Ordination of Christ and in this I should place the Difference betwixt these Apostles and others That they are made such by an Immediate Ordination of Christ for it is not enough that some saâ— to be an Apostle was to be such a Minister as conversed with Christ in his humanity or saw him in the Flesh for this did all the Seventy which yet were not called Apostles nor is it sufficient which others say they were such whose Office extended to the whole world for so we shall find in the Acts almost none Confined to any place but that others as well as St. Paul had a Care of all Churches But upon this a man may justly enquire why St. Paul should in such distinct Terms not of men nor by man describe himself since it seems every Apostle was such To clear this and give further Illustration to this Truth Observe that others besides these were called Apostles so you may find first Barnabas as well as St. Paul Acts 14. 14. which when the Apostles Barnabas and Paul heard c. Apostles in the plural Number some have thought that this Barnabas was the same with Barsabas who Acts 1. 23. wâ—s Competitor with Mathias for the Apostleship but methinks missing the place then it were strange he should be called an Apostle afterwards and indeed their Names differ their Original Names and their Additional Names for Acts 1 his Name was Joseph called Barsabas sirnamed Justus but in Acts 4. 36. instead of Joseph is Joses and instead of Barsabas is Barnabas but besides him we read Rom. 16. 7. of Andâ—onicus and Junia of whom St. Paul saith that they were his kinsmen his fellow prisoner and of Note among the Apâ—stles which words although they have received a double sense either that they were Eminent persons among the Apostles or else esteemed and noted by them to be such persons of Esteem yet there are many both ancient and Modern Writers both such as are for and against Bishops that agree they were Apostles as the words very naturally bear it and to take away the Scruple both the Centuries and Baronius agree upon it which if there were scruple they would not have done then turn to Phil. 2. 25. there you shall find St. Paul calling Epaphroditus my brother and Companion in labour and fellow souldier but your Messenger Here I cannot but wonder at our Translators who render it Messenger such a mean phrase intimating any common or trivial man who is sent on an errand Beza did much better who called him Legatum an Embassador a nobler phrase but indeed the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Apostle and so those Epithetes before express him my brother c. This may likewise be shewed â—ut of the 1 Cor. 4. 9. God hath set forth us the Apostles last the Translation here likewise is not good for it is not he hath set forth us last but us last Apostles us that were the last Apostles who are they in particular vers 6. he names Apollo these things I have in a figure transcribed to my self and to Apollo that ye might learn of us not to think of men above that which is written Now then although he may mean others beside himself and Apollo yet it is sit to conceive that he should be in the number of those are called Apostles because he is one of those from whom they must learn not to think of men above what is written and among other Arguments this is a main one That we the last Apostles Apollo and my self and perhaps more are unhappy wretched people marked out for misers to be made a spectacle of contemptible people to the World to Angels and men I could here likewise treat of Gal. 1. 19 where James the brother of the Lord is called an Apostle who by many is thought and from good reason to be none of the two James's which were of the Twelve but a third who was made Bishop of Jerusalem but I desist it is evident out of Scripture that the holy Writ mentioneth more Apostles besides the Twelve and St. Paul and if besides the Scripture any mans Language may be heard consider that of Ignatius who was Contemporary as he speaks with the Apostles Paul John and Timothy in his Epistle to the Ephesians who there speaks in the language of the times and by that language calls Timothy an Apostle SECT IX A Reason of this NOW then to draw this Discourse to some period there were other Apostles besides the first Twelve and St. Paul the Thirteenth but why so because as Theodoret speaks upon Phil. 2. 25. in the case of Epaphroditus before handled that he was called their Apostle to whom the Care of them was Committed And again upon the 1 Tim. 3. 1. Heretofore they called Presbyters Bishops and those which we call Bishops they called Apostles but saith he in processe of time they left the name of Apostles to them who were truly Apostles and they gave the name of Bishops to those which were formerly called Apostles So likewise St. Hierome on Gal. 1. 9. Procedente Tempore alii ab his quos Dominus elegerat ordinati sunt Apostoli In progresse of time other Apostles were ordained by those which the Lord had Choseâ— and this is the reason why St. Paul where before Gal. 1. 1. saith he was an Apostle not of men nor by man but by Jesus Christ to distinguish him from those others who were Apostles by Constitution of Apostles not immediately by God and to the same purpose may that be understood of St. Paul 2 Cor. 11. 