Argument is If Ordiâ—ation give the Essentials to an Officer before Election there may be a Pastor without people an Officer sine Titulo as they use to speak and a Pastor should be made a Pastor at large the rest is nothing but an Application to Mr. Rutherford's Simile of a Ring which concerns not us But this Argument of his invites me to speak of a pastoral Ordination which will perhaps give farther Illustration to the whole body of this Discourse A Pastor and a â—lock are relatives and do mutually se ponere tollere where one is the other must be where one is not the other cannot be Now then to be made a Pastor will require to have a flock this shall be presupposed and again every Pastor hath not all Pastoral Offices I can well suppose a mighty great flock which requires many Shepherds but one Chief above the rest he hath all Pastoral offices folds feeds drives to field prescribes pâ—stures medicines and doth all this by the Supream Pastoral power that is granted him either by his own hands or by the ministry of those Inferiours which are under him but they have partial Authorities only to feed or â—old or catch or drive as their several shares are dâ—signed the second part of the Division of the Pastoral Charge these men must grant who divide their Governours into several Offices Pastors Teachers Rulers which have their several Duties assigned them and it is most unreasonable for them to deny the first That one should have Superiority over the rest since as reason would direct without some body to over-look and attend them they would easily entrench upon one anothers duties or neglecting their own invite those others to put their hands to their work and what this reason directs that I think I have shewed the Scripture likewise Crowns with its approbation Now the first sort of Pastors are those we term Bishops the second Presbyters the flock they are to feed is the Church of Christ when they are admitted Pastors and so ordained according to their several Duties That which Hooker page 61. brings out of one Mr. Best as if St. Austin or some General Councel had dâ—creed it is absolutely to be denyed namely that an Apostle differeth from a Pastor that the Apostle is a Pastor throughout the whole Christian World but the Pastor is tyed to a certain Congregation out of which he is not to exercise Pastoral Acts. This I deny if he affirm it by Divine Right but if by Ecclesiastical Authority only which hath designed particular Bishops and Presbyters to particular places I shall yield much of it For the first part concerning the Apostles know that their Commission was universal as it is set down Mat. 28. 19. Go teach all Nations c. and John 20 As my Father sent me c. and we must conceive this to be divisim not conjunctim only every one had all this power not all only nor as Bellarmine would have Lib. 2. De Romano Pontifice Cap. 12. St. Peter only and the rest from him for we see the Commission granted to all but yet we must know that their Authority was habitu or potentia only in every one it was not actâ— in any they might Episcopize Apostolize in any place of the World They did Episcopize Apostolize only where they were râ—sident Just as I have Conceived if Adam had lived in his Integrity every man had had an habituâ—l and potential royalty over all the Creatures in the world yet he would have exercised that Royalty only where he lived yet he might have Travelled any where and have justly enjoyed any part of the World although actually he could possesse but his Share Now this was the Jurisdiction of every Apostle in all the whole Catholick Church habitually not actually as the Church of Rome would have their Apostolical Man as they call him the Pope and all this was necessary for them as Apostles which is men sent for the propagation of the Gospel to the planting and confirming of Churches other powers they had of Languages of Miracles which were necessary to the first plantation but no longer and therefore they were not peculiar to them but others had them besides as likewise that mighty power of being Inspired to write Scripture which did not appear in all of them and some others besides them had that power as St. Luke and Marke and some think St. James to be the Bishop of Jerusalem who writ that Epistle But now of those which were the Apostles it is evident that these Gifts were not Apostolical as belonging so to them as Apostles and it will appear in the other Cause That the Bishops succeeded them in every thing that was Apostolical although not in these extraordinary Endowments for the Apostolical power of planting setling Churches of propagating the Gospel throughout the whole World and enlarging the Kingdom of Christ must remain for ever and therefore though the manner of doing it by such Signs and Wonders be not communicated yet the Office must and therefore he who is a Bishop or Presbyter by divine right is such throughout the whole Word to this purpose you may observe in that famous place of Acts 20. 