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
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
as should be their Judges in Spiritual Things and have Authority over them and guide them and assist their Souls to Eternal Salvation But here he inserts an Objection against himself which he saith is ordinarily in the mouth of the Prelates and indeed deserves to be likewise in their heart Tit. 1. 4. for this Cause have I left thee in Creet that thou shouldest Ordain Elders in every City as I have appointed there the power of Ordaiâ—ing Elders in Cities is left to one man not to the people He answers the Apostle did appoynt him to do this work but to do it according to his mind and in the Order which Christ had instituted and of which he had given him a precedent pattern To skip unnecessary Discourse Acts 14. 23. When they had Created them Elders in every Church or as the Geneva reads it when they had ordained Elders in every Church by election and prayed and fasted they commended them to God â— First this Text I have sufficiently examined before but now must make Application again in this businesse it is urged for Titus was bid do it that is apparent and no doubt if our Saviour had instituted any particular way of doing it that would have been implyed in St. Pauls Command it should be done that way and none other but neither he nor any man living can shew me any way prescribed by our Saviour therefore that was in vain 2dly For St. Pauls own practice it might be various upon diversities of occasions and therefore if he had urged that he would have said as thou hast had me for an Example at such a Time but this is not shewed for this particular Take the Geneva reading that the â—lders were ordained by Election yet let us Consider what election can be meant there certainly that Election of which I have formerly dâ—scoursed which must precede Ordination an â—lection of Paul and Barâ—abas for if we will mark the Story at the beginning of this Chapter they were both frighted by the persecution from Iconium then they fled to â—ystra in the 19th verse you may observe St. Paul stoned at Lystra and Iconium where they ordained Elders in every Church by Election saith the Geneva supposâ— it But can it be imagined that such Concourses of people which according to these men should be the Electors of their Elders durst assemble together in places where the persecutors were powerfull without an uproar this could not be imagined and therefore no other Election can be understood but that of the Apostles that they chose whom they thought hittest and dismissed them to their Parishes and yet I am confident that Geneva reading cannot be enforced out of the Original as I shall more largely discourse elsewhere God willing and if that reading were true yet you see what Election must be understood for although if these Apostles Barnabas and Paul had been in quiet places and Ordained these men for those quiet places they were in there might be some Colour yet since they were in places of hot persecution and this phrase every Church implies all those Adjacent Church it necessarâ—ly follows in a Moral necessity that this Election was made by the Apostles and not by those Churches who could not there be then assembled in such full Companies as would become such a Duty and herein observe a strange license of expounding Scripture to abuse a cleâ—r and evident Text by wresting it with a Glosse according as he had done before to a Dubious Text yea such an one as cannot be expounded to their Sense without violent partiality But he urgeth at the latter end of this Argument That this was the Apostles mind and meaning in this Charge to Titus the words of the Text shew for it is added that he should redresse Things that are amisse and saith he must not this be done by the Officers and the Church also according to the rule of Christ I reply there is no rule of Christ given which saith so he should have shewed the rule for that which perhaps may be aimed at our Saviours rule tell the Church must be understood of the Church Officers it can have no other Sense for the Church totally for every person cannot ordinarily be assembled and totally can never but the Church quoad hoc for this purpose in its Officers and no other way and therefore the rule was given to him and him only to redresse such Things as were amisse SECT XII His Second Argument answered HIS Second Argument in the bottom of Page 52. is thus framed It is not the scope of Ordination by God appointed to give the Essentials of an Officers call therefore from thence it is not to be expected in an Orderly way He supposeth the Consequence undeniable and therefore undertakes only the proof of the antecedent for which he Cyphers out that place 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the Gift which is in thee which was given thee by prophesy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery out of this he would prove his Conclusion he therefore in the fear of God as he speaks addresseth himself to the Consideration of three things What the gift is here said to be in Timothy 2ly How it was given by Prophesy 3ly What the laying on of the hands of the Elders was and why used In the search of which he spends many pages page 54. he begins and ends page 59. I will draw the summe of what he saith For the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendered Gift he