suppose no man should be made a Presbyter which should not at that instant or before be Elected to some benefice of the which the people should be Electors SECT V. Men may be Ordained without the Election of the People NOW the Contrary is most apparent in some Case As suppose Mr. Hooker and Mr. Cotton were adjudged fit men for the Conversion of the Indians they had need be sent with Presbyterial Aâ—thority for else they could not have right Authority to admit Converted men into Christs Church but the people to whom they were sent could not choose them these men must be ordained Presbyters before they are sent and elected before Ordained but not by the people to whom they are sent or the people that is the Commonalty from whom they are sent who are not Capable to discern the fitnesse for such a Work but their Drift is the people over whom they are to Pastorize Thus then it is evident that in some Cases Election of the Congregation or Church over which a Presbyter is put cannot alwayes precede his Ordination But suppose again a Company of Christians whose Presbyter is dead in many Cases they may elect one to be ordained before he is ordained and in many cases they may elect one to this Charge after he is ordained supposing that the power of Election were in them as thus in the first Case they find an able and fit man they desire to have him ordained in the second they find an able man already ordained sine Curâ I put the Casâ— without Exception As suppose his or Mr. Cottons Congregation destroyed by Enemies cannot he be elected to another Church or if Elected must he have another Ordination I believe he will not say so Well then in this Question the Answer must be the Election must precede Ordination but Election to Ordination not Election to a Cure in the second sense Election to a Cure may and may not precede Ordination SECT VI. St. Cyprian explained IN all Hookers Discourse upon this businesse I find nâ—thing remarkable produced to Confirm this Conclusion but some flashes against the Papists and then against the Prelates but page 42. he brings certain Quotations of Authors to which he assents amoâ—g which there is only one worth the insisting on and that is St. Cyprian out of whom Lib. 1. Epist. 4. which is a true Quotation according to the old and Erasmus his Edition but according to Pamelius in 68 Epist. Lib. 4. The words are Videmus de Divina Authoritate descendere ut Sacerdos plebâ— praesente sub omnium oculis delegatur dignus idoneus publico Judicio Testimonio comprobatur This place he cites rightly but what is here but that the people must be present as they are at our Consecrations to this purpose to know whether they have any thing to object against the Man or his life but here is no word of his Election and I must Commend the Ingenuity of the man for it is evident out of the following part of the Epistle that he meant no more because his Arguments inforce no more but the presence of the people yet indeed the words immediately preceding do seem upon the first view to carry another meaning they are these speaking of the people Quando saith he ipsa maximrâ— habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi which words if they be understood of more than a Custom of the Church which is confirmed by many Canons That there should be no clandestine Consecration as well as Marriage but that the Consecration of Priests and Bishops should be in the publick Church where any man may except against them if they have any thing to that purpose I say if this potestas eligendi recusandi be more than this which St. Cyprians Arguments do not enforce yet if there be more meant it is nothing but that the people did Elect their Sacerdos which is understoâ—d of a Bishop as I have intimated heretofore and is clear in this place because the Case disputed of in which St. Cyprian is consulted is concerning a Bishop now it is apparent in Story that many times it was indulged to the People to choose their Bishop especially abouâ— that Age wherein there was a kind of Impossibility of doing otherwise when the World was divided into so many great Schismes and the Emperors peremptorily abetting none nor destroying any so that you might know three Bishops together in a City one Orthodox the other Arian another Novatian now in these casâ—s thâ— people chose their Bishop when the old was dead and adhered to whom they would when he was alive unlesse the Emperor interposed as oft he did or some Council Provincial which likewise was used but for Divine right St. Cyprian speaketh of nothing but plebe praesente they were chosen in the presence of the people but to the Benefice whether Bishoprick or Parsonage the Electors have been various in all Ages and may be so there being nothing determined by Apostolical Constitution or practise yet there is nothing in all this that shews that Election to a Benefice must be before Ordination not the least word but rather after for if it lies in the people to elect a worthy Priest I so translate Sacerdos to his Benefice then he must be a worthy Priest before for else it should be they
Argument is If Ordiâ—ation give the Essentials to an Officer before Election there may be a Pastor without people an Officer sine Titulo as they use to speak and a Pastor should be made a Pastor at large the rest is nothing but an Application to Mr. Rutherford's Simile of a Ring which concerns not us But this Argument of his invites me to speak of a pastoral Ordination which will perhaps give farther Illustration to the whole body of this Discourse A Pastor and a â—lock are relatives and do mutually se ponere tollere where one is the other must be where one is not the other cannot be Now then to be made a Pastor will require to have a flock this shall be presupposed and again every Pastor hath not all Pastoral Offices I can well suppose a mighty great flock which requires many Shepherds but one Chief above the rest he hath all Pastoral offices folds feeds drives to field prescribes pâ—stures medicines and doth all this by the Supream Pastoral power that is granted him either by his own hands or by the ministry of those Inferiours which are under him but they have partial Authorities only to feed or â—old or catch or drive as their several shares are dâ—signed the second part of the Division of the Pastoral Charge these men must grant who divide their Governours into several Offices Pastors Teachers Rulers which have their several Duties assigned them and it is most unreasonable for them to deny the first That one should have Superiority over the rest since as reason would direct without some body to over-look and attend them they would easily entrench upon one anothers duties or neglecting their own invite those others to put their hands to their work and what this reason directs that I think I have shewed the Scripture likewise Crowns with its approbation Now the first sort of Pastors are those we term Bishops the second Presbyters the flock they are to feed is the Church of Christ when they are admitted Pastors and so ordained according to their several Duties That which Hooker page 61. brings out of one Mr. Best as if St. Austin or some General Councel had dâ—creed it is absolutely to be denyed namely that an Apostle differeth from a Pastor that the Apostle is a Pastor throughout the whole Christian World but the Pastor is tyed to a certain Congregation out of which he is not to exercise Pastoral Acts. This I deny if he affirm it by Divine Right but if by Ecclesiastical Authority only which hath designed particular Bishops and Presbyters to particular places I shall yield much of it For the first part concerning the Apostles know that their Commission was universal as it is set down Mat. 28. 