28. so much and so often canvased by them who handle these Controversies in other points but not thought on in this you may observe that St. Paul speaking to divers Presbyters or Bishops which you will he saith Take heed therefore to your selves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers or Bishops to feed the Church of God which he purchased with his own blood Observe here that he spake to many and diverse Bishops or Presbyters I stand not upon thâ—t now he spâ—ke to them in the plural Number but when he speaks of the flock they were to pastorize over he puts it in the singular Number now if the Holy Ghoâ— had made them Bishops of particular Congregations only it must have been the flock every one his several but being all made Pastors of the Catholick Church he names it one flock and so likewise to feed or Sheperdizâ— over not the Churches but the Church of Christ which indeed were no way congruous if the Holy Ghost had made them Officers of particular Churches and confined them there but making them Officers of the Vniversal Church which Christ had purchased with his blood and all Officers of that it is rightly put in the singular number flock and Church This likewise the Holy Ghost intimates every where describing the Church to us by the name of a â—ield a Vineyard a City and multitudes of such Expressions which as much as this of a flock intimate the unity of that Body which is his Church his â—lock over which these are Pastors in their several wayes not only their little Congregations Now the wisdom of the Church finding that although the potential and habitual power is universal yet the actual cannot be exercised further
secondarily Christ is the Chief Corner Stone the Spiritual Rock 1 Cor. 10. 4. and then there was no more sâ—id to him that St. Paul expounds of them all Ephes. 2. 20. and are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the Chief Corner Stone to them all the Apostles were secondary foundations and Rocks as well as he were that place to be understood to call him a Rock Nor can there be any stronger foundation affirmed of him either in person or Succession than of the rest Mat. 28. I will be with you to the end of the World that is assisting them in executing their Duty For the second place Mat. 16. 19. I will give thee the Keyes of Heaven it is but a promise and he performed it to him and the rest John 20. 22. For the Third Feed my Sheep it is a poor Argument drawn from a meer Simile of pastorizing but let it be what it can there can be no more in it but preach baptize give the Communion give Orders govern the Church all which are involved in those two places insisted upon before and therefore I desist from further discourse of them and supposing that the Apostles had equal Authority to minister Divine Mysteries to the whole World with St. Peter we will now come and enquire whether any other men had any such Commission given them by Christ or not SECT VI. How it is to be understood that the Power of the Keyes is given to the Church THe Chief place if not the only which I have observed in the Gospel pretended to be wrested to any such Intent is Mat. 18. 17. If he shall neglect to hear them tell it to the Church Thence it is by some enforced that the Church is made the Judge in Ecclesiastiâ—al Discipline and by the Church they will understand others besides the Apostles To apprehend which conceive with me First that this was one of those things which our Saviour delivered for a Rule to govern the Church and Christian men by not at that present but afterwards when Church Discipline was setled for as yet there was no such Thing as any Discipline setled but like a Commonwealth in the â—raming by degrees Laws projected yeâ— Contrived and enacted which might take their rise and force afterwards when established It is a poor Conceit methinks of Beza on this place who would have it understood of the Jewish Synagogue since he himself Confesseth that the word Church is no where else used for the Synagogue nor indeed can it be and why it should be forced to that meaning here I see no reason and therefore the true understanding of it must be taken from those setled Laws which our Saviour made after his Death of which I have discoursed Now that this Law could not extend to any other men but these Apostles who had all the powers given them as I have explained will appear first First because it seems to be a Juridical way of proceedings and it is impossible that the multitude should have Juridical Discretion to make a man as an Heathen or a Publican being many of them illiterate men and we should conâ—ine the limits of Christian men and Religion in much too narrow bounds to say it belong only to the learned or men enabled for such or so high a work But there must be Officers in a Church to hear and judge of such a Cause which Officers we understood by the Church and although this Censure ought to be done in publick in the face of the Church or the Court where such Matters are discussed yet it is not necessary nor can have a face of reason with it that every one of the Church should be there present or they who are present should have the Nature of Judges only such Men as are Officers enabled to act in this power then if Officers these men who hâ—d the power given them in the 20th of St. John are these which are here in the 18th verse said to bind and loose So that then I can see nothing that can hinder us from agreeing that after our Saviours Death all Ecclesiastical power was seated in the Apostles how they understand it we shall Consider in the future Discourse by their Actions set down to us which must be our next undertaking SECT VII The Apostles Authority and Management of it NOW we see the Eleven inthroned in the Chair of Ecclesiastical power They and they only having Interest in it but yet they had only power the right and Authority they received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the vertue and qualities enabling them to execute this power according to the Extent throughout the world afterwards when the power of Tongues was given them Acts 2. 