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
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
lowlinesse of mind which should be amongst fellow Members I answer therefore That the Gifts of Deacons are not such as qualifie a Bishop of which St. Paul spake there but I will tell you very like them and as that Clause is not inserted to a Deacon that he should be apt to teach so it is not required of him but when he is found fit to teach and it is required he may I think I have spoken enough to him If I knew any more of this kind I would not account it lost time to handle it although tyred with this CHAP. VIII SECT I. Of a Ruling Elder THE next particle or Branch of Ecclesiastical Authority which I will undertake to handle is that they call a ruling Elder or a Lay Elder he is called an Elder but I am confident that the Name is new and the Office not known in the Primitive Church nor hath any mention in Scripture but by phansy Now to understand this I shall first shew what manner of Office this man is imagined to have and then answer such Arguments as are brought for him and so Conclude with mine own reasons against him First the Examination of his Office what it is to do is set down by Mr. Hooker Part 2. Chap. 1. pag. 16. I will not transcribe all he saith but set down the heads SECT II. What those Lay Elders are according to Hooker BEfore the Assembly meet he is of the Common Council and his voyce is to be taken in with the rest in the Consultation and Consideration of the businesse by which I think he means the businesse should be agitated that day Here he ciphers out 3. places of Scripture I think to no such purpose read them he that will Heb. 13. 17. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Acts 20. 28. When Offences are to be brought to the Congregation it belongs to them to ripen and prepare the businesse by way of praeconsideration to state the Cause right c. Thirdly when the Church is met he may interpose his Judgment without asking leave These he hath in Common with other Elders what he hath peculiar to himself is First visiting the Sick and such as are any way under Spiritual wants these men should send for these Elders and they shall be the Physitians of their Souls for this he quotes James 5. 14. but no word there of a Lay Elder Secondly by the same reason he should seek out such and visit them Thirdly He is to make peace amongst Members Fourthly If there be a Fame of a Member that he misbehaves himself towards such as are without that is I think not of their Church by which the Church may be scandalized he is to enquire of the Truth and I think inform or else all is in vain Fifthly He is to Consider of the persons that are to be admitted into the Church and to pronounce Excommunications Thus in general we see what manner of Office this is let us now examine whether there be semblances of any such thing in Scripture which they pretend should be the Guide in these Affairs And â—irst I will begin where I left for that in the first place he cites Romans 12. 8. As he found a word for his Deacon He that distributes so he hath another for his Elder He that ruleth with diligence SECT III. Whether any such Elders truly in Scripture THis Question Mr. Hooker enters upon in the same 1st Chapter of the 2d Part pag. 8. Here he saith he hath nothing to doe but with the Hierarchical party whose main Arguments are a Pursuivant and a Prison armed with Authority of an High Commission This man I observe though civil in many places to others yet very passionately bitter when any thing crosses him to speak against that Cause which I conceive right and do not doubt but I shall prove it First he undertakes to prove this Office that there is such an Office from the former place but goes now somewhat higher Rom. 12. 7. He argues for it first thus The Gifts here mentioned and considered are not such as have reference to a Civil but to an Ecclesiastical Condition so the words vers 5. We are one body in Christ. This is no strong Argument we are one body in Christ therefore that which is spoken of that body or members must be Ecclesiastical not Civil In the same body consisting of the members of Christs Church his mystical body there are many Civil Duties even as they are Christians exacted from them and as members of that body Duties of Kings to Subjects of Subjects to Kings Husbands to Wives and theirs to their Husbands betwixt Masters and Servants and so they mutually a little of this Divinity will make all things Ecclesiastical and reduce all Obedience for Christs sake to a Pastor or Teacher an Elder or Deacon Secondly the Operations which issue from these Functions evidence as much Prophesying c. Exhorting c. I would he had put in shewing mercy too but we see they do not shewing mercy giving ruling may relate to any member of this body There is nothing therefore in these Arguments that enforce these should be Ecclesiastical duties of members in the mystical body of Christ. He hath another Figure of 2 I think he means by it another Argument for the Cause that is pag. 9. An Argument of his answered GIfts here are not such as are Common and belong to all Christians as Faith Hope Charity c. What if they are not are they Ecclesiastical Orders that will never follow but he proves it although to no purpose if it were proved First those Gifts are here meant by which the Members of the body are distinct one from another and have several Acts appropriate to them He proves that because verse 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. all members have not the same office this I have said is not parallel'd in the Simile and therefore not to be urged further But saith he Common Graces are not so distinct for in them they do agree I answer these are not Common nor yet Ecclesiastical only nor the duties required witnesse this one which is instanced in He that ruleth with Diligence To be a Ruler is not only in Ecclesiastical Affairs but Civil and he that ruleth in Civil affairs is to do it with diligence so Origen upon this very place so St. Ambrose St. Hierom Theophylact Anselm H. Rabanus Maurus out of them all of which use phrases to this purpose qui praest vel fratribus vel Ecclesiae So that by this although there is not a Common Grace that is universal to all Christians yet it is so Common as that it belongeth to all Governors whether Lay or Ecclesiastical nemine contradicente but these late men and the duty enjoyned is as Common as the Grace given to wit to govern or rule not barely but with diligence So that this Conclusion is Confuted out of this very Instance and may as easily out of any other but
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
