CHAP. II. What a Minister is, in his Definition.

A Minister is an Officer ordained by God to do something conducing to the salvation of mens Souls.

In the first place, his Genus is an Officer, which nature he hath [Page 3] in Common with multitudes of others, who are such, either Ma­gistratical or Servile. I need not discourse now of that, it is so apparent; Secondly, in his Difference: the first phrase is, or­dained by God; that is, by the Command or Institution of God: There are many Officers that are instituted and ordained by men, who have power from God to do this Act of Instituting Officers; but a Minister is an Officer instituted by God: from him he hath power in Divine things, these no man can have power over, but he who hath this Authority granted him from God, and that is it which St. Pa [...]l affirms, Heb. 5. 4. No man taketh this honor to himself but he who is called of God, as was Aaron. Nay presently after he affirmeth of Christ, that he assumed the Priesthood not of himself, but from the Father; so then this Ministerial Function requireth Gods Ordination: but by the word Ordination I not only conceive an Institution of God, but likewise some Duty commanded which God orders thereunto; So that by giving this Order (so the School, and we in English, call these holy Functions) God exacts a Duty in these men who exercise it: For the graces given these men being such as the School calls gratis datae, not sanctifying the person who hath them, but such as are for the sanctification of others, God who gives nothing in vain, will require an Account of these gra­ces and abilities. And to this purpose St. Paul, 1 Cor. 4. 1. Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ▪ and Dis­pensators or Stewards of the mysteries of God; Vers. 2. Moreo­ver, it is required in Stewards that they should be faith­full; that is, to lay out the moneys according to their Lords appointment and direction, according to the Lords Ordinance; but there is more intimated in this word Ordinance, to wit, an enabling the person who is ordained to do some superna­tural Work, but the enabling must be understood in Actu pri­mo, not secundo, that is, he is enabled with Authority to do that is required. A man gives his keyes to his Steward, bids him search such Rooms, such Boxes for such occasions as he hath need; here he hath Clavem, the Authority and right pow­er to do this Duty to open the doors in Actu primo, but per­haps his hands are weak, he cannot turn the key, or he is igno­rant, he knows not how to do it, yet what he doth is regular, he hath Power and Authority to do it, and should another who [Page 4] hath more ability, do it in the second Act, and not in the first, he doth it like a Thief, not like a Steward: This first right is certainly Conveyed by the Ordinance of God with holy Or­ders, but not the second: and they who do these duties without this Authority given them from Christ, are therefore called by Christ Thieves and Robbers; John 10. 1. He that entreth not by the door into the Sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, he is a Thief and a Robber; they are Thieves, but they who come by the door, by Authority from Christ, are the right Shepherds, and have Authority to go into the [...]old and do their Duty there; so that though a Minister have Authority given him to do holy Things, yet he may not have the Science or Integrity to do ac­cordingly, but what he hath, so far is ratifyed by God, but others who have not this Authority, though they do the same things, yet they are responsible for a presumption; as may ap­pear out of Acts 19. v. 13. where certain Exorcists took upon them the power Divine of Casting out Devils, which was Apo­stolical; but they stole the keyes of this power, had them not given them, and the Devils rent and tare them? from all which it appears, that the enabling with this power such as may be justifyed, comes from a Divine Ordination, and not else. The next Term is, To do something conducing to the Salvation of mens Souls: I put this phrase (to do something) more largely than the Schools, and the great Consent of the Church of Rome use to do, who restrain it only to the holy Communion; as if holy Orders were only referred to that Mysterie, and so with wresting, bring in those little Ecclesiastical Officers into the Number; but we may observe, that for ought I find, a Deacon by his Institution or Practice at the first in the New Testament had nothing to do with the Communion, nor indeed hath more now than to assist with the Cup: And the great Power of the Keyes toucheth not the Act of Communion immediately, but by reason of admission or prohibiting such as shall or shall not Communicate: I choose therefore this phrase (to do something) which comprehends all, even that and Preaching, and whatso­ever else conduceth to mans Salvation, but yet we must apply this to what went before likewise, and take all together; there are many Acts done by men, who are not Ministers, which con­duce to others Salvation, and are very usefull, and commenda­ble [Page 5] in them, nay are done out of Duty; as the Example of a good life, discreet admonishing men of their faults, incouraging others to virtue, and the like, which are all Acts of Duty from one Christian man to another, but not Acts of Office; Acts of Charity as they are Christians, not as they are this or that sort of men.

We must therefore recall the first Term, (that they must do. something Conducing to the salvation of men.) This phrase must be a little farther cleared likewise. There are things which Conduce accidentally to the Salvation of others, as persecution, affliction; so it was with St. Paul; sometimes assisting in villany, which starts up some Divine Speech or Action; so those wicked persons, who assisted in the Crucifying of our Saviour, their Wicked Act made them Spectators and Auditors of those super­natural words, which then declared him to be God, and made them receive that Faith in him, and confesse that he was the Son of God; But these persons are in themselves the Devils Ministers, though Gods almighty power and providence Conjured them about, as he will the very Devils themselves, and draw his ho­nour out of their Wickednesse, his light out of their Darknesse; These Acts in themselves Conduce to Hell, but God wrought them miraculously about to Heaven, and therefore not under­stood here, but such as in themselves are disposed to it; and be­cause Heaven is not a result or an Effect naturally arising out of our Works, but a blessing bestowed upon the Workers accor­ding to their Works, for Christs sake, therefore those things which Conduce to Heaven in themselves must be such as God is pleased to Covenant with us, that upon them and the doing of them he will give this Salvation; for no man can obtain that by Fraud or Violence, and therefore it must be on such Terms as he Covenants for: And these things are those of the Word and Sacraments, (as the whole Christian World hath named them, though they have no such name given them in the New Testament) to wit this: God hath provided Salvation in Hea­ven for his Servants, the Means for them to get this Heaven is by these Covenants, Sealing these Deeds, obeying these Ordi­nances of his [...]or which he hath appointed Officers, and given them Power and Authority to administer these Covenants, (Let­ters of Atturney▪ for it is a Legal, Juridical businesse▪ and a le­gal [Page 6] phrase befits it) to act these things betwixt him and men, and teach them his Lawes and will, by which they shall be Sha­rers of this blessing, and they who have an Office,) and from that Office Authority to do All or Some of these things, are the Ministers we speak of: And I think this may suffice to speak, what a Minister is; How he is ordained, and who they are, will follow.

SECT. II. These Powers must be given by God.

TO understand these heads, we must first conceive, that a man can receive or assume no such power (that is effectu­al) to himself, unlesse it be given him from Heaven, as St. John speaks, John 3. 27. Heaven being Gods gift, the powers, the Covenants which bring men thither, must be by his Appoint­ment, and the Officers who work and effect these powers must be by him authorized likewise; I write these Conclusions briefly, being of great Evidence in themselves, and for ought I know denyed by none.

SECT. III. The way to understand who these are.

AND now, in my Conceit, the readiest way to clear this truth, will be, to shew what Officers Christ hath appoin­ted to this purpose, and this must be done two wayes: First, to shew Historically what was done; and Secondly, to shew how that History shall agree with the Design it had to bring men to Heaven, and how unfit other pretentions are to it. The History I shall divide into two parts; First, to lay the Foun­dation of this glorious Building, to shew what our Saviour act­ed himself in it, what the Church Discipline was in Embrione, in Ovo, in the Foundation, then to shew what Superstructures the Apostles built upon it, what it was in the birth when it was [Page 7] a Chick. The first must be sought out of the Gospells, or the beginning of the Acts, where the Story of our Saviours imme­diate Commerce with this World both in his life, and after his Death, is set down for us: The second part must be cleared from the later part of the Acts and the Epistles; and thus my design is layd.

CHAP. III. The Election of the Apostles, and what to do.

THE first remarkable business in the Gospel, is the Ele­ction of the Apostles, which we may find recorded in the 3d. of St. Mark v. 13. and the 6th. of St. Luke v. 13. In St. Mark we may observe that he ordained Twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach; and in St. Luke we may note, that he gave these Twelve the Name of Apostles: out of this we may Consider, that our Saviour having many Disciples such as had leaned and listned to his Doctrine, he chose out of them Twelve, which he gave par­ticular Favours to, and gave them that name of Office to be Apostles; That there was some Mystery in that Number of Twelve I am perswaded, because that after the Apostacy of Judas, in the 1. of the Acts, v. 22. St. Peter saith, That accor­ding to the Prophet David, Psal. 109. 7. another should take his Office: It was necessary another should succeed him in that Mi­nistry, and they chose one and no more to Compleat the Num­ber. What that Mystery is, is not so apparent: That which fits my Apprehension is this, That our Saviour did, in very many things, lay the platform of his Ecclesiastical Govern­ment according to the pattern of the Jewish Polity, and in this particular he resembled the Twelve Patriarchs; but this he laid as Pillars only or a foundation, intending it only to support the rest, not to figure out the Number of these Officers which were afterwards to be, a Number I know by none pretended to: but yet they then were so many pillars to support this building, [Page 8] and whatsoever Structure should be raised must be erected up­on these: But besides their Number we may mark their Of­fice, which was two-fold, about our Saviour, and about the Church, or other men; about our Saviour, that they should be with him hearing and learning his Doctrine, spectators of his Miracles, and most exemplar manner of Life, that so they being to bear Witnesse of him and his Actions afterwards, might the more Constantly and Confidently do it, when they had in such a manner been Conversant with him. That which con­cerned other men, was, That he might send them forth to preach. Here was an Office Instituted, as St. Mark records it, and to have power to heal sicknesse, &c. This Gift of Miracles was not the Office it self, but a sign and token by which men might know that they were sent from God; for they taking upon them a new Office, and pretending that they received it of God; exe­cuting it for him, it was necessary that they should bring with them some evidence that they had it from him, and this evi­dence or sign of it was this power of Miracles, which accom­panyed them. Thus St. Mark hath described the Office, and because men should not be mistaken in these Officers, St. Mark and St. Luke have set down the particular Names and Characters of many of them; upon which I insist not, as not material to my work. But then it must be marked farther, that St. Luke sets down the Name of the Office, as well as the Officers, and saith the Name was imposed by Christ, which he called Apostles, which Name is derived from [...], which is mitto, to send, and an Apostle is missus, one sent; thus the general na­ture of the word signifies, and so the word is used John 13. 16. Neither is he that is sent greater than he that sent him; [...], he that is sent, but in this place it is perpetually put for the Name of this Office; and to the same sense is that word Angel, which with Apostle, Amen, and divers other words, all languages ob­serve and derive from the Original; Angel is derived from [...], which is Nuntius, a Messenger to relate some Affairs to others, now the Apostles received this Name as men sent about the most excellent Errand that ever was; the Messengers, the men sent. In a word, we see there were a certain Number of men chosen, they are set down what they are, what their Names were, and the Number of the Committee, and we see the [Page 9] names of their Office, as likewise what their Authority hither­to was, that is, to preach. No doubt but Beza's word which he interposeth, (to preach the Gospel) is a good glosse, though I think it not the right Text. But although they have Election into an Office provided for them, and a power and Authority to exe­cute this Office, when they are sent, yet they must not go before t [...]ey are sent; we will consider therefore their Mission in the next place.

SECT. II. How and to whom the Apostles were sent.

AND for that we must come to St. Matthew 10. 1. and to St. Luke 9. 1. there we may observe, in either place, that as before they had the power given them, so in these places they were Commanded to execute this power. In St. Mark it is said, that he ordained Twelve, that they might be with him, that he might send them forth to preach; ready they were for the bu­nesse, they lacked nothing but Mission, and that they had in the former places. In St. Matthew, 10. 5. we may observe these Twelve sent forth, we shall see there the place where they were to execute the Commissions described; First, negatively, verse the 5. Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any City of the Samaritans enter ye not: then positively, but rather go ye to the lost Sheep of the house of Israel, vers. 6. Not that our Saviour would forbid Salvation to any Soul in the World, for others be­sides Jews were Converted; [but accidentally] the Office of the Apostles, in our Saviours time, was while he lived restrained to them; And therefore we may observe, that St. Peter him­self, in the 10th. of the Acts, until he was admonished by a Vi­sion of his Errors, was of Opinion, that it was not lawfull for a Jew to have any Communication or keep Company with a Gentile, as he expresseth it to Cornelius, vers. 28. So then you see their Commission restrained in place; and, Secondly, you may ob­serve their Commission explained, what they were to preach.

SECT. III. What they were to preach.

BEfore, they had Commission to preach, now a Command what to preach, St. Luke the 9th. ver. 2. to preach the kingdom of God; St. Matth. 10. 7. The Kingdom of heaven is at hand; the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of heaven, are the same, called from God as the King; as we may say Caesars Kingdom or Empire, called from Heaven as the place, the Em­pire of Rome, the Kingdom of Jerusalem: Now this Kingdom is from the Eminency of it called the Kingdom of Heaven, be­cause there is as it were the Court where Gods Glory is most manifestly apparent, that is called his Kingdom, as Rome; but though his Court be there, his Kingdom is on Earth; though Heaven be the Court, yet Earth is the Country of this King­dom; though Heaven be his Throne, yet Earth is his Foot-stool: So then, by his Kingdom, or, the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, is meant, that Christs Kingdom was comming near; That now the time was Comming, in which he should conquer the Devil, and lead Captivity captive; now the time was Comming in which he should Settle his Dominions in the World: And this was much the same with the Subject of St. John Baptist his Ser­mons, Mat. 3. 2. Repent ye, for the Kingdom of God is at hand; nor indeed could other Doctrine be preached, for Christ had not yet Conquered the Devil, nor setled his Government, and therefore, as their Commission was setled and restrained to a place; so it was in the Doctrine much unlike what it afterwards came to. Thus you see that the Apostles had now at the last▪ a Commission to preach; you see their Diocesse, to the Lost Sheep of the house of Israel; you see likewise what they were to preach. The next thing to be Considered, will be, what other Officers our Saviour Instituted, and what Enlargement he gave to this Commission, whether any or no.

SECT. IV. What other Commission our Saviour gave to other men.

TO understand this, let us consider Luke 10. 1. where we shall find that our Saviour called and sent Seventy, or Se­venty and two other Disciples besides these Twelve before na­med: the diverse Lection of the Number is not material to any thing in hand; but we may observe, first, that there was the same businesse, in which they were employed, as the very Apostles were, out of the 9th. verse, where they were commanded to preach the same Doctrine: The Kingdom of God is come nigh unto you: That they had the same Assistance for their preach­ing, the power of Miracles; That they had the same way of Congratulating Cities or houses, whither they came; That there was the same Curse upon them that received them not; that they were so to demean themselves both to the receivers and them who did not receive them: But herein we see some difference; the Apostles were first ordained, and then sent; these ordained and sent together. Secondly, the Apostles were taken into a Near attendance about Christ, and from that had a more Inti­mate Acquaintance with both his Life and Doctrine; and from thence, although these were sent equally with them in all respects, yet they only had the Name of Apostles, given them by a prero­gative Eminence, which throughout the Gospel is not attribu­ted to these later Disciples; Besides these, I read not of any persons which had any Mission from Christ to do these great Works concerning mans Salvation. But hitherto we find onely the Authority of preaching given. We will therefore in the next place Consider who were made Ministers of these Cove­nants of Heaven, called Baptism, and the Lords Supper; whe­ther these, all these, or other besides them.

SECT. V. Who were made Ministers of the Sacraments.

TO begin with Baptism: that Baptism was instituted in our Saviours life time, is very evident out of the 3d. of St. John, v. 22. where it is said, That our Saviour camo into Judea, and there tarried with them, and baptized, that's expounded Chapter 4. v. 2. that he did not baptize, but his disciples: out of which it is evident, besides the Conference he had with Nicodemus in the beginning of the 3d. Chapter, That there was a Baptism used and instituted by our Saviour, and they who were the Mi­nisters of it were his Disciples; But now, when it was instituted; and what it was that was Instituted, are mighty difficulties, not fully cleared: For the first part, I leave all those parties which fix it to any times, which are these two, either when St. John bapti­zed our Saviour, of which we may read Mat. 3. 13. or else in his Conference with Nicodemus, John 3. 5. where he uttered these words; Except a man be born again of Water and the holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven; I can consent to neither of these: Not to the first, for we find nothing like an Ordination; but indeed by the descending of the Holy Ghost, and the voice from Heaven, a foundation for an Ordinance, but not an Ordi­nance it self: Not the second, for it was a private Conference between our Saviour and that man, wherein he might well de­clare that there had been some such Thing, or that there should be such a power given; but this did not settle any such power, nor any form or Minister of it: I conclude therefore, that as many things were done, without doubt, which are not written, as St. John speaks in the last Chapter of his Gospel, and the last verse: so amongst many things this is one, which yet was done, we may safely Conclude, because it would be a mighty presumption for the Disciples, to usurp a power of baptizing without a Commission, and that they did baptize is apparent, I therefore Conclude that it was done, but when is not apparent: and now let us examine what was done.

SECT. VI. Concerning Baptisme.

THis Question seems to me to be very unsatisfactorily hand­led by those who have treated of it. To understand what can be comprehended in it, conceive with me, that there comes a three-fold Baptism in Consideration in this Question: the Baptism which we are baptized with, which in expresse terms was ordained by our Saviour after his resurrection; the Baptism of John Baptist; and the Baptism of the Disciples of our Saviour in the time of his residence upon Earth: the Baptism of John, and the Baptism of our Saviour, have been disputed with a great deal of vehemency betwixt Calvin and the Church of Rome, whether it were the same with our Saviours or no? and I am in this Conclusion against Calvin, and do think that he causlesly rejects the Fathers with a sleight in his Institutes, when certain­ly in it self the Question is of no great use to any Design of faith or piety; I will not trouble the Controversie now, but shall be ready to give an Account of it to any man that shall require it; but hint out to the Reader that one place Acts 19. 2. Where St. Paul finding Disciples at Ephesus, asked them, whether they had received the Holy Ghost? They answered, that they had not so much as heard that there was an Holy Ghost: and he replying, to what were ye then baptized? they answered; unto Johns Bap­tism: Then in the 4th. verse, St. Paul tells them, that John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him who should come after him, that is, on Jesus Christ. When they heard this, they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus: Observe, that it could not be the same which was instituted by our Saviour, because they had not heard of the Holy Ghost, which is an expresse phrase appointed by our Saviour; and then, that they were baptized by St. Paul, which was a sign the first was not perfect; This particular is miserably shifted off by Beza, and that shift wonderfully extol­led by Chamier, when the Text is evident that they were re­baptized.

SECT. VII. Whether the. Baptism of the Disciples before Christs death, was the same with Johns?

THere is a second Controversie, whether the baptism of the Disciples before Christs Death, differed from Johns? sure it seems to differ; because Johns Disciples came to him in the 3d. of John, v. 26. and told him how Christ baptized, and seemed enviously to clamour, that he and his baptism was fol­lowed more than St. Johns; which, if it had been the same, they would never have done: because by that their own Church was encreased; but wherein this Difference was placed, we can hard­ly discern, by the Gospel; for, as I have shewed, their Doctrine was the same, that the Kingdom of God was at hand, and they could not go further but as Prophets, for yet it was not Come, but Comming. Now there could be no baptism into any other Faith, than that was taught: Thus briefly of that second Question.

SECT. VIII. Whether our Sacramental Baptism be the same with that before Christs death?

NOW the third, may be betwixt that Sacramental Baptism, which we have, and that which they administred before our Saviours death, whether they are the same? For my part I am against it, and not I alone, but many more, both Ancient and later Writers. First, because that preaching the Word, was only out of Office to be done to the Jews, and they retai­ned Circumcision still, the legality of the Ceremonial Law be­ing not yet abolished, untill our Saviour put a period to it with his Consummatum est: It is finished, at his Death; for although there might be an use of both together, yet both could not be used Sacramentally; and although Baptism might have an In­stitution, [Page 15] and have Laws made and Directions for it before, as must needs almost be in the Making of any Laws, yet these Laws had not their legal force till the execution was ordained, which could not be untill the Abolishing of the old, which was not (as I say) untill our Saviours Death; So Heb. 9. 16. For where a Testament is, there must be the Death of the Testator; for a Testament is of force after men are dead, otherwise it is of no force, while men are living. Now although Christ might make these Covenants, and this Will and Testament, in his Life, yet it is of no force, untill after his Death. Again, the signifi­cation and mystery of Baptism, which it imparts to every bap­tized Man, is not, nor could be before his Death; for as St. Paul speak [...], Rom. 6. 3. Know you not, that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his Death: (bapti­zed into I [...]sus Christ) that is, by Baptism Incorporated into his mystical body, or as he speaks, planted, verse 5. (were bap­tized into his Death) by the same phrase incorporated into his Death, dead with him, and this enforceth the 4th. verse; there­fore we are buried with him by baptism into Death: If we be in­corporated into him by Baptism, if incorporate into his Death by Baptism, then we must be buried with him, and then we must be raised with him: Now this mystery could not ef­fected untill our Saviours Death and Resurrection; For, al­though I doubt not that the Death of Christ was powerfull to the saving of believers, which believed in his Death to: come, be­fore it came; yet it was a diverse way of Faith which looked upon Christ to Come, and Christ already Come. And again, as the Faith was diverse, so the Means to get this Faith and the Covenants, by which Christ was impar [...]ed, were diverse. Now this Baptism looks upon Christ dead; it could not therefore in this Notion be applyed to them before his Death, and after his Death too, And to Confirm this, we may observe, that the very Apostles themselves were slow in the belief of this Fundamental Truth, the Death and Resurrection of Christ, untill after it was done, as you may observe Luke 24. 25. where our Savour chides their slownesse of belief in these Articles: Now if they had not a Strong [...]aith in these Articles themselves, it is not rea­sonable to believe that they preached them to others, and then not baptized others into it. These reasons are not observed [Page 16] by Bellarmine, or Gamacheus, or Estius, or any others I meet with who handle this; Gamacheus, in general, affirmeth some­thing to this last Argument, that Christs Death was powerfull to the salvation of Souls even before it was, which I grant (but not by that means which takes his Death, for a Pattern or a Stock, in which it must be grafted; for the Graft supposeth the Stock and the thing drawn the pattern) to such means as are Types or Figures of Christ to Come, not Impressions or Signs of Christ already Come.

Again, he answers, that it were enough without his Death, if he institute such a power; but it must be proved then, that he did institute such a power: for it is most certain, that whatsoe­ver Covenant God makes, that he will perform; and since God hath pleased to make such Expressions of this Baptism as have their foundation upon his Death, it is not probable, nor can we be easily induced to think that he should do it without his Death.

Another Answer he hath, which bears some shew of prose­cution of the first Argument: that although Baptism was not Compleat omni ex parte, in all Circumstances, in respect of its re­mote Effect, which is to open the Gate of Heaven, untill the resurrection of Christ, yet it was essentially perfect to the pro­duction of Original Grace, which is its nearest and formal Effect.