5. I suppose I was not a whit behind or lesse or inferiour to the Chiefest Apostles Amongst the Apostles the Twelve there were not some Chief and some Inferiour but the Twelve were the Chief and the rest Inferiour Now he having his calling and enabling from Christ immediately was not inferiour to them And though I read I know not where the Authority of Theodoret slighted yet I do not remember what Satisfaction is given to his Reason Nor can well Conceive how these Scriptures can in any other sense be reasonably expounded CHAP. V. The Extent of the Apostolical Power AND now me-thinks I see the Apostles in the Church as Divines say Adam if he had lived innocent and his posterity would have been in the World they had been Emperors of the whole World and all the World would have been every mans yet being in their Integrity would have so enjoy'd all that it should have been to the good of all and hurt of none So these holy men were Bishops Apostles of all the World all the Churches throughout the World had absolute not order only as the School speaks to give holy Sacraments to any any where but Jurisdiction to Govern and rule all That which Eusebius saith hath some truth That they divided themselves into several parts of the World but not appropriating to themselves any piece nor excluding any other from that Share or
most ancient term Presbyter inferiour to the Supreaâ— called by the Scripture Apostles and to their Successors called Bishops among the Ancients therefore in the reading of Authors not the Institutions only but the usus loquendi is to be Considered in words Cambden in his Remains hath a long Discourse like a Lexicon where we may see to how various Senses in our English Language the same words have arrived by Tract of Time losing their old and gaining a new Sense especially in Offices so hath it happened with the words Bishop and Presbyter they were most frequently in Scripture taken for one and the same thing but the word Apostle or Angel I can never find given to the Inferiour Sort of Presbyters But now this word Apostle is appropriated in the Language of Divines to the Twelve and St. Paul only the word Bishop to the Superiour Sort the word Priest or Presbyter to the Inferiour Sort of Presbyters I shall leave therefore to discourse of the Names and come to examine the Text concerning the Thing whether there be in this Text a Parity of Ministers prescribed SECT VIII The First Argument for a Parity answered FOR this Parity he urgeth nothing but the Attributing these two names which we use in a distinct Sense to one and the same thing which proves no parity of Office but only the use of these words in those dayes But I will go further and prove this Office we call Bishop distinct from the Presbyter out of that very Text St. Paul saith I have left thee in Creet to do these two things that thou shouldest set in order the Things that are wanting and ordain Elders in every City Mark here St. Paul had been in Creet himself he had layd the foundation of the Gospel he being to go further into the World leaves Titus to build upon his Foundation and he leaves him to do two things that he should set in Order or Correct or supercorrect those things which were not perfected by himself here is Episcopacy in one piece he had Authority to correct to set in order things that were out of Order to Correct what was amisse then secondly to Ordain Elders in every City not to appoint only but to ordain authoritatively to sâ—ttle them I do not know how a Bishop could more exactly be described in so few words and I wonder much why these men should produce this Text which without a mind much prejudicated with another Opinion cannot be wrested to any other sense Hooker takes no notice of this but some others say That Titus was an Evangelist Their Exception that Titus was an Evangelist answered THey say so but do they produce one word out of Scripture or Antiquity for it they might say he was an Apostle as well and with much more semblance and I think he was of the Inferiour rank but then can they tell me what an Evangelist was This is a shrewd Question Those four that writ the Gospels are only known by that name amongst Ecclesiastical Writers so that if a man should say the â—vangelist saith so we would Conclude one of them Philip is indeed called an Evangelist Acts 21. but no man else in the New Testament it may be because he was an excellent and powerfull Preacher Beza with those who affect new Opinions makes an Evangelist to be one who was an Associate and Companion to the Apostles in their travell but there is nothing in Scripture or Antiquity to give light to that Conclusion I am sure St. Chrysostome Theophylact c. are against it in expresse Terms upon the 4th to the Ephes. St. Ambrose makes him a Deacon to the Apostles which hath some shew of reason for it because Philip was an Evangelist This word Evangelist is but three Times used in Scripture Acts 21. 8. where Philip is called an Evangelist Ephes. 4. 11. where an Evangelist is reckoned amongst the Ecclesiastical Officers 2 Tâ—m 4. 