Prophesy and teaching and exhorting although perhaps something of this sense may be affirmed of them Again he urgeth the Emphasis of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The weight saith he of the phrase having the Article in that manner added notes not every member but some by way of Eminency to whom these appertain it is true and so doth this Instance He who ruleth notes not all men but Rulers only but doth it note by these Caveats a Lay-man ruling in Ecclesiastical Affairs or if it should why not a Chancellor that were a fearfull Exposition His 3d. Argument drawn from the Distinction mentioned in the 4th verse is abundantly answered before and his new division of these Offices I come therefore to his 2d Argument to prove that there is such an Office Another Argument of his answered THis is drawn from 1 Cor. 12. 28. where the Apostle expressing many other Offices or Gifts which God hath given to his Church he names Governments or as we read it helps in Governments or as Beza and he helps Governments I shall not trouble my self with that phrase much here he layes this Foundation That the Apostle names here some ordinary some extraordinary Offices amongst those ordinary ones which are to last in his Church he reckons what he pleaseth and how Teachers Helps which were Deacons Governments which were Elders were all this granted will all this prove them Lay Elders I can grant likewise his second Foundation that he requires That the Gifts themselves are put in the Abstract yet the persons who were possessors of them were understood in the Concrete by these abstract Phrases I can grant his third Foundation likewise which is That although some as the Apostles had all these Gifts yet they might formally be in some Subjects as appointed by Christ to that purpose I deny not this but because they might be will it follow affirmatively therefore they were certainly à potentia ad Actum valet Argumentum negativè It cannot be therefore it is not but not affirmatively It may be therefore it is Now let us Consider his Arguments As the Apostles Prophets and Teachers were distinct so are helps and Governments distinct for the Apostle puts them in the same rank I deny that for they are put in distinct ranks first second third and then these Phrases put after that then then and no distinction betwixt Gifts of Healing Helps Governments I could here shew the Expositions of St Chrysostom Ambrose Theophylact Anselm St. Hierom in no one of which do I find a Lay Elder understood by this phrase Governments I could shew you the Expositions of others some making him an Arch-Deacon some a Parochian but I study brevity where there is no proof and I will adde but one thing which I find observed by none which is That as if the Apostle would prophetically in his manner of writing as well as the words he writes Confute this man and this side of men if they prove such an Office from this place they must prove that this phrase Government signifies a distinct Order and that this phrase signifies that thing they intend it for this latter is against Antiquity and hath no colour for it The former upon which the latter is grounded he thinks he hath proved because that Apostles and Prophets c. were distinct Offices or Gifts in distinct persons I answer it follows not for St. Paul in the two following verses 29 30. reckoning up a distinction of the other Gifts Are all Apostles are all Prâ—phets c doth never say are all Helps are all Governments but doth reckon that which comes after this Do all speak with tongues So that methinks the Apostle doth as it were of purpose to make this not appear a distinct Office from the rest Indeed all the other are helps and most of them Governments and therefore he could not use this phrase to them are all helps c. as he did to the other but he stands not much upon this these are too weak Grounds to support this new Building The Achilles which is exâ—lted of follows and that it is taken out of as Mr. Hooker calls it that Famous place 1 Tim. 5. 17. this is pag. 11. where before Here he spends a great deal of Rhetorick in Commendation of this place to his purpose and in Scorn and Contempt and vilifying his Adversaries which might have been better spared and he immediately fallen to his businesse as I will SECT IV. His Argument from 1 Tim. 5. 17. answered THE words of the Text are Let the Elders which rule well bt worthy of honour especially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine First we may observe that from hence is pretended no Institution of such an Order Secondly that there is not pretended any Demonstration that there was any such Office executed with the Approbation of the Apostles for that although the Institution were not registred yet it would Argue there was such an Office without which they could not execute the Office but the force of Argument is only drawn from this that the Apostle should here name two distinct Officers one whose Office was to rule onely and another to labour in the Word and Doctrine I will first endeavour to expound the Text and then satisfie the Objections In the Exposition I find these pieces necessary to be opened who are meant by this word Elders 2dly what is meant by ruling well 3dly what by double honour 4ly what by labour in the Word and Doctrine lastly what by especially First this word Elder is diversly used in these Epistles and in this very Chapter either for a man of ancient years which is its genuine signification or else for an Officer in the Church and of the Church for there may be Officers in the Church concerning politique Affairs which must have a Discipline in the Church of this Sort are all Officers in a Christian Commonwealth which are Officers in the Church but not of it but an Elder is taken for an Officer in and of the Church having to meddle in Ecclesiastical Affairs and this latter is a borrowed sense of it because that Gray hairs are stayed and Judicious which are Attributes belonging to the Office of a Presbyter therefore they have their denomination from that In the first sense it is taken in the 1. verse of this Chapter by the Consent of all where it is said rebuke not an â—lder but intreat him as a father there the Elder in Age is understood as all agree both antient and later Writers this word is again used in this Chapt. a little after this Text verse 19. Against an Elder receive not an Accusation but before two or three Witnesses How an Elder is understood here is disputable The Grecians St. Chrysostome Theophylact Oecumenius understand an Elder in Age only as Beza observes but it is not so universally true as he affirms for Theodoret upon that place expounds it of a Presbyter by
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
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
an explicite Covenant He gives reasons of this Conclusion For thereby the judgement of the Members comes to be informed and convinced of their Duty more fully His Reasons of his Third Conclusion answered I Would ask whether a new Duty added by this Covenant or an old Duty which arose out of Baptism If a new I cannot judge of the fitnesse without I knew the particulars but am assured that whatsoever is added to the Covenant in baptism although it may have possible Allowance in Acts of Religion to some particular men upon some particular Occasions yet in general to presse such a Thing upon all Christians is not tollerable If it be no addition to that Covenant the only refreshing of that Covenant to the memory of a Christian is abundantly enough This likewise answers his 2d Argument page 49. They are saith he thereby kept from Cavilling and Starting aside from the Tenure and Terms of the Covenant which they have professed and acknowledged before the Lord and so many Witnesses I answer as before If the Terms be additions to what was in Baptism he ought not in general to prescribe them to all Christians If they are not Additions then that Covenant is the strongest he can make which was made in Baptism The same answer may be applied to his third reason For saith he thereby their hearts stand under a Stronger Tye. I answer no stronger than Baptism SECT IV. This Covenant of his cannot agree to Travellers THen he enters into a Second Question how far this Covenant requires Cohabitation His handling of which is very weak in my Judgement for since he allows Merchants and others upon diverse Occasions to be absent sometimes divers years he gives no satisfaction at all to shew how these men in their absence can partake of Church-blessings But me-thinks they must live without Preaching without Sacrament or any blessing of any Covenant of Gods because their Pastors and Officers reside at their constant place but contrarywise our Doctrine which makes each Presbyter an Officer of the Catholick Church and each Christian a Member of it it follows that any Ship may carry a Pastor and every man receive the Comforts and blessings of Gods Covenants from him which is like our Saviours providence for all and every particular But I omit this at this time as not necessary for our businesse and apply my self to his Reasons for his Conclusion That this Covenant gives the Essentials to a Church which he begins page the 50th SECT V. His Reasons answered HIS first Argument is thus framed in these words Every Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Corporation receives its being from a Spiritual Combination But the visible Churches of Christ are Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Therefore I can justly complain here that the Terms are altered which In a Logical Discourse should be the same I will reduce them therefore and so discourse upon it Combination must here be taken for Covenant or a Combination by Covenant so that the sence of that Proposition is Every Ecclesiastical Corporation receives its being from a Combination by Covenant In the Examination of this Proposition I will follow his own Expressions because I will dispute ex concessis He instâ—nces in the Corporations of Towns and Cities There saith he they have their Charter granted them from the King or State which gives them warrant to unite themselves to carry on such works for such Ends with such Advantage So saith he their mutual Engagements each to other to attend such Terms to walk in such Orders which shall be sutable to such a Condition gives being to such a body Thus he Coâ—sider now that the form of every thing is that which last comes to give every thing its being and make it Compleat Secondly it is that which enables every thing to do its proper work Now Consider a Corporation hath first a Charter by which they are enabled to unite by Authority of which they assemble and come together and perhaps enter into some Engagement required by that Charter by this Engagement they are made the Matter of this Corporation but the form is the Influence of the Charter by which these men so engaged by Covenant are authorized to do this So in every question when it is moved concerning any Action we have recourse to the form Ask why this did heat or burn It is answered because it was fire had the form the burning form of fire Why did that grow because it had a vegetable form Now ask why did a Corporation do this or that let this Lease make that man free The answer is not made because they were Combined by a Covenant but because they have a Charter to do it so that the influence which that Charter hath upon the Corporation is the thing which gives that Corporation its being not their Union by Covenant which makes them but the Matter when the other gives the life and being force and operation solely to the Corporation To apply this to our purpose Suppose every little particular Church were a Corporation first they must have a Charter to unite in a Covenant which nor he nor any man living can shew me and although these men vaunt mightily of Scripture and Contemn all Doctrine which is not delivered there yet this which seems to me their Corner Stone and main foundation they have no not the least shew of any words of Scripture which can authorize much lesse exact any such Covenant but then suppose they had some such Commission yet not their union upon the Commission but the other Authorities expressed in the Charter must be it which enables them to do whatsoever they do not their union by that Covenant for ask why any man preacheth administreth the Sacraments or the like the answer is not made from any union but from the Charter which granted it Now I come to his Minor but the visible Churches of Christ are Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Corporations I deny this Proposition absolutely that every particular Church is a distinct Corporation and else he saith nothing to his purpose but are Members or branches of that great Corporation the whole Catholick Church SECT VI. Scripture Phrases abused by him HE offers at Scripture to prove this page 51. Every particular Church saith he is a City Heb. 12. 22. an house 1 Tim. 3. 15. The body of Christ Ephes. 4. 13 16. 1 Cor. 12. 12 27 28. Here is Cyphered Scripture All these places saith he there are spoken of particular visible Churches When I viewed the places I was amazed to read the holy Scripture so injured and that mighty Article of our Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church to be made such a Nothing as by his Application of these Texts it is Let us Consider the particulars the first place is Heb. 12. 22. But ye are come unto Mount Sion and unto the â—ity of the living God this is the phrase he must pitch upon to prove it a City but mark what follows The heavenly
Jerusalem and an innumerable company of Angels then vers 23. to the General Assembly and Church of the first-born which are written in heaven and to God the Judge of all and to the Spirits of just men made perfect I cannot imagine with what colour of reason this can be applyed to a particular Church for although it may be affirmed That such men who are religiously united to such Churches are come to this glorious Society yet that that peculiar Church should be this City this mount Sion this heavenly Jerusalem cannot be admitted for first it is called City not Cities now if one Church be this City another cannot be it it is the heavenly Jerusalem an Innumerable Company of Angels the General Assembly the Church of the first-born which can be spoken of none but the universal Catholike Church of no particular in the world That it is this and such a Company let us look then upon his second place where he saith his particular Church is called an house 1 Tim. 3. 15 That thou mayst know how to behave thy self in the house of God which is the Church of the living God Hence he collects or no where that a Particular Church is a Corporation because an house A poor Consequence but see is this spoken of a Particular Church Mark the words following the pillar and ground of all Truth Can this be spoke of any particuliar of a little handfull of men in New England or in one Corner there I am sure the Church of Rome hath much more semblance for Rome than they can have for any of their Congregations which have been and are most unstable themselves much lesse supports for Christs Truth His 3d. place to prove this that particular Churches are Corporations is because they are termed the body of Christ for this he produceth Eph. 4. 13 16. The 13th verse hath not that phrase body but only saith in general that Christians must grow up in the unity of â—aith to the perfect Stature of Christ but in the 16th verse there is the name body from whom the whole body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplyes according to the Effectual working c. To understand this read the preceding verse where Christ is called the head and then think with your self whether this little Congregation can be his body spoke of or the whole Church or whether Christ be the head to so many bodies or whether all Christians are not Members of the same body His last place is 1 Cor. 12. 12. for as the body is one and hath many Members c. I am weary of transcribing Consider the body is one therefore not every Church a distinct body but there is one body the Catholick Church Then he urgeth ver 27 28. of the same Chapter verse 27. Now ye are the body of Christ and Members in particular Can a man choose but wonder to think that any man should offer to apply this to a particular Church to say it is the body of Christ The 28th verse reckons up the diverse Officers which God gave to govern these Churches which can be affirmed of none but the universal I am sure not of their particulars they have no Apostles neither literally nor successively Bishops no way This doth weary me but now you see all that is brought to prove this mighty Conclusion out of Scripture In brief to illustrate this Truth a little farther Conceive that the universal Church of Christ is like a City of which he is the King or Supream All men in baptism submit themselves to his Government He institutes Officers over the whole as I have before expressed these cannot actually be present every where and therefore by consent appoint these and these in their particular Wards or Precincts and as any man when he comes to plant in this or that City implicitely submits to the Government as of the City so of that particular part of the City where he lives so is it with Christians where they go any where in the Christian world having in general by Baptism submitted themselves to Christ and his Discipline take it in all places wheresoever it is So likewise the Church is an house Christ the Master in which every person in what room soever he rests can receive nothing but from his Officers The Church universal is a body he the head from which flow all those Spirits and Graces by which the body is enlivened Now as nothing can induce me to believe that each house in this City should be the City each Chamber in the house should be the house each member should be the body so a man cannot be perswaded that these particular Congregations which are parts of the whole should be that whole which is called by these Names CHAP. X. Another Argument answered I Now come to his second Argument which is thus framed Those who have mutual power each over other both to Command and Constrain in Conscience who were of themselves free each from other they must by mutual Agreement and Engagement be made partakers of that power But the Church of Believers have mutual power each over other to Command and Constrain in Conscience who were before free Therefore they must by mutual Agreement and Engagement be made partakers of that power I can guesse what he means by his Discourse but make no sense of this syllogism for in his Minor there is a Nown of the Singular number put to a Verb of the plural against Grammar the Church have when indeed if he would have expressed his meaning it should have been men in the Churches of believers or all men in all Churches of believers were such but I take it so SECT II. The Text If thy Brother offend thee Tell the Church vindicated HE offers to pâ—ove his Minor by Mat. 18. 15. If thy brother offend thee tell the Church In which saith he we have a legal and orderly way laid forth by our Saviour in which brethren only of the same Church ought to deal one with another which they cannot exercise with Infidels nor yet with other Christians as our own experience if we will take a taste will give undeniable evidence I deny his Minor being understood as I expressed for that ambiguous way of his delivering it in Nonsence poseth a Reader what to speak or think I say then that every particular man in a Church hath not power to command or constrain anorher let us examine his reason therefore out of Mat. 18. 15. If thy brother that is one of the same Church not an Inâ—idel nor yet other Christians This is his Collection but extreamly amisse for I dare confidently affirm that every Christian is our spiritual brother of what Congregation soever he is and it is an high kind of Impiety to deny it nay he is nearer than a brother a member of the same mystical body of which Christ is the head and therefore this Argument falls in the very first