Office one doth it better or more industriously than another The Summe saith he of the verse is expressed in a discreet Axiom the Arguments are Comparata imparia the things compared are the persons a Ruling Elder a Teaching Elder I will not cavill at the phrase the singular number for the plural it is Ruling Elders and teaching Elders but I deny that proposition absolutely It is not a ruling Elder and a teaching Elder but such ruling Elders and such Teachers which labour not in the Word There is a great difference in this sense it is a falacy à benè conjunctis ad male divisa see it explained every Elder is a ruling Elder but if he rule ill he is not worthy of Double honour no he deserves reproof It was a mighty falacy put upon the Reader to say the Comparison is made between ruling Elders and preaching when the words of the Text say it is such as rule well and Teaching Elders are not the second branch Extemporary Preachers have nothing to do with it but such as labour and take pains in the Word as St. Chrysostom most excellently descants upon that place and the very letter introduceth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used signifieth as much as one that with great labour and pains effecteth what he doth not the Sweat in the Pulpit but the Study as may be most apparent is it which makes him capable of this Double honour I wonder much at the Writer therefore not that he was deceived for that is humanum subject to humane nature but that he who seems so punctual in Logick should offer such a fallacy the fraud whereof is so manifest but he goes on and I. It is saith he especially to be observed that their Works are not the Things compared but the persons notified by the kind of their Works for the words are not the Elders because they rule well and because they labour but those Elders that are ruling those Elders that are labouring in the Word See again what a mist he layes before the Readers eyes in his Exception he puts the phrase aright in the first place It is not because they rule well Rule well is the phrase of the Text but in his affirmative it is those Elders that are ruling there that emphatical Epithete well is left out And then again in his second Exception That it is not because they labour there in the word is left out but in his Affirmative it is put in but those Elders that are labouring in the word This is meer Jugling but to his Sense I grant that the persons are notified by their Works although not by such kind as he expresseth The persons I grant distinct but the diverse persons and the same Office the Office is not distinct He proceeds to this Sense that their phrases are the Subject of the proposition only and therefore the persons and Officers being the Things compared it is certain they must be distinct persons This is the very phrase he names here only distinct persons which I grant but deduceth this Concession out of that Addition of Offices to persons but I will grant they are distinct Officers too but not distinct Offices which is the Question He goes on First those Conceits vanish that Elders are not attended for their holinesse or private Conversation I grant it but for their demeanour in the Church Secondly saith he nor will the Conceit hold which saith there be not diverse Elders but divers works of one Elder attended when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are persons compared not Acts. These phrases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not in the Text or if they were it would but inforce diverse men or diverse Officers not diverse Offices which he must prove or he proves nothing to the purpose but Consider how fallaciously he deals now he labours to prove thence diverse persons which is granted then diverse Officers which is granted under these notions hoping to begâ—ile the heedlesse Reader when he never comes close to prove diverse Offices which is his only Work Afterwards he comes to discourse of the Consequent as he calls it let him call it what he will I will follow him The Consequent part saith he of this discreet Axiom is The first Elder is worthy of this Double honour the Second Elder is worthy of Double honour but with this difference it is chiefly his due the second he means First in the Order to be attended 2dly in measure more of it is due and debt to him Now saith he it is well known it is required that the two parts of a discreet Axiom be not only discreet but true in themselves I consent let us see what he deduceth Whence saith he again that Conceit utterly vanâ—sheth which makes the Comparison to be betwixt the two Acts of one man namely the well ruling of a Pastor is worthy of Double honor be it alone in its self considered which is an Assertion grosly crosse to the rule of Divinity as the former was to the rule of Logick What the Logick of his deduction is I have shewed what the Divinity will appear anon he seems to prove it against Divinity thus That Interpretation which makes the performance of the least part of a Pastoral Calling though it be with the neglect of the greatest Work worthy of Double honour that is grosly contrary to the mind of God and the verdict of Scripture c. rather a double Wo is to be denounced against them than a double honor bestowed upon them But this Interpretation doth this Ergo SECT XI Neither ruling nor preaching are more excellent absolutely but in relation to circumstances I Will discourse first upon his Major Suppose we now which is most true that there are diverse duties in a pastoral Câ—arge Preaching Administring Sacraments Ruling Guiding his Flock put the question which of these is most excellent take them distinct in sensu diviso only in themselves without Consideration of times and persons and whosoever shall affirm either of these most excellent or usefull for the Church shall be Confuted by another who will say that at such a time or to such persons the other is most necessary most honourable without question to Heathen people that have not heard of Christ preaching is most necessary No man can come to God unlesse he believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him diligently Heb. 11. 6. But faith comes by hearing Rom. 10. 14. So then to that State of men in that Condition preaching is most necessary to generate Faith and lay the Seeds of Religion but when men are Converted to a belief in the Principles of Religion so that they are ready to cry out with the Converted people in Acts 2. 37. Men and brethren what shall we do then is necessary and usefull that which the Apostles did with them Baptize them after Conversion by preaching Baptism is necessary then the holy
Presbyters which are not Preachers and do not labour in the Word in that sense and yet there are no Presbyters which have not the power of Administring the Sacraments It is very weak that he saith there must be Preachers which are no Preachers for Presbytery doth not depend upon preaching in this kind nor doth the name or office signifie a Preacher but if he will there may be preachers who do not labour make it their Chief pains to preach there may be differences in the Industries of men and industrious men may be industrious in one piece of their Office and not in another 1 Cor. 15. 10. St. Paul saith he laboured more than they all that was without doubt in preaching aud yet 1 Cor. 1. 