5. where he is bid do the work of an Evangelist which could be nothing but industrious preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ or as some of the Ancients suffering for Christ because he is bid in the same verse immediately before these words to endure Affliction and in the words followâ—ng to make full proof of his Ministry but is there the least Colour that this Office should enable him to ordain Presbyters or Correct Misdemeanors or to regulate things that are amisse which Titus was Commissioned to do Again it is generally agreed amongst them that this Office of an Evangelist was a Temporary Office but these Duties of Correcting of Ordaining Elders must needs be perpetual in the Church and therefore could not Constitute the nature of that temporal Office Well then to dispell that cloud that would darken the light of this Text for Episcopacy by saying that Titus was an Evangelist there is no word in Scripture nor any Author in Antiquity of any reputation in the World which offers any thing towards that Opinion 2dly If they did yet they would be at as great a losse to shew me that the Office of an Evangelist was to do such things as Titus is here commanded to do 3dly If they could shew Evangelizing to Consist in the performance of such Duties yet we might justly then Conceive them to he Bishops such as we require and a Standing Office in the Church because these Duties are so and it is evident that Titus had Authority in both these kinds Therefore there were some men which had such Authority above others But let us go on with Hooker as he doth Confirm his Mistaken Opinion SECT IX Hookers Illustration from Acts 20. answered PAul saith he Acts 20. sends for the Elders of Ephesus and professeth in the 28th verse that Christ had made them Overseers or Bishops where not only the Name is Common but the Thing signified by that Name is enjoyned as their Duty He means to take heed to all the flock over which the holy Ghost had made them Bishops or Overseers here as before are left Gaps or Interruptions I will fill them as well as I can to make up his Sense thus What he implyes or requires in a Bishop that they that is these Presbyters were to do If he shall require to lay on hands to exercise Jurisdiction in foro externo that they must do and should they have been reproved for so doing they might have shewed their Commission thus farr he But I wonder where that Commission was given or read I can find no such Thing in that place but that they should take heed or have a care of their flock which they might execute according to that Authority was dispensed before by labouring in the Word diligent baptizing administring the Communion but to Convent or Summon their Flock or Censure them or give Orders and a like Authority to others of this there is no one word in particular To expresse my self Although many men reasonably have thought that St. Paul Convented both Bishops and
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
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
answer them if there were need but the Argument from them is of no force at all and that the very quotations are of no force were the persons See his collection from them page 77. which perhaps he means a third Proposition because he saith Thirdly In case the face and form of all the Churches are generally corrupted c. I need adde no more Posito quolibet sequitur quidlibet suppose impossibilities and you may collect untruth enough Christ hath promised not to leave his Church destitute it is true there is no promise to their particular Congregations but to his Church in generall and therefore to dispute upon an impossible ground yeelds little or no strength to that Argument and so I desist from it His second Argument begins in the end of that page and proceeds in the next It is thus urged If the Church can do the greater then she may do the less the acts appertaining to the same thing and being of the same kind But the Church can do the greater namely give the essentials to a Pastor ut supra Ergo I put his words down verbatim but now he should have named the less which must be or he speaks nothing dispence this Ordinance of Ordination and then I would know what that is if not giving the essentials to this Officer So here is idem per idem the Conclusion proved by it self and therefore must be denyed upon the same grounds which I spake of before and this is all he puts down for his second Argument His third Argument page 78. is thus framed That which is not an act of power but of order the Church can do he proves this Proposition for saith he the reason why it is conceived and concluded that it is beyond the power of the people is because it is an act of supream jurisdiction But this is an act of order not of power Suppose I should deny his Major have the people power to do any thing that is an act of order Indeed I know no Ecclesiastick power they have or any spirituall power of acting any thing that concerns more than their particular demeanour and all the rest is obedience But then to his Minor To dispence Ordination is an act of power for although the thing dispensed as I have shewed is called an order yet it is an act of power that gives it as in a Civil State the precedency of place is meerly an order but yet it is an act of power in the supream Magistrate that gives it Now such is this although we should conceive it meerly an order yet it must be given by an act of power but this besides that notion of order hath in it self great powers which are conveyed by it of which I have treated somewhat in their distinct notions and this Argument is absolutely unvalid He hath another Argument which follows but it concerns only the Presbyterians