4. and you may find this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for this virtue Acts the 1. v. 8. where it is promised so that they had all Power and Authority before but this Faculty of Tongues they had not untill then and this will be of little use in our Discourse being a Gift of no constant Succession in the Church but only those Authorities of Administring the Sacraments of Preaching of Giving Orders of Governing these will always be necessary in the Church and therefore must be insisted upon For this therefore the first thing we find them Acting in this kind was to settle their own Society and Compleat the Number of Twelve and this you may find recorded in the 1. of the Acts v. 13. where we may observe first that they referred the Election of this Apostle to God by â—asting Lotts they Chose two Barsabas and Mathias and referred it to Divine Election the reasons of which guessed at by Divines rather than demonstrated I omit But now there are Twelve Apostles Bishops for if Judas was a Bishop by being an Apostle as he is termed vers 20. the rest likewise were or Twelve Deacons or Ministers for that phrase is affirmed of Judas in regard of his Apostleship vers 25. SECT VIII What Additions were made to the Apostles BUT yet we must not leave them but examine Whether there were any Addition made to these Apostles and what that was To understand this We may find St. Paul in abundance of places called an Apostle instead of many take this one Instance Galat. 1 1. Paul an Apostle not of men neither by man but by Jesus Christ An Apostle not of men not by man that is who received my Apostleship not from the Authority given to men as before when Christ sent his Apostles as his Father sent him with power to give these powers John 20. As my Father sent me so send I you not then of men that is from this Authority given to them nor by man that is by any Ministerial Act of mans He received his Baptism by the Ministery of man as you may find Acts 9. 18. But his Apostleship he received of God and by God as the other Apostles did by the immediate
lowlinesse of mind which should be amongst fellow Members I answer therefore That the Gifts of Deacons are not such as qualifie a Bishop of which St. Paul spake there but I will tell you very like them and as that Clause is not inserted to a Deacon that he should be apt to teach so it is not required of him but when he is found fit to teach and it is required he may I think I have spoken enough to him If I knew any more of this kind I would not account it lost time to handle it although tyred with this CHAP. VIII SECT I. Of a Ruling Elder THE next particle or Branch of Ecclesiastical Authority which I will undertake to handle is that they call a ruling Elder or a Lay Elder he is called an Elder but I am confident that the Name is new and the Office not known in the Primitive Church nor hath any mention in Scripture but by phansy Now to understand this I shall first shew what manner of Office this man is imagined to have and then answer such Arguments as are brought for him and so Conclude with mine own reasons against him First the Examination of his Office what it is to do is set down by Mr. Hooker Part 2. Chap. 1. pag. 16. I will not transcribe all he saith but set down the heads SECT II. What those Lay Elders are according to Hooker BEfore the Assembly meet he is of the Common Council and his voyce is to be taken in with the rest in the Consultation and Consideration of the businesse by which I think he means the businesse should be agitated that day Here he ciphers out 3. places of Scripture I think to no such purpose read them he that will Heb. 13. 17. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Acts 20. 28. When Offences are to be brought to the Congregation it belongs to them to ripen and prepare the businesse by way of praeconsideration to state the Cause right c. Thirdly when the Church is met he may interpose his Judgment without asking leave These he hath in Common with other Elders what he hath peculiar to himself is First visiting the Sick and such as are any way under Spiritual wants these men should send for these Elders and they shall be the Physitians of their Souls for this he quotes James 5. 14. but no word there of a Lay Elder Secondly by the same reason he should seek out such and visit them Thirdly He is to make peace amongst Members Fourthly If there be a Fame of a Member that he misbehaves himself towards such as are without that is I think not of their Church by which the Church may be scandalized he is to enquire of the Truth and I think inform or else all is in vain Fifthly He is to Consider of the persons that are to be admitted into the Church and to pronounce Excommunications Thus in general we see what manner of Office this is let us now examine whether there be semblances of any such thing in Scripture which they pretend should be the Guide in these Affairs And â—irst I will begin where I left for that in the first place he cites Romans 12. 8. As he found a word for his Deacon He that distributes so he hath another for his Elder He that ruleth with diligence SECT III. Whether any such Elders truly in Scripture THis Question Mr. Hooker enters upon in the same 1st Chapter of the 2d Part pag. 8. Here he saith he hath nothing to doe but with the Hierarchical party whose main Arguments are a Pursuivant and a Prison armed with Authority of an High Commission This man I observe though civil in many places to others yet very passionately bitter when any thing crosses him to speak against that Cause which I conceive right and do not doubt but I shall prove it First he undertakes to prove this Office that there is such an Office from the former place but goes now somewhat higher Rom. 12. 