14. he baptized but a few industriously attending one and not so much the other but the sense of the Text is apparent I think and do you forgive my tedious digression But he urgeth that the Bishops Factors provide ill for them for by the Apostles determination the meanest Minister that is conscientious and laborious in preaching should have more respect than his Diocesan who sits c. but labours not to feed them with the Word of Life The Text doth not say the meanest conscientious Minister c. but saith that those who rule well and labour in the Word likewise are more deserving that honour than they that rule well only It may be it is spoken only of Bishops howsoever it is only an Addition of the obligation to him who labours and truly I think that Bishop who doth not labour in the Word is worthy of little but I confine not labouring in the Word to preaching only studyed Sermons but to instruct Preachers to write to overthrow ill opinions and the like and this is labouring in the Word and Doctrine SECT XX. St. Ambrose Expounded LAstly he hath found a piece of an Antient and truly to be honoured Father of the Church St. Ambrose which he rejoyceth in like one that had met with some unexpected blessing see how he commends it It carries saith he an Amazing Evidence and again after the place quoted The brightnesse and patenesse of the Witnesse is such as though it had been writ with a beam of the Sun and dazles the Eyes of almost Envy it self But observe this one thing as he and that sort of Writers when they will urge Scriptures which they cannot find to make any thing for them they put not down the words but Ciphers So here the words seem to serve his turn but the place where they are put overthrows it but it is not set down by him I have hunted it out and it is upon the first verse of the 1 Tim. 5. the words are these Apud omnes ubique Gentes honorabilis est Senectus unde Synagoga postea Ecclesia Seniores habuit sine quorum Consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesiâ quod quâ negligentiâ obsoleverit nescio nisi forte Doctorum desidiâ aut potius superbiâ dum soli volunt aliquid videri Now consider this is Writ upon the first verse before The Words he comments on are these Rebuke not an Elder but entreat him as a Father and the younger men as brethren St. Ambrose with all Commentators even Beza doth acknowledge this word Elder to signifie an Elder in Age St. Ambrose his words before these written down are Propter honorificentiam aetatis majorem natu cum mansâ—ctudine ad bonum opus provocandum And upon that he brings the words cited Amongst all Nations old Age is honourable and this word is as it were put of purpose to overthrow those men he useth Senectus not Presbyter which word Senectus was never used for an Officer so then what doth St. Ambrose mean but that in the Jewish Synagogue and in the Church they used grave men to assist and counsell without whose Advice nothing was done in the Church I grant it but these men were not your Elders but grave and learned men to advise with I will put in it is fit to be so still and for that reason Chancellors men learned used to sit in the Consistory But he gives two cautions pag. 15. Wherefore let him know that is the Reader that the Elders mentioned by Ambrose were such that their places and offices were almost worn out I agree but such were not the preaching Elders I agree to that likewise but say withall that these men were not such Elders who had Office in the Church but were Counsellors as he saith His second Observation upon St. Ambrose is That the defacing of the power and Rule of these Elders came as he conjectures by the sloath especially by the Pride of the Teachers because they alone might be lifted up The word in St. Ambrose was Doctorum of Doctors which was a phrase applyed to Bishops who in his time were the only Preachers as appears in the famous Story of St. Austin who when he was a Presbyter was fain to have a license to preach now then why he should say the sloath of the Bishops I cannot tell for sloathfull men are willing to have others joyned in Commission with them that so others may act what through lazinesse they are unwilling to meddle with but what he saith of pride may have some colour that they would Act all alone and so have all the Curchy and Application made to them therefore they would admit none of these Lay Counsellors with them Here is the drift of his Speech and what word in all this tends to the Addition of any Ecclesiastical Officer much lesse by a Divine right which is pretended to but only some Chancellor as I have said to advise with and now suppose I say clean contrary to him that the sloath and pride of Bishops put all business upon these Lay men so that indeed in our Times they are more Bishops than the Bishops and all through their sloath because they would not act in businesse and pride because they disdained to stoop to petty occasions I doubt I should say true and yet neither his Saying nor mine make one word for their Elders Jure Divino the rest that he saith vanisheth of its self thus they would make themsâ—lves eminent by the disannulling the honor of others places they could not be such as were of their own rank or did possess any of their places I grant it neither were they such Elders as we speak of nor you Thus now is apparent I hope how weak his Arguments are and what he said of that place of St. Ambrose that it had an amazing kind of discovery with it I may say of this whole discourse that it hath an amazing kind of discovery but what it discovers is the strangenesse of these men who opposing a known truth and the universal practise of the Christian world from Christs time downward dare urge these places for their Conceits which had very little semblance for them although they had been expounded by
practise but having none but great words and commendations of their own to that purpose it will easily perswade men that they made first their Form and then hunted for something to insinuate a belief that they were induced by Scriptures and thinking with my self upon what design they should introduce this kind of Ministry I could imagine no reason but as when cunning people would change a Monarchy into an Aristocracy or Oligarchy they have no way to divert the people from their old obedience and introduce it to themselves but by making them believe they should have some share in that Government which was ingrossed by one So these men breaking from Episcopacy would perswade the people from the old to the new yoak which they would impose that they had a Share in Ecclesiastical Government and that they should send out of them into the Consistory their Lay Elders which would wonderfully provide for their Security and good much better than before with other Things of the like Nature of which I may speak hereafter but indeed their hopes are frustrate in all this design for they could never set up any thing more Tyrannical or Arbitrary than this CHAP. VII SECT I. What a true Presbyter is The Name first Expounded I Have done now with their Presbyter of which I see no footing in the Word of God or Antiquity I now come next to treat of our own Presbyter what he is and first that we may avoyd all Equivocations and doubtfull Interpretations of Scripture we will discourse of the Quid nominis what is meant by this and other Phrases which are used in Scripture to intimate this Office First he is called a Presbyter which as it naturally signifies an Elder in Age so from that analogy it signifies a grave and reverend Man another word is Bishop which we alwayes render for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifies alwayes a Superintender and it is applyed to Presbyters who have a Particular Charge to overlook and see to I stay little upon this because it hath received very little Controversie but yet say somewhat of it because it will illustrate some future passages They are likewise called Pastors or Shepherds because when they are in a Charge they look over it as a Shepherd over his flock to govern or â—ule to feed them and do such Duties They are called Doctors and Teachers because they instruct the people in the Mysteries of Godlinesse although perhaps this word may be extended farther than to them but these were the Chief names by which that superiour Order which succeeded the Apostles were called in the Primitive Church in the writings of the Apostles and after and this is the Sense implyed by these names SECT II. Certain Concessa by all who have engaged in this Controversie BUT now to sever Granted Truths from Questioned and not to wast my time in unnecessary