tottering foundation Then he proceeds which is most pertinent to his intent to shew what is meant by Prophesy and concludes pag. 57. that Prophesy is taken here for a dictate of the Spirit to the Apostle to ordain Timothy I will not oppose this as not prejudicial to this cause Then he comes to his 3d. Term Eldership or Presbytery which he saith notes not the Office but Officers I will yield it although unconstrained to it Then he sayes that this Imposition of hands added not to the Constitution of Timothy his Office gave not essentials thereunto but only a solemn Approbation I will yield it but not his reasons that which was saith he beyond the power of the Presbytery that they could not communicate but to give the Essentials to Timothies place was beyond the power and place of the Presbytery where can he read that He proves it because his Office was extraordinary and theirs Ordinary by this Office extraordinary he intends an Evangelist I suppose which he cannot prove to be an Extraordinary Office Much inconstancy is in this Discourse just now he brought this Instance to prove that an Evangelist might be called by the mediation of Men now he is above their reach and then his second reason confounds this For he saith he hath proved that an Office was not meant by this but by Gift was meant an Ability to do it A strange uncouth way of Argument He concludes pag. 58. the outward gifting and fitting an Officer to his place especially extraordinary as beyond the power and place of a Presbytery But the first is here This is most fearfull incongruous stuff to abuse Readers with Who can but guesse by his unusual language there is something in it but he cannot tell what Who can tell what that is which he calls the outward gifting and sitting an Officer for his Call I thought this Gift here spoken of had been an Inward as he calls it elsewhere a gracious endowment of the soul which enabled him to serve God in his Bishoprick which Gift was bestowed upon him as St. Paul describes not an outward thing nor can any man imagine what that outward thing should be Then he draws this Conclusion that the sense of the place is Despise not those gracious Qualifications which God by his Spirit in the Extraordinary way of Prophesy hath furnished and betrusted thee withall the laying on of the hands of the Eldership by way of Consent and approbation concurring therewith to thy farther Incouragement and Confirmation in this work Now suppose all this were true will this prove that the scope of Ordination by Gods appointment is not to give the Essentials of an Officers Call which was his antecedeâ—t to be Confirmed from this Text there is no manner of Coherence betwixt these two Propositions suppose this were not an Ordination of Timothy to an Office yet doth this prove that the word of St. Paul 2 Tim. 1. 6. By the laying on of my hands mark the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I before observed and indeed he now observes out of Didoclavius although I wonder what use they can make of it against us though perhaps it may be of force against Mr. Rutherfords Presbyterian Ordination I say all this doth not prove that Timothy was not ordained by St. Pauls laying on of his hands or if it did doth it prove that Timothy was not ordained at all because we do not read of it Or that he could not ordain without a Prae-election of some Congregation to a Cure when he is Commanded 1 Tim. 5. 22. not to lay hands suddenly on any These things are all silently passed over and the inference from the Tedious vaunting Discourse can be nothing to this purpose whosoever will read it â—t large with these notes must needs loath it as unreasonable His Inferences pag. 59. are without all relation to the former Discourse Hence it is plain saith he that Ordination therefore prae-supposeth an Officer Constituted doth not Constitute The rest are like this in which there is no manner of Dependance betwixt the Antecedent and the Consequent So that I cannot imagine that a man of so fine words could have so little reason but that these things were fragments found in his Study and crowded into this place SECT XIII His Third Argument answered HIS third Argument is That action which is Common to persons and performances or imployments and applyed to them when there is no Office at all given that Action cannot properly be called a Specificating Act to make an Officer or give him a Call But the Act of Imposition of handâ— is applyed to persons and performances as special Occasion is offered when there is no Office given nor intended therefore it is not an Act which gives in the Essentials to an Officer Consider in this Argument how it never enforceth the Conclusion which he is to prove His Conclusion is this Ordination aâ— preceding the Election of the people doth not give Essentials to the Call of a Minister Now instead of Ordination he brings in only an outward Ceremony which is Imposition of hands as if a man disputing of the efficacy of the Lords Supper should say other men may take bread and breâ—k it which do not Communicate for such and such only is the force of his Argument Imposition of handâ— is used in such Acts where Orders are not given therefore the Essentials are not given by the Imposition of hands To understand this therefore Conceive That Imposition of hands may be and hath been used in Apostolical Times for other purposes than this for Confirmation and in that instance he gives Acts 13. 1 2 3. It was a Confirmâ—tion of that Mission of Paul and Barnabas Now although Imposition of hands be sometimes taken for that most holy Rite which we call Confirmation as Acts 8. 17. and sometimes for this holy Mystery of giving Oâ—ders as we have had it oft repeated in this Discourse or some expression of a designment to a particular Duty as in this place Acts 13. yet we find the Adjacent Cirumstances easily â—ixing a Mans understanding upon which particular he should look and breaking of bread is an Action common to diverse Occasions yet is sometimes used in Scripture for the Communion so likewise Imposition of hands which is used in other duties is sometimes particularly proposed to signifie Ordination although it be used in other Religious Duties and be but a Ceremony of this yet it is a Ceremony used by the Apostles and pointed out by St. Paul Lay not hands negligently on any man to Timothy as before and therefore Argues a Spirit of Opposition in the Church of Scotland which as Hooker saith reject this Ceremony and use it not in Ordination Well there is no force in this Argument to prove his Conclusion but only that Imposition of hands is a Ceremony Common to other Duties which I grant and passe to his next SECT XIV His Fourth Argument answered HIS Fourth
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
to act since after his departure to the end of the world It is necessary therefore for us to think that such things as are delivered by them are Divine for although Canons of Councels general or particular are excellent Guides for the establishing Peace and Unity in the Church and so may require obedience from their Subjects yet because they are but men without an annexed infallibility without doubt they may vary in their practice and Discipline and their Dictates being introduced upon occasions may be altered and therefore cannot add essentials to any thing for the essences of things are always certain and necessary This is my Major Now to search what is Apostolical in this business we must examine the Scriptures where first we find our Saviour authorizing his Apostles As my Father sent me so send I you to give power to others We find him using no Ceremony but breâ—thing upon them gave them the Holy Ghost and truly that Breathing was most significative of that blessing he bestowed upon them but from thence we find not the Apostles using that Ceremony for they being enabled with this plenarty of power to give others that blessing they only gave it and for a sign that they did establish it laid their hands upon them so that as we conceive these two places 1 Tim. 1. 6. by the laying on of my hands or the 1 Tim. 4. 14. with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery to be Ordination so likewise we shall find this Ceremony taken for the whole 〈◊〉 or Ordâ—nation Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man Now then without doubt if any outward Act must be essential to this Heavenly work this only being Apostolical must be esteemed most essential and there I think it most proper for men to conceive that this is the only Ceremony essentially necessary if any be to the performance of that duty for the power originally being given to the Apostles nakedly and absolutely without any qualification or mode in what manner they should use it to others we are to receive the manner at their acting it for our best Rule and guidance which is only in Scripture delivered to be imposition of Hands Thus much for that which the Doctors of the Church of Rome called the material part in the essence of Consecration and we may truly term the outward sign Let us now examine that which they call the form and we may term the words which express it the words which our Saviour used John 20. 