Presbyters under that general name of Presbyters as Writs are sent out â—o summon the Barons of the Kingdom to Parliaments by which word was understood both Earls and Dukes although by the Name and Notion called the house of Lords So Bishops were called along being Presbyters under that name they are all called both from Ephesus and the Adjacent Parts though that be put down only and then St. Paul gave them all their Charge to look to their Several Duties and execute their several Commissions which they had before received which is all that these words can enforce although this is reasonable yet methinks this is more probable that they were all or for the most part but bare Presbyters for in the first Age of the Church when the Conversion of men to Christ was new and there were but few Christians few Presbyters were necessary and then much sewer Bishops especially the Apostles living and Episcopizing one of them enough for Twenty of us and therefore one Bishop for a great Nation as Titus for Creet where were an hundred Cities was sufficient but Religion increasing in the hearts of men more Presbyters are necessary and they increasing there must be a greater necessity likewise of Bishops but that any of these should be such as we call Bishops to have power over other Presbyters and to give them orders is no way apparent This therefore proves nothing for their parity But he addes that the word Bishop is never used in the New Testament but the Actions therein required belong to any Presbyter He excepts the Case of Judas Acts 1. 20. For my part it is not material how the word is used but what I labour for is that there is such a Thing as the word Bishop now used doth signifie and that the more he or any other Trouble themselves against it it will appear the more clearly as hitherto it doth I will proceed therefore with him page 25. He frameth his Second reason thus SECT X. His Second Argument answered IF they be distinct the Bishop is Superiour but he cannot be superiour every Superiour Order hath superiour Acts and honours belonging thereunto above the Inferiour but Bishops have neither above those that are Presbyters for if labouring in the Word and Doctrine be an Act above ruling and is most worthy of Double honour then the Act and honour of a Presbyter is above the Act and honour of a Bishop for they only assume the Acts of rule but give the Presbyters leave to labour in the Word and Doctrine I have at large discoursed what labouring in the Word and Doctrine is I will not repeat now but begin with his last For they only assume c. which is the foundation upon which this whole discourse is built and I answer that the Bishops do not only assume the Acts of rule but esteem it their duty to labour in the Word And if Mr. Hooker would without prejudice Consider even of that kind of labouring which he and his Sort understand it Pulpit-preaching the World never yielded more fruitfull Industries than those of our Bishops whose Works live to bear witnesse for them being dead and therefore I conceive this to be an Argument of spleen rather than reason and for the second Clause of this foundation that they give the Presbyter leave to labour in the Word they do much more for they Episcopize over them and look to them and by Authority over them make them do it encourage them who do and punish those who do not If men have misdemeaned themselves in their Office no doubt but Twenty Presbyters have done so for one Bishop but yet neither the one nor the other are lesse Jure Divino for that Judas his Office was good he was an ill Officer Nicholas his Office was good he an ill Officer this chose by the Apostles that by Christ himself thus Offices are not disparaged by the Officers But Consider further that although labouring in the Word with the people may be a more Excellent Work than governing or ruling the people as it is more excellent to perswade than to compell men to vertuous Actions They are but half vertues that are forced yet governing Presbyters which is a proper act of Bishops is more excellent than labouring in the Word to the people by how much the Extent of the benefit is more General It produceth the Good of a Diocesse as that of a â—arish But once again although I had thought enough had been said to that Text 1 Tim. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of Double honour but especially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine yet I will adde somewhat for illustration Suppose this speech were turned from the Church to the Army and a man should say thus Let the Elders the Officers of the Army who govern or rule well their Regiments or the Army be worthy of double honour but especially they who labour and toyl in the heat of the battel could any man Collect from hence that it were a better Act to labour in the Act of fighting than to steer and direct the fighting No sure it is an Act becomming a private Officer and concerns a few but the other who rules well hath the whole fortune of the day the fate of a whole Kingdom sometimes depending on him yet if he can and do upon desperate occasions thrust himself into great hazard he hath an especialty of this Double honour due to him and yet it would not befit him to hazard the day which depends on his providence by neglecting direction to thrust himself into perpetual dangers These Bishops are the Generals of this Spiritual Militia they are to direct and oversee their Diocesse to encourage to command Inferiour Officers to their Duties when they do this well they are worthy of double honour but if when great occasions shall require they act themselves what at other Times they command and take care that others shall do it likewise they have an Especialty of Double honour due to them which is the full Sense of that Text Elders which rule well have a double honour because they have a double excellency both do their own and make others do their duty but if they who have abilities do rule well and labour too then especially much more is that honour due SECT XI His Third Argument answered I Come now to examine his Third Argument which I am sorry to read for it is so full of illogical deductions as methinks it should not be possible for any man to think he could perswade by them It is thus framed If they differ from Presbyters Jure Divino then there are some Ministers by Divine Authority necessary for the gathering of the Church and perfecting the body of Christ besides that of the Presbyter for if the Church can be perfected without these there is no need of these I will stay here a while This Consequence is not good for Ministers may be
name should be affixed to such men nor do I find any man adventuring to shew any place where this word doth lesse than signifie a Bishop Then let us Consider that they are called after in the second Chapter The Angel of the Church of Ephesus the Angel of the Church of Smyrna c. which being great and populous regions could not reasonably but have many Presbyters in them and then to write to one Angel if the name Angel did stoop so low as Presbyter were to write to no man knew whom because there were so many there but if Angel as it is be understood of one in an higher and more exalted State than the rest who might be known by this name Angel as peculiarly due to him then and then only we may understand who it is that is meant by it but if any man should allow nothing but Scripture to prove so clear truth and say there was but one Presbyter in each of these Churches he may find that Acts 20. ver 17 18. St. Paul sent for the Presbyters in the plural number of the Church of Ephesus and when they were come to him he said to them still they and them in the plural number That Text will require a further Examination perhaps hereafter In the mean time take this because it is urged for a Unity of Office betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter from the 28th verse where St. Paul saith Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers that is Bishâ—ps then those that were called Presbyters before were called Bishops afterwards I have often said before that the name Bishop and Presbyter I conceive to be taken promiscuously in the New Testament for the same Office That the word Apostle was solely that name which was used by the way of propriety to that Office both to themselves who were originally such and to those who by their Appointment succeeded them But this is it I contend for That amongst them which they made their Successors they gave to some of them a greater and fuller power than to others both to govern and to ordain which since the Church hath called Bishops Now then from hence whether there were many Bishops in the Province of Ephesus or many Presbyters only yet many there were and these many were so inferiour to one that he is called the Angel which name was so appropriated to him as he might know to whom the Letter was directed or else as if a Man should write a Letter and superscribe it to the Alderman of London where are many no man could know whither to send it or who should receive it but if a man superscribe it to the Mayor every man knows who that is Thus must it be with these he to whom this Letter is superscribed must have this Angelical Condition so fitted to him that he must be known by that name that name solely agreeing to him But some here offer at an Answer That he might be like a Mayor have a superiour Dignity above the rest such as is notified by that name Angel which yet may not make a Bishop such as we require He may be a Temporary Governour such as the Presbyterian allows a President of a Synod who this year governs but the next resigâ—s his place and when he is there he hath no more to do but regulate the Synod no greater Authority than the rest To both these in their Order No Temporary Bishop or Superiour I am Confident that I never read of any such Thing and therefore am perswaded that no man can shew me out of Ecclesiastical Story that any man was outed of his Bishoprick but for Heresie Schism or Gross Impiety of Life when men have grown through old Age or Infirmities otherwise incapable of â—xecuting their Office they have had Coadjutors and helpers in their Office but not been deposed but by Death or some such occasion as before described and those that by Ecclesiastical Story were reckoned Bishops of these places at this time are recorded to dye Bishops And it seems a mighty Selfishnesse to me that any man should oppose his reasonlesse Conjectures against all Story when indeed these Epistles cannot be expounded but by Story as in particular the 13th verse of the 2d Chapter where speaking to the Angel or Bishop I may call him most Conâ—idently of the Church of Pergamus He commends him because thou hast not denyed my Faith even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithfull Martyr If a man would ask what Commendation of his Faith was this What was the Excellency of it Can any man answer me but out of Ecclesiastical Story where it is recorded that after a long and pious life full of all virtue led in Pergamus he was in the dayes of Domitian for the Testimony of his Religion put into a brazen Bull and in that Bull burnt now then this Bishops faith was Eminent that in such a cruel and fiery Tryal he kept his Integrity even in such a Time when thaâ— horrid President of the death of Antipas was set before him Thus I say Ecclesiastical Story is necessary for the Exposition of these Epistles as you may find prophane Story necessary for the Exposition of the Prophets in the Old Testament for a man then to talk of such an Officer concerning which there is no mention in the Word nor any in Story but a Poem a fictioâ— of their own Imagination is not like men that guided themselves by Scripture to undertake I close therefore with the 2d Exception which is that their Government was not such as is Episcopal but only such as is the president of a Synod to direct the businesse not Command more than others and this certainly the frame of these Letters doth Confute mightily for they make the Angâ—ls responsible for the faults and heresies which were under the Government which they could not be if they had only the Authority of Presidents but not of Bishops for a President of a Synod hath no Coercive power in himself but as conjoyned with the rest of the Synod and involved Nor hath he any particular Interest in the ruling or swaying the Affairs of the Church but is the mouth of the Synod therefore although if he neglect his duty in the Synod he may well be censured for it yet he cannot have the faults of the Inferiour Clergy or people layd to his Charge in particular take one Instance in the 15th verse of the 2d Chapter the Angel of the Church of Pergamus is censured because he had them which held the Doctrine of the Nicholaitans which Christ hates Should any one ask why the President should be Censured for these things He could answer I am but one man perhaps they can master me in the Synod I have nothing to do alone but a Bishop who hath Coercive power and can both examine and censure any who are in his Diocesse he may be punished because he did
seated in the Apostles and none else from those words As my Father sent me so send I you and therefore they had power to settle Offices for the Church as they pleased and there is no Office which had not its foundation from them so that although this question be often handled under these Terms whether Bishops be a distinct Order Jure Divino yet they that hold it Affirmatively must defend it with this phrase Apostolico Divino Apostolical by such a Divine Right not as if Christ immediately instituted it for he instituted none but the Apostles as we read of for the whole World but by such a Divine Right as Christ gave his Apostles power to Institute and they did institute Thirdly Let us Conceive that although perhaps there can be found no Law or Decree by either one or more Apostles which shall in expresse Terms say that by the Authority given us we do erect and institute such an Office for such Registers as I have said we have not yet when it shall appear to be the Apostles practice to ordain such Officers so qualified we may be Confident it was not without Authority for men of such Exemplar obedience and humility even to death would not in their practice act without Law and Authority Fourthly That where any place of Scripture that directs our Practice shall abide a double Interpretation because Quisque abundat sensu suo there the doctrine and practice of such men who were Apostolical conversed and lived with those Apostles themselves must needs be the best Glosse upon such a Text because as it is reasonable to think that they should best understand the Apostles meaning for when Laws are newly made their sense likewise how they should be understood is fresh in mens apprehension but Laws antiquated or grown old must be intrusted to the letter so likewise it is most reasonable to think that they could not write or do amisse in these publike Acts or Writings without Controll and therefore certainly it must needs be the best Comment when the Text abides a doubtful Interpretation to shew that the Apostles disciples which Conversed with them did so understand them Fifthly That the preheminence that I place in a Bishop over a Presbyter consists in these two things The power of giving these Orders which a bare Presbyter hath not and secondly The power of Jurisdiction over such as are only Presbyters of the lower rank These Truths being granted as they must without impudence I addresse my self to the Question wherein I can Complain for lack of mine Adversaries books for such as write for the Opinion I professe I care for none the Scriptures and Antient Fathers which I have by me serve my turn but I have their Hooker and I shall I think in reâ—utation of his Arguments discusse most of that matter which is necessary to this Question if I find any thing unhandled which is necessary to this Question I shall treat of it afterwards SECT V. Mr. Hooker undertaken in this Controversie FOR their Hooker he undertakes this Controversie Part 2. Chap. 1. pag. 22. in which he wastes that Page and the 23d upon a bitter invective distinction of a three-fold Bishop Divine Humane and Sathanical and his description of them which I let alone as impertinent â—roth and Fury of a man that is angry not charitable and as one inquisitive after truth disputing but Page 24. he comes to some sober dispute and to bring reasons against this Vsurped Order as he calls it which I undertake at this present His â—irst reason is as he saith the expresse Testimony of Scripture than which nothing can be more pregnant Titus 1. 