7. He argues for it first thus The Gifts here mentioned and considered are not such as have reference to a Civil but to an Ecclesiastical Condition so the words vers 5. We are one body in Christ. This is no strong Argument we are one body in Christ therefore that which is spoken of that body or members must be Ecclesiastical not Civil In the same body consisting of the members of Christs Church his mystical body there are many Civil Duties even as they are Christians exacted from them and as members of that body Duties of Kings to Subjects of Subjects to Kings Husbands to Wives and theirs to their Husbands betwixt Masters and Servants and so they mutually a little of this Divinity will make all things Ecclesiastical and reduce all Obedience for Christs sake to a Pastor or Teacher an Elder or Deacon Secondly the Operations which issue from these Functions evidence as much Prophesying c. Exhorting c. I would he had put in shewing mercy too but we see they do not shewing mercy giving ruling may relate to any member of this body There is nothing therefore in these Arguments that enforce these should be Ecclesiastical duties of members in the mystical body of Christ. He hath another Figure of 2 I think he means by it another Argument for the Cause that is pag. 9. An Argument of his answered GIfts here are not such as are Common and belong to all Christians as Faith Hope Charity c. What if they are not are they Ecclesiastical Orders that will never follow but he proves it although to no purpose if it were proved First those Gifts are here meant by which the Members of the body are distinct one from another and have several Acts appropriate to them He proves that because verse 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. all members have not the same office this I have said is not parallel'd in the Simile and therefore not to be urged further But saith he Common Graces are not so distinct for in them they do agree I answer these are not Common nor yet Ecclesiastical only nor the duties required witnesse this one which is instanced in He that ruleth with Diligence To be a Ruler is not only in Ecclesiastical Affairs but Civil and he that ruleth in Civil affairs is to do it with diligence so Origen upon this very place so St. Ambrose St. Hierom Theophylact Anselm H. Rabanus Maurus out of them all of which use phrases to this purpose qui praest vel fratribus vel Ecclesiae So that by this although there is not a Common Grace that is universal to all Christians yet it is so Common as that it belongeth to all Governors whether Lay or Ecclesiastical nemine contradicente but these late men and the duty enjoyned is as Common as the Grace given to wit to govern or rule not barely but with diligence So that this Conclusion is Confuted out of this very Instance and may as easily out of any other but
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
he drawes from his Imagination of no such power left to men which lest I should vex the Reader I omit and direct him to page 70 71 72. for the foundation being destroyed the Invective and Scorning of his â—nemies as many have done with an imagination only or rumor of Victory when there was no such thing will fall of its self There is a power left by Christ to men by which they communicate powers to others FIrst then I shall shew that there is such an Office power amongst men whereby they can Convey an Office power Authoritativâ— to others This may appear out of our Saviours Commission As my Father sent me c. John 20. and the like Now then if our Saviour was sent to appoint Officers then so were they I will be with you to the end of the World that cannot be understood of their persons it must be of their Succession and that Succession they communicated by the former Authority So Acts 13. they sent Baâ—nabas and Saul so 14. 21. They ordained Elders in every Church so Titus was by St. Paul left in Crete Timothy received from Imposition of his hands his power so in succession Timothy and Titus are directed to lay on hands themselves upon others which is by all understood of Ordination So then there is evident a delegate power given by men of Authority by which others are Authorized to operate in this Divine Administration I need say no more to this but enter his Second Conclusion which he is briefer in but is indeed the foundation of this other This you may find page 72. thus Secondly There is a Communicating power by voluntary Subjection when though there be no Office power formaliter in the people yet they willingly yielding themselves to be ruled by another desiring and calling him to take that rule he accepting of what they yield possessing that right which they put upon him by free Consent I put down his very words which are not sence making no Compleat Proposition but it may be the fault of the Printer and therefore read it possesseth that right c. for possessing The reason saith he is those in whose Choice it is whether any shall rule over them or no from their voluntary subjection it is That the party Chosen hath right and stands possessed of rule and Authority over them This Argument is mighty Lame for the Minor which is not set down if produced would be that the Case stands thus with Christians That it is in their Choice whether any shall rule over them or no which is absolutely false taking Christians for such men who have given themselves and their names to Christ in baptism and supposing that they intend to be saved by persevering according to that Covenant for without doubt such must submit to this Government and indeed I wondered how any man had Confidence to obtrude such a Conclusion concerning so high and material points