I reply: Neither could it do this; For since Circumcision was yet on foot, which had that Effect proper to it, these two had not both the same Operation at the same time; and again, since the Introduction of Original or any Grace must be by the Death and Merit of Christ, men must receive this bles­sing by that, and that communicated by Baptism; for although these mercies were given by other Covenants before his Death, which related to his Death to come, yet not by those which referred to his Death passed, as this Complanting by Baptism did, Gamach. in 3. qu [...]st. 66. cap. 4.

SECT. IX. Another Objection answered.

BUT what I find not Objected by them troubled me more than their Arguments, untill I studyed the reason of it, which was, What meant all our Saviours Covenants and Promi­ses concerning Baptism before his Death, which are understood by all Consent to be applicable to our Baptism which we use, if then this Sacrament was not ordained to be exhibited? And to this we shall find this Answer (I think) most reasonable: That our Saviour did settle Laws, and Rules and Covenants for Bap­tism in his life, which had not their Life and Operation till his Death, when he setled the frame and manner of it. So you may find the Doctrine, and Law and Covenant concerning eating his body and blood delivered in the 6th. of St. Johns Gospel, ver. 26, 48, &c. which yet had not its truth and force untill the In­stitution of the Communion, and Commission to Celebrate: So likewise for the power of the Keyes, Matth. 18. 27. Tell the Church, which could not be in force till Churches were setled, and so must needs these places be understood. I will examine one, John 3. 5. Except a man be born of Water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God: this cannot be understood at that Instant according to that Generality, a man; any man in general, which must be taken inde [...]initely, as the Context doth mightily evince, because in the 3d. verse preceding it is said, except a man be born again, which hath an indefinite truth: so likewise in the following 6th. verse, That which is born of Flesh is Flesh, that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit; this in­volves all that are in the World. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; therefore that which is not born again, and so not of Water and the Spirit: Now this cannot have this Ex­tent at this time; for, as I said before, Circumcision was not yet abolished: for it was impossible that this Law could at this time be divulged and communicated to men, and therefore it was impossible, that a Law made in a Corner without publicati­on of it could exact an obedience, and therefore it could not be [Page 18] but like other Laws, it was then made, Christ taught Nicode­mus the Doctrine which afterwards should have its force and vigor, when the time came, that it should be divulged and taught. Well then, out of this that hath been said, it may ap­pear, that although there might be an Institution of this Sacra­mental Baptism, wh [...]ch we now use by the Mercy of God for our Admittance into the Church, for our Incorporation into his body, although this might be instituted, and many Laws con­cerning it made in his life, yet those Lawes were not of force till after his death, and the promulgation of them then. We will in the next place Consider the Communion, and examine what Minister was appointed for that in the Gospel, for we find none for Baptism yet in Christs life.

CHAP. IV. What Minister was appointed for the Commu­nion.

THis Communion was Instituted by our Saviour a little be­fore his Death, in those famous places of three of the Evangelists, (for only three mention it) Mat. 26. 26. Mark 14. 22. Luke 22. 19. to speak of which, is only pertinent to the thing in hand. The two first Evangelists affirm, that only his Disciples were with him; see Mat. 26. 19. The disciples came and said to him; so Mark the 14. 16. The disciples went forth, but St. Luke comes more close, and in the 14th. verse of the 22. Chapt. saith, And when the hour was come, (that was to eat the Passeover) he sat down with the Twelve Apostles: So then, here we have them who were with him, not intimated only by their general name of Disciples, which they had in common with the Seventy, but the name of their particular Office, which was ap­propriate only to them: St. Luke doth particularize in the Case of these men sent into the Town, St. Matthew vers. 17. where before, leaves it at large▪ That he sent Disciples, but how ma­ny, or who, is not discovered by him, St. Mark Chap. 14. v. [Page 19] 13. punctually sets down the Number, he sent two of his Disci­ples; But St. Luke, 22. 8. tells who they were, James and John. I put down this, to shew the punctuality of that Evangelist in his Description, who writing after the other, seems more particu­arly to set down some things than the other did; especially in this Story. Well, we see who they were that were with our Sa­viour at the Celebration of his last Passeover, and the last indeed that ever was, or could be exacted of the Jews: That at the Ce­lebration of it, and so likewise at the Institution of the Lords Sup­per, his Twelve Apostles were those that were with him▪ Now they being at Supper, in the places before alledged, you may observe, that he took bread, &c. But in the 10th. of the 22. of St. Luke, at the later end of the verse, he said, this do in remem­branc [...] of me; this do, hoc facit [...], do this thing, this thing ye see me do: It cannot relate to their own Actions, which were only eating and drinking, which could in no resemblance Commu­nicate the Death of Christ▪ But Consecrate the Bread and Wine with a Benediction with this Expression, this is my body, this is my blood, and so in my place distribute this in Commemoration of me; for although in St. Luke this very phrase, do this, is on­ly applyed to the Bread, yet St. Paul, according to what he had received from the Lord, 1 Cor. 11. 25. saith, that he used the same to the Cup likewise, this do ye as oft as ye drink it, in re­membrance of me; and indeed, St. Luke doth most punctually imply the same, although not expresly enforce it, in verse 20. likewise also the Cup after Supper, saying. This likewise refer­ring, as St. Paul expresseth, to the Conclusion of the 19. verse, Do this likewise in remembrance of me; he said the same likewise ter the same manner concerning the Cup. Well, you see both of these how they are to be celebrated according to Christs In­stitution; now there is a Question raised, which I do not find from Christs time downward, untile now, Who is the Minister of this Sacrament?

SECT. II. Who the proper Minister of this Sacrament?

THere are many disputes, I grant, but moved newly there is (as I hear, though I read it not) a Question, Whether there be any proper Minister, or no, of the Communion? Con­sider therefore with me this Text: There were none with our Saviour but the Twelve Apostles, it is said to these, Do this; from that Time downward, it hath been held, that none but Aposto­lical men, Successors of them, should do it: It is a Thing of the greatest and highest Concernment to a mans Soul that ever was, Heaven or Hell is at Stake upon it, if we misse. Consider, it is a kind of lifting up a Creature beyond its Nature, Bread and Wine to the body and blood of Christ, it is no matter which way, one way or other; it is a Command given to a selected Num­ber of men: These are described by that Office, not by a Ge­neral Notion, to be the men are spoken to; who then can con­ceive but so great a power, with so great a blessing, should be Committed to such men? Well then, I think it clear, here was a Covenant instituted, what it was, is in other places and Laws of our Saviour described; and belongs not to my businesse; this only appertains to my businesse, That the Apostles were Institu­ted, and they only the Ministers of it; only this little I will adde, lest some mens observation may stagger at it.

SECT. III. The Communion was Instituted before our Sa­viours Death.

THat though our Baptism may, perchance, appear to take its force from some Command of Christs, after his Death, yet this of the Lords Supper was now instituted before, and yet doth relate to his Death; First, because Circumcision was not [Page 21] determined, but the Passeover was, which prefigured the Lords Supper; and this which he now celebrated, and had finished, was the last which by Gods Command should be celebrated among the Jewes; Secondly, because the Death of our Saviour was at hand, so near, that there could be no Communion inter­posed betwixt this and that; and therefore it was, as it were, given in the very Nick of time; and, as while the Passeover was on foot, no Communion could be expected: so; as soon as that is expired, no I [...]terim betwixt this and that. This must appear in its Institution: I have done with this: I only Consider, that as in humane Affairs, he that should take upon him the Kings person, to act as he, without he make him Chancellor, or Judge, enters into an high presumption; so, and much greater must his pride be, that dares to act Christ in the Sacrament, to call for a Sacramental Virtue to the Elements without his Authori­ty, which seems to be granted only to this Sort of men, and to none other, thus I think you see the full Commission of the Apostles, until now restrained to the Jews, and they were insti­tuted as yet Preachers of the Kingdom of God to come; At this Institution of the Communion the Celebraters of that; That they and the other Disciples did baptize, before is evident; That they did not do it without a Commission, in honour to them and their piety, I am resolved it could not be; But what that Baptism was, or when, or how farr they had a Commissi­on I find not, and therefore dare determine nothing.

CHAP. IV. Gods Method for Mans Salvation.

WHen our Saviour was Dead, and had suffered for the Sins of Mankind, he then brake down the partition wall that was betwixt the Jew and Gen­tile; he then, as he suffered for the Sins of the whole World: so he took Care how all the World should be partakers of these Sufferings of his; he could by Divine power have stamped their Souls with infused Graces, and by Compulsion have forced [Page 22] men to that [...]aith which should be saving; but then Heaven and Hell had not been praemium & poena; he took therefore such a Course as might most ordinately bring men to his Service, without Compulsion; and since he was to leave the World himself, he took Order with his Servants to Act as if he were present, and Negotiate the great Work of Salvation of Souls by a Delegate power from him. Therefore in the 16th. of St. Mark v. 14. you may observe, that he appeared to the Eleven, that is, to the Eleven Apostles, for one of them, Judas; had apostatized, and had hanged himself; and in the 15th verse, he gave them Commission, Go ye into all the World, and preach the Gospel to every Creàture, that is, to every Creature that is Ca­pable of it, &c. there was their Commission. The same Story is thought by many to be a little more fully described by St. John, Chap. 20. 21. after he had appeared to them as before, he said, Peace be unto you, as my Father sent me, so send I you, and then he breathed on them the Holy Ghost. Mark this phrase, As my Father sent me; It is a particular phrase not u­sed elsewhere, and therefore intimates some extraordinary matter. God had sent many men before, but never any besides Christ with the fulnesse of Authority, as it is described Mat. 28. 18. All power is given me in Heaven and Earth. All pow­er was never given to any before: I send you therefore with all power, as my Father sent me; So the power then of Gi­ving powers to others, which was never given before but to my self; and therefore in that place of St. Matthew before ci­ted, in the last verse too, I am with you to the end of the World, with you teaching, baptizing, giving Orders to others, for that is mightily enforced out of the word Sicut, as my Father sent me; and, indeed, else he could not be with them in their persons to the end of the World, but in their Succession, by which means he might well be said to be with them to the Worlds end. Having now touched upon these places, I will Collect this, here was in the 28 of Matthew, vers. 19. Baptism Institu­ted, Matter, and Form; In the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which we read not prescribed before: we see the Officers appointed, these Eleven in their personal bodies, or succession; wee see their Diocesse enlarged, preach to all Nations, and as preaching, so baptizing as large, they go [Page 23] together; we see the Subjects of their Sermons enlarged, be­fore Christs Death. When they had to do with the Jews only, it was, the Kingdom of God is at hand: Now it is, to observe all things that I have commanded you; So that then we see, first, be­fore our Saviours Death two sorts of Officers, Apostles, Dis­ples, their Office at the first, limited to preaching, and that to the Israelites; that they did baptize we are assured, but not in what Form, nor by what Commission, untill after our Savi­ours Death; then we have seen the Holy Communion Institu­ted just before his Death in Matter and Form, and Commissio­ners appointed to Celebrate it, to wit, the Apostles; we see after his Death a full and Absolute Commission granted to these persons, to whom the Communion was committed, to do all things, Baptise, preach, celebrate, forgive Sins, to choose and send forth others; and for ought I can collect in this Story, the whole Ministerial power invested in them; But because something may be objected against this which hath been delivered, which I take to be the foundation of what shall follow, I will clear those objections which seem most trouble­som to me, and so proceed to shew how the Apostles managed this Stewardship committed to them.

SECT. II. Whether the power of preaching was given only to the Apostles?

FIrst, It may be questioned, whether the power of preach­ing was given to the Apostles, and them only? To under­stand this, we must look back and remember, that the Seventy likewise were sent, but that was to the Israelites only, their Commission extended no farther, before our Saviours Death; and after his Death we find no Commission given, but to the Apostles, and what Authority they, or any else could have to preach the Gospel, it must be from them; let no man trouble this or any other part of my discourse with that frivolous Ob­jection which is often intruded into these Controversies; We [Page 24] read not that these, or these men, that these Presbyters recei­ved new Commissions from the Apostles, and yet find them preaching; for Answer, once for many other times in which it may be needfull; it was impossible that the Acts or Epistles could keep a Register of all that were ordained by the Apo­stles, or Bishops in their Age; it is enough for us to know, that all power for these things was given to the Apostles, and we may reasonably think, that of these 70. which were chosen by our Saviour, such as proved worthy, should be Commissioned by the Apostles, and such as were unworthy, (as some were) should be suspended ab Officio: but for these particular Regi­sters, and how and when each man was, is not apparent, nor to be expected. Well then, now it seems the Apostles had all the power of preaching, none others being sent in this Embassy to the World but themselves. But could none else preach? not gifted men? Consider these men, never any so Extraordinarily gifted as these were, yet see (as I observed) they preached not, without an outward Calling, by Christ, nor then untill he sent them. Again, it is observable, that by his outward Word, he directed their Doctrine to the Jews, that they should preach the Kingdom of God was at hand; and to the Gentiles, Mat. 28. 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have Com­manded you; So then, Christ had given them Command before what they should preach. I do not find, no not in these, yet any inspired Sermon, but upon Direction; and although these men had (no doubt) the most immediate Call that ever any had, and the most extraordinary Gifts, in the most extraordinary way, yet for to enable them for their preaching, they had Conversa­tion with Christ, which doth the most resemble the most Indu­strious life of Studious Scholars, which in Books Converse with God, as possibly a thing can do: so that in that time, in the time of our Saviours Life, and untill his Ascention, we can find no place for inward Calling, without an outward, nor an out­ward execution, without means to enable them for this great Ministry of preaching, but throughout a most Methodical Course.

SECT. III. Whether these, and these only were Commissio­ned for Baptism?

THE next thing to be looked upon, is, Whether these and these onely had the power of baptizing? No doubt we may say of this, that they had the Duty only, none other obli­ged to either, but they; and when I have named the Duty, I think I may justly adde the [...], The right and Authority will go along, for it seems to be a branch, and a main one, of that Great Commission, Mat. 28. and, without doubt, a great piece of the Power of the Keyes, John 20. Now then, they and they only, that we read of, had from Christ this Commission; those Questions come not to be handled, whether Bishops, Priests, or Deacons have this power? there was yet no such distinction of them, as I find, but whether the Apostles only or no, I do not find any other; the Seventy had a Commission to baptize among the Hebrews, as well as they, their Commission of prea­ching and baptizing, equal, but what that was I know not; but here all the power is granted to the Apostles. In whom and whom alone, I can discern all the Ministerial power belonging to mens Souls; so that they, or men sent by them, have this power or none; I know there is a great dispute, whether Laymen can baptize? and the Church of Rome is mightily offended with Calvin, for saying they cannot; but I do not find the least Ar­gument out of Scripture to confute him, and certainly this place of Mat. 28. seems exceeding strong for his Cause, and they themselves grant, that the ordinary Minister of Baptism is Sa­cerdos, by which word they understand Bishop and Priest, that in their Absence a Deacon may, and so go on to the little Or­ders, but in extremity a Layman: For my part, I grant for cer­tain, that the Apostles were the only men Ordained for it. I conclude, that baptism is necessary, and that it is a great Mercy of God to the Children of believing parents, that they are ca­pable of it; that baptism is necessary, is evident out of the Dia­logue [Page 26] betwixt our Saviour and Nicodemus, John 3. 3. Except a man be born agai [...] he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, vers. 5. Except a man be born of Water and the Spirit, he cannot, &c. vers. 6. A reason is given, That which is born of the Flesh is Flesh, as if he should s [...]y, nothing can work ultra sphaeram; Flesh there ore cannot inherit more than Flesh, nor be in a better than [...] [...]eshly estate, and that is not the State of Heaven; there­fore there must be some way by which that which is flesh and blood may become Spiritual, which alone is by baptism. That which Calvin most [...]g [...]niously urgeth, That Children which dye uncircum [...]ised are not to be judged damned, may thus be Answered, That their bond of Circumcision was dated the eighth d [...]y, and therefore nor due before the date; but ours of baptism, being without da [...]e, is due presently; So that then ours is like the State of those who were not Circumcised the eighth day, when Circumcision was due, not of those before the eighth day, when it was not due: Now upon this reason, the Care of the Church layd a mighty Charge upon all preachers, to be diligent, to preach all dangers which might surprise Children before they come to do their Duty. Now although I place such a necessity as that we see no ordinate means, without it, of As­surance of Heaven, yet I will not despair of Gods mercy to such, who adde not evil of their own Acting which should hinder the Effect of Christs Death, and the daily prayers of the Church for all men: And therefore, with Calvin, I think it a rash adven­ture of any man to open the Gate of Heaven, who hath not the key committed to him, which was not given to him; yet I questi­on, if he hath turned the key in the Lock, whether it do not open the door, although he hath not the legal power, which Calvin cannot deny, but that it hath been an universal Opinion of the Church; and for all [...] see, in his 18th Section of his 4th. Book of his Institutes, he doth not deny but it is valid; and I believe he would not allow to re [...]b [...]ptize such a Child which he knew had true b [...]ptism according to matter and form; but I am confident, no man ever had [...]his power given him from God, but the Apo­stles, and therefore it must needs be a mighty presumption in that Man, who without Authority [...]ven him, should dare [...]o put Gods Seal to any Article or Covenant, by which he might be obliged to any Duty.

SECT. IV. Whether administring the Communion was ap­propriated to the Apostles, in our Saviours life?

THE next thing to be examined would be, Whether in his Life-time our Saviour did appropriate the Admini­stration of the Communion to the Apostles only? and because we see that Commission only given to them, nor ever semblance of any thing to the Contrary, because it is a Work of so great height in its self; because, as the other, so this Sacrament Con­veys with it a Covenant on Gods part; and because from Christs time downward the right of Consecrating was never pretended to by any Man untill now, I cannot but think it a monstrous pride, in such men, who having no Authority from the Apostles should dare to undertake it; and although I have heard of such an Opinion, yet I never heard or read any rea­son for it.

SECT. V. Whether the Power of the Keyes was given to them only?

AND then next I will examine, Whether the power of the Keyes was given to them, and them only? by which power, I understand the power of binding and loosing, the power of Government and ruling in the Church, and Church Affairs. Here are two pretenders; the on [...], that it was given to St. Peter only; the other, that it was given to the whole Church. I will examine both. First, for St. Peter; this Con­troversie betwixt the Church of Rome and Us, hath been so vastly handled in such large Volumes, as it would be a little im­pudence [Page 28] to offer at it in these few sheets, and to stop my intend­ed Course with tedious disputes, which have so often been re­peated and Canvased by others; only I will point my singer at that which I think may Occasion a Reader in Studying this Controversie to fix himself upon what is pertinent, and to take notice of such Things as may easily induce him to the Truth; for though I am perswaded I could adde something, at least [...]llu­strations to some Arguments which are Discussed in this Con­troversie, yet that would drive me from satisfying your doubt, and make my few lines swell to a Volume. I only say thus much, That in all those places, Mat. 18, 19. John 21. 15, 16, 17. which are the main pillars upon which St. Peters pre­rogative is setled, no man living can shew me other power, which a man can Conceive reasonably to be Conferred on him, than on the whole body of the Apostles; In those two places, 28 Mat. 19. &c. and 20. John 21. if we should understand him a Rock in the 16. of St. Matthew, which yet without Partiality a man cannot do; But rather think that St. Peters Confession was that Rock, upon which the Church was built, or that our Saviour, who by his Confession was acknowledged the Son of God, was that Rock, hath with some a great Consent of An­tiquity; yet should we grant him there to be termed a Rock, yet it must be no otherwise than derivativè, secondarily, Christ is the Chief Corner Stone, the Spiritual Rock, 1 Cor. 10. 4. and then there was no more s [...]id to him, that St. Paul expounds of them all, Ephes. 2. 20. and are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the Chief Cor­ner Stone to them all; the Apostles were secondary foundati­ons and Rocks as well as he, were that place to be understood to call him a Rock: Nor can there be any stronger foundation af­firmed of him, either in person, or Succession, than of the rest, Mat. 28. I will be with you to the end of the World; that is, as­sisting them in executing their Duty. For the second place, Mat. 16. 19. I will give thee the Keyes of Heaven, it is but a promise, and he performed it to him and the rest, John 20. 22. For the Third, Feed my Sheep, it is a poor Argument drawn from a meer Simile of pastorizing; but let it be what it can, there can be no more in it, but preach, baptize, give the Com­munion, give Orders, govern the Church; all which are in­volved [Page 29] in those two places insisted upon before; and therefore I desist from further discourse of them; and supposing that the Apostles had equal Authority to minister Divine Mysteries to the whole World with St. Peter, we will now come and en­quire, whether any other men had any such Commission given them by Christ, or not?

SECT. VI. How it is to be understood, that the Power of the Keyes is given to the Church.

THe Chief place, if not the only, which I have observed in the Gospel, pretended to be wrested to any such Intent, is Mat. 18. 17. If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the Church▪ Thence it is by some enforced, that the Church is made the Judge in Ecclesiasti [...]al Discipline; and by the Church they will understand others besides the Apostles. To apprehend which, conceive with me: First, that this was one of those things which our Saviour delivered for a Rule, to govern the Church and Chri­stian men by; not at that present, but afterwards, when Church Discipline was setled, for as yet there was no such Thing as any Discipline setled, but like a Commonwealth in the [...]raming by degrees, Laws projected, ye [...] Contrived and enacted, which might take their rise and force afterwards, when established. It is a poor Conceit (methinks) of Beza on this place, who would have it understood of the Jewish Synagogue, since he himself Confesseth that the word Church is no where else used for the Synagogue, nor indeed can it be, and why it should be forced to that meaning here I see no reason; and therefore the true understanding of it must be taken, from those setled Laws which our Saviour made after his Death, of which I have dis­coursed: Now that this Law could not extend to any other men, but these Apostles, who had all the powers given them, as I have explained, will appear first; First, because it seems to be a Juridical way of proceedings; and it is impossible that the mul­titude should have Juridical Discretion to make a man as an Hea­then [Page 30] or a Publican, being many of them illiterate men, and we should con [...]ine the limits of Christian men and Religion in much too narrow bounds, to say it belong only to the learned, or men enabled for such or so high a work. But there must be Officers in a Church to hear and judge of such a Cause, which Officers we understood by the Church, and although this Cen­sure ought to be done in publick in the face of the Church, or the Court, where such Matters are discussed, yet it is not ne­cessary, nor can have a face of reason with it, that every one of the Church should be there present, or they who are present should have the Nature of Judges, only such Men as are Offi­cers enabled to act in this power; then if Officers, these men who h [...]d the power given them in the 20th. of St. John, are these which are here in the 18th verse said to bind and loose; So that then, I can see nothing that can hinder us from agreeing, that after our Saviours Death all Ecclesiastical power was seated in the Apostles; how they understand it, we shall Consider, in the fu­ture Discourse, by their Actions set down to us, which must be our next undertaking.

SECT. VII. The Apostles Authority, and Management of it.