discourses It is granted by all that I have seen that these all were ordained by the Apostles to do these Duties to administer the Sacraments of Baptism and the Communion to preach the Gospel although I think no man can shew me any place of Scripture expressing such a Canon which shall enable such men bearing such names under such Titles to be authorized to such Duties but only a Constant practice of it but it being supposed that they were authorized to do this Duty we may find rules directing how these should be performed by them I let that passe therefore and shall now enter the lists against two Opinions which I oppose one which makes Pastors and Teachers two Offices a second which makes no distinction amongst these SECT III. Mr. Hookers distinction of Pastors and Teachers handled FOR the first Mr. Hooker disputes in his Book before cited Part. 2. Chap. 1. pag. 19 20. And first to understand his Opinion Consider that he makes two sorts of Teaching Elders one he calls Pastors and the other Teachers the scope of the Pastors he describes with a great deal of handsom Circumlocution exceeding fine expressions of the Rhetorical perswasive part of a Preacher the result of all which is to perswade by such Arguments as have power over the Will and the Affections as it is pag. 19. The Teachers Office is to lay the Fundamental points of Christian Faith the Principles of Religion as he expresseth it in the bottom of Page 21 and the top of 22. These two parts he makes distinct Offices in the Church both of them being ruling Elders as well as teaching and both of them having power to administer the Sacraments but in their preaching the one is to bend his force his endeavour to the Teaching and informing the Understanding the other to the perswading and moving the Affection the first he calls Teachers the second Pastors Look for a reason for this distinction unheard-of till of late I find none but in a reply to Mr. Rutterford pag. 7. where it seems Mr. Rutterford urged that these formal Objects of these two Offices Information of the Judgement and Exhorting are not so different as that they should be incompetible pag. 7. Chap. 1. To this he replyes that in themselves and full breadth that is his phrase these are not so incompetible but look at the specialty of the Gift that fits for one and which furnisheth for the other to attend mainly and chiefly upon each according to the Gift they will prove inconsistent These are his words and these imply that where there are distinctions of Gifts and they diversly to be endeavoured there should be diverse Offices or else I see no force in this Discourse but this hath no probability of colour for it Consider Civil Offices a Justice of Peace one Justice hath a great Cunning in the Statutes in rendring them to a legal sense he applyes himself and endeavours to that most another hath a great ability in reconciling and taking up Quarrels and perswading men to friendship he endeavours that most and perhaps did either of these by framing himself to endeavour what he were least fit for lesse attend what he were more dexterous in he might attend his Office in general but the lesse profitable way and these are both one Office though in it diverse Gifts or Abilities which cannot both be attended with any mans utmost endeavour Passe from Civil to Ecclesiastical Offices and this very businesse Among Presbyters Preachers one hath great Excellency in giving the Grammatical sense of the Text another in expounding it Scholastically a Third in the Historical part of Divinity and these are several Gifts or Abilities and men according to them apply their utmost endeavours but these make not distinct Offices but several Gifts and Abilities in the same Office which is just the same with these and as there is no foot-step in the Historical part of Divinity to shew any one president so is there no colour of reason for it But he quotes Scripture The first is that place so largely discoursed of before Rom. 12.
Presbyters under that general name of Presbyters as Writs are sent out â—o summon the Barons of the Kingdom to Parliaments by which word was understood both Earls and Dukes although by the Name and Notion called the house of Lords So Bishops were called along being Presbyters under that name they are all called both from Ephesus and the Adjacent Parts though that be put down only and then St. Paul gave them all their Charge to look to their Several Duties and execute their several Commissions which they had before received which is all that these words can enforce although this is reasonable yet methinks this is more probable that they were all or for the most part but bare Presbyters for in the first Age of the Church when the Conversion of men to Christ was new and there were but few Christians few Presbyters were necessary and then much sewer Bishops especially the Apostles living and Episcopizing one of them enough for Twenty of us and therefore one Bishop for a great Nation as Titus for Creet where were an hundred Cities was sufficient but Religion increasing in the hearts of men more Presbyters are necessary and they increasing there must be a greater necessity likewise of Bishops but that any of these should be such as we call Bishops to have power over other Presbyters and to give them orders is no way apparent This therefore proves nothing for their parity But he addes that the word Bishop is never used in the New Testament but the Actions therein required belong to any Presbyter He excepts the Case of Judas Acts 1. 20. For my part it is not material how the word is used but what I labour for is that there is such a Thing as the word Bishop now used doth signifie and that the more he or any other Trouble themselves against it it will appear the more clearly as hitherto it doth I will proceed therefore with him page 25. He frameth his Second reason thus SECT X. His Second Argument answered IF they be distinct the Bishop is Superiour but he cannot be superiour every Superiour Order hath superiour Acts and honours belonging thereunto above the Inferiour but Bishops have neither above those that are Presbyters for if labouring in the Word and Doctrine be an Act above ruling and is most worthy of Double honour then the Act and honour of a Presbyter is above the Act and honour of a Bishop for they only assume the Acts of rule but give the Presbyters leave to labour in the Word and Doctrine I have at large discoursed what labouring in the Word and Doctrine is I will not repeat now but begin with his last For they only assume c. which is the foundation upon which this whole discourse is built and I answer that the Bishops do not only assume the Acts of rule but esteem it their duty to labour in the Word And if Mr. Hooker would without prejudice Consider even of that kind of labouring which he and his Sort understand it Pulpit-preaching the World never yielded more fruitfull Industries than those of our Bishops whose Works live to bear witnesse for them being dead and therefore I conceive this to be an Argument of spleen rather than reason and for the second Clause of this foundation that they give the Presbyter leave to labour in the Word they do much more for they Episcopize over them and look to them and by Authority over them make them do it encourage them who do and punish those who do not If men have misdemeaned themselves in their Office no doubt but Twenty Presbyters have done so for one Bishop but yet neither the one nor the other are lesse Jure Divino for that Judas his Office was good he was an ill Officer Nicholas his Office was good he an ill Officer this chose by the Apostles that by Christ himself thus Offices are not disparaged by the Officers But Consider further that although labouring in the Word with the people may be a more Excellent Work than governing or ruling the people as it is more excellent to perswade than to compell men to vertuous Actions They are but half vertues that are forced yet governing Presbyters which is a proper act of Bishops is more excellent than labouring in the Word to the people by how much the Extent of the benefit is more General It produceth the Good of a Diocesse as that of a â—arish But once again although I had thought enough had been said to that Text 1 Tim. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of Double honour but especially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine yet I will adde somewhat for illustration Suppose this speech were turned from the Church to the Army and a man should say thus Let the Elders the Officers of the Army who govern or rule well their Regiments or the Army be worthy of double honour but especially they who labour and toyl in the heat of the battel could any man Collect from hence that it were a better Act to labour in the Act of fighting than to steer and direct the fighting No sure it is an Act becomming a private Officer and concerns a few but the other who rules well hath the whole fortune of the day the fate of a whole Kingdom sometimes depending on him yet if he can and do upon desperate occasions thrust himself into great hazard he hath an especialty of this Double honour due to him and yet it would not befit him to hazard the day which depends on his providence by neglecting direction to thrust himself into perpetual dangers These Bishops are the Generals of this Spiritual Militia they are to direct and oversee their Diocesse to encourage to command Inferiour Officers to their Duties when they do this well they are worthy of double honour but if when great occasions shall require they act themselves what at other Times they command and take care that others shall do it likewise they have an Especialty of Double honour due to them which is the full Sense of that Text Elders which rule well have a double honour because they have a double excellency both do their own and make others do their duty but if they who have abilities do rule well and labour too then especially much more is that honour due SECT XI His Third Argument answered I Come now to examine his Third Argument which I am sorry to read for it is so full of illogical deductions as methinks it should not be possible for any man to think he could perswade by them It is thus framed If they differ from Presbyters Jure Divino then there are some Ministers by Divine Authority necessary for the gathering of the Church and perfecting the body of Christ besides that of the Presbyter for if the Church can be perfected without these there is no need of these I will stay here a while This Consequence is not good for Ministers may be
as should be their Judges in Spiritual Things and have Authority over them and guide them and assist their Souls to Eternal Salvation But here he inserts an Objection against himself which he saith is ordinarily in the mouth of the Prelates and indeed deserves to be likewise in their heart Tit. 1. 4. for this Cause have I left thee in Creet that thou shouldest Ordain Elders in every City as I have appointed there the power of Ordaiâ—ing Elders in Cities is left to one man not to the people He answers the Apostle did appoynt him to do this work but to do it according to his mind and in the Order which Christ had instituted and of which he had given him a precedent pattern To skip unnecessary Discourse Acts 14. 23. When they had Created them Elders in every Church or as the Geneva reads it when they had ordained Elders in every Church by election and prayed and fasted they commended them to God â— First this Text I have sufficiently examined before but now must make Application again in this businesse it is urged for Titus was bid do it that is apparent and no doubt if our Saviour had instituted any particular way of doing it that would have been implyed in St. Pauls Command it should be done that way and none other but neither he nor any man living can shew me any way prescribed by our Saviour therefore that was in vain 2dly For St. Pauls own practice it might be various upon diversities of occasions and therefore if he had urged that he would have said as thou hast had me for an Example at such a Time but this is not shewed for this particular Take the Geneva reading that the â—lders were ordained by Election yet let us Consider what election can be meant there certainly that Election of which I have formerly dâ—scoursed which must precede Ordination an â—lection of Paul and Barâ—abas for if we will mark the Story at the beginning of this Chapter they were both frighted by the persecution from Iconium then they fled to â—ystra in the 19th verse you may observe St. Paul stoned at Lystra and Iconium where they ordained Elders in every Church by Election saith the Geneva supposâ— it But can it be imagined that such Concourses of people which according to these men should be the Electors of their Elders durst assemble together in places where the persecutors were powerfull without an uproar this could not be imagined and therefore no other Election can be understood but that of the Apostles that they chose whom they thought hittest and dismissed them to their Parishes and yet I am confident that Geneva reading cannot be enforced out of the Original as I shall more largely discourse elsewhere God willing and if that reading were true yet you see what Election must be understood for although if these Apostles Barnabas and Paul had been in quiet places and Ordained these men for those quiet places they were in there might be some Colour yet since they were in places of hot persecution and this phrase every Church implies all those Adjacent Church it necessarâ—ly follows in a Moral necessity that this Election was made by the Apostles and not by those Churches who could not there be then assembled in such full Companies as would become such a Duty and herein observe a strange license of expounding Scripture to abuse a cleâ—r and evident Text by wresting it with a Glosse according as he had done before to a Dubious Text yea such an one as cannot be expounded to their Sense without violent partiality But he urgeth at the latter end of this Argument That this was the Apostles mind and meaning in this Charge to Titus the words of the Text shew for it is added that he should redresse Things that are amisse and saith he must not this be done by the Officers and the Church also according to the rule of Christ I reply there is no rule of Christ given which saith so he should have shewed the rule for that which perhaps may be aimed at our Saviours rule tell the Church must be understood of the Church Officers it can have no other Sense for the Church totally for every person cannot ordinarily be assembled and totally can never but the Church quoad hoc for this purpose in its Officers and no other way and therefore the rule was given to him and him only to redresse such Things as were amisse SECT XII His Second Argument answered HIS Second Argument in the bottom of Page 52. is thus framed It is not the scope of Ordination by God appointed to give the Essentials of an Officers call therefore from thence it is not to be expected in