19. Go teach all Nations c. and John 20 As my Father sent me c. and we must conceive this to be divisim not conjunctim only every one had all this power not all only nor as Bellarmine would have Lib. 2. De Romano Pontifice Cap. 12. St. Peter only and the rest from him for we see the Commission granted to all but yet we must know that their Authority was habitu or potentia only in every one it was not actâ— in any they might Episcopize Apostolize in any place of the World They did Episcopize Apostolize only where they were râ—sident Just as I have Conceived if Adam had lived in his Integrity every man had had an habituâ—l and potential royalty over all the Creatures in the world yet he would have exercised that Royalty only where he lived yet he might have Travelled any where and have justly enjoyed any part of the World although actually he could possesse but his Share Now this was the Jurisdiction of every Apostle in all the whole Catholick Church habitually not actually as the Church of Rome would have their Apostolical Man as they call him the Pope and all this was necessary for them as Apostles which is men sent for the propagation of the Gospel to the planting and confirming of Churches other powers they had of Languages of Miracles which were necessary to the first plantation but no longer and therefore they were not peculiar to them but others had them besides as likewise that mighty power of being Inspired to write Scripture which did not appear in all of them and some others besides them had that power as St. Luke and Marke and some think St. James to be the Bishop of Jerusalem who writ that Epistle But now of those which were the Apostles it is evident that these Gifts were not Apostolical as belonging so to them as Apostles and it will appear in the other Cause That the Bishops succeeded them in every thing that was Apostolical although not in these extraordinary Endowments for the Apostolical power of planting setling Churches of propagating the Gospel throughout the whole World and enlarging the Kingdom of Christ must remain for ever and therefore though the manner of doing it by such Signs and Wonders be not communicated yet the Office must and therefore he who is a Bishop or Presbyter by divine right is such throughout the whole Word to this purpose you may observe in that famous place of Acts 20. 28. so much and so often canvased by them who handle these Controversies in other points but not thought on in this you may observe that St. Paul speaking to divers Presbyters or Bishops which you will he saith Take heed therefore to your selves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers or Bishops to feed the Church of God which he purchased with his own blood Observe here that he spake to many and diverse Bishops or Presbyters I stand not upon thâ—t now he spâ—ke to them in the plural Number but when he speaks of the flock they were to pastorize over he puts it in the singular Number now if the Holy Ghoâ— had made them Bishops of particular Congregations only it must have been the flock every one his several but being all made Pastors of the Catholick Church he names it one flock and so likewise to feed or Sheperdizâ— over not the Churches but the Church of Christ which indeed were no way congruous if the Holy Ghost had made them Officers of particular Churches and confined them there but making them Officers of the Vniversal Church which Christ had purchased with his blood and all Officers of that it is rightly put in the singular number flock and Church This likewise the Holy Ghost intimates every where describing the Church to us by the name of a â—ield a Vineyard a City and multitudes of such Expressions which as much as this of a flock intimate the unity of that Body which is his Church his â—lock over which these are Pastors in their several wayes not only their little Congregations Now the wisdom of the Church finding that although the potential and habitual power is universal yet the actual cannot be exercised further
he drawes from his Imagination of no such power left to men which lest I should vex the Reader I omit and direct him to page 70 71 72. for the foundation being destroyed the Invective and Scorning of his â—nemies as many have done with an imagination only or rumor of Victory when there was no such thing will fall of its self There is a power left by Christ to men by which they communicate powers to others FIrst then I shall shew that there is such an Office power amongst men whereby they can Convey an Office power Authoritativâ— to others This may appear out of our Saviours Commission As my Father sent me c. John 20. and the like Now then if our Saviour was sent to appoint Officers then so were they I will be with you to the end of the World that cannot be understood of their persons it must be of their Succession and that Succession they communicated by the former Authority So Acts 13. they sent Baâ—nabas and Saul so 14. 21. They ordained Elders in every Church so Titus was by St. Paul left in Crete Timothy received from Imposition of his hands his power so in succession Timothy and Titus are directed to lay on hands themselves upon others which is by all understood of Ordination So then there is evident a delegate power given by men of Authority by which others are Authorized to operate in this Divine Administration I need say no more to this but enter his Second Conclusion which he is briefer in but is indeed the foundation of this other This you may find page 72. thus Secondly There is a Communicating power by voluntary Subjection when though there be no Office power formaliter in the people yet they willingly yielding themselves to be ruled by another desiring and calling him to take that rule he accepting of what they yield possessing that right which they put upon him by free Consent I put down his very words which are not sence making no Compleat Proposition but it may be the fault of the Printer and therefore read it possesseth that right c. for possessing The reason saith he is those in whose Choice it is whether any shall rule over them or no from their voluntary subjection it is That the party Chosen hath right and stands possessed of rule and Authority over them This Argument is mighty Lame for the Minor which is not set down if produced would be that the Case stands thus with Christians That it is in their Choice whether any shall rule over them or no which is absolutely false taking Christians for such men who have given themselves and their names to Christ in baptism and supposing that they intend to be saved by persevering according to that Covenant for without doubt such must submit to this Government and indeed I wondered how any man had Confidence to obtrude such a Conclusion concerning so high and material points without pretence of reason or Scripture as he doth in this place but I remember how heretofore I had read something to this purpose in his First Part and it seems he supposeth this granted out of his former Grounds although he might have done well to have eased the Reader with a reference to it but I have hunted it out and God willing will pursue the Chase wheresoever CHAP. IX SECT I. Mutual Covenanting of the Saints gives not being to a Visible Church IN his first part therefore of this Book page 46. he discourseth of the formal Cause of a visible Church and he puts this Conclusion Mutual Covenanting and Confederating of the Saints in the fellowship of the faith according to the Order of the Gospel is that which gives Constitution and being to a Visible Church This Term Consederating of the Saints is indefinite and seems therefore that he should mean all the Saints should Confederate which is impossible in any of their Congregations if he had meant of any limited Company of Saints he should have said of a Company of Saints or a number of them which he did not but puts it indefinite of the Saints Secondly observe that whereas he interposeth in his Conclusion according to the Order of the Gospel neither doth he nor can any man living shew any likenesse or resemblance of any such Order in the Gospel nor doth he in his whole discourse endeavour to shew any such Thing Upon my perusal of this Discourse I find that I have treated of it already in some papers which passed betwixt me and another who is since as I hear dead and I think I sent them you therefore I