head of this body So he is of Christs Church who is governed by the Lawes of his Church we are not born Citizens of the Heavenly Jerusalem but re-born by Baptism by which we submit to that Discipline and are Incorporated into his body Now then as a man of any City if he live in the East part so long as he lives there is governed according to the Laws of that City by the Constables and Officers whose Authority is there prevalent yet if he remove to the West part by the Lawes of the same City he is governed by other Officers yet by force of the same Law which ruled him before so a Christian submitting himself to Christs Discipline by Baptism if he live in any part of this City submits to those Governours which are there if in another to those which rule in that and all because a Citizen of that City and these are the powers of that City yea perhaps there are kinds of Governments in one part of the City diverse from another according to the condition of the plâ—ce one fittest for that one and another for that other and 〈◊〉 he submitting to the Law of that City varies in the manner of his Subjection according to the exigencies rules of every place by that general rule of submission to the Government of that â—ity This likewise is apparent in an house A Servant admitted into an house so a man by Baptism submits himself to the Oeconomical Discipline of that house and according to the diverse rules of that house in diverse rooms of it submits himself to divers men perhaps diverse Disciplines So in the Hall he meets with one Governour with another in the Kitchin another in the Larder another in the Pantry and in all these he hath diverse Officers to submit to and diverse wayes of Submission in diverse Things Consider it a Body and in a Body consider those parts which walk up and down and go to several parts of the body as blood and spirits each of these by that general rule and Law of being Ministerial parts of the body in their passages through diverse parts receive diverse disciplines and are obedient to several Lawes in the heart the hand the head yet all by that obedience they have to the Law of humane bodies not by a New Covenant in every particular place but by virtue of that first Covenant to be Servants to that head which governs all Now then thus you see by Baptism we are made Citizens of the Heavenly Jerusalem and that being a visible sign makes us visible Members of this visible Church SECT II. Baptism is not the Form which Constitutes aâ— Church-Member but the Visible Act by which men are made such I Would willingly leave this Truth so clearly expressed as it might be without Question therefore Consider a little further that I do not conceive that Baptism is the Form which Constitutes a Church Member but that Baptism is that visible Act by which a man is made a Member a visible Member of Christs Church and the Effect of that Act is that form which â—o Constitutes him The Indenture is not the form of an Apprentice but the Deed by which he is made an Apprentice and that relation or Quality which is got in the person bound is the Effect of that Indenture and is the formality of his Apprenticeship Now because Mr. Hooker seems to oppose this Doctrine I will examine his Arguments which he enters upon Part 1. Chap. 5. page 55. Proposing this Question Whether Baptism doth give formality to make a Member of a visible Church He answers negatively His First reason is SECT III. His First Argument and the Answer to it IF there be a Church and so Members before Baptism Then Baptism cannot give the formality But the Church as toâ—um Essentiale is before Baptism Ergo. He proves his Minor because Ministers are before Baptism this he proves because there must be a Church of believers to choose a Minister lawfully for none but a Church can give a Call One Absurdity granted a Thousand follow Consider which were first Ministers or Churches and whether the Churches did choose their â—â—rst Minister Did the Church or Christ choose their first Ministers the Apostles Did Crete choose or St. Paul ordain Titus their Minister In the second part he supposeth all true which he had discoursed in the first in the first part he supposeth all true which he means to discourse of in the second and indeed both grosly false Ministers were before Churches and did constitute Churches not they them but he gives an Instance page 56. Let it be supposed the coming of some Godly man I draw up his sence amongst Pagans and they are Converted by him may not these men choose him for their Pastor c. I answer Instances upon Extraordinary occasions cannot make general rules but in particular I deny that if he were not a Presbyter before they could make him their Pastor or that he hath power by any Call of theirs to administer the Seals and I can give Instances in particular passages of the same nature in Ecclesiastical Story but that which is an invincible reason against this and the whole force of this matter is that although people may have power to dispose of their own obedience to whom they will give it yet they cannot of Divine benedictions which God shall give them they must in that submit to Gods Ordinance and they who are not authorized by him cannot be chosen by them and therefore they cannot choose him a Pastor where God doth not make him his Officer for that purpose which unlesse he is a Presbyter he is not SECT IV. His Second Argument answered HIS second Argument is If Baptism gives the form to visible Membership then whiles that remains valid the party is a visible Member But there is true Baptism resting in the party who hath no visible Membership Ergo. He proves his Minor from short Instances in an Excommunicate man in him who renounceth the Fellowship of the Church or when the Church is absolutely destroyed then all Church Membership ceaseth To understand the force of this Argument I must deviate a little and discourse of what it is to be a Member of the Church of the force of Baptism in this work Know then that the Church is a body and an orgâ—nical body which hath many members which have diverse Offices an eye a foot c. and as St. Paul philosophyes 1 Cor. 12. and all this body is animated and informed by the same soul the holy Spirit the head of this body is Christ all this needs no proof I think but then that men are made Members of this body by Baptism that I shall apply my self to Consider therefore the 13. verse of that 12 Chap. of 1 Cor. By one Spirit we are baptized into one body whether we be Jewes or Gentiles c. Having in the preceding verse shewed that there are many members
Jesus seeing their faith said to the sick of the palsie Sâ—n thy sins be forgiven thee Observe they were divers persons whose fâ—ith he saw and but one to whom he spake and because some avoid it and say that within this word their is involved his who was sick his faith as well as theirs who carried him although this will appear a forced explication to them who consider the Text yet let it be granted I hope they will noâ— say his faith alone then theirs co-operated with him in the work then they could operate themselves for no second causes do cooperate one with another but when each hath the power then they had force of themselves towards the procuring of this blessing Consider then the blessing Son thy sins are forgiven thee what this was appears by the Dispute which followed the Scribes said He spake blasphemy none can forgive sins but God and our Saviour proved immediately that he was God in the 21. verse by saying to the sick of the palsie arise take up thy bed and walk and did the miracle so that it appears evidently first that faith precedes to induce Baptism before men can come to God that the coming of Infants is by others feet that the faith pre-required in Children is other mens faith for as it is with all supernatuâ—all works there is a passive faith in the object necessary to make it capable of that miracle without which miracles in the course of Gods ordinary doing them are not wrought and with which all things are possible both for our selves or those which belong to us and this faith in a Father is powerfull for his Son in a Master for his Servant So is it in Bâ—ptism faith is necessary to this great work of Adoption but faith of others in Children is only necessary and this is excellently exprest in the practice of the Civil Law which whether it received its rise from this or Circumcision or that the same principles which direct one are evident in the other I dispute not but it is some comfort even in Religion to see it illustrated by the wayes of prudent nature and the universall Axiomes of it This then is so illustrated although Adoption requrie the consent of both parties yet personally that is only done in such as are sui juris grown to such years as they are masters of themselvs and their own actions but such as are of such weak years as they are governed and under parents they can be and are adopted by their parents to another an adopting Father and their Covenants for the behalf and in the name of the Child both oblige the Child to filiall duties towards his new Father and likewise the Father to a fatherly care of the Son both in life by protecting him and in death by estating him in his Inheritance Thus did God with the Children of the Jewes at Circumcision that act by the Parents made the Child a debtor to that law and God to his Covenant of mercy to him So here is the hand of God accepting this act of Parents for their Children in Nature in the Law and in all footsteps of Gods Government the same discipline is observed I will conclude somewhat like that passage in Petrus Claniacensis a man famous for learning and piety as any of that Age in the Treatise of his against the Petro-brusians whose Opinions agreed in the point with our Anabaptists You see multitudes of men in Scripture had a faith prevalent for others and those but single persons or a few men that carried the Paralytick shall not the faith of the world of the whole Church be effectuall to these Infants A Father begs for his Son a Master for his Servant shall not Christian Parents yea the Christian Church be heard in prayer for these Infants God hath Covenanted Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name he will give it you John 16. 22. Ask say Divines constantly faithfully for good things according to Gods will non ponenti Obicem either for himself or others who do not stop by self-wickedness the power of prayers can then the constant prayers of the Church with that unshaken faith of hers be denyed its efficacy in a thing so pleasing to God to such persons who actually can put no hinderance to the power and efficacy of that prayer These things in Christian men canot be denyed and therefore in brief to the Argument Faith in all introduceth this Covenant in Baptism and moves the receiver to be adopted to God and therefore observe that the Apostle as he verse 26. Ye are all the Children of God by faith so in the 27th verse he brings a reason For as many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ. The reason why they are the Children of God by faith is because that such as have this faith are moved to be baptized and they put on Christ. The faith of him who is master of his own actions makes him be baptized the faith of him who is master of his Childs actions causeth him to bring his Child to this Adoption and yet methinks it hath not only power concerning this blessing before the act of Adoption to bring men to it but even in it to accept it for although there were all the affection in the world to it before yet if faith fail in the Act that man would hold from accepting such a Covenant whereby he had no confidence to be blessed but this faith doth only make him Covenant but it self is not the Covenant Thus I suppose I have spoken abundantly to Mr. Hookers second Argument and to such Objections which I have thought upon as most opposing this Doctrine I have delivered and although I could frame many more of this nature yet what is said to these will serve the turn for them likewise and therefore I let them pass SECT X. Mr. Hookers third Argument answered THomas Hookers third Argument page 54. is thus framed This Tenent doth necessarily evidence the Church of Rome to be a true Church which is thus gathered Where all the members are true members there the Church is a true Church But all the members in all the Congregations of Rome are true members Ergo. This Minor he proves because they are baptized I would first know what is the harm if we allow the Church of Rome to be a true Church true in the essentials of a Church though sick and full of corrupt Doctrines I have shewed and it is most true that many men be in a Church yea in the Catholick Church and not be saved and perhaps there may be an whole Church such as Mr. Hooker would have and scarce a man of them saved without the same means as many in the Church of Rome are saved by And therefore by the way I adde that the Church of Rome is not only a Church but a saving Church such as I doubt not but multitudes are saved in for they have not only a Doctrine
of essentially true Baptism to admit men into the Church but they have a Doctrine essentially true of repentance to let men out of it and I am confident that those men which so die with their repentance and contrition for sins and a desire of a new life and a trust in Christ that he hath satisfied for their sins and have no wilfull errors but their other errors are such as are invincible and upon that ground beg with David the Lord to forgive them their secret sins I say such a soul shall be saved notwithstanding multitudes of errors both in belief and practice And this Doctrine is taught in the Church of Rome although mixed with many errors for which yet they have many such seeming reasons as to such who are not allowed to converse with men or read Books of another belief may be sufficient to excuse them at the last day So that although the errors taught in the Church of Rome are not safe yet the fundamentals taught among them annexed to that Doctrine of repentance may be accepted by Almighty God according to his Covenant in Jesus Christ to their salvation This Controversie hath been most learnedly handled by Chillingworth and others I let it pass therefore and will examine his Major which is extreamly far from truth Where all the members are true members there the Church is a true Church This Proposition is false all the members of a dog are true members all the members of a man are true members but there is no true Church where that Turk is or where that dog is Thus as he sets it down it is grosly false nor can I adde any one term to mend it the likeliest I can may be this That Church where every member is a true member that Church is a true Church But yet this is false according to themselves for a Church as we dispute of it is totum Integrale under that notion we conceive it to have members but many times there may be many hands and many feet which stick together and yet do not make a true totum Integrale which consists of a perfect body with all its severall parts and yet these are true parts of their severall bodies these hands of Richard those of William so there may be divers Lay-men Congregated or divers Pastors which are severally each of them true members perhaps of other Congregations yet in that body make not up a true Church which consists of all parts Pastors Teachers c. Let me adde one term more In that Church where all the members are true members of it there that Church is a true Church This is false likewise for in a representative Officer each member is a true member of him of a false or counterfeit King each member is a true member of him but he is not a true Officer or true King and for him to urge that he who is a false Officer is no Officer and that Congregation which is not a true Church is no Church then he by making these members of the Church of Rome and calling it a Church of Rome makes it a true Church himself So that either this Proposition means nothing or it is absolutely false This I speak to shew that although the Conclusion which he conceives of an undeniable evidence were true as I have proved it false yet it would in no means be deduced from that Major no not with the addition of two or three the most assisting terms I could adde to it and so I come to his fourth Argument which is thus framed SECT XI His fourth Argument answered THat which is a Seal of the Covenant and our Incorporation into the Church visible that cannot be the form of it At primum verum Ergo. I put down his very words which forceth me to adde his Minor But Baptism is the Seal c. Ergo Baptism is not the form This Proposition he proves thus Because the Seal comes after the thing sealed but the form goes before These things are so grosly delivered and so without all illustration that it is hard to speak to it for this is all he speaks in that place to this business what he addes against Mr. Rutherford I am nothing concerned in nor do I know what Mr. Rutherford replyes to this nor can conceive it by him In a word I deny his Major That say I which is the Seal may be the form of the Covenant in such cases where the Seal is made an essentiall part of it as in such deeds where Sealing is necessary as in Law where signing sealing and delivering altogether make the form of that Covenant where they are so required and Baptism is all these so that if he had said that which is a Seal alone cannot make the form I would have denyed his Minor and have said that Baptism is not a bare Sign as he will and doth confess but signing and delivering on both sides Now to illustrate this Proposition in such cases such Seals as I have described are the form of those Covenants Consider that the form of every thing is that which gives it ability to work that which is its proper work this doth signing sealing and delivering do every Deed is like a dead body before but when sealed it receives a soul and is able to work which it could not do before Again the form of every thing is the last addition to it that which he speaks in his proof that a form goes before the thing sealed or rather informed or constituted and a Seal comes after is very vain and weak for it is true as it being a constituting principle and a cause of that it produceth it is therefore as the Logicians speak prius naturâ non effectu before it in nature not in time The Sun is in nature before its light because its light proceeds out of it fire before heat yet they are simul tempore children of the same birth and one cannot be without both are The soul of man is before a man in nature because it is a constituting cause yet by them that hold it created Creando infunditur infundendo creatur and they that hold it ex Traduce give it no prae-existence in time to the man and what he sayes of a Seal it comes after in such cases where Seals are essentiall they are before the Seal comes and like a soul put into a body it gives it ability to work and in that state is precedent in nature So that you see Seals in such Deeds as well as forms are before the vivacity of a Covenant in nature though both are simul in time and therefore such Seals may be forms and indeed are forms as is before exprest being that which gives the Covenant sealed its form and power to work and likewise the last thing which comes to actuate that thing in which it is but because that when the Seal is gone yet the form of the Covenant remains and forms having permanent