22. are Receive ye the Holy Ghost these words expresly are used in the Roman Consecration and Ordination but in the Graecian the words are varied but the sence reserved not giving this blessing in the Imperative-mood which is much stood upon by many Schoolmen and Casuists but in a more humble stile The Grace of God Creates or Promotes thee to this Dignity of a Bishop or Priest or Deacon where we find the truth more largly expounded though materially the same for certainly the Grace of God is that which impowers men with these authorities are given and men are only Instrumental but that they are and therefore there is added how this is given by the suffrage of the Bishops which denotes them instrumental for the African Church you may discern in the Canon of Carthage before cited that the Consecration is expressed in a Language of such extent as may be applied to them both which is uno fundente benedictionem one of them pouring out the benediction or blessing but implying strongly the sence such as is proper for this work to Confirm which all the present Bishops lay on their hands and this universally so consented unto as agreeing to the Holy Scripture that although in the heat of disputation I find men sometimes over peremptorily asserting their own opinions yet I do not find that either Church did refuse such as were Consecrated in either although in wayes and modes differing from their own so that I may justly say that the whole Catholick Church Concenters in this Conclusion that when words importing the blessing are Delivered by a Consecrating Bishop and those words are sealed by imposition of Hands then these holy Orders are effectually given I shall then need to do little more in this Point than to answer such objections which are commonly made against it or I can apprehend proper to be opposed to it SECT II. The first Objection against the Truth answered THe first is common in the School made against the pontiâ—ical in this point because that in all that part of the Pontiâ—ical it is said only Receive ye the Holy Ghost and that Language is the same in the Ordination of Priests as likewise the Imposition of Hands so that by this no man can know what Order is given in the Church of Rome it is answered that the design which they are about will shew it whether to one or to the other Order and again the manner of the Imposition of Hands in the Consecration of a Bishop divers Bishops Impose Hands in the Ordination of a Priest one Bishop only with some Presbyters in the Ordination of a Deacon the Bishop alone but in our Church that scruple is clearly taken away by a great Prudence where at the Ordination of a Priest the Consecrating words are Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest and at the Consecration of a Bishop the words are Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God where wee see that universal cause of all Spiritual blessings I mean the Holy Ghost applied to that particular duty in which at that time he works and therefore the Consecration is free from that Exception SECT III. Another Objection drawn from the Councel of Carthage answered ANother Ojection may be that the Councel of Carthage before cited mentions the laying on the Book by two Bishops upon the head and shoulders of the Bishop to be Consecrated and therefore that is necessary I answer that I much reverence that Councel in which was St. Augustine and divers other Bâ—shops famous for learning and piety in their Generations but yet as I have said before this was never practiced any remarkable time as sundry Doctors in the Church of Rome observe and again it is impossible to be essential because not Apostolical and that because the Holy Bible and that highest part of it the New Testament was not writ when Bishops and Priests were Ordained it is therefore worth our marking that there is a difference in the decrees of Councels concerning Doctrine and Discipline or Ceremonies of the Church in a point of Doctrine they shew in what sence they understand such and such a Conclusion but in the other they set down what is to be practiced to preserve Orders and decency in those Churches where they have to do and indeed there can be no more required of obedience than in quiet and setled times in which
that nothing is essential but giving the proper blessing with imposition of Hands for the addition of one Presbyter to the two Bishops is served only to fill a gap and to comply with an unnecessary received Ceremony it added no virtue of its self noâ— impeded the virtue of the Consecration CHAP. XIV His Discourse examined and an Argument from some Father answered SECT I. The Preface to his Argument examined NOw we will enter upon another Argument being Page 164. towards the bottom a discourse unnecessary for me to write down at large but I will set down what is material in it and so pass to his Argument thus saith he Habent Presbyteri Presbyters have by a Divine right the power of Ordaining Sicut like as they have the power of Preaching and Baptizeing he expounds this that where there is a Bishop there this should be done sub regimine inspectione Episcopi under the government and eye of the Bishop but in other places where the Church is governed by the common Councel of Presbyters that Ordination is valid and good which is made by the imposition of the Hands of the Presbytery Thus he but I desire and so do many more to know where that Church was ever in the Christian world that gave simple Presbyters power to Ordain others before these latter times the practice whereof I think nothing can excuse in some Reformed Churches but a meer necessity in which Case the vote supplies the Act but I will proceed no further with this all to the midst of the next Page is only Discourse his conclusion there is that Presbyters may Ordain I come with him and will consider his following Arguments SECT II. His Argument from St. Ambrose and St. Augustine answered HE begins with St. Ambrose upon the Epistle to the Ephesians Cap. 4. the words are truly cited by him which are apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus I will not disturb this before I observe his second Quotation and make one answer serve both which is Augustinus sive quicunque sit author in quaestionibus ex utroque testamento mixtum Quest. 10. In Alexandria inquit Presbyter Consecrat the force of this Argument is this that in Alexandria and throughout Egypt in the absence of a Bishop a Presbyter or Presbyters do Consecrate by these Fathers in the Citation of St. Augustine he ingeniously saith sive quicunque author est illius operis whether he or whosoever is Author of that work indeed it is evident that it is not his and he might have said as much of St. Ambrose as is appâ—renâ— because these Comments are much suspected upon strong grounds but indeed are thought to be some Author of that age and then though an Heretique or Schismatique in a matter of Story which concerns not that business for which he is branded I see no reason why that matter of fact may not be credited I therefore must allow that authority neither will I quarrel at that word in him which is not Consecrat as in the counterseit Augustine but Consignat which is of a largersence but ye because that word is often used for Consecration I will allow that likewise yea I will add that which some Schoolmen who incline to Doctor Forbes his opinion have observed which is that the word Consecrat cannot here be taken for Consecrating the holy Eucharist of the Consecrating the Lords Supper for that was allowed lawful in any place now this seems to intimate a peculiar custom in Alexandria and Egypt for that therefore know that other things are in Ecclesiastical Story said to be Consecrated besides these of Bishops or the Elements of the Communion to wit Holy houses Churches Virgins and Utensils but some may object that this Consâ—â—ration may be understood of Bishops I answer no out of a famous Story recorded by Athanasius which is in his second Apologue and a letter writ by the Marcotici Praesbyteri Diaconi as they stile themselves to Curiasus and Evagrius It is there Registred that one Colluthus counterfeiting himself to be a Bishop when he was none but only a Presbyter Ordained divers persons amongst others one Ischyras for which he was condemned by Hosius and other Bishops in a general Councel that he should leave off Episcopising and be reduced into his former Order and therefore saith the letter Ischyras could be no Priest who was Ordained only by him who was no Bishop give me leave now to shew the truth of this Story it hath so great authority for it as Athanasius who was Bishop of Alexandria in his Apology for himself writ to his adversaries both Lay and Ecclesiastical if he had been a man of less Sanctity yet out of policy he durst not tell such an errant Lie granting this I say that if the other authorities were authentique which they are not that word Consecration must be understood of other Consecrations not of Bishops or Priests because in Alexandria this act was condemned And so I think that there is enough said to