NOW we see the Eleven inthroned in the Chair of Ecclesia­stical power; They and they only having Interest in it, but yet they had only power, the right and Authority; they received [...], the vertue and qualities, enabling them to execute this power according to the Extent throughout the world afterwards, when the power of Tongues was given them, Acts 2. 4. and you may find this word [...] used for this vir­tue, Acts the 1. v. 8. where it is promised; so that they had all Power and Authority before, but this Faculty of Tongues they had not untill then, and this will be of little use in our Discourse, being a Gift of no constant Succession in the Church, but only those Authorities of Administring the Sacraments, of Preaching, of Giving Orders, of Governing; these will always [Page 31] be necessary in the Church, and therefore must be insisted upon. For this therefore; the first thing we find them Acting in this kind, was to settle their own Society, and Compleat the Num­ber of Twelve, and this you may find recorded in the 1. of the Acts, v. 13. where we may observe first, that they referred the Election of this Apostle to God by [...]asting Lotts, they Chose two, Barsabas and Mathias, and referred it to Divine Electi­on; the reasons of which, guessed at by Divines, rather than demonstrated, I omit; But now there are Twelve Apostles, Bi­shops; for if Judas was a Bishop, by being an Apostle, (as he is termed, vers. 20.) the rest likewise were, or Twelve Deacons or Ministers, for that phrase is affirmed of Judas in regard of his Apostleship, vers. 25.

SECT. VIII. What Additions were made to the Apostles.

BUT yet we must not leave them, but examine, Whether there were any Addition made to these Apostles, and what that was? To understand this: We may find St. Paul in abun­dance of places called an Apostle; instead of many, take this one Instance, Galat. 1▪ 1. Paul an Apostle not of men, neither by man; but by Jesus Christ; An Apostle, not of men, not by man, that is, who received my Apostleship not from the Authority given to men as before, when Christ sent his Apostles, as his Father sent him with power to give these powers, John 20. As my Fa­ther sent me, so send I you; not then, of men; that is, from this Authority given to them; nor by man, that is, by any Ministe­rial Act of mans. He received his Baptism by the Ministery of man, as you may find Acts 9. 18. But his Apostleship he recei­ved of God, and by God, as the other Apostles did, by the im­mediate Ordination of Christ; and in this I should place the Dif­ference betwixt these Apostles and others, That they are made such by an Immediate Ordination of Christ; for it is not enough that (some sa [...]) to be an Apostle, was to be such a Minister as conversed with Christ in his humanity, or saw him in the Flesh, for this did all the Seventy, which yet were not called Apostles; [Page 32] nor is it sufficient, which others say, they were such whose Of­fice extended to the whole world; for so we shall find in the Acts almost none Confined to any place, but that others as well as St. Paul had a Care of all Churches; But upon this a man may justly enquire, why St. Paul should in such distinct Terms (not of men, nor by man) describe himself, since it seems every Apo­stle was such. To clear this, and give further Illustration to this Truth, Observe, that others besides these were called Apostles, so you may find first Barnabas, as well as St. Paul, Acts 14. 14. which when the Apostles Barnabas and Paul heard, &c. Apo­stles, in the plural Number; some have thought that this Barna­bas was the same with Barsabas, who Acts 1. 23. w [...]s Compe­titor with Mathias, for the Apostleship; but (methinks) mis­sing the place then, it were strange he should be called an Apo­stle afterwards; and indeed their Names differ, their Original Names and their Additional Names, for Acts 1 his Name was Joseph called Barsabas sirnamed Justus; but in Acts 4. 36. in­stead of Joseph is Joses, and instead of Barsabas is Barnabas; but besides him, we read Rom. 16. 7. of And [...]onicus and Junia, of whom St. Paul saith, that they were his kinsmen, his fellow priso­ner, and of Note among the Ap [...]stles: which words, although they have received a double sense, either that they were Emi­nent persons among the Apostles, or else esteemed and noted by them to be such persons of Esteem; yet there are many both ancient and Modern Writers, both such as are for and against Bishops, that agree they were Apostles, as the words very na­turally bear it; and to take away the Scruple, both the Centu­ries and Baronius agree upon it, which if there were scruple they would not have done: then turn to Phil. 2. 25. there you shall find St. Paul calling Epaphroditus my brother, and Compani­on in labour, and fellow souldier, but your Messenger. Here I cannot but wonder at our Translators, who render it Messenger, such a mean phrase intimating any common or trivial man, who is sent on an errand: Beza did much better, who called him Legatum, an Embassador, a nobler phrase; but indeed the word is [...], your Apostle; and so those Epithetes before express him, my brother, &c. This may likewise be shewed [...]ut of the 1 Cor. 4. 9. God hath set forth us the Apostles last, the Transla­tion here likewise is not good; for it is not, he hath set forth us [Page 33] last, but us last Apostles, us that were the last Apostles, who are they? in particular, vers. 6. he names Apollo, these things I have in a figure transcribed to my self and to Apollo, that ye might learn of us, not to think of men above that which is written. Now then, although he may mean others beside himself and Apollo, yet it is sit to conceive that he should be in the number of those are called Apostles, because he is one of those from whom they must learn, not to think of men above what is written; and among other Arguments, this is a main one, That we the last Apostles, Apollo and my self, and perhaps more, are unhappy wretched people marked out for misers, to be made a spectacle of con­temptible people, to the World, to Angels, and men. I could here likewise treat of Gal. 1. 19, where James the brother of the Lord is called an Apostle, who by many is thought, and from good reason, to be none of the two James's which were of the Twelve, but a third who was made Bishop of Jerusalem; but I desist: it is evident out of Scripture, that the holy Writ men­tioneth more Apostles besides the Twelve and St. Paul; and if besides the Scripture, any mans Language may be heard, consi­der that of Ignatius, who was Contemporary (as he speaks) with the Apostles, Paul, John and Timothy, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, who there speaks in the language of the times, and by that language calls Timothy an Apostle.

SECT. IX. A Reason of this.

NOW then, to draw this Discourse to some period, there were other Apostles besides the first Twelve, and St. Paul the Thirteenth but why so? because, as Theodoret speaks, upon Phil. 2. 25. in the case of Epaphroditus before handled, that he was called their Apostle, to whom the Care of them was Committed. And again, upon the 1 Tim. 3. 1. Heretofore they called Presbyters Bishops, and those which we call Bishops, they called Apostles; but, saith he, in processe of time they left the name of Apostles to them who were truly Apostles, and they gave the name of Bishops to those which were formerly called Apostles: So [Page 34] likewise St. Hierome, on Gal. 1. 9. Procedente Tempore & alii ab his quos Dominus elegerat ordinati sunt Apostoli; In progresse of time other Apostles were ordained by those which the Lord had Chose [...]; and this is the reason why St. Paul, where before Gal. 1. 1. saith, he was an Apostle not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ; to distinguish him from those others, who were Apostles by Constitution of Apostles, not immediately by God: and to the same purpose may that be understood of St. Paul, 2 Cor. 11. 5. I suppose I was not a whit behind, or lesse, or infe­riour to the Chiefest Apostles. Amongst the Apostles the Twelve, there were not some Chief, and some Inferiour; but the Twelve were the Chief, and the rest Inferiour. Now he having his calling and enabling from Christ immediately, was not infe­riour to them. And though I read, I know not where, the Au­thority of Theodoret slighted, yet I do not remember what Satis­faction is given to his Reason: Nor can well Conceive how these Scriptures can in any other sense be reasonably ex­pounded.

CHAP. V. The Extent of the Apostolical Power.

AND now (me-thinks) I see the Apostles in the Church, as Divines say, Adam (if he had lived innocent) and his posterity would have been in the World, they had been Em­perors of the whole World, and all the World would have been every mans; yet being in their Integrity, would have so enjoy'd all, that it should have been to the good of all, and hurt of none: So these holy men were Bishops, Apostles of all the World, all the Churches throughout the World, had absolute, not order only, as the School speaks, to give holy Sacraments to any any where, but Jurisdiction to Govern and rule all. That which Eusebius saith, hath some truth, That they divided them­selves into several parts of the World, but not appropriating to themselves any piece, nor excluding any other from that Share [Page 35] or portion which they superintended, but rebounding back of­ten where they had been before; and diverting as Occasions offered themselves into other Precincts: this they did, and might do, by that vast Authority was given them; Go preach to all Na­tions: and by that power Equalling their Authority which was Conferred at the Pentecost; but it was not with other men, that universal Authority would not besit the meaner powers of those who were to succeed and to follow them; and therefore we will, in the next place, Consider in what proportions they Communicated these Authorities to others.

SECT. II. How the Apostolical Power was Communi­cated.

THE virtue of which Communication we enjoy at this day, some for place, some for Authority, some in part, some in the Lump. For the first, we shall for place Consider, that their Successors were confined in place, Titus in Creet, Timothy in Ephesus, Epaphroditus in Philippi; not that they were Con­fined or pegg'd here immovably, (So is no Bishop in his Dio­cesse, no not quoad Officium, as if his holy Duties which he performed out of his Diocesse were invalid, or of no force; for without doubt, if a Bishop baptize, preach, celebrate the Com­munion, give Holy Orders, secundùm materiam & formam, Canonically, according to Matter and Form, out of his Diocesse, they are firm and good to the receivers, although perhaps without leave, or extreme necessity, they are not Commenda­ble; Nay, without doubt, if either Bishop or Presbyter remove to other Diocesse or Parish he takes not a new Ordination, but an acceptation or just Election to that place sufficeth.) Now his Confining to that place, is to restrain the Ministring of his Office out of Duty there; so that he is out of Duty to have a Care of that place, and to look to that flock which is Commit­ted to his Charge, which is part, not the whole as it was Com­mitted to the Apostles; and no doubt (that which Dr. Field hath learnedly discoursed upon this subject) in Ancient Times [Page 36] Bishops were the Pastors of their Diocesse solely, Presbyters their Assistants and Associates, as the Apostles with that almost immense power were made Bishops of the World, yet being men with Confined bodyes, were forced to use Deputyes, and the help of other men in their Charge even whilst they lived; and cer­tainly the Church was better Governed by that Subordination, than if every one who hath not Apostolical Integrity should as­sume Apostolical Authority; so it was by these, they had great Diocesses committed by the Apostles, and (as I shall shew anon) they had many Inferiors Assisting them; but these were their places over which they were made Overseers, and they had not Authority of Jurisdiction over others; Thus I could set down how almost all the World was divided in the Apostolical Age; but I let this alone.

SECT. III. How the Apostolical Power was divided to Particulars; and concerning the Office of Deacons.

NExt we will Consider, how the very Office of the Apo­stleship was divided: And the first thing that comes into our Consideration (to begin at the foot, and climb upward) will be the Office of Deacon; in handling which I find some matter of Dispute: First, about the Institution of him, when this Functi­on was first erected: There is a general Claim to Acts 6. the Story may thus be observed; In the Infancy of the Church, when it pleased God by the preaching of the Word to encrease the Church beyond the expectation of men, or lesse power than Apostolical, there were many poor among the Disciples; but the piety of the Christians was such, as you may read Acts 4. 5. in ver. 34. of the 4th. Chapter, there was no lack, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses, sold them, and brought the price and cast it at the Apostles feet, and Barnabas is presently particularly instanced in; but in the 5th. Chapter we read the fearfull Story of Ananias and Sapphira; who would seem righte­ous, [Page 37] to do as the fashion of Godly men was; but being hypo­crites, were punished for their hypocrisies. Now these Sales bringing in great sums for the relief of the poor, the Apostles, as it seems, were troubled with it, and the Care to relieve the poor took them off from attendance upon that mighty work of planting the Gospel; this was the rather awakened, by a mur­muring of the Grecians against the Hebr [...]ws; that is, either such Grecians as were made Proselytes, or else such Hebrews as lived, and perhaps were born amongst the Greeks, (for as yet the Apo­stles had no Communication with the Gentiles,) now these Gre­cian Jews murmured, because it seems the Apostles (as I can guess) had left the administration of this Charity to some who had dealt partially; for I am confident they themselves would not; wherefore they Convented the Disciples together, and bid them with all Care (who must needs know the Integrity of mens conversations better than the Apostles, who could not search hearts) select some men fit for such a purpose, and ap­pointed the Number of Seven; the Disciples did accordingly, and they chose Stephen, and Philip, &c. as you may read in the 5. vers. of the 6. Chap. and set them before the Apostles; when the Apostles had prayed, they laid their hands upon them, no doubt, rectifying their Choice, and Authorizing them to the work: Thus we see these men receiving Title to execute this Office.

SECT. IV. Reasons why the Office of a Deacon was not Instituted, Acts 6.

BUT for my part (salvo semper meliori judicio) I cannot conceive how this should prove that Ministerial Office of a Deacon, which was afterwards used in the Church, from this place, for these reasons; First, because this was an Occasional Office, necessary for that Time, in which there being many poor, which lived under the correction, and rod, and persecuti­on of the politick Magistrate, no legal Course could be taken for the relief of them, but such as came by Charity out of the bowels of their own Fraternity, to wit from Christians, who [Page 38] might be perswaded, not compelled to that Duty; and by reason of this, there was a necessity to have some Officers chosen Over­seers of the Poor, which by a Religious Tie, where could be no legal, should be bound to the Execution of this Duty, for which they instituted this Office; but why these should be called Dea­cons, that Ministerial Office used in the Church, I see neither Au­thority nor Ground in the Scripture for it. That they should not be annual Officers, as our Overseers of the poor, I can see no reason; or why in a setled Commonwealth, where the poli­tick Lawes provide for the poor, and Law makes such Charity a Duty to the Commonwealth, there is no Ground. It is true, in the Times of persecution these things are necessary, as there is often mention both in St. Pauls Epistles and the Ecclesiastical Story; and Julian the Apostate himself, in an Epistle to Arsa­lius, the Heathen Pontifex, or Chief Priest of Galatia, The wic­ked Galileans, saith he, (under which name he vented his malice against the Christians) relieve not their own poor only, but ours, with a Counterfeit holinesse; There he acknowledgeth the Chri­stians abundant Charity in those dayes, when he made all Chri­stians poor; and because he would not be out-acted in a Work of so much piety, he gave that Priest the Collection of vast sums towards the relief of necessitous people. This was necessary in Time of persecution; but what further use is there of it in parti­cular Churches, than those Collectors for the poor which we have, and Charity and Sweetnesse preached to men, whereby they may be spurred on to enlarge their hearts, beyond the Exactions of Statute-Duties, to the overflowing of Charity. Now then, because it was an Occasional Office necessary then and there, at such times in such places; we cannot conceive why it should enforce such an Office perpetual in the Church, and universally in all places or Churches.

SECT. V. Another Argument to prove the former Con­clusion.

SEcondly, Consider the businesse they were designed to, we shall not find that ascending to these Ministerial Duties, it being only to relieve the body, not the Soul, to take Care of the Tables, to look that the Grecian widows, and poor be not despi­sed, in Consideration of the Native Jews; I know it is objected by Catherive, that these Tables there spoken of, was the Lords Table, and the Ministration they were imployed about, was the Communion; but these phrases of Daily Ministration, and the murmure of the Grecians, do inforce the other: for if they had a daily Communion, it is not to be imagined the Apostles would be standers by at so heavenly a Duty; and if they were actors, it cannot be thought that any should be neglected in it: I there­fore, with a mighty Consent of Writers, Conclude, that it was an Administration of Temporal Things; but the Administration of such maketh not to that Ministry we speak of, which concerns things so Spiritual as affect the Soul immediately with some Di­vine blessing, when these immediately only concern the body and Temporal Things, and therefore could not belong to our Ministry.

SECT. VI. A third Reason for the former Conclusion.

A Third Reason may be drawn from the persons which were elected into the Office, which were (as Epiphanius reports in the end of his 20. Chapter of his first Book, Contra Haereses) of the Seventy two Disciples, of which Number there he reckons many more of equal rank, if not an higher esteem than these. Now then if they were of those Seventy two, it is [Page 40] not reason to think that they should be Ordained into an Inferi­our Order of Clergy, and the lowest of all; for all hold that they were Presbyters at the least, either by their first Ordinati­on from our Saviour, when he sent them to preach, and baptize the lost Sheep of the house of Israel; or else by a Confirmation from the Apostles, after they were invested with the whole Ec­clesiastical power in themselves, by that Grand Charter, As my Father sent me, &c. Now then, this had been a disparagement to Presbytery. But lest any man should doubt, whether these were Presbyters or no? let him Consider that extraordinary work of St. Stephen, who went up and down (as you may read in the latter part of the 6th. Chapter of the Acts, doing Mira­cles, and disputing and preaching (I dare call it so, say Mr. Tho­mas Hooker what he can) with such a Spirit as they could not resist. But Mr. Thomas Hooker, in his Survey of Church Disci­pline, Part 2. Chap. 2. pag. 36. denyes St. Stephen to be a Preacher, and that most Sermon-like discourse (I am sure) of his Acts 7. he calls an Apology, not a Sermon; truly, I see little of Apology in it, and I know some have drawn a little Body of Divinity out of it; and I know that vers. 51. he draw [...] a most powerfull invective against their manners, which cost him his present life in this World. If Mr. Hooker will not allow this to be a Sermon, he can find few in the whole New Testament.

SECT. VII. Some of these were Preachers.

BUT he shall not escape me so: Though this propagation of the Gospel will not be allowed to be a Sermon, because I cannot find an express Term, so p [...]rasing his discourse, I will shew him another of these Deacons in the next Chapter, Acts 8. whose discourses to this purpose are called preaching, & that is of Philip, Acts 8. 5. Then Philip went down to the City of Samaria, and preached Christ to them: The very word used for preaching in English as well as the Original is there placed; Hooker himself, where before alledged, although he omits this verse, yet cites the 38th verse of that 8th. Chap. where Philip is said to baptize the [...]unuch; therefore more than a Deacon by his Doctrine: but in [Page 41] vain that, as I shall shew hereafter. But now I will examine his Answer.

SECT. VIII. Whether Philip were an Evangelist, and what an Evangelist?

PHilip (saith he) was an Evangelist, and so appointed by God, as afterwards appears, and by virtue of that, and not of his Deaconship, he did baptize. Indeed he is called an Evangelist, Acts 21. 8. And lest we might think them two Philips, the Text saith, he was one of the Seven; that is, one of those Seven was chosen, Acts 6. to take Care of the Poor, (but by the way consider, that neither then or elsewhere in Scripture are these Seven called Deacons.) Well, first Consider, here was a great space of time betwixt the 8. and the 21. Chapt. he might be an Evangelist long after, and not one then; Degrees and dig­nities came by steps, not the highest at first; but suppose he were, and suppose he was one before he was made Treasurer or Overseer of the Poor, and suppose I conceive an Evangelist did preach the Gospel, might baptize; then I Conclude that such a man was at the least a Presbyter, and that he was as it were de­graded in being made such a Deacon, by his Consent a Deacon hath nothing to do with Spiritual things, but only the Treasure of the Church: And therefore it is strange, that both he and my Lord Say, and Nathaniel Fiennes, in their Speeches at the beginning of this Parliament, affirmed, That because the Apostles would not have Ecclesiastical men meddle with Tempo­ral things, they instituted a new Office out of their rank for the performing even these Duties of Charity, which in nothing a­grees with the Text; for it seems, at the first, the Church layd all the burthen upon the Apostles, when they put it off, then they chose Ecclesiastical men again, and such as were next them ei­ther of the Septuagint, or else Evangelists; certain we may be, famous Churchmen, St. Stephen, Philip, and the rest, who have honourable mention in Ecclesiastical Story.

SECT. IX. An Objection answered.

BUT before I Conclude this Argument, I will frame one great Objection, Acts 6. 2. The Apostles said, it is not rea­son we should leave the word of God, and serve Tables; was it not reason that they should, and why should others do it? Yes, much differen [...]: one Sermon of the Apostles and prayer of theirs, is of greater power and force with God than twenty others; they out of Duty must travell through the whole world, they cannot attend the Care of the poor in a particular City, the others, though being Evangelists, may upon particular Occasi­ons be called off from their place, yet they shall return again and overview their Charge, the people; therefore, when they could not have their particular eyes over that blessed work, took those that were next them in that dubious time, to take Care of the poor, and these men could not therefore be chosen to an Inferiour Constant Office, such as they feign their Deacons to be, because [...]hey were men of higher Employment and grea­ter Concernment in the Church, but were chosen for that Occa­sion (how long I know not) to attend that Duty.

SECT. X. Another Argument for the former Conclusion.

A Fourth reason may be drawn from the Design which Mr. Hooker takes for this Office, which is such as would make any Nation tremble to think upon, an Erection of the greatest Tyranny which ever was exercised in any Commonwealth; you shall find it described in the 36, 37 pages where before; For first, he is Treasurer; this may be without exception. Second­ly, he must addresse himself to receive what is brought into the Treasury, but mark, not what is, but what ought to be brought into the Treasury, to be committed to his Trust; for this (briefly [Page 43] I will set down his sense) purpose he must inform himself, by advice and counsel from the body, what every mans Free-will Offerings should be; this upshot results out of his Discourses, that only Free-will Offerings should be accepted; yet because the maintenance of Church and poor must not be arbitrary, they must understand mens Estates as well as they can, if they be negligent, admonish them, then if they stirr not, go to Christs Discipline, tell the Church: and so upon contempt of that, to Eccleliastical Censure. To this purpose he cites two places, Deut. 16. 10. and Levit. 22. 18, 19. In both which places, if he had transcribed the words without further trouble there could have no more appeared, but that men should bring their Free-will Offerings, and then do this or this, but the Sin lay upon him who was to bring it in, he was not to be compelled to it, nor do they, perhaps they will say; but I will reply, Ecclesiastical Cen­sure of putting out of the Church, making a man an Heathen, is the greatest Compulsion in the World, and as they order it up­on the Consultation and Advice of the Deacon (it will arise to be upon the Imagination of the Deacon) and instead of his Judge­ment, perhaps oftentimes, unlesse they be better than those the Apostles used before this election, the partial Affection of the Deacon, which would betray Souls to a most unhappy and ar­bitrary Government for Religion, for Estates.

SECT. XI. The opposing Arguments answered.

UPon these reasons I am perswaded, that the Office of a Deacon was not established in that of Acts 6. to be as a rule for all Churches, but only these [...] of and Authorized in this great [...] that di [...]y in the Church at that time; and thus I have disproved those An­swers which Mr. Hooker seems to frame to my reasons, his Ar­guments for confirmation of his Cause I shall undertake in a more proper place presently; yet least men may think I intro­duce a new Opinion into the world, know, that this was the Opinion of St. Chrysostom, and Oecumenius: Estius in 4 Sent. dist. [Page 44] 24. Sect. 18. observes as much; and for Oecumenius, throws him out with Cujus Authoritas non ita magni est momenti; For St. Chrysostom (it is in his 14 Homily upon the Acts, about the middle) he saith, it is so obscure, that it may be suspected of Corruption I answer, it is very clear, and no man will corrupt a Father without a design, which cannot appear in this what it should be; but rather than yield, he will charge the rest of his Doctrine, because, saith he, he affirms, non fuisse Episcopos tunc in Ecclesia, when Acts 1. it is said, let another take his Bishoprick, To this I reply, that he saith not there were no Bi­shops, but Apostolos solos, only the Apostles, and this is true, nor Presbyter neither yet, as will appear hereafter. But now it may be enquired, Was there no such Office as that of a Deacon pro­per to the Church?