after Discourse of diverse acceptations conceives page 55. That those spiritual Graces and abilities with which Timothy was enabled to do his great work of his supposed Evangelizing are meant but before I go further here he Contradicts himself in the beginning of page 26. where he produceth this and this only place to prove that Ordination is the work of the whole Presbytery but here he distinguisheth the Abilities from the Office as Contradistinct Expositions For the 2d Term what was meant by given by Prophesy he first discourseth impertinently of the Office of an Evangelist to shew it was extraordinary yet sometimes given by means neither of which hath any foundation in Scripture That he saith Philip was made an Evangelist immediately without the mediation of man hath no one word of Scripture for it but only Acts 8. where he is called an Evangelist but not described which way Authorized either immediately or mediately For the 2d That one should be made an Evangelist by the Ordination of men he produceth this Text where there is no word of Scripture nor Exposition of any Antiquity which saith That he was by this Ordination made an Evangelist but Antiquity Theophylact and abundance say Bishop Again he confesseth it against his own Exposition of this word Gift which before was only Ability but now must be both Ability and Office so hard a thing is it for Error to be constant and to raise a strong building upon a
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
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
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
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
tottering foundation Then he proceeds which is most pertinent to his intent to shew what is meant by Prophesy and concludes pag. 57. that Prophesy is taken here for a dictate of the Spirit to the Apostle to ordain Timothy I will not oppose this as not prejudicial to this cause Then he comes to his 3d. Term Eldership or Presbytery which he saith notes not the Office but Officers I will yield it although unconstrained to it Then he sayes that this Imposition of hands added not to the Constitution of Timothy his Office gave not essentials thereunto but only a solemn Approbation I will yield it but not his reasons that which was saith he beyond the power of the Presbytery that they could not communicate but to give the Essentials to Timothies place was beyond the power and place of the Presbytery where can he read that He proves it because his Office was extraordinary and theirs Ordinary by this Office extraordinary he intends an Evangelist I suppose which he cannot prove to be an Extraordinary Office Much inconstancy is in this Discourse just now he brought this Instance to prove that an Evangelist might be called by the mediation of Men now he is above their reach and then his second reason confounds this For he saith he hath proved that an Office was not meant by this but by Gift was meant an Ability to do it A strange uncouth way of Argument He concludes pag. 58. the outward gifting and fitting an Officer to his place especially extraordinary as beyond the power and place of a Presbytery But the first is here This is most fearfull incongruous stuff to abuse Readers with Who can but guesse by his unusual language there is something in it but he cannot tell what Who can tell what that is which he calls the outward gifting and sitting an Officer for his Call I thought this Gift here spoken of had been an Inward as he calls it elsewhere a gracious endowment of the soul which enabled him to serve God in his Bishoprick which Gift was bestowed upon him as St. Paul describes not an outward thing nor can any man imagine what that outward thing should be Then he draws this Conclusion that the sense of the place is Despise not those gracious Qualifications which God by his Spirit in the Extraordinary way of Prophesy hath furnished and betrusted thee withall the laying on of the hands of the Eldership by way of Consent and approbation concurring therewith to thy farther Incouragement and Confirmation in this work Now suppose all this were true will this prove that the scope of Ordination by Gods appointment is not to give the Essentials of an Officers Call which was his antecedeâ—t to be Confirmed from this Text there is no manner of Coherence betwixt these two Propositions suppose this were not an Ordination of Timothy to an Office yet doth this prove that the word of St. Paul 2 Tim. 1. 6. By the laying on of my hands mark the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I before observed and indeed he now observes out of Didoclavius although I wonder what use they can make of it against us though perhaps it may be of force against Mr. Rutherfords Presbyterian Ordination I say all this doth not prove that Timothy was not ordained by St. Pauls laying on of his hands or if it did doth it prove that Timothy was not ordained at all because we do not read of it Or that he could not ordain without a Prae-election of some Congregation to a Cure when he is Commanded 1 Tim. 5. 