an Orderly way He supposeth the Consequence undeniable and therefore undertakes only the proof of the antecedent for which he Cyphers out that place 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the Gift which is in thee which was given thee by prophesy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery out of this he would prove his Conclusion he therefore in the fear of God as he speaks addresseth himself to the Consideration of three things What the gift is here said to be in Timothy 2ly How it was given by Prophesy 3ly What the laying on of the hands of the Elders was and why used In the search of which he spends many pages page 54. he begins and ends page 59. I will draw the summe of what he saith For the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendered Gift he after Discourse of diverse acceptations conceives page 55. That those spiritual Graces and abilities with which Timothy was enabled to do his great work of his supposed Evangelizing are meant but before I go further here he Contradicts himself in the beginning of page 26. where he produceth this and this only place to prove that Ordination is the work of the whole Presbytery but here he distinguisheth the Abilities from the Office as Contradistinct Expositions For the 2d Term what was meant by given by Prophesy he first discourseth impertinently of the Office of an Evangelist to shew it was extraordinary yet sometimes given by means neither of which hath any foundation in Scripture That he saith Philip was made an Evangelist immediately without the mediation of man hath no one word of Scripture for it but only Acts 8. where he is called an Evangelist but not described which way Authorized either immediately or mediately For the 2d That one should be made an Evangelist by the Ordination of men he produceth this Text where there is no word of Scripture nor Exposition of any Antiquity which saith That he was by this Ordination made an Evangelist but Antiquity Theophylact and abundance say Bishop Again he confesseth it against his own Exposition of this word Gift which before was only Ability but now must be both Ability and Office so hard a thing is it for Error to be constant and to raise a strong building upon a
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-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
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
be present untill they setled Bishops amongst them His next place urged is Acts the 20. he leaves me to looke the verse but affirmes that the Church of Ephesus was governed first by Presbiters only from that Chap. afterward they had a Bishop who was called The Angel of the Church of Ephesus Apocalyps 2. That which hath any colour for this in this Chap. must be deduced out of the 17 th verse where it is said That from Miletum Paul sent to Ephesus for the Elders of the Church Therefore it seems the Church was governed by Elders at that time but let the Reader consider whether St. Paul did not Episcopize over them conventing the Elders before him and giving them that most heavenly charge And then consider that these men in the 28. verse are called Bishops Take heed to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath madâ— you Overseers we read it but it is Bishop in the Original indeed as I have shewed in this Treatise The words were not distinguished at the first but they were promiscuously used untill the great increase of Christianity when the name of Apostles began to weare away and they had more generally setled Churches and planted Bishops over the other Presbiters in the chief Cities and then these were called Bishops and indeed every Presbiter who hath a charge of Souls is a little Bishop in the Superintendency of his parish though noâ— in the nature of the office he must look to his little flâ—ck as Bishop over them so that nominally every Presbiter with charge of Soals is a little Bishop superintendâ—ing them for their Souls good But a Bishop is higher over them and their flocks to take care that he doth his duty in these places of Scripture I see no manner of Argument to shew that a Church may exist without a Bishop for they had Apostles and then Bishops in their places CHAP. III. His Argument drawn from Panormitan answered HE then urgeth a Sentence out of Panormitan Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam ordinabant sacerdotes consecrabant omnia Sacramenta Sed postmodum ad schismata sedanda fecerunt seâ— ordinaverunt Apostoli crearentur Episcopi Let me examine this bold assertion of Panormitan and of St. Hierom who hath much the same word Olim that was in the first plantation of the Churches I know no record of any authentick authority in the case but the Acts of the Apostles or their Epistles in which I can never find that any man or Company of men who were barely Presbiters did ordain Priests or did perform any Act of Jurisdiction in communi as he speakes which would intimate a Sentorian Government of which as they urge none so I cannot imagine what words in these Acts or Epistles should tend thereunto but then his last Clause I in part yeeld to that the Apostles did ordain Bishops and am confident they did it by divine Right which was given them by our Saviour saying As my Father sent me so send I you but whether only as they say ad sedanda schismata to appease schisme upon the occasion of some that said they were Pauls or else for the absolute better government of the Church which I rather adhere to I leave to the Readers Judgement but in general think it too great a boldness for men to limit Gods designes to their weake measures when God hath not determined or exprest them therefore such a passage in Panormitan is of no vallidity CHAP. IV. His first Argument to prove their ordination after Bishops were instituted answered HE proceeds with the second Number of his distinction to shew that not onely this was done before Bishops were instituted but after likewise the same was done and he gives this reason for saith the Doctor Non enim ad esse sed ad melius esse Ecclesiae necessaria est haec oeconomia This discipline is not necessary to the being but well-being of the Church suppose I grant it 't is true no discipline is necessary to the being of a Christian but Baptisme by which we are made members of that mystical body of Christ of which he is the head political Lawes Civil or Ecclesiastical are not necessary to our being Men or Englishmen of this Country but to our happy being in it we may be Christians and members of Christs Church where is no Presbiter as well as no Bishop As suppose a Diocess and Kingdom conquered by a Pagan as alass too many have been not a Bishop or a Priest left remaining Those noble Christians who remain without them have the being of Christians but not the well-being of Church-communion enjoying the blessed Sacrament which requires sacerdotal administration and likewise Church-discipline which conduce to the well-being of a Church but here we see the same necessity of one as the other for Bishops as Presbiters CHAP. V. An Argument out of Johannes Major answered BUt he proceeds and produceth a place out of Johannes Major de gestis Scotorum that he should write that the Scots were governed by Priests and Monks until Anno Domini 429. from whence he collects that they were two hundred and thirty yens without Bishops he might have urged other late Writers likewise in it But I answer to this that the Registers of that illiterate age were very ill preserved throughout Christendom but worse in those parts