shall speak only briefly to it first setting down his Conceit then answering his Arguments then Consuting his Conclusion SECT II. His Opinion explained HIS Conceit is as I apprehend it That a Company of Saints as he calls them enter into a Covenant one with another and with one which they call Pastor to submit to him in Pastoral duties and he to perform Pastoral Offices among them as likewise in respect of themselves to submit to and exercise Churchly Censures one towards another some such Covenant if I can reach his sence is that which gives to the receivers an Obligation and bond and it is in Conscience one towards another which bond is the formal Essence and being of a Church I conceive this but for lack of some Copy of one of their Covenants I can only guesse at it by the main drift of his Discourse he denyes Baptism or Profession to give the being to a Member and only makes a Covenant to be it a superadded Covenant beyond Baptism Page 47. he delivers that this Covenant is either Explicite or Implicite Explicite when there is an open expression and profession of this Engagement in the face of the Assembly Implicite when in their practice they do that whereby they make themselves engaged to walk in such a Society according to such rules of Government which are executed amongst them and so submit themselves thereto but do not make any verbal profession thereof And thus he saith the people in the Parishes of England where there is a Minister put upon them by the Patron or Bishop they constantly hold them to the Fellowship of the people in such a place c. This being warned that upon their grounds there could be no Church in the Christian World but in New England he could not choose but allow this Implicite Covenant to be sufficient which is the common opinion among them although I doubt in some other Things he will reject an Argument drawn from an universal practice SECT III. His Conclusions concerning this Covenant PAge 48. he addes some Conclusions First an Implicite Covenant preserves the true nature of the Visible Church Secondly which is much the same an Implicite Covenant in some Cases may be fully sufficient Thirdly it is much agreeing to the Compleatnesse of the rule what rule I would know and for the better being of the Church that there be
Jerusalem and an innumerable company of Angels then vers 23. to the General Assembly and Church of the first-born which are written in heaven and to God the Judge of all and to the Spirits of just men made perfect I cannot imagine with what colour of reason this can be applyed to a particular Church for although it may be affirmed That such men who are religiously united to such Churches are come to this glorious Society yet that that peculiar Church should be this City this mount Sion this heavenly Jerusalem cannot be admitted for first it is called City not Cities now if one Church be this City another cannot be it it is the heavenly Jerusalem an Innumerable Company of Angels the General Assembly the Church of the first-born which can be spoken of none but the universal Catholike Church of no particular in the world That it is this and such a Company let us look then upon his second place where he saith his particular Church is called an house 1 Tim. 3. 15 That thou mayst know how to behave thy self in the house of God which is the Church of the living God Hence he collects or no where that a Particular Church is a Corporation because an house A poor Consequence but see is this spoken of a Particular Church Mark the words following the pillar and ground of all Truth Can this be spoke of any particuliar of a little handfull of men in New England or in one Corner there I am sure the Church of Rome hath much more semblance for Rome than they can have for any of their Congregations which have been and are most unstable themselves much lesse supports for Christs Truth His 3d. place to prove this that particular Churches are Corporations is because they are termed the body of Christ for this he produceth Eph. 4. 13 16. The 13th verse hath not that phrase body but only saith in general that Christians must grow up in the unity of â—aith to the perfect Stature of Christ but in the 16th verse there is the name body from whom the whole body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplyes according to the Effectual working c. To understand this read the preceding verse where Christ is called the head and then think with your self whether this little Congregation can be his body spoke of or the whole Church or whether Christ be the head to so many bodies or whether all Christians are not Members of the same body His last place is 1 Cor. 12. 12. for as the body is one and hath many Members c. I am weary of transcribing Consider the body is one therefore not every Church a distinct body but there is one body the Catholick Church Then he urgeth ver 27 28. of the same Chapter verse 27. Now ye are the body of Christ and Members in particular Can a man choose but wonder to think that any man should offer to apply this to a particular Church to say it is the body of Christ The 28th verse reckons up the diverse Officers which God gave to govern these Churches which can be affirmed of none but the universal I am sure not of their particulars they have no Apostles neither literally nor successively Bishops no way This doth weary me but now you see all that is brought to prove this mighty Conclusion out of Scripture In brief to illustrate this Truth a little farther Conceive that the universal Church of Christ is like a City of which he is the King or Supream All men in baptism submit themselves to his Government He institutes Officers over the whole as I have before expressed these cannot actually be present every where and therefore by consent appoint these and these in their particular Wards or Precincts and as any man when he comes to plant in this or that City implicitely submits to the Government as of the City so of that particular part of the City where he lives so is it with Christians where they go any where in the Christian world having in general by Baptism submitted themselves to Christ and his Discipline take it in all places wheresoever it is So likewise the Church is an house Christ the Master in which every person in what room soever he rests can receive nothing but from his Officers The Church universal is a body he the head from which flow all those Spirits and Graces by which the body is enlivened Now as nothing can induce me to believe that each house in this City should be the City each Chamber in the house should be the house each member should be the body so a man cannot be perswaded that these particular Congregations which are parts of the whole should be that whole which is called by these Names CHAP. X. Another Argument answered I Now come to his second Argument which is thus framed Those who have mutual power each over other both to Command and Constrain in Conscience who were of themselves free each from other they must by mutual Agreement and Engagement be made partakers of that power But the Church of Believers have mutual power each over other to Command and Constrain in Conscience who were before free Therefore they must by mutual Agreement and Engagement be made partakers of that power I can guesse what he means by his Discourse but make no sense of this syllogism for in his Minor there is a Nown of the Singular number put to a Verb of the plural against Grammar the Church have when indeed if he would have expressed his meaning it should have been men in the Churches of believers or all men in all Churches of believers were such but I take it so SECT II. The Text If thy Brother offend thee Tell the Church vindicated HE offers to pâ—ove his Minor by Mat. 18. 15. If thy brother offend thee tell the Church In which saith he we have a legal and orderly way laid forth by our Saviour in which brethren only of the same Church ought to deal one with another which they cannot exercise with Infidels nor yet with other Christians as our own experience if we will take a taste will give undeniable evidence I deny his Minor being understood as I expressed for that ambiguous way of his delivering it in Nonsence poseth a Reader what to speak or think I say then that every particular man in a Church hath not power to command or constrain anorher let us examine his reason therefore out of Mat. 18. 15. If thy brother that is one of the same Church not an Inâ—idel nor yet other Christians This is his Collection but extreamly amisse for I dare confidently affirm that every Christian is our spiritual brother of what Congregation soever he is and it is an high kind of Impiety to deny it nay he is nearer than a brother a member of the same mystical body of which Christ is the head and therefore this Argument falls in the very first