22. not to lay hands suddenly on any These things are all silently passed over and the inference from the Tedious vaunting Discourse can be nothing to this purpose whosoever will read it â—t large with these notes must needs loath it as unreasonable His Inferences pag. 59. are without all relation to the former Discourse Hence it is plain saith he that Ordination therefore prae-supposeth an Officer Constituted doth not Constitute The rest are like this in which there is no manner of Dependance betwixt the Antecedent and the Consequent So that I cannot imagine that a man of so fine words could have so little reason but that these things were fragments found in his Study and crowded into this place SECT XIII His Third Argument answered HIS third Argument is That action which is Common to persons and performances or imployments and applyed to them when there is no Office at all given that Action cannot properly be called a Specificating Act to make an Officer or give him a Call But the Act of Imposition of handâ— is applyed to persons and performances as special Occasion is offered when there is no Office given nor intended therefore it is not an Act which gives in the Essentials to an Officer Consider in this Argument how it never enforceth the Conclusion which he is to prove His Conclusion is this Ordination aâ— preceding the Election of the people doth not give Essentials to the Call of a Minister Now instead of Ordination he brings in only an outward Ceremony which is Imposition of hands as if a man disputing of the efficacy of the Lords Supper should say other men may take bread and breâ—k it which do not Communicate for such and such only is the force of his Argument Imposition of handâ— is used in such Acts where Orders are not given therefore the Essentials are not given by the Imposition of hands To understand this therefore Conceive That Imposition of hands may be and hath been used in Apostolical Times for other purposes than this for Confirmation and in that instance he gives Acts 13. 1 2 3. It was a Confirmâ—tion of that Mission of Paul and Barnabas Now although Imposition of hands be sometimes taken for that most holy Rite which we call Confirmation as Acts 8. 17. and sometimes for this holy Mystery of giving Oâ—ders as we have had it oft repeated in this Discourse or some expression of a designment to a particular Duty as in this place Acts 13. yet we find the Adjacent Cirumstances easily â—ixing a Mans understanding upon which particular he should look and breaking of bread is an Action common to diverse Occasions yet is sometimes used in Scripture for the Communion so likewise Imposition of hands which is used in other duties is sometimes particularly proposed to signifie Ordination although it be used in other Religious Duties and be but a Ceremony of this yet it is a Ceremony used by the Apostles and pointed out by St. Paul Lay not hands negligently on any man to Timothy as before and therefore Argues a Spirit of Opposition in the Church of Scotland which as Hooker saith reject this Ceremony and use it not in Ordination Well there is no force in this Argument to prove his Conclusion but only that Imposition of hands is a Ceremony Common to other Duties which I grant and passe to his next SECT XIV His Fourth Argument answered HIS Fourth
a Pastor when any place is empty and he invited to it But yet Consider with me he doth not only build who layes on the bricks and mortar or timber but he who brings these Materials and helps to make the mortar yea chiefly he who steers the work and directs this or that way So is it in building this House this City of God his Church The Builders may study to provide Materials for it and improve their Abilities by Study in the Universities and if they are not called thence may live there and write such Things as may direct the Workers in this Building and by that rather build than they however they have such a power as may be reduced into Act when all Circumstances are fit which is enough to give the â—ssentials to an Officer And thus you see an Answer to his Arguments out of this Discourse Conceive it applyed to that Proposition He that hath Compleat power of an Office and stands an Officer without Exception cannot justly be hindred from doing all parts of his Office This should have been who hath the Essentials of an Officer as I said before but let it run as it doth I deny it slatly in these Terms Ab Actu ad potentiam non valet Argumentum negativè he can be hindred from working therefore he hath not the power doth not follow when a man sleeps he is hindred and that justly from working yet is a Pastor it is true in nature it is true in Moralty that which hath essentially the power of working may be hindred in nature you may put the light out of your Chamber which essentially hath power to enlighten it In morality he who hath the virtue of Valour in a gallant and high portion I speak of Active valour of Military valour as suppose our Saviour himself of whom this Question is disputed in the School he had all virtues in the highest degree and yet for lack of Opportunity to use this virtue did never produce an Act of this virtue In policy the same We have in England many Barresters learned men in the Law yea perhaps as learned as any Pleaders who by their degree of Barresters have power to plead in any Cause at any Barr yet because not entertained by Clients do not plead yea cannot plead are justly hindred from pleading the same footsteps of that Axiom are evident in all Practique businesses so that that Consequence he may be hindred from working therefore he hath not the power to work is very weak when the hindrance is without but if it be within that omnibus positis ad agendum