that Argument drawn from the pretended Ambrose and Augustine CHAP. XV. SECT I. His Argument drawn from the Councel of Antioch answered ANd now I proceed to another Argument drawn from the Councel of Antioch Canon 10. in which it is Ordained that Chori Episcopi which saith he were only Presbyters might Ordain Readers Sub-deacons and Exorcists but neither Priests nor Deacons as Dionisius Eriquus translates it pâ—aeter Civitatis Episcopum we may render it besides the Bishop of the City Gentianus Hervetus renders it absque Vrbis Episcopo without the Bishop of the City but he saith Hidorus Hispalensis hath a third Reading which he favours above all that is praeter â—anscientiam Episcopi as I may say without the Conscience of the Bishop here he puts down three various Translations or Readings I can add a fourth which is of another Isidore Isidori Mercator who put out the Councels by the advice of Fourscore Bishops as he himself writes in his Epistle before them but indeed hath no remarkable difference from the rest although it varyes from them Now saith Doctor Forbes Pope Damasus in his first Epistle to Purisper Bishop of the Prime Seat of Numidia and other Orthodox Bishops he condemns the Chori-Episcopi as an irregular Order being in themselves but Praesbyteri and taking upon them Episcopal power To go methodically in the examination of this Argument I propose to my self three things 1. The Consideration of the authority of the Canons made in this Councel next the examination of Pope Damasus his decree and last the Nature of those Chori-Episcopi or Country Bishops who are therein mentioned And first I apply my self to the Councel which I am content to admit because the Canons thereof were antiently received into the Code of the Universal Church and mentioned both in the Councel of Chalcedon and the Councel in Trullo though Estius in Quartum Distinct. 25. Sect. 2. is bold to reject the
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
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
unites us to Christ either in a perfect union or in a remisse or in the lowest degree In a perfect union that is by it which St. James phraseth a lively faith a faith quickned and inflâ—enced with Charity that dare with Abraham forsake all Lands Wife Children yea offer his Son himself a sacrifice to the good pleasure of God this the Church of Rome calls an informed saith actuated and informed with Charity this is the highest union and communion Then there is an union lower than this which is the faith which believes aright and makes a profession of it but will not bide the Test of a Confession when it comes to the Touch and these are by all held so long to be in the Church as they have this union with Christ and so long retains its Community untill some Temptation of fear or hope or perhaps some Carnal Argument perswade otherwise and then they fall into Heresie or Apostacy to have or gâ—in something and these I think to be those of whom the Apostle spake men who lived in a formal shew of a right faith by conversing in a seeming manner with the Godly and the Church but then went from them I will not dispute the falling from Grace here But thus when men had this faith before spoken of and professed it or professed it and had it not they had an union with the Church at the least outward if but by profession but inward likewise if they had that second sort of faith yet they were not of us the number of those who had justifying faith then when these left us but now there is another union and that is per Sacramentum fidei by the Sacrament of Faith as Baptism is called the which no man leaves and this is an union by which a wicked man after his repentance hath a Title to claim mercy and absolution as likewise the Church owes it him So that I dare say Bellarmine nor any Jesuite I have read against this Doctrine can deny that there is such a Title or that that Title is not by this union So then they went from us that is the Communion with us that shewed they were not then of us of that dear union of a lively faith for then they would not have left us you see this cannot be understood of lack of Election The Elect may go out and come in again It cannot be understood that they left union but Communion for the Antichrist himself hath a union with the Church though he keeps a Communion against it I think this is enough to shew that although this departure which St. John speaks of be by Heresie or Apostacy as Bellarmine insinuates yet it is not a leaving all union of and with Christ but only Communion as I have before expressed Reader be not hasty to Judge of this Conclusion and then I hope thou shalt find it most agreeing to all principles of Religion Secondly Bellarmine quotes the Council of Nice Can. 8. 19. Where saith he Hereticks are said to be received into the Church if they will return upon certain Conditions For Answer It is worth our marking that those two Canons are made for two sorts of Hereticks the 8th Canon for the Cathari or Puri as the Canon calls them or the Novatians as Balsamon expounds it for they were the same these the Canon receives into the Church upon repentance with Imposition of hands only but they must expresse their profession in writing The other in the 19th Canon were the Pauliani or Paulianites who were re-baptized upon their re-admission the first was a reception of such who had gone out of the Communion of the Church by denying re-admission of Penitents who forsook their Religion by sacrificing to Idols and communication with the Digami such as had been twice marryed whom they held unclean These things were their Heresies and therefore were called Cathari because they must by these Things proâ—esse themselves holyer than other men but these being not things which nulliâ—ed Baptism although pertinaciously held they could not be rebaptized But for the Paulinians because they they denyed the Trinity they could not baptize according to Christs Institution and therefore such as came from them to the Church were re-baptized You see now how upon examination of these Canons of that most sacred Council the Case is stared for me because it seems the Cathari had but left the Communion as is before expressed and therefore the removing the Obstruction with proper physick 〈◊〉 but the Paulinians had no union and therefore to be grafted into the body I have insisted the longer upon this because the Story of these several Heresies is not perhaps apparent to every one and that difference of Condition upon the diversity of the Heresie perhaps by a negligent Reader would not have been observed What he produceth out of the Council of Lateran That the Church is Congregatio fidelium I need not examine I yield it but he saith That Hereticks are not fideles is denyed by many of his own Religion for although that they have not a fulnesse of faith which he cannot exact in a member yet they may have faith in many Articles which may preserve them in the unity of members though sick members but this serves not my turn comes not home to my businesse I therefore say that as homo is Animal rationale which is one of the compleatest Definitions given to any thing and the most exemplar yet every part of man is not rationale the hand cannot discourse nor the feet so the Church is Congregatio fidelium but it doth not follow that every part of the Church is faithfull Infants are members of the Church and such members as are in a saving Condition yet they have but Sacramentum Fidei and Faith in Potentiâ they are not actually sideles nay perhaps not habitually I am certain as we know of they have no habit of it But it may be objected that these non ponunt Obicem as the School speaks as they reach not out their hands of faith to lay hold on Christ so they do not hinder or oppose it but these men do with violence thrust Christ from them I answer that violence returns to their own Soul in thrusting themselves out of the state of grace and favour with God protempore for that time they do so and it hinders Grace in its operari in its great and noble Effects which it drives at but doth not extinguish it in its first Act which is to make a man a member yea therefore they are more sinfull than if done by an Heathen or any who had not knowledge of Gods Law nor been admitted into his membership Therefore the Apostle urgeth this Argument Shall I take the members of God and make them the members of an Harlot In a word therefore the Church is the Congregation of the faithfull the Essential and Constituting parts of it are such yet many parts of it are not such