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
should not Ordain Priests Vasques in answer to this saith that the imposition of the Hands of Bishops is not to be understood of many Bishops laying on their Hands at the same time upon the same man but that several Bishops at several times laid their Hands upon several Chori-Episcopi but to this may be urged that word quamvis as one or etiamsi as another Edition why should the Canon say although he be Ordained by the imposition of Hands of Bishops and Consecrated as a Bishop this although would there signifie nothing for he should not be by it distinguished from a Presbyter but because some were and some were not Ordained by Bishops it reacheth even those who were so Ordained Doctor Forbes is not content with this answer of Vasques but adds another of his own at the bottom of Page 171. and throughout 172 where before cited the sence of which is that the imposition of Hands here mentioned is not to be understood passively for the imposition of Hands which they receive themselves but actively for that imposition of Hands which they had power of to give I think I have set it down as clearly as his words can be rendered for indeed his Language is as obscure as the Canon it self but this is most forced nor indeed can a man conceive Canonically how a Chori-Episcopus could receive that active which he mentions unless he had received it passively first by the imposition of Hands of divers Bishops nor can a man well imagine in that Language ut Episcopi Ordinantur what that ut should mean if it did not come to explain the former Phrase of imposition of Hands of divers Bishops so that then for ought I see Bellarmines exposition against both these adversaries is the most clear and congruous to the Canon let us now examine Pope Damasus's Arguments as they are scholastically urged by Vasques and that is the marrow of all that is in this Epistle SECT V. Damasus his first Argument against the Chori-Episcopi answered Damasus seems to me eitheir with Bellarmine to think there were two sorts of Chori-Episcopi in the time of making the Canon which may be perswaded because although he begins with this Argument from the Plural number before urged yet he never endeavours an answer to it or else believing them all but Presbyters he thinks that his other Argument may invalid this and notwithstanding this being deficient in other things they are not Bishops by it His first Argument is drawn from the word Chori which signifies Countrey they were but country Bishops when as all Bishops should be of a City To this I answer that although such Canons may be made for the establishment of the government of Churches in a setled Kingdom where are such Cities for the Decorum and honour of the Episcopal Sea yet it cannot be in unsetled States as suppose the Gospel should be preached in the barbarous places of the West-Indies where are no such places to give Episcopacy that honour yet the Church may and ought to be planted and governours put into them to regulate their discipline oâ— else things will go backward faster than forward in the matters of Religion Again we may conceive if such Canons be insisted upon that they should be understood of prime and chief Bishops not such as are Vicarii Episcoporum that is vicars of the chief Bishops Now it may happen that there be a necessity of such vicars and they may be of great use to the Bishop of the City whose Diocess is large as will appear shortly and these Chori-Episcopi although they may be impeded in the execution of their office by the superior authority of the Bishop of the City yet with his consent are impowred to Ordain in these cases which is most agreeing to the letter of the Canon according to any Edition either sine or praeter or whatsoever it is This is enough I think for the first Argument of Pope Damasus SECT VI. His next Argument answered ANother is thus framed there are but two Orders of Priesthood Bishops and Presbyters this he enlargeth and proves from the Church under the Law where were Aaron and his Sons only in the Priesthood as likewise from our Saviour himself who had only Apostles and Disciples so saith he it should be in the present Church now it seems these Chori-Episcopi are neither they esteem themselves greater than Presbyters and yet are not Bishops wherefore nothing in answer what they esteem themselves I know not but we have good reason to think some were Bishops and some only Presbyters and they who were Bishops might act these great offices of Ordaining Priests and Deacons with leave of the Bishop of the Diocess those who were only Priests could not Thus Damasus his Arguments are are of no force against that Canon of Antioch and therefore Vasques himself acknowledgeth in that 238. Disp. Cap. 7. That Damasus did conceive that in the time of the Council of Antioch some Chori-Episcopi were Bishops and he affirms that if they had Episcopal Consecration although they were but titular Bishops and so had no place assigned at their Consecration where they should officiate yet they had that power granted them at their Consecration which might be reduced into act whensoever a place was assigned them and yet Damasus condemns them for the future which was never obeyed SECT VII One word in the Canon more explained THere is one word more in the Canon which may abide a misinterpretation and is somewhat insisted upon by Doctor Forbes that is in the latter end of the Canon it is said that he the Chori-Episcopus must be Ordained by the Bishop to whom he and his possession are subject Now if he be Ordained by one Bishop only certainly he is but a Presbyter for although as I have said in a case of necessity one Bishop hath been allowed to Consecrate and the power Apostolical was to them Separative to every one to Ordain yet when Laws were substituted by Ecclesiastique authority for the well government of the Church and severe punishments inflicted upon the violation of them as are in this case it is not reasonable to think that men living in obedience to that Church should dare â—o break them in publique and that constantly as it seems this is for answer to this I say that this makes it evident that this Canon is delivered concerning a double sort of Chori-Episcopi some that were made by the imposition of Hands of divers Bishops and others that were ordained by one only which is all is required and so I will pass to my last proposal to shew what these Chori-Episcopi were CHAP. XVI What the Chori-Episcopi were IT is a hard task which I do not find clearly delivered by any what I find shall be set down and leave the determination to others In general my conceipt of them is this that as it happens in other Parisnes where Presbyters have the charge that where they are large and
although perhaps some who had not and I think there is little of moment to be found in antiquity concerning them which is not observed by me there is an Epistle of John the third Pope of that name but it is rejected by Binius and so slighted by me And yet me thinks some may ask my opinion of those Churches where are no Bishops first I dare censure no man much less such large Congregations amongst which I know there are many learned men and no doubt but full of Piety I may be deceived and so may they humanum est errare but certainly in that acquaintance that I have with antiquity there seems to me no ground for them there nor in the Scripture these few pieces which this learned Gentleman had Collected are but old totered Rags which cannot abide to be stitched to this new Garment they have nothing to excuse themselves but necessities which whether they have sufficient or no to excuse them let their own Souls Judge God will I dare not FINIS THE TABLE A Apostles their Election and to what 7. Their Number whence their Name their Office 8. To whom sent 9. What to Preach 10. The Apostles power whence 22. The Apostles truly had the Power of Preaching to all the world 23. 24. The Apostles only commissioned to Baptize 25. The Apostles only to Administer the Communion 27. B Baptism instituted by our Saviour 12. The Baptism of our Saviour and St. John not the same 13. Whether our Sacramental Baptism be the same with that before Christs death 14. 15. Not the same the Objections answered 16. 17. The Baptism instituted by Christ not in force till after his death 18. Whether Baptism administred by Laymen be valid 29. Of Bishops their distinction from Presbyters 94 First Argument from Scripture for their Points 96. The Argument examined 97. And answered 99. The Exception that Titus was an Evangilist but not a Bishop answered 99. Objection for their points from Acts 20. 28. answered 101. C An outward Call necessary to a Minister 129. This Call hath a Moral not a Physâ—cal influence 130. The Character left after Ordination 132. The Communion instituted by our Saviour 18. The Apostles Ministers of it 19. 20. Instituted before our Saviours death 20. 21. Mutual covenanting of the Saints gives not the Being to a Visible Church 157. What this Covenant is Explicit or Implicit 159. The Reasons for it answered 159 c. Other Arguments answered 165. 167 c D The Election of the Seventy Disciples 11. The Differences betwixt them and the Apostles 96. Deacons as afterwards used in the Church not instituted Acts 6. 37 38. Arguments proving this 39. 40. The opposing Arguments answered 43. Some of the first Deacons Preachers 40. What the Office of a Deacon 45. E Of Lay-Elders 59. What a Lay-Elder is in the Disciplinarian sense 60. No such Elders in Scripture 61. Places of Scripture urged for them answered ibid. Third Argument of Mr. Thomas Hooker for Lay-Elders answered 62 c 69. 74. 75. St. â—auls Elder signifies but one Office 66. St. Ambrose's words urged for Lay-Elders expounded 86. c. The design of making Lay-Elders 88. What the word Especially imports 1 Tim. 5. 17. 68. What an Evangelist is 106. G Gifted men may Preach if licenced by the Bishop otherwise not 84 85. H What Double Honour signifies 1 Tim. 5. 17. 68. Mr. Thomas Hookers opinion concerning Deacons examined 45 46. Rom. 12. 8. expounded against him 47 48. c. His Deacon enforced from this place of Scripture Confuted 53. The first Confutation of Mr. Thomas Hooker out of this Text. 54 55. His Second Argument refuted 56. His Third Argument refuted 57. His First Argument from Reason refuted 57. His Second and Third Argument from Reason answered 58. Another Argument answered 59. Mr. Thomas Hookers distinction of Pastors and Teachers refuted 90 c. I Episcopal Jurisdiction proved 115 L What Labouring in the Word imports 1 Tim. 5. 17. 67. 86. M What the word Minister signifies 1. The Definition of a Minister 2. The Definition explained 3. c. The Power to be a Minister must come from God 3. 6. Motion is to Relation 208 209. O Touching Ordination 121. Mr. Thomas Hookers definition of Ordination confuted 122. What Ordination is 123. Ordination not before Election 224. Men may be Ordained without the Election of the People 125. Whether Ordination gives all the Essentials to an Officer 128. Of Pastoral Ordination 140. P St. Peter had no greater power given him by Christ than the other Apostles 28. The chief Arguments for his superiority answered ibid. A vindication of our Common Prayer-Book in the number of the Sacraments 131. A Digression concerning Preaching 76. What Preaching is 78. To what Preaching every Presbyter is bound 80. The peculiar Interest a Presbyter hath in Preaching 82. Who is authorized to Preach 83. What a true Presbyter is 89. A Power is left by Christ to some men whereby they communicate Power to others 156. R Relation may be the principle of Action 211. One Relation may be the Foundation of another 242. What Ruling well imports 1 Tim. 5. 17. 67. A The Apostles only intrusted with the power of the Keys 29 30. Other Apostles besides the Twelve 31 32 33. The reason of it 33. The Apostolical power extended to all the world 34. How the Apostolical power was Communicated 35. How the Apostolical power was communicated to particulars 36. B Second Argument for Parity answered 102. Third Argument for it answered 104. Fourth Argument concerning Jurisdiction answered 106. An Argument from Ordination by Presbyters answered 107. An Argument out of St. Hierome answered 108. Bishops succeeded the Apostles in all that is Apostolical though not in their extraordinary endeavours 142. Baptism not the Form which constitutes a Church-Member but no Visible Act by which he is made a Member 171. Mr. Thomas Hookers Arguments against this Opinion answered 171 172 c. Baptism hath all things necessary to a real Relation 219. E Episcopacy setled by the Apostles in the Church 111. First Argument from Scripture to prove Episcopacy 113. A Second Argument to prove it 114. The Revelation of St. John assorts Episcopacy 117. St. Cyprian urged as favouring The People having the power of Electing their Ministers explained the Objection answered 126. Arguments from the Election of the Deacon Acts 6. examined 127. Other Arguments answered 133 c. 149 c. An Excommunicate man is a Member of the Church 175. Bellarmines Arguments against this Opinion answered 176 c. C Scriptures written of the Catholique Church grossely misapplyed by Mr. Thomas Hooker to particular Churches 162 c. What is meant by the Church and our Saviours saying Tell the Church 166. What makes a Church Visible 169. Such as renounce the fellowship of the Church are yet Members of the Church 180. The Arguments against this Opinion answered 181 c. 190 c. Some difficulties of this Opinion cleared 187. What
the Character left in Baptism is and the Definition of it 205. In what Predicament this Charaâ—â—er is 207. The Foundation of this Character is the Will of God 213. 218. Durandus holds this Character to be Ens Rationis 215. Is opposed by all the Schoolmen but their Arguments do not confute him ibid. The Subject of this Character is the whole man 221. THE TABLE OF THE Appendix A The Apostles were Bishops prov'd 233. The first of the Apostolical Canons examined 249. The anointing the Bishops hand no necessary essential to his Constituion 258. Sect. 6. Athanasius's testimony that meer Presbyteers could not Ordain even in Alexandria 27â— The Council of Antioch Schismatical and Illegal 274. B Bishops have ever been in the Church 231. Whether three Bishops be necessary to the Consecration of a Bishop 246. Sect. 1. Ans. Reg. The Consecration of St. James Bishop of Jerusalem objected and answered 248. What is essential to Constitute a Bishop 263. 264. Baptism not void by different circumstances in the Celebration of it P. 256. Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch's interpretation of the Canon of that Council approved 274 277. Bellarmine too hardly dealt withall by Dr. Forbes 278. Not confuted by him 279 280. St. Basil's Opinion of the Chori-Episcopi 286. C The Church Universal never was nor can be without a Bishop 231. The Church of Ephesus not governed by meer Elders but Bishops 233. The Church was without Elders till the Apostles Ordained them 232. Christianity may be continued but Church-communion and Ordinances cannot without Bishops 235. The Consecration of St. James Bishop of Jerusalem discussed 247. Three Bishops are not by Divine Right necessary to a Bishops Consecration 246. The Canon called the Apostles Canon about the Consecration of Bishops examined 249. The Canon of the Council of Nice examined 250 251. And proved to concern the Election not the Consecration of Bishops ibid. The second Canon of the Council of Carthage concerning the Consecration of Bishops 259. The Catholike Church does concentre in this conclusion that when words importing the Blessing are delivered by a Consecrating Bishop and those words are sealed by an imposition of Hands then those Holy Orders are effectually given 265. in the begin No Church in the Christian world ever gave simple Presbyters power to Ordain 270. The Chori-Episcopi have not power to Ordain proved 274. Unless they be Suffragans 279. 282. Cresperius's reading of the Canon of Antioch alledged for the Chori-Episcopi viz. not praeter but propter Conscientiam Episcopi 278. Chori-Episcopi were but Presbyters because Ordained by one Bishop alone 282. S. 7. ☞ Two sorts of Chori-Episcopi P. 283. What they were 284. D Dr. Forbes's arguments answered from P. 232 to 284. Deacons not necessary in every Parochial Church 240. Difference in the Form or words does not disanull a Sacrament 256. The distinction of Orders is known by the manner of the laying on of Hands and the form of words as in our Church used in the pronunciation of the Blessing 265. Sect. 2. Damasus his reading upon the Canon of Antioch 276. vid. 279. Which doth sufficiently answer Dr. Forbes his Arguments against all Chori-Episcopi having power of Ordination answered 281. His second Argument answered 282. Decrees of divers Councils examined 284 285. E The Church of Ephesus not Governed by meer Elders but Bishops 233. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated Eligi to be Elected or chosen 251. lin 13 Elders were not in the Church till the Apostles Ordained them 232 What is essential to the Constitution of a Bishop 254. Explicatory additions do not destroy the notion of that which they explain 257. in the end The only essential ceremony if any be in the Consecration of Bishops is the laying on of Hands 264. The essence of Ordination cheifly consists in the pronouncing the Blessing with the notes of distinction of the Orders then conferred 265. vid. 268. S. 4. The Errors committed in the Inauguration of Popes no President for reformed Churches in the Consecration â—f Bishops 269. The Church of England's Rites of Consecration defended Sect. 4. 268. F Dr. Forbes's first Argument from Scripture answered 232. His first Argument to prove their Ordination after Bishops were instituted answered 235. His Argument taken out of Johannes Major answered from 235. to 238. His Argument from the Church of Rome answered 239. His Argument from Deacons answered 240. His Argument from Scripture answered ibid. His Argument out of St. Hierome answered 242. His Argument from Pelagius's Ordination answered 244. 245. His Argument from St. Ambrose and St. Augustine answered 271. His Argument from the council of Antioch 274. to 284. G Gasper Hurtado's opinion about the Consecration of Bishops examined 261. ☞ The Gospel laid upon the Bishops Neck not essential to his Consecration because there were Bishops befoâ—e the Gospel was written 260. vid. 266. to 268. Gentianus Hervetus his reading of the Canon of Antioch 277. the begin H Henricus Henriques opinion that some papers wherein the Gospel was written might be given to the primitive Bishops in their Consecrations is found invalid 261. I Imposition of Hands the only necessary and essential ceremony if any be to the Consecration of Bishops 264. Inauguration of Popes no President for the Consecration of reformed Bishops P. 243. vid. 269. Imposition of the Hands of Presbyters alone is not sufficient for â—rdination 270. Ischyras was no Priest because Ordained by no Bishop 272. the begin Isidore Hispalensis his reading of the Canon of Antioch makes nothing for Dr. Forbes 277. L The laying on of Hands only essentially necessary to the constitution of a Bishop 264. Linus and Clemens were Chori-Episcopi to St. Peter 284 about the midst Laodicean Canon forbids the Chori-Episcopi to act any thing without the leave of their Diocesan 285. M The manner of the imposition of Hands distinguisheth what Orders are conferr'd 265. S. a. Moderation to be used towards every opponent though never so much mistaken 278. S. 4. N Necessity only can justify the Ordination of Presbyters 270. No Church ever gave meer Presbyters power to Ordain ib. The Canon of Nice examined 250 251. The Eighth Canon of the Council of Nice 285. O Objections against the Authors opinion concerning the Consecration of Bishops answered 265. The first Objection answered ib. Objection from the Council of Carthage answered from 266. to 268. Objection against the Church of Englands Rites of Consecration answered 268. objection taken from the Council of Antioch answered From 272 to 274. P Panormitan's Argument answered 234 Presbyters may Elect not Ordain a Bishop 242. Pelagiu ' s Ordination related Sect. 1. P. 243. The Patriarch of Antioch his interpretation of the Canon of the Council of Nice 250. c. The Pope cannot dispence with Divine Laws 253. Petrus Arcadius's discourse illustrated and applied Sect. 2. 255 c. The Pontifical differs in many things from the Canon of the Carthaginian Council in the rites of Consecration 267. Presbyters alone could