amongst the Picts and Scots then almost any where by reason that they were miserably oppressed with the almost perpetual Warrs they had with their Neighbours Brittaines and Romanes the Saxons and scarce any eminent man for learning who recorded any thing was acted amongst them and in that Gap of time in which they place this lack of Bishops their troubles were at the height for as there was all that space Warrs for dominion so there was persecution for destruction of Christianity and the Scots in general were banished that Country The Christians fled every where for safety to the adjacent Isles to Ireland from whence they came to Normandy to Denmarke any where for safety which it may be although unhappy to their wordly content yet advanced the propagation of the Gospel as it was in the Apostles time upon the persecution of St. Stephen Well then I think in this unhappy season they can find good Record for neither Bishops nor presbiters but every Chriâ—â—ian shifting for himself and especially those who were in authority and in Christian office because they of all others were sought after and therefore were concerned to hide their heads besides this it being the custome of Bishops to place themselves in some eminent Cities whereby they might be the more eminent and the better oversee their Diocesses There were few such in Scotland then but these Bishops which were then in the Kingdom were forced to inhabit many obscure places All which considered it is not possible for any man to expect a pedigree of their Bishops as it hath been preserved in more eminent Churches
who was Patriarch of Antioch although a good while after should not be thought â—itter to understand the practice of that Church than those who lived after him in other Churches I apprehend not His Comment upon the Text is this Sine Vrbis Episcopo without the Bishop of the City is not to be understood without his Command as we term it his Fiat but saith he his Ordination or Consecration for saith he if the Bishop Command the Chori-Episcopus to Ordain and he should do it that Ordination were void so that by this learned Author this perplexed Canon must be understood against Doctor Forbes but he hath a third Edition of Isidore Hispalensis which reads it praeter conscientiam Episcopi without the conscience of the Bishop and here he magnifies this Edition and calls it probatissima Versio the most approved version but he doth not set down by whom this is approved besides himself neither do I think he can nor doth shew any reason why it should be so approved but his own Authority and let us see what he hath got by it for certainly it seems not to me to inforce his interpretation which is that he may Ordain these offices with the leave of the Bishop for it is not praeter consensum but conscientiam now conscience is not the same with consent consent is most proper to another mans action Conscience to his own the great actions of Conscience being to accuse or excuse a mans self or to judg of a mans own act or whether they have been done according to right science but it meddles not with what concerns other men either to judge accuse or excuse them unless we are authorized in foro publico or privato in confession and then it is an act of the Confessors Conscience only out of this regard that he is bound in duty to apply his knowledg to others and therefore to understand this Phrase better let us conceive that Praeter or beside the Conscience of the Bishop is non-sence but if he or any others are delighted with this word Conscience in this Canon I will shew them a fourth reading where he may find it used most properly and significantly which is Cresperius his sum word Chori-Episcopus where he quotes this Canon and therein saith that a Chori-Episcopus must not Ordain Priests or Deacons propter Conscientiam Episcopi for the conscience he hath of the Bishop of his City that is because his Conscience tells him that the Bishop is only to Ordain such thus I think that it is no way evident from the Canon that these men did Ordain Priests or Deacons we come next to the second whether any of these Chori-Episcopi had Episcopal Ordination and so might in a case of necessity Ordain SECT IV. Doctor Forbes to blame for Censuring Bellarmine too sharply in this point IN this Question Doctor Forbes falls soul upon Cardinal Bellarmine which I was sorry to read gives him ill language calls his opinion ridiculous and childish and again Page 170. detestanda est Bellarmini impudentia Bellarmines impudence is to be abhorr'd or else miseranda imperitia his Ignorance is to be pityed for although the Cardinal may seem to deserve such language himself after giving learned men who differ from himself in judgment as bad or worse yet these Pen-Combates should in that resemble those with swords where the first engagers in the quarrel being high with animosities against each other will give no Quarter but after the experience of a continued warr hath taught that what happens to one this day may be the fortune of the other to morrow they manage the warr more civilly in the future so it should be with us now when the warrs have continued a long time and experience hath taught us that the most learned writer is a man and subject to error may be mistaken in his judgment may sometimes in Quotations miss the right conceit of them we should spare such reproachful languages and deal with one another even our enemies more courteously but let us see why he is so severe against Bellarmine because saith he Bellarmine doth oppose Damasus and all antiquity in saying that there are some Chori-Episcopi which had Episcopal Consecration and some which had only Presbyterial to this I say Bellarmine may be mistaken and so may Vasques the Jesuit who opposeth him in that conclusion but I doubt it doth not clearly appear out of antiquity Which is mistaken Bellarmine de Clericis in his seventeenth Cap. conceives that these Chori-Episcopi which he and all writers make to be vicarii Episcoporum may be of two sorts either such as are meer Presbyters or else such as are suffragans or titular Bishops the first sort are they which Pope Damasus condemns and will not suffer to encroach upon the Episcopal office the other he saith which were suffragan Bishops or titular might do it with leave from the Bishop of the City the fault of this saying appears not to me for they being vicarii may be of either sort or both and I spoke it knowingly as will appear presently in the next Cap. if they were such as are called suffragans as is reasonable to think then they were Ordained Episcopally and might Ordain Priests yea Bishops and did do it nor doth any thing in Vasques or Doctor Forbes necessarily confute it first for Cardinal Bellarmine he seems to be of opinion that this Canon doth approve of the Consecration of these Chori-Episcopi and that they might give the Order of Priesthood with leave from the chief Bishop to avoid that that they who were presbyters might then do it he puts down this distinction that some had but Presbyterian Ordination and some Episcopal and this he thinks this Canon implyes when it saith speaking of the Chori-Episcopi etiamsi manus impositionem Episcoporum acceperint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mark it is in the Plural number they had the imposition of Hands of Bishops not of one only as Presbyters and then again it is said ut Episcopi consecrati fuerunt and are Consecrated as Bishops which words saith Doctor Forbes were by the translator added and are not in the original Greek it is probable Pope Damasus who lived near that time a thousand years and more nearer than he and is reported to be learned in the Greek as well as Latin should know the words of the Councel as well as he or any other yet he puts down these words and they are in both the Lections of Peter Crabb I will not trouble my self to look further but Pope Damasus writing against them and condemning them would not have put down this Argument against himself if it had not been the Language used in that Canon what force his Arguments have I shall examine speedily but now let us consider the Argument which is only touched by Bellarmine if they were a sort of Chori-Episcopi which had the imposition of Hands from divers Bishops what reason can be imagined why such