5. 7. he only Ciphers out the place I will put down the words For this cause left I thee in Creet that thou shouldest set in order the things which are wanting and Ordain Elders in every City as I had appointed thee then verse 7. For a Bishop c. Now saith he the Apostle having enjoyned his Scholar to Appoint Elders in every City and how they must be qualified he adds â—he reason of his Advice For a Bishop c. Where the Dispute of the Apostle shews not only the Community of the Name but likewise the Identity of the Thing signified thereby otherwise his Argument had not only been a false reason but false in form having four Terms but in truth had not reasoned at all for it had been ready to reply here is a Gap as if the Copy had been imperfect but may easily be made up thus a Bishop is another thing from Presbyter SECT VI. His expressions very unhandsome I Will examine this Discourse and see how partial his expressions are to trouble the Truth First he disparageth Titus with although a true yet a diminishing Term He calls him St. Pauls Scholar only St. Paul in the 4th verse calls him his Son yea his own Son after the Common Faith and the Postscript or Direction is to Titus ordained the first Bishop of the Cretians Secondly He diminisheth likewise that phrase which is of great force to this purpose that is the phrase to ordain Elders he saith to appoint Elders Thus when they Cipher Scripture for the most part Scripture is abused and the heedlesse Reader swallowes in a Misconstruction before he is aware thus having examined his misrepeating the Story in things of importance we will sift his Arguments SECT VII His Argument examined THE force of it is this that there a Bishop and Elder are one thing as well as name I grant it for this dispute but let us see what will result out of it no more but this that in the Apostolical Age this name of Bishop and Presbyter was used for one Office the name Apostle was that which was used for the Superiour Dignity which as I shewed before out of Theodoret when I treated of the Name Apostle that in their Time many were called Apostles which were none of the Twelve but afterwards to avoid Confusion and an Indistinction betwixt the Original Apostles and the Derivative for such as were made by men the Church used this name of Bishops and reserved the Name of Apostle to those men who were so Constituted by our Saviour and that one who was made by Election of Lott into Judas his place So we find diverse phrases not used to such purpose in the New Testament yet prevailed with the Succeeders of the Apostles in such a manner as they gained a Constant use among Ecclesiastical Writers such is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the Grecians and Sacerdos amongst the Latines words not used for any Order in the Church of Christ any where in the New Testament and yet amongst the Ancients are used for the whole Order of Priesthood as it includes Bishops and sometimes for Bishops alone but as they are the superiour Order in that sort of men and in the latter Age are solely appropriated by the use of Writers to that Order which the Scriptures and the
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
yet it would not follow that they received it from their Imposition of hands but with it saith the Text with the Imposition of hands of the Presbytery when in 2 Tim. 1. 6. he speaking I think of the same Gift he saith which thou hast received by the Imposition of my hands here by as there with and so is the phrase varied in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Pauls imposition had some signal force but theirs was only a Circumstance by the by not operative But I enforce not this although I am perswaded the Text would make it good but answer peremptorily That Presbytery there meant was not a Presbytery of the Inferiour Order and I speak no more than St. Chrysostome in expresse words This is not understood of Presbyters but Bishops and all the Ancients if he shall require me to prove it out of Scripture That Presbytery ever signifies a Company of Bishops which kind of Disputing is used amongst some I answer in this place I am not to prove but answer and I reply that neither they nor any I think can shew me this word Presbytery used in any other place than these I have named and then I am sure it cannot be proved that it should signifie that inferiour Order Thus have I done with this reason of his I could collect even hence a Strong Argument against them but I will referr it SECT XIV Mr. Hookers Argument out of St. Hierome answered AT the last Hooker comes to that Canvased place of St. Hierome and here he begins to boast of Antiquity If saith he we look to ancient Times that prime place of Hierome ad Evagrium shews the Charter whence all the Authority is derived Unum ex se electum in altiori Gradu collocarunt quem Episcopum nominaverunt This piece of St. Hierome somewhat amazed me upon the first view of it not but he was a man and might by passion be somewhat transported but although I have read it in him before and often urged in the School yet me thought not in such significant words To understand him therefore Conceive that he writ this Epistle to Evagrius against a Custom that had crept into the Church of Rome as it seems that some men did prefâ—rre Deacons before Presbyters this I can guesse to happen upon the rise of Cardinal Deacons which began to flourish in those days upon this St. Hierome magnifies the Presbyterian Order shews how Presbyters and Bishops were one and were called by the same name in Scripture which elsewhere he affirmeth likewise and there he seems to make the difference betwixt a Bishop in respect of Jurisdiction not to be as two Orders but Gradus in ordine and therefore he saith that in Alexandria which was founded by St. Mark in the time of Heraclius and Dionysius Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori Gradâ— collocatum Episcopum nominabant But presenâ—ly he makes a Bishop in the same Epistle like a General in an Army and yet comes off Quid enim facit Episcopuâ— exceptâ Ordinatione quod non facit Presbyter and at the Conclusion of that Epistle compares Bishops Presbyters and Deacons to Aaron the Inferiour Priests and Levites Whence it abundantly appears that not only St. Hierome otherwhere but even here opposeth these men expresly in the Case of Ordination and surely evidently enough in the business of Jurisdiction Comparing the Bishops to Generals and Aaron But then mark these mistakes in his Quotation where he puts Collocaverunt for Collocatum as if the Presbyters had given him his place or Dignity when it is no more but this that from St. Marks time down-ward the Presbyters of Alexandria had one chosen out of their Presbytery which was elected above the rest and called Bishop which was that their Bishop was chosen among them whether by them or no I dispute not now So that this Epistle of Hierom being read and this place Considered I know no reason why it should be urged against their power of Ordination or Jurisdiction First because this was the Practice only of a particular Church and as he disputes concerning Rome in the same Epistle may much easier be objected to Alexandria Si Authoritas quaeritur Orbis major est urbe And again in the same Epistle Quid mihi praeter unius urbis Câ—nsuâ—tudinem This might be but I yield not that there is any force to this purpose out of St. Hieromes phrase but only that they had one elected out of their number which was placed in an higher degree and called a Bishop not naming who ordained him or who elected him but suppose they should Elect him would it follow that they had power of Ordination Certainly no the people or Patron may elect their Parson but not ordain him or if they should elect and ordain him which will never be granted yet would it follow that he had Jurisdiction and sole power of ordaining others a Master of a Colledge is elected to his Office by the Fellows and ordained according to the Lawes yet unlesse by Authority delegated from him no Fellow can choose much lesse make the least Fellow or Scholar in the House Take St. Hieroms Instance The Emperor or General of an Army dies in his place the Army chooseth and Constitutes another Emperor as often happened in Rome when they had made their Election then he had power both of Jurisdiction in Governing them who chose him and of Ordaining inferiout Officers which were under him but over the rest of the Army So that although it be true in Nature that which can do the greater can do the lesse yet it is not true in Politick Affairs as thus In an Elective Kingdom or the Empire they who have power to choose the Emperour himself yet when they have chosen him have not power to choose the least Constable or Inferiour Officer but the Emperor only so that here are wonderfull Inconsequences in this Discourse if much more were granted than indeed is any way true and yet as if all were true he deduceth strange Conclusions Whence it followes saith he first that Bishops were first Presbyters I grant it secondly that they had their first Constitution and Election from them I deny that proposition First St. Paul and the Apostles Constituted many Bishops in their several precincts Timothy Titus many more Then I deny the Consequence or Dependance it hath upon the premisses â—or although all that were true in Alexandria yet that is no rule to the whole World besides that the same Method was used any where â—lse which is apparently grosse his next Deduction is as bad Ergo saith he Presbyters had their rise and Ordination before Bishops If they had what would follow It is possible the Apostles might make Presbyters first and chuse and make Bishops out of them if not the Apostles we have and shall prove were Bishops who were before Presbyters He saith If they can give Ordination
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
from him At primum ex concessis Ergo I set down his words and all his words where hath he shewed that Presbyters elected their Bishop which yet may be true and the consequence most weak for after their Ordination by Bishops they may elect their Bishop but not ordain him Elections may be and are various according to humane Constitutions assigning this or that Pastor to this or that particular Congregation sometimes the Parish sometimes the Patron sometimes a Bishop but the Ordination and giving him power to Officiate must be only by the Bishops the Bishop ordains and makes a man a Presbyter a Bishop of the Catholick Church he may by humane Laws and his own consent be tyed to Officiate and execute that Pastoral duty in this particular place nor can any man shew me Authority from Scripture or the times near to the Scripture-Writers where any man was instituted and ordained to do these spirituall duties by any other Authority than Episcopal Nay I think since the Apostles Age no considerable Church or body of Men did conceive Election to be of validity to do these duties till now Well then all the premisses considered which have a full consent of Scripture and the practice of all Ages to confirm them conceive with me that it must be a bold and impudent thing of such men who dare Officiate in these divine duties without Authority granted from Christ which he only gave to the Apostles and they to their Successors Bishops and it is a foolish rashness in those men who adventure to receive the Covenants of their eternall Salvation from such men who have no Atturnment from Christ to Seal them If the Case were dubious which to me seems as clear as such a practick matter can be I should speak more but it being clear I need write no more in this Theam I intended to have spoken to Mr. Hobs but lately there came to my hands a Book of learned Dr. Hammond entituled A Letter of Resolution to six Queries in the fifth of which which is about Imposition of hands you may find him most justly censured for that vain and un-scholastick Opinion pag. 384. But the business is handled sufficiently in the beginning of that Treatise pag. 318. wherefore my pains were vain in this Cause An APPENDIX c. CHAP. I. In which is an Introduction to the Discourse and the Question stated SInce I came back to my Study I found one conclusion delivered in this Treatise opposed by a learned Scotchman one Doctor Forbes in a Treatise intituled Ironicam and in it he hath divers Arguments not inserted in my former Papers against this proposition That it is a proper and peculiar act of Episcopacy to ordain Priests and Bishops which he denyes in his second Book Chap. 11. Proposition 13. in his Exposition and proofe of that proposition page 159. And I observing it whilest my Papers are with the Printer thought it â—it to interpose that which satisfied my self in his Arguments In the top of the page before named he begins thus Gradus quidem Episcopalis est juris divini here we agree Ita tamen ut Ecclesia esse non desinit Sed esse possit sit quandoque vera Ecclesia Christiana in qua non reperitur hic gradus Here we begin to differ I say there neither is nor ever was a Christian Church without a Bishop and I will now begin to distinguish there is the universal Church and there are particular Churches The particular Churches we may yea must conceive to be sometimes without Bishops yea without Presbiters as by the death of their Bishops or Presbiters or by such persecutions as may so scatter them that they dare not shew themselves in their Churches In such cases these places must needes be without these Magistrates And yet those Christians who are by such means defrauded of this divine and blessed government keeping their first faith continue members of the Catholick Church and of that universal Church which have and ever shall have Bishops as long as the World stands so that if that proposition be meant of particular Congregations It is true they may be without a Bishop But if the universal they shall never be by the promise of our Saviour I will be with you to the end of the World without a Bishop And those particular Churches which may by such means be without Bishops may be without Presbiters likewise upon the same occasions This I think is clear I shall now examine his Arguments which oppose this which I have delivered His first Argument drawn from Scripture answered HE saith he will prove it before the Institution of Bishops and after First before I am perswaded he can shew me no Church before the Institution for their Episcopal authority was given in its fulness to the Apostles in that language of our Saviour As my father send me so send I you as I have explained All the Commission was given to them and they imparted all or part of it as they pleased they were the first and only Bishops untill they setled Provincial Bishops they were of the whole world as those latter of particular Diocesses he proves that there were Churches before Bishops out of Scripture but it is ciphered Scripture first Acts 8. 12. There Philip the Deacon so he terms him converted Souls to Christ where was no Bishop And by his leave if Philip were but a Deacon there was no Presbiter neither and by the By the Independant Thomas Hooker of New England and his fellows may take notice that a Deacon may preach and baptize for so did Philip in Samaria in that verse But Reader take notice that although men may be converted by Presbiters yea Lay-men any and when they are converted and baptized are members of the Catholick Church and parts of the mystical body of Christ and have no Bishop resident in that place yet without a Bishop it cannot be for the providence of God over the Church is such as that there shall always be such an authority resident in the Church universal whither men may in convenient time such as will be accepted of God repair for Church-discipline The next place be vergeth is Acts 11. 20 21. But there is nothing observable to any such purpose but only that they who were scattered upon the persecution of Stephen converted many Souls to the true faith His third place is Acts 14. 20 21 22. He should have added the 23 without the which all the former were imperfect to his purpose and in that verse are the words which he argues out of that is they ordained Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now there was a Church he inâ—erâ—s and no Bishop I will tell him there was a Church and no Presbyter untill the Apostles ordained them and the Apostles Barnabas and Paul ordained these Presbiters not a Presbitery and they themselves â—ineranâ—â— throughout the World visited their Churches with letters and directions sometimes when they could not personally