SECT. XII. Whether there be such an Office as a Deacon proper to the Church?

YEs, without question, in the 1 of Tim. 3. 8. St. Panl de­scribes at large the Qualifications of such a man who must be chosen to that Office. I shall need no proof of it, because all consent to this Conclusion; but if a man should enquire when and where he was Ordained, I must answer, I know not; nor do I find any Register of it in the New Testament, nor amongst any learned men any Consent; the greatest is upon that place in the 6. of the Acts, which seems to me to be built upon weak grounds; the Church of Rome in general makes all their seven Orde [...] to be erected at the Institution of the Communion by our Saviour; but I leave that imagination as of no moment, since there is no word in Scripture which seems to countenance it, and I will passe from this Question to the other; What his Office was to do?

CHAP. VI. What is the Office of a Deacon.

THE Office what it was, receives the greatest Illustration from his Name, which signifies a Minister, a Servant to the Ecclesiastical Officers, Bishops or Presbyters; so that as when a man is known to be a Minister or Servant to another, he is by that made apparent to do such things as Conduce to the assistance of him who is his Superiour or Prelate in his Office, so do these in respect of their Superiours, Bishops and Presby­ters. I do not find one word in Scripture setting down what their Office was, we can therefore have no knowledge of it, but from the History of the Church, from which we receive, that their Office was to Baptize, to assist at the Communion with delivering the Cup, and sometimes the Body; but not to Consecrate: so likewise to assist in the Divine Service; some other things we find various, according to the Customs of Chur­ches, but all these are subordinate and ministerial Offices; like­wise they had power to preach upon particular occasions▪ and licenses given, to wit, by that Order they had a qualification to receive a License; these things I can particularly give an Account to be the sense of the Ancient Church, if any man re­quire it, but am loath also to lose Time about it; only I will now undertake Mr. Hooker.

SECT. II. Mr. Hookers opinion concerning a Deacon examined.

HE therefore, Part 2. Chap. 1. falsly printed, for Chap. 2. page 33. in his third Acception of his Deacon, defines him thus.

Lastly, when it (that is, this word Deacon) is taken shortly, and as it concerns our purpos [...] in hand, it sets out such Officers [Page 46] who are designed by the Church, to dispose the State and Trea­sures, to those several purposes for which God hath appointed them, as the occasions and necessities of the body, and any mem­ber thereof may require.

This is his definition, or rather description at large of a Dea­con, which I conceive to be very short, because it toucheth but the poor; concerning whose Care I acknowledge, that in the primitive Time there were certain persons employed, because those times were times of persecution, and the poor of the Church could not exist without some such Collections by Church Officers to take care of them; but that this was the sole Office of a Deacon I deny. He proves it thus; Romans 12. 8. He that distributes, &c. Here (saith he) the Apostle reckons these as a distinct kind from those that went before. In our Translation it is, he that giveth; or in the Margent, imparteth, and that most naturally; but to make it an Office, he changeth the phrase: Well, from hence, in this place, he thus argues. Here, saith he, the Apostle reckons these as distinct Offices. This Term (these) might well relate to Prophesy, to Mini­stry, in the 7th. verse▪ as well as the rest, which is the most ge­neral way with the Ancient Fathers discourse upon that Text; but he explayned himself before in the first Chapter of this 2d. Part, pag. 8, 9. That Prophesy is a Genus to Teaching and Ex­hortation, and these two distinct Offices under that one head, of which I shall discourse hereafter, (God willing); but giving, or, as he calls it, distributing, ruling, shewing mercy, are three distinct Species's or several Offices under [...], or Ministry: so then this word (these) must be by him applyed only to these five at the last named; which exposition he had, as he acknow­ledgeth, from Beza, and before him, as I find, none. [...]or Cal­vin himself, upon that place, seems to make all these distinct Gifts; but I passe by this, and will examine his Ground upon which he builds. [It being (saith he) the Apostles aime by a Similitude drawn from the body, ver. 4. to discover several parts, by the Actions which were in a peculiar manner appropriate to them; as there are many Members in the body, and all have not one Office or Action, so in the Church there be many Mem­bers, but their several Offices appropriate to them. Whereas, were this a Christian Duty common to all, he should overthrow [Page 47] his own purpose; for he should have shewed things agreeing to all alike, when he should have shewed that some things are peculiar. Thus I have set down his words, and the Argu­ments, as by him urged.

SECT. III. Rom. 12. 8. Expounded.

HEre he puts me to a great deal of Trouble to enlarge my self in expounding this place, which I intend to do, and shew what I conceive of it, and then refute his imagination, and shew how inconsistent it is with the sense of these words. He begins his Exposition from the 4th verse of the 12. Chap. to the Romans; but he that will expound it aright must go fur­ther, because that verse begins with a For, and that relates to the 3d. verse, and that likewise begins with another For, which must look upon what went before. Let us therefore first exa­mine the first verse; I besceeh you, &c. present your bodies, &c. which is your reasonable service; vers. 2. Be not conformed, &c. but be transformed, &c. that you may prove what is that good, that acceptable and perfect will of God: The presenting the body a sacrifice, the not conforming to the world, the transforming by renewing the mind, all tend to this, that we may prove what is that good and acceptable, &c. that is, have some Arguments by which you may know it; he that doth thus mortify, &c. and presents his body thus, that doth transform and conform his mind, shall find Arguments to prove what is Gods will for him to do; vers. 3d. For I say unto you, &c. you ought to know this, because ye ought to perform this will of God; therefore do these things which may make you prove it. Now this good and acceptable will of God, is, that you do not think too highly, (or higher,) for this phrase (of himself) is a Glosse of our Tran­slators, not the Text; and indeed this same too high thinking, whether it concerns a mans self, or his work he hath to do, is that which disturbs a man in his duty, whatsoever he is, or it is; as if he think himself too good to be an hearer only, it makes him thrust himself into the Preachers office; or when he hath [Page 48] that Office, he thinks too highly of himself, that he is too good for it; or when he thinks too highly of that Duty which he doth, it makes him, with the Pharisee, despise his brother, who is not excellent or eminent in that way; so that this same high thinking puts a man besides the way of Gods will; and there­fore he adds, but to think soberly, temperately, modestly; he must not plus sapere, think more or higher than his Condition, but he must think soberly, be lowly in his own eyes, not to in­trude into others businesse, or go beyond his own qualification, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of Faith: By Faith▪ I conceive as most do, Fidelity; that is then, accor­ding as he is intrusted by God, according to that measure of trust which God hath layd upon him; there will not be diffe­rence, I guesse, about that, and therefore I let it passe; verse 4. For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office; so we being many are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

SECT. IV. No Argument can be enforced from a Simile, farther than the Paralell leads.

HEre we see all Christians are one body, of which Christ is the head; that as they have a duty towards the head, of obedience, so they being fellow members, one towards another, have that duty one towards another as fellow member, not to think too highly, but to consider their mutual assistance each ought to give to the other. Here now, if I would stop, let us Consider, how it were possible to urge me farther: Compari­sons are not to be haled and pulled farther than the Letter, there may be more in one part, than another; but an Argument can­not be drawn farther than the Comparison leads. It is true, St. Paul saith, in the 4th. verse, that all members have not the same office; but can I force that to the parallel, when St. Paul doth not mention it? We may find the like in many places of Scrip­ture, as that parable of our Saviour of the Sower of the Tares, Mat. 13. where our Saviour expounds pieces of the parable; [Page 49] we may according to those pieces, from thence draw Argu­ments in Questions of Religion; but from the rest, which he expounds not, the Arguments will be but probable; so here I may say, Mr. Hookers Argument is weak, because members have diverse offices in the natural body; and St. Paul saith, we are a body, and one anothers members, like the other so far, but lea­ving out the rest, and diverse Offices distinct; might I not say, that this doth not enforce it. But let us go on: I will not say so; for although I think this Text doth not enforce it, yet I think it true Doctrine, That there are diverse Offices in the body of the Church, like diverse members in the body; Anselm, H. Ra­banus Maurus, with others, have paralelled them in their Com­ments on this Text. Let us now go on.

Although it be true Doctrine, that as in the body many mem­bers have distinct offices and abilities to perform their dutyes, which are not competible to other: so it is in the Church, there are diverse Member [...], which have distinct Offices, and those Of­fices assisted with diverse Graces peculiar to them, and not to o­thers; yet this Text goes, not to discourse of the distinction of Officers, but of the Manage of them: It never parallels that, (and all Members have not the same Office) but only that (we are one body, and one anothers Members.)

SECT. V. Diverse Gifts and Offices.

HAving then, &c. I will stand upon no Criticism here, to talk of an Hebraism without necessity; methinks the Text is full, having then diverse Gifts; mark, diverse Gifts: there are many Organical members, which have besides their Offi­ces, Abilities and Gifts, as beauty, strength, and the like, which are powerfull Assistants ad benè operandum, to do their Office more dexterously and commendably; Now then, as we find amongst us there are diverse Officers, and diverse Gifts amongst these Officers, Abilities of utterance, of knowledge, and the like, so may in these men here spoken of; but indeed, the very Au­thority is a Gift of God, to do these things of God, and these [Page 50] Authorities or Gifts whatsoever are distinguished by the Grace of God that is given us, not our own Merits, but his Favour and Grace, both gives the Gift and the Difference; but since it is a Gift of a Member, therefore it must be used to the good of the Members, and not for our own private ends: and here the Apo­stle doth not make that division of Gifts so contradistinct, that they cannot come together; but saith, that whatsoever Gift any man [...]ath of doing good, as he must acknowledge it the Gift of God, so he must use it to the good of his Neighbour, whether Prophesy or Ministry: that this is the sense, appears out of that clause in the Similitude not parallel'd. So we see it doth by this Instance made by the Apostle, where is no opposition in the persons, but only a difference in Gifts, which may well be in the same Office, without any inconsistency or reluctancy. If any man will see this Discourse more fully, let him read the same Apostle 1 Cor. 12. 4. There are diversities of Gifts, but the same Spirit; then go to verse 9, 10. To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, &c. Let any man peruse them all, and see whether they were Offices or Gifts, and the same word is used for those Gifts there as here, which is [...] ▪ and in the 12. verse, to make these places meet, he deduceth the same Simile out of these premisses of these Gifts, as in this Text he deduceth the Condition or Scope of the Gifts from that Simile: so that then I conclude some of these Gifts being the same, are used there, the word the same that is used there, and it is im­possible to force those to Offices; therefore it should be a vio­lence to force these: let us come to the particulars, whether Prophesy, &c. Whether this be an Office, or no, is hard to deter­mine, I am sure it is mentioned amongst those were no Offices, 1 Cor. 12. 10. But let us conceive what it is? It is possible that it was the Gift of Prophesy to foretell the will of God concern­ing things to come, of which there were diverse in the first Age of the Church; or else by Prophesy may be meant preaching, which expounds the will of God revealed in Scripture: of both which I may justly affirm that of St. Paul 1 Cor. 14. 3. He that prophesyeth speaketh unto men to Edification, and to Exhortation and Comfort.

SECT. VI. A Conceit of some Commentators refuted.

NOw see here the Conceit of Beza, Tolet the Jesuit, (I know not which had i [...] from the other) Cornelius à La­pide, with other late Writers upon this place of my Text in hand; see how vain their Conceits are who make Prophesy here a Ge­nus of Teaching and Exhortation, because they would make them two sorts of Officers; and Prophesy only a general name pre­dicated of them; when St. Paul makes Edification, which is the same with Teaching and Exhortation, to be Gifts or qualities of a Propher, both belonging to the same Offices.

SECT. VII. His Deacon, enforced hence, Confuted.

NOW we come to that, which he makes a Deacon: He who giveth in Simplicity (he who distributeth he reads it,) But why he and Beza should do so, since they pretend nothing out of the Original to force it, (but their own Conceit only of making this a Species of the Minister or Deacon before spoken of) and all Antiquity, both Greek and Latine Fathers reading it otherwise, and no one that I can find putting in one word to this purpose, is a strange Conceit; I cannot Conceive why, un­lesse it be a too much love of their own newly hatch'd Opini­on. But see what weight Mr. Hookers Opinion hath: By this is meant a Deacon; what word shews it? he saith it is but a Species of that Deacon before spoken of; and if that Deacon which was before mentioned be the name, then the two other Species must be Deacons as well as he, which he will deny, as you [Page 54] shall see hereafter; then, that this is a distinct Office of a Dea­con, that is, was an Office spoken of, no man can prove, but a pious duty, which God gives men gifts to do for others good, and therefore no word of distinction here, but without all que­stion a Prophet may do this, a Minister or Deacon, a Doctor or Exhorter; yea, it will be a good Argument in Exhortation, to do as I have done my self. I should go on with the next, but I reserve that for another time, and the rather stayed so long up­on this, because in part I shall stop two Gaps with one Bush; but I will leap to the last, which is, (He who shews mercy, let him do it with chearfulness.

SECT. VIII. The first Confutation of his Conclusion out of this Text.

THat Sense must not be wrung out of the Text, which the Text in nothing invites to.

But his sense is such. Ergo,

His sense is: That by this (that distributes,) is meant an Office, designed by the Church to dispose the State and Trea­sure [Page 55] of the Church, &c. and so pag. 33. But pag. 9. he saith, Those several (meaning these Offices expressed in this Text) are set forth by way of opposition, and contradistinct one to ano­ther, and therefore cannot be subordinate, and meet in one sub­ject, where they should be both formally acted. A strange kind of discourse to deceive men with (as it seems to me) by great words; for first, the parts in the Text he makes subordinate, to wit, teaching and exhorting, to Prophesy; secondly, distribu­ting, ruling, having mercy, to Ministry: And again, these things which are subordinate are in the same subject, as Animal and Corpus are in Homine. But that they are not opposed, or distinct, or any way inconsistent, will appear presently.

To prove my Minor then: First, whereas he saith this phrase (he that distributes) doth signifie an Office, I can deny the words, and say, they are not found in that place. Secondly, I say, that those words there do not signifie an Office, no more than those about them, but a Gift, as it is called by the Apo­stle. Where he saith it is that Office called Deacon, he himself disproves it, since it is distinct and inconsistent with the Mini­ster or Deacon, which is both one. Thirdly, whereas he saith it is an Office to dispose the State and Treasure of the Church, Is there the least mention made of Church, or Treasure of it? not a word: this word Gift would import otherwise.

SECT. IX. Another Argument.

NOW to this last, in page the 9th, I frame this Syllogism: Those Gifts which have been, and are many times in the same, are not so Contradistinct as they cannot subsist in the same Subject.

But many of these Gifts in the Text have been, and often are in the same Subject; Ergo.

My Major is clear from the Act: that which hath been, and is, is possible, and crosseth not the nature of any thing.

My Minor may be proved in the Lump: First, I doubt not to say, that the Apostles had all these; for they were Prophets, [Page 56] they were Minsters, they were Doctors, Teachers, Exhorters, did give to the poor, did rule, had bowels of mercy, with all the requisites.

Take Prophesy for Preaching, many a man now hath all these in the same Lump.

Secondly, Teacher and Exhorter cannot be severed: This Gentleman stiles himself, Pastor of the Church of Hertford upon Connecticutt, in N. England, Mr. Cotton Teacher of Boston in N. England, both of them have written concerning these busi­nesses. If a Pastor be an inconsistent Office with a Teacher, why doth Mr. Hooker teach, and so Logically endeavour to prove his Doctrine? and Mr. Cotton the Teacher, use Rhetorick to per­swade? These things seem to me inconsistent, a Teacher, and not an Exhorter, or an Exhorter, and not a Teacher: so farre they are from being inconsistent one with the other, that they cannot exist well one without the other; and for this particular phrase, Distributer, or Giver, neither one nor other be good men, unlesse they be both; the Clergy must not be altogether upon the receiving hand, there is time and place for them to give, as well, yea rather than others, and take Care of the poor, and have bowels of Compassion towards them, and by their good Example exhort others to do as they do. I have been something too tedious here; but this will save future labour.

SECT. X.

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. [Page 60] 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 [Page 61] 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 [...]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 [Page 62] 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.

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 [...]lder, but intreat him as a father; there the Elder in Age is un­derstood, as all agree, both antient and later Writers: this [Page 66] 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; and the Latines, St. Ambrose, &c. with one Consent suppose it an Office. Here is a difference, and the Arguments of no moment that are brought of one side or the other, nor much material; for the Doctrine is true of the least Elder, there is Capitis reverentia Cani, some Civility to be paid to Gray hairs; such men should not so easily be accused, or if they be, Accusations not so easily entertained, as those are made against others; but I have writ this, to shew that this word Elder is not alwayes taken for an Officer, no not in this Epistle, in this Chapter; yet here I doubt not but it is ta­ken for an Ecclesiastical Officer, both because of the word rule, as likewise labour in the word; but whether two Officers or one, will be questioned.

SECT. V. That Elder here signifies but one Office.

FIrst, no man can shew any where in the New Testament any usage of this word, but either for a meer Senior in Age, or this one Presbyter, which is the Ecclesiastical Officer; and besides this place, they themselves will Confess, that no strong Argument can be produced, it were hard then, if there were no­thing else, that this word here should enforce it. Again, this word Elder is used but once, which hath influence upon both these Actions of ruling and labouring, which were not proper in Speech, if they were two Offices, without some Term of Distinction; for it would be more rightly and significantly put, an Elder that ruleth, and an Elder that laboureth; but this word Elder being named but once, it should seem to enforce but one Office, with diverse Actions; for there are but two sorts of El­ders, as I find: either that Lay Elder, which is an Elder by Age, [Page 67] or an Ecclesiastical Elder, who is described how he should be qualifyed, either in the 3d. Chapter of this Epistle, or the first of Titus; but the first sort are not pretended to here, nor the second as they pretend; some other word then must afford it, not this word Elder.

SECT. VI. What Ruling well imports.

THe next is, rule well, that is, certainly, Govern his flock Committed to him; now this word will imply no distin­ction from the other, Presbyter, by their own Consent, this is a part of that other teaching Elder, he is a Ruler too; and if a Ruler, then no doubt, if a good teacher, he rules well; or else as may happen out, he may be a good Teacher, and a weak Ruler, and again, a good Ruler, and a weak Teacher: So that if Ruling do not make a distinction in the Office, ruling well doth not; for Offices are not distinguished by the diligence or qualities of their Officers, the men that use them, but their Officers, the men that use them, by their Offices; there are good and bad in every Office, and so in the Ministry, but his goodnesse or badnesse in Execution of his Office makes a Man a good or bad Officer, but not of another kind of Office. By this phrase then, that ru­leth well, cannot be understood any thing which can enforce a new Office; I will therefore remove to the 3d. phrase, (labour in the Word and Doctrine.

SECT. VII. What is Labouring in the Word.

AND certainly, this phrase yields no matter for an Argu­ment against the unity of this Office; for he nor they cannot deny, but that both these are joyned in one, that the same man who is a Labourer in the Word, is a Ruler; but let us ob­serve, that this word Labour signifies an industrious and pain­full [Page 68] doing that he labours for; so that it is more than an ordina­ry prosecuting his undertaking: Now both these phrases being affirmed of that one word Elder, they cannot signifie diverse Officers, but diverse performances in that Office; that one man is more carefull in Ruling, another in Teaching; the one rules well, the other labours well.

SECT. VIII. What Double honour signifies.

WE will passe to the 4th. (Double honour,) that is by all understood to be a double proportion, or much larger maintenance than that of Widows; I will not trouble it there­fore; but considering that it is but once used, though in two places applyed, as double honour to Rulers well, and much ra­ther to Labourers, it being the same word and sense in both, and in both applyed distinctly where distinctly put, and implyed­ly▪ where implyedly put, as the same word [...]lder is expresly or implicitely delivered; that therefore cannot enforce a Diffe­rence; if it be any where, it must be in [especially.]

SECT. IX. The force of the word Especially.

BUT neither doth that do it; for that addes but an Encrease of the Debt, when majus & minus non variant speciem; it is due to one, but rather there is a greater Obligation to the other, not another due; or if there were another Debt, yet that would not prove another kind of Office, but more obliging Acts of that Officer. It is then, as if we should speak of Shep­herds; that Shepherd deserves his wages who takes care of his flock, even he that shall fold them at night carefully, and let them out in the morning, and do many Shepherdly duties; but when there are diverse Shepherds belonging to the same flock, he shall best or chiefly deserve it, who having Cunning to do it, [Page 69] shall industriously, and with great labour of his own, cure their Diseases, and heal them, and both these may be Shepherds, and deserve their wages, but especially the latter, and yet not distinct Offices; and the first sort may grow up to the latters abilities, and then as well deserve as he; or as we may say of a Privy Counsellor, he hath a two-fold relation, to the Subject, and to the King; he deserves his honor well, that rules well; but espe­cially he that adviseth his King well: yet these are not two Offi­ces, but two dutyes of the same Office, and, as we have seen, di­stinct Abilities have shewn themselves in these diverse Effects. This is the sense of the Text, there are two duties in these El­ders, to rule, to labour in the Word and Doctrine; they that rule well, and do that piece well, are worthy of double honour, but especially they that labour in the Word and Doctrine, their flock ought to have a more particular Care of them; thus the Text being explained, as appears to me clearly, the next thing to do, will be to vindicate it from such Arguments which seem to be deduced out of this Text, for that Imaginary Office which is so much boasted of, to be already with great [...]vidence con­firmed by it.

SECT. X. The Arguments answered.

MR. Hooker, where before, Part 1. Chap. 2. p. 13. thus layes his Foundation: the words carry a distribution, [...], (neither of which are in the Text, but [...], but I let passe these things, as mistakes in him, though a most supine negligence.) And this (saith he) Tracta­tur Collatione imparium à Majoribus. All this I can grant, but the Imparity must be in the Execution of the 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 [Page 70] 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 [Page 71] 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 beg [...]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 van [...]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.