requisitis in outward Accommodations If then he cannot do his pastoral Duties then it is an Argument he is no Pastor but his Case is otherwise I say again he who is a Bishop or Presbyter may officiate to the flock of Christ any where throughout the World when places are voyd and opportunities given otherwise not Thus you see I have enlarged my self upon this Conclusion which being little spoke of by others required more discourse and I hope not impertinent He saith now that he hath finished the negative part of his Discourse What it is doth not give the Essentials of the Call of a Pastor and I think I have shewed he hath prevailed little in this because he builds upon that false foundation That a Pastor must have a particular flock Then he comes to the positive and affirmative part to shew what doth give the Essentials pag. 66. which I find is false printed and should be pag. 67. as the former 6â— SECT XVI His Conclusion that the Pastor rightly ordered by the rule of Christ gives the Essentials to Ordination discussed HIS Conclusion is Election of the people rightly ordered by the rule of Christ gives the Essentials to an Officer or leaves the Impression of a true outward Call and so an Office power upon a Pastor This is the Proposition he undertakes to prove and here I expected an explication of his Terms especially of that what he means by leaves an Impression for since he before had despised the Schools for treating of an Indelible Character not only for making it indelible but for making it a Character and contemned both its being quality or relation I did justly expect he should expound what he means by this Impression of an out-outward Call left in the receiver but not a word It must certainly be one of those either quality or relation for it cannot he substance or quantity and nothing else can pretend But again I expected he should have shewed what was that rule of Christ he spake of which should order the Election of the people for without we know that we dispute at random for that must be our sole guide and indeed at the first blush when Christ is called and his rules to countenance any Cause it will stagger any heedlesse Reader but be not troubled with it Christ never gave rule to the people to do any such Thing If he had this man would have shewed it but the Truth is he did not all the Rules he gave were by his Apostles as before expressed and therefore Christ cannot Countenance that Cause with which he had not the least businesse to do and therefore although the Lawes of Disputations would have required this at his hands yet he wisely avoids them and from his Conclusion leaps into proofs of it the first of which is SECT XVII His First Argument answered ONE Relate gives being and the Essential Constituting Cause to the other But Pâ—stors and Peoâ—le Shepherd and Flocks are Relates He introduceth not his Conclusion nor is it possible for him out of these premisses for the natural result out of these Propositions can be only That therefore Pastor and People give the Essentials one to another in which is not one full Term of his Conclusion But I will examine his Major One Relate gives being c. Relationis esse est ad aliud non ab alio and therefore relation the whole Predicament is termed by the Translators of Aristotle Ad aliquid not ab aliquo the whole being is a relation to another not from another it is true they cannot exist severed without either is neither is in a Relative Notion yet so we may say an Accident it cannot be without its substance yet that Accident doth not give the Essentials to the substance So here you see were high amazing words to amuse the Reader with but no force to his purpose It may happen indeed That one relate may Cause the other for Cause and Effect are Relates the Father causeth the Son but the Son doth not give Essential being to a Father no not as a Father but that Act which made him a Father did it I write this to let a Reader see that when Propositions are delivered even by such a one as Mr. Hooker who may have Authority with the Reader and it may be thought will deliver nothing as an Axiom which is not
beings as Seals transient it may be further doubted how Seals can be forms This I urge though not a Book-Objection as indeed I do not find the Question disputed in the School under this Notion but only which started it self in my thoughts whilest I was writing and indeed may do so with others for I am unwilling to let any thing pass which may disturb a Readers assenting and therefore in Answer to this Objection do say that although the Seal be gone yet its image its likeness when it is gone remains in the Wax which is as valid to all its intentions as it self and is the Seal effective in its morall existence to all those morall effects which it produceth so it is in Baptism there is that the School calls the Character which remains after the act of Baptism is gone and is powerfull to all its effects I did avoid to speak of this intricate business hoping I might have escaped it but since I cannot do thus undertake it now and define it thus CHAP. XIII What the Character left in Baptism is and this Character defined THe Character or Relict of Baptism by which a Christian is constituted a member of the Catholick Church is a spiritual power by which the baptized man is interessed with right both to receive and do what belongs to a member of Christs Church First It is a