his Major now let us examine his Minor In nostrâ tamen Ecclesia reformata Scotanica id haberi nondum potuit propter Ecclesiasticam paâ—pertatem bonis Ecclesiasticis laicorum hominum sacrilegio dirâ—ptis The force of this Argument runs thus Although Deacons be a divine ordinance yet the Scots by reason of their poverty are not able to maintaine such an Officer and there is the like reason for Bishops in such places where the supream authority will not allow them so that necessity may excuse men even where the divine Laws requires any thing I must confess that invincible necessity excuseth many Acts but it will lie upon the Souls of these Churches who live without Bishops to answer at the last day to Allmighty God and make it good before him that their Omission is such but the difference betwixt Bishops and Deacons is exceeding great I do not find any one place so much as directing that Deacons should be in every particular Church in many there is no need of them where a small congregation of twenty or a hundred may well be osâ—iciated in the meanest duty by a Presbiter onely but in Cathedral Churches where are many little offices for which perhaps we cannot find Presbiters so fit or that it is not fit that we should take them from their greater imployments to bestow their time upon those lesser duties in such cases there is a necessity for those lesser offices to be used but if they shall think their Deacons to be ordained for that imployment mentioned in the sixth of the Acts to minister to the poor I may say that such an imployment can hardly complain of necessity by sacriledge since that out of the collection for the poor he may be allowed a stipend competent for such an office but then to consider that which he would have to paralel a Bishop where is any such a small congregation as I have before specified all things may well be regulated by a Presbiter and he alone supply all the duties belonging to the Salvation of Souls But if there should be many such congregations or that Presbiter who did govern there die in that Government it is necessary for him or them to seek out some Bishop to authorize him or them for this duty The upshot of all this is that Deacons are not instituted as necessary for all lesser Congregations that Bishops are authorized to give Orders to dispose of such affairs as are usefull or necessary to the Government of little or great Congregations but especially in the latter where are usually more and more dangerous exorbitancies That which follows in that page is onely a Discourse but no Proof and so I passe to 161. page where he labours to prove that the Presbitery as he calls it or Company of Presbiters gathered together may give Orders thus CHAP 8. An Argument drawn from Scripture answered APostolus Paulus manuum impositionem per quam ordinatus est Timotheus modo vocat impositionem manuum sâ—arum 2. Tim. 1. 6. Modo impositionem manuum Presbiterii 1. Tim. 4. 14. Idest concessus Presbiterorum sic enim in Novo testamento passim et apud antiquissimos Scriptores Ecclesiasticos The effect of which is that St. Paul in those two places termes the giving Orders to Timothy in one place the laying on of his hands and in another the Laying on the hands of the Presbitery which saith he was the Company or Colledge of Presbiters as that word is often used in the New Testament and amongst the most antient Ecclesiastical Writers I have expounded these two places already and though he say Presbitery is often used for a Colledge or Concessus of Presbiters I have shewed it is no where so used in Scripture and for the most ancient Ecclesiastical Writers I would have been glad to have Read where I should seek them for remember them I do not I will trouble the Reader no further with this Argument it would be but a Repetition CHAP. 9. An Argument drawn from Saint Hierome answered HE comes next to the formerly examined place of St. Hierome and Evagrinus but he puts it down more truly than Thomas Hooker doth and after adds one phrase which the New-England-man left out which is Sicut exercitus imperatorem faciaet quibus verbis non abscurè indicat Presbiteros Alexandrinos initio ordinasse sibi Episcopum by which words as an Army makes an Emperour he doth not obscurely intimate that they did ordain their Bishops Thus Forbes if instead of Ordain he had said Elect I should not have been offended but to take upon them the power to ordain was too much unless they had the Armies to maintain their Act by force as they did The Souldiers upon the death of the Emperour proclaim and cry up commonly their General to be the Emperour and make it good with their sword but would Doctor Forbes or Hierom think that they did ordain or make him Emperour or rather according to their power elect it was often seen even in the age about St. Hierom that two or three Armies in their several places chose so many Emperours And it is not impossible that the Presbiters in Alexandria might have the Election of their Bishop as in most places but the Consecration of him was by others and mark this place of St. Hierom the phrase he useth is Presbiteri not Presbiterium which he calls the antient Language howsoever there is nothing in these words which can instance a Consecration from Presbiters no not in the Simile of an Army unless a Rebellious Election might pass for a Consecration I think I need not speak no more to that at this time but if there be any further need I foresee that the answering other Arguments will further illustrate this business CHAP. X. An Answer to the Argument drawn from the Consecration of Pelagius the first Pope of that name in which is discussed the Story of his Consecration as likewise that no Argument can be drawn from that Act That Popes Consecrations and Elections have been erronious HE proceeds page 162. Pellagium hujus nominis primum Romanum Episcopum ordinarunt duo Episcopi unus Presbiter Ostiensis nomine Andreas qui tanquam Episcopus munus illud ordinationis obivit dum non invenientur tres Episcopi qui secundum Canones Pelagium ordinarent The summe is that this Pope when there could not be three Bishopâ— got which according to Canons should joyn together in the ordination of a Bishop there being no more to be found they took in a Presbiter to officiate with them and therefore he thinks Presbiters may ordain for answer let no man think that I will undertake to defend the Consecrations of Rome it is a task too hard for me to manage or I think any other and materially no doubt but this was irregular yet it may be excused and perhaps justified by what I shall say take therefore the Story of these times SECT I. Where is the Story of
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
Canons of this Councel because there was an ill use made thereof against two eminent Fathers of the Church St. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostome who suffered much trouble and persecution upon the pretence of the IV. and XII Canons thereof from their Adversaries and were sentenced by them before they well heard But in particular concerning the Canon of this Councel about the power of the Chori-Episcopi it is well observed by Estius ubi supra that the words thereof are very intricate and perplexed as we shall now declare in the Chapter following CHAP. XV. The Argument to prove these Chori-Episcopi and their power to Ordain Presbyters examined I Think the likelyest man in the world to expound this Canon is Balsamon who was Patriarch of that Church and although he lived a good while after this Councel yet the sence and meaning of the decrees of his own Church is likelyer to be preserved by him and them in that Church than in any other places and men which lived further remote Therefore in his Comment upon the Canon and those particular words upon which the whole foâ—ce of this Argumentis built Illud autem sine Episcopo qui est in Urbe non accipitur pro eo quod est sine ejus mandato sed pro eo quod est sine ejus Ordinatione seu Consecratione et si enim fuerit Chori-Episcopo mandatum ut Praesbyterum ordinet hoc fecerit irrita erit Ordinatio quia non sit data Praesbyteris ordinandi potestas than which words nothing can be more clear to shew that these Chori-Episcopi here spoken of could not Ordain so now in answer to this Argument of Doctor Forbes drawn from the tenth Canon of the Antiochian Councel it is not of any force because the Councel is of none being made by Heretiques in a wicked Schism conspiring against that ever to be honour'd person Athanasius and urged to the destruction of that incomparable person John Chrysostome Secondly granting it to be of force yet by the best expositor in the world for that Councel Balsamon expounds the dubious language of that Canon against Doctor Forbes now then the business of Pope Damasus his decree falls of it self which introduceth a new work for me SECT II. Pope Damasus his decree examined THis Epistle in Crabbs Edition of the Councels is the fourth but in Binius the fifth Epistle of Damasus and it is sufficiently Pontifical it destroys all Chori-Episcopi and saith that they were prohibited as well by that Seat of Rome as by all the Bishops in the world this he saith there and we must take his word for it only for I find no such thing upon record before or after as will appear when I treat of the nature of them but he inveighs justly agaisnt the Laziness of Bishops which saith he brought them into like Nurces to suckle their children for them whilest they the Bishops might enjoy their ease and pleasure To conclude the whole drift of that Epistle is to prove that these Country Bishops are but Presbyters and therefore have no power to Ordain Priests and Doctor Forbes saith clean contrary that although they were but Presbyters yet by that accursed Councel of Antioch they might Ordain Priests The words of that Canon Damasus mentions although he do not name the Councels and truly these words seemed to me to be of great force quamquam impositionem Episcoporum perceperint where he observes the Plural number imposition of Hands of Bishops many in the Plural number of which more hereafter now if they did I know not what can hinder them by any Canon from a remote power to Ordain which may be acted by only leave from the Bishop himself but this is enough for the business of the decree of Damasus it seems he was angry with them and disputes against them and condemns them but as Doctor Forbes well observes this decree of his was but little or not at all obey'd either because this was no true but a counterfeit Epistle or whether these decrees of Popes extra Cathedram were not valid I know not but do know this that it was not observed so here we see a wicked Councel condemned by a Pope and that Pope neglected by all men afterwards what he urgeth out of Isidore Hispalensis is of no consideration but only to mark that the Popes decree was not observed in his time for Isidore there which is Lib. 2. de Ecclesiasticis officiis Cap. 6. sets down only the bare words of the two Councels of Neocaesarea and this of Antioch that of Neocaesarea only compares the Chori-Episcopi to the Disciples this of Antioch will prove a most perplexed decree in its self and such which may probably be objected against Doctor Forbes as well as expounded for him for that out of Neocaesarea which compares the Chori-Episcopi to the seventy Disciples Damasus shews that they Ordained but only the Apostles and Isidore hath not one word of discourse concerning this office as he uses to have concerning all others but only sets down the words of the Canons so that it remains for all him just as it was which is most intricate Damasus seems to conceive that the Records of this Canon did allow them with leave of the Bishop to Ordain Deacons and Priests and that the Laziness of Bishops connived at it for which reason he condemns them not the fault only but for the faults sake the very office this office we find continued in Isidores time after him in the Church and in late times as I shall shew so that as the Pope thought the Canon of that Councel not obliging so the Christian world thought his decrees invalid wherefore I might well lay them both aside SECT III. This Canon Reviewed BUt I will examine the Canon to see if it have any necessary construction that way There are two principal things which are disputeable in this Canon first whether these Chori-Episcopi might give Orders to Presbyters with leave of the Bishop of the City whereto they appertain secondly whether any of them were Bishops by Episcopal Ordination in both which we may find the Canon so perplexed as it will be hard to collect a clear conclusion of it For the first it is urged by Doctor Forbes that the words of the Canon in all Editions of which he quotes three make for him the first is of Dionysius Exigâ—us a grave Author and he urgeth his words truly Nec Praesbyterum nec Diaconum audeant Ordinare praeter Civitatis Episcopum speaking of Chori-Episcopi they should not Ordain a Priest or Deacon praeter besides the Bishop of the City to whom he with his possession is subject Is not this rightly termed by Estius a perplexed Canon then next take the Edition of Gentianus Hervetus which reads it absque Vrbis Episcopo he must not Ordain these without the Bishop of the City this I take to be in his Edition of Balsamon for so it is there and then why Balsaman
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