setting out and can proceed no further but to understand the Text and so more abundantly the weaknesse of this Argument SECT III. What is meant by Church FIrst know that by the Church we must understand the visible Catholick Church which hath this power and indeed almost all the promises of Christ which is his City his house his spouse his body but then it is understood of her according to that part which hath that faculty of receiving Complaints he who bids you tell a man any Story bids you not speak it to its â—eet or hands but his Ears which are fit parts to receive the Story or if he be deaf you must do it by writing that his Eyes which are organized for that purpose may entertain that relation Again when a man commands he doth it not with his Eyes or Ears but his Tongue which is the part fitted for that purpose The Church is Christs body it hath many parts when you are bid tell the Church you are not bid tell the feet or hands but the Ear those who are proper for that work when the Church speaks it is not with hands or eyes but with the Churches Tongue which are the Officers for that purpose these men would make the body of Christ all Ear all Tongue every member of the Church fit to receive Complaints and fit to Judge and Censure which is ridiculous Take his own Simile Suppose the Church universal a Corporation there was never any such where every man was a Judge It cannot be therefore so here Tell the Church that is tell those Officers in the Church who are designed and organized authorized for such a purpose and then if he refuse to hear them let him be c. and this that very word brother which he introduceth for the prop of his cause evinceth for all Christians throughout the Catholique Church are brethren and the Duty belongs to them this I think doth satisfie and what he adds is of no moment for he being full with his conceit that by Church is meant a particular Congregation and each man in it labours to build upon that foundation which being overthrown his building perisheth He urgeth a place out of Whitaker to prove that Lay-men have Authority of Censuring pag. 52. but because he confesseth That Whitakers meaning is of a General Council that it hath power over any particular Pastor in the Conclusion of that page and the top of the 53. he forms this Syllogism SECT IV. Another Argument of his answered EVery Member of a General Council hath power in the Censuring of a Delinquent Brethren or Lay men as they are termed are Members of a General Council I deny this Minor he brings no proof although if he had studied this question he could not choose but know it is generally denyed by such Writers as Treat of it Although he is extraordinarily Confuted I am unwilling to let any thing slip which may disturb a Reader He saith the Proposition is proved by Instance and Experience but I know not where He addes immediately If others had not Church power over this or that party if he would have refused to have come into their fellowship and joyned with them then it was his voluntary Subjection and Engagement that gave them all the power and Interest they have To understand this there is voluntary engagement in Baptism and besides this there is no more needfull for it is true he who lives in Scotland cannot be governed by the Bishops of England because they cannot have cognizance of his State and because that the Church hath confined the Exercise of that habitual power which they have every where that it shall not break out into Act in such places and upon such causes which they cannot have a full knowledge of but if he who now lives in Scotland will come and live in England and receive the blessings of Gods mercies in his Covenants from the Church of England if he offend he must be admonished and convented before the â—hurch quoad hoc that is the Church Officers and if he obey them not be as an Heathen If he refuse to Communicate with us in these Spiritual blessings he makes himself as an Heathen So that in some Sence there is a Covenant required that which he calls implicite even in a baptized man for else he makes himself an Heathen towards us in regard of us but this implicite is not like their Covenant which seems to be perpetual This is only pro tempore for the time of his abode and no â—onger That which he yet urgeth that men travell into farre Counâ—ries where are Churches planted certainly that man if they be Protestant Churches he will claim a right in the Church Seals if he be a Protestant if a Papist and they Papists he will do so likewise or else he will be as an Heathen To conclude this he brings some places of Scripture to shew that some would not joyn with the Apostles as Acts 5. 13. where Heathens refused to joyn with the Apostles Luke 7. 30. The Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the Council c. But can he shew me that any who were Christians refused Communion with them of what Church soever It is not imaginable His Third Argument is only against Presbyterians I meddle not with it His Fourth Argument is thus framed SECT V. Another Argument of his answered THat Society of Men who may enjoy such priviledges Spiritual and Ecclesiastical unto which none can be admitted but by Approbaâ—ion of the whole that Society must be in an Especial Combination But a particular Combination is such a Society who enjoy such Spiritual priviledges c. Ergo. I deny this Minor Laymen in a particular Congregation have no such power to admit allow and approve of every man who comes into that Congregation they may inform but they cannot judge His last Argument from an Induction avails nothing where he saith If the Inventory of all other respects being brought in none can constitute a Church visible then this only must he reckons up mutual Affection and Cohabitation only which are insufficient to make his Induâ—ion I shall therefore set down what makes a Church visible CHAP. XI SECT I. What makes a Church Visible COnsider what makes a Church that if it be visible constitutes a Church visible and certainly for the first if we consider the Church to be the body of Christ the City of God the Heavenly Jerusalem then as we must conceive it consisting of many men we must conceive it likewise having these men united in some form of Government under Christ and like a City an house a body ruled by their King and head Christ who by his Inferiour Ministers and Officers rules and governs this body this City he is of this City who is ruled and governed by the Lawes of this City of this House who is governed by the Oeconomical discipline of this house of this body who is guided and governed by the