Deacon defines him thus Lastly when it that is this word Deacon is taken shortly and as it concerns our purposâ— in hand it sets out such Officers who are designed by the Church to dispose the State and Treasures to those several purposes for which God hath appointed them as the occasions and necessities of the body and any member thereof may require This is his definition or rather description at large of a Deacon which I conceive to be very short because it toucheth but the poor concerning whose Care I acknowledge that in the primitive Time there were certain persons employed because those times were times of persecution and the poor of the Church could not exist without some such Collections by Church Officers to take care of them but that this was the sole Office of a Deacon I deny He proves it thus Romans 12. 8. He that distributes c. Here saith he the Apostle reckons these as a distinct kind from those that went before In our Translation it is he that giveth or in the Margent imparteth and that most naturally but to make it an Office he changeth the phrase Well from hence in this place he thus argues Here saith he the Apostle reckons these as distinct Offices This Term these might well relate to Prophesy to Ministry in the 7th verse as well as the rest which is the most general way with the Ancient Fathers discourse upon that Text but he explayned himself before in the first Chapter of this 2d Part pag. 8 9. That Prophesy is a Genus to Teaching and Exhortation and these two distinct Offices under that one head of which I shall discourse hereafter God willing but giving or as he calls it distributing ruling shewing mercy are three distinct Species's or several Offices under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ministry so then this word these must be by him applyed only to these five at the last named which exposition he had as he acknowledgeth from Beza and before him as I find none â—or Calvin himself upon that place seems to make all these distinct Gifts but I passe by this and will examine his Ground upon which he builds It being saith he the Apostles aime by a Similitude drawn from the body ver 4. to discover several parts by the Actions which were in a peculiar manner appropriate to them as there are many Members in the body and all have not one Office or Action so in the Church there be many Members but their several Offices appropriate to them Whereas were this a Christian Duty common to all he should overthrow his own purpose for he should have shewed things agreeing to all alike when he should have shewed that some things are peculiar Thus I have set down his words and the Arguments as by him urged SECT III. Rom. 12. 8. Expounded HEre he puts me to a great deal of Trouble to enlarge my self in expounding this place which I intend to do and shew what I conceive of it and then refute his imagination and shew how inconsistent it is with the sense of these words He begins his Exposition from the 4th verse of the 12. Chap. to the Romans but he that will expound it aright must go further because that verse begins with a For and that relates to the 3d. verse and that likewise begins with another For which must look upon what went before Let us therefore first examine the first verse I besceeh you c. present your bodies c. which is your reasonable service vers 2. Be not conformed c. but be transformed c. that you may prove what is that good that acceptable and perfect will of God The presenting the body a sacrifice the not conforming to the world the transforming by renewing the mind all tend to this that we may prove what is that good and acceptable c. that is have some Arguments by which you may know it he that doth thus mortify c. and presents his body thus that doth transform and conform his mind shall find Arguments to prove what is Gods will for him to do vers 3d. For I say unto you c. you ought to know this because ye ought to perform this will of God therefore do these things which may make you prove it Now this good and acceptable will of God is that you do not think too highly or higher for this phrase of himself is a Glosse of our Translators not the Text and indeed this same too high thinking whether it concerns a mans self or his work he hath to do is that which disturbs a man in his duty whatsoever he is or it is as if he think himself too good to be an hearer only it makes him thrust himself into the Preachers office or when he hath that Office he thinks too highly of himself that he is too good for it or when he thinks too highly of that Duty which he doth it makes him with the Pharisee despise his brother who is not excellent or eminent in that way so that this same high thinking puts a man besides the way of Gods will and therefore he adds but to think soberly temperately modestly he must not plus sapere think more or higher than his Condition but he must think soberly be lowly in his own eyes not to intrude into others businesse or go beyond his own qualification according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of Faith By Faith I conceive as most do Fidelity that is then according as he is intrusted by God according to that measure of trust which God hath layd upon him there will not be difference I guesse about that and therefore I let it passe verse 4. For as we have many members in one body and all members have not the same office so we being many are one body in Christ and every one members one of another SECT IV. No Argument can be enforced from a Simile farther than the Paralell leads HEre we see all Christians are one body of which Christ is the head that as they have a duty towards the head of obedience so they being fellow members one towards another have that duty one towards another as fellow member not to think too highly but to consider their mutual assistance each ought to give to the other Here now if I would stop let us Consider how it were possible to urge me farther Comparisons are not to be haled and pulled farther than the Letter there may be more in one part than another but an Argument cannot be drawn farther than the Comparison leads It is true St. Paul saith in the 4th verse that all members have not the same office but can I force that to the parallel when St. Paul doth not mention it We may find the like in many places of Scripture as that parable of our Saviour of the Sower of the Tares Mat. 13. where our Saviour expounds pieces of the parable we may according to those pieces from
necessary for the gathering which are not necessary for the perfecting the body of Christ we see Prophets were necessary for the Gathering and the Extraordinary part of Apostles which are not necessary for the perfecting Now here is a Conjunction Gathering and Perfecting His second Consequence is as bad If the Church can be perfected without these there is no need of these this doth not follow things may be necessary ad esse ad perfectum esse and yet other things may be necessary to the easie obtaining this Esse I do but give you the non-consequence of his manner of Argument observe his Minor But there is no Minister necessary for the Gathering and Perfecting of the Church besides that of the Presbyters He proves this Because the Apostle setting down the several Ministries which Christ had purchased and by Ascention bestowed upon his Church when he gave Gifts to men for that end they are only comprehended in these two Pastors and Teachers Ephes. 4. 12 13. and they who are given for this end can and shall undoubtedly attain it Consider here the Inconsequence of this Argument Because saith he the Apostle in that place sets down none other therefore there is no other We have examined that Text sufficiently I thought already but this Starts another Negative note The Apostle doth not say there that there are no other but what he sets down nor doth he put any Exclusive Term as these and these only are they I am sure in the 12. to the Romans he hath another reckoning of things like Offices and so in the 1 Cor. 12. 28. I know he may say that with a Trick of Wit these may be brought about by subordination to amount to the same thing and number and so I can reduce them to two only Extraordinary and Ordinary or ruling and teaching a principal and subservient but unlesse he can shew a Negative or exclusive Term in the Text he cannot draw a Negative inference So that although the means that our Saviour appoints shall attain its end yet the means he appoints must be totally taken not one piece without another and this Text doth not say that is the Total means this is known in Logick posita Causa ponitur effectus but it must be totalis Causa not partialis But now suppose his Consequence were good in Logick will the Text bear him out in the matter Doth the Text name none but these Pastors and Teachers Yes sure and although these two as I have shewed are but one yet Apostles are different and these seem without distinction to be necessary to the perfecting of the body of Christ and Bishops by all Consent succeed the Apostles in tâ—is Duty I will not desâ—ant upon Prophet to shew the sense and meaning of it as not pertinent this is enough to shew the weaknesse of his Argument if the Text were granted to allow his deduction out of it But he proceeds as unluckily as if all this were granted Where saith he the Issue is if Pastors and Doctors be sufficieâ—t Teaching Ministryes to perfect the Church then there needs no more but these I will not lose my self in his long period Suppose these were sufficient Teaching Ministries is there no more requisite but teaching Yes to look to them that they do teach and teach right Doctrine But saith he if these be enough all others be superfluous I answer these are enough for their own Work if they would be good and all industrious workmen but there is necessity for some Custodire Custodes I am weary with this SECT XII His Fourth Argument concerning Jurisdiction answered HIs Fourth Argument is thus framed Distinct Offices must have distinct Operations Operari sequitur esse But they that is Bishops have no distinct Operations from Presbyters if there be any they must be Ordination and Jurisdiction but both these belong to Presbyters Jurisdiction John 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit c. Binding and loosing imply a power of Censuring as well as preaching and both are given in the Apostles to their Successors the rulers and Elders of the Churches who succeed them in their Commission Let him prove that these who are here Elders of the Inferiour rank Succeed the Apostles in that part of their Commission and his Conclusion is granted but that he can never do and therefore labours not for it otherwise I have shewed that there were parts of the Apostles fulnesse of power imparted to one and part to another as the Divine Wisdom directed them to divide it for the good of the Church this they must grant who make Pastors Rulers Teachers distinct Offices SECT XIII Ordination not given by Presbyters FOR the Second Ordination he brings Scripture 1 Tim. 4. 