Service without Compulsion and since he was to leave the World himself he took Order with his Servants to Act as if he were present and Negotiate the great Work of Salvation of Souls by a Delegate power from him Therefore in the 16th of St. Mark v. 14. you may observe that he appeared to the Eleven that is to the Eleven Apostles for one of them Judas had apostatized and had hanged himself and in the 15th verse he gave them Commission Go ye into all the World and preach the Gospel to every Creà ture that is to every Creature that is Capable of it c. there was their Commission The same Story is thought by many to be a little more fully described by St. John Chap. 20. 21. after he had appeared to them as before he said Peace be unto you as my Father sent me so send I you and then he breathed on them the Holy Ghost Mark this phrase As my Father sent me It is a particular phrase not used elsewhere and therefore intimates some extraordinary matter God had sent many men before but never any besides Christ with the fulnesse of Authority as it is described Mat. 28. 18. All power is given me in Heaven and Earth All power was never given to any before I send you therefore with all power as my Father sent me So the power then of Giving powers to others which was never given before but to my self and therefore in that place of St. Matthew before cited in the last verse too I am with you to the end of the World with you teaching baptizing giving Orders to others for that is mightily enforced out of the word Sicut as my Father sent me and indeed else he could not be with them in their persons to the end of the World but in their Succession by which means he might well be said to be with them to the Worlds end Having now touched upon these places I will Collect this here was in the 28 of Matthew vers 19. Baptism Instituted Matter and Form In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which we read not prescribed before we see the Officers appointed these Eleven in their personal bodies or succession wee see their Diocesse enlarged preach to all Nations and as preaching so baptizing as large they go together we see the Subjects of their Sermons enlarged before Christs Death When they had to do with the Jews only it was the Kingdom of God is at hand Now it is to observe all things that I have commanded you So that then we see first before our Saviours Death two sorts of Officers Apostles Disples their Office at the first limited to preaching and that to the Israelites that they did baptize we are assured but not in what Form nor by what Commission untill after our Saviours Death then we have seen the Holy Communion Instituted just before his Death in Matter and Form and Commissioners appointed to Celebrate it to wit the Apostles we see after his Death a full and Absolute Commission granted to these persons to whom the Communion was committed to do all things Baptise preach celebrate forgive Sins to choose and send forth others and for ought I can collect in this Story the whole Ministerial power invested in them But because something may be objected against this which hath been delivered which I take to be the foundation of what shall follow I will clear those objections which seem most troublesom to me and so proceed to shew how the Apostles managed this Stewardship committed to them SECT II. Whether the power of preaching was given only to the Apostles FIrst It may be questioned whether the power of preaching was given to the Apostles and them only To understand this we must look back and remember that the Seventy likewise were sent but that was to the Israelites only their Commission extended no farther before our Saviours Death and after his Death we find no Commission given but to the Apostles and what Authority they or any else could have to preach the Gospel it must be from them let no man trouble this or any other part of my discourse with that frivolous Objection which is often intruded into these Controversies We read not that these or these men that these Presbyters received new Commissions from the Apostles and yet find them preaching for Answer once for many other times in which it may be needfull it was impossible that the Acts or Epistles could keep a Register of all that were ordained by the Apostles or Bishops in their Age it is enough for us to know that all power for these things was given to the Apostles and we may reasonably think that of these 70. which were chosen by our Saviour such as proved worthy should be Commissioned by the Apostles and such as were unworthy as some were should be suspended ab Officio but for these particular Registers and how and when each man was is not apparent nor to be expected Well then now it seems the Apostles had all the power of preaching none others being sent in this Embassy to the World but themselves But could none else preach not gifted men Consider these men never any so Extraordinarily gifted as these were yet see as I observed they preached not without an outward Calling by Christ nor then untill he sent them Again it is observable that by his outward Word he directed their Doctrine to the Jews that they should preach the Kingdom of God was at hand and to the Gentiles Mat. 28. 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have Commanded you So then Christ had given them Command before what they should preach I do not find no not in these yet any inspired Sermon but upon Direction and although these men had no doubt the most immediate Call that ever any had and the most extraordinary Gifts in the most extraordinary way yet for to enable them for their preaching they had Conversation with Christ which doth the most resemble the most Industrious life of Studious Scholars which in Books Converse with God as possibly a thing can do so that in that time in the time of our Saviours Life and untill his Ascention we can find no place for inward Calling without an outward nor an outward execution without means to enable them for this great Ministry of preaching but throughout a most Methodical Course SECT III. Whether these and these only were Commissioned for Baptism THE next thing to be looked upon is Whether these and these onely had the power of baptizing No doubt we may say of this that they had the Duty only none other obliged to either but they and when I have named the Duty I think I may justly adde the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The right and Authority will go along for it seems to be a branch and a main one of that Great Commission Mat. 28. and without doubt a great piece of the Power of
the Keyes John 20. Now then they and they only that we read of had from Christ this Commission those Questions come not to be handled whether Bishops Priests or Deacons have this power there was yet no such distinction of them as I find but whether the Apostles only or no I do not find any other the Seventy had a Commission to baptize among the Hebrews as well as they their Commission of preaching and baptizing equal but what that was I know not but here all the power is granted to the Apostles In whom and whom alone I can discern all the Ministerial power belonging to mens Souls so that they or men sent by them have this power or none I know there is a great dispute whether Laymen can baptize and the Church of Rome is mightily offended with Calvin for saying they cannot but I do not find the least Argument out of Scripture to confute him and certainly this place of Mat. 28. seems exceeding strong for his Cause and they themselves grant that the ordinary Minister of Baptism is Sacerdos by which word they understand Bishop and Priest that in their Absence a Deacon may and so go on to the little Orders but in extremity a Layman For my part I grant for certain that the Apostles were the only men Ordained for it I conclude that baptism is necessary and that it is a great Mercy of God to the Children of believing parents that they are capable of it that baptism is necessary is evident out of the Dialogue betwixt our Saviour and Nicodemus John 3. 3. Except a man be born agaiâ— he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God vers 5. Except a man be born of Water and the Spirit he cannot c. vers 6. A reason is given That which is born of the Flesh is Flesh as if he should sâ—y nothing can work ultra sphaeram Flesh there ore cannot inherit more than Flesh nor be in a better than â—â—eshly estate and that is not the State of Heaven therefore there must be some way by which that which is flesh and blood may become Spiritual which alone is by baptism That which Calvin most â—â—gâ—niously urgeth That Children which dye uncircumâ—ised are not to be judged damned may thus be Answered That their bond of Circumcision was dated the eighth dâ—y and therefore nor due before the date but ours of baptism being without daâ—e is due presently So that then ours is like the State of those who were not Circumcised the eighth day when Circumcision was due not of those before the eighth day when it was not due Now upon this reason the Care of the Church layd a mighty Charge upon all preachers to be diligent to preach all dangers which might surprise Children before they come to do their Duty Now although I place such a necessity as that we see no ordinate means without it of Assurance of Heaven yet I will not despair of Gods mercy to such who adde not evil of their own Acting which should hinder the Effect of Christs Death and the daily prayers of the Church for all men And therefore with Calvin I think it a rash adventure of any man to open the Gate of Heaven who hath not the key committed to him which was not given to him yet I question if he hath turned the key in the Lock whether it do not open the door although he hath not the legal power which Calvin cannot deny but that it hath been an universal Opinion of the Church and for all â— see in his 18th Section of his 4th Book of his Institutes he doth not deny but it is valid and I believe he would not allow to reâ—bâ—ptize such a Child which he knew had true bâ—ptism according to matter and form but I am confident no man ever had â—his power given him from God but the Apostles and therefore it must needs be a mighty presumption in that Man who without Authority â—ven him should dare â—o put Gods Seal to any Article or Covenant by which he might be obliged to any Duty SECT IV. Whether administring the Communion was appropriated to the Apostles in our Saviours life THE next thing to be examined would be Whether in his Life-time our Saviour did appropriate the Administration of the Communion to the Apostles only and because we see that Commission only given to them nor ever semblance of any thing to the Contrary because it is a Work of so great height in its self because as the other so this Sacrament Conveys with it a Covenant on Gods part and because from Christs time downward the right of Consecrating was never pretended to by any Man untill now I cannot but think it a monstrous pride in such men who having no Authority from the Apostles should dare to undertake it and although I have heard of such an Opinion yet I never heard or read any reason for it SECT V. Whether the Power of the Keyes was given to them only AND then next I will examine Whether the power of the Keyes was given to them and them only by which power I understand the power of binding and loosing the power of Government and ruling in the Church and Church Affairs Here are two pretenders the onâ— that it was given to St. Peter only the other that it was given to the whole Church I will examine both First for St. Peter this Controversie betwixt the Church of Rome and Us hath been so vastly handled in such large Volumes as it would be a little impudence to offer at it in these few sheets and to stop my intended Course with tedious disputes which have so often been repeated and Canvased by others only I will point my singer at that which I think may Occasion a Reader in Studying this Controversie to fix himself upon what is pertinent and to take notice of such Things as may easily induce him to the Truth for though I am perswaded I could adde something at least â—llustrations to some Arguments which are Discussed in this Controversie yet that would drive me from satisfying your doubt and make my few lines swell to a Volume I only say thus much That in all those places Mat. 18 19. John 21. 15 16 17. which are the main pillars upon which St. Peters prerogative is setled no man living can shew me other power which a man can Conceive reasonably to be Conferred on him than on the whole body of the Apostles In those two places 28 Mat. 19. c. and 20. John 21. if we should understand him a Rock in the 16. of St. Matthew which yet without Partiality a man cannot do But rather think that St. Peters Confession was that Rock upon which the Church was built or that our Saviour who by his Confession was acknowledged the Son of God was that Rock hath with some a great Consent of Antiquity yet should we grant him there to be termed a Rock yet it must be no otherwise than derivativè
portion which they superintended but rebounding back often where they had been before and diverting as Occasions offered themselves into other Precincts this they did and might do by that vast Authority was given them Go preach to all Nations and by that power Equalling their Authority which was Conferred at the Pentecost but it was not with other men that universal Authority would not besit the meaner powers of those who were to succeed and to follow them and therefore we will in the next place Consider in what proportions they Communicated these Authorities to others SECT II. How the Apostolical Power was Communicated THE virtue of which Communication we enjoy at this day some for place some for Authority some in part some in the Lump For the first we shall for place Consider that their Successors were confined in place Titus in Creet Timothy in Ephesus Epaphroditus in Philippi not that they were Confined or pegg'd here immovably So is no Bishop in his Diocesse no not quoad Officium as if his holy Duties which he performed out of his Diocesse were invalid or of no force for without doubt if a Bishop baptize preach celebrate the Communion give Holy Orders secundùm materiam formam Canonically according to Matter and Form out of his Diocesse they are firm and good to the receivers although perhaps without leave or extreme necessity they are not Commendable Nay without doubt if either Bishop or Presbyter remove to other Diocesse or Parish he takes not a new Ordination but an acceptation or just Election to that place sufficeth Now his Confining to that place is to restrain the Ministring of his Office out of Duty there so that he is out of Duty to have a Care of that place and to look to that flock which is Committed to his Charge which is part not the whole as it was Committed to the Apostles and no doubt that which Dr. Field hath learnedly discoursed upon this subject in Ancient Times Bishops were the Pastors of their Diocesse solely Presbyters their Assistants and Associates as the Apostles with that almost immense power were made Bishops of the World yet being men with Confined bodyes were forced to use Deputyes and the help of other men in their Charge even whilst they lived and certainly the Church was better Governed by that Subordination than if every one who hath not Apostolical Integrity should assume Apostolical Authority so it was by these they had great Diocesses committed by the Apostles and as I shall shew anon they had many Inferiors Assisting them but these were their places over which they were made Overseers and they had not Authority of Jurisdiction over others Thus I could set down how almost all the World was divided in the Apostolical Age but I let this alone SECT III. How the Apostolical Power was divided to Particulars and concerning the Office of Deacons NExt we will Consider how the very Office of the Apostleship was divided And the first thing that comes into our Consideration to begin at the foot and climb upward will be the Office of Deacon in handling which I find some matter of Dispute First about the Institution of him when this Function was first erected There is a general Claim to Acts 6. the Story may thus be observed In the Infancy of the Church when it pleased God by the preaching of the Word to encrease the Church beyond the expectation of men or lesse power than Apostolical there were many poor among the Disciples but the piety of the Christians was such as you may read Acts 4. 