[Page 72] 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 C [...]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 Communion to confirm and strengthen them in all godli­nesse and righteousnesse. Now it is possible that a Soul, after he is Converted, and studious, himself may persevere in God­linesse, and improve (no doubt of it) without hearing more Sermons, but by Study and Contemplation, as in the Times [Page 73] of persecution multitudes do; and in those places where they are persecuted, yet their Obedience to Church-discipline and the Canons of Ecclesiastical Government, such as concern such per­sons, are necess [...]ry; yea, because many administer Sacraments who cannot have the oportunity of Preaching, the [...]efore things may be necessary then and there, and more necessary than the other, as likewise in the Case of dying men; not the Doctor and Disputer in the mysteries of Divinity, nor their Lay Elder, (whose duty they make it to visit the sick, and not to authorize to preach) are the welcome men; but he that can bring the Seals of Gods Covenants by Absolution by the Communion, is ne­cessary. Consider again, Such a Church (as many there have been) which is furnished with learned Pre [...]chers abundantly, in such a Time a man with discretion of ruling may be most accep­table; and his endeavours applyed that way will be more grate­full, and better to Gods Church, than his preaching, where is no need: and as the use of these things is in differing places and oc­casions most necessary, so the Application of men to them (sup­posing all these belonging to every Officer) in their several sit occasions, deserves Double honour, although they do neglect that which is most excellent. It is the most excellent endow­ment for a man to be a Scholar, and learned, [...]nd [...]he greatest ex­cellency mans soul is capable of; yet he is an honest man [...] de­serves honour, that applyes himself to Husbandry, and a Con [...]ci­entious Manage of a Trade, although he neglect the [...]est; a man is not bound to be best, but to be good; to rule well, not best; to labour in the Word, not to be most excellent: yea, in such Ca­ses, it is better for such a man to apply himself to ruling, than preaching, that being more needfull. And again, that [...]ord to neglect the better, which is inserted in his Major, is [...]oo h [...]rsh to be applyed upon s [...]ch occasions, for, that is better for one, which is not for another, at one time in one place, which is not at another, in another: where there is pre [...]chi [...]g abundant, and many such as abound in Divine Eloquence, there prudence of ruling is more necessary; the best Preachers are not alw [...]yes the wisest men. Again, where the Abilities of a man are more sitted to the one, than to the other, there he ought principally to apply his Endeavour: so that if his [...]bilities in ruling [...] g [...] ­ter, he ought to apply himself to that [...], and [...]or force him­self [Page 74] to that which his Disposition is not so fit for. Again, as I said, to dying men, who can feed their Souls with that Store of Doctrine which they had stored themselves with before, but lack the Seals of Gods Covenants, these are most necessary; but I wonder what a Lay Elder should do with them, who must nei­ther Preach, nor apply Gods Seals to any? Again, we may ob­serve out of the Text, that it is not said, Doth not preach, the negative is not there; yes he will object, because it is opposed to those that labour in the Word; It is true: but there is a diffe­rence betwixt those who do not labour in the Word, and those who do not Preach; Labouring, as I have shewed, signifies one industriously doing it, spending his main source and bent to it: Now they, who finding their Abilities and the necessities of the Times and places in which they Converse, requiring Ruling from them, rather than Preaching, do not bend their Endeavours to preaching, but to ruling, and yet may sometimes preach like­wise; as St. Paul, who was the most glorious preacher in the World, yet took sometimes from preaching to bestow upon ru­ling: so may they likewise, who give their labour and endea­vour to ruling well, take off some time from it, and give it to preaching, and yet not be [...], men labouring in the Word.

SECT. XII. Another Argument answered.

SO then, to his Argument; having layd these premisses, thus Expounded, I answer, That labouring in the Word is not absolutely greater to all persons at all times, in all places, at all occasions. If he urge the Text, that because there is especial Honour due to these Labourers, therefore their Labour deser­ved it. I answer, in the dayes of St. Paul, at the planting of the Gospel, it was most necessary; but since not in such places where it is planted. 2ly. I deny that upon such occasions, as I have said; it is his duty, who finds great abilities in himself for ruling, to labour in the Word, but to labour in th [...]t by which he may do most good, which is ruling. If he Object, that to [Page 75] Convert Souls, is the best Work, which is the proper Effect of Preaching. I answer, yet when men are Converted, keeping them in Ecclesiastical Discipline is more beneficial. And again, although it be the best Work for him that is excellently Gifted, yet it is not for him who hath greater Abilities for others, and lesse for it; and therefore, although he may be more excel­lent, who as St. Paul himself did, can rule well, and labour in the Word likewise, yet he may well deserve double honour who rules well, and more seldom preacheth; but if he can do both, have this word especially added to his double honour.

SECT. XIII. Another Argument answered.

BUT Pag. 14. he hath another of the same, the same Argu­ment framed another way with this phrase, or thus I may reason; If the Apostle in this Text doth not speak only of El­ders, Preachers, then he speaks of Elders no Preachers.

But the first is true: (what the first is, I know not, for there is no second, it being but one Proposition.) He speaks in the place of some Elders, which are no Preachers, which is thus proved.

If he speak only of Preachers, then there were some Prea­chers, who preached not at all; but there be no Preachers who preach not at all.

The second part is past denyal; The Consequence is proved.

If these Elders who are most worthy of double honour are said but to labour in the Word: Then they who are accounted but worthy of, &c. did not labour in the Word, but &c.

I have put down his Argument verbatim word for word, that the whole force of it may appear, as well as the weaknesse shall be manifest: And I answer in a word, It is one thing not to la­bour in the Word, and another not to preach it all. To labour, as I have said and shewed out of the Word, is to do it industri­ously, with his chief endeavour and might; which doth not im­ply that he doth it not at all, yea rather that he doth it, and that he cannot rule well if not preach at all, but not with his might [Page 76] and main. I will retort this Argument. If none may preach but Clergy Elders, then it seems here, that these must be Clergy not Lay Elders, which rule well; for the Text that sayes the one labours in the Word, implyes with that, that the other doth it, but not industriously, and therefore must be such Elders who may preach, and would have more honour if they did it labori­ously, or rather that honour more due.

SECT. XIV. A Digression concerning Preaching.

BUT because tbese men seem to place the whole work of the Ministry in preaching, I would learn from some of them, what this preaching is, which they magnifie so much, which I could never know to be so defined, as to make a peculiar Work of a Minister, so that it should, as they make it, swallow up his Function, and belong to none but such as they call Ecclesiastical Presbyters. I hope it will not be unuseful to the Explication of the Text; nor unprofitable nor unpleasant to the Reader, if I, be­yond the bounds of an Answer digresse a little, to discourse of this Theam; Labouring in the Word, is not only labouring with the Word in the pulpit, but an Industrious and studious Endea­vour; and therefore, in the 4th. Chapter of this Epistle, vers. 13. he adviseth Timothy, to give himself unto reading, that is, Study­ing, Exhortation, Doctrine; and vers. 15. Meditate on these things, this is labouring in the Word, and this labour is such as is expressed, like an Oxe, as he expresseth it vers. 18th. of this Chapter, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Oxe that tread­eth out the Corn: it must be as much, or greater, or else his Ar­gument would not hold; It is the labour of the mind by day and night, reading, meditating.

And such are worthy in an especial manner of double honour; but because the Apostle adviseth to Exhortation and Doctrine, and every Ecclesiastick Officer is not for himself, but for the Church, this reading and meditating, must not be for his pri­vate Contemplation, but for the publique, to teach him to rule well, upon Occasions to exhort to all piety, to teach the Truth [Page 77] of Gods will, both to believe, and to do all these at their several Occasions; not only in the pulpit, but in Writings, and in Con­ferences: Every man who is fit to be a Presbyter, is not cut out for a popular Auditory, he may have Gifts of an higher strain, and they ought to bestow their pains upon those greater dutyes: As I have heard it was answered Erasmus, when he scrupled to receive a Benefice in England, because he had not that Language to teach the people, You teach their Preachers, which is more than to teach them; so may we say of these, that they may teach Preachers, which is a greater Work: Preach to them in Confe­rence, preach to them in their Writings. I have known in mine experience a learned man, who had not himself the Faculty of Pulpit-preaching, yet did more good by directing and teaching others to preach, and advanced the Cause of Christ more than Twenty peeachers could have done: Did not this Man labour in the Word think you? Others again who have not that Conve­nience of doing it by Conference, have written learned books for Preachers to study, and by them Preachers preach: Did not these men labour in the Word? It is reported of Salvianus, that he wrote and penned Homilies, which others preached and re­peated, which of these (think you) was the Preacher? I think both: and both took pains, and did their utmost endeavour, and laboured in the Word and Doctrine; perhaps, one could not pen exactly, perhaps the other could not Orator-like deliver; or, perhaps, and it is likely, Salvianus could do both; but his Ser­mon might serve both places, and did good and was applauded, in both his own Church and his that preached his Sermon; he preached, perhaps, in two places at once, and both thes [...] put their Talents out to use; and I doubt not but they may hear, Well done, good and faithfull Servant, thou hast been faithfull in a little, I will make thee Lord over much. But let us a little Consi­der what Preaching is.

SECT. XV. What Preaching is.

I Can think it nothing but teaching the Gospel of Christ, that is, his Life for Example, his Doctrine for Precepts, and his Death and Resurrection for our Meditation; now then this is done by words written or spoken, either of these a man preach­eth by: He preacheth, that writeth such Arguments as Convince or Perswade, as well as he that speaks them; yea, perhaps, doth more by that, and makes an Everlasting Sermon, like a persume when the body is gone, yet there is a sweetnesse remaining be­hind, which is gratefull to all such as Converse with it; so, the Preacher being dead, the Sermons yet live; the fruit remains, when the Tree is felled. That this is Preaching, is most evident, because these teach the truth of Doctrine, and these perswade to Godlinesse, Again, it is pre [...]ching, and he pre [...]cheth, who u­sing others words and matter in the Pulpit, perswades the Audi­tory either to Christian faith or manners, this is preaching; and for my part, I conceive the saying or reading a Godly Homily, to be preaching, and more usefull than those vain Sermons which Trivial Presbyters and proud men utter, even in pulpits with you in London▪ I call them proud, bacause many take upon them to preach, who scarce ever did read a Body of Divinity, nor are able to ballance the Doctrine they deliver, by the Analogy of Faith, or if they could do it by leasure and study, take not time to do it, being alwayes preaching, but never learning; these men, if they were humble, would content themselves either with such Sermons as are penn'd by the Church to be read or got without book; or with such excellent Sermons which St. Chry­sostome, Bazil, Gregory, or the like made, as the whole Church of the Muscovites do; for by that means both the people should be instructed in the fundamentals of Faith and Life, and they se­cured from that fearfull presumption, of undertaking to teach, being not taught, and that vanity of being unestablished in the Faith, and being carryed about with winds of Doctrine, and that other pride of seeking their own vain-glory; truly these [Page 79] thoughts have often made me startle, when I go about to study a Sermon, and not da [...]e to adventure on any thing, which I have not carefully Considered on. To repeat anothers Homily or Sermon is preaching, it is teaching the people the Gospel of Christ; for it is not material who penn'd it, so the Message of God be delivered: and because Nihil dictum quod non fuit dictum prius, I know not why men should be so squeamish of it.

But I will stoop one degree lower; since Preaching is Evange­lizing, and that is teaching the Gospels, who can say, that read­ing the Scripture in a known Tongue is not preaching, which teacheth the people out of Scripture all that they ought to know concerning their Souls Good. Let no man trouble this Dis­course with St. Pauls saying, 1 Cor. 9. Woe is me if I preach not the Gospel, and then Glosse upon it, that St. Paul meant none of these preachings I have named; it is true, he did not; but yet Consider, that St. Pauls preaching was infallibly in­spired, and there he might have full assurance of what he delive­red with Ease, without Pre-thought what he should deliver, which we have not without mighty pains and study; therefore his preaching was by the power of his utterance: and yet he, St. Paul, did not only use vocal preaching, but writing, and those Sermons he wrote have been, I dare say, more beneficial to the Church than those he preached, and then we read those very Sermons which he wrote: His Epistles are very Sermons, we have the same, and there is reason, if we be not self-conceit­ed, that they should do as much good amongst us, as the Ro­ [...]ans, Corinthians, Galathians, &c. If they be hard to us in many places, I doubt not but they were hard to them, and we have besides these, Expositions of the Fathers in the Ancient Church, by which Souls were directed to heaven, and all that have been saved these 12. or 1300 years have been saved by them, unlesse some few of late, who have found a new Road to Heaven.

Well then, to end; This is a low degree of preaching, but is pre [...]ching, and preaching the Gospel: These are Sermons which St. Paul and the Church thought fit to be divulged, for the Sal­vation of men.

SECT. XVI. To what Preaching every Presbyter is bound.

I Have expounded what preaching is; now let us see to what preaching every Presbyter is bound. First, without Que­stion, every Presbyter should be a ruler; so St. Paul in the 3d. Chapter of this Epistle, verse 5. For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care to rule the Church of God? there he supposeth, That he must be a Ruler; otherwise his Conclusion were nothing, drawn from the Governing his own house. There ruling is necess [...]ry in a Bishop or Presbyter, for you will see hereafter, that these Offices had one name, and in many things agreed. Now there you see ruling is required in a Presbyter, and he himself will not say that this was a Lay Presby­ter; But then Consider, that in this whole Character of a Pres­byter, there is no one word of preaching, although there is of ru­ling, and can you think if a Presbyter were chosen, such as St. Paul here nominates, it were amisse? But it is objected, Tit. 1. 9. there it is required, that he should be holding fast the faithfull word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound Doctrine, to exhort and convince the Gainsayers.

I may well think this to be a Caution of Advice, not necessity: But if Timothy had chosen and ordained such as were prescri­bed him, they might have been men sufficiently qualified, yet ex abundanti, if this might be had in another Condition, al­though that were well, yet this would be better; there is a lati­tude in Good, though not in Truth; but then let let us scan the Text, suppose it be a requisite. [...]irst, let us observe, that [he must hold fast the faithfull word] that is, the word, I conceive, of the Gospel; hold fast, that is, apprehend it strongly, adhere close to it, as he hath learned, so we in our Translation; or in learning, as the Margent; or secundùm Doctrinam Sermonis, as Beza; the businesse will not be much. It must either be holding fast that Doctrine which he hath learned, heretofore, and then there will be little left for new Invention; or else it must be, he must hold the faithfull word in his teaching; and then I answer, this [Page 81] will be made good in the reading the Scriptures, in the reading or repeating Homilies; The next Clause is, [That he may be able to exhort and convince Gainsayers,] This likewise will be acted in the other; But Consider first, Can any man think, that this ability must be understood in such a vast Capacity, as that every Presbyter must be able to Convince all ill Opinions of Gentilism, Judaism? Surely, I believe not; If so, I dare say, nor he, nor any Fellow he hath is a Presbyter. I remember once in a Conference with a Gentleman of his mind, a Presby­ter, I proposed to him an Old Heresie which I had newly light­ed on, and those Arguments were made for it, he was forced to Confesse an inability for that time, and yet a man of as great a Name as any in England of that Side. Well then, what must it be? that there must be some Capability to this purpose, upon occasions, not pulpit work, but by discourse, when any such thing shall be objected, and that such men should endeavour to improve themselves in their Abilities to this purpose; so that here is a great Latitude, and Mens abilities in all Elections and Ordinations should be considered, how far they extend to this purpose: but I perceive not here that kind of preaching which is now so magnified, at all exacted. So the Heresie be convinced, so the men be exhorted to piety, whether by an Homily out of some Ancient Father, or such which the wisdom of the Church prescribes, or a Declamation of a mans own penning, it is not material; for although those who have least Abilities, common­ly do most magnifie the latter, and practise it, yet without que­stion the former is much safer, both for the Strong Convincing of ancient Heresies, and likewise for sure Grounds of Exhor­tation. Put the Case that it were as it was in Queen Elizabeths dayes, that there was such a Reformation, as abundance of lear­ned men would not yield to, but rather leave their Benefices than subscribe, it is necessary that those Churches should have each a Presbyter in them, you will have▪ men gifted with abilities to preach, and make Sermons of their own invention, I presume there were not then an hundred such in all England. St. Paul had then provided ill for this Church, who should require as ne­cessary, such Conditions as could not be found; Put the Case as it is, that there be four or five hundred, yea a thousand, two or three thousand, that have abilities fit to be licensed to [Page 82] preach Sermons of their own making, it is a mighty matter, yet what are they amongst those multitudes of Churches and Parish­es, certainly but an handfull, the Parishes are 9284.

It cannot be then, that there is a necessity of more abilities to a Presbyter than to do these Duties in that general way, which I have discoursed, and so to endeavour in and by such means to instruct others, and upon Study and Industry either from himself, or more learned men, upon the starting any new Doubt, by Study convince the Gainsayers, it is not required he should do it ex tempore.

SECT. XVII. What peculiar Interest a Presbyter hath in this kind of Preaching.

HAving thus Considered Preaching in its latitude, it will now be worth our Thoughts to reflect upon this Officer called a Presbyter, and see what peculiar Interest he hath in it, distinct from other men. First then, without Question, such a preach­ing as is Occasional, by private Conference, or in publike As­semblies, when in publick Opportunity is offered to manifest the Glory of God, or Convert or Confirm by Conference any soul to or in the Christian Religion, or Godlinesse of living, which indeed is a great part of Christianity, when upon occasions of Discourse or otherwise, Opportunities shall be granted to any man, he may, if he have abilities, so Conferre, as to perswade men to a newnesse of life; and this is preaching in its latitude, it is preaching the Gospel of Christ, and each man that hath abi­lities ought to do it, but each man is not bound to have abilities; a private mans strength is chiefly discerned in holding fast the Word of Truth, that so he be not carryed away with the wind of Doctrine: he hath other Offices which are his Duties, and in which he ought to expend his Studies and Endeavours; but to have abilities, or to endeavour to have some Abilities for this purpose, is the Duty and Office of a Presbyter. It is the Duty of the Shepherd to take care of his Masters sheep, but it is a [Page 83] comely Charity in every Servant, though he be not the Shep­herd, when he finds his Masters sheep run astray, or ready to starve, to throw them a lock of Hay, or call them back to the fold; Nay it is his Duty out of Charity, though not out of Of­fice; but to take upon him the Office when he is not Authori­zed to it, would be Intrusion, and it would bring a great Con­fusion into the Church, as it would into a great Family, where every man, or every man that would, might take upon him the Manage of any Office he would. St. Paul therefore saith of such, How shall he preach, unlesse he be sent? that is, how shall he take upon him the Office of doing it, unlesse he be authorized for it; let us then Consider who is authorized.

SECT. XVIII. Who is authorized to Preach.

THat this Authority must be joyned to every Presbyter that hath power to administer the Sacraments, preaching must be taken in a large sense, for reading Homilies, for reading the Scriptures in known languages; for it is not possible to find men of Abilities to do the other, in such a Nation as ours is, and yet it is necessary that they should have these Sacraments, because by them men receive the Covenants of God concerning their Souls, which to teach and incourage us to, is the chief Duty of preach­ing; and this is done (I am perswaded) more securely, by the other way projected before; but then if we will have men preach nothing but what they make themselves, there had need be a mighty ability for a Weekly Preacher to do that, and such in­deed as cannot be expected from every Presbyter that may be fit for the other; and therefore, that way of penning their own Sermons, is not, nor can be exacted from every Presbyter: And to preach Sermons not penned, although upon urgency there hath been or may be such a Thing, yet it is nothing but laziness and supine negligence, and undervaluing of that great Work (by those to do it Constantly) and not worthy the thought of Christians. But whether Presbyters alone may do this, is a Question started in this Age, but was disputed long since by [Page 84] learned men, and how determined I will set down, with mine observations upon it. The Story is thus; Origen, a man most eminent for learning of any man in that Age, both for humanity and Divinity, and indeed such as may not only be accounted so for that Age in which he lived, but deserved to be placed in the first rank of Scholars, both of his own or any other Age, when he lived at Cesarea, by Authority given him from the Bishops of Palestine, interpreted the Scriptures publikely in the Church when he was not a Presbyter, nor, that we know of, had received any degree in Ecclesiastick Office; Demetrius the Bishop of Alex­andria, who envyed the deserved glory of Origen, and that ho­nour which rather as a debt was paid to, than given him, for his Excellency in Preaching, inveighs bitterly against him, and ha­ving little else to be offended with him for, saith, it was an un­heard [...]of thing that a Layman should preach, and writes to the Bishops of Palestine about it; They patronage that excellent Work of their own, and gave him Instance in three or four that they knew of; and no doubt, (say they) there were more which had been licensed by Bishops to do so, and did preach even before them. I could have wished that the dispute had been larger set down, that so the Arguments from Scripture or reason might have been set down for our Instruction, but for defence of him, who it is pity did not write his own Apology. If any man ob­ject St. Pauls How can he preach unlesse he be sent? I shall an­swer, he was sent, and by that power that had Authority to send, that was the Bishops in that Province in which he lived, who had authority to delegate as Apostles, (of which I shall treat hereafter) by our Saviours Charter, As my Father sent me, so send I you, to send others, not with a plenipotency, but as they saw expedient with divided powers, to baptize and no more, to administer the Sacraments and no more, and why not preach and no more; this way of preaching; penning, and contriving Ora­tions to the people, requires great abilities inherent, acquired by mighty industry and pains; and when men are found so Gift­ed and enabled, although they think themselves not worthy to take a Pastoral Charge upon them, or to administer the Sacra­ments; yet when they find abilities for this, and their Bishop think fit; why should they not preach? but not without the Bishop; he is the Supream Pastor, he may, if he find an Inferi­our [Page 85] fit for that place, give him Authority to feed, or fold, or drive his Flock, and no more; and he that is authorized by the Supream Pastor, may do it, and others who without his leave undertake to do it, are Intruders; but he being so authorized doth it orderly, lawfully; thus did Origen, who had he lived in our Age, could have discoursed much more powerfully to this Theam; and I can guesse, that this may satisfie most of that which many in our Age object concerning their Gifts. If they are Gifted, let their Gifts be examined, and if he (the Bishop) find them to be such as can enable them for such a Work, let them be licensed, otherwise not.

CHAP. XIX. His Argument answered.

I Have been over tedious in this Discourse. Here you may discern the vanity of his Argument from that Text, if prea­ching be taken in that late sense, as I have expounded it, I deny that there are any Presbyters which are not Teachers. If Prea­chers be taken in this strict sense for such as preach Studied Ora­tions, I say that there are many 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 [Page 86] 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 [Page 87] 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 mans [...]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 [Page 88] 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 thems [...]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 [...]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, [Page 91] 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 [Page 92] 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. 7, 8. He that teacheth, on reaching, he that exhorteth, on exhortation. This place I have at large shewed in the Case of their Deacon, not to signifie distinct Offices, but diversities of Gifts, and it imports no more, than that he who finds in himself Abilities of Teaching or Exhorting, should use his Talent as a member of the same body, to the good of his brother. But I wonder, why they should not rather di­stinguish th [...]se Offices by the Names of Teacher and Exhorter, because these Names in this place signifie distinct Abilities and Endeavours, in those two wayes which they intend them to; but there is nothing in either word which intimates the nature of a Pastor, which is to gove [...] as well as feed; But these words are found Eph. 4. 1. where the words Pastor and Teacher are used, and are urged for this distinction in his Treatise of the Preachers Office, Part 2. Chap. 1. pag. 20. but how unluckily, let any man Consider: The words are these, And he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers; let any man Consider this place, and think whether the Apostle should put these as distinct: Those which are di­stinct, he distinguishes with this phrase, (some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors; now mark, he doth not say, some Teachers, but some Pastors and Teachers; Coup­ling these together as one, not distinguishing them as the other; and therefore, let him not dare to sever them whom God hath joyned.