without pretence of reason or Scripture as he doth in this place but I remember how heretofore I had read something to this purpose in his First Part and it seems he supposeth this granted out of his former Grounds although he might have done well to have eased the Reader with a reference to it but I have hunted it out and God willing will pursue the Chase wheresoever CHAP. IX SECT I. Mutual Covenanting of the Saints gives not being to a Visible Church IN his first part therefore of this Book page 46. he discourseth of the formal Cause of a visible Church and he puts this Conclusion Mutual Covenanting and Confederating of the Saints in the fellowship of the faith according to the Order of the Gospel is that which gives Constitution and being to a Visible Church This Term Consederating of the Saints is indefinite and seems therefore that he should mean all the Saints should Confederate which is impossible in any of their Congregations if he had meant of any limited Company of Saints he should have said of a Company of Saints or a number of them which he did not but puts it indefinite of the Saints Secondly observe that whereas he interposeth in his Conclusion according to the Order of the Gospel neither doth he nor can any man living shew any likenesse or resemblance of any such Order in the Gospel nor doth he in his whole discourse endeavour to shew any such Thing Upon my perusal of this Discourse I find that I have treated of it already in some papers which passed betwixt me and another who is since as I hear dead and I think I sent them you therefore I shall speak only briefly to it first setting down his Conceit then answering his Arguments then Consuting his Conclusion SECT II. His Opinion explained HIS Conceit is as I apprehend it That a Company of Saints as he calls them enter into a Covenant one with another and with one which they call Pastor to submit to him in Pastoral duties and he to perform Pastoral Offices among them as likewise in respect of themselves to submit to and exercise Churchly Censures one towards another some such Covenant if I can reach his sence is that which gives to the receivers an Obligation and bond and it is in Conscience one towards another which bond is the formal Essence and being of a Church I conceive this but for lack of some Copy of one of their Covenants I can only guesse at it by the main drift of his Discourse he denyes Baptism or Profession to give the being to a Member and only makes a Covenant to be it a superadded Covenant beyond Baptism Page 47. he delivers that this Covenant is either Explicite or Implicite Explicite when there is an open expression and profession of this Engagement in the face of the Assembly Implicite when in their practice they do that whereby they make themselves engaged to walk in such a Society according to such rules of Government which are executed amongst them and so submit themselves thereto but do not make any verbal profession thereof And thus he saith the people in the Parishes of England where there is a Minister put upon them by the Patron or Bishop they constantly hold them to the Fellowship of the people in such a place c. This being warned that upon their grounds there could be no Church in the Christian World but in New England he could not choose but allow this Implicite Covenant to be sufficient which is the common opinion among them although I doubt in some other Things he will reject an Argument drawn from an universal practice SECT III. His Conclusions concerning this Covenant PAge 48. he addes some Conclusions First an Implicite Covenant preserves the true nature of the Visible Church Secondly which is much the same an Implicite Covenant in some Cases may be fully sufficient Thirdly it is much agreeing to the Compleatnesse of the rule what rule I would know and for the better being of the Church that there be
setting out and can proceed no further but to understand the Text and so more abundantly the weaknesse of this Argument SECT III. What is meant by Church FIrst know that by the Church we must understand the visible Catholick Church which hath this power and indeed almost all the promises of Christ which is his City his house his spouse his body but then it is understood of her according to that part which hath that faculty of receiving Complaints he who bids you tell a man any Story bids you not speak it to its â—eet or hands but his Ears which are fit parts to receive the Story or if he be deaf you must do it by writing that his Eyes which are organized for that purpose may entertain that relation Again when a man commands he doth it not with his Eyes or Ears but his Tongue which is the part fitted for that purpose The Church is Christs body it hath many parts when you are bid tell the Church you are not bid tell the feet or hands but the Ear those who are proper for that work when the Church speaks it is not with hands or eyes but with the Churches Tongue which are the Officers for that purpose these men would make the body of Christ all Ear all Tongue every member of the Church fit to receive Complaints and fit to Judge and Censure which is ridiculous Take his own Simile Suppose the Church universal a Corporation there was never any such where every man was a Judge It cannot be therefore so here Tell the Church that is tell those Officers in the Church who are designed and organized authorized for such a purpose and then if he refuse to hear them let him be c. and this that very word brother which he introduceth for the prop of his cause evinceth for all Christians throughout the Catholique Church are brethren and the Duty belongs