now with Mr. Hooker his third Argument from page 69. to 75. of the second Part as also that which for confirmation of it was in many Arguments produced Part 1. Chap. 5. Pag. 55. to overthrow my Conclusion That Baptism doth make a member of a visible Church CHAP. XV. How there may be Pastors of Pastors I Come therefore now to the satisfaction of his fourth and last Argument in this cause which is thus framed pag. 75. of the second Part. Chap. 2. If the essentials of a Pastor be communicated by the Eldership or Bishop meerly then there will be Pastor of Pastors and that in propriety of speech He no way illustrates this or proves it but only thus for saith he the Pastor that is made by them hath reference to them and dependance upon them as Pastors only for it is that which is contended for in the Question in hand that it should be appropriate to their places to make Officers For Answer first to this last If this were it which is contended for he should have proved what he contended for See his proof how weak by a retortion if this consequence were true That if the essentials of a Pastor were communicated by the Elders c. then there will be Pastors of Pastors c. Then the truth of this ariseth out of this that because Elders give Pastors their Office therefore they should be their Pastors then it holds by the same Logick that if the people give the Pastor his essentials then the people should be Pastors of their Pastors then the flock should be Shepherds of their Shepherds which would have served well in the Play of the Antipodes and compleat the Jest of that witty man who said that heretofore God led the people like sheep by the hands of Moses and Aaron but now they lead Moses and Aaron like sheep by the hands of the people And indeed thus it happens with them in this Controversie they give the people power of ordination and correction of their Pastors so that the Corporation judges their Mayor the Scholars whip their Masters the Sheep have power to expell their Shepherd the Children to punish their spiritual Parents than which nothing can be conceived more abhorring to reason But then leaving the examination of this rerortion let us consider the Argument it self If Pastors should be made by Elders or Bishops then Pastors should be Pastors of Pastors Doth he mean that these inferiour Pastors should be sheep to the superiour that follows not see an invincible instance Suppose a superiour Pastor-Shepherd should have power given him to constitute all the inferiour Shepherds or Officers which is the Polity agreeing in the analogy to all States and all great families which resemble little States in this case it would not follow that the inferiour Pastors were sheep but under-Shepherds which he governs not as sheep but as Officers somewhat inferiour to himself Secondly Let it be taken that the inferiour Pastors are governed like inferiours which are accountable to the superiour this is so far from bringing any inconvenience with it that it is most consenting to all the Ecclesiastick and Politick Governments which are setled by God in Church or State and all those prudent Authorities which our wise men imitating God have established in any Commonwealth So that then this Argument falls to the ground and this being all that he hath urged in this case he hath said nothing to prove that the election of the people gives the essentials to an Officer So I have now ended his third Question viz. What Ordination is Secondly His first Question Whether Ordination precede Election Thirdly His second Question Whether Ordination gives all the essentials to an Officer Now I come to his fourth and last Part. 2. pag. 74. To whom the right of dispensing this Ordinance doth appertain CHAP. XVI To whom the right of dispensing this Ordinance doth appertain IN the handling of this Question he seemeth to me to discourse most wildly yet he proposeth this method 1. To state the Question then to confirm his Conclusion In that which he calleth stating the Question he discourseth upon some Propositions The first is page 76. When the Churches are compleated with all the Officers of Christ the right or rite of Ordination the margent cannot tell whether it be right or rite belongs to the teaching Elders the act appertains to the Presbyters of ruling and teaching Elders when an Officer is invested in his place for of these it is expresly spoken 1 Tim. 4. 14. This is all his proof of which place I have spoken I think abundantly in the handdling the case of Episcopacy but consider the Conclusion 1. He supposeth a Church compleated with all its Officers then there is none lacking then there can be none elected or ordained by him because in his Divinity Election is Ordination 2. He sayes that the right of Ordination belongs to the teaching Elders Mark here a man would think were a learned distinction and an heedless Reader would be beguiled by such a distinction of right and act but consider that the right of Ordination is nothing but the Jus the Authority to do it for Ordination is an act how can one have the right to act and yet the acting belong to others That which follows is nothing but great words against Bishops which like froth vanisheth of it self His second Proposition is Though the act of Ordination belongs to the Presbyters yet the Jus Potestas Ordinandi is conferred firstly upon the Church by Christ and resides in her it is in them instrumentally in her originally The right of Ordination just now was in the teaching Elders but the Jus Potestas is now in the Church the Church hath the Latin names and they the English I but the right is firstly in the Church mark the Jus the right to ordain that is to act and then the â—lders do not ordain but the Church the Elders saith he instrumentally she originally this is not well said The Elders cannot be the Churches instruments but Christs they cannot be guided or directed by the Church but are the guides and directors of the Church Nay I will go further than these men and say the Elders are not physicall instruments of this Ordination but only morall it 's Christ that works all in all and these only come in like morall instruments appointed by Christ to do this great work which Christ blesseth but to say they are instruments of the Church is a strange phrase they are the Churches Ministers objectivè busied about the Church but they are Gods Ministers as I may so speak subjectivè subject only to his commands and directions I should have wished that he had endeavoured to confirm these Propositions either out of Scripture reason or antiquity but I see neither neither do I think that the matter will afford either he indeed names three or four late Writers which never trouble me to examine but yet I could
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
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
and yet in the best of them there are mighty difficulties to make them certain but yet they may know that they might have Bishops in that time and Presbiters ordained by them although the Register's not apparent for it is evident out of such stories as we have that King Lucius the first Christian King we read of in our Nation when he setled Christianity here he was to extirpate the former Pagan Religion used by the Druids in these Countreys Now they had here three Arch-flamins besides divers other Flamins inferior according to their Method so he setled Christianity he made three Arch-bishops Yorke London Caerlyon this last governed Wales and divers adjâ—cent Countreys London the Mediterranean part of this Island of Brittaine but York had the Northern part of England and Scotland for his government and this lasted untill Anno 1470 or thereabouts at which time there was erected one Arch-bishop at St. Andrews so that there was a place to which in case of necessity men might repair for Orders when they would as we know by our late sad experience in these last sad times and no doubt but many did where they knew were Bishops as since the first plantation of Christianity there was in Wales But to come nearer to this Crathling King of Scots in Dioclesians time which was in this Interim he mentions entertained all Christians who fled out of these parts of Brittaine and gâ—ve them the Isle of Man to plant in and setled Amphibolus their Bishop there and built a Church and endowed it nobly who governed all the adjacent Isles and had a succession of Bishops after him so that they could never lack Bishops either to give orders to Priests or to order any thing that were amisse Beside this in this time I read of Ninias who was Bishop of Candida Casa and of Regulas amongst the Picts and I think it would be hard if not impossible for John Major or any of his followers to