But he [...]ites Beza upon this place to answer mine Argument which he toucheth; let us examine therefore what he saith, I assent, (saith he) to Ambrose, who makes these Offices distinct, for ratio parum firma est; for (saith he) the reason is not firm which moved Hierom and Austin to Confound them; that is, because the Copula is put without the Article, he saith it is not firm, but he offers no reason why it is not firm; the Apostl [...] distingui­sheth the rest, with [...] ▪ and joyns these with, [...], then [...], and, is put to joyn these together, can any man imagine these to be severed, he names Hierome and Austin, but he might have cited St. Crysostome, Theophylact, [Page 93] Theodoret, all the Greek Fathers, whom any man would credit in the Greek Tongue, before Beza, when he hath no reason for what he saith; But the Trick of these men, when they have no reason, they speak great words in Commendation or Dis­paragement of what is for or against them; It is parum firma ratio, saith Beza, but gives no reason, when besides the pro­priety of Speech, he hath all learned men against him: I, but Beza hath Ambrose; it is true, Ambrose doth in his Comments upon this place distinguish these; but Beza will not stand to Ambrose, for first, he begins with Apostles, they (saith he) are Bishops, Prophets, Expounders of Scripture, Evangelists, Dea­cons, Pastors, Lectors, that is, Readers, Magistri, Masters, which we translate Teachers, were Exorcists; this last Beza mentioneth to be not agreeing with his Opinion, I may say, nor any one of the rest. But take this note of Ambrose, he took the words as they lay, and so expounded them, but not observing that Criticism, which perhaps he looked not on, he gave an Exposition such as was agreeing to the present face of the Church in which he lived, which it is possible easily for any man to do; but did ever any man, who observed and marked the language of St. Paul, think it fit to be cast off with a parum firma est ratio, amongst these I have named who marked it a­mongst the Latinet, as Beza, Hierom, Austin, I can adde to them Anselm most punctually, and our Bede likewise upon the place: so that sense is invincible with an uninterrupted Expo­sition, and a strong literal sense of the Text; for St. Ambrose, although Beza agree with him in the division, yet his Autho­rity prevails not with him for the Office, what it should be, nor Beza's opinion with Hooker: so they serve one anothers Turn so far as their own design leads them, but no further; for Beza makes this Teachers place to be such as should read a Divi­nity Lecture, Scholam regere Ecclesiasticam; but Hooker denyes this: There is (saith he) Doctor in Schola, & Doctor in Ecclesia, and (saith he) the second is here meant; but I would fain know the difference betwixt a Teacher in the Schools, and in the Church, for I conceive these men not putting difference in the places; and if they take the Church for the Congregation of men, I know no difference betwixt one and the other, nor can there be this Exposition of Mr. Hookers, which as it is most singular, so it is [Page 94] farre from the language of St. Paul. I will adde this only note, That he nor any other can shew me that place of Scripture di­recting any Duty to either of these Offices, in their distinct Notions as they expresse them, which will not agree to both, and therefore they have no ground upon which to build this phansie.

SECT. IV. Whether there be a distinction of Offices.

I Come now to the other dispute, Whether there be any di­stinction amongst these Offices, by Apostolical right? This is a Question which hath been mightily debated, and therefore a man can scarce handle any thing which hath not been often dis­coursed on before; yet if by varying the Method of Handling it, or by other manner of expressions, or applying other mens ex­pressions in another way than they have done, that which I shall write shall fit some mens understandings better than other mens words before me have done, I shall think it an happy work, and not repent me of my pains: and although I think that other men have abundantly spoken of this question, and so fully, that they have satisfied my self; yet because I find others are not satisfied, I conceive our blessed Saviours Command to St. Peter to be a Precept to all of us, when thou art confirmed, strengthen thy brethren, Luke 22. 32. and although it be but little I can speak, yet put in that little. For the understanding therefore of this Question,

First, Know, that although this Question about that Order we now term Bishops, whether they have distinction and a right of preheminence beyond Presbyters that are barely such, yet it is not de nomine, barely of the Name, whether this word Bi­shop be such as must alwayes be applied to that Office; but of the Thing, whether there be such a Thing as a Degree Instituted by the Apostles, which hath a preheminence above other Presbyters; and then, because the word Bishop, or Superior, or Superinten­dent, or Superinspector, being a word applyed to this Office, will by Consent of a perpetual Language in the Church be well fitted [Page 95] to the Expression of that Office, we may use it often in this Discourse without prejudice as we shall see occasion.

Secondly, Let us Conceive (as was before taught) that all Ec­clesiastical power was seated in the Apostles, and none else, from those words, As my Father sent me, so send I you; and therefore they had power to settle Offices for the Church as they pleased, and there is no Office which had not its foundation from them: so that although this question be often handled under these Terms, whether Bishops be a distinct Order Jure Divino, yet they that hold it Affirmatively, must defend it with this phrase Apostolico Divino, Apostolical, by such a Divine Right; not as if Christ immediately instituted it, for he instituted none but the Apostles, as we read of, for the whole World; but by such a Divine Right as Christ gave his Apostles power to Institute, and they did institute.

Thirdly, Let us Conceive, that although perhaps there can be found no Law or Decree by either one or more Apostles, which shall in expresse Terms say, that by the Authority given us we do erect and institute such an Office; for such Registers (as I have said) we have not: yet when it shall appear to be the Apostles practice to ordain such Officers so qualified, we may be Confident it was not without Authority; for men of such Ex­emplar obedience and humility, even to death, would not in their practice act without Law and Authority.

Fourthly, That where any place of Scripture that directs our Practice, shall abide a double Interpretation, because Quisque abundat sensu suo; there the doctrine and practice of such men who were Apostolical, conversed and lived with those Apostles, themselves must needs be the best Glosse upon such a Text, be­cause as it is reasonable to think that they should best understand the Apostles meaning: (for when Laws are newly made, their sense likewise how they should be understood is fresh in mens apprehension; but Laws antiquated or grown old must be in­trusted to the letter) so likewise it is most reasonable to think, that they could not write or do amisse in these publike Acts or Writings without Controll; and therefore, certainly, it must needs be the best Comment, when the Text abides a doubtful Interpretation, to shew, that the Apostles disciples which Con­versed with them, did so understand them.

[Page 96] Fifthly, That the preheminence that I place in a Bishop over a Presbyter consists in these two things; The power of giving these Orders, which a bare Presbyter hath not; and secondly, The power of Jurisdiction over such as are only Presbyters of the lower rank.

These Truths being granted, as they must without impudence, I addresse my self to the Question, wherein I can Complain for lack of mine Adversaries books; for such as write for the Opini­on, I professe I care for none; the Scriptures and Antient Fa­thers which I have by me serve my turn: but I have their Hooker, and I shall, I think, in re [...]utation of his Arguments, discusse most of that matter which is necessary to this Question; if I find any thing unhandled which is necessary to this Question, I shall treat of it afterwards.

SECT. V. Mr. Hooker undertaken in this Controversie.

FOR their Hooker, he undertakes this Controversie, Part 2. Chap. 1. pag. 22. in which he wastes that Page and the 23d. upon a bitter invective distinction of a three-fold Bishop, Divine, Humane, and Sathanical, and his description of them, which I let alone, as impertinent [...]roth and Fury of a man that is angry, not charitable, and as one inquisitive after truth, dis­puting; but Page 24. he comes to some sober dispute, and to bring reasons against this Vsurped Order (as he calls it) which I undertake at this present.

His [...]irst reason is, as he saith, the expresse Testimony of Scripture, than which nothing can be more pregnant, Titus 1. 5. 7. he only Ciphers out the place, I will put down the words; For this cause left I thee in Creet, that thou shouldest set in order the things which are wanting, and Ordain Elders in every City, as I had appointed thee: then verse 7. For a Bishop, &c. Now (saith he) the Apostle having enjoyned his Scholar to Appoint Elders in every City, and how they must be qualified, he adds [...]he reason of his Advice; For a Bishop, &c. Where the Dispute of the Apostle shews, not only the Community of the Name, but [Page 97] likewise the Identity of the Thing signified thereby, otherwise his Argument had not only been a false reason, but false in form, having four Terms, but in truth, had not reasoned at all; for it had been ready to reply (here is a Gap, as if the Copy had been imperfect, but may easily be made up, thus) a Bishop is ano­ther thing from Presbyter.

SECT. VI. His expressions very unhandsome.

I Will examine this Discourse, and see how partial his expressi­ons are to trouble the Truth. First, he disparageth Titus with, although a true, yet a diminishing Term; He calls him St. Pauls Scholar only; St. Paul, in the 4th verse, calls him his Son, yea, his own Son after the Common Faith; and the Postscript or Direction is, to Titus, ordained the first Bishop of the Cretians. Secondly, He diminisheth likewise that phrase which is of great force to this purpose, that is, the phrase to ordain Elders, he saith, to appoint Elders, Thus when they Cipher Scripture, for the most part Scripture is abused, and the heedlesse Reader swal­lowes in a Misconstruction, before he is aware: thus having ex­amined his misrepeating the Story in things of importance, we will sift his Arguments.

SECT. VII. His Argument examined.

THE force of it is this, that there a Bishop and Elder are one thing as well as name, I grant it for this dispute; but let us see what will result out of it, no more but this, that in the Apostolical Age this name of Bishop and Presbyter was used for one Office; the name Apostle was that which was used for the Superiour Dignity, which, as I shewed before out of Theodoret, when I treated of the Name Apostle, that in their Time many were called Apostles which were none of the Twelve; but af­terwards, [Page 98] to avoid Confusion and an Indistinction betwixt the Original Apostles and the Derivative, for such as were made by men, the Church used this name of Bishops, and reserved the Name of Apostle, to those men who were so Constituted by our Saviour, and that one who was made by Election of Lott into Judas his place: So we find diverse phrases not used to such purpose in the New Testament, yet prevailed with the Succee­ders of the Apostles in such a manner, as they gained a Constant use among Ecclesiastical Writers; such is [...] amongst the Grecians, and Sacerdos amongst the Latines, words not used for any Order in the Church of Christ any where in the New Te­stament, and yet amongst the Ancients are used for the whole Order of Priesthood as it includes Bishops, and sometimes for Bishops alone; but as they are the superiour Order in that sort of men, and in the latter Age are solely appropriated by the use of Writers, to that Order, which the Scriptures and the most ancient term Presbyter, inferiour to the Suprea [...], called by the Scripture Apostles, and to their Successors, called Bishops among the Ancients; therefore in the reading of Authors, not the Insti­tutions only, but the usus loquendi is to be Considered in words. Cambden in his Remains hath a long Discourse like a Lexicon, where we may see to how various Senses in our English Lan­guage the same words have arrived, by Tract of Time losing their old, and gaining a new Sense, especially in Offices; so hath it happened with the words Bishop and Presbyter: they were most frequently in Scripture taken for one and the same thing; but the word Apostle, or Angel, I can never find given to the Inferiour Sort of Presbyters; But now this word Apostle is ap­propriated, in the Language of Divines, to the Twelve, and St. Paul only, the word Bishop to the Superiour Sort, the word Priest or Presbyter to the Inferiour Sort of Presbyters. I shall leave therefore to discourse of the Names, and come to examine the Text concerning the Thing, whether there be in this Text a Parity of Ministers prescribed?

SECT. VIII. The First Argument for a Parity answered.

FOR this Parity he urgeth nothing, but the Attributing these two names which we use, in a distinct Sense, to one and the same thing, which proves no parity of Office, but only the use of these words in those dayes. But I will go further, and prove this Office we call Bishop distinct from the Presbyter, out of that very Text; St. Paul saith, I have left thee in Creet to do these two things, that thou shouldest set in order the Things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every City; Mark here, St. Paul had been in Creet himself, he had layd the foundation of the Gospel, he being to go further into the World, leaves Titus to build upon his Foundation; and he leaves him to do two things; that he should set in Order, or Correct, or supercorrect those things which were not perfected by himself; here is Episcopacy in one piece, he had Authority to correct, to set in order, things that were out of Order, to Correct what was amisse; then se­condly, to Ordain Elders in every City; not to appoint only, but to ordain authoritatively, to s [...]ttle them: I do not know how a Bishop could more exactly be described, in so few words; and I wonder much, why these men should produce this Text, which without a mind much prejudicated with another Opinion, cannot be wrested to any other sense. Hooker takes no notice of this, but some others say, That Titus was an Evangelist.

SECT. IX. Hookers Illustration from Acts 20. answered.

PAul (saith he) Acts 20. sends for the Elders of Ephesus, and professeth in the 28th. verse, that Christ had made them Overseers or Bishops; where not only the Name is Com­mon, but the Thing signified by that Name is enjoyned as their Duty; (He means, to take heed to all the flock over which the holy Ghost had made them Bishops or Overseers) here, as before, are left Gaps or Interruptions; I will fill them as well as I can, to make up his Sense, thus; What he implyes or requires in a Bi­shop, that they (that is, these Presbyters) were to do, If he shall require to lay on hands, to exercise Jurisdiction in foro externo, that they must do, and should they have been reproved for so doing, they might have shewed their Commission, thus farr he. But I wonder where that Commission was given or read: I can find no such Thing in that place, but that they should take heed, or have a care of their flock, which they might execute according to that Authority was dispensed before, by labouring in the Word, diligent baptizing, administring the Communion, but to Convent or Summon their Flock, or Censure them, or give Or­ders and a like Authority to others, of this there is no one word in particular. To expresse my self: Although many men rea­sonably have thought, that St. Paul Convented both Bishops and Presbyters under that general name of Presbyters, as Writs are sent out [...]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 [Page 102] 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 [Page 103] 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 [...]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? [Page 104] 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 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 [Page 105] 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 [Page 106] to be necessary to the perfecting of the body of Christ, and Bishops by all Consent succeed the Apostles in t [...]is Duty; I will not des [...]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 suffici­e [...]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, [Page 107] 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 [Page 108] 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, yet it would not follow, that they received it from their Imposition of hands, but with it, saith the Text, with the Imposition of hands of the Presbytery: when in 2 Tim. 1. 6. he speaking, I think of the same Gift, he saith, which thou hast received by the Imposition of my hands, here, by, as there, with, and so is the phrase varied in the Original, [...], and [...], St. Pauls imposition had some signal force, but theirs was only a Circumstance by the by, not operative: But I enforce not this, although I am perswaded the Text would make it good; but an­swer peremptorily, That Presbytery, there meant, was not a Presbytery of the Inferiour Order, and I speak no more than St. Chrysostome in expresse words, This is not understood of Presbyters but Bishops, and all the Ancients; if he shall require me to prove it out of Scripture, That Presbytery ever signifies a Company of Bishops, which kind of Disputing is used amongst some: I an­swer, in this place I am not to prove, but answer; and I reply, that neither they, nor any, I think, can shew me this word Presbytery used in any other place than these I have named, and then I am sure it cannot be proved that it should signifie that inferiour Order. Thus have I done with this reason of his, I could collect even hence a Strong Argument against them, but I will referr it.

SECT. XIV. Mr. Hookers Argument out of St. Hierome answered.

AT the last Hooker comes to that Canvased place of St. Hie­rome, and here he begins to boast of Antiquity; If (saith he) we look to ancient Times, that prime place of Hierome ad [Page 109] Evagrium shews the Charter whence all the Authority is derived, Unum ex se electum in altiori Gradu collocarunt, quem Episco­pum nominaverunt.

This piece of St. Hierome somewhat amazed me upon the first view of it, not but he was a man, and might by passion be somewhat transported; but although I have read it in him be­fore, and often urged in the School, yet me thought not in such significant words. To understand him therefore, Conceive that he writ this Epistle to Evagrius against a Custom that had crept into the Church of Rome, as it seems, that some men did pref [...]rre Deacons before Presbyters; this I can guesse to happen upon the rise of Cardinal Deacons, which began to flourish in those days▪ upon this St. Hierome magnifies the Presbyterian Order, shews how Presbyters and Bishops were one, and were called by the same name in Scripture, which elsewhere he affirmeth likewise, and there he seems to make the difference betwixt a Bishop in respect of Jurisdiction, not to be as two Orders, but Gradus in ordine; and therefore he saith, that in Alexandria which was founded by St. Mark, in the time of Heraclius and Dionysius, Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori Grad [...] colloca­tum Episcopum nominabant.

But presen [...]ly he makes a Bishop in the same Epistle like a Ge­neral in an Army, and yet comes off, Quid enim facit Episcopu [...] exceptâ Ordinatione▪ quod non facit Presbyter; and at the Con­clusion of that Epistle, compares Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, to Aaron, the Inferiour Priests and Levites.

Whence it abundantly appears, that not only St. Hierome otherwhere, but even here opposeth these men expresly in the Case of Ordination, and surely evidently enough in the business of Jurisdiction, Comparing the Bishops to Generals and Aaron; But then mark these mistakes in his Quotation, where he puts Collocaverunt for Collocatum, as if the Presbyters had given him his place or Dignity; when it is no more but this, that from St. Marks time down-ward the Presbyters of Alexandria had one chosen out of their Presbytery which was elected above the rest, and called Bishop, which was, that their Bishop was chosen a­mong them, whether by them or no, I dispute not now. So that this Epistle of Hierom being read, and this place Conside­red, I know no reason why it should be urged against their [Page 110] power of Ordination or Jurisdiction; First, because this was the Practice only of a particular Church, and as he disputes con­cerning Rome in the same Epistle, may much easier be objected to Alexandria, Si Authoritas quaeritur, Orbis major est urbe. And again in the same Epistle, Quid mihi praeter unius urbis C [...]nsu [...]tudinem? This might be: but I yield not that there is any force to this purpose out of St. Hieromes phrase, but on­ly that they had one elected out of their number which was pla­ced in an higher degree, and called a Bishop, not naming who ordained him, or who elected him; but suppose they should Elect him, would it follow that they had power of Ordination? Certainly no; the people or Patron may elect their Parson, but not ordain him: or, if they should elect and ordain him, which will never be granted; yet would it follow, that he had Juris­diction and sole power of ordaining others: a Master of a Col­ledge is elected to his Office by the Fellows, and ordained according to the Lawes, yet unlesse by Authority delegated from him, no Fellow can choose, much lesse make the least Fellow or Scholar in the House. Take St. Hieroms Instance; The Emperor or General of an Army dies, in his place the Ar­my chooseth and Constitutes another Emperor, as often hap­pened in Rome, when they had made their Election, then he had power both of Jurisdiction in Governing them who chose him, and of Ordaining inferiout Officers which were under him, but over the rest of the Army: So that although it be true in Nature, that which can do the greater, can do the lesse; yet it is not true in Politick Affairs, as thus. In an Elective Kingdom, or the Empire, they who have power to choose the Emperour himself, yet, when they have chosen him, have not power to choose the least Constable or Inferiour Officer, but the Emperor only: so that here are wonderfull Inconsequences in this Discourse, if much more were granted than indeed is any way true; and yet, as if all were true, he deduceth strange Conclusions; Whence it followes (saith he) first, that Bishops were first Presbyters: I grant it; secondly, that they had their first Constitution and Election from them: I deny that proposi­tion; First, St. Paul and the Apostles Constituted many Bishops in their several precincts, Timothy, Titus, many more: Then I deny the Consequence or Dependance it hath upon the pre­misses; [Page 111] [...]or although all that were true in Alexandria, yet that is no rule to the whole World, besides that the same Method was used any where [...]lse, which is apparently grosse; his next Deduction is as bad, Ergo, (saith he) Presbyters had their rise and Ordination before Bishops; If they had, what would follow? It is possible the Apostles might make Presbyters first, and chuse and make Bishops out of them, if not, the Apostles we have, and shall prove were Bishops, who were before Presbyters.

He saith, If they can give Ordination to Bishops, they may to Presbyters; Both the Proposition and the Deduction have been Confuted already.

Last of all, he deduceth, They who have the same Commission, have the same power from Christ.

But they all have the same Commission, John 20. 21. Prout mi­s [...] me Pater, ego mitto vos; I put the words, as he doth, in La­tine, it was said to all the Apostles Equally, and to all their Successors indifferently.

I deny that the plenipotence spoken there was spoken to all that succeeded the Apostles in any part of their O [...]fice; there are diverse Things communicated to one, which were not to another, according to their very Doctrine, only Bishops suc­ceeded them in their fulnesse of power, in Ruling, and Giving Orders; and therefore these are bold Conclusions, which are only spoken, not proved by him.

SECT. XV. The Truth explained.

I Have done with his Arguments, and now apply my self to se [...] down what I Conceive [...]it to prove my Conclusion, which is, That there was such a Thing as Episcopacy setled by the Apo­stles in the Church; If I had no other reason, [...]t might perswade men easily to credit it, because that the Church in the old Law seems to be governed by such a Discipline, where (as I said out of St. Hierome) there was Aaron, the Priests and the Levites; for although this Argument be not necessary, yet because the Wisdom of God is not to be parallel'd in Polity so well as Nature, [Page 112] it should be reasonable for men to think, that where is no Ground for a Difference in this second Church under the New Testament, from that former under the Old, there God should not vary in the Discipline; and, I think, no man can shew me a reason for such a Difference: either that men are more united, or that the Church doth require a lesse Union now, than then; which two, as they are the heads from which we enforce Epis­copacy in that matter of Government: so they must be the heads from which any strong Argument of force must be deduced, to shew the difference. This being so, it is fit for us to Conceive, (without strong reason against it) that there is such a Conformi­ty, especially if to this be added the great uniformity and con­venience that the Ancient Levitical Law had to our Ecclesiastical (which might abundantly be shewed) in other things, without some Language expressing a difference in a dubious Case, it were [...]it we should adhere to Gods former practice.

But then again, our Saviour in his life-time hatching a Church in Embrione. He, as I have shewed, made two distinct Orders, Apostles, and the Seventy, and these both Preaching Orders, without there were some main reason to the Contrary, we can­not easily subscribe to another Discipline, nor surely would have quarrell'd at that, but by reason of pride in themselves, that they would be all Bishops, like the Conspirators against Moses, Num­bers 16. who being men of Quality in Israel, were not Content to be Princes in their Condition, but would be Equal to the Su­pream; So these men are not Content with their rank, which is high and great in the Church of God, unlesse they shall pluck down the highest of all; and not be subordinate, but supream in their Prelatical Principalities; or else, which is a spice of the same vice, there is amongst them an Abhorring of Obedience, which indeed is the Mother and Ground of all Virtue; and al­though they would have all their Subjects obey them in an In­solent manner, yet they would obey none other themselves: and for a Countenance to this prid [...] and stubbornenesse study Scrip­ture, and wrest it to their purpose, which how weak it is for them, hath been shewed, how strong against them, I shall now urge.

SECT. XVI. My First Argument from Scripture to prove Episcopacy.

MY First Argument from Scripture shall be thus framed, That Government which the Apostles did settle in their Government of Churches, that is Apostolical. But the Apostles did settle such an Episcopacy as I require; Ergo, such an Episco­pacy is Apostolical. My Major [...] conceive not to be denyed; for, as I have shewed, we ought not to seek for expresse Terms to shew that they made a Law in such peremptory Words, That this or this we enact perpetually for the Government of all Churches, this or the like is not to be found any where, nor doth any Government pretend to it. There is no Book unquestiona­ble of their Canons extant, but only Registers of their Acts, and certain Epistles, which set down what they did do, and from that Assure us what we should do.