14. He only Ciphers the Text I will put down the words Neglect not the Gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophesy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbyters His Collection hence is That this Gift was his Presbyterial or Episcopal Office and that this power was Conveyed to him by the laying on of the hands of the Presbyters and therefore Presbyters have power of Ordination I will not here dispute what is meant by Prophesie as not pertinent to this Cause nor will I trouble my discourse with what is meant by this Gift which hath received another Interpretation by some of best Authority but will pitch upon the word Presbytery and it may be of Imposition of hands For this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is used only three times in the New Testament Luke 22. 66. where we render it the Elders of the people but it is in the Original in the Abstract not the men but the Presbytery of the people The second place is Acts 22. 5. where we read all the Estate of the Elders the word is the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Presbytery now the Third place is this in my Text. In the two first places Presbytery is taken for the Magistrates or Senate of the people of the Jewes no Christian Order then from the use of the word in other places it cannot be Collected that this should particularize this lower Order which he fancieth sith there is no place to parallel it But because Presbytery doth signifie an Ecclesiastical Order in the Ministery therefore this Presbytery should do so likewise but in as large a sense as Presbyter not more restrained Now Presbyter takes in its latitude the whole Order of Priestood both Bishop and Presbyter it were in vain to insist upon particular places So then must this be would be know which I am Confident all Antiquity understand it of that rank of Presbyters which we term Bishops St. Chrysostome Theophylact Theodoret no man contradicting but these late Expositors Then let us adde one word more Were that Gift understood for the Ecclesiastical Authority which he had or secondly were Presbytery understood for a Synod of Presbyters as they call them which none but themselves affirm
is no where given Upon these reasons I cannot see a possible Colour to avoid this Text but that Titus had such a Commission Episcopal as Episcopacy is taken with us SECT XVII A Second Argument to prove Episcopacy MY next place shall be out of 1 Tim. in which we may discern the same Commission as fully delivered as before concerning Ordination Chap. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man The Qualities of the persons upon whom he should lay on hands described Chap. 3. from vers 1 to 14. for this all may be said as was before in the Case of Titus Here is a Command and Direction to Ordain the Clergy Officers given to one man and therefore by the way of Episcopizing It was a strange unlucky violence to the Text which the Glosse of Beza gives Do not lay hands saith he upon any suddenly Quantum in te est as much as in thee lies for saith he This power was not in Timothy alone but an Election being made by the Consent of the whole Church The Priest a chief man in the name of the Presbytery by Imposition of hands did Consecrate him who was chosen to the Lord Is not this a strange abusing of the Word of God and forcing it to serve mens carnal designes St. Paul bids him not do it suddenly that supposes he could and should do it Beza saith he cannot do it not at all but is only the Mouth of the rest he hath no power to do any thing more than another but never shews any reason for what he saith but referres the Reader to Chapter 4th ver 14th where Timothy is said to receive the power by the Imposition of hands of the Presbytery of which I have spoken somewhat already and God willing shall more hereafter but what is all this to the purpose Timothy is Commanded therefore he could do it yea he is commanded not to do it suddenly therefore he could do it both wayes leasurely and suddenly and he himself in his Short Notes upon the same Text saith that the Command is Neminem Antistes leviter Ordinato Do thou Bishop for so Antistes is often used Do thou ordain none lightly but this Exposition hath no Colour for it nor could St. Paul properly speak more distinctly for it had not been according to the usual Language of men to say Do thou alone do this when a man is authorized to do any thing or Do it by thy sole power they are not Languages used nor do we use to bid a man do any thing which he cannot Act alone but bid him joyn with others in doing such others who are necessarily Co-operators with him in the Work he is to do SECT XVIII Episcopal Jurisdiction proved FOR his Jurisdiction I need not speak much all that Epistle is full of it only â— will touch upon one place which being me thinks of great Brightnesse in it self will serve likewise to give light to the rest and that shall be 1 Tim. 5. 19 20. Against an Elder receive not an Accusation but before or as the Margin under two or three Witnesses Vers. 20. Them that sâ—n rebuke before all that others also may fear From whence thus I discourse Timothy was capable of receiving Accusations against Presbyters or not receiving which is a great piece of Judicial Authority he was likewise Authoritatively to rebuke or correct Presbyters in such sort as if they were Sinners and Guilty of the Accusation laid to their Charge that others by their punishment might learn to avoyd their faults Do these things sound like fellow Presbyters without a Superiority of Jurisdiction Can one fellow Presbyter Censure another or he who is barely a Temporal Speaker or Mouth of the rest This seems to me as full as could be how his Authority was not like Presbyters only over their flock but like a Superiour Shepherd over Inferiours But here with some more Colour in the Case of Timothy they plead he was an Evangelist because 2 Tim. 4. 5. he is bid do the Work of an Evangelist and therefore by the prerogatives belonging to that Office he might do these works of Jurisdiction surely although he was bid do the work of an Evangelist yet that may â—e without being one ex officio An Evangelist is nothing but either a Writer or a Preacher of the Gospel so that do the work of an Evangelist is no more but preach the Gospel and I cannot â—â—nd one man among the Ancients that makes Timothy an Evangelist by Office but I do find St. Chrysostome upon Ephes. 4. peremptorily saying That both Timothy and â—itus were not Evangelists and I find no one man among the Ancients nay I may adde Beza himself or Calvin no one man making it a part of an Evangelists Office either to give Orders or the power of Jurisdiction But these later make them a Subservient Office to the Apostles and if we should allow that what more proper Service than that their name implies to preach the Gospel about with them as they travelled So that it seems to me that these Writers when they utter such Things being learned men some of them and reasonable cannot deceive themselves with those Shadowes but think to drive on their Design with the people who â—earing the name of an Evangelist and not knowing what it is imagine any thing of it what they please to insinuate which in this particular is that an Evangelist had some transcendent power over Presbyters both to ordain and govern them which was not Communicable to others but they never shew that any such Authority is assigned them or any such Duty exacted from them Well it appears that Timothy had Episcopal Jurisdiction as well as Titus and this name Evangelist given by them for this Occasion only is but a meer Illusion I shall here therefore for a while leave St. Pauls Epistles and go to St. John in the Revelation Chap. 1. vers 20. The seven Stars are the Angels of the Seven Churches SECT XIX The Revelation asserâ—ing Episcopacy HEre these Angels were such men as had Episcopal Jurisdiction appears most reasonably to any Indifferent Reader upon these Grounds First because this word Angâ—l as I have shewed hath in its own signiâ—ication genuinely the same sense with Apostle and therefore may well be fitted to the same Office and as that was never applyed to any under a Bishop so neither this as any man can shew me in the whole New Testament That it is a name likewise appropriated to Spirits sent about Apostolical Employments and endowed by God who sends them with Apostolical Authority So that then whether Angel be applyed to Spirits or men it will in both or either receive this Common sense to be understood That these persons whether Spirits or bodies have divine Authority to act those things they are employed about Now then thus the word being of such a sense and no where otherwise understood we may from hence think it most reasonable that this