shew me so many Presbiters men of Note as I have shewed Bishops It is true for a while after Maximus had extirpated the Scots upon the cruel mercyless malicious and indeed foolish instigâ—tion of the Picts against the disposition and manners of a Roman Conquerour there was about forty years in which there was not seen in that territory so much as a Scotchman or Woman but all forced to â—ly their Countrey and therefore Hollandsilde might well say that their Bishops and Priests were forced to fly away but that is a signe there they had Bishops then yet as soon as Fergusus that gallant person came with his conquering Army thither no doubt he brought all such persons with him as were â—it for the plantation fo the Church as well as his Kingdome and therefore I may affirm that there were Bishops within this time prefixed by Major before the extirpation of the Scots in the time and after by the Bishop of Man and his successors As likewise those which that gallant heroique King Fergusius did bring with him and certainly throughout the world where were Presbiters there were Bishops either in particular Diocesses or hard by from whom men might receive orders or somewhere in Christendom where they might hunt them out if there were any number of Christians which might provoke that industry if particular persons as heretofore have been and may be cast away or cast in a Pagan or impeopled Land they may be without a Presbiter although that may be more easily purchased yet they may be without him or having one he may die and they still continue in a Christian condition Man or Men and all the defects of these Officers may be supplied with soliloquies and a holy conversation with godly Prayers but the same though a greater misfortune is theirs who cannot have so much as a Priest with them who may be sufficient for a â—ew Christians but if many the other is necessâ—ry both to ordain their Priests and to govern Priests and them likewise so that in answer to John Major Hector Boethius Bacanan and all others of that Crew I answer there was never any time I mean any considerable time in which the Scots lacked Bishops after there was a considerable conversion of them to Christ. But they had Bishops to repair to at York or at Man Candida Casa or other where and then because Major saith that they were governed by Priests only and not Bishops I think it will be a mighty hard thing for him to shew any judicial Act of Government performed by Presbiters unless they were commissioned by some Bishop and therefore all he said is only said and cannot be proved I have done with this CHAP. VI. Another Argument drawn from the Church of Rome answered HIs next Argument begins page 165 where he says Ecclesiae etiam Romanae sede vacante Presbiteri per undecem menses quindecem dies post caedem secundi Romani pontificis immanissima persecutione comitia pontificalia Romae prohibente Anno Domini 259. I will yeeld all this and perhaps that Sea may be vacant a longer space at another time or any other Sea but what then the Colledge of Presbiters may govern but what can he shew from Onuphrius or Platina Binius or any other who write those stories that they gave orders which they set down constantly at the end of every Popes life what orders they gave or can they shew that they did confirm which are proper to Episcopal duties or only order the pontifical affairs which they might do but not as Bishops they never say they did his next Reason followes CHAP. VII His Argument answered drawn from Deacons DE Iure divino est ut in Ecclesiis Diaconi sint Clerici Canonici per manuum impositionem ordinati per totam vitam adstricti here he ciphers two places of Scripture Acts 6. Tim. 1. 3. Now consider that he saith that these are Jure divino then I have shewed Bishops to be by Apostolical constitution I could trouble this speech but I let it alone only this must be questioned what he meanes by this ut in Ecclesiis Diaconi sint Clerici there is no question but every Church throughout the world acknowledgeth that Deacons are an inferior sort of Clergy which is all that these words imports but I think his meaning is ut sint in Ecclesiis Diaconi Clerici that there should be in every Church such inferior Clergy as Deacons and this the following words with the force of his Argument will make good and then I can reply to him that there is no such divine Law that there should be Deacons in every Parochial Church that he speakes of in the Acts was an occasional office set up for that purpose and that cannot be a Law no not a president but upon the like occasion That in Tim. hath no one word of the ceremonies of ordaining in particular Churches but onely what manner of persons they should be who are to be ordained this is
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
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
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
by Divine Apostolical institution so it is reasonable to conceive it may add something Ecclesiastical to that which is Divine so it be not destructive to the foundation of which nature I shall show there is somewhat in this Canon For the Book which was imposed on the head and shoulders of the Bishop to be Consecrated is the Book of the Gospel or four Evangelists Now it is impossible that that Ceremony should be necessary because what is necessary to any thing must agree to all of that kind which this cannot because there were Bishops when this Book was not written yea when not one of the â—ospels were written this therefore cannot be essential to the Consecration of a Bishop which must needs follow his Consecration this Argumenr is taken notice of by divers although not in this â—ase but in that which concerns a Deacon where the Book of the Gospels is delivered at his Ordination to the Deacon and by most of the Church of Rome is made the matter essential to that Ordination as they call it or as we the outward sign of it you see this Argument which they are pinched with Let us consider how they shift from it Vasques in his 238 Disp. Cap. 4. Number 43. and Ochogamia in his Book of Sacraments in his title of Orders Cap. 4. out of him affirmed that this Order of Deacons as well as is evident of Bishops was before the Gospels were written and they were then ordained without that Ceremony but by a Dispensation of Christ that is Ochogamia's Phrase but Vasques by a Commission of his the Phrase doth not materially differ with these kind of shifts any thing may be affirmed can they shew any the least word in the New Testament intimating any such probability a dispensation must be upon a former Law there could be no Law made to ordain with giving Gospels before either all or any of them were written and it is most evident that none of them were writ when the first Bishops were made Gasper Hurtado goes therefore another way to work and although he grants that at first they were ordained only by the imposition of Hands yet he saith that it is probable that afterwards Christ instituted that when the Gospels were writ they should be delivered to the ordained it is an easy thing to say it is probable but he should give a reason why we should think it reasonable I have reason to think that when the Gospels do abundantly deliver to us such things which are necessary for us to know concerning the will of Christ and there is no such thing in the Gospels and they would be of great ease to the satisfaction of such men as expect to receive Divine blessings from some men in holy Orders It is necessary that they should have some means chalked out to them by which they might be assured that these are such hands by which they expected those blessings are promised to be given them but above all others I wonder at Henricus Henriques who is so bold in his sum of moral Divinity Lib. 1â— Cap. 8. Tit. 1. in his Comment to affirm that probabilius videtur quod in primitiva Ecclesia dabatur Diacono charta in qua continebantur Mysteria fidâ—i quae habentur in Evangâ—lio which is that it seems probable that in the primitive Church there