his malice against the Christians relieve not their own poor only but ours with a Counterfeit holinesse There he acknowledgeth the Christians abundant Charity in those dayes when he made all Christians poor and because he would not be out-acted in a Work of so much piety he gave that Priest the Collection of vast sums towards the relief of necessitous people This was necessary in Time of persecution but what further use is there of it in particular Churches than those Collectors for the poor which we have and Charity and Sweetnesse preached to men whereby they may be spurred on to enlarge their hearts beyond the Exactions of Statute-Duties to the overflowing of Charity Now then because it was an Occasional Office necessary then and there at such times in such places we cannot conceive why it should enforce such an Office perpetual in the Church and universally in all places or Churches SECT V. Another Argument to prove the former Conclusion SEcondly Consider the businesse they were designed to we shall not find that ascending to these Ministerial Duties it being only to relieve the body not the Soul to take Care of the Tables to look that the Grecian widows and poor be not despised in Consideration of the Native Jews I know it is objected by Catherive that these Tables there spoken of was the Lords Table and the Ministration they were imployed about was the Communion but these phrases of Daily Ministration and the murmure of the Grecians do inforce the other for if they had a daily Communion it is not to be imagined the Apostles would be standers by at so heavenly a Duty and if they were actors it cannot be thought that any should be neglected in it I therefore with a mighty Consent of Writers Conclude that it was an Administration of Temporal Things but the Administration of such maketh not to that Ministry we speak of which concerns things so Spiritual as affect the Soul immediately with some Divine blessing when these immediately only concern the body and Temporal Things and therefore could not belong to our Ministry SECT VI. A third Reason for the former Conclusion A Third Reason may be drawn from the persons which were elected into the Office which were as Epiphanius reports in the end of his 20. Chapter of his first Book Contra Haereses of the Seventy two Disciples of which Number there he reckons many more of equal rank if not an higher esteem than these Now then if they were of those Seventy two it is not reason to think that they should be Ordained into an Inferiour Order of Clergy and the lowest of all for all hold that they were Presbyters at the least either by their first Ordination from our Saviour when he sent them to preach and baptize the lost Sheep of the house of Israel or else by a Confirmation from the Apostles after they were invested with the whole Ecclesiastical power in themselves by that Grand Charter As my Father sent me c. Now then this had been a disparagement to Presbytery But lest any man should doubt whether these were Presbyters or no let him Consider that extraordinary work of St. Stephen who went up and down as you may read in the latter part of the 6th Chapter of the Acts doing Miracles and disputing and preaching I dare call it so say Mr. Thomas Hooker what he can with such a Spirit as they could not resist But Mr. Thomas Hooker in his Survey of Church Discipline Part 2. Chap. 2. pag. 36. denyes St. Stephen to be a Preacher and that most Sermon-like discourse I am sure of his Acts 7. he calls an Apology not a Sermon truly I see little of Apology in it and I know some have drawn a little Body of Divinity out of it and I know that vers 51. he drawâ— a most powerfull invective against their manners which cost him his present life in this World If Mr. Hooker will not allow this to be a Sermon he can find few in the whole New Testament SECT VII Some of these were Preachers BUT he shall not escape me so Though this propagation of the Gospel will not be allowed to be a Sermon because I cannot find an express Term so pâ—rasing his discourse I will shew him another of these Deacons in the next Chapter Acts 8. whose discourses to this purpose are called preaching that is of Philip Acts 8. 5. Then Philip went down to the City of Samaria and preached Christ to them The very word used for preaching in English as well as the Original is there placed Hooker himself where before alledged although he omits this verse yet cites the 38th verse of that 8th Chap. where Philip is said to baptize the â—unuch therefore more than a Deacon by his Doctrine but in vain that as I shall shew hereafter But now I will examine his Answer SECT VIII Whether Philip were an Evangelist and what an Evangelist PHilip saith he was an Evangelist and so appointed by God as afterwards appears and by virtue of that and not of his Deaconship he did baptize Indeed he is called an Evangelist Acts 21. 8. And lest we might think them two Philips the Text saith he was one of the Seven that is one of those Seven was chosen Acts 6. to take Care of the Poor but by the way consider that neither then or elsewhere in Scripture are these Seven called Deacons Well first Consider here was a great space of time betwixt the 8. and the 21. Chapt. he might be an Evangelist long after and not one then Degrees and dignities came by steps not the highest at first but suppose he were and suppose he was one before he was made Treasurer or Overseer of the Poor and suppose I conceive an Evangelist did preach the Gospel might baptize then I Conclude that such a man was at the least a Presbyter and that he was as it were degraded in being made such a Deacon by his Consent a Deacon hath nothing to do with Spiritual things but only the Treasure of the Church And therefore it is strange that both he and my Lord Say and Nathaniel Fiennes in their Speeches at the beginning of this Parliament affirmed That because the Apostles would not have Ecclesiastical men meddle with Temporal things they instituted a new Office out of their rank for the performing even these Duties of Charity which in nothing agrees with the Text for it seems at the first the Church layd all the burthen upon the Apostles when they put it off then they chose Ecclesiastical men again and such as were next them either of the Septuagint or else Evangelists certain we may be famous Churchmen St. Stephen Philip and the rest who have honourable mention in Ecclesiastical Story SECT IX An Objection answered BUT before I Conclude this Argument I will frame one great Objection Acts 6. 2. The Apostles said it is not reason we should leave the word of God and serve Tables was it not
reason that they should and why should others do it Yes much differenâ—â— one Sermon of the Apostles and prayer of theirs is of greater power and force with God than twenty others they out of Duty must travell through the whole world they cannot attend the Care of the poor in a particular City the others though being Evangelists may upon particular Occasions be called off from their place yet they shall return again and overview their Charge the people therefore when they could not have their particular eyes over that blessed work took those that were next them in that dubious time to take Care of the poor and these men could not therefore be chosen to an Inferiour Constant Office such as they feign their Deacons to be because â—hey were men of higher Employment and greater Concernment in the Church but were chosen for that Occasion how long I know not to attend that Duty SECT X. Another Argument for the former Conclusion A Fourth reason may be drawn from the Design which Mr. Hooker takes for this Office which is such as would make any Nation tremble to think upon an Erection of the greatest Tyranny which ever was exercised in any Commonwealth you shall find it described in the 36 37 pages where before For first he is Treasurer this may be without exception Secondly he must addresse himself to receive what is brought into the Treasury but mark not what is but what ought to be brought into the Treasury to be committed to his Trust for this briefly I will set down his sense purpose he must inform himself by advice and counsel from the body what every mans Free-will Offerings should be this upshot results out of his Discourses that only Free-will Offerings should be accepted yet because the maintenance of Church and poor must not be arbitrary they must understand mens Estates as well as they can if they be negligent admonish them then if they stirr not go to Christs Discipline tell the Church and so upon contempt of that to Eccleliastical Censure To this purpose he cites two places Deut. 16. 10. and Levit. 22. 18 19. In both which places if he had transcribed the words without further trouble there could have no more appeared but that men should bring their Free-will Offerings and then do this or this but the Sin lay upon him who was to bring it in he was not to be compelled to it nor do they perhaps they will say but I will reply Ecclesiastical Censure of putting out of the Church making a man an Heathen is the greatest Compulsion in the World and as they order it upon the Consultation and Advice of the Deacon it will arise to be upon the Imagination of the Deacon and instead of his Judgement perhaps oftentimes unlesse they be better than those the Apostles used before this election the partial Affection of the Deacon which would betray Souls to a most unhappy and arbitrary Government for Religion for Estates SECT XI The opposing Arguments answered UPon these reasons I am perswaded that the Office of a Deacon was not established in that of Acts 6. to be as a rule for all Churches but only these 〈…〉 of and Authorized in this great 〈…〉 that diâ—y in the Church at that time and thus I have disproved those Answers which Mr. Hooker seems to frame to my reasons his Arguments for confirmation of his Cause I shall undertake in a more proper place presently yet least men may think I introduce a new Opinion into the world know that this was the Opinion of St. Chrysostom and Oecumenius Estius in 4 Sent. dist 24. Sect. 18. observes as much and for Oecumenius throws him out with Cujus Authoritas non ita magni est momenti For St. Chrysostom it is in his 14 Homily upon the Acts about the middle he saith it is so obscure that it may be suspected of Corruption I answer it is very clear and no man will corrupt a Father without a design which cannot appear in this what it should be but rather than yield he will charge the rest of his Doctrine because saith he he affirms non fuisse Episcopos tunc in Ecclesia when Acts 1. it is said let another take his Bishoprick To this I reply that he saith not there were no Bishops but Apostolos solos only the Apostles and this is true nor Presbyter neither yet as will appear hereafter But now it may be enquired Was there no such Office as that of a Deacon proper to the Church SECT XII Whether there be such an Office as a Deacon proper to the Church YEs without question in the 1 of Tim. 3. 8. St. Panl describes at large the Qualifications of such a man who must be chosen to that Office I shall need no proof of it because all consent to this Conclusion but if a man should enquire when and where he was Ordained I must answer I know not nor do I find any Register of it in the New Testament nor amongst any learned men any Consent the greatest is upon that place in the 6. of the Acts which seems to me to be built upon weak grounds the Church of Rome in general makes all their seven Ordeâ— to be erected at the Institution of the Communion by our Saviour but I leave that imagination as of no moment since there is no word in Scripture which seems to countenance it and I will passe from this Question to the other What his Office was to do CHAP. VI. What is the Office of a Deacon THE Office what it was receives the greatest Illustration from his Name which signifies a Minister a Servant to the Ecclesiastical Officers Bishops or Presbyters so that as when a man is known to be a Minister or Servant to another he is by that made apparent to do such things as Conduce to the assistance of him who is his Superiour or Prelate in his Office so do these in respect of their Superiours Bishops and Presbyters I do not find one word in Scripture setting down what their Office was we can therefore have no knowledge of it but from the History of the Church from which we receive that their Office was to Baptize to assist at the Communion with delivering the Cup and sometimes the Body but not to Consecrate so likewise to assist in the Divine Service some other things we find various according to the Customs of Churches but all these are subordinate and ministerial Offices likewise they had power to preach upon particular occasions and licenses given to wit by that Order they had a qualification to receive a License these things I can particularly give an Account to be the sense of the Ancient Church if any man require it but am loath also to lose Time about it only I will now undertake Mr. Hooker SECT II. Mr. Hookers opinion concerning a Deacon examined HE therefore Part 2. Chap. 1. falsly printed for Chap. 2. page 33. in his third Acception of his
than where they have some manner of residence hath therefore restrained the execution of it in other places than where they have that residence both to avoid Confusion which otherwise must necessarily arise out of the Intermedling in other mens precincts and likewise because the main scope of their endeavours may be applyed to that place in a near Obligation every one being for the most part worthy of the Incumbents utmost labour And this they did by the Apostles own example who appointed Timothy Titus Epaphroditus their several Diocesse yet we must further Conceiâ—e that this Alotment of the Church is not such as doth lay any restraint upon the power given by the Spiris but directs it only for although a Particular man may offend by intruding into another mans Pastoral precincts and Officiating there yet factum valet so that if a Bishop give Orders in another mans Diocesse as was the famous Case of Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus in St. Chrysostoms Diccesse at Constantinople or a Presbyter Administer the Communion in anothers Parish which is the common practice these things although done without leave from the peculiar Pastor are valid to the receivers although punishable in the Actors Yea yet once again although a man be placed in a Pastoral Charge and shall either find upon his own certain experience or the Judgement of his Superiours that he can advance the Glory of God or improve his own Commission by removing to another place either for a time as Timothy and Titus and the rest beneficed in particular places were yet upon urgencies of the publick good called aside from the more particular Charge to the more publick where they were employed or else if their whole residence may more advance the general Good of the whole Flock over which they are made Overseers they ought to remove totally to that great Occasion So when a man of great Abilities shall be beneficed in a private Corner where perhaps lesse Abilities would as well if not better agree it becomes him to be removed to a place better befitting his Qualifications or a man indowed with the strength of rational Divinity such a man to be sent to the propagating the Gospel in the Indies among the Heathen and he ought to endeavour to put himself into such an employment because he is a Pastor of the whole flock for which Christ dyed So that now I think it appears manifestly that an Apostle and another Pastor differ not in this that one was an Universal Pastor and the other a Particular but contrarywise they are both habitually or Potentià Pastors of the whole Word actually pastorizing in some particular only This caused all those admonitions from one Bishop to another of which the Fathers are full This made sometimes Contentions because it was the Duty of every man that was a Pastor to take care of the whole flock he is Pastor over and therefore to endeavour their good So that here you see his Argument fully answered by a flat denial of his Minor he is not a Pastor without a Flock nor an Officer sine Titulo he hath Title to the whole Catholick Church he is Pastor at large He hath a long Dispute with Mr. Rutherford about Preaching and Administring the Communion out of his own Congregation and the Communication of Sister Churches which touch me not yet I will give the Reader a Note that whereas before he made Preaching almost the whole Act of a Presbyter he now seemes to make it no proper duty of a Pastor pag. 63 64. But I let these things passe as not pertinent and apply my self to his fifth and last Argument pag. 67. which is SECT XV. His Fifth Argument answered IF Ordination gives Essentials to a Pastor before Election then by that alone he hath Pastoral power Against which he disputes thus He that hath Compleat power of an Office and stands an Officer without Exception he cannot be hindred Justly from doing all Acts of that Office but this is the Condition of a Pastor Ordained without the Election of the people he may according to rule be justly hindred from Executing any Act of a Pastor I could quarrel were I pinched with this Argument with almost every word as first the changing of the Terms of that Proposition he was to prove In the Proposition he was to prove the Terms were give the Essentials of a Pastor now they are a Compleat power and an Officer without Exception Many things are essentially right which lack Completion and are not without Exception Then again where it was in his first Proposition A Pastor before Election here is added in his second Election of the people But I insist upon this upon which the Ground of his Argument is founded That an Ordained Officer may according to rule be hindred from executing any part of his Office as he enforceth Suppose all Congregations full To which I answer Ordination doth not give the Act but the Jus or right to execute and a man may have the Essentials when these do not work Mark Mr. Hooker was a Pastor when asleep and had the Essentials of it but not the Operation Essentials do work their proper work omnibus positis ad agendum requisitis The fire it self although it have the Essentials of sire cannot burn things too remote or such Things which are not combustible the reason is that those things which are requisite to burning as fit distance disposure of the matter are not rightly disposed I may say the same of the Eye Place the Object too near too far in the dark it cannot see the requisites to sight are not sittingly disposed although the Eye have all the Essentials belonging to sight So I may â—ay of a man Ordained If there be not a place not any piece of the flock of Christ which hath need of him or having need he knoweth not of their need or knowing their need cannot by distance or some such moral Impediment come to supply then need the Circumstances required to his Operations are so taken away that he cannot do the Duties in Act which he hath power to do St. Paul himself could not officiate any where where others of Authority were labouring yet he had Authority and was ordained by God but saith he if all places are full he may according to rule be hindred from executing any part of Pastoral Office I would fain know by what rule the Apostles were Authorized by Christ to preach to all Nations and so are all Pastors by Ordination they have Authority over the world but are restrained by Ecclesiastical Law founded upon the Law of Nature which forbids any thing to go into a full place which with another Law saith Deus Natura nihil faciunt frustra And again non sunt multiplicandae Entia sine necessitate so that when one looks to this part then the other should not intermeddle without the first give way to him yet he hath the power and can do the work of