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
I put down lest he may start from it hereafter and so will passe it over and proceed with the same succinctnesse to his second Conclusion which is p. 48. and is this It is an Act of power as an Instrument or means under Christ to give an Officer the being of an outward Call in the Church Here an Instrument being taken as I expounded it before a moral Instrument This Conclusion hath Truth granted likewiâ—e and so I passe to his second head pag. 49. by what means the essential of this power may be Conveyed SECT IX Whether Ordination doth communicate the Essence to the Outward Call HIS first Conclusion is Ordination as it is Popishly dispensed under the Opinion of a Sacrament and as leaving the Impression of an indelible Character doth not Communicate the Essence of this outward Call In the handling this Conclusion there are two thingâ— he insists upon First to shew that the Prelatical party are Popishly affected in this Doctrine 2dly to dispute against the Indelible Character for the first he draws it from the Answer in the Catechism which is in the Book of Common Prayer where it is said that there are only two Sacraments as generally necessary to Salvation not as he puts it down two only Absolutely necessary to Salvation and then glosses on it q.d. there are more and those necessary but not absolutely necessary These are his words which you see is a false Quotation But because that ever-to-be-honoured Book the Common Prayer is named I will first vindicate that and then proceed Know then It is the first time that ever read the Prelatical party accused under that Notion that the Common-Prayer Book held the Doctrine of the Church of Rome because it was the most Authentique piece which expressed the Doctrine and Religion of the Church of England 2ly Let the Reader observe that this word Sacrament is a Term not found in the New Testament but an Ecclesiastical Term taken up by the â—athers and used by all Christians for that thing which is Ordinarily defined a visible sign of an invisible and spiritual Grace Now if that have the Notions which the Word Sacrament expresseth then Mr. Hooker cannot deny Orders to be a Sacrament because he grants an outward Call to be necessary which is an outward Sign and he grants the Effect of that Call to be the Order given by it which is an Invisible grace as Grace is taken largely for Gratia gratis data and yet the Common Prayer Book is most true which saith there are two only generally necessary that is to all men for Orders are not generally necessary to all men as Baptism and the Lords Supper are but only to such persons as undertake such Duties Let this suffice to have been spoken to that which he unnecessarily to his businesse or mine inserted SECT X. Of the Character left after Ordination AND such another passâ—ge I shall have with his 2d Discourse concerning the Indelible Character a Thing not material to his businesse but only to vaunt and shew his reading in the School â—or this understand that this Character that he and they speak of is the relict of that gift of Ordination by which the Ordained is enabled to do these Duties he is ordained to Now that there is some such Thing he must needs confesse who discourseth of the Causation of these Essentials which imports an Effect and certainly this Effect must be permanent remain in the Ordained or else he hath nothing in him which should Authorize and enable him for those duties Now then it is in vain for him to fustian the Reader with the various opinions of the School whether this Effect be a Quâ—lity or Relation and such unnecessary Discourse unlesse he could shew what it is if not one of these since he holds that it is somwhat I must needs say that the worst of those Writers hath done better than he because those Authors have expressed something with a guesse of reason to it but he without reason to the contrary laughs at them all and yet hath said so much as invincibly proves there is a Character but not said what If it were pertinent to his or my Discourse I would insist upon it but although he is Tedious in such impertinencies I will not follow him in them it is enough that there is a Character something left in the person of a man perhaps that is a righter phrase than to say in either Soul or Understanding or Will unlesse for subjectum quo But something there is left by that Act of Ordination by which that man in whom it is left is capable to do those Divine duties whether this be delible or not is not yet material to this Question we will come therefore to his second Conclusion where will be new dispute SECT XI His Second Conclusion discussed HIS Second Conclusion is Page 52. That Ordination administred according to the method and mind of Mr. Rutherford namely as preceding the Election of the people it doth not give Essentials to the outward Call of a Minister An uncouth kind of phrase doth not give Essentials to the outward Call no it doth not for it is the outward Call of a Minister what 's that a Deacon he should have spoken clearly as his meaning expressed afterwards is and have said to a Presbyter but his meaning is in clear Terms that without the Election of the people to a Cure of Souls by no Ordination preceding a Presbyter doth receive his being a Presbyter And this I oppose His first Argument to prove it is taken from Acts 6. where it is said to the multitude vers 3. Look ye out among you seven men c. Contrary saith heâ— to their present practice Ver. 5. And the saying pleased the people and they chose and they set them before the Apostles His Collection hence is If none but those who were first Elected by the people should be ordained and all such who were so chosen could not be reâ—used then to ordain before Choice iâ— neither to make Application of the Rule nor Communion of the right in an orderly manner I set down his very words lest it might be urged upon an Alterâ—tion I spoyled his Argument But the first is plain from the place alledged Then he answers that seeming Objection that this is only concerning Deacons When saith he the reason is the same in both and stronger in Presbyters because the people have a greater dependance upon the other and are engaged to greater subjection to them and to provide for their honour in a more especial manner This kind of Arguing forceth me to a repetition Conceive therefore that this Instance being singular and occasional cannot be fitly called a rule which must give others but only prudentially when the like Circumstances concurre 2ly Though the people may have a fitnesse to choose such an Officer for such an employment as that was the relief of the poor yet not â—it to choose such
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
which no man can deny if understood Actually because no man can have actual faith at all Times nor is it necessary that faith should be habitual in every member for Infants cannot be proved to have it but only Sacramentum fidei which is the first hand which gives an Interest in Christ and thus much these have of whom we dispute The Sentences which he alledgeth out of the Fathers may be answered out of what hath been already delivered His only reason is That because the Church is a multitude united and this union chiefly consists in the profession of the Faith and in the observation of the same lawes and rights no reason will permit that we should have any of the body of the Church which have no Conjunction with that body he means in these things but he handles this Controversie negligently I answer The perfection of the union consists in these things he names such are in the highest and nearest and dearest way in the Church but the absolute union consists in Baptism I have perused many later Jesuites but they are almost all Excerpta out of him scarce changing his words but because in his Answer to one Argument which is objected against him he confesseth in my Judgement what I require I will put down that and so passe on It is Objected 3dly saith he That Hereticks are in the Church because they are Judged by the Church So saith St. Paul 1 Cor. 5. 