was given to the Deâ—con somâ— paper in which were contrived written the Mysteries of Faith which are in the Gospel He saith it seems so I would ask to whom it seems so certainly to no man living fifteen hundred years after and upwards nor did ever any man say he saw any such Scripture nor heard of it before It cannot therefore seem probable to any man for sure such a Scripture would have given a Glorious light to many other Doctrines which now lye in darkness I therefore love occandus for a clear and ingenious conâ—ession in this point who in quartum sententiarum â—ist 24. Proposition 1. Page 83. saith thus Contra hoc est unum Argumentum cujus solutionem fateor me nescire gaudenter libentur ignorabo Against this Conclusion which is that the delivery of the Book should be essential to the Order of a Deacon against this there is one Argument whose answer I know not and am chearfully and willingly ignorant of And then he urgeth this Argument of mine and shews that even St. Mathews Gospel who was his tutelar Saint was not writ when Deacons were instituted he calls him Pater meus Spiritualis this â—s it was honest so it was ingenious and then he quotes Durandus rightly in Quartum Dist. 24. Quest 3. who agrees with me much in my opinion conceâ—ning this matter and saith that in the Arician Diocess where he was Bishop this Ceremony of the Book was never used so that there is neither Scripture for it nor any universal Traâ—ition and therfore hath no strong â—oundâ—tion the chiefest argument that â—ives me any consideration is that Canon of the fourtâ— Councel of Carthage of which I spake before where in express terms the use of the Book of the Evangelists is enjoyned in the ordination of a Bishop but doth that follow it is therefore necessâ—ry essentially I think I have writ before that it is reasonable to think that Eminent Councell consiâ—â—ing of 200. and odd Bishops many of them as eminent for learning and piety as the world hâ—d we may justly think that such a Councel would omit no essentially materâ—all circumstance but that it should add nothing to the Apostolical Canons is not reasonable and this might now be because now that Book was extant which â—t the first in the Apostles time was not so that I am confident that such who lived in obedience to that Church ought to observe it there being no opposition to the essential part but indeeed rather an explication of it and yet I may say that the Church of Rome did not doth not observe the manner of using the â—ook there enjoyned for as Huâ—tado difficultate decima de ordine olim saith he heretofore the Book was not imposed by Bishops as that Canon requires but by Deacons and now by the Bishops â—haplâ—ines for the use of the Book was impossible to be Apostolical as it is before proved it may be used and ought to be when ordained in a well governed and setled Church but it is not essential to the Ordination or Consecration CHAP. XIII In which what is essential to this Consecration is set down THus having removed the principal Rubbige which might impede my structure I come now to lay my foundation concerning the Building first then let us conceive that what is essential must be Apostolical and what is so may probably be thought to be essential for although it is a most assented Conclusion that the Sacraments which conveigh Grace must be of Divine Institution of which Nature they make Orders I contend not about words and the Apostles were instituted with full authority
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
Canons of this Councel because there was an ill use made thereof against two eminent Fathers of the Church St. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostome who suffered much trouble and persecution upon the pretence of the IV. and XII Canons thereof from their Adversaries and were sentenced by them before they well heard But in particular concerning the Canon of this Councel about the power of the Chori-Episcopi it is well observed by Estius ubi supra that the words thereof are very intricate and perplexed as we shall now declare in the Chapter following CHAP. XV. The Argument to prove these Chori-Episcopi and their power to Ordain Presbyters examined I Think the likelyest man in the world to expound this Canon is Balsamon who was Patriarch of that Church and although he lived a good while after this Councel yet the sence and meaning of the decrees of his own Church is likelyer to be preserved by him and them in that Church than in any other places and men which lived further remote Therefore in his Comment upon the Canon and those particular words upon which the whole foâ—ce of this Argumentis built Illud autem sine Episcopo qui est in Urbe non accipitur pro eo quod est sine ejus mandato sed pro eo quod est sine ejus Ordinatione seu Consecratione et si enim fuerit Chori-Episcopo mandatum ut Praesbyterum ordinet hoc fecerit irrita erit Ordinatio quia non sit data Praesbyteris ordinandi potestas than which words nothing can be more clear to shew that these Chori-Episcopi here spoken of could not Ordain so now in answer to this Argument of Doctor Forbes drawn from the tenth Canon of the Antiochian Councel it is not of any force because the Councel is of none being made by Heretiques in a wicked Schism conspiring against that ever to be honour'd person Athanasius and urged to the destruction of that incomparable person John Chrysostome Secondly granting it to be of force yet by the best expositor in the world for that Councel Balsamon expounds the dubious language of that Canon against Doctor Forbes now then the business of Pope Damasus his decree falls of it self which introduceth a new work for me SECT II. Pope Damasus his decree examined THis Epistle in Crabbs Edition of the Councels is the fourth but in Binius the fifth Epistle of Damasus and it is sufficiently Pontifical it destroys all Chori-Episcopi and saith that they were prohibited as well by that Seat of Rome as by all the Bishops in the world this he saith there and we must take his word for it only for I find no such thing upon record before or after as will appear when I treat of the nature of them but he inveighs justly agaisnt the Laziness of Bishops which saith he brought them into like Nurces to suckle their children for them whilest they the Bishops might enjoy their ease and pleasure To conclude the whole drift of that Epistle is to prove that these Country Bishops are but Presbyters and therefore have no power to Ordain Priests and Doctor Forbes saith clean contrary that although they were but Presbyters yet by that accursed Councel of Antioch they might Ordain Priests The words of that Canon Damasus mentions although he do not name the Councels and truly these words seemed to me to be of great force quamquam impositionem Episcoporum perceperint where he observes the Plural number imposition of Hands of Bishops many in the Plural number of which more hereafter now if they did I know not what can hinder them by any Canon from a remote power to Ordain which may be acted by only leave from the Bishop himself but this is enough for the business of the decree of Damasus it seems he was angry with them and disputes against them and condemns them but as Doctor Forbes well observes this decree of his was but little or not at all obey'd either because this was no true but a counterfeit Epistle or whether these decrees of Popes extra Cathedram were not valid I know not but do know this that it was not observed so here we see a wicked Councel condemned by a Pope and that Pope neglected by all men afterwards what he urgeth out of Isidore Hispalensis is of no consideration but only to mark that the Popes decree was not observed in his time for Isidore there which is Lib. 2. de Ecclesiasticis officiis Cap. 6. sets down only the bare words of the two Councels of Neocaesarea and this of Antioch that of Neocaesarea only compares the Chori-Episcopi to the Disciples this of Antioch will prove a most perplexed decree in its self and such which may probably be objected against Doctor