5. in ver 34. of the 4th Chapter there was no lack for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them and brought the price and cast it at the Apostles feet and Barnabas is presently particularly instanced in but in the 5th Chapter we read the fearfull Story of Ananias and Sapphira who would seem righteous to do as the fashion of Godly men was but being hypocrites were punished for their hypocrisies Now these Sales bringing in great sums for the relief of the poor the Apostles as it seems were troubled with it and the Care to relieve the poor took them off from attendance upon that mighty work of planting the Gospel this was the rather awakened by a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrâ—ws that is either such Grecians as were made Proselytes or else such Hebrews as lived and perhaps were born amongst the Greeks for as yet the Apostles had no Communication with the Gentiles now these Grecian Jews murmured because it seems the Apostles as I can guess had left the administration of this Charity to some who had dealt partially for I am confident they themselves would not wherefore they Convented the Disciples together and bid them with all Care who must needs know the Integrity of mens conversations better than the Apostles who could not search hearts select some men fit for such a purpose and appointed the Number of Seven the Disciples did accordingly and they chose Stephen and Philip c. as you may read in the 5. vers of the 6. Chap. and set them before the Apostles when the Apostles had prayed they laid their hands upon them no doubt rectifying their Choice and Authorizing them to the work Thus we see these men receiving Title to execute this Office SECT IV. Reasons why the Office of a Deacon was not Instituted Acts 6. BUT for my part salvo semper meliori judicio I cannot conceive how this should prove that Ministerial Office of a Deacon which was afterwards used in the Church from this place for these reasons First because this was an Occasional Office necessary for that Time in which there being many poor which lived under the correction and rod and persecution of the politick Magistrate no legal Course could be taken for the relief of them but such as came by Charity out of the bowels of their own Fraternity to wit from Christians who might be perswaded not compelled to that Duty and by reason of this there was a necessity to have some Officers chosen Overseers of the Poor which by a Religious Tie where could be no legal should be bound to the Execution of this Duty for which they instituted this Office but why these should be called Deacons that Ministerial Office used in the Church I see neither Authority nor Ground in the Scripture for it That they should not be annual Officers as our Overseers of the poor I can see no reason or why in a setled Commonwealth where the politick Lawes provide for the poor and Law makes such Charity a Duty to the Commonwealth there is no Ground It is true in the Times of persecution these things are necessary as there is often mention both in St. Pauls Epistles and the Ecclesiastical Story and Julian the Apostate himself in an Epistle to Arsalius the Heathen Pontifex or Chief Priest of Galatia The wicked Galileans saith he under which name he vented
his malice against the Christians relieve not their own poor only but ours with a Counterfeit holinesse There he acknowledgeth the Christians abundant Charity in those dayes when he made all Christians poor and because he would not be out-acted in a Work of so much piety he gave that Priest the Collection of vast sums towards the relief of necessitous people This was necessary in Time of persecution but what further use is there of it in particular Churches than those Collectors for the poor which we have and Charity and Sweetnesse preached to men whereby they may be spurred on to enlarge their hearts beyond the Exactions of Statute-Duties to the overflowing of Charity Now then because it was an Occasional Office necessary then and there at such times in such places we cannot conceive why it should enforce such an Office perpetual in the Church and universally in all places or Churches SECT V. Another Argument to prove the former Conclusion SEcondly Consider the businesse they were designed to we shall not find that ascending to these Ministerial Duties it being only to relieve the body not the Soul to take Care of the Tables to look that the Grecian widows and poor be not despised in Consideration of the Native Jews I know it is objected by Catherive that these Tables there spoken of was the Lords Table and the Ministration they were imployed about was the Communion but these phrases of Daily Ministration and the murmure of the Grecians do inforce the other for if they had a daily Communion it is not to be imagined the Apostles would be standers by at so heavenly a Duty and if they were actors it cannot be thought that any should be neglected in it I therefore with a mighty Consent of Writers Conclude that it was an Administration of Temporal Things but the Administration of such maketh not to that Ministry we speak of which concerns things so Spiritual as affect the Soul immediately with some Divine blessing when these immediately only concern the body and Temporal Things and therefore could not belong to our Ministry SECT VI. A third Reason for the former Conclusion A Third Reason may be drawn from the persons which were elected into the Office which were as Epiphanius reports in the end of his 20. Chapter of his first Book Contra Haereses of the Seventy two Disciples of which Number there he reckons many more of equal rank if not an higher esteem than these Now then if they were of those Seventy two it is not reason to think that they should be Ordained into an Inferiour Order of Clergy and the lowest of all for all hold that they were Presbyters at the least either by their first Ordination from our Saviour when he sent them to preach and baptize the lost Sheep of the house of Israel or else by a Confirmation from the Apostles after they were invested with the whole Ecclesiastical power in themselves by that Grand Charter As my Father sent me c. Now then this had been a disparagement to Presbytery But lest any man should doubt whether these were Presbyters or no let him Consider that extraordinary work of St. Stephen who went up and down as you may read in the latter part of the 6th Chapter of the Acts doing Miracles and disputing and preaching I dare call it so say Mr. Thomas Hooker what he can with such a Spirit as they could not resist But Mr. Thomas Hooker in his Survey of Church Discipline Part 2. Chap. 2. pag. 36. denyes St. Stephen to be a Preacher and that most Sermon-like discourse I am sure of his Acts 7. he calls an Apology not a Sermon truly I see little of Apology in it and I know some have drawn a little Body of Divinity out of it and I know that vers 51. he drawâ— a most powerfull invective against their manners which cost him his present life in this World If Mr. Hooker will not allow this to be a Sermon he can find few in the whole New Testament SECT VII Some of these were Preachers BUT he shall not escape me so Though this propagation of the Gospel will not be allowed to be a Sermon because I cannot find an express Term so pâ—rasing his discourse I will shew him another of these Deacons in the next Chapter Acts 8. whose discourses to this purpose are called preaching that is of Philip Acts 8. 5. Then Philip went down to the City of Samaria and preached Christ to them The very word used for preaching in English as well as the Original is there placed Hooker himself where before alledged although he omits this verse yet cites the 38th verse of that 8th Chap. where Philip is said to baptize the â—unuch therefore more than a Deacon by his Doctrine but in vain that as I shall shew hereafter But now I will examine his Answer SECT VIII Whether Philip were an Evangelist and what an Evangelist PHilip saith he was an Evangelist and so appointed by God as afterwards appears and by virtue of that and not of his Deaconship he did baptize Indeed he is called an Evangelist Acts 21. 8. And lest we might think them two Philips the Text saith he was one of the Seven that is one of those Seven was chosen Acts 6. to take Care of the Poor but by the way consider that neither then or elsewhere in Scripture are these Seven called Deacons Well first Consider here was a great space of time betwixt the 8. and the 21. Chapt. he might be an Evangelist long after and not one then Degrees and dignities came by steps not the highest at first but suppose he were and suppose he was one before he was made Treasurer or Overseer of the Poor and suppose I conceive an Evangelist did preach the Gospel might baptize then I Conclude that such a man was at the least a Presbyter and that he was as it were degraded in being made such a Deacon by his Consent a Deacon hath nothing to do with Spiritual things but only the Treasure of the Church And therefore it is strange that both he and my Lord Say and Nathaniel Fiennes in their Speeches at the beginning of this Parliament affirmed That because the Apostles would not have Ecclesiastical men meddle with Temporal things they instituted a new Office out of their rank for the performing even these Duties of Charity which in nothing agrees with the Text for it seems at the first the Church layd all the burthen upon the Apostles when they put it off then they chose Ecclesiastical men again and such as were next them either of the Septuagint or else Evangelists certain we may be famous Churchmen St. Stephen Philip and the rest who have honourable mention in Ecclesiastical Story SECT IX An Objection answered BUT before I Conclude this Argument I will frame one great Objection Acts 6. 2. The Apostles said it is not reason we should leave the word of God and serve Tables was it not
a Presbyter and see what peculiar Interest he hath in it distinct from other men First then without Question such a preaching as is Occasional by private Conference or in publike Assemblies when in publick Opportunity is offered to manifest the Glory of God or Convert or Confirm by Conference any soul to or in the Christian Religion or Godlinesse of living which indeed is a great part of Christianity when upon occasions of Discourse or otherwise Opportunities shall be granted to any man he may if he have abilities so Conferre as to perswade men to a newnesse of life and this is preaching in its latitude it is preaching the Gospel of Christ and each man that hath abilities ought to do it but each man is not bound to have abilities a private mans strength is chiefly discerned in holding fast the Word of Truth that so he be not carryed away with the wind of Doctrine he hath other Offices which are his Duties and in which he ought to expend his Studies and Endeavours but to have abilities or to endeavour to have some Abilities for this purpose is the Duty and Office of a Presbyter It is the Duty of the Shepherd to take care of his Masters sheep but it is a comely Charity in every Servant though he be not the Shepherd when he finds his Masters sheep run astray or ready to starve to throw them a lock of Hay or call them back to the fold Nay it is his Duty out of Charity though not out of Office but to take upon him the Office when he is not Authorized to it would be Intrusion and it would bring a great Confusion into the Church as it would into a great Family where every man or every man that would might take upon him the Manage of any Office he would St. Paul therefore saith of such How shall he preach unlesse he be sent that is how shall he take upon him the Office of doing it unlesse he be authorized for it let us then Consider who is authorized SECT XVIII Who is authorized to Preach THat this Authority must be joyned to every Presbyter that hath power to administer the Sacraments preaching must be taken in a large sense for reading Homilies for reading the Scriptures in known languages for it is not possible to find men of Abilities to do the other in such a Nation as ours is and yet it is necessary that they should have these Sacraments because by them men receive the Covenants of God concerning their Souls which to teach and incourage us to is the chief Duty of preaching and this is done I am perswaded more securely by the other way projected before but then if we will have men preach nothing but what they make themselves there had need be a mighty ability for a Weekly Preacher to do that and such indeed as cannot be expected from every Presbyter that may be fit for the other and therefore that way of penning their own Sermons is not nor can be exacted from every Presbyter And to preach Sermons not penned although upon urgency there hath been or may be such a Thing yet it is nothing but laziness and supine negligence and undervaluing of that great Work by those to do it Constantly and not worthy the thought of Christians But whether Presbyters alone may do this is a Question started in this Age but was disputed long since by learned men and how determined I will set down with mine observations upon it The Story is thus Origen a man most eminent for learning of any man in that Age both for humanity and Divinity and indeed such as may not only be accounted so for that Age in which he lived but deserved to be placed in the first rank of Scholars both of his own or any other Age when he lived at Cesarea by Authority given him from the Bishops of Palestine interpreted the Scriptures publikely in the Church when he was not a Presbyter nor that we know of had received any degree in Ecclesiastick Office Demetrius the Bishop of Alexandria who envyed the deserved glory of Origen and that honour which rather as a debt was paid to than given him for his Excellency in Preaching inveighs bitterly against him and having little else to be offended with him for saith it was an unheardâ—of thing that a Layman should preach and writes to the Bishops of Palestine about it They patronage that excellent Work of their own and gave him Instance in three or four that they knew of and no doubt say they there were more which had been licensed by Bishops to do so and did preach even before them I could have wished that the dispute had been larger set down that so the Arguments from Scripture or reason might have been set down for our Instruction but for defence of him who it is pity did not write his own Apology If any man object St. Pauls How can he preach unlesse he be sent I shall answer he was sent and by that power that had Authority to send that was the Bishops in that Province in which he lived who had authority to delegate as Apostles of which I shall treat hereafter by our Saviours Charter As my Father sent me so send I you to send others not with a plenipotency but as they saw expedient with divided powers to baptize and no more to administer the Sacraments and no more and why not preach and no more this way of preaching penning and contriving Orations to the people requires great abilities inherent acquired by mighty industry and pains and when men are found so Gifted and enabled although they think themselves not worthy to take a Pastoral Charge upon them or to administer the Sacraments yet when they find abilities for this and their Bishop think fit why should they not preach but not without the Bishop he is the Supream Pastor he may if he find an Inferiour fit for that place give him Authority to feed or fold or drive his Flock and no more and he that is authorized by the Supream Pastor may do it and others who without his leave undertake to do it are Intruders but he being so authorized doth it orderly lawfully thus did Origen who had he lived in our Age could have discoursed much more powerfully to this Theam and I can guesse that this may satisfie most of that which many in our Age object concerning their Gifts If they are Gifted let their Gifts be examined and if he the Bishop find them to be such as can enable them for such a Work let them be licensed otherwise not CHAP. XIX His Argument answered I Have been over tedious in this Discourse Here you may discern the vanity of his Argument from that Text if preaching be taken in that late sense as I have expounded it I deny that there are any Presbyters which are not Teachers If Preachers be taken in this strict sense for such as preach Studied Orations I say that there are many