12. What have I to do to Judge them which are without therefore they are in the Church He answers That although Hereticks are not of the Church yet they ought to be This is poor hitherto for then they ought not to be Judged untill they are of the Church and yet he addes Et proinde ad eam pertinent How do they pertain to it if they are not of it Yes saith he as a stray Sheep belongs to the fold as we use to say this Sheep belongs to this fold This speech pleaseth me That fold hath an Interest in that Sheep and that Sheep in that fold though it have now no Communion with it yet it hath an union and interest in Communion whensoever he shall legally lay Claim to it to be sed with the rest and every way provided for as they are Thus I think all stray Sheep which are mark'd by Christ for his belong to his fold his Church and by his mark in Baptism may claim it and the Church exact a Christian observance from it neither of which can be in another man Thus I apprehend Bellarmines Confession hath assisted me in giving him satisfaction hut because this Question hath been little pryed into by such Writers as have come into my hands I will for far farther Illustrations adde some Propositions which may clear it from some Oppositions which arise out of mine own understanding rather than in the perusing any Adversaries Writing SECT V Some difficulties cleared THe mighty difficulty which troubled my mind all this while I have been discoursing of this union was how it may be said that the same person shall be a member of Christ and yet in the state of Damnation as without doubt many a baptized person is Somewhat like this I read in Cardinal Cajetan who in his Treatise of the Pope and a Council Chap. 22. having been pinched with an Argument against the Popes Supremacy and being the visible head of the visible Church that the Pope may be an Heretick yea an Apostate and so no member much lesse the head of the visible Church He flyes to my Conclusion for refuge I will not meddle with the force of it against the Conclusion he Treats of but only as he handles it in its self That the Pope must be a baptized person and that union of Baptism will retain him in his Membership Then saith he if we will cast the eyes of our minds a little higher we shall see that he who hath only the Character of faith which is a baptized man is at the same instant bâ—â—h faithfull and unfaithfull a Member of Christ and his Church and extra membra Christi without the Members of Christ and his Church in diverse respects and therefore diverse and contrary things are affirmed of such a man by the Doctors In a word he saith That such a Man as much as is in his own power is out of the Church but Christ by his power keeps him in This is his Sence and he goes further That he who hath this Character is a Member though in Hell But his Expressions and Explications of this Conclusion are not so full as I could have desired he saith he is aliqualiter membrum after a sort a Member but sets not down clearly after what sort Bannes in his large Notes upon 2. 2dae Quest. 1. Art 10. saith that in the Constitution of the visible Church there are two Things Considerable one visible and the other invisible one Internal and the other External In respect of what is visible a baptized man is a member of the Church but if he be an Apostate or an Heretick he is not a Member internally This is somewhat he saith but it is not eâ—ough for if there be no internall adhesion it will be rather a shew and outward appearance of a thing than a reality of it Other expressions made by Jacohus Granado or such later Writers as I have seen scarce come up so far Secundum quid saith he they are Members and such phrases which make a man to know no more than if they had said nothing I shall therefore express my self in this manner First If you take the proportion of this body called the Church from that communion it hath with a naturall body as St. Paul seems to do we shall then find a baptized man grafted into the stock and whilest he clings to it by faith and brings forth fruit by charity he is a lively member of this body as those branches in all bodies are which bring forth their fruit in due season the best branch bringeth not forth fruit in all seasons not in winter and yet is a lively branch if it bring forth its fruit in its proper time and so more or less excellent in its severall kinds as it enlargeth its self in bringing forth fruit but if it bring not forth fruit when the season for fruit requires it then it is not a lively branch but yet living which we may know because many such a branch hath afterwards brought forth fruit again by the discipline of pruning and husbandry The same may be said of the parts of a mans body and yet to express this fuller it is likely that this branch is then in the state of mortality and would perish were it not repaired by husbandry Here you perceive a baptized man ingrafted into Christs body you see him bringing forth fruit and lively you see him not lively but living and whilest he yet lives in the state of death and destruction unless he
of essentially true Baptism to admit men into the Church but they have a Doctrine essentially true of repentance to let men out of it and I am confident that those men which so die with their repentance and contrition for sins and a desire of a new life and a trust in Christ that he hath satisfied for their sins and have no wilfull errors but their other errors are such as are invincible and upon that ground beg with David the Lord to forgive them their secret sins I say such a soul shall be saved notwithstanding multitudes of errors both in belief and practice And this Doctrine is taught in the Church of Rome although mixed with many errors for which yet they have many such seeming reasons as to such who are not allowed to converse with men or read Books of another belief may be sufficient to excuse them at the last day So that although the errors taught in the Church of Rome are not safe yet the fundamentals taught among them annexed to that Doctrine of repentance may be accepted by Almighty God according to his Covenant in Jesus Christ to their salvation This Controversie hath been most learnedly handled by Chillingworth and others I let it pass therefore and will examine his Major which is extreamly far from truth Where all the members are true members there the Church is a true Church This Proposition is false all the members of a dog are true members all the members of a man are true members but there is no true Church where that Turk is or where that dog is Thus as he sets it down it is grosly false nor can I adde any one term to mend it the likeliest I can may be this That Church where every member is a true member that Church is a true Church But yet this is false according to themselves for a Church as we dispute of it is totum Integrale under that notion we conceive it to have members but many times there may be many hands and many feet which stick together and yet do not make a true totum Integrale which consists of a perfect body with all its severall parts and yet these are true parts of their severall bodies these hands of Richard those of William so there may be divers Lay-men Congregated or divers Pastors which are severally each of them true members perhaps of other Congregations yet in that body make not up a true Church which consists of all parts Pastors Teachers c. Let me adde one term more In that Church where all the members are true members of it there that Church is a true Church This is false likewise for in a representative Officer each member is a true member of him of a false or counterfeit King each member is a true member of him but he is not a true Officer or true King and for him to urge that he who is a false Officer is no Officer and that Congregation which is not a true Church is no Church then he by making these members of the Church of Rome and calling it a Church of Rome makes it a true Church himself So that either this Proposition means nothing or it is absolutely false This I speak to shew that although the Conclusion which he conceives of an undeniable evidence were true as I have proved it false yet it would in no means be deduced from that Major no not with the addition of two or three the most assisting terms I could adde to it and so I come to his fourth Argument which is thus framed SECT XI His fourth Argument answered THat which is a Seal of the Covenant and our Incorporation into the Church visible that cannot be the form of it At primum verum Ergo. I put down his very words which forceth me to adde his Minor But Baptism is the Seal c. Ergo Baptism is not the form This Proposition he proves thus Because the Seal comes after the thing sealed but the form goes before These things are so grosly delivered and so without all illustration that it is hard to speak to it for this is all he speaks in that place to this business what he addes against Mr. Rutherford I am nothing concerned in nor do I know what Mr. Rutherford replyes to this nor can conceive it by him In a word I deny his Major That say I which is the Seal may be the form of the Covenant in such cases where the Seal is made an essentiall part of it as in such deeds where