Forbes as well as expounded for him for that out of Neocaesarea which compares the Chori-Episcopi to the seventy Disciples Damasus shews that they Ordained but only the Apostles and Isidore hath not one word of discourse concerning this office as he uses to have concerning all others but only sets down the words of the Canons so that it remains for all him just as it was which is most intricate Damasus seems to conceive that the Records of this Canon did allow them with leave of the Bishop to Ordain Deacons and Priests and that the Laziness of Bishops connived at it for which reason he condemns them not the fault only but for the faults sake the very office this office we find continued in Isidores time after him in the Church and in late times as I shall shew so that as the Pope thought the Canon of that Councel not obliging so the Christian world thought his decrees invalid wherefore I might well lay them both aside SECT III. This Canon Reviewed BUt I will examine the Canon to see if it have any necessary construction that way There are two principal things which are disputeable in this Canon first whether these Chori-Episcopi might give Orders to Presbyters with leave of the Bishop of the City whereto they appertain secondly whether any of them were Bishops by Episcopal Ordination in both which we may find the Canon so perplexed as it will be hard to collect a clear conclusion of it For the first it is urged by Doctor Forbes that the words of the Canon in all Editions of which he quotes three make for him the first is of Dionysius Exigâ—us a grave Author and he urgeth his words truly Nec Praesbyterum nec Diaconum audeant Ordinare praeter Civitatis Episcopum speaking of Chori-Episcopi they should not Ordain a Priest or Deacon praeter besides the Bishop of the City to whom he with his possession is subject Is not this rightly termed by Estius a perplexed Canon then next take the Edition of Gentianus Hervetus which reads it absque Vrbis Episcopo he must not Ordain these without the Bishop of the City this I take to be in his Edition of Balsamon for so it is there and then why Balsaman
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
not Ordain in Alexandria 272. the begin R The Church of Rome doth much differ in its rites of Consecration from all other Churches and from the words of the Canon of the Council of Carthage 266. to 268. The Church of Rome hath various practices in those rites ibid. Reproaches not to be used in stead of Arguments 278. S. 4. S Sacerdotal administration not to be enjoy'd without Bishâ—ps 235 Scotland never without Bishops either in it or near it 235 236. to 238. Scotland not governed by Presbyters in the time of Johannes Major ibid. Variation from the customs of the Church of which we are members is Schism 257 suffragan-Suffragan-Bishops by the leave of the Bishop of the City may Ordain Priests or Deacons 279. Proved by example 286 V Variation from the particular Church of which we are members is Schism 257. Vasques assertions that three Bishops are required jure divino to the Consecration of a Bishop disproved 246 247. The second part of Vasquesâ—s Argument examined viz. that the Pope may dispence with the triplicity of Bishops 252 253 c. Vasques's plea for the laying the Book of the Gospel upon the Bishop Neck to be necessary for his Conseration examined 201. These Quotations out of the New Testament are directed to by the several Pages of this Book St. Mathew Ch. V. P. 3 2. Â 10 13. Â 12 7. 15. Â 153. 8 13. Â 198. 1â—0â— 1.5.6 Â 9. Â 7. Â 10. 16. 19. Â 28. 18. 15. Â 165. 17. Â â—9 176. 19. Â 28. 27. Â 17. 19. 13. Â 196. 26. 17. 19. 26. Â 18. 27. 46. Â 179. 28. 18. 19. 2 22. 25. Â 28. 141. Â 20. Â 24. 28. St. Mark Ch. V. P. 2. 3. 11 198. 3 13. 7. 9. 9. 23. 198. 10. 15. 196. 14. 13. 16. 22. 18. 16. 14. 15. 22. St. Luke Ch. Â V. P. 6. Â 13. 7. 7. Â 30. 168. 9 1. Â 9. 2. Â 10. 10. Â 1. 11. Â Â 40. 1. 18. Â 15. 196. Â Â 8.10.20 19. 22 Â 14. 11. 18. Â Â 32. 94. 24. Â 25. 15. St. John 3 3. 5. 6. Â 12. 17. 26. 22. Â 12. 26. Â 16. 27. Â 4 4. Â 2. 12. 6. Â 48. 17. 10. Â 1. 4. 13. Â 16. 8. 16. Â 22. 200. 20. 21. 22. Â 22. 28. 31. 111. Â Â 23. 106. 21. Â 15. 16. 17. 28 Acts. Ch. Â V. P. 1 8. Â 30. 13. 20. 25. Â 31. 17. 25. Â 2. 20. Â 102. 22. Â 7. 23. Â 32. 2. Â 4. 30. Â Â 3. 72. 4 34. Â 36. 36. Â 32. 5. Â 13. 168. 6 1. Â 32. 2. Â 42. 3. Â 57. 155. 5. Â 37. 127. 133. 17 Â 139. 7. Â 51. 40. 8. Â 5. 40. 9. Â 18. 31. 10. Â 28. 9. 13. Â 2. 3. 123. 139. 14 14. Â 23. 21. Â 156. 23. Â 134. 19 2. 4. Â 13. 13. Â 4. 20 77. 18. Â 118. 28. Â 101. 118. 142. 21. Â 8. 41. 100. 22. Â â— 107. Romanes 6. Â 3. 4. 5. 15. 7. Â 24. 194. 8 1 Â 190. 17. Â 191. 10. Â 4. 72. 11. Â 17. 178. 12 4. Â 62. 5. 7. Â 61. 8. Â 46. 47. 61. 92. 16. Â 7. 32. 1 Corinthians 1. Â 14. 85 4 1. 2. Â 3 6. Â 33. 9. Â 32. 5 2. 6. 13. Â 176. 5. Â 177. 180. 12. Â 186. 9. Â 16. 79 10. Â 4. 28 11. Â 25. 19 12 4. 9. 10. Â 50 27. 28. Â 163. 28. Â 69. 105. 29. 30. Â 64. 14. Â 3. 50. 15. Â 10. 85. 2 Corinthians 3. Â 7. 8. 1 11 5. Â 24. 23. Â 2. Galatians 1 1. Â 31. 34. 9. Â 34. 19. Â 33 3. Â 26. 27. 173. 196. Ephesians 2. Â 20. 28. 4 1. Â 92. 11. Â 100. 12. 13. Â 105. 13. 16. Â 163. Philippians 2. 25. 32. 33. 3. 2. 153. 1 Timothy 1 Â 19. 20. 181. 3 1. Â 33. 5. Â 80. 8. Â 44. 56. 58. 59. 15. Â 163. 4 13. 15. 18. Â 76. 14. Â 107. 136. 5. Â 17. 64. 65. 103. Â Â 19. 65. 115. Â Â 22. 114. 138. 2 Timothy 1. 6. 108. 138. 4. 5. 100. 116. Titus 1 4. Â 134. 5. 7. Â 96. 99. 113. 9. Â 80. 3. Â 10. 11. 181 Hebrews 5. 4. 3. 9 16. 15. 11. 6. 72. 196. 12. 22. 23. 162. 1 St. John 1. Â 8. 10. 193. 2 1. 2. 6. Â 193. 19. Â 182. 3. Â 9. 193. Revelations 1. Â 20. 117. 2 2. 4. 10. 24. Â 121. 13. Â 119. 16 Â 22. 200. 20 21. Â Â 22. 28. 31. 111. 21. Â 15 16 â—7 28. Chap. Â Acts. P. 1. Â 17. 25. 2. Â Â 20. 102. Â Â 22. 7. Â Â 23. 32. 6 1. Â 2. 17. Â 139. 9. 18. Â Â 31 10. 28. Â Â 9. 13. 2. 3. Â Â 123. 139. 14 14. Â 32. 23. Â 134. 19 2. 4. Â 13. 13. Â 4. 20 28. Â Â 101. 118. 142. 21. 8. Â Â 100. 22. 5. Â Â 107. Romanes Chap. 7. 24. Â Â 194. 8 1. Â 190. 17. Â 191. 6 3 4 5. Â Â 15. Â Â 4. 62. 12 5. Â 61. 7. Â 61. 8. Â 46 47. 11. Â Â 61. 92. 10. 4. Â Â 72. 11. 17. Â Â 118. 16. 7. Â Â 32. 1 Corinthians Chap. 1 14. Â Â 85. 4. 1 2 Â Â 3. Â Â 9. 32. 5 2. 6. 13. Â 176. 5. Â 177 180. 12. Â 186. 10. Â 4. 28. 11. Â 25. 19. 12. 4. Â 9 10. 50. Â Â 28. 63. Â Â 29 30 â—4 14. Â 3. 50. 15. Â 10. 85. 2 Corinthians Chap. Â Pag. 3. 7. 8. Â 1. 5. Â 34. 23 Â 2. 20. 22. 28. Â 23. 106. Acts. 1. Â 8. 30. Â Â 13. 20. 25. 31. 2. 4. Â Â 30. 37. Â Â 72. 4 34. Â 36. 36. Â 32. 5 13. Â Â 168. 6 2. Â 42. 5. Â 37. 127. 133. 3. Â 57. 133. 7. Â 51. 40. 8. 5. Â Â 40. 14. 21. Â Â 156. 20. 17. 18. Â Â 118. 218. Â Â 41. 1 Corinthians 4. 6. Â 33. 9. 16. Â 79. Â 12. 163. 173. 12. 28. Â 105. Â 27 28. 163. 1 Timothy 3 5. 80. 4. 13. 15. 18. 76. 14. 107. 136. 3. 15. 163. 1. 19 20. 181. Galatians 1. 1. 31. 34. 9. 34. 19. 33. 3. 26 27. 173 196. Ephesians 2. 20. Â 28. 4 1. 92. 11. 100. 12 13. Â 105. 13. 16. Â 163. Philippians â— 25. 32 33. 3. 2. 153. 1 Timothy 5. 1 Â Â 86. 3 1. Â 33. 8. Â 44. 56. 58 59. 5 1. Â 65. 17. Â 64 65. 103. 19. Â 65. 115. 22. Â 114. 13. 2 Timothy 1. 6. 108. 138. 4. 5. 100. 116. Titus 1 4. 134. 9. 80. 5. 7. 96. 99. 113. 3. 10 11. Â 181. Hebrews 5. 4. 3. 9. 16. 15. 11. 6. 72. 196. 12. 22. 23. 162. 1 St. John 1. 8. 10. Â 193. 2 12. 6. 193. 19. 182. 3. 9. Â 193. Revelation 1. 20. Â 117. 2 2. 4. 10. 24. 121. 13. 119. St. Iohn 3. 3. 6. 17. 26. Deut. 16. 10 43. Levit. 22. 18. 19. 43. St. Mathew 3. 2. Â 10. 13. Â 12. 7. 15. Â 153. 8. 13. Â 198 10. 15. 6 Â 9. 7. Â 10. 16. Â 28 18 17. 29. 176. 19. 28 27. 17. 15. 165. 17. 176 19. 23. Â 196. 17. Â 18 19. Â 18. 26 26. Â 18. 21. 46. Â 179. 28 18. 19 Â 22. 25. 28. 141. 20. Â 24. 28. 22. St Mark 2. 3. 11. 198. 3. 13. 7. 9. 9. 23. 198. 10. 15. 196. 13. 10. 16. 18. 14. 22. 18. 16. 14 15. 22. St. Luke 6 13. 7. 7 30. 1â—8 9. 1. 9. 2. 10. 10. 40. 1. 1. 11. 18. 15. 196. 10. 19. 8. 19. 19. 18 19 20. 19 32. 94. 24 25. 15 St. John 5. 12. 17. 26. 22. 12. 3. 27. 6. 26. 14 4 2. 12. 6. 48. 17. 10. 1. 4. 13. 16. 8. FINIS
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