The first place I shall insist on, will be that I formerly touch­ed, Tit. 1. 5. For this Cause left I thee in Creet, that thou shoul­dest set in Order the Things that are wanting, and Ordain El­ders in ev [...]ry City, as I have appointed thee. This Text I have handled before, and have shewed that in more exp [...]esse Terms St. Paul could not Authorize one man to that Office, which we pretend to, than he did here; I have spoken likewis [...] of that Shift they have for it, to say he was an Evangelist, and by that Authority did Act these things; to which I think may be irre­sistably objected, that it can no where be shewed that he was an Evangelist; and 2dly. it can no wher [...] be shewed that an Evangelist had such an Aut [...]ority belonging to his Off [...]ce; and therefore that must needs be but a weak refuge to fly unto: A Second Shift of some is, That this Commission was gi [...] to Titus but in Common with others, as one of the Presbyters, conjunctim▪ not divisim, joyned with them, not severed [...] them▪ but by such Tricks men may cast off all Scripture; but [...] I would have them shew me where ever there was such a Com­mission given to a Presbytery, which they can never do. Se­condly, [Page 114] Let them Consider, it would be as safe, nay much safer, for me to say, that power given to the Presbytery, must be by the Sole virtue of Association with the Supreame, as they can, when I shew a Commission given to one Man, say it is meant of him in the Company of others, and the more agreeing to sense; because when this Commission is granted, it implyes at the least that he must be of the Quorum, which to none others could be enforced: And again, when we read such a Precept given to any man, it must be understood, that he must have power to execute that Authority, which certainly if he could only Act in Commission with others, he could not; because suppose St. Paul Chargeth him to Ordain Elders in every City, such, and so qualified, he might answer, in many Cases the others will not joyn. Suppose he should stop the mouths of Deceivers, It is likely the great deceivers would be amongst the Presbytery themselves; he can do nothing without their Consent, which is nothing of himself; not he, but they therefore must have the Charge given them; for he is not, by these men, capable of per­forming it; and as for their Charge, it is no where given: Up­on these reasons, I cannot see a possible Colour to avoid this Text, but that Titus had such a Commission Episcopal, as Epis­copacy is taken with us.

SECT. XVII. A Second Argument to prove Episcopacy.

MY next place shall be out of 1 Tim. in which we may discern the same Commission, as fully delivered as be­fore concerning Ordination, Chap. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man. The Qualities of the persons upon whom he should lay on hands, described Chap. 3. from vers. 1 to 14. for this all may be said as was before in the Case of Titus; Here is a Command and Direction to Ordain the Clergy Officers given to one man, and therefore by the way of Episcopizing; It was a strange unlucky violence to the Text which the Glosse of Beza gives: Do not lay hands (saith he) upon any suddenly, Quantum in te est, as much as in thee lies; for (saith he) This [Page 115] power was not in Timothy alone, but an Election being made by the Consent of the whole Church; The Priest a chief man in the name of the Presbytery, by Imposition of hands, did Conse­crate him who was chosen to the Lord, Is not this a strange abusing of the Word of God, and forcing it to serve mens car­nal designes; St. Paul bids him not do it suddenly, that supposes he could and should do it, Beza saith, he cannot do it not at all, but is only the Mouth of the rest, he hath no power to do any thing more than another; but never shews any reason for what he saith, but referres the Reader to Chapter 4th. ver. 14th. where Timothy is said to receive the power by the Imposi­tion of hands of the Presbytery, of which I have spoken some­what already, and God willing shall more hereafter; but what is all this to the purpose? Timothy is Commanded, there­fore he could do it, yea, he is commanded not to do it suddenly; therefore he could do it both wayes, leasurely and suddenly; and he himself, in his Short Notes upon the same Text, saith, that the Command is, Neminem Antistes leviter Ordinato, Do thou Bishop, for so Antistes is often used, Do thou ordain none light­ly; but this Exposition hath no Colour for it, nor could St. Paul properly speak more distinctly; for it had not been accor­ding to the usual Language of men, to say, Do thou alone do this, when a man is authorized to do any thing; or, Do it by thy sole power: they are not Languages used, nor do we use to bid a man do any thing which he cannot Act alone, but bid him joyn with others in doing, such others who are necessarily Co-operators with him in the Work he is to do.

SECT. XVIII. Episcopal Jurisdiction proved.

FOR his Jurisdiction I need not speak much, all that Epistle is full of it; only [...] will touch upon one place, which being me thinks of great Brightnesse in it self, will serve likewise to give light to the rest, and that shall be, 1 Tim. 5. 19, 20. A­gainst an Elder receive not an Accusation, but before (or, as the Margin, under) two or three Witnesses; Vers. 20. Them that s [...]n, rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

[Page 116] From whence thus I discourse: Timothy was capable of re­ceiving Accusations against Presbyters, or not receiving, which is a great piece of Judicial Authority; he was likewise Autho­ritatively to rebuke or correct Presbyters, in such sort, as if they were Sinners, and Guilty of the Accusation laid to their Charge, that others by their punishment might learn to avoyd their faults Do these things sound like fellow Presbyters without a Superio­rity of Jurisdiction? Can one fellow Presbyter Censure another, or he who is barely a Temporal Speaker or Mouth of the rest? This seems to me as full as could be, how his Authority was not like Presbyters, only over their flock, but like a Superiour Shepherd over Inferiours.

But here, with some more Colour, in the Case of Timothy they plead he was an Evangelist; because, 2 Tim. 4. 5. he is bid do the Work of an Evangelist, and therefore, by the prero­gatives belonging to that Office, he might do these works of Jurisdiction; surely, although he was bid do the work of an E­vangelist; yet that may [...]e without being one ex officio. An Evangelist is nothing but either a Writer or a Preacher of the Gospel; so that, do the work of an Evangelist, is no more, but preach the Gospel: and I cannot [...]nd one man among the Anci­ents that makes Timothy an Evangelist by Office; but, I do find St. Chrysostome upon Ephes. 4. peremptorily saying, That both Timothy and [...]itus were not Evangelists; and I find no one man among the Ancients, nay I may adde Beza himself, or Calvin, no one man making it a part of an Evangelists Office either to give Orders, or the power of Jurisdiction. But these later make them a Subservient Office to the Apostles; and if we should allow that, what more proper Service than that their name implies, to preach the Gospel about with them, as they travelled? So that it seems to me, that these Writers when they utter such Things, being learned men some of them, and reasonable, cannot de­ceive themselves with those Shadowes, but think to drive on their Design with the people, who [...]earing the name of an E­vangelist, and not knowing what it is, imagine any thing of it what they please to insinuate, which in this particular is, that an Evangelist had some transcendent power over Presbyters, both to ordain and govern them, which was not Communicable to others▪ but they never shew, that any such Authority is assigned [Page 117] them, or any such Duty exacted from them. Well, it appears that Timothy had Episcopal Jurisdiction, as well as Titus, and this name Evangelist given by them for this Occasion only is but a meer Illusion, I shall here therefore for a while leave St. Pauls Epistles, and go to St. John, in the Revelation, Chap. 1. vers. 20. The seven Stars are the Angels of the Seven Churches.

SECT. XIX. The Revelation asser [...]ing Episcopacy.

HEre these Angels were such men as had Episcopal Juris­diction, appears most reasonably to any Indifferent Rea­der, upon these Grounds; First, because this word Ang [...]l, as I have shewed, hath in its own signi [...]ication genuinely the same sense with Apostle, and therefore may well be fitted to the same Office; and as that was never applyed to any under a Bishop; so neither this, as any man can shew me in the whole New Testa­ment. That it is a name likewise appropriated to Spirits sent about Apostolical Employments, and endowed by God who sends them with Apostolical Authority: So that then, whether Angel be applyed to Spirits, or men, it will in both or either re­ceive this Common sense to be understood, That these persons, whether Spirits or bodies, have divine Authority to act those things they are employed about: Now then, thus the word being of such a sense, and no where otherwise understood, we may from hence think it most reasonable, that this name should be affixed to such men; nor do I find any man adventuring to shew any place where this word doth lesse than signifie a Bishop.

Then let us Consider, that they are called after in the se­cond Chapter, The Angel of the Church of Ephesus, the Angel of the Church of Smyrna, &c. which being great and populous regions, could not reasonably but have many Presbyters in them, and then to write to one Angel (if the name Angel did stoop so low as Presbyter) were to write to no man knew whom, be­cause there were so many there; but if Angel (as it is) be un­derstood of one in an higher and more exalted State than the [Page 118] rest, who might be known by this name Angel, as peculiarly due to him; then and then only we may understand who it is that is meant by it; but if any man should allow nothing but Scripture to prove so clear truth, and say there was but one Presbyter in each of these Churches, he may find that Acts 20. ver. 17, 18. St. Paul sent for the Presbyters (in the plural num­ber) of the Church of Ephesus, and when they were come to him he said to them; still they and them, in the plural number. That Text will require a further Examination perhaps hereafter. In the mean time take this, because it is urged for a Unity of Office betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter, from the 28th verse; where St. Paul saith, Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers, that is, Bi­sh [...]ps; then those that were called Presbyters before, were cal­led Bishops afterwards: I have often said before, that the name Bishop and Presbyter, I conceive to be taken promiscuously in the New Testament for the same Office; That the word Apo­stle was solely that name which was used, by the way of propri­ety to that Office, both to themselves who were originally such, and to those who by their Appointment succeeded them; But this is it I contend for, That amongst them which they made their Successors, they gave to some of them a greater and fuller power than to others, both to govern, and to ordain, which since the Church hath called Bishops. Now then from hence, whether there were many Bishops in the Province of Ephesus, or many Presbyters only, yet many there were, and these many were so inferiour to one, that he is called the Angel, which name was so appropriated to him, as he might know to whom the Let­ter was directed; or else, as if a Man should write a Letter, and superscribe it, to the Alderman of London, where are many, no man could know whither to send it, or who should receive it; but if a man superscribe it to the Mayor, every man knows who that is: Thus must it be with these, he to whom this Letter is superscribed must have this Angelical Condition so fitted to him that he must be known by that name, that name solely agreeing to him. But some here offer at an Answer, That he might be like a Mayor, have a superiour Dignity above the rest, such as is notified by that name Angel, which yet may not make a Bi­shop such as we require. He may be a Temporary Governour [Page 119] such as the Presbyterian allows, a President of a Synod who this year governs, but the next resig [...]s his place, and when he is there he hath no more to do but regulate the Synod, no grea­ter Authority than the rest. To both these in their Order; No Temporary Bishop or Superiour, I am Confident that I ne­ver read of any such Thing, and therefore am perswaded, that no man can shew me out of Ecclesiastical Story, that any man was outed of his Bishoprick, but for Heresie, Schism or Gross Impiety of Life; when men have grown, through old Age or Infirmities, otherwise incapable of [...]xecuting their Office, they have had Coadjutors and helpers in their Office, but not been deposed, but by Death, or some such occasion as before descri­bed; and those that by Ecclesiastical Story were reckoned Bi­shops of these places, at this time are recorded to dye Bishops. And it seems a mighty Selfishnesse to me, that any man should oppose his reasonlesse Conjectures against all Story, when in­deed these Epistles cannot be expounded but by Story, as in particular, the 13th verse of the 2d. Chapter, where speaking to the Angel (or Bishop I may call him most Con [...]idently) of the Church of Pergamus, He commends him, because thou hast not denyed my Faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faith­full Martyr; If a man would ask what Commendation of his Faith was this? What was the Excellency of it? Can any man answer me but out of Ecclesiastical Story? where it is recorded, that after a long and pious life full of all virtue led in Pergamus, he was in the dayes of Domitian, for the Testimony of his Re­ligion, put into a brazen Bull, and in that Bull burnt: now then this Bishops faith was Eminent, that in such a cruel and fiery Tryal he kept his Integrity, even in such a Time when tha [...] horrid President of the death of Antipas was set before him. Thus, I say, Ecclesiastical Story is necessary for the Exposition of these Epistles, as you may find prophane Story necessary for the Exposition of the Prophets in the Old Testament; for a man then to talk of such an Officer, concerning which there is no men­tion in the Word, nor any in Story, but a Poem, a fictio [...] of their own Imagination, is not like men that guided themselves by Scripture, to undertake.

I close therefore with the 2d. Exception, which is, that their Government was not such as is Episcopal; but only such as is [Page 120] the president of a Synod, to direct the businesse, not Com­mand more than others, and this certainly the frame of these Letters doth Confute mightily, for they make the Ang [...]ls re­sponsible for the faults and heresies which were under the Go­vernment, which they could not be, if they had only the Au­thority of Presidents, but not of Bishops; for a President of a Synod hath no Coercive power in himself, but as conjoyned with the rest of the Synod, and involved: Nor hath he any particular Interest in the ruling or swaying the Affairs of the Church, but is the mouth of the Synod; therefore, although if he neglect his duty in the Synod he may well be censured for it; yet he cannot have the faults of the Inferiour Clergy or people layd to his Charge in particular: take one Instance in the 15th verse of the 2d. Chapter; the Angel of the Church of Pergamus is censured, because he had them which held the Doctrine of the Nicholaitans, which Christ hates: Should any one ask why the President should be Censured for these things; He could answer, I am but one man, perhaps they can master me in the Synod, I have nothing to do alone; but a Bishop who hath Coercive power, and can both examine and censure any who are in his Diocesse, he may be punished, because he did not oversee the flock of Christ, over which the Holy Ghost had made him a Ruler.

And now here again discern the necessity of Ecclesiastical Story, to expound this Scripture; What, can any man tell, is the Doctrine of the Nicholaitans which God hates, and so we ought to hate, but by Ecclesiastical Story? which sets it down to be as well in the Error of Opinion, the Doctrine concerning the Creation, that it was not by God; as likewise that of prac­tise, that it was lawfull to have Wives in Common; now by Ecclesiastical Story we are taught, that these things were the Nicholaitans Opinions, and these are they which God abhorrs. And now Consider, what fault would it be in the Angel, that these things were he [...]d in his Church, but that he had Co [...]rcive Authority to Command, and hinder the proceedings of these Opinions.

A Third Exception is, That these Epistles were written to the Angels, the Presidents, but by Name, but to the whole Sy­nod by Intention: so that although he direct his Epistle but to [Page 121] one, yet it is intended unto all; as when a man should send a Letter to the Speaker which is to be read in Parliament. But this is Confuted in the Text most evidently, because all these things that are Commended or censured in any of these Epistles, are in the singular number: so Chap. 2. vers. 2. I know thy works and thy labour, &c. thy, in the singular number, and so in the rest; now if he had meant it to the whole Synod, although di­rected to the President, it would have been your works; nor could the Speech be proper to say thy works, when the whole body was intended; nay it is not imaginable, that those eminent virtues with which he and the other Bishops are honoured should appertain to the whole Assembly or Synod of them: so like­wise the fault he condemns that Angel of, vers. 4. that he should forsake his first love, is not likely to be affirmed of the Synod; so it is most remarkable in the Epistle to the Bishop of Smyrna, vers. 10. when he speaks of the rest, he changeth his phrase, The Devil shall cast some of you into prison, and the like; So likewise to the Angel of the Church of Thyatira, vers. 24. To you I say and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this Doctrine, &c. Here it is evident, that when the Things con­cern others, he advertiseth the Bishop to acquaint them with it, and he changeth his manner of Speech, that notice may be taken what was personal to him, and what to others. Thus you see with how much wit, and with what shuffling the Intention of these Scriptures hath been diverted, but to little purpose, among such as Consider and weigh them.

CHAP. VIII. SECT. I. Concerning Ordination.

I Come now at the last to handle Ordination, because I find many things discussed about that, the Clearing of which will Conduce much to the opening my businesse in hand; and then that being finished, I shall review my Work, and if there appear any thing unsatisfied, I shall insert such Discourses as shall be usefull to remove those Scruples: Mr. Hooker under­takes [Page 122] this, where before, Part 2. Chap. 2. pag. 38. and in the handling of it, pag. 39. he proposeth these Questions. Whether

• 1. Ordination be before Election?
• 2. Ordination gives all the Essentials to an Of­ficer?
• 3. What this Ordination is, and wherein lies the full breadth and bounds of the being thereof?
• 4. In whom the right of dispensing it lyes, and by whom it may be dispensed?

I have put down his very words, and do intend (God wil­ling) to handle all these Questions; but because he seems to me to follow an unjust method, I shall begin with his Third Questi­on, To shew what that Ordination is of which we dispute; for till that be Cleared, we dispute de non Concessis, as he doth in this Discourse. I will first examine his Definition, because I will not multiply unnecessary Contentions. He defines it thus.

SECT. II. His Definition of Ordination confuted.

ORdination is an Approbation of the Officer, and Solemn set­ling and Confirmation of him in his Office by Prayer, and laying on of hands.

In this Definition, that which I can blame, is, first that which he makes the Genus, to wit, an Approbation of the Officer. This is a prevenient Circumstance, not an Essential part Constituting Ordination; First, men are Approved, then Ordained; and al­though he calls it a Description not a Definition, which phrase abides a larger sense than Definition doth; yet even there this Term is faulty, for it must be a Description of Ordination of which this is no part, no more than many other Circumstances belonging to it. Again, where he saith it is a Setling and Con­firming him in his Office. If by Office he Conceive a particular Congregation, as by his whole discourse he seems to do▪ then that is not large enough to contain that Act which it is directed to; for men may, yea must be Ordained before they are setled in particular Congregations: So that as his Genus, Approbati­on, [Page 123] on, precedes Ordination, so setling thus in his Office, is Con­sequent to it; last of all, the whole Description is too wide for the Thing described. He takes setling in his Office in that sense I have shewed, for it agrees to the Mission of Barnabas and Saul, Acts 13. 2, 3. who were ordained before, as will ap­pear after, and is yielded elsewhere by him. This Description of his is page 75. where before.

SECT. III. My Definition set down and explained.

HIS Definition being thus briefly perused, now take mine. Ordination is an Act by which some Man is Constituted in some Ecclesiastick Order of Divine Institution. This I conceive to be a Logical Definition, for Definitions should be as short as may be, so they be full, and explain the nature of the Thing de­fined. The Genus is an Act in General which agrees to it, and diverse others; The Object of this Act is a Man; the Immediate Effect and End it Aims at is the Constitution of an Ecclesiastical Order; the Explication of which will be the Chief businesse to understand the whole Definition: Order is the disposition of things either accor [...]ing to their place or time; For time, as ye­sterday, to day, Order disposeth when it should be done, or in place, before, behind, at the right hand or the left, above, below; Now because there are many degrees in Church Affairs, where one is above or below another; therefore, when any man is put into any degree of these, this is called a Church Order; that which hath no degrees, but is where it was, is the lay sort of men; These are (as we speak in Logick) of Individuums, they are not in serie praedicamentali. Now therefore it is said Eccle­siastical Order, because there are Orders which are not Ecclesia­cal, as Kings, Judges, &c. where there is a sub & supra in the Common-wealth, but belong not to our businesse. Again, be­cause there are many Ecclesiastick Orders in the Church of Rome, which are not truly such; but only additions of human Invention, according as their Church fancyed would conduce to the Deco­rum of Gods Service, I adde this Term of Divine Institution, [Page 224] which must be understood of divine Apostolical constitution, and then it may again be put in these Prases, that Ordination is an Act by which a Man is Constituted a Minister, as at the be­ginning of this Treatise the Minister is defined, for the Man or­dained, and the Minister before will be all one. And so now the nature of Ordination being explained, I shall encounter with Hooker in his first Question, Whether Ordination is in na­ture before Election?

SECT. IV. Ordination is not before Election.

IN answering this Question, we shall agree to say, No, it is not before Election; nor surely can it possibly be: for a Man must be elected and chosen, as fit to be ordained, before he is ordain­ed. But because Mr. Rutherford, as he expresseth it, page 39, doth conceive this Election belongs to the People, and that Or­dination is like the making of a King, the Election of the peo­ple like the giving and appropriating this ring to the finger, by choosing this man to this place, which Hooker opposeth; I shall quit my self from Rutherford, and then apply my self to Hooker: I say therefore, that first a man must be chosen, before he is or­dained a Pres [...]yter; but it is not necessary he should be Chosen by the people, there is no semblance of any such Thing in the Scripture; nor indeed do Rutherford or Hooker exact it, but out of his mistake, That they suppose no man should be made a Pres­byter which should not at that instant or before be Elected to some benefice of the which the people should be Electors.

SECT. V. Men may be Ordained without the Election of the People.

NOW the Contrary is most apparent in some Case; As suppose Mr. Hooker and Mr. Cotton were adjudged fit men for the Conversion of the Indians, they had need be sent with Presbyterial A [...]thority, for else they could not have right Authority to admit Converted men into Christs Church, but the people to whom they were sent could not choose them, these men must be ordained Presbyters before they are sent, and e­lected before Ordained, but not by the people to whom they are sent, or the people, that is, the Commonalty from whom they are sent, who are not Capable to discern the fitnesse for such a Work; but their Drift is, the people over whom they are to Pastorize. Thus then it is evident, that in some Cases Ele­ction of the Congregation or Church over which a Presbyter is put, cannot alwayes precede his Ordination.

But suppose again, a Company of Christians whose Presbyter is dead, in many Cases they may elect one to be ordained, be­fore he is ordained; and in many cases they may elect one to this Charge after he is ordained, (supposing that the power of Electi­on were in them) as thus; in the first Case they find an able and fit man, they desire to have him ordained; in the second, they find an able man already ordained (sine Curâ,) I put the Cas [...] without Exception; As suppose his or Mr. Cottons Congregati­on destroyed by Enemies, cannot he be elected to another Church, or if Elected, must he have another Ordination? I be­lieve he will not say so; Well then, in this Question the An­swer must be, the Election must precede Ordination, but Electi­on to Ordination, not Election to a Cure in the second sense▪ Election to a Cure may and may not precede Ordination.

SECT. VI. St. Cyprian explained.

IN all Hookers Discourse upon this businesse, I find n [...]thing remarkable produced to Confirm this Conclusion, but some flashes against the Papists, and then against the Prelates; but page 42. he brings certain Quotations of Authors, to which he assents, amo [...]g which there is only one worth the insisting on, and that is St. Cyprian, out of whom, Lib. 1. Epist. 4. which is a true Quotation according to the old, and Erasmus his Editi­on; but according to Pamelius, in 68 Epist. Lib. 4. The words are, Videmus de Divina Authoritate descendere ut Sacerdos pleb [...] praesente sub omnium oculis delegatur, & dignus & idoneus pub­lico Judicio & Testimonio comprobatur.