Sealing is necessary as in Law where signing sealing and delivering altogether make the form of that Covenant where they are so required and Baptism is all these so that if he had said that which is a Seal alone cannot make the form I would have denyed his Minor and have said that Baptism is not a bare Sign as he will and doth confess but signing and delivering on both sides Now to illustrate this Proposition in such cases such Seals as I have described are the form of those Covenants Consider that the form of every thing is that which gives it ability to work that which is its proper work this doth signing sealing and delivering do every Deed is like a dead body before but when sealed it receives a soul and is able to work which it could not do before Again the form of every thing is the last addition to it that which he speaks in his proof that a form goes before the thing sealed or rather informed or constituted and a Seal comes after is very vain and weak for it is true as it being a constituting principle and a cause of that it produceth it is therefore as the Logicians speak prius naturâ non effectu before it in nature not in time The Sun is in nature before its light because its light proceeds out of it fire before heat yet they are simul tempore children of the same birth and one cannot be without both are The soul of man is before a man in nature because it is a constituting cause yet by them that hold it created Creando infunditur infundendo creatur and they that hold it ex Traduce give it no prae-existence in time to the man and what he sayes of a Seal it comes after in such cases where Seals are essentiall they are before the Seal comes and like a soul put into a body it gives it ability to work and in that state is precedent in nature So that you see Seals in such Deeds as well as forms are before the vivacity of a Covenant in nature though both are simul in time and therefore such Seals may be forms and indeed are forms as is before exprest being that which gives the Covenant sealed its form and power to work and likewise the last thing which comes to actuate that thing in which it is but because that when the Seal is gone yet the form of the Covenant remains and forms having permanent
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
the matter of fact in his Consecration THe first Bishops of Rome who succeeded St. Peter were chosen by the Clergy the Nobles and â—eople who were Christians and durst assemble together for such purpose and indeed were men of such excellency that they accepted that Bishoprick with a design to be Martyrs which they were many one after another afterwards when it pleased God to bless the Church with Christian Emperours they proved Nursing-fathers to their Bishops and under them the Bishop grew great which being discerned the Emperours considering what a great stroak the Bishop of Rome had in the management of all affairs of the Empire they put in for an Interest in their Election and there was no Pope elected but by their approbation untill the Emperour granted his Conge de liere as I may term it Now at this time Italy was full of Souldiers Narses that gallant General of Justinians lay then about Rome whose favourite Pelagius was and Doctor Forbes must forgive me if I think he is somewhat mistaken in the Story when in the next page he writes that Pelagius was but a Deacon when Binius calls him Arch-deacon and again where he saith there that he was chosen by the Command of the Emperour Justinian when it is recorded by Platina that after the Election he sent to Justinian at Constantinople to excuse the Consecration without his Approbation which could not be had in those busles but Narses was as good as Justinian and 〈◊〉 doubt but by him the will of Justinian might be intimated well Rebus sic stantibus Pelagius must be the man he lay under the scandall of being accessary to his Predecessors death upon this the generality of the Bishops refuse to be present at his Consecration onely two and these took a Presbiter to them and ordained Pelagius in that Act rather complying with the Canon so much as in them lay than violating it in Contempt It is a sure Rule Silent Leges inter Arma so they are not Gods Laws Now it is evident that there was the terrour of that Army upon them for the story related both by Platina and by Binius and others affirm that a multitude of the Nobles as well as the People and Clergy fled because their Consciences would not allow them to be assistant And the terrour of the Army would not permit them to oppose that this ordination was not questioned was because the Pope purged himself of that Scandal afterwards and so that which made them desert him at his Consecration being removed made them wink at small faults when he was Pope Thus the Story being cleared for matter of fact I will examine this Argument logically it must run thus SECT II. The Argument discussed and his Major disproved HIs argument termed must be thus That which was acted in the Consecration of a Pope that is lawfull for us to do but a Presbiter did Consecrate Pope Pelagius therefore he may Consecrate a Bishop or a Presbiter with us for the Major it must run so for there can be no difference of Pope Pelagius from other Popes of Rome I deny the Major then and I will disprove it by the Predecessors of Pelagius Vigillius his Consecration cannot be lawfull for he was intruded into the Papacy by Justinian the Emperour and Belisarius his other Generall his Predecessors Silverius being by violence forced from Rome cast into banishment and so died in misery starved as Baronius This Vigillius was put into his Chair and yet for all that Silverius being of a mighty invincible Courage got a few Bishops together and excommunicated Vigillius from which he never released Vigillius Silverius dies Vigillius then renounced his former Election and by the interest of Bellisarius Vigillius was again Elected being an Excommunicated Person and abominated for that and many other Crimes as even Baronius confesseth who was his Friend in his story as much as he could Now then Doctor Forbes his Major failes the instances in the Church of Rome must not be â—residents nor are they Arguments for us to build upon I but he will and doth say this If so Pelagius would have been punished by his successor if it had beeen nought I answer that doth not follow there is not that Law of God or Man which hath not been violated unquestioned I remember Binius writes of it that it had never been so before Baronius onely tells the story but passeth not his Judgement upon it They mention the Scandal he lay under it being that he was accessary to Vigillius his death They mention his purgation which he made as doth Platina and in that it is evident that they who were scandalized at his imagined offence were satisfied with his purgation and so we see that block of offence being removed which made him unfit to be Chosen and Consecrated Pope they never questioned his Consecration its self but this is sufficient for satisfaction to his Major Now let us come to his Minor And here we must examine whether this Presbiter did consecrate the Pope or no And first we will undertake that Question whether it be essentially necessary to the being of a Bishop that he should be Consecrated by three Bishops CHAP. XI SECT I. That Question entred upon Whether three Bishops are necessary to the Consecration of a Bishop GAbriel Vasques a very learne Jesuit and one that Doctor Forbes acknowledgeth much to countenance his opinion in his 243. disp upon the third of Thomas Cap. 6. Page 706. justly complaines that Pauci ex nostra Schola few of our Schoolmen have handled this Question exactly or delivered it defined in their writings I shall undertake him and endeavour now to shew a more clear truth than I have observed delivered by others for indeed because some Canons of Councels seem to make for it and they have been swallowed without chewing and have not been ex mined it hath passed undoubtedly by a generall practise in all quietly setled Churches But I much mistrust that there is not an absolute necessity in persecuted and unsetled Churches after Vasques had produced Arguments against this necessity he puts his own determination fully Mihi tamen probabilior visa est sententia that opinion seems to me to be more probable of them who say first that to the right ordination of a â—ishop three Bishops at the least are necessary by Divine Law as the ordinary Ministers but by commission he means from the Pope two may do it or one thus far he I will take it peicemeale And first I say this Canon that three Bishops should Consecrate a Bishop hath no Collour to challengâ— a Divine Right for that can have a lawful claim to a Divine right must either draw it from God himself prescribing it or else from such men who were immediately authorized by God as the Apostles for if we will go further we must make all Humane Laws Divine for if the next to the Apostles should have their Dictator
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
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
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