he shews here which way we are made members of it that is Christs body to wit being baptized by the same Spirit into Christ the Spirit which enlivens us makes Baptism effectual to the incorporating a man into the body of Christ For what else can that phrase be into the body as a work of Baptism but into the body of Christ his Church Well then Baptism is the Act the relict of Baptism as before is the Thing which makes us members and parts of this body Consider then next Gal. 3. 26 27. Ye are all the Children of God by faith in Christ Jesus for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Here you see phrases wonderfully expressing the same thing As God is considered in Oeconomicks so he is a father so by Baptism we are adopted the children of God as Christ is the head of the body so we are baptized into him and engrassed as the Spirit speaks elsewhere into the body Suppose Christ to be an holy Garment with which the Crimes and Sins of his Servants are hid by Baptism you cloath your selves with his righteousnesse and you put on Christ under whom your unrighteousnesse shall be hid and your sins covered or else as others expresse it Matters put on a form c. But then if you will adde the last verse If ye be Christ ye are Abrahams seed heirs of the promise you may see these 3. things Children Members Heirs most heavenly united in the second Answer of our Catechism In my Baptism wherein I was made a Member of Christ a Child of God and an Inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven which three in expresse Terms are put down â—y St. Paul and what necessary Thing and Essential as he calls it of another Covenant can adde to a further union than this matters not much Well then it is proved that Baptism doth constitute a Member Now I will examine how this may be justified against his Objection which consists only of Instances against this and no proof of them An Excommunicate man saith he hath no Membership He that renounceth the fellowship of the Church or when a Church is utterly dissolved there is no Church-Membership CHAP. XII His Instances Examined and Confuted The Dissolution of a Church doth not destroy Membership I Will take all these apart and discourse the Evidence of them and begin with the last of which I may justly say posito quolibet sequitur quidlibet Let it be granted that the Church should be dissolved and torn to pieces that being the entire body of Christ Christ could have no body and then there would be no Members but it is impossible the Gates and powers of Hell shall never have power to dissolve it the winds shall bluster and the rain fall but not have force to beat down the City of the living God It shall be in persecution and suffer many miseries but the darknesse shall not be able to comprehend or suppresse the light of it it is true one of their poor particular Congregations may be and hath been shaken and scâ—ttered and their Union dissolved because it is wrought by man and mans hand guards it but it shall never be so with Christs body it shall be a pillar a strong support of all truth yea the ground and foundation in which Truth is inherent and by which Truths are supported that instance therefore falls of its self the foundation is cast down and then the Castle hangs only in the Air. SECT II. How Excommunication doth extirpate Baptisme I Apply my self then to the first Instance of an Excommunicated man in which case I would have wished he had brought some reasons to have proved they were not of the Church but he not doing it I will undertake the question against such Opposition as I can find elsewhere The Question is whether an Excommunicate man be a visible member of Christs visible Church I put the Terms as strict as I can because I will avoid all future Cavilling and I answer affirmatively he is he brings no proof to the contrary So we are upon even Terms if I should say no more only the difference will be in the Authority of the Speaker in which I think he will prevail and therefore I will examine it by reason and as well as I can satisfie the Objections made by some Jesuites against it To understand this Consider that any part continues so long a member of its body as it is united to it and so long it is united to it as it can receive influence from the head and be active and operative in its proper works by the fountains and originals of those motions assisted any way by any outward applications or inward medicines the members of a mans body as it haps out in some Palsies may be utterly unactive so that they cannot stirre or move no not feel or be sensible of any hurt and yet these parts remain members of the body still and it may be by Physicians directions be restored to former vivacity and be quickened by spirits as before coming from the same fountain and this is a Sign it is a member still of this body That which is a member of another body canot by any Act be made a member of this nor that which is an entire body of it self so that when physick can restore a member though it appear to our Senses never so dead yet it is still a member Again Consider for the other Term of distinction That if a baptized man though excommunicate be a member by his Baptism he is likewise a visible member by the same Baptism for Baptism is a visible sign of the Effect it produceth and is as visible in the Excommunicated man as in him that Communicates Thirdly Consider that many parts of the body are by obstructions hindred from that influence of blood and spirits which would enable them to do their duties which yet that obstruction removed hold the same Commerce and Society with giving and receiving mutual correspondence in their several offices again with both head and members These things premised as I think apparent Truth I now addresse my self to the businesse SECT III. Bellarmines Arguments answered THere is a great Dispute betwixt Cardinal Bellarmine and others Whether an Excommunicated person be a member of the Church I must oppose Bellarmine for although the Conclusion seems the same in Thomas Hooker and him yet Hooker offers at no reason for it Bellarmine doth lib. 3. de Ecclesia militante Cap. 6. And he saith Excommunicated persons are not in the Church his first Argument is drawn from Mat. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church let him be as an heathen c. This saith he is understood of Excommunication I yield But saith he Heathens are not of the Church I grant that likewise but do adde neither doth the Text say they are Heathens no more than Publicans but resembling as Sicut being in that like
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
and so pass on first then that our Saviour did institute many holy offices in themselves you may say even his Sacraments so as there may be divers Ceremonies according to the prudence of divers Churches is appâ—rent for let us consider Baptisme the matter as it is positively set down in the Institution is water this must not be altered and that which is called the form which is the words by which this Baptisme is administred are in part set down it must be In the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost but now whether it should be I Baptize thee as the Latine Church or let the Servant of God be Baptized or he is Baptized which are severally used in other Churches is not determined by our Saviour and the words of either do fully express the meaning of Baptisme so that neither doth the Latine Church re-baptize those who are Baptized by the Graeciâ—ns nor the Graecians such as are Baptized by the Latines although both are bitter enough one against another so that you may see there may be variation in the administration of these duties in their Circumstances where there is a Communion in the Substance and truly for my part I think in such a man who lives in either of these Churches it would be a Schismatical Act for any of them to vary from that usage which is in the Churches wherein he lives for although these things are indifferent in themâ—elves yet when they are determined in the Greeâ— Euthology and the Roman Rituals they are not indifferent to them which live amongst them in their several Churches but a varying from the Church wherein they live makes a breach of Charity and violates the Band of peace SECT III. Another Precognitum explained ANother Introduction may be that whatsoever is instituted by Scripture in any of these holy performances whether as form or matter must not be altered nor can lawfully by any man for since the blessing which is bestowed is onely Gods gift and Man is only ministerial in it he must act according to that Method whicâ— God hath prescribed and that only having his Covenant can bring the blessing SECT IV. Another Observation expounded ANother note may be that Additions explicatory so they are certainly such and are not intruded for essentials do not destroy the notion of that which they explain it is necessary for otherwise why should men expound the Scriptures in Sermons or otherwise yea our Saviour expounded his own Parables and after his exposition to his Disciples we write further Comments our selves but that there is in none of these an alteration but a dilatation of the conceit of them these things being premitted I shal return where I left at Tanner and the Roman pontiâ—ical SECT V. Many mistakes about Ceremonies in the Church of Rome IT is an apparent truth that the Church of Rome doth very ofâ— clog Divine duties with so many Ceremonies and its mischief is frequent in that mischance that even their learned writers do in a little time grow o such mistakes as to think that some of those which are Ecclesiastical Ceremonies only instituted by the authority of the Church to be the essentials and that which is essential to be but accidents this particular business I have in hand will demonstrate this conclusion SECT VI. It is an Error to think that the Anointing the Bishops Hand is a necessary Essential THe third Ceremony by Tanner out of the pontiâ—ical is the Anointing of the Bishops hand which is to be Consecrated in these words ungantur manus istae oleo Consecrato that is when he Anoints his hands he saith let these hands be anointed with holy oyl And Francis Silvius I must say truly a learned man and most perspicuous writer in his fortieth Quest. upon the supplement of Thomas Art 5. in resp ad 8 m. saith that the essential Consecration of a Bishop consists in this unction and the words pronounced with it for the Church of Rome calls the oâ—tward sign the matter and the words the form and this to be it he proves by a very strong Argument against the Romanist because in the whole frame of Ordination the Bishop Consecrated is calâ—ed in the pontiâ—ical untill then Bishop Elect only But then absolutely Bishop from that time and his Argument is as weakly answered by Tanner where before quoted that Neque obstat quod in pontisicali ordinandus Episcopus post unctionem primum vocatur Consecratus antea vero solum Electus id â—nim ad scriptorem Rubrici modum lâ—quendi pertinent plus non significat quam ante unctionem nondum esse plene Consecratum That is that the Language of the Pontiâ—ical ought to be attributed to the writer of the Rubrick and that there is no more imported in it but that before the Unction he is not fully Bishop Truly I think Silvius doth desire no more but if men can shift off such grave and weighty observations with saying it was a fault in the Writer or Printer there can no authority be produced but may be so answered But he is more to blâ—me who transcribed it false but why hath it not been amended and that fault corrected The truth is the Pontiâ—ical it self is to blame there is no such thing in that much more antient Pontiâ—icâ—i I mean the fourth Councel of Carthage Canon 2. I will put down tâ—e words because I am likely to make use of them hereafter the words are these Episcopus quum ordinatur duo Episcopi ponant teneant Evangeliorum codicem super caput cervicem ejus uno fundente benedictionem reliqui omnes Episcopi qui adsunt manibus suis caput ejus tangant That is a Bishop when he is ordained two Bishops shall put and hold the Book of the Gospel over his head and neck and one giving him the blessing the other Bishops shall put and hold the Book of the Gospel over his head and neck and one giving him the blessing the other â—ishops which are present shall touch his head with their hands here is not any word of anointing and therefore according to this Canon neither of these Unctions I mean head and hand are necessary for although the Canon may name somethings which are not necessary yet it is not to be imagined that it should leave out any thing which is necessary SECT VII Another Error concerning the Book confuted THere is therefore another opinion which has gained great Reputation with many Schoolmen and that is of some who place the essentials of a Bishops Ordination in the first â—eremony named in the Pontifical and that is the same with that of the Councel of Carthage to wit the putting the Book upon the Head of the Consecrated Bishop and the laying on of Hands and the Benediction this certainly is most conform to that Canon of Carthage but as I said before as it is not reasonable to think that these Canons should omit any essential thing
Deacon defines him thus Lastly when it that is this word Deacon is taken shortly and as it concerns our purposâ— in hand it sets out such Officers who are designed by the Church to dispose the State and Treasures to those several purposes for which God hath appointed them as the occasions and necessities of the body and any member thereof may require This is his definition or rather description at large of a Deacon which I conceive to be very short because it toucheth but the poor concerning whose Care I acknowledge that in the primitive Time there were certain persons employed because those times were times of persecution and the poor of the Church could not exist without some such Collections by Church Officers to take care of them but that this was the sole Office of a Deacon I deny He proves it thus Romans 12. 8. He that distributes c. Here saith he the Apostle reckons these as a distinct kind from those that went before In our Translation it is he that giveth or in the Margent imparteth and that most naturally but to make it an Office he changeth the phrase Well from hence in this place he thus argues Here saith he the Apostle reckons these as distinct Offices This Term these might well relate to Prophesy to Ministry in the 7th verse as well as the rest which is the most general way with the Ancient Fathers discourse upon that Text but he explayned himself before in the first Chapter of this 2d Part pag. 8 9. That Prophesy is a Genus to Teaching and Exhortation and these two distinct Offices under that one head of which I shall discourse hereafter God willing but giving or as he calls it distributing ruling shewing mercy are three distinct Species's or several Offices under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ministry so then this word these must be by him applyed only to these five at the last named which exposition he had as he acknowledgeth from Beza and before him as I find none â—or Calvin himself upon that place seems to make all these distinct Gifts but I passe by this and will examine his Ground upon which he builds It being saith he the Apostles aime by a Similitude drawn from the body ver 4. to discover several parts by the Actions which were in a peculiar manner appropriate to them as there are many Members in the body and all have not one Office or Action so in the Church there be many Members but their several Offices appropriate to them Whereas were this a Christian Duty common to all he should overthrow his own purpose for he should have shewed things agreeing to all alike when he should have shewed that some things are peculiar Thus I have set down his words and the Arguments as by him urged SECT III. Rom. 12. 8. Expounded HEre he puts me to a great deal of Trouble to enlarge my self in expounding this place which I intend to do and shew what I conceive of it and then refute his imagination and shew how inconsistent it is with the sense of these words He begins his Exposition from the 4th verse of the 12. Chap. to the Romans but he that will expound it aright must go further because that verse begins with a For and that relates to the 3d. verse and that likewise begins with another For which must look upon what went before Let us therefore first examine the first verse I besceeh you c. present your bodies c. which is your reasonable service vers 2. Be not conformed c. but be transformed c. that you may prove what is that good that acceptable and perfect will of God The presenting the body a sacrifice the not conforming to the world the transforming by renewing the mind all tend to this that we may prove what is that good and acceptable c. that is have some Arguments by which you may know it he that doth thus mortify c. and presents his body thus that doth transform and conform his mind shall find Arguments to prove what is Gods will for him to do vers 3d. For I say unto you c. you ought to know this because ye ought to perform this will of God therefore do these things which may make you prove it Now this good and acceptable will of God is that you do not think too highly or higher for this phrase of himself is a Glosse of our Translators not the Text and indeed this same too high thinking whether it concerns a mans self or his work he hath to do is that which disturbs a man in his duty whatsoever he is or it is as if he think himself too good to be an hearer only it makes him thrust himself into the Preachers office or when he hath that Office he thinks too highly of himself that he is too good for it or when he thinks too highly of that Duty which he doth it makes him with the Pharisee despise his brother who is not excellent or eminent in that way so that this same high thinking puts a man besides the way of Gods will and therefore he adds but to think soberly temperately modestly he must not plus sapere think more or higher than his Condition but he must think soberly be lowly in his own eyes not to intrude into others businesse or go beyond his own qualification according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of Faith By Faith I conceive as most do Fidelity that is then according as he is intrusted by God according to that measure of trust which God hath layd upon him there will not be difference I guesse about that and therefore I let it passe verse 4. For as we have many members in one body and all members have not the same office so we being many are one body in Christ and every one members one of another SECT IV. No Argument can be enforced from a Simile farther than the Paralell leads HEre we see all Christians are one body of which Christ is the head that as they have a duty towards the head of obedience so they being fellow members one towards another have that duty one towards another as fellow member not to think too highly but to consider their mutual assistance each ought to give to the other Here now if I would stop let us Consider how it were possible to urge me farther Comparisons are not to be haled and pulled farther than the Letter there may be more in one part than another but an Argument cannot be drawn farther than the Comparison leads It is true St. Paul saith in the 4th verse that all members have not the same office but can I force that to the parallel when St. Paul doth not mention it We may find the like in many places of Scripture as that parable of our Saviour of the Sower of the Tares Mat. 13. where our Saviour expounds pieces of the parable we may according to those pieces from