to them this I think doth satisfie and what he adds is of no moment for he being full with his conceit that by Church is meant a particular Congregation and each man in it labours to build upon that foundation which being overthrown his building perisheth He urgeth a place out of Whitaker to prove that Lay-men have Authority of Censuring pag. 52. but because he confesseth That Whitakers meaning is of a General Council that it hath power over any particular Pastor in the Conclusion of that page and the top of the 53. he forms this Syllogism SECT IV. Another Argument of his answered EVery Member of a General Council hath power in the Censuring of a Delinquent Brethren or Lay men as they are termed are Members of a General Council I deny this Minor he brings no proof although if he had studied this question he could not choose but know it is generally denyed by such Writers as Treat of it Although he is extraordinarily Confuted I am unwilling to let any thing slip which may disturb a Reader He saith the Proposition is proved by Instance and Experience but I know not where He addes immediately If others had not Church power over this or that party if he would have refused to have come into their fellowship and joyned with them then it was his voluntary Subjection and Engagement that gave them all the power and Interest they have To understand this there is voluntary engagement in Baptism and besides this there is no more needfull for it is true he who lives in Scotland cannot be governed by the Bishops of England because they cannot have cognizance of his State and because that the Church hath confined the Exercise of that habitual power which they have every where that it shall not break out into Act in such places and upon such causes which they cannot have a full knowledge of but if he who now lives in Scotland will come and live in England and receive the blessings of Gods mercies in his Covenants from the Church of England if he offend he must be admonished and convented before the â—hurch quoad hoc that is the Church Officers and if he obey them not be as an Heathen If he refuse to Communicate with us in these Spiritual blessings he makes himself as an Heathen So that in some Sence there is a Covenant required that which he calls implicite even in a baptized man for else he makes himself an Heathen towards us in regard of us but this implicite is not like their Covenant which seems to be perpetual This is only pro tempore for the time of his abode and no â—onger That which he yet urgeth that men travell into farre Counâ—ries where are Churches planted certainly that man if they be Protestant Churches he will claim a right in the Church Seals if he be a Protestant if a Papist and they Papists he will do so likewise or else he will be as an Heathen To conclude this he brings some places of Scripture to shew that some would not joyn with the Apostles as Acts 5. 13. where Heathens refused to joyn with the Apostles Luke 7. 30. The Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the Council c. But can he shew me that any who were Christians refused Communion with them of what Church soever It is not imaginable His Third Argument is only against Presbyterians I meddle not with it His Fourth Argument is thus framed SECT V. Another Argument of his answered THat Society of Men who may enjoy such priviledges Spiritual and Ecclesiastical unto which none can be admitted but by Approbaâ—ion of the whole that Society must be in an Especial Combination But a particular Combination is such a Society who enjoy such Spiritual priviledges c. Ergo. I deny this Minor Laymen in a particular Congregation have no such power to admit allow and approve of every man who comes into that Congregation they may inform but they cannot judge His last Argument from an Induction avails nothing where he saith If the Inventory of all other respects being brought in none can constitute a Church visible then this only must he reckons up mutual Affection and Cohabitation only which are insufficient to make his Induâ—ion I shall therefore set down what makes a Church visible CHAP. XI SECT I. What makes a Church Visible COnsider what makes a Church that if it be visible constitutes a Church visible and certainly for the first if we consider the Church to be the body of Christ the City of God the Heavenly Jerusalem then as we must conceive it consisting of many men we must conceive it likewise having these men united in some form of Government under Christ and like a City an house a body ruled by their King and head Christ who by his Inferiour Ministers and Officers rules and governs this body this City he is of this City who is ruled and governed by the Lawes of this City of this House who is governed by the Oeconomical discipline of this house of this body who is guided and governed by the