yet from thence he takes occasion to asperse Bishops thus It is as certain saith he that it cannot firstly belong to a Bishop which by humane invention and consent is preferred before a Presbyter in dignity only if they will hold themselves either to the precedent he writes but I think he means president or pattern whence they raise their pedigree and it is from Hierom ad Evagrium Vnum ex se electum in altiori gradu collocarunt How many to speak modestly weaknesses may be observed in this Discourse First That it is imputed and obtruded upon the defenders of Episcopacy that they should consent that it is an humane invention than which nothing is more against their Discourses Secondly That they found their opinion only upon this place of St. Hierome which is as flat against apparent reason as the other since this place is commonly objected against them and although St. Hierome hath spoken enough otherwhere yet in this Epistle being pressed somewhat with the pâ—ide of Deâ—cons who were lifted up above Presbyters by the sloath and vanity of many he somewhat passionately defended the cause of Presbyters and here of all other places speaks the least for Bishops making the name be used reciprocally in Scripture But then lastly he quotes the place false and by the change of a letter makes him speak what he meant not to whom it may be answered in this as Bishop Andrews did to Bellarmine in the like case Verbum caret litera Cardinalis fide he saith Vnum ex se electum in altiori gradu collocâ—runt when it is Câ—llocatum Episcopum nominaverunt in which sence there is a mighty difference in the first as if they had placed and given their Bishop his authority which he had in the other only that they called him Bishop who was set over the other Presbyters so that it intimates that the name grew distinct not from the first instant of the Office I am sure I have spoke of this place before and let us consider it in its fullest and most averse sence that it can abide consider that just there in the heat and height of his Disputation against Deacons and upon that ground his extolling of Presbyters to which only Order he was exalted he proves that the difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters and the exaltation of them was Apostolical and from the Apostles derived to his age from the Church of Alexandria which was founded by St. Mark where to his time from St. Mark was a succession of Bishops above Presbyters and it is a derogation from the reverence due to the Apostles to call their institutions meerly humane inventions in such things which concern Ecclesiasticall Government concerning which they had that great Commission As my Father sent me c. and in this case it is most weak of all other since concerning Ordination St. Hierome in this very Epistle immediately after these words saith Quid facit Episcopus excepta Ordinatione quod non faciat Presbyter thus in English What doth a Bishop except Ordination which a Presbyter cannot do Here then a Presbyter cannot ordain and yet to shew the full sence of the words understand that a Presbyter may do any thing I upon a sudden can except nothing not it may be he when he wrote that Sentence I say he can do any thing that a Bishop doth except ordain but the affairs of ruling other Elders or judging them he cannot do by an original or to use Hookers language by an Authority firstly â—eated in him or given to him but by a delegated but no delegation can serve the turn in Ordination because it was given to the Apostles by Christ in those words As my Father sent me so send I you to give Authority to ordain and they and they only who were so authorized by the Apostles can do it Thus you see that place out of St. Hierome expounded his Arguments deduced from thence falls of its self If Presbyters elected and gave first being to a Bishop then were they before him and could not receive Ordination
practise but having none but great words and commendations of their own to that purpose it will easily perswade men that they made first their Form and then hunted for something to insinuate a belief that they were induced by Scriptures and thinking with my self upon what design they should introduce this kind of Ministry I could imagine no reason but as when cunning people would change a Monarchy into an Aristocracy or Oligarchy they have no way to divert the people from their old obedience and introduce it to themselves but by making them believe they should have some share in that Government which was ingrossed by one So these men breaking from Episcopacy would perswade the people from the old to the new yoak which they would impose that they had a Share in Ecclesiastical Government and that they should send out of them into the Consistory their Lay Elders which would wonderfully provide for their Security and good much better than before with other Things of the like Nature of which I may speak hereafter but indeed their hopes are frustrate in all this design for they could never set up any thing more Tyrannical or Arbitrary than this CHAP. VII SECT I. What a true Presbyter is The Name first Expounded I Have done now with their Presbyter of which I see no footing in the Word of God or Antiquity I now come next to treat of our own Presbyter what he is and first that we may avoyd all Equivocations and doubtfull Interpretations