to Bishops they may to Presbyters Both the Proposition and the Deduction have been Confuted already Last of all he deduceth They who have the same Commission have the same power from Christ. But they all have the same Commission John 20. 21. Prout misâ—â— me Pater ego mitto vos I put the words as he doth in Latine it was said to all the Apostles Equally and to all their Successors indifferently I deny that the plenipotence spoken there was spoken to all that succeeded the Apostles in any part of their Oâ—fice there are diverse Things communicated to one which were not to another according to their very Doctrine only Bishops succeeded them in their fulnesse of power in Ruling and Giving Orders and therefore these are bold Conclusions which are only spoken not proved by him SECT XV. The Truth explained I Have done with his Arguments and now apply my self to seâ— down what I Conceive â—it to prove my Conclusion which is That there was such a Thing as Episcopacy setled by the Apostles in the Church If I had no other reason â—t might perswade men easily to credit it because that the Church in the old Law seems to be governed by such a Discipline where as I said out of St. Hierome there was Aaron the Priests and the Levites for although this Argument be not necessary yet because the Wisdom of God is not to be parallel'd in Polity so well as Nature it should be reasonable for men to think that where is no Ground for a Difference in this second Church under the New Testament from that former under the Old there God should not vary in the Discipline and I think no man can shew me a reason for such a Difference either that men are more united or that the Church doth require a lesse Union now than then which two as they are the heads from which we enforce Episcopacy in that matter of Government so they must be the heads from which any strong Argument of force must be deduced to shew the difference This being so it is fit for us to Conceive without strong reason against it that there is such a Conformity especially if to this be added the great uniformity and convenience that the Ancient Levitical Law had to our Ecclesiastical which might abundantly be shewed in other things without some Language expressing a difference in a dubious Case it were â—it we should adhere to Gods former practice But then again our Saviour in his life-time hatching a Church in Embrione He as I have shewed made two distinct Orders Apostles and the Seventy and these both Preaching Orders without there were some main reason to the Contrary we cannot easily subscribe to another Discipline nor surely would have quarrell'd at that but by reason of pride in themselves that they would be all Bishops like the Conspirators against Moses Numbers 16. who being men of Quality in Israel were not Content to be Princes in their Condition but would be Equal to the Supream So these men are not Content with their rank which is high and great in the Church of God unlesse they shall pluck down the highest of all and not be subordinate but supream in their Prelatical Principalities or else which is a spice of the same vice there is amongst them an Abhorring of Obedience which indeed is the Mother and Ground of all Virtue and although they would have all their Subjects obey them in an Insolent manner yet they would obey none other themselves and for a Countenance to this pridâ— and stubbornenesse study Scripture and wrest it to their purpose which how weak it is for them hath been shewed how strong against them I shall now urge SECT XVI My First Argument from Scripture to prove Episcopacy MY First Argument from Scripture shall be thus framed That Government which the Apostles did settle in their Government of Churches that is Apostolical But the Apostles did settle such an Episcopacy as I require Ergo such an Episcopacy is Apostolical My Major â— conceive not to be denyed for as I have shewed we ought not to seek for expresse Terms to shew that they made a Law in such peremptory Words That this or this we enact perpetually for the Government of all Churches this or the like is not to be found any where nor doth any Government pretend to it There is no Book unquestionable of their Canons extant but only Registers of their Acts and certain Epistles which set down what they did do and from that Assure us what we should do The first place I shall insist on will be that I formerly touched Tit. 1. 5. For this Cause left I thee in Creet that thou shouldest set in Order the Things that are wanting and Ordain Elders in evâ—ry City as I have appointed thee This Text I have handled before and have shewed that in more expâ—esse Terms St. Paul could not Authorize one man to that Office which we pretend to than he did here I have spoken likewisâ— of that Shift they have for it to say he was an Evangelist and by that Authority did Act these things to which I think may be irresistably objected that it can no where be shewed that he was an Evangelist and 2dly it can no wherâ— be shewed that an Evangelist had such an Autâ—ority belonging to his Offâ—ce and therefore that must needs be but a weak refuge to fly unto A Second Shift of some is That this Commission was giâ—â— to Titus but in Common with others as one of the Presbyters conjunctim not divisim joyned with them not severed 〈◊〉 them but by such Tricks men may cast off all Scripture but 〈◊〉 I would have them shew me where ever there was such a Commission given to a Presbytery which they can never do Secondly Let them Consider it would be as safe nay much safer for me to say that power given to the Presbytery must be by the Sole virtue of Association with the Supreame as they can when I shew a Commission given to one Man say it is meant of him in the Company of others and the more agreeing to sense because when this Commission is granted it implyes at the least that he must be of the Quorum which to none others could be enforced And again when we read such a Precept given to any man it must be understood that he must have power to execute that Authority which certainly if he could only Act in Commission with others he could not because suppose St. Paul Chargeth him to Ordain Elders in every City such and so qualified he might answer in many Cases the others will not joyn Suppose he should stop the mouths of Deceivers It is likely the great deceivers would be amongst the Presbytery themselves he can do nothing without their Consent which is nothing of himself not he but they therefore must have the Charge given them for he is not by these men capable of performing it and as for their Charge it
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
cannot puâ— him out but the Justices who cannot choose him may A Barrester who received his Degree at the Innes of Court is degraded by the Judges who cannot make him a Barrester I think I speak Law if I do not I am sure this may be Law without any prejudice to the policy of this Nation and then I am sure this rule is false and indeed besides Instances there is reason that that which gives life should preserve not destroy and that men should look for other hands to pluck down besides those that set up but as it is not universally true so it is not universally false and I think will not be false in this instance he speaks of and therefore I will apply my self to his Antecedent concerning which he saith it is as certain as the other by warrant from the Word and no more certain His places out of Scripture are Beware of Wolves Mat. 7. 15. Beware of false Prophets Phil. 3. 2. Here I expected to have found these two Texts in these two places but it is not so both in the same manner are in the first and something like that he saith in the other The words of the first are Beware of false Prophets which come to you in sheeps cloathing but inwardly they are ravening Wolves A man may wonder how he could deduce hence that Conclusion That it is lawfull for a people to reject or put a Pastor out of his Office Consider the words Suppose it had been said Beware of a wicked Judge when your Cause is to be heard or beware of false Lawyers which will come to you in sheeps cloathing with fair and excellent Language but within are ravening Wolves will secretly destroy you would any man think that here were Commission granted to put either out of their Office It is Just so here beware of false Prophets such as pretend they are Prophets but are not or false Prophets such as prophesie fâ—lse Things nor can there be more meant in this than that we should not be deceived by them for though they come in sheeps cloathing speak never so fair words commend their Doctrine never so much it will destroy you there can be no more in it This Speech is spoke no doubt to all and every person in singular yet I hope Mr. Hooker doth not think that although every man must beware he is not deceived by them yet that every man every pâ—rticular Man can depose his Pastor The same reasons which have disproved the force of this Allegation will likewise overthrow the Strength of the second against this Cause The 2d Text is Phil. 3. 2. Beware of Dogs beware of evil Doers beware of the Concision Suppose all or some of these were Pastors which can in no strength of reason be induced yet what can this word beware enforce Can it imply depose there was never such an Exposition but only take heed of them that ye be not deceived by them so that there is not the least thing in the Word of God to prove that the people may depose their Pastor and yet all his discourse which follows in page 65. is as if this were most true sublato uno relatorum tollitur alterum but where is either relatum taken away or by whom Again saith he this rejection cuts him off from being a Member of that Congregation where he was and so from every visible Congregation and therefore cuts him off from having any visible Church-Communion with Christ c. Consider how he builds upon a foundation in the Air hath no reality nor indeed were his foundation good are his Consequences and see what an unhappy Condition such a Pastor were in sâ—th it is evident these Texts of Cautions are directed to every particular man and then the malice of one particular man may destroy a Pastors Interest in heaven because he can put him from Church-Communion with Christ but suppose these Texts were understood of whole Congregations yet sometimes they are very few or if an hundred it is hard that the Opinion and Error for the most part of Ignorant men though an hundred should shut a man out of the pale of Church-Communion these things fall of themselves beware therefore depose is not cannot be admitted amongst reasonable men yea the clean contrary might rather be urgent Beware therefore they cannot depose for what a man can depose he need not much Caution about it the work is quickly done But here if any should ask What must the people submit to any Pastor though heretical though scandalous in his life If not what can they do Certainly to the first there are some things which Heresie or wickednesse of life do not hinder that is administring the Seals of Gods Covenants in the holy Sacraments To this purpose he himself speaks as I think I forewarned in the latter end of page 45. and the beginning of page 46. in higher and fuller Expressions than I make but I need not set down only Consider this that such Heresies as deny the Trinity because they will not nor can baptize in the form prescribed by our Saviour that is the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost their baptism is not valid and by their Ministry erring in the root cannot effectually apply those Seals but for other mistakes in opinion not fundamental nor such as immediately reflect upon that Seal they administer so they set the Seal rightly to according to matter and form their Act is good and a man a Lay-man may submit unto them but take care not to be misled either by his false Doctrine or wicked life of which he is not to take upon him like a Judge to censure his person but like a Cautelous hearer to avoid what is ill and suck out what is good The sheep do not refuse the good hay though they swallow not the worse which the Shepherd delivers they may complain to them who have Authority the Bishops who are to receive the Complaints made against Elders and so have him soberly Convented and adjudged but without this course they have no power to depose him and this I think they ought to do and more than this they have no power granted them to do His Third Argument answered I Come now to his 3d. Argument into which he enters slowly himself with a long Discourse the heads of which being examined will remove the difficulty pag. 69. he saith this Argument is taken from the manner of the Communication and Conveyance of this power To expresse this He bids you know that Conveyance of power is done two wayes either by Authoritative Commission or Delegation from Office or Office power or voluntary Subjection The first is when a particular person or body and Corporation delegates a power to another of themselves and from themselves alone leave an Impression of Authority upon another Here he hath a mighty tedious Discourse of the Way of Communicating this power of many little Inferences and Consequences which
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