although perhaps some who had not and I think there is little of moment to be found in antiquity concerning them which is not observed by me there is an Epistle of John the third Pope of that name but it is rejected by Binius and so slighted by me And yet me thinks some may ask my opinion of those Churches where are no Bishops first I dare censure no man much less such large Congregations amongst which I know there are many learned men and no doubt but full of Piety I may be deceived and so may they humanum est errare but certainly in that acquaintance that I have with antiquity there seems to me no ground for them there nor in the Scripture these few pieces which this learned Gentleman had Collected are but old totered Rags which cannot abide to be stitched to this new Garment they have nothing to excuse themselves but necessities which whether they have sufficient or no to excuse them let their own Souls Judge God will I dare not FINIS THE TABLE A Apostles their Election and to what 7. Their Number whence their Name their Office 8. To whom sent 9. What to Preach 10. The Apostles power whence 22. The Apostles truly had the Power of Preaching to all the world 23. 24. The Apostles only commissioned to Baptize 25. The Apostles only to Administer the Communion 27. B Baptism instituted by our Saviour 12. The Baptism of our Saviour and St. John not the same 13. Whether our Sacramental Baptism be the same with that before Christs death 14. 15. Not the same the Objections answered 16. 17. The Baptism instituted by Christ not in force till after his death 18. Whether Baptism administred by Laymen be valid 29. Of Bishops their distinction from Presbyters 94 First Argument from Scripture for their Points 96. The Argument examined 97. And answered 99. The Exception that Titus was an Evangilist but not a Bishop answered 99. Objection for their points from Acts 20. 28. answered 101. C An outward Call necessary to a Minister 129. This Call hath a Moral not a Physâ—cal influence 130. The Character left after Ordination 132. The Communion instituted by our Saviour 18. The Apostles Ministers of it 19. 20. Instituted before our Saviours death 20. 21. Mutual covenanting of the Saints gives not the Being to a Visible Church 157. What this Covenant is Explicit or Implicit 159. The Reasons for it answered 159 c. Other Arguments answered 165. 167 c D The Election of the Seventy Disciples 11. The Differences betwixt them and the Apostles 96. Deacons as afterwards used in the Church not instituted Acts 6. 37 38. Arguments proving this 39. 40. The opposing Arguments answered 43. Some of the first Deacons Preachers 40. What the Office of a Deacon 45. E Of lay-Lay-Elders 59. What a Lay-Elder is in the Disciplinarian sense 60. No such Elders in Scripture 61. Places of Scripture urged for them answered ibid. Third Argument of Mr. Thomas Hooker for Lay-Elders answered 62 c 69. 74. 75. St. â—auls Elder signifies but one Office 66. St. Ambrose's words urged for Lay-Elders expounded 86. c. The design of making Lay-Elders 88. What the word Especially imports 1 Tim. 5. 17. 68. What an Evangelist is 106. G Gifted men may Preach if licenced by the Bishop otherwise not 84 85. H What Double Honour signifies 1 Tim. 5. 17. 68. Mr. Thomas Hookers opinion concerning Deacons examined 45 46. Rom. 12. 8. expounded against him 47 48. c. His Deacon enforced from this place of Scripture Confuted 53. The first Confutation of Mr. Thomas Hooker out of this Text. 54 55. His Second Argument refuted 56. His Third Argument refuted 57. His First Argument from Reason refuted 57. His Second and Third Argument from Reason answered 58. Another Argument answered 59. Mr. Thomas Hookers distinction of Pastors and Teachers refuted 90 c. I Episcopal Jurisdiction proved 115 L What Labouring in the Word imports 1 Tim. 5. 17. 67. 86. M What the word Minister signifies 1. The Definition of a Minister 2. The Definition explained 3. c. The Power to be a Minister must come from God 3. 6. Motion is to Relation 208 209. O Touching Ordination 121. Mr. Thomas Hookers definition of Ordination confuted 122. What Ordination is 123. Ordination not before Election 224. Men may be Ordained without the Election of the People 125. Whether Ordination gives all the Essentials to an Officer 128. Of Pastoral Ordination 140. P St. Peter had no greater power given him by Christ than the other Apostles 28. The chief Arguments for his superiority answered ibid. A vindication of our Common Prayer-Book in the number of the Sacraments 131. A Digression concerning Preaching 76. What Preaching is 78. To what Preaching every Presbyter is bound 80. The peculiar Interest a Presbyter hath in Preaching 82. Who is authorized to Preach 83. What a true Presbyter is 89. A Power is left by Christ to some men whereby they communicate Power to others 156. R Relation may be the principle of Action 211. One Relation may be the Foundation of another 242. What Ruling well imports 1 Tim. 5. 17. 67. A The Apostles only intrusted with the power of the Keys 29 30. Other Apostles besides the Twelve 31 32 33. The reason of it 33. The Apostolical power extended to all the world 34. How the Apostolical power was Communicated 35. How the Apostolical power was communicated to particulars 36. B Second Argument for Parity answered 102. Third Argument for it answered 104. Fourth Argument concerning Jurisdiction answered 106. An Argument from Ordination by Presbyters answered 107. An Argument out of St. Hierome answered 108. Bishops succeeded the Apostles in all that is Apostolical though not in their extraordinary endeavours 142. Baptism not the Form which constitutes a Church-Member but no Visible Act by which he is made a Member 171. Mr. Thomas Hookers Arguments against this Opinion answered 171 172 c. Baptism hath all things necessary to a real Relation 219. E Episcopacy setled by the Apostles in the Church 111. First Argument from Scripture to prove Episcopacy 113. A Second Argument to prove it 114. The Revelation of St. John assorts Episcopacy 117. St. Cyprian urged as favouring The People having the power of Electing their Ministers explained the Objection answered 126. Arguments from the Election of the Deacon Acts 6. examined 127. Other Arguments answered 133 c. 149 c. An Excommunicate man is a Member of the Church 175. Bellarmines Arguments against this Opinion answered 176 c. C Scriptures written of the Catholique Church grossely misapplyed by Mr. Thomas Hooker to particular Churches 162 c. What is meant by the Church and our Saviours saying Tell the Church 166. What makes a Church Visible 169. Such as renounce the fellowship of the Church are yet Members of the Church 180. The Arguments against this Opinion answered 181 c. 190 c. Some difficulties of this Opinion cleared 187. What