power Powers are either active or passive active to do as fire to burn passive to suffer or receive as wood hath a passive power to receive the ignifying nature of fire which gold hath not This relict of Baptism doth both these both enable a man to demand and receive Confirmation to joyn with the Christian Congregation in devoâ—ions and prayers to demand and receive absolution the Communion with all other things which a Christian man doth in his severall duties and occasions But we must here distinguish betwixt natural powers and moral the first are faculties in man by which he is enabled by that internall principle to act what the power directs him to and no man obtains any such but by a reall change and alteration in himself to some absolute quality as a power to walk to speak or the like that he had not before But in moral powers as the right to an Estate or to an Office these may come to a man without any such alteration As the father dyes the son is immediately invested with the power of his fathers Estate and yet the son is the same in all absolute things hath no such change in himself Again a man is chose a Generall a King he hâ—â—h in himself no such change no such alteration but is the same he was before in all absolute things In moral powers we are not to expect an alteration in the party who receives them to any absolute reality so that although in a baptized person who receives these mighty powers we can discover no alteration yet these powers are in him by the force of this moral form which enables him to act or receive such or such things Next let us consider that it is a spiritual power that Attribute is given it in regard of its object and end because the power aims at spirituall blessings and is conversant about spirituall means to obtain this end for as it is called morall because it considers not naturall actions but such as concern a mans manners his doing well or ill in relation to God and that Christian Community in which he lives so it is spirituall in respect of the spirituall conversation it hath with God and those men of whose society it is And now we seeing the genus in this definition let us examine the difference a power by which he is interessed with right here is apparent that which was implyed before that it is not a naturall but a morall power naturall powers enable a man to do as the power to move to speak but the morall power gives him not ability but authority and right to move or speak thus or now he hath interest and right to do it to receive and do this power is both active and passive as before what belongs to a member of Christs Church This gives him interest in no civill right nor Office in the Church but only a right as a member that is such a right as by Christs Laws appertain to him If a sinner in such a degree he is shut out of the Communion if a penitent he may require absolution and by his being baptized he is made capable of these which otherwise before and without Baptism he was not SECT II In what Predicament this Character is THus this Definition being explained there is a great Question what manner of thing in what Predicament this relict power is For my part without disparagement of my great Master in Philosophy Aristotle I think that these spiritual theological powers need not be tugged into any of his Predicaments nor was he to be blamed as insufficient in his number because he being acquainted only with naturall things found out names for them in his Ten but being ignorant of spirituall must of necessity leave them â—nd such as studied them to shift for their room elsewhere and we might therefore with more ease invent another for them than be forced with unjust violence to hale them to these which were only provided for naturall things But yet because those old names would better please a Reader I will keep my self to them And first I opine that this relict is of a relative nature in its proper being for it is that interest which a man hath as before in Christ as his head and the rest of the Church as his fellow-members which is a relation for pars totum part and the whole are relates so are head and member in such bodies as have heads and in this consists the nature of this relict and therein are seated all the interests and powers which a baptized man hath Aquinas with that great Army of learned men who follow his colours sight against this Conclusion vehemently with many Arguments seemingly powerfull the nature of which consisting of such matter as is not usuall in English Authors it may chance not be unpleasing to him who reads this to study a little that Christian Philosophy which will be opened in this discourse and I am confident it will by drawing aside such curtains as are interposed give admittance to such light as will illustrate the business in hand to any easie sight and therefore I undertake them The first Argument urged by Cabrera for I will take them where I find them strongest maintained Cabrera in 3. Quest. 63. Art 2. Disp. 1. Sect. 3. Conclus 3. thus argues There is no motion to a bare relation ad relationem per se is his phrase for this he produceth Aristotle 5. Phys. Text. 10. for saith he all change is to an absolute form but there is a motion to this Character as he and 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
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-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