God I will not enter into those large and tedious discourses of Gods hardening mens hearts by dereliction of them or of that which is termed the sin against the holy Ghost how these may devest a man of his Inheritance It is enough for my purpose that any baptized man hath such an interest in God as when he repents he is sure of admission and therefore though many Laws have been severe in punishing Delinquents as enjoyning penances for many years sometimes more or less as sins were adjudged greater or less and of later times and at this present in the Church of Rome there are Casus reservati reserved Cases not to be pardoned some not by the Parochian some not by the Bishop of the Diocess some reserved only for the Pope yet in case of death all these Ecclesiastick Constitutions are adjudged dissolvable by the best Casuists and the Parochian hath power to absolve and remit them So that for Answer to this Argument I may justly say that these baptized Apostates are still Heirs of Heaven but such as have aliened their estate with a power of revocation upon certain conditions which when they perform the estate is theirs again and agreeing to this will the Answer be to another place which is much insisted upon by the Antinomians and many others symbolizing with them SECT VIII The 1. of St. John 3. 9. expounded THat is 1 John 3. 9. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin from which is deduced That sinners are not Gods children are not born of God not heirs therefore have not title to him and his blessings if not sinners much less so great sinners as Apostates To understand which Text and farther to illustrate this truth conceive with me First That this phrase sinneth not or committeth not sin that will not be materiall cannot be understood of doing nothing that is sin for our Apostle in this very Epistle hath declared the contrary Chap. 1. 8. If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us Again Verse 10. If we say that we have not sinned we make him that is God a liar and his Word is not in us Again Chap. 2. verse 1 2. If any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sins Then they sinned and in such manner as they have need of Christ for a propitiation Secondly I cannot conceive these words so as Beza expounds them in the 4th verse which he would have guide the whole sence of the phrase throughout this Chapter he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth differ from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to commit sin differs from sinning because to commit sin is to do it knowingly against his conscience To conclude he makes it an high kind of sinning and to sin with reigning sin I know no necessity to force any such exposition from the phrase and I am sure he chose a most unlucky verse to obtrude that exposition upon for in that place the Apostle saith He who commits sin transgresseth the law for sin is the transgression of the law phrases which are affirmed of him that committeth sin but agree to all sins for every sin is the transgression of the law and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to commit or do or make sin is no more than to sin and to this inconsideration in Beza fuller the Apostle in verse 6. useth only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He who remains in him sinneth not There because the sence is as pregnant to shew the inconsistence of the birth or being in Christ and sin as before he refers the Reader to the fourth verse so that there was a distinction in the 4th verse betwixt sinning and committing sin but here there is none in the 6th verse but to sin must be to do it as is expounded with an high hand But I have shewed there could be no such sence in that verse and therefore much less in this where was not the least phrase guiding to it I come now to the Text I have tumbled over divers Expositors and he that pleaseth me best is Cardinal Cajetan in his Comments upon the Text who seems to me to dive deeper into and drive closer to the sence of the Text than others Vasques Comes in a word or two towards it likewise and many touch upon it his sence is that he who is born of God and he who remains in him sins not nor can sin this must be taken saith he formaliter formally quatenus say the Logicians as he is born of God This we may perceive to be the sence of the Text because throughout this Chapter the Apostle describes two sorts of actions good and evil two principles from whence they came the good from God whose sons we are called that do good and are asâ—imilated to him by such actions the evil from the devil verse 8. Now these two principles are in every man when he doth well his actions come from God and so far forth he is from God and when he doth evil his actions are from the devil and so far forth he is from the devil nay we may not only find these two principles working their effects in the same man but like Jacob and Esau strugling at the same time in the same womb who shall come out first and like fire and water contending at the same time for preheminence as St. Paul wonderfully describes Rom. 7. insomuch that in the 24th verse it made him cry out like a woman in labour of this birth O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death So that these two principles are in the same man perhaps sometimes he sins in that he sins quatenus as he sins he is not born of God then he doth righteousness out of that regard as he doth righteously he is born of God Now yet that you may farther see that this is the sence see that this thread this clew must lead â—ordâ— to the exposition of the pieces in this same business of this Chapter verse 6. He who sinneth hath not seen God nor known God This must be understood quatenus in that regard every man hath sinned then no man hath seen or known God no but quatenus in that regard that he sinneth he hath not seen God nor knoweth him he sets not God before his face so that there is a necessity of this exposition from the like speeches of the Apostle so likewise from that phrase in the 9th verse He cannot sin Certainly he who cannot sin cannot but do righteously because he is born of God out of that cause and principle whilest he keeps himself close to that quatenus as he is born of God as likewise he sinneth not because the seed remaineth in him yet St. Paul whilest the seed was in him did sin but not quatenus A man may have the seed of God and the seed of the
now with Mr. Hooker his third Argument from page 69. to 75. of the second Part as also that which for confirmation of it was in many Arguments produced Part 1. Chap. 5. Pag. 55. to overthrow my Conclusion That Baptism doth make a member of a visible Church CHAP. XV. How there may be Pastors of Pastors I Come therefore now to the satisfaction of his fourth and last Argument in this cause which is thus framed pag. 75. of the second Part. Chap. 2. If the essentials of a Pastor be communicated by the Eldership or Bishop meerly then there will be Pastor of Pastors and that in propriety of speech He no way illustrates this or proves it but only thus for saith he the Pastor that is made by them hath reference to them and dependance upon them as Pastors only for it is that which is contended for in the Question in hand that it should be appropriate to their places to make Officers For Answer first to this last If this were it which is contended for he should have proved what he contended for See his proof how weak by a retortion if this consequence were true That if the essentials of a Pastor were communicated by the Elders c. then there will be Pastors of Pastors c. Then the truth of this ariseth out of this that because Elders give Pastors their Office therefore they should be their Pastors then it holds by the same Logick that if the people give the Pastor his essentials then the people should be Pastors of their Pastors then the flock should be Shepherds of their Shepherds which would have served well in the Play of the Antipodes and compleat the Jest of that witty man who said that heretofore God led the people like sheep by the hands of Moses and Aaron but now they lead Moses and Aaron like sheep by the hands of the people And indeed thus it happens with them in this Controversie they give the people power of ordination and correction of their Pastors so that the Corporation judges their Mayor the Scholars whip their Masters the Sheep have power to expell their Shepherd the Children to punish their spiritual Parents than which nothing can be conceived more abhorring to reason But then leaving the examination of this rerortion let us consider the Argument it self If Pastors should be made by Elders or Bishops then Pastors should be Pastors of Pastors Doth he mean that these inferiour Pastors should be sheep to the superiour that follows not see an invincible instance Suppose a superiour Pastor-Shepherd should have power given him to constitute all the inferiour Shepherds or Officers which is the Polity agreeing in the analogy to all States and all great families which resemble little States in this case it would not follow that the inferiour Pastors were sheep but under-Shepherds which he governs not as sheep but as Officers somewhat inferiour to himself Secondly Let it be taken that the inferiour Pastors are governed like inferiours which are accountable to the superiour this is so far from bringing any inconvenience with it that it is most consenting to all the Ecclesiastick and Politick Governments which are setled by God in Church or State and all those prudent Authorities which our wise men imitating God have established in any Commonwealth So that then this Argument falls to the ground and this being all that he hath urged in this case he hath said nothing to prove that the election of the people gives the essentials to an Officer So I have now ended his third Question viz. What Ordination is Secondly His first Question Whether Ordination precede Election Thirdly His second Question Whether Ordination gives all the essentials to an Officer Now I come to his fourth and last Part. 2. pag. 74. To whom the right of dispensing this Ordinance doth appertain CHAP. XVI To whom the right of dispensing this Ordinance doth appertain IN the handling of this Question he seemeth to me to discourse most wildly yet he proposeth this method 1. To state the Question then to confirm his Conclusion In that which he calleth stating the Question he discourseth upon some Propositions The first is page 76. When the Churches are compleated with all the Officers of Christ the right or rite of Ordination the margent cannot tell whether it be right or rite belongs to the teaching Elders the act appertains to the Presbyters of ruling and teaching Elders when an Officer is invested in his place for of these it is expresly spoken 1 Tim. 4. 14. This is all his proof of which place I have spoken I think abundantly in the handdling the case of Episcopacy but consider the Conclusion 1. He supposeth a Church compleated with all its Officers then there is none lacking then there can be none elected or ordained by him because in his Divinity Election is Ordination 2. He sayes that the right of Ordination belongs to the teaching Elders Mark here a man would think were a learned distinction and an heedless Reader would be beguiled by such a distinction of right and act but consider that the right of Ordination is nothing but the Jus the Authority to do it for Ordination is an act how can one have the right to act and yet the acting belong to others That which follows is nothing but great words against Bishops which like froth vanisheth of it self His second Proposition is Though the act of Ordination belongs to the Presbyters yet the Jus Potestas Ordinandi is conferred firstly upon the Church by Christ and resides in her it is in them instrumentally in her originally The right of Ordination just now was in the teaching Elders but the Jus Potestas is now in the Church the Church hath the Latin names and they the English I but the right is firstly in the Church mark the Jus the right to ordain that is to act and then the â—lders do not ordain but the Church the Elders saith he instrumentally she originally this is not well said The Elders cannot be the Churches instruments but Christs they cannot be guided or directed by the Church but are the guides and directors of the Church Nay I will go further than these men and say the Elders are not physicall instruments of this Ordination but only morall it 's Christ that works all in all and these only come in like morall instruments appointed by Christ to do this great work which Christ blesseth but to say they are instruments of the Church is a strange phrase they are the Churches Ministers objectivè busied about the Church but they are Gods Ministers as I may so speak subjectivè subject only to his commands and directions I should have wished that he had endeavoured to confirm these Propositions either out of Scripture reason or antiquity but I see neither neither do I think that the matter will afford either he indeed names three or four late Writers which never trouble me to examine but yet I could
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
should not Ordain Priests Vasques in answer to this saith that the imposition of the Hands of Bishops is not to be understood of many Bishops laying on their Hands at the same time upon the same man but that several Bishops at several times laid their Hands upon several Chori-Episcopi but to this may be urged that word quamvis as one or etiamsi as another Edition why should the Canon say although he be Ordained by the imposition of Hands of Bishops and Consecrated as a Bishop this although would there signifie nothing for he should not be by it distinguished from a Presbyter but because some were and some were not Ordained by Bishops it reacheth even those who were so Ordained Doctor Forbes is not content with this answer of Vasques but adds another of his own at the bottom of Page 171. and throughout 172 where before cited the sence of which is that the imposition of Hands here mentioned is not to be understood passively for the imposition of Hands which they receive themselves but actively for that imposition of Hands which they had power of to give I think I have set it down as clearly as his words can be rendered for indeed his Language is as obscure as the Canon it self but this is most forced nor indeed can a man conceive Canonically how a Chori-Episcopus could receive that active which he mentions unless he had received it passively first by the imposition of Hands of divers Bishops nor can a man well imagine in that Language ut Episcopi Ordinantur what that ut should mean if it did not come to explain the former Phrase of imposition of Hands of divers Bishops so that then for ought I see Bellarmines exposition against both these adversaries is the most clear and congruous to the Canon let us now examine Pope Damasus's Arguments as they are scholastically urged by Vasques and that is the marrow of all that is in this Epistle SECT V. Damasus his first Argument against the Chori-Episcopi answered Damasus seems to me eitheir with Bellarmine to think there were two sorts of Chori-Episcopi in the time of making the Canon which may be perswaded because although he begins with this Argument from the Plural number before urged yet he never endeavours an answer to it or else believing them all but Presbyters he thinks that his other Argument may invalid this and notwithstanding this being deficient in other things they are not Bishops by it His first Argument is drawn from the word Chori which signifies Countrey they were but country Bishops when as all Bishops should be of a City To this I answer that although such Canons may be made for the establishment of the government of Churches in a setled Kingdom where are such Cities for the Decorum and honour of the Episcopal Sea yet it cannot be in unsetled States as suppose the Gospel should be preached in the barbarous places of the West-Indies where are no such places to give Episcopacy that honour yet the Church may and ought to be planted and governours put into them to regulate their discipline oâ— else things will go backward faster than forward in the matters of Religion Again we may conceive if such Canons be insisted upon that they should be understood of prime and chief Bishops not such as are Vicarii Episcoporum that is vicars of the chief Bishops Now it may happen that there be a necessity of such vicars and they may be of great use to the Bishop of the City whose Diocess is large as will appear shortly and these Chori-Episcopi although they may be impeded in the execution of their office by the superior authority of the Bishop of the City yet with his consent are impowred to Ordain in these cases which is most agreeing to the letter of the Canon according to any Edition either sine or praeter or whatsoever it is This is enough I think for the first Argument of Pope Damasus SECT VI. His next Argument answered ANother is thus framed there are but two Orders of Priesthood Bishops and Presbyters this he enlargeth and proves from the Church under the Law where were Aaron and his Sons only in the Priesthood as likewise from our Saviour himself who had only Apostles and Disciples so saith he it should be in the present Church now it seems these Chori-Episcopi are neither they esteem themselves greater than Presbyters and yet are not Bishops wherefore nothing in answer what they esteem themselves I know not but we have good reason to think some were Bishops and some only Presbyters and they who were Bishops might act these great offices of Ordaining Priests and Deacons with leave of the Bishop of the Diocess those who were only Priests could not Thus Damasus his Arguments are are of no force against that Canon of Antioch and therefore Vasques himself acknowledgeth in that 238. Disp. Cap. 7. That Damasus did conceive that in the time of the Council of Antioch some Chori-Episcopi were Bishops and he affirms that if they had Episcopal Consecration although they were but titular Bishops and so had no place assigned at their Consecration where they should officiate yet they had that power granted them at their Consecration which might be reduced into act whensoever a place was assigned them and yet Damasus condemns them for the future which was never obeyed SECT VII One word in the Canon more explained THere is one word more in the Canon which may abide a misinterpretation and is somewhat insisted upon by Doctor Forbes that is in the latter end of the Canon it is said that he the Chori-Episcopus must be Ordained by the Bishop to whom he and his possession are subject Now if he be Ordained by one Bishop only certainly he is but a Presbyter for although as I have said in a case of necessity one Bishop hath been allowed to Consecrate and the power Apostolical was to them Separative to every one to Ordain yet when Laws were substituted by Ecclesiastique authority for the well government of the Church and severe punishments inflicted upon the violation of them as are in this case it is not reasonable to think that men living in obedience to that Church should dare â—o break them in publique and that constantly as it seems this is for answer to this I say that this makes it evident that this Canon is delivered concerning a double sort of Chori-Episcopi some that were made by the imposition of Hands of divers Bishops and others that were ordained by one only which is all is required and so I will pass to my last proposal to shew what these Chori-Episcopi were CHAP. XVI What the Chori-Episcopi were IT is a hard task which I do not find clearly delivered by any what I find shall be set down and leave the determination to others In general my conceipt of them is this that as it happens in other Parisnes where Presbyters have the charge that where they are large and