of Scripture we will discourse of the Quid nominis what is meant by this and other Phrases which are used in Scripture to intimate this Office First he is called a Presbyter which as it naturally signifies an Elder in Age so from that analogy it signifies a grave and reverend Man another word is Bishop which we alwayes render for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifies alwayes a Superintender and it is applyed to Presbyters who have a Particular Charge to overlook and see to I stay little upon this because it hath received very little Controversie but yet say somewhat of it because it will illustrate some future passages They are likewise called Pastors or Shepherds because when they are in a Charge they look over it as a Shepherd over his flock to govern or â—ule to feed them and do such Duties They are called Doctors and Teachers because they instruct the people in the Mysteries of Godlinesse although perhaps this word may be extended farther than to them but these were the Chief names by which that superiour Order which succeeded the Apostles were called in the Primitive Church in the writings of the Apostles and after and this is the Sense implyed by these names SECT II. Certain Concessa by all who have engaged in this Controversie BUT now to sever Granted Truths from Questioned and not to wast my time in unnecessary discourses It is granted by all that I have seen that these all were ordained by the Apostles to do these Duties to administer the Sacraments of Baptism and the Communion to preach the Gospel although I think no man can shew me any place of Scripture expressing such a Canon which shall enable such men bearing such names under such Titles to be authorized to such Duties but only a Constant practice of it but it being supposed that they were authorized to do this Duty we may find rules directing how these should be performed by them I let that passe therefore and shall now enter the lists against two Opinions which I oppose one which makes Pastors and Teachers two Offices a second which makes no distinction amongst these SECT III. Mr. Hookers distinction of Pastors and Teachers handled FOR the first Mr. Hooker disputes in his Book before cited Part. 2. Chap. 1. pag. 19 20. And first to understand his Opinion Consider that he makes two sorts of Teaching Elders one he calls Pastors and the other Teachers the scope of the Pastors he describes with a great deal of handsom Circumlocution exceeding fine expressions of the Rhetorical perswasive part of a Preacher the result of all which is to perswade by such Arguments as have power over the Will and the Affections as it is pag. 19. The Teachers Office is to lay the Fundamental points of Christian Faith the Principles of Religion as he expresseth it in the bottom of Page 21 and the top of 22. These two parts he makes distinct Offices in the Church both of them being ruling Elders as well as teaching and both of them having power to administer the Sacraments but in their preaching the one is to bend his force his endeavour to the Teaching and informing the Understanding the other to the perswading and moving the Affection the first he calls Teachers the second Pastors Look for a reason for this distinction unheard-of till of late I find none but in a reply to Mr. Rutterford pag. 7. where it seems Mr. Rutterford urged that these formal Objects of these two Offices Information of the Judgement and Exhorting are not so different as that they should be incompetible pag. 7. Chap. 1. To this he replyes that in themselves and full breadth that is his phrase these are not so incompetible but look at the specialty of the Gift that fits for one and which furnisheth for the other to attend mainly and chiefly upon each according to the Gift they will prove inconsistent These are his words and these imply that where there are distinctions of Gifts and they diversly to be endeavoured there should be diverse Offices or else I see no force in this Discourse but this hath no probability of colour for it Consider Civil Offices a Justice of Peace one Justice hath a great Cunning in the Statutes in rendring them to a legal sense he applyes himself and endeavours to that most another hath a great ability in reconciling and taking up Quarrels and perswading men to friendship he endeavours that most and perhaps did either of these by framing himself to endeavour what he were least fit for lesse attend what he were more dexterous in he might attend his Office in general but the lesse profitable way and these are both one Office though in it diverse Gifts or Abilities which cannot both be attended with any mans utmost endeavour Passe from Civil to Ecclesiastical Offices and this very businesse Among Presbyters Preachers one hath great Excellency in giving the Grammatical sense of the Text another in expounding it Scholastically a Third in the Historical part of Divinity and these are several Gifts or Abilities and men according to them apply their utmost endeavours but these make not distinct Offices but several Gifts and Abilities in the same Office which is just the same with these and as there is no foot-step in the Historical part of Divinity to shew any one president so is there no colour of reason for it But he quotes Scripture The first is that place so largely discoursed of before Rom. 12.