not a word this word Gift would import otherwise SECT IX Another Argument NOW to this last in page the 9th I frame this Syllogism Those Gifts which have been and are many times in the same are not so Contradistinct as they cannot subsist in the same Subject But many of these Gifts in the Text have been and often are in the same Subject Ergo. My Major is clear from the Act that which hath been and is is possible and crosseth not the nature of any thing My Minor may be proved in the Lump First I doubt not to say that the Apostles had all these for they were Prophets they were Minsters they were Doctors Teachers Exhorters did give to the poor did rule had bowels of mercy with all the requisites Take Prophesy for Preaching many a man now hath all these in the same Lump Secondly Teacher and Exhorter cannot be severed This Gentleman stiles himself Pastor of the Church of Hertford upon Connecticutt in N. England Mr. Cotton Teacher of Boston in N. England both of them have written concerning these businesses If a Pastor be an inconsistent Office with a Teacher why doth Mr. Hooker teach and so Logically endeavour to prove his Doctrine and Mr. Cotton the Teacher use Rhetorick to perswade These things seem to me inconsistent a Teacher and not an Exhorter or an Exhorter and not a Teacher so farre they are from being inconsistent one with the other that they cannot exist well one without the other and for this particular phrase Distributer or Giver neither one nor other be good men unlesse they be both the Clergy must not be altogether upon the receiving hand there is time and place for them to give as well yea rather than others and take Care of the poor and have bowels of Compassion towards them and by their good Example exhort others to do as they do I have been something too tedious here but this will save future labour SECT X. His Second Argument refuted HIS Second Argument to prove his kind of Office is drawn from theâ— 1 Tim. 3. 8. where the Description how he must be qualified is set down I grant it but is it set down that he is an Officer to dispose Church Treasure and nothing else which he disputes for For he offers at such a thing and therefore that place in his own Judgement can speak nothing for it proves only that there is such an Office as a Deacon and how he should be qualified but no one word what the duty of that Office is and therefore he draws no Argument from it but only sets it down with a figure of 2. for his second Argument although he argue nothing from it His Third Argument refuted HIs Third Argument is drawn from the place before hand led Acts 6. to which I have I doubt not spoken enough but that it may appear wherein he and I agree and wherein differ in this point Consider with me that he saith that this was a publike Office I grant it Secondly that this service was about Tables I grant it Thirdly page 35 that the full and carefull attendance upon this work could not stand with carefull constant and consciencious Attendance upon the Ministry of the Word as the Office of a Minister so employed did require This I deny because I have proved they were Ministers of the Word and have before answered his Arguments drawn from the Apostles It is not meet c. vers 3. and do now adde It is one thing to say It is not meet another to say It is inconsistent it cannot stand with it Again many things might be and were sit for Inferior Ministers which were not fit for the Apostles It is not meet was truly said by the Apostles But now I doubt whether this Office was for this occasion only or for their lives I 2dly affirm as before that these men were Ministers And 3dly I deny that this was of that Deacon St. Paul speaks of and was after used in the Church His continued Discourse is but a repetition only a passionate expression or two that we make a Deacon half a Priest or a Preparation to it and he saith that this was the first In-let into the Usurpation of Bishops I let these things passe and come to his Dispute against us His First Argument from Reason Answered THat which is made by Christ a distinct Office from Pastor and Teacher that cannot be any part of either or a preparation to either But so the Office of a Deacon is I answer That First I deny that ever the Office of a Deacon was instituted by Christ but by the Apostles Secondly although I grant that the Apostles instituted this Oâ—â—â—ce distinct from them yet it may be a preparation or part of either for that which is a preparation is distinct from that it is prepared for and although all the parts united together do not differ really from the whole yet any one part doth And Thirdly I say that although it were neither part nor preparative yet it may be subservient to them in which Consists the Office of a Deacon His Second Argument from Reason answered HIs Second Argument That Office which is to attend Tables hath nothing to do with Pastors or Doctors c. But this Office is to attend Tables To the Major That Office may do both those in the Acts did To the Minor I deny that the Office of a Deacon is solely to attend Tables but if he leave out that word solely his whole Argument is lame that which he urgeth out of Acts 6. is not to the purpose for as I may deny them to be Deacons because never so called in the Scripture so I do deny them to be those Deacons St. Paul directs 1. Tim. 3. His Third Argument answered HIs Third Argument If the Apostles who were extraordinary persons could not shall men of ordinary Abilities be sufficient I have answered this before It is no where said that they could not they could without doubt have done much more but as they were men of extraordinary abilities so they were men of extraordinary employments and it was not meet that that employment should be impeded by any of these lesse affairs Again we deny that the Office of a Deacon exacts the duty of a Pastor from him but only that he should minister to the Pastor which he may do well with such a Charge upon him Page 36. Number 3. I understand not those Figures He saith somewhat that would be answered Another Argument from 1 Tim. 3. 8. answered THE Gifts of Deacons which are required by the Apostle are such as will not furnish a man to be a Minister he means a Presbyter I think for such should be Apt to teach to be a teacher and not apt to teach is to be a Bell without a Clapper I could answer this in his own Coyn but I love not scurrility and sharpnesse in these Grave and Serious things they taste not of that
such yet men are as partial to their Opinions as their Children and will expound every Thing that comes in their way to the Advantage of them yea it will seem so to them and therefore even these Propositions are not to be swallowed without Examination But yet suppose this were granted that one Relate as he phrases it did give the Essentials to another would this prove That the Election of the people by the rule of Christ did it Certainly no for the Pastor and people are the two relates not the Pastor and Election of the people People and the Election of the people are two Things This latter an Act of the former He sayes Mr Rutherford seems to be much moved with this Argument I have not seen his books but by that I have heard of him it would be strange he should but I leave them together and see what he urgeth for Confirmation of this Argument which may concern my businesse Pag. 68. He saith the Proposition is supported by the Fundamental Principles of Reason so that he must raze out the received rules of Logick that must reject it High language But why so I ask He answers immediately Relata sunt quorum unum constat mutua alterius Affectione This is non-sense for should I ask if Vnum which of the two he could not answer the reason is because as relates there is the same reason of one as of the other But I think he means utrumque but Consider then what is this to his purpose Suppose they did Consist in a mutual Affection one of another could one properly be said to give the Essentials to the other The Father indeed gives the Essentials to his Son and Father and Son do mutually as Father and Son depend upon a reciprocal Affection as he calls it one upon the other but the Son cannot be said properly to give the Essentials to the Father no not as Father because all he hath he hath from his Father as Suppose again a Master and Servant are relates neither of these give the Essentials one to another But properly that Covenant which engaged them in their mutual Duties that Covenant gave them the Essentials of that relation not one another and therefore this Discourse though he think it very Evident yet begets no Acceptance in me although declared with the name of a fundamental principle That which he deduceth that relata are simul natura is most true but not deduced yea it is against that principle he deduceth it from for that which Constitutes anothers being is prius natura to that which is Constituted but these are simul and therefore cannot give Essentials one to another His Assumption that Pastor and Flock are relates no man saith he that hath sip'd in Logick can deny I grant it Then saith he the Conclusion follows but he sets not down what I am sure his doth not That this Election gives the Essentials to an Officer In the Conclusion he saith Hence again it follows that Ordination which comes after he means Election is not for the Constitution of the Officer but the Approbation of him so Constituted in his Office for relata are unum uni saith the rule there is no Connexion in this neither and for unum uni that must be understood in that particular relation a Father may have many sonnes and so One to Many but there are distinct paternities and the Logicians say that although absolute Accidents Numero tantùm distincta cannot exist in the same Subject at the same Time yet relative may So one flock may have many pastors the Catholick Church a Thousand visible ones invisible only Christ. The Church of Rome would desire no more but that you grant one â—lock must have but one Pastor they will quickly prove the Catholick Church one Flock and then will follow the Pope to be the Universal Pastor for none else pretends to it but indeed they themselves grant many Pastors to the same slock for their Teachers are Pastors and their Lay-Elders have Pastoral Authority of Governing But now punctually after a long Discourse A Paster and Flock are relates there may be many Pastors to one Flock where the Flock is great there must be the Flock of Christ is the Vniversal Church in which he hath placed many Pastors and there is no Christian man who is a Member of Christs Flock wheresoever he is in the World and finds any Pastor but he may receive and require the Duty of a Pastor from him and he ought to give it him Again there is no Pastor wheresoever he is in the world if he find any of his Masters Flock in any place who have need of him but he ought out of duty if he can to supply his lack And thus are the mutual bondâ— and relations betwixt Christs Pastors and his Flock supplyed as soon as he is made a Pastor the Church of Christ is his Flock and which way he can advance the good of it he ought and iâ— bound in Duty to do it His Second Argument answered AND so I passe to his Second Argument which is this It is lawfull for a people to reject a Pastor upon Just Causes if he prove pertinaciously scandalous in his Life or haeretical in his doctrine and put him out of his Office Ergo it is in their power to call him outwardly and to put him into his Office The Consequence is plain from the Staple rule Ejusdem est Instituere he would say I think destruere The Antecedent is as certain by Gods word Beware of Wolves Mat. 7. 15. Beware of false Prophets Phil. â— 2. Now because he begins with his Consequence I will so likewise and that which he so highly commends for a Staple Rule I will examinâ— and from henceforth receive this rule That great words with him are forced to be the Cloaks of least performances I do not believe he read that Staple rule in any Logick Author and am very Confident it is absolutely false in all Sciences In nature it is most evident that water which destroyes fire cannot make it If he answer that in general the power of Nature which by Water doth destroy fire by another hand of power doth make I will apply this to our particular and say that in general men destroy it therefore men give it by the same way as Nature by water destroyes fire and by fire makes it If we look into Policy we shall find that sometimes when Kings have setled power the people have pluckt them down Those whom the people have Instituted Kings have destroyed but perchance he may say that lawfully out of right the same power can destroy that did institute perhaps there may be Legality in some of these Instances but see a Clearer A Tithing man is elected by his parish like as he would have Pastors afterwards he is sworn by the Steward of the Court like his Ordination or perhaps by some Justice of Peace The Parish for his misdemeanours
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
the power of it by Jesus Christ to obtain Mercy to whom he remains knit by his Baptism Again he urgeth It is the greatest punishment the Church can inflict I answer The greatest Excommunication is the greatest punishment but neither man nor men have power to sever that member from â—hrists body which he hath joyned Again Bellarmine Excommunication cannot be to any but Contumaciâ—us and Incorrigible Sinners because they will not hear the Church I answer what follows but that they who now are Contumacious anon at another time will be humble â—ast of all he urgeth In Absolution the phrase is Restituo te I restore thee to the unity of the Church and participation of members I answer he might have added what follows by way oâ— Explication in their forms of Absolution and to the Communion of the faithfull A man is restored to the full enjoying his union his membership by such a Communion which he had not before but only an union So now I think it appears if you apprehend the Church as a body natural Excommunication is an Obstruction which stops many Influences with which both head and members Communicate but not union If you apprehend the Church a political body Excommunication is a Suspension from City powers and priviledges untill some satisfaction but Conditional not an absolute annihilation of his Charter and this will appear out of that Phrase of St. Paul in the Chapter urged by Bellarmine 1 Cor. 5. 5. Deliver such a man to Sathan for the destruction of the Flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus so that it seems by this Excommunication is a sharp Physick for the good of that man to make him ashamed to humble him for his correction not destruction and it appears again by his restitution which is only an Absolution not a new engraâ—â—ing or an Absolution by a new readmission not a new Incorporation and this answers all the Objections that I have read either in Bellarmine or in any other SECT IV. Such as renounce the fellowship of the Church are members I Must now addresse my self to Hookers second Objection which is That such as renounce the fellowship of the Church though they have true Baptism yet are not â—â—embers of the Church By this renouncing I think he means professing against it or let it be what it will turning Turk renouncing Christ he is yet a member he retains his true Baptism for by Baptism a man is accepted a Child of God and no more than he who renounceth his Father doth by that Act make himself not his Son no more can he unchild himself by any of these Actual oppositions Here in this he only sets down his Conclusion but brings no Argument for proof I will hunt them out amongst the School and Jesuites and clear the Truth as perspicuously as I can Cardinal Bellarmine in his 3d. Book De Ecclesià militante Cap. 4. handles this Question under this Title Whether Hereticks and Apostates which are baptized be parts and members of the Church He denyes it His fiâ—st Argument against it is drawn from Scripture 1 Tim. 1. 19. where it is said That some concerning faith have made shipwrack Where saith he by the metaphor of shipwrack he understands Hereticks who one part of the Ship being broken is fallen into the Sea â—or Answer I grant them to be Hereticks and Apostates I grant the Church their Ship I grant them in the Sea ready to perish yet even when they are there they belong to the Ship and perhaps were principal members of it not in it but of it and therefore read the next verse of whom were Hymeneus and Alexander whom I have delivered unto Sathan that they may learn not to blaspheme This great Pilot took care of them as members of his ship and endeavoured their recovery which was a sign they were still in union with the Church But saith he this is signified by the parable of our Saviour Luke 5. of the Net which was broken by the multitude of Fishes That word Parable slipt from the Cardinal unâ—dvisedly It was a real Story but the learnedest man in the world may let slip such an Expression But why any such sence should be forced on that Story I know not but only that such a Thing was done and if such a sence were granted it yields no more but that some men are slipt out of the blessing of the Church when they are ready to come to the shore even to Heaven But he urgeth further Titus 3. 10. A man that is an Heretick after the first and second Admonition reject Vers. 11. knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth being condemned of himself Now saith he if this Heretick were in the Church Titus would not have been commanded to reject him but exhort him I answer Reject him for a time for his Conviction to amendment as became a Carefull â—astor and a loving Father who intends the good of his Children by withholding Temporary favour for a season that so his Son may be ashamed and shame breed an Amendment Bellarmine adds out of St. Hierâ—me that he is not put out of the Church but puts himself out I grant it out of that glorious Communion and participation of Heavenly mysteries which belong to men of right faith and manners But he addes another place out of the 1 of John 2. 19. They went out from us but they were not of us which he expounds out of St. Augustine That they went out of the Church but if they had been of the Church by Election they would not have gone out from us I am sorry to read so learned a man forget himself I am sure in another Controversie he would not allow this Exposition nor can I allow it in this for without doubt many Elect do go out of the visible Church understand Election in the most rigid way they do go out and come in again that cannot be the right exposition therefore If you would have my sence of it we may observe that in the preceding verse the Apostle speaks of many Antichrists of these he saith that they went out of us that is out of the Communion with us now saith he they were not of us that is when they went out from us it may be they had been before but then they were grown to a defiance of us for if they had been of us they would not have gone out from us if they had had the same Principles they would not have left us This I Conceive the sence of this Text and indeed I know not whether any man hath given it this Exposition Those which I have looked in have given me no satisfaction of what Religion soever Now let us see what concerns this Text and perhaps will serve to Illustrate other Doubts The difficulty will be in this phrase to be of us that is our Society that may be diverse wayes in respect of that Inward Thing which