This place he cites rightly, but what is here, but that the peo­ple must be present as they are at our Consecrations, to this pur­pose, to know whether they have any thing to object against the Man, or his life; but here is no word of his Election: and I must Commend the Ingenuity of the man; for it is evident out of the following part of the Epistle, that he meant no more, because his Arguments inforce no more but the presence of the people; yet indeed the words immediately preceding do seem upon the first view, to carry another meaning, they are these, speaking of the people; Quando (saith he) ipsa maximr [...] habeat potesta­tem, vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi, which words, if they be understood of more than a Custom of the Church which is confirmed by many Canons, That there should be no clandestine Consecration, as well as Marriage▪ but that the Consecration of Priests and Bishops should be in the pub­lick Church, where any man may except against them if they have any thing to that purpose; I say, if this potestas eligendi & recusandi, be more than this, which St. Cyprians Arguments do not enforce; yet if there be more meant, it is nothing, but that the people did Elect their Sacerdos, which is understo [...]d of a Bishop, as I have intimated heretofore, and is clear in this place, because the Case disputed of, in which St. Cyprian is consulted, [Page 127] is concerning a Bishop; now it is apparent in Story, that many times it was indulged to the People to choose their Bishop, es­pecially abou [...] that Age, wherein there was a kind of Impossibi­lity of doing otherwise▪ when the World was divided into so many great Schismes, and the Emperors peremptorily abetting none, nor destroying any; so that you might know three Bishops to­gether in a City, one Orthodox, the other Arian, another No­vatian; now in these cas [...]s th [...] people chose their Bishop when the old was dead, and adhered to whom they would when he was alive, unlesse the Emperor interposed, as oft he did, or some Council Provincial, which likewise was used; but for Divine right, St. Cyprian speaketh of nothing, but plebe praesente, they were chosen in the presence of the people, but to the Benefice, whether Bishoprick or Parsonage, the Electors have been various in all Ages, and may be so; there being nothing determined, by Apostolical Constitution, or practise; yet there is nothing in all this that shews that Election to a Benefice must be be­fore Ordination, not the least word, but rather after; for if it lies in the people to elect a worthy Priest (I so translate Sacer­dos) to his Benefice, then he must be a worthy Priest before: for else it should be, they should elect a Worthy man to be Priest, not elect a Worthy Priest to a Benefice, of which St. Cyprian seems to speak, and which is his Aym; for his other Quotations, they are of such men as are of little use with me, or with any their Adversaries; and therefore I trouble not my self to examine them.

SECT. VII. His Argument from the Election of Deacons, Acts 6. examined.

AT the last, he urgeth Page 41, Acts 6. About the Electi­on of the Deacons that were chosen, first by the people, and after Ordained by the Apostles, I set down mine opinion of that Act before, never dreaming then of this Design, which it is aymed at here; but what I said then, will serve my Turn now; First, that Election was Occasional, and therefore cannot [Page 128] be drawn to a President; but when there is the like Occasion. 2dly. It was to such an Office which might easily fall under the Cognizance of the people, to wit, the Caring for the poor, and they might better discern the sufficiency of men for such a pur­pose, than the Apostles themselves; First then we see here falls to the Ground, that if the people had this liberty in an un­der Officer, there was much greater reason they should have it in an Officer of higher degree, in whom they had greater Interest, and by whose administration they were to receive grea­ter good. This follows not, for this Office was of such a Thing as they might best know, the Integrity of those men with whom they Conversed; but the other, of an higher nature, they could not be Judges of so well: and therefore there is a diverse Case, the people may be fit to choose a Collector for the Poor, a Tithing-man, but can they be fit to choose a Judge? And indeed it favours of an high presumption, which his delight in this Conceit transports him with, when he saith, as he doth in that page, That the liberty of the Apostles in ordaining was not so great, as the peoples in choosing; when the Apostles had all Divine Authority from Christ solely delegated to them, and the Apostles did not only ordain these men but their very Office it self. I may adde to this, that the people in this inferiour office did not authoritativè of themselves choose these, but by parti­cular direction and command from the Apostles. I have answe­red, as I conceive, all that he speaks concerning his first Questi­on, Whether Ordination or Election be first? He Conceives it not much material; and therefore concludes, the proof of this will appear in the Explication of the other particulars, which he undertakes, and I will follow him.

SECT. VIII. Whether Ordination gives all the Essentials to an Officer?

HIS Second Question is, Whether Ordination gives all the Essentials to an Officer? In handling of which he examines two things.

[Page 129] First, how farr the Essentials of the Ministry or Minister may be given by Man?

If they may be given and Conveyed by man, by what means men may be said to do this, whether by Ordination, or any other Appointment of Christs?

SECT. IX. Whether Ordination doth communicate the Essence to the Outward Call.

HIS first Conclusion is, Ordination as it is Popishly dispen­sed under the Opinion of a Sacrament, and as leaving the Impression of an indelible Character, doth not Communicate the Essence of this outward Call.

In the handling this Conclusion, there are two thing [...] he in­sists upon; First, to shew that the Prelatical party are Popishly affected in this Doctrine; 2dly, to dispute against the Indelible Character: for the first, he draws it from the Answer in the Ca­techism which is in the Book of Common Prayer, where it is said, that there are only two Sacraments as generally necessary to Salvation, not as he puts it down, two only Absolutely necessa­ry to Salvation, and then glosses on it, q.d. there are more, and those necessary, but not absolutely necessary. These are his words, which you see is a false Quotation; But because that ever-to-be-honoured Book the Common Prayer is named, I will first vindicate that, and then proceed: Know then, It is the first time that ever read the Prelatical party accused under that Notion, that the Common-Prayer Book held the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, because it was the most Authentique piece which expressed the Doctrine and Religion of the Church of England; 2ly. Let the Reader observe, that this word Sacra­ment is a Term not found in the New Testament, but an Eccle­siastical Term taken up by the [...]athers, and used by all Christi­ans for that thing which is Ordinarily defined, a visible sign of an invisible and spiritual Grace; Now if that have the Noti­ons which the Word Sacrament expresseth, then Mr. Hooker cannot deny Orders to be a Sacrament, because he grants an outward Call to be necessary, which is an outward Sign, and he grants the Effect of that Call to be the Order given by it, which is an Invisible grace, as Grace is taken largely for Gratia gratis [Page 132] data; and yet the Common Prayer Book is most true, which saith, there are two only generally necessary, that is, to all men; for Orders are not generally necessary to all men, as Baptism and the Lords Supper are, but only to such persons as under­take such Duties. Let this suffice to have been spoken to that which he unnecessarily to his businesse or mine inserted.

SECT. X. Of the Character left after Ordination.

AND such another pass [...]ge I shall have with his 2d. Dis­course, concerning the Indelible Character, a Thing not material to his businesse, but only to vaunt and shew his rea­ding in the School. [...]or this understand, that this Character that he and they speak of, is the relict of that gift of Ordinati­on, by which the Ordained is enabled to do these Duties he is ordained to. Now that there is some such Thing he must needs confesse, who discourseth of the Causation of these Essentials, which imports an Effect, and certainly this Effect must be perma­nent, remain in the Ordained, or else he hath nothing in him which should Authorize and enable him for those duties. Now then, it is in vain for him to fustian the Reader with the various opinions of the School; whether this Effect be a Qu [...]lity or Relati­on, and such unnecessary Discourse, unlesse he could shew what it is, if not one of these, since he holds that it is somwhat, & I must needs say, that the worst of those Writers hath done better than he, because those Authors have expressed something with a guesse of reason to it, but he without reason to the contrary laughs at them all, and yet hath said so much as invincibly proves there is a Character, but not said what. If it were pertinent to his or my Discourse, I would insist upon it, but although he is Tedious in such impertinencies, I will not follow him in them, it is enough that there is a Character, something left in the per­son of a man, (perhaps that is a righter phrase, than to say in ei­ther Soul, or Understanding, or Will, unlesse for subjectum quo.) But something there is left by that Act of Ordination, by which that man in whom it is left is capable to do those Divine duties, [Page 133] whether this be delible or not, is not yet material to this Que­stion; we will come therefore to his second Conclusion, where will be new dispute.

SECT. XI. His Second Conclusion discussed.

HIS Second Conclusion, is Page 52. That Ordination admi­nistred according to the method and mind of Mr. Ruther­ford; namely, as preceding the Election of the people, it doth not give Essentials to the outward Call of a Minister.

An uncouth kind of phrase doth not give Essentials to the outward Call; no, it doth not, for it is the outward Call of a Minister, what's that? a Deacon: he should have spoken clear­ly, as his meaning expressed afterwards is, and have said to a Presbyter; but his meaning is in clear Terms, that without the Election of the people to a Cure of Souls by no Ordination pre­ceding, a Presbyter doth receive his being a Presbyter: And this I oppose: His first Argument to prove it is taken from Acts 6. where it is said to the multitude, vers. 3. Look ye out among you seven men, &c. Contrary (saith he [...] to their present practice. Ver. 5. And the saying pleased the people, and they chose, and they set them before the Apostles: His Collection hence is.

If none but those who were first Elected by the people should be ordained, and all such who were so chosen could not be re [...]used, then to ordain before Choice i [...] neither to make Application of the Rule, nor Communion of the right in an orderly manner; (I set down his very words, lest it might be urged upon an Alter [...]tion I spoyled his Argument.)

But the first is plain from the place alledged. Then he answers that seeming Objection, that this is only concerning Deacons. When (saith he) the reason is the same in both, and stronger in Presbyters, because the people have a greater dependance upon the other, and are engaged to greater subjection to them, and to provide for their honour in a more especial manner.

This kind of Arguing forceth me to a repetition: Conceive [Page 134] therefore that this Instance being singular and occasional, cannot be fitly called a rule, which must give others, but only pruden­tially, when the like Circumstances concurre; 2ly. Though the people may have a fitnesse to choose such an Officer for such an employment as that was, the relief of the poor; yet not [...]it to choose such 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 Ordai [...]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.

[...] 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 [...]lders were ordained by Election, yet let us Consider what election can be meant there, certainly that Election of which I have formerly d [...]scour­sed, which must precede Ordination, an [...]lection of Paul and Bar [...]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 [...]ystra, in the 19th verse, you may ob­serve St. Paul stoned at Lystra and Iconium, where they ordain­ed [Page 135] Elders in every Church, by Election, saith the Geneva; sup­pos [...] 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 necessar [...]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 cle [...]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 [Page 137] 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 tottering foundation. Then he proceeds, which is most pertinent to his intent, to shew what is meant by Prophesy; and concludes, pag. 57. that Prophesy is taken here for a dictate of the Spirit to the Apostle to ordain Timothy. I will not oppose this, as not prejudicial to this cause. Then he comes to his 3d. Term, Eldership or Presbytery, which he saith, notes not the Of­fice, but Officers; I will yield it, although unconstrained to it: Then he sayes, that this Imposition of hands added not to the Con­stitution of Timothy his Office, gave not essentials thereunto, but only a solemn Approbation: I will yield it, but not his reasons; that which was (saith he) beyond the power of the Presbytery, that they could not communicate; but to give the Essentials to Timothies place was beyond the power and place of the Presby­tery: where can he read that? He proves it, because his Of­fice was extraordinary, and theirs Ordinary: by this Office ex­traordinary he intends an Evangelist, I suppose, which he cannot prove to be an Extraordinary Office. Much inconstancy is in this Discourse, just now he brought this Instance, to prove that an Evangelist might be called by the mediation of Men, now he is above their reach; and then his second reason confounds this; For, he saith, he hath proved, that an Office was not meant by this, but by Gift was meant an Ability to do it. A strange uncouth way of Argument. He concludes, pag. 58. the outward gifting and fitting an Officer to his place, especially ex­traordinary, as beyond the power and place of a Presbytery. But the first is here.

This is most fearfull incongruous stuff to abuse Readers with; Who can but guesse by his unusual language there is something in it, but he cannot tell what. Who can tell what that is which he calls the outward gifting and sitting an Officer for his Call? I thought this Gift here spoken of had been an Inward (as he [Page 138] calls it elsewhere a gracious endowment of the soul) which en­abled him to serve God in his Bishoprick, which Gift was be­stowed upon him, as St. Paul describes, not an outward thing, nor can any man imagine what that outward thing should be. Then he draws this Conclusion, that the sense of the place is, Despise not those gracious Qualifications which God by his Spirit in the Extraordinary way of Prophesy hath furnished, and betrust­ed thee withall, the laying on of the hands of the Eldership by way of Consent and approbation concurring therewith, to thy farther In­couragement and Confirmation in this work.

Now suppose all this were true, will this prove, that the scope of Ordination by Gods appointment, is not to give the Essen­tials of an Officers Call, which was his antecede [...]t to be Confir­med from this Text, there is no manner of Coherence betwixt these two Propositions; suppose this were not an Ordination of Timothy to an Office, yet doth this prove that the word of St. Paul, 2 Tim. 1. 6. By the laying on of my hands, mark the phrase [...], as I before observed, and indeed he now observes out of Didoclavius; (although I wonder what use they can make of it against us, though perhaps it may be of force against Mr. Rutherfords Presbyterian Ordination.) I say, all this doth not prove, that Timothy was not ordained by St. Pauls laying on of his hands; or if it did, doth it prove that Timothy was not ordained at all, because we do not read of it? Or, that he could not ordain without a Prae-election of some Congregation to a Cure, when he is Commanded, 1 Tim. 5. 22. not to lay hands suddenly on any? These things are all silently passed over, and the inference from the Tedious vaunting Discourse can be nothing to this purpose: whosoever will read it [...]t large, with these notes, must needs loath it as unreasonable.

His Inferences pag. 59. are without all relation to the former Discourse; Hence it is plain (saith he) that Ordination therefore prae-supposeth an Officer Constituted, doth not Constitute. The rest are like this, in which there is no manner of Dependance betwixt the Antecedent and the Consequent: So that I cannot ima­gine, that a man of so fine words could have so little reason, but that these things were fragments found in his Study, and crow­ded into this place.

SECT. XIII. His Third Argument answered.

HIS third Argument, is, That action which is Common to per­sons and performances, or imployments, and applyed to them, when there is no Office at all given; that Action cannot properly be called a Specificating Act to make an Officer, or give him a Call.

But the Act of Imposition of hand [...] is applyed to persons and per­formances as special Occasion is offered, when there is no Office given, nor intended; therefore it is not an Act which gives in the Essentials to an Officer.

Consider, in this Argument, how it never enforceth the Con­clusion which he is to prove. His Conclusion is this, Ordinati­on, a [...] preceding the Election of the people, doth not give Essentials to the Call of a Minister.

Now instead of Ordination he brings in only an outward Ce­remony, which is Imposition of hands; as if a man disputing of the efficacy of the Lords Supper, should say, other men may take bread and bre [...]k it which do not Communicate; for such, and such only is the force of his Argument, Imposition of hand [...] is used in such Acts where Orders are not given; therefore the Essentials are not given by the Imposition of hands. To under­stand this therefore, Conceive, That Imposition of hands may be and hath been used in Apostolical Times, for other purposes than this, for Confirmation; and in that instance he gives, Acts 13. 1, 2, 3. It was a Confirm [...]tion of that Mission of Paul and Barna­bas. Now although Imposition of hands be sometimes taken for that most holy Rite which we call Confirmation, as Acts 8. 17. and sometimes for this holy Mystery of giving O [...]ders, as we have had it oft repeated in this Discourse, or some expression of a designment to a particular Duty, as in this place Acts 13. yet we find the Adjacent Cirumstances easily [...]ixing a Mans un­derstanding upon which particular he should look, and breaking of bread is an Action common to diverse Occasions, yet is sometimes used in Scripture for the Communion: so likewise Imposition of hands, which is used in other duties, is sometimes [Page 140] particularly proposed to signifie Ordination, although it be used in other Religious Duties, and be but a Ceremony of this▪ yet it is a Ceremony used by the Apostles, and pointed out by St. Paul, Lay not hands negligently on any man, to Timothy as before; and therefore Argues a Spirit of Opposition in the Church of Scotland, which, as Hooker saith, reject this Ceremony, and use it not in Ordination: Well, there is no force in this Argument to prove his Conclusion, but only that Imposition of hands is a Ce­remony Common to other Duties, which I grant, and passe to his next.

SECT. XIV. His Fourth Argument answered.

HIS Fourth Argument is; If Ordi [...]ation give the Essentials to an Officer before Election, there may be a Pastor without people; an Officer sine Titulo, as they use to speak, and a Pastor should be made a Pastor at large; the rest is nothing but an Ap­plication to Mr. Rutherford's Simile of a Ring, which concerns not us: But this Argument of his invites me to speak of a pasto­ral Ordination, which will perhaps give farther Illustration to the whole body of this Discourse: A Pastor and a [...]lock are re­latives, and do mutually se ponere & tollere; where one is, the other must be; where one is not, the other cannot be. Now then, to be made a Pastor, will require to have a flock; this shall be presupposed: and again, every Pastor hath not all Pastoral Offices. I can well suppose a mighty great flock which requires many Shepherds, but one Chief above the rest, he hath all Pa­storal offices; folds, feeds, drives to field, prescribes p [...]stures, medicines, and doth all this by the Supream Pastoral power that is granted him, either by his own hands, or by the ministry of those Inferiours which are under him; but they have partial Authorities, only to feed or [...]old, or catch or drive, as their several shares are d [...]signed; the second part of the Division of the Pastoral Charge, these men must grant, who divide their Governours into several Offices, Pastors, Teachers, Rulers, which have their several Duties assigned them, and it is most [Page 141] unreasonable for them to deny the first, That one should have Superiority over the rest, since as reason would direct, without some body to over-look and attend them, they would easily en­trench upon one anothers duties, or neglecting their own, in­vite those others to put their hands to their work; and what this reason directs, that I think I have shewed the Scripture like­wise Crowns with its approbation: Now the first sort of Pa­stors are those we term Bishops, the second Presbyters; the flock they are to feed is the Church of Christ, when they are ad­mitted Pastors, and so ordained according to their several Du­ties; That which Hooker page 61. brings out of one Mr. Best, as if St. Austin or some General Councel had d [...]creed it, is ab­solutely to be denyed, namely, that an Apostle differeth from a Pastor, that the Apostle is a Pastor throughout the whole Chri­stian World; but the Pastor is tyed to a certain Congregation, out of which he is not to exercise Pastoral Acts.

This I deny, if he affirm it by Divine Right; but if by Ec­clesiastical Authority only, which hath designed particular Bishops and Presbyters to particular places, I shall yield much of it.

For the first part, concerning the Apostles, know, that their Commission was universal, as it is set down, Mat. 28. 19. Go teach all Nations, &c. and John 20 As my Father sent me, &c. and we must conceive this to be divisim, not conjunctim only, every one had all this power, not all only; nor as Bellarmine would have, Lib. 2. De Romano Pontifice, Cap. 12. St. Peter only and the rest from him, for we see the Commission granted to all; but yet we must know, that their Authority was habitu or potentia only, in every one, it was not act [...] in any, they might Episcopize, Apostolize in any place of the World: They did Episcopize, Apostolize only where they were r [...]sident; Just as I have Conceived, if Adam had lived in his Integrity, every man had had an habitu [...]l and potential royalty over all the Crea­tures in the world, yet he would have exercised that Royalty only where he lived, yet he might have Travelled any where, and have justly enjoyed any part of the World, although actu­ally he could possesse but his Share; Now this was the Juris­diction of every Apostle in all the whole Catholick Church, ha­bitually, not actually, as the Church of Rome would have their [Page 142] Apostolical Man as they call him, the Pope, and all this was ne­cessary for them as Apostles, which is, men sent for the propaga­tion of the Gospel, to the planting and confirming of Churches, other powers they had of Languages, of Miracles, which were necessary to the first plantation, but no longer; and therefore they were not peculiar to them, but others had them besides, as likewise that mighty power of being Inspired to write Scrip­ture, which did not appear in all of them; and some others be­sides them had that power, as St. Luke and Marke; and some think St. James to be the Bishop of Jerusalem who writ that Epistle.

But now of those which were the Apostles, it is evident that these Gifts were not Apostolical, as belonging so to them as Apo­stles, and it will appear in the other Cause, That the Bishops suc­ceeded them in every thing that was Apostolical, although not in these extraordinary Endowments, for the Apostolical power of planting, setling Churches, of propagating the Gospel through­out the whole World, and enlarging the Kingdom of Christ, must remain for ever, and therefore, though the manner of doing it by such Signs and Wonders be not communicated, yet the Office must; and therefore he who is a Bishop or Presbyter by divine right, is such throughout the whole Word; to this purpose you may observe in that famous place of Acts 20. 28. so much and so often canvased by them who handle these Con­troversies in other points, but not thought on in this, you may observe, that St. Paul speaking to divers Presbyters or Bishops, (which you will) he saith, Take heed therefore to your selves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers or Bishops, to feed the Church of God which he purchased with his own blood. Observe here that he spake to many, and diverse Bishops or Presbyters, (I stand not upon th [...]t now) he sp [...]ke to them in the plural Number; but when he speaks of the flock they were to pastorize over, he puts it in the singular Number; now if the Holy Gho [...] had made them Bishops of particular Con­gregations only, it must have been the flock, every one his se­veral; but being all made Pastors of the Catholick Church, he names it one flock; and so likewise to feed or Sheperdiz [...] over, not the Churches but the Church of Christ, which indeed were no way congruous, if the Holy Ghost had made them [Page 143] Officers of particular Churches, and confined them there, but making them Officers of the Vniversal Church which Christ had purchased with his blood, and all Officers of that, it is rightly put in the singular number flock, and Church. This likewise the Holy Ghost intimates, every where describing the Church to us by the name of a [...]ield, a Vineyard, a City, and multitudes of such Expressions, which as much as this of a flock intimate the unity of that Body, which is his Church, his [...]lock, over which these are Pastors in their several wayes, not only their little Congregations. Now the wisdom of the Church, finding that although the potential and habitual power is uni­versal, yet the actual cannot be exercised further than where they have some manner of residence, hath therefore restrained the execution of it in other places than where they have that residence, both to avoid Confusion, which otherwise must ne­cessarily arise out of the Intermedling in other mens precincts, and likewise because the main scope of their endeavours may be applyed to that place in a near Obligation, every one being for the most part worthy of the Incumbents utmost labour. And this they did by the Apostles own example, who appoint­ed Timothy, Titus, Epaphroditus, their several Diocesse; yet we must further Concei [...]e, that this Alotment of the Church is not such as doth lay any restraint upon the power given by the Spiris, but directs it only; for although a Particular man may offend by intruding into another mans Pastoral precincts, and Officiating there, yet factum valet: so that if a Bishop give Or­ders in another mans Diocesse, as was the famous Case of Epi­phanius Bishop of Cyprus, in St. Chrysostoms Diccesse at Constan­tinople, or a Presbyter Administer the Communion in anothers Parish, which is the common practice; these things although done without leave from the peculiar Pastor, are valid to the receivers, although punishable in the Actors: Yea, yet once a­gain, although a man be placed in a Pastoral Charge, and shall either find upon his own certain experience, or the Judgement of his Superiours, that he can advance the Glory of God, or improve his own Commission by removing to another place, either for a time, as Timothy and Titus, and the rest beneficed in particu­lar places, were yet upon urgencies of the publick good called aside from the more particular Charge to the more publick, [Page 144] where they were employed; or else, if their whole residence may