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
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
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
termed Divine from their authority the same reason will be for the next to them and so to the last and so even the Prescriptions of the now living Bishops should be Divine than which nothing can be more abhorring to reason Well then what I have said before will serve likewise here that is that what Divine Laws were established by the Apostles we may find in the Acts and Epistles now there is no such Decree observable any where in them The Commission given to the Apostles by which they and their Successors were and are authorized to send others was not given to them conjunctim as if they should act onely altogether much less was there specified that three of them should joyne in it but without doubt separately every one had this power given to punish to forgive Sins to Baptize give the Communion Ordain and we find upon this foundation it is that St. Paul gave Commission to particular persons to Titus to Timothy and the like But I need not trouble the Scriptures about it I do not find the Patrons of that opinion producing any And therefore I wonder that Vasques did term it a Divine Right when he attempts no where to prove it nor his Predecessors or Followers in this Conclusion The Consecration of St. James to be Bishop of Jerusalem discussed BUt they urge the Decretall Epistles of Anacletus and out of him Amcetus that St. Peter James and John I mean James the Great as the other is called James the Less that these three Apostles did Consecrate the other James Bishop of Jerusalem and St. Peter by whom he saith himself Anacletus was made Priest told him that it should always be a Law hereafter that there should be three Bishops to Consecrate one I do wonder if this were so how St. Peters pretended Successors should be bold to dispence with this Law of St. Peters of which we shall see more hereafter but it is well known by learned men how unlike these Epistles are to be these mens writings upon whom they are fathered But I acknowledge the story so far as it affirms the Consecration of St. James for by better authority then theirs it is justified which is by Eusebius lib. 1 cap. 1. But Eusebius sayth not that St. Peter gave it for a Rule for the future which this Anacletus seems to inforce Nay Eusebius doth not name this Anacletus in his Relation which if there had been any such Epistle extant in his time no doubt but he would have done as well as Clemens but I grant the story and as Adam Tanner a learned Jesuit speaks Tom. 4. Scholasticae theologiae disputatione prima Quest. 3. Dubio 2. Numero 3. It might be done ad quandem solemnitatem ordinis Episcopalis I may say Episcopatus ejus than whom never man deserved more honour in his Consecration for he is esteemed the father of that Epistle which goes under his name then he was the Brother that is the nearest kinsman of our blessed Saviour then a man so honoured for vertue that he was called James the just and so esteemed by Josephus a Jew who attributes the great Judgement of God upon the Jews in the destruction of Jerusalem to their iniquity of stoning that just man so that if ever there was a man to be honoured with so glorious a Consecration it was he But give me leave by the By to say that from this I can add one strong Scholastick reason to the excellent industry of Doctor Hammond who in his Preface to St. James the Apostle proves from antiquity that this Bishop of Jerusalem was none of the Twelve either the son of Zebedee or Alpheus I can add this for if he had been any of them it is not reasonable to think that he had need of a new Consecration to a Bishoprick whom Christ himself had ordained an Apostle or our Saviour made him onely Bishop of Jerusalem as many affirm let no man think that he could be Consecrated again by these three for Orders must not be given twice and no man can think that either our Saviours Ordination to make him an Apostle or Bishop was insufficient but let it be which you will it is not needfull to trouble the Reader with discussing the truth of it nor indeed in Actions so far remote where are such great Authorities of both sides Is it possible to conclude any thing peremptorily I therefore let it pass and for the present grant he was Consecrated by these three But what can follow but this that so great a Person of such an extraordinary merit was so honoured by these Apostles who as Clemens saith did not contend for the honour themselves but pitched upon him to be the first Bishop of that Sea which without doubt was then the most glorious Episcopal seat in the World but is there any rule given that every Bishop should have that honour done him which was given to St. James SECT II. The first of these are called Apostolicall Canons examined THe next thing in order to this dispute to be examined will be the first of those which are called Apostolicall Canons the words of which Canon are Let a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops this Canon comes next to be examined and by them who require three Bishops to the Consecration necessarily it is answered that these two Bishops are required but with an addition of an Archbishop two Bishops an Archbishop So Cardinall Bellarmine in his fourth Book de Ecclesia militante which is de notis Ecclesiae cap. 8. and from him the latter schoolmen with one consent But let a man consider whether this be not a violence to the Text when the name of Archbishop is not mentioned in these Canons nor in the Scripture for if these Canons were of the Apostles Constitution then they must be penned in the language of Scripture-phrase bearing the same date with them and so not to vary from their sence for although Archbishops are of great necessity and antiquity where there are many Bishops to keep them in peace and unity with Ecclesiastical discipline so a Patriarch over them yet neither he nor a Patriarch have any thing but jurisdiction by Ecclesiastical authority nothing of Order by divine right more than a Bishop and therefore no more necessity of him than another Bishop in the Consecrating of a Bishop but onely by the Canons of the Church and therefore it is a violence offered to that Canon by them who have a veneration of it SECT II. Some Canons of Councels examined THe next thing to be considered will be the fourth Canon of the first Councel of Nice Episcopum apparet maxime quidem ab omnibus qui sint provincia constituit si autem hoc sit difficile vel propter urgentem necessitatem vel viae longitudinem tres omnino in eundem locum congregatos absentibus quoque suffragium ferentibus scriptisque assentientibus tunc electionem fieri eorum autem quae
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