unites us to Christ either in a perfect union or in a remisse or in the lowest degree In a perfect union that is by it which St. James phraseth a lively faith a faith quickned and inflâ—enced with Charity that dare with Abraham forsake all Lands Wife Children yea offer his Son himself a sacrifice to the good pleasure of God this the Church of Rome calls an informed saith actuated and informed with Charity this is the highest union and communion Then there is an union lower than this which is the faith which believes aright and makes a profession of it but will not bide the Test of a Confession when it comes to the Touch and these are by all held so long to be in the Church as they have this union with Christ and so long retains its Community untill some Temptation of fear or hope or perhaps some Carnal Argument perswade otherwise and then they fall into Heresie or Apostacy to have or gâ—in something and these I think to be those of whom the Apostle spake men who lived in a formal shew of a right faith by conversing in a seeming manner with the Godly and the Church but then went from them I will not dispute the falling from Grace here But thus when men had this faith before spoken of and professed it or professed it and had it not they had an union with the Church at the least outward if but by profession but inward likewise if they had that second sort of faith yet they were not of us the number of those who had justifying faith then when these left us but now there is another union and that is per Sacramentum fidei by the Sacrament of Faith as Baptism is called the which no man leaves and this is an union by which a wicked man after his repentance hath a Title to claim mercy and absolution as likewise the Church owes it him So that I dare say Bellarmine nor any Jesuite I have read against this Doctrine can deny that there is such a Title or that that Title is not by this union So then they went from us that is the Communion with us that shewed they were not then of us of that dear union of a lively faith for then they would not have left us you see this cannot be understood of lack of Election The Elect may go out and come in again It cannot be understood that they left union but Communion for the Antichrist himself hath a union with the Church though he keeps a Communion against it I think this is enough to shew that although this departure which St. John speaks of be by Heresie or Apostacy as Bellarmine insinuates yet it is not a leaving all union of and with Christ but only Communion as I have before expressed Reader be not hasty to Judge of this Conclusion and then I hope thou shalt find it most agreeing to all principles of Religion Secondly Bellarmine quotes the Council of Nice Can. 8. 19. Where saith he Hereticks are said to be received into the Church if they will return upon certain Conditions For Answer It is worth our marking that those two Canons are made for two sorts of Hereticks the 8th Canon for the Cathari or Puri as the Canon calls them or the Novatians as Balsamon expounds it for they were the same these the Canon receives into the Church upon repentance with Imposition of hands only but they must expresse their profession in writing The other in the 19th Canon were the Pauliani or Paulianites who were re-baptized upon their re-admission the first was a reception of such who had gone out of the Communion of the Church by denying re-admission of Penitents who forsook their Religion by sacrificing to Idols and communication with the Digami such as had been twice marryed whom they held unclean These things were their Heresies and therefore were called Cathari because they must by these Things proâ—esse themselves holyer than other men but these being not things which nulliâ—ed Baptism although pertinaciously held they could not be rebaptized But for the Paulinians because they they denyed the Trinity they could not baptize according to Christs Institution and therefore such as came from them to the Church were re-baptized You see now how upon examination of these Canons of that most sacred Council the Case is stared for me because it seems the Cathari had but left the Communion as is before expressed and therefore the removing the Obstruction with proper physick 〈◊〉 but the Paulinians had no union and therefore to be grafted into the body I have insisted the longer upon this because the Story of these several Heresies is not perhaps apparent to every one and that difference of Condition upon the diversity of the Heresie perhaps by a negligent Reader would not have been observed What he produceth out of the Council of Lateran That the Church is Congregatio fidelium I need not examine I yield it but he saith That Hereticks are not fideles is denyed by many of his own Religion for although that they have not a fulnesse of faith which he cannot exact in a member yet they may have faith in many Articles which may preserve them in the unity of members though sick members but this serves not my turn comes not home to my businesse I therefore say that as homo is Animal rationale which is one of the compleatest Definitions given to any thing and the most exemplar yet every part of man is not rationale the hand cannot discourse nor the feet so the Church is Congregatio fidelium but it doth not follow that every part of the Church is faithfull Infants are members of the Church and such members as are in a saving Condition yet they have but Sacramentum Fidei and Faith in Potentiâ they are not actually sideles nay perhaps not habitually I am certain as we know of they have no habit of it But it may be objected that these non ponunt Obicem as the School speaks as they reach not out their hands of faith to lay hold on Christ so they do not hinder or oppose it but these men do with violence thrust Christ from them I answer that violence returns to their own Soul in thrusting themselves out of the state of grace and favour with God protempore for that time they do so and it hinders Grace in its operari in its great and noble Effects which it drives at but doth not extinguish it in its first Act which is to make a man a member yea therefore they are more sinfull than if done by an Heathen or any who had not knowledge of Gods Law nor been admitted into his membership Therefore the Apostle urgeth this Argument Shall I take the members of God and make them the members of an Harlot In a word therefore the Church is the Congregation of the faithfull the Essential and Constituting parts of it are such yet many parts of it are not such
which no man can deny if understood Actually because no man can have actual faith at all Times nor is it necessary that faith should be habitual in every member for Infants cannot be proved to have it but only Sacramentum fidei which is the first hand which gives an Interest in Christ and thus much these have of whom we dispute The Sentences which he alledgeth out of the Fathers may be answered out of what hath been already delivered His only reason is That because the Church is a multitude united and this union chiefly consists in the profession of the Faith and in the observation of the same lawes and rights no reason will permit that we should have any of the body of the Church which have no Conjunction with that body he means in these things but he handles this Controversie negligently I answer The perfection of the union consists in these things he names such are in the highest and nearest and dearest way in the Church but the absolute union consists in Baptism I have perused many later Jesuites but they are almost all Excerpta out of him scarce changing his words but because in his Answer to one Argument which is objected against him he confesseth in my Judgement what I require I will put down that and so passe on It is Objected 3dly saith he That Hereticks are in the Church because they are Judged by the Church So saith St. Paul 1 Cor. 5. 12. What have I to do to Judge them which are without therefore they are in the Church He answers That although Hereticks are not of the Church yet they ought to be This is poor hitherto for then they ought not to be Judged untill they are of the Church and yet he addes Et proinde ad eam pertinent How do they pertain to it if they are not of it Yes saith he as a stray Sheep belongs to the fold as we use to say this Sheep belongs to this fold This speech pleaseth me That fold hath an Interest in that Sheep and that Sheep in that fold though it have now no Communion with it yet it hath an union and interest in Communion whensoever he shall legally lay Claim to it to be sed with the rest and every way provided for as they are Thus I think all stray Sheep which are mark'd by Christ for his belong to his fold his Church and by his mark in Baptism may claim it and the Church exact a Christian observance from it neither of which can be in another man Thus I apprehend Bellarmines Confession hath assisted me in giving him satisfaction hut because this Question hath been little pryed into by such Writers as have come into my hands I will for far farther Illustrations adde some Propositions which may clear it from some Oppositions which arise out of mine own understanding rather than in the perusing any Adversaries Writing SECT V Some difficulties cleared THe mighty difficulty which troubled my mind all this while I have been discoursing of this union was how it may be said that the same person shall be a member of Christ and yet in the state of Damnation as without doubt many a baptized person is Somewhat like this I read in Cardinal Cajetan who in his Treatise of the Pope and a Council Chap. 22. having been pinched with an Argument against the Popes Supremacy and being the visible head of the visible Church that the Pope may be an Heretick yea an Apostate and so no member much lesse the head of the visible Church He flyes to my Conclusion for refuge I will not meddle with the force of it against the Conclusion he Treats of but only as he handles it in its self That the Pope must be a baptized person and that union of Baptism will retain him in his Membership Then saith he if we will cast the eyes of our minds a little higher we shall see that he who hath only the Character of faith which is a baptized man is at the same instant bâ—â—h faithfull and unfaithfull a Member of Christ and his Church and extra membra Christi without the Members of Christ and his Church in diverse respects and therefore diverse and contrary things are affirmed of such a man by the Doctors In a word he saith That such a Man as much as is in his own power is out of the Church but Christ by his power keeps him in This is his Sence and he goes further That he who hath this Character is a Member though in Hell But his Expressions and Explications of this Conclusion are not so full as I could have desired he saith he is aliqualiter membrum after a sort a Member but sets not down clearly after what sort Bannes in his large Notes upon 2. 2dae Quest. 1. Art 10. saith that in the Constitution of the visible Church there are two Things Considerable one visible and the other invisible one Internal and the other External In respect of what is visible a baptized man is a member of the Church but if he be an Apostate or an Heretick he is not a Member internally This is somewhat he saith but it is not eâ—ough for if there be no internall adhesion it will be rather a shew and outward appearance of a thing than a reality of it Other expressions made by Jacohus Granado or such later Writers as I have seen scarce come up so far Secundum quid saith he they are Members and such phrases which make a man to know no more than if they had said nothing I shall therefore express my self in this manner First If you take the proportion of this body called the Church from that communion it hath with a naturall body as St. Paul seems to do we shall then find a baptized man grafted into the stock and whilest he clings to it by faith and brings forth fruit by charity he is a lively member of this body as those branches in all bodies are which bring forth their fruit in due season the best branch bringeth not forth fruit in all seasons not in winter and yet is a lively branch if it bring forth its fruit in its proper time and so more or less excellent in its severall kinds as it enlargeth its self in bringing forth fruit but if it bring not forth fruit when the season for fruit requires it then it is not a lively branch but yet living which we may know because many such a branch hath afterwards brought forth fruit again by the discipline of pruning and husbandry The same may be said of the parts of a mans body and yet to express this fuller it is likely that this branch is then in the state of mortality and would perish were it not repaired by husbandry Here you perceive a baptized man ingrafted into Christs body you see him bringing forth fruit and lively you see him not lively but living and whilest he yet lives in the state of death and destruction unless he
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
his Major now let us examine his Minor In nostrâ tamen Ecclesia reformata Scotanica id haberi nondum potuit propter Ecclesiasticam paâ—pertatem bonis Ecclesiasticis laicorum hominum sacrilegio dirâ—ptis The force of this Argument runs thus Although Deacons be a divine ordinance yet the Scots by reason of their poverty are not able to maintaine such an Officer and there is the like reason for Bishops in such places where the supream authority will not allow them so that necessity may excuse men even where the divine Laws requires any thing I must confess that invincible necessity excuseth many Acts but it will lie upon the Souls of these Churches who live without Bishops to answer at the last day to Allmighty God and make it good before him that their Omission is such but the difference betwixt Bishops and Deacons is exceeding great I do not find any one place so much as directing that Deacons should be in every particular Church in many there is no need of them where a small congregation of twenty or a hundred may well be osâ—iciated in the meanest duty by a Presbiter onely but in Cathedral Churches where are many little offices for which perhaps we cannot find Presbiters so fit or that it is not fit that we should take them from their greater imployments to bestow their time upon those lesser duties in such cases there is a necessity for those lesser offices to be used but if they shall think their Deacons to be ordained for that imployment mentioned in the sixth of the Acts to minister to the poor I may say that such an imployment can hardly complain of necessity by sacriledge since that out of the collection for the poor he may be allowed a stipend competent for such an office but then to consider that which he would have to paralel a Bishop where is any such a small congregation as I have before specified all things may well be regulated by a Presbiter and he alone supply all the duties belonging to the Salvation of Souls But if there should be many such congregations or that Presbiter who did govern there die in that Government it is necessary for him or them to seek out some Bishop to authorize him or them for this duty The upshot of all this is that Deacons are not instituted as necessary for all lesser Congregations that Bishops are authorized to give Orders to dispose of such affairs as are usefull or necessary to the Government of little or great Congregations but especially in the latter where are usually more and more dangerous exorbitancies That which follows in that page is onely a Discourse but no Proof and so I passe to 161. page where he labours to prove that the Presbitery as he calls it or Company of Presbiters gathered together may give Orders thus CHAP 8. An Argument drawn from Scripture answered APostolus Paulus manuum impositionem per quam ordinatus est Timotheus modo vocat impositionem manuum sâ—arum 2. Tim. 1. 6. Modo impositionem manuum Presbiterii 1. Tim. 4. 14. Idest concessus Presbiterorum sic enim in Novo testamento passim et apud antiquissimos Scriptores Ecclesiasticos The effect of which is that St. Paul in those two places termes the giving Orders to Timothy in one place the laying on of his hands and in another the Laying on the hands of the Presbitery which saith he was the Company or Colledge of Presbiters as that word is often used in the New Testament and amongst the most antient Ecclesiastical Writers I have expounded these two places already and though he say Presbitery is often used for a Colledge or Concessus of Presbiters I have shewed it is no where so used in Scripture and for the most ancient Ecclesiastical Writers I would have been glad to have Read where I should seek them for remember them I do not I will trouble the Reader no further with this Argument it would be but a Repetition CHAP. 9. An Argument drawn from Saint Hierome answered HE comes next to the formerly examined place of St. Hierome and Evagrinus but he puts it down more truly than Thomas Hooker doth and after adds one phrase which the New-England-man left out which is Sicut exercitus imperatorem faciaet quibus verbis non abscurè indicat Presbiteros Alexandrinos initio ordinasse sibi Episcopum by which words as an Army makes an Emperour he doth not obscurely intimate that they did ordain their Bishops Thus Forbes if instead of Ordain he had said Elect I should not have been offended but to take upon them the power to ordain was too much unless they had the Armies to maintain their Act by force as they did The Souldiers upon the death of the Emperour proclaim and cry up commonly their General to be the Emperour and make it good with their sword but would Doctor Forbes or Hierom think that they did ordain or make him Emperour or rather according to their power elect it was often seen even in the age about St. Hierom that two or three Armies in their several places chose so many Emperours And it is not impossible that the Presbiters in Alexandria might have the Election of their Bishop as in most places but the Consecration of him was by others and mark this place of St. Hierom the phrase he useth is Presbiteri not Presbiterium which he calls the antient Language howsoever there is nothing in these words which can instance a Consecration from Presbiters no not in the Simile of an Army unless a Rebellious Election might pass for a Consecration I think I need not speak no more to that at this time but if there be any further need I foresee that the answering other Arguments will further illustrate this business CHAP. X. An Answer to the Argument drawn from the Consecration of Pelagius the first Pope of that name in which is discussed the Story of his Consecration as likewise that no Argument can be drawn from that Act That Popes Consecrations and Elections have been erronious HE proceeds page 162. Pellagium hujus nominis primum Romanum Episcopum ordinarunt duo Episcopi unus Presbiter Ostiensis nomine Andreas qui tanquam Episcopus munus illud ordinationis obivit dum non invenientur tres Episcopi qui secundum Canones Pelagium ordinarent The summe is that this Pope when there could not be three Bishopâ— got which according to Canons should joyn together in the ordination of a Bishop there being no more to be found they took in a Presbiter to officiate with them and therefore he thinks Presbiters may ordain for answer let no man think that I will undertake to defend the Consecrations of Rome it is a task too hard for me to manage or I think any other and materially no doubt but this was irregular yet it may be excused and perhaps justified by what I shall say take therefore the Story of these times SECT I. Where is the Story of