God I will not enter into those large and tedious discourses of Gods hardening mens hearts by dereliction of them or of that which is termed the sin against the holy Ghost how these may devest a man of his Inheritance It is enough for my purpose that any baptized man hath such an interest in God as when he repents he is sure of admission and therefore though many Laws have been severe in punishing Delinquents as enjoyning penances for many years sometimes more or less as sins were adjudged greater or less and of later times and at this present in the Church of Rome there are Casus reservati reserved Cases not to be pardoned some not by the Parochian some not by the Bishop of the Diocess some reserved only for the Pope yet in case of death all these Ecclesiastick Constitutions are adjudged dissolvable by the best Casuists and the Parochian hath power to absolve and remit them So that for Answer to this Argument I may justly say that these baptized Apostates are still Heirs of Heaven but such as have aliened their estate with a power of revocation upon certain conditions which when they perform the estate is theirs again and agreeing to this will the Answer be to another place which is much insisted upon by the Antinomians and many others symbolizing with them SECT VIII The 1. of St. John 3. 9. expounded THat is 1 John 3. 9. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin from which is deduced That sinners are not Gods children are not born of God not heirs therefore have not title to him and his blessings if not sinners much less so great sinners as Apostates To understand which Text and farther to illustrate this truth conceive with me First That this phrase sinneth not or committeth not sin that will not be materiall cannot be understood of doing nothing that is sin for our Apostle in this very Epistle hath declared the contrary Chap. 1. 8. If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us Again Verse 10. If we say that we have not sinned we make him that is God a liar and his Word is not in us Again Chap. 2. verse 1 2. If any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sins Then they sinned and in such manner as they have need of Christ for a propitiation Secondly I cannot conceive these words so as Beza expounds them in the 4th verse which he would have guide the whole sence of the phrase throughout this Chapter he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth differ from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to commit sin differs from sinning because to commit sin is to do it knowingly against his conscience To conclude he makes it an high kind of sinning and to sin with reigning sin I know no necessity to force any such exposition from the phrase and I am sure he chose a most unlucky verse to obtrude that exposition upon for in that place the Apostle saith He who commits sin transgresseth the law for sin is the transgression of the law phrases which are affirmed of him that committeth sin but agree to all sins for every sin is the transgression of the law and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to commit or do or make sin is no more than to sin and to this inconsideration in Beza fuller the Apostle in verse 6. useth only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He who remains in him sinneth not There because the sence is as pregnant to shew the inconsistence of the birth or being in Christ and sin as before he refers the Reader to the fourth verse so that there was a distinction in the 4th verse betwixt sinning and committing sin but here there is none in the 6th verse but to sin must be to do it as is expounded with an high hand But I have shewed there could be no such sence in that verse and therefore much less in this where was not the least phrase guiding to it I come now to the Text I have tumbled over divers Expositors and he that pleaseth me best is Cardinal Cajetan in his Comments upon the Text who seems to me to dive deeper into and drive closer to the sence of the Text than others Vasques Comes in a word or two towards it likewise and many touch upon it his sence is that he who is born of God and he who remains in him sins not nor can sin this must be taken saith he formaliter formally quatenus say the Logicians as he is born of God This we may perceive to be the sence of the Text because throughout this Chapter the Apostle describes two sorts of actions good and evil two principles from whence they came the good from God whose sons we are called that do good and are asâ—imilated to him by such actions the evil from the devil verse 8. Now these two principles are in every man when he doth well his actions come from God and so far forth he is from God and when he doth evil his actions are from the devil and so far forth he is from the devil nay we may not only find these two principles working their effects in the same man but like Jacob and Esau strugling at the same time in the same womb who shall come out first and like fire and water contending at the same time for preheminence as St. Paul wonderfully describes Rom. 7. insomuch that in the 24th verse it made him cry out like a woman in labour of this birth O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death So that these two principles are in the same man perhaps sometimes he sins in that he sins quatenus as he sins he is not born of God then he doth righteousness out of that regard as he doth righteously he is born of God Now yet that you may farther see that this is the sence see that this thread this clew must lead â—ordâ— to the exposition of the pieces in this same business of this Chapter verse 6. He who sinneth hath not seen God nor known God This must be understood quatenus in that regard every man hath sinned then no man hath seen or known God no but quatenus in that regard that he sinneth he hath not seen God nor knoweth him he sets not God before his face so that there is a necessity of this exposition from the like speeches of the Apostle so likewise from that phrase in the 9th verse He cannot sin Certainly he who cannot sin cannot but do righteously because he is born of God out of that cause and principle whilest he keeps himself close to that quatenus as he is born of God as likewise he sinneth not because the seed remaineth in him yet St. Paul whilest the seed was in him did sin but not quatenus A man may have the seed of God and the seed of the