require Chappels of ease the Parson sometimes gets a Deacon to officiate in a Chappel and do all the lesser duties for him Reads the Prayers and Lessons yea Baptize where he cannot be present to act it himself yet if he have a Chappel at which he cannot reside as it is too often in my Diocess he must have a compleat Presbyter to do that work so it was in those greater Parishes of Bishops which we call Diocesses but were heretofore called Parishes when they are large and cannot well be super-intended by a Bishops care he had Chori-Episcopi such as being Presbyters only might do his work of which they were capable by Commission But yet if they were very large for which it would be troublesome for the Diocess to receive the Episcopal duties which were beyond the Presbyterian authority there it was necessary to have such Chori-Episcopi which were Bishops And as that Country Parson may restrain his Curate in the exercise of his authority you shall not absolve such and such faults nor give the Communion at such and such times without my particular leave because I mean to be present at those times so may be the case of those Chori-Episcopi who were Bishops they might Ordain those lesser Orders as they are called Sub-deacons and Readers but not Priests or Deacons which indeed are Orders but by leave from their superior Bishops And this I think may fairly meet with the Council of Antioch and all that I can find any where in antiquity spoken of them That this may appear more clearly consider first That this office is by some made as antient as the Apostles times they say that Linus and Clemens were Chori-Episcopi to St. Peter at Rome so Platina with others and there may appear some reasons for it because when St. Peter had pitched upon that place for his Diocess if he did so and was necessarily to prosecute his great Apostolical design about the world in other places as well as Rome it was necessary that he should have some men of eminent worth to Episcopize for him in his absence but then I find not that they in his life time did Ordain any to these Orders although perhaps they might do it until they came to be Bishops themselves at Rome SECT II. The decrees of divers Councils examined THe next piece I find concerning them is in Concilio Ancirano Canon 13 the effect of which is that Chori-Episcopi should not Ordain Priests or Deacons or Priests act any thing without leave from the Bishops letters or under his hand here is nothing whether they were Bishops or no The next the Council of Neocaesarea in which it is thought were the same Bishops as in the other and did immediately follow that at Ancira Canon 13. where the Chori-Episcopi are compared with the seventy which amounts to nothing whether they were Bishops appears not by that but that they were assistants to the supreme Bishops as the seventy were to the Apostles The nâ—xt shall be the Council of Laodicea the two former are mentioned by Doctor Forbes but not this this Council in the fifty seventh Canon decrees this Quod non oporteat in villis pagis Episcopos constitui sed visitatores veruntamen jamdudum constituti nihil facient praeter conscientiam Episcopi Civitatis saith one Edition sine mente Episcopi saith another We may perceive in this Canon two things first that it forbids these Chori-Episcopi or Country-Bishops secondly that although it forbids them yet it supposeth that of themselves they had authority to Episcopize and therefore restrains the Execution of that authority to the leave from the Bishop of the City and therefore from that time they were to be regulated by him The next thing I meet with in Order is the Eighth Canon of that great and glorious Council of Nice the first where I find that upon the reconciliation of the Novations which called themselves Catharei or Puri as more holy than other men when these came into the Church and were received if they had been Ordained by the Novations as Bishops before they were admitted upon repentance into favour they were admitted into the same Order in which they were before but if there were an Orthodox Bishop in that Diocess he might allow him the honour and name of a Bishop if he would if not he might allow him the place of Presbyter or Country Bishop in his Diocess but to avoid a clashing of Competitors in the same City he must have no power there in the City where I observe that Chori-Episcopus may be such as his Episcopal Consecration would have been good in a vacant Bishoprick to entitle him to it although if he was where was a full Bishoprick he would be but a Chori-Episcopus That which follows next is that canvased Council of Antioch which occasioned all this Discourse and then comes in the decree of Damasus to which I have spoken and I may add the Epistle of St. Basil which is writ Chori-Episcopis and that contains a sharp reproof of their negligence in giving Orders and a prohibition that there should not any from thenceforth be admitted without his examination and that these unworthy persons who had been brought into the list of the Clergy should be separated with much more tending to that purpose where I observe that not the defect of power but their abuse of their poweâ— was it they were blamed for that which Isidore Hispalensis or Hrabarus Maurus delivers concerning it is not more than was in the former Councils Balsamon saith they were almost worn out in his time the Meldensian allows them to be but abridgeth their power yet commands Bishops not to authorize them by their own negligence or infirmities so now although Pope Damasus his decree could not prevail to extirpate them yet this Council thought fit to restrain their practice this Councel was Eight hundred years after Christ and more I will not write how Vasques remembers some in his time but come close to our own Age and Country if these men were the same with Suffragans which I know no reason to deny then no doubt but they had Episcopal Ordination and did Consectate not Priests only but Bishops also To prove this let any man peruse that excellent piece of Francis Mason de ministerio Anglicano he shall find that in the dayes of Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth the Suffragans of Bedford Chichester Taunton were Episcopally Consecrated and did joyn in the Consecration of other Bishops So now I have finished this undertaking out of this debate concerning the 10. Canon of Antioch in which I have shewed that if the Council it self be admitted yet that Particular Canon to be most perplexed but if it lean any way it is against Doctor Forbes since it is most reasonable to think by that story which I have set down concerning them that there were at the least divers of the Chori-Episcopi which had Episcopal Consecration
although perhaps some who had not and I think there is little of moment to be found in antiquity concerning them which is not observed by me there is an Epistle of John the third Pope of that name but it is rejected by Binius and so slighted by me And yet me thinks some may ask my opinion of those Churches where are no Bishops first I dare censure no man much less such large Congregations amongst which I know there are many learned men and no doubt but full of Piety I may be deceived and so may they humanum est errare but certainly in that acquaintance that I have with antiquity there seems to me no ground for them there nor in the Scripture these few pieces which this learned Gentleman had Collected are but old totered Rags which cannot abide to be stitched to this new Garment they have nothing to excuse themselves but necessities which whether they have sufficient or no to excuse them let their own Souls Judge God will I dare not FINIS THE TABLE A Apostles their Election and to what 7. Their Number whence their Name their Office 8. To whom sent 9. What to Preach 10. The Apostles power whence 22. The Apostles truly had the Power of Preaching to all the world 23. 24. The Apostles only commissioned to Baptize 25. The Apostles only to Administer the Communion 27. B Baptism instituted by our Saviour 12. The Baptism of our Saviour and St. John not the same 13. Whether our Sacramental Baptism be the same with that before Christs death 14. 15. Not the same the Objections answered 16. 17. The Baptism instituted by Christ not in force till after his death 18. Whether Baptism administred by Laymen be valid 29. Of Bishops their distinction from Presbyters 94 First Argument from Scripture for their Points 96. The Argument examined 97. And answered 99. The Exception that Titus was an Evangilist but not a Bishop answered 99. Objection for their points from Acts 20. 28. answered 101. C An outward Call necessary to a Minister 129. This Call hath a Moral not a Physâ—cal influence 130. The Character left after Ordination 132. The Communion instituted by our Saviour 18. The Apostles Ministers of it 19. 20. Instituted before our Saviours death 20. 21. Mutual covenanting of the Saints gives not the Being to a Visible Church 157. What this Covenant is Explicit or Implicit 159. The Reasons for it answered 159 c. Other Arguments answered 165. 167 c D The Election of the Seventy Disciples 11. The Differences betwixt them and the Apostles 96. Deacons as afterwards used in the Church not instituted Acts 6. 37 38. Arguments proving this 39. 40. The opposing Arguments answered 43. Some of the first Deacons Preachers 40. What the Office of a Deacon 45. E Of Lay-Elders 59. What a Lay-Elder is in the Disciplinarian sense 60. No such Elders in Scripture 61. Places of Scripture urged for them answered ibid. Third Argument of Mr. Thomas Hooker for Lay-Elders answered 62 c 69. 74. 75. St. â—auls Elder signifies but one Office 66. St. Ambrose's words urged for Lay-Elders expounded 86. c. The design of making Lay-Elders 88. What the word Especially imports 1 Tim. 5. 17. 68. What an Evangelist is 106. G Gifted men may Preach if licenced by the Bishop otherwise not 84 85. H What Double Honour signifies 1 Tim. 5. 17. 68. Mr. Thomas Hookers opinion concerning Deacons examined 45 46. Rom. 12. 8. expounded against him 47 48. c. His Deacon enforced from this place of Scripture Confuted 53. The first Confutation of Mr. Thomas Hooker out of this Text. 54 55. His Second Argument refuted 56. His Third Argument refuted 57. His First Argument from Reason refuted 57. His Second and Third Argument from Reason answered 58. Another Argument answered 59. Mr. Thomas Hookers distinction of Pastors and Teachers refuted 90 c. I Episcopal Jurisdiction proved 115 L What Labouring in the Word imports 1 Tim. 5. 17. 67. 86. M What the word Minister signifies 1. The Definition of a Minister 2. The Definition explained 3. c. The Power to be a Minister must come from God 3. 6. Motion is to Relation 208 209. O Touching Ordination 121. Mr. Thomas Hookers definition of Ordination confuted 122. What Ordination is 123. Ordination not before Election 224. Men may be Ordained without the Election of the People 125. Whether Ordination gives all the Essentials to an Officer 128. Of Pastoral Ordination 140. P St. Peter had no greater power given him by Christ than the other Apostles 28. The chief Arguments for his superiority answered ibid. A vindication of our Common Prayer-Book in the number of the Sacraments 131. A Digression concerning Preaching 76. What Preaching is 78. To what Preaching every Presbyter is bound 80. The peculiar Interest a Presbyter hath in Preaching 82. Who is authorized to Preach 83. What a true Presbyter is 89. A Power is left by Christ to some men whereby they communicate Power to others 156. R Relation may be the principle of Action 211. One Relation may be the Foundation of another 242. What Ruling well imports 1 Tim. 5. 17. 67. A The Apostles only intrusted with the power of the Keys 29 30. Other Apostles besides the Twelve 31 32 33. The reason of it 33. The Apostolical power extended to all the world 34. How the Apostolical power was Communicated 35. How the Apostolical power was communicated to particulars 36. B Second Argument for Parity answered 102. Third Argument for it answered 104. Fourth Argument concerning Jurisdiction answered 106. An Argument from Ordination by Presbyters answered 107. An Argument out of St. Hierome answered 108. Bishops succeeded the Apostles in all that is Apostolical though not in their extraordinary endeavours 142. Baptism not the Form which constitutes a Church-Member but no Visible Act by which he is made a Member 171. Mr. Thomas Hookers Arguments against this Opinion answered 171 172 c. Baptism hath all things necessary to a real Relation 219. E Episcopacy setled by the Apostles in the Church 111. First Argument from Scripture to prove Episcopacy 113. A Second Argument to prove it 114. The Revelation of St. John assorts Episcopacy 117. St. Cyprian urged as favouring The People having the power of Electing their Ministers explained the Objection answered 126. Arguments from the Election of the Deacon Acts 6. examined 127. Other Arguments answered 133 c. 149 c. An Excommunicate man is a Member of the Church 175. Bellarmines Arguments against this Opinion answered 176 c. C Scriptures written of the Catholique Church grossely misapplyed by Mr. Thomas Hooker to particular Churches 162 c. What is meant by the Church and our Saviours saying Tell the Church 166. What makes a Church Visible 169. Such as renounce the fellowship of the Church are yet Members of the Church 180. The Arguments against this Opinion answered 181 c. 190 c. Some difficulties of this Opinion cleared 187. What