the matter of fact in his Consecration THe first Bishops of Rome who succeeded St. Peter were chosen by the Clergy the Nobles and â—eople who were Christians and durst assemble together for such purpose and indeed were men of such excellency that they accepted that Bishoprick with a design to be Martyrs which they were many one after another afterwards when it pleased God to bless the Church with Christian Emperours they proved Nursing-fathers to their Bishops and under them the Bishop grew great which being discerned the Emperours considering what a great stroak the Bishop of Rome had in the management of all affairs of the Empire they put in for an Interest in their Election and there was no Pope elected but by their approbation untill the Emperour granted his Conge de liere as I may term it Now at this time Italy was full of Souldiers Narses that gallant General of Justinians lay then about Rome whose favourite Pelagius was and Doctor Forbes must forgive me if I think he is somewhat mistaken in the Story when in the next page he writes that Pelagius was but a Deacon when Binius calls him Arch-deacon and again where he saith there that he was chosen by the Command of the Emperour Justinian when it is recorded by Platina that after the Election he sent to Justinian at Constantinople to excuse the Consecration without his Approbation which could not be had in those busles but Narses was as good as Justinian and 〈◊〉 doubt but by him the will of Justinian might be intimated well Rebus sic stantibus Pelagius must be the man he lay under the scandall of being accessary to his Predecessors death upon this the generality of the Bishops refuse to be present at his Consecration onely two and these took a Presbiter to them and ordained Pelagius in that Act rather complying with the Canon so much as in them lay than violating it in Contempt It is a sure Rule Silent Leges inter Arma so they are not Gods Laws Now it is evident that there was the terrour of that Army upon them for the story related both by Platina and by Binius and others affirm that a multitude of the Nobles as well as the People and Clergy fled because their Consciences would not allow them to be assistant And the terrour of the Army would not permit them to oppose that this ordination was not questioned was because the Pope purged himself of that Scandal afterwards and so that which made them desert him at his Consecration being removed made them wink at small faults when he was Pope Thus the Story being cleared for matter of fact I will examine this Argument logically it must run thus SECT II. The Argument discussed and his Major disproved HIs argument termed must be thus That which was acted in the Consecration of a Pope that is lawfull for us to do but a Presbiter did Consecrate Pope Pelagius therefore he may Consecrate a Bishop or a Presbiter with us for the Major it must run so for there can be no difference of Pope Pelagius from other Popes of Rome I deny the Major then and I will disprove it by the Predecessors of Pelagius Vigillius his Consecration cannot be lawfull for he was intruded into the Papacy by Justinian the Emperour and Belisarius his other Generall his Predecessors Silverius being by violence forced from Rome cast into banishment and so died in misery starved as Baronius This Vigillius was put into his Chair and yet for all that Silverius being of a mighty invincible Courage got a few Bishops together and excommunicated Vigillius from which he never released Vigillius Silverius dies Vigillius then renounced his former Election and by the interest of Bellisarius Vigillius was again Elected being an Excommunicated Person and abominated for that and many other Crimes as even Baronius confesseth who was his Friend in his story as much as he could Now then Doctor Forbes his Major failes the instances in the Church of Rome must not be â—residents nor are they Arguments for us to build upon I but he will and doth say this If so Pelagius would have been punished by his successor if it had beeen nought I answer that doth not follow there is not that Law of God or Man which hath not been violated unquestioned I remember Binius writes of it that it had never been so before Baronius onely tells the story but passeth not his Judgement upon it They mention the Scandal he lay under it being that he was accessary to Vigillius his death They mention his purgation which he made as doth Platina and in that it is evident that they who were scandalized at his imagined offence were satisfied with his purgation and so we see that block of offence being removed which made him unfit to be Chosen and Consecrated Pope they never questioned his Consecration its self but this is sufficient for satisfaction to his Major Now let us come to his Minor And here we must examine whether this Presbiter did consecrate the Pope or no And first we will undertake that Question whether it be essentially necessary to the being of a Bishop that he should be Consecrated by three Bishops CHAP. XI SECT I. That Question entred upon Whether three Bishops are necessary to the Consecration of a Bishop GAbriel Vasques a very learne Jesuit and one that Doctor Forbes acknowledgeth much to countenance his opinion in his 243. disp upon the third of Thomas Cap. 6. Page 706. justly complaines that Pauci ex nostra Schola few of our Schoolmen have handled this Question exactly or delivered it defined in their writings I shall undertake him and endeavour now to shew a more clear truth than I have observed delivered by others for indeed because some Canons of Councels seem to make for it and they have been swallowed without chewing and have not been ex mined it hath passed undoubtedly by a generall practise in all quietly setled Churches But I much mistrust that there is not an absolute necessity in persecuted and unsetled Churches after Vasques had produced Arguments against this necessity he puts his own determination fully Mihi tamen probabilior visa est sententia that opinion seems to me to be more probable of them who say first that to the right ordination of a â—ishop three Bishops at the least are necessary by Divine Law as the ordinary Ministers but by commission he means from the Pope two may do it or one thus far he I will take it peicemeale And first I say this Canon that three Bishops should Consecrate a Bishop hath no Collour to challengâ— a Divine Right for that can have a lawful claim to a Divine right must either draw it from God himself prescribing it or else from such men who were immediately authorized by God as the Apostles for if we will go further we must make all Humane Laws Divine for if the next to the Apostles should have their Dictator
to act since after his departure to the end of the world It is necessary therefore for us to think that such things as are delivered by them are Divine for although Canons of Councels general or particular are excellent Guides for the establishing Peace and Unity in the Church and so may require obedience from their Subjects yet because they are but men without an annexed infallibility without doubt they may vary in their practice and Discipline and their Dictates being introduced upon occasions may be altered and therefore cannot add essentials to any thing for the essences of things are always certain and necessary This is my Major Now to search what is Apostolical in this business we must examine the Scriptures where first we find our Saviour authorizing his Apostles As my Father sent me so send I you to give power to others We find him using no Ceremony but breâ—thing upon them gave them the Holy Ghost and truly that Breathing was most significative of that blessing he bestowed upon them but from thence we find not the Apostles using that Ceremony for they being enabled with this plenarty of power to give others that blessing they only gave it and for a sign that they did establish it laid their hands upon them so that as we conceive these two places 1 Tim. 1. 6. by the laying on of my hands or the 1 Tim. 4. 14. with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery to be Ordination so likewise we shall find this Ceremony taken for the whole 〈◊〉 or Ordâ—nation Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man Now then without doubt if any outward Act must be essential to this Heavenly work this only being Apostolical must be esteemed most essential and there I think it most proper for men to conceive that this is the only Ceremony essentially necessary if any be to the performance of that duty for the power originally being given to the Apostles nakedly and absolutely without any qualification or mode in what manner they should use it to others we are to receive the manner at their acting it for our best Rule and guidance which is only in Scripture delivered to be imposition of Hands Thus much for that which the Doctors of the Church of Rome called the material part in the essence of Consecration and we may truly term the outward sign Let us now examine that which they call the form and we may term the words which express it the words which our Saviour used John 20. 22. are Receive ye the Holy Ghost these words expresly are used in the Roman Consecration and Ordination but in the Graecian the words are varied but the sence reserved not giving this blessing in the Imperative-mood which is much stood upon by many Schoolmen and Casuists but in a more humble stile The Grace of God Creates or Promotes thee to this Dignity of a Bishop or Priest or Deacon where we find the truth more largly expounded though materially the same for certainly the Grace of God is that which impowers men with these authorities are given and men are only Instrumental but that they are and therefore there is added how this is given by the suffrage of the Bishops which denotes them instrumental for the African Church you may discern in the Canon of Carthage before cited that the Consecration is expressed in a Language of such extent as may be applied to them both which is uno fundente benedictionem one of them pouring out the benediction or blessing but implying strongly the sence such as is proper for this work to Confirm which all the present Bishops lay on their hands and this universally so consented unto as agreeing to the Holy Scripture that although in the heat of disputation I find men sometimes over peremptorily asserting their own opinions yet I do not find that either Church did refuse such as were Consecrated in either although in wayes and modes differing from their own so that I may justly say that the whole Catholick Church Concenters in this Conclusion that when words importing the blessing are Delivered by a Consecrating Bishop and those words are sealed by imposition of Hands then these holy Orders are effectually given I shall then need to do little more in this Point than to answer such objections which are commonly made against it or I can apprehend proper to be opposed to it SECT II. The first Objection against the Truth answered THe first is common in the School made against the pontiâ—ical in this point because that in all that part of the Pontiâ—ical it is said only Receive ye the Holy Ghost and that Language is the same in the Ordination of Priests as likewise the Imposition of Hands so that by this no man can know what Order is given in the Church of Rome it is answered that the design which they are about will shew it whether to one or to the other Order and again the manner of the Imposition of Hands in the Consecration of a Bishop divers Bishops Impose Hands in the Ordination of a Priest one Bishop only with some Presbyters in the Ordination of a Deacon the Bishop alone but in our Church that scruple is clearly taken away by a great Prudence where at the Ordination of a Priest the Consecrating words are Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest and at the Consecration of a Bishop the words are Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God where wee see that universal cause of all Spiritual blessings I mean the Holy Ghost applied to that particular duty in which at that time he works and therefore the Consecration is free from that Exception SECT III. Another Objection drawn from the Councel of Carthage answered ANother Ojection may be that the Councel of Carthage before cited mentions the laying on the Book by two Bishops upon the head and shoulders of the Bishop to be Consecrated and therefore that is necessary I answer that I much reverence that Councel in which was St. Augustine and divers other Bâ—shops famous for learning and piety in their Generations but yet as I have said before this was never practiced any remarkable time as sundry Doctors in the Church of Rome observe and again it is impossible to be essential because not Apostolical and that because the Holy Bible and that highest part of it the New Testament was not writ when Bishops and Priests were Ordained it is therefore worth our marking that there is a difference in the decrees of Councels concerning Doctrine and Discipline or Ceremonies of the Church in a point of Doctrine they shew in what sence they understand such and such a Conclusion but in the other they set down what is to be practiced to preserve Orders and decency in those Churches where they have to do and indeed there can be no more required of obedience than in quiet and setled times in which
not Ordain in Alexandria 272. the begin R The Church of Rome doth much differ in its rites of Consecration from all other Churches and from the words of the Canon of the Council of Carthage 266. to 268. The Church of Rome hath various practices in those rites ibid. Reproaches not to be used in stead of Arguments 278. S. 4. S Sacerdotal administration not to be enjoy'd without Bishâ—ps 235 Scotland never without Bishops either in it or near it 235 236. to 238. Scotland not governed by Presbyters in the time of Johannes Major ibid. Variation from the customs of the Church of which we are members is Schism 257 Suffragan-Bishops by the leave of the Bishop of the City may Ordain Priests or Deacons 279. Proved by example 286 V Variation from the particular Church of which we are members is Schism 257. Vasques assertions that three Bishops are required jure divino to the Consecration of a Bishop disproved 246 247. The second part of Vasquesâ—s Argument examined viz. that the Pope may dispence with the triplicity of Bishops 252 253 c. Vasques's plea for the laying the Book of the Gospel upon the Bishop Neck to be necessary for his Conseration examined 201. These Quotations out of the New Testament are directed to by the several Pages of this Book St. Mathew Ch. V. P. 3 2. Â 10 13. Â 12 7. 15. Â 153. 8 13. Â 198. 1â—0â— 1.5.6 Â 9. Â 7. Â 10. 16. 19. Â 28. 18. 15. Â 165. 17. Â â—9 176. 19. Â 28. 27. Â 17. 19. 13. Â 196. 26. 17. 19. 26. Â 18. 27. 46. Â 179. 28. 18. 19. 2 22. 25. Â 28. 141. Â 20. Â 24. 28. St. Mark Ch. V. P. 2. 3. 11 198. 3 13. 7. 9. 9. 23. 198. 10. 15. 196. 14. 13. 16. 22. 18. 16. 14. 15. 22. St. Luke Ch. Â V. P. 6. Â 13. 7. 7. Â 30. 168. 9 1. Â 9. 2. Â 10. 10. Â 1. 11. Â Â 40. 1. 18. Â 15. 196. Â Â 8.10.20 19. 22 Â 14. 11. 18. Â Â 32. 94. 24. Â 25. 15. St. John 3 3. 5. 6. Â 12. 17. 26. 22. Â 12. 26. Â 16. 27. Â 4 4. Â 2. 12. 6. Â 48. 17. 10. Â 1. 4. 13. Â 16. 8. 16. Â 22. 200. 20. 21. 22. Â 22. 28. 31. 111. Â Â 23. 106. 21. Â 15. 16. 17. 28 Acts. Ch. Â V. P. 1 8. Â 30. 13. 20. 25. Â 31. 17. 25. Â 2. 20. Â 102. 22. Â 7. 23. Â 32. 2. Â 4. 30. Â Â 3. 72. 4 34. Â 36. 36. Â 32. 5. Â 13. 168. 6 1. Â 32. 2. Â 42. 3. Â 57. 155. 5. Â 37. 127. 133. 17 Â 139. 7. Â 51. 40. 8. Â 5. 40. 9. Â 18. 31. 10. Â 28. 9. 13. Â 2. 3. 123. 139. 14 14. Â 23. 21. Â 156. 23. Â 134. 19 2. 4. Â 13. 13. Â 4. 20 77. 18. Â 118. 28. Â 101. 118. 142. 21. Â 8. 41. 100. 22. Â â— 107. Romanes 6. Â 3. 4. 5. 15. 7. Â 24. 194. 8 1 Â 190. 17. Â 191. 10. Â 4. 72. 11. Â 17. 178. 12 4. Â 62. 5. 7. Â 61. 8. Â 46. 47. 61. 92. 16. Â 7. 32. 1 Corinthians 1. Â 14. 85 4 1. 2. Â 3 6. Â 33. 9. Â 32. 5 2. 6. 13. Â 176. 5. Â 177. 180. 12. Â 186. 9. Â 16. 79 10. Â 4. 28 11. Â 25. 19 12 4. 9. 10. Â 50 27. 28. Â 163. 28. Â 69. 105. 29. 30. Â 64. 14. Â 3. 50. 15. Â 10. 85. 2 Corinthians 3. Â 7. 8. 1 11 5. Â 24. 23. Â 2. Galatians 1 1. Â 31. 34. 9. Â 34. 19. Â 33 3. Â 26. 27. 173. 196. Ephesians 2. Â 20. 28. 4 1. Â 92. 11. Â 100. 12. 13. Â 105. 13. 16. Â 163. Philippians 2. 25. 32. 33. 3. 2. 153. 1 Timothy 1 Â 19. 20. 181. 3 1. Â 33. 5. Â 80. 8. Â 44. 56. 58. 59. 15. Â 163. 4 13. 15. 18. Â 76. 14. Â 107. 136. 5. Â 17. 64. 65. 103. Â Â 19. 65. 115. Â Â 22. 114. 138. 2 Timothy 1. 6. 108. 138. 4. 5. 100. 116. Titus 1 4. Â 134. 5. 7. Â 96. 99. 113. 9. Â 80. 3. Â 10. 11. 181 Hebrews 5. 4. 3. 9 16. 15. 11. 6. 72. 196. 12. 22. 23. 162. 1 St. John 1. Â 8. 10. 193. 2 1. 2. 6. Â 193. 19. Â 182. 3. Â 9. 193. Revelations 1. Â 20. 117. 2 2. 4. 10. 24. Â 121. 13. Â 119. 16 Â 22. 200. 20 21. Â Â 22. 28. 31. 111. 21. Â 15 16 â—7 28. Chap. Â Acts. P. 1. Â 17. 25. 2. Â Â 20. 102. Â Â 22. 7. Â Â 23. 32. 6 1. Â 2. 17. Â 139. 9. 18. Â Â 31 10. 28. Â Â 9. 13. 2. 3. Â Â 123. 139. 14 14. Â 32. 23. Â 134. 19 2. 4. Â 13. 13. Â 4. 20 28. Â Â 101. 118. 142. 21. 8. Â Â 100. 22. 5. Â Â 107. Romanes Chap. 7. 24. Â Â 194. 8 1. Â 190. 17. Â 191. 6 3 4 5. Â Â 15. Â Â 4. 62. 12 5. Â 61. 7. Â 61. 8. Â 46 47. 11. Â Â 61. 92. 10. 4. Â Â 72. 11. 17. Â Â 118. 16. 7. Â Â 32. 1 Corinthians Chap. 1 14. Â Â 85. 4. 1 2 Â Â 3. Â Â 9. 32. 5 2. 6. 13. Â 176. 5. Â 177 180. 12. Â 186. 10. Â 4. 28. 11. Â 25. 19. 12. 4. Â 9 10. 50. Â Â 28. 63. Â Â 29 30 â—4 14. Â 3. 50. 15. Â 10. 85. 2 Corinthians Chap. Â Pag. 3. 7. 8. Â 1. 5. Â 34. 23 Â 2. 20. 22. 28. Â 23. 106. Acts. 1. Â 8. 30. Â Â 13. 20. 25. 31. 2. 4. Â Â 30. 37. Â Â 72. 4 34. Â 36. 36. Â 32. 5 13. Â Â 168. 6 2. Â 42. 5. Â 37. 127. 133. 3. Â 57. 133. 7. Â 51. 40. 8. 5. Â Â 40. 14. 21. Â Â 156. 20. 17. 18. Â Â 118. 218. Â Â 41. 1 Corinthians 4. 6. Â 33. 9. 16. Â 79. Â 12. 163. 173. 12. 28. Â 105. Â 27 28. 163. 1 Timothy 3 5. 80. 4. 13. 15. 18. 76. 14. 107. 136. 3. 15. 163. 1. 19 20. 181. Galatians 1. 1. 31. 34. 9. 34. 19. 33. 3. 26 27. 173 196. Ephesians 2. 20. Â 28. 4 1. 92. 11. 100. 12 13. Â 105. 13. 16. Â 163. Philippians â— 25. 32 33. 3. 2. 153. 1 Timothy 5. 1 Â Â 86. 3 1. Â 33. 8. Â 44. 56. 58 59. 5 1. Â 65. 17. Â 64 65. 103. 19. Â 65. 115. 22. Â 114. 13. 2 Timothy 1. 6. 108. 138. 4. 5. 100. 116. Titus 1 4. 134. 9. 80. 5. 7. 96. 99. 113. 3. 10 11. Â 181. Hebrews 5. 4. 3. 9. 16. 15. 11. 6. 72. 196. 12. 22. 23. 162. 1 St. John 1. 8. 10. Â 193. 2 12. 6. 193. 19. 182. 3. 9. Â 193. Revelation 1. 20. Â 117. 2 2. 4. 10. 24. 121. 13. 119. St. Iohn 3. 3. 6. 17. 26. Deut. 16. 10 43. Levit. 22. 18. 19. 43. St. Mathew 3. 2. Â 10. 13. Â 12. 7. 15. Â 153. 8. 13. Â 198 10. 15. 6 Â 9. 7. Â 10. 16. Â 28 18 17. 29. 176. 19. 28 27. 17. 15. 165. 17. 176 19. 23. Â 196. 17. Â 18 19. Â 18. 26 26. Â 18. 21. 46. Â 179. 28 18. 19 Â 22. 25. 28. 141. 20. Â 24. 28. 22. St Mark 2. 3. 11. 198. 3. 13. 7. 9. 9. 23. 198. 10. 15. 196. 13. 10. 16. 18. 14. 22. 18. 16. 14 15. 22. St. Luke 6 13. 7. 7 30. 1â—8 9. 1. 9. 2. 10. 10. 40. 1. 1. 11. 18. 15. 196. 10. 19. 8. 19. 19. 18 19 20. 19 32. 94. 24 25. 15 St. John 5. 12. 17. 26. 22. 12. 3. 27. 6. 26. 14 4 2. 12. 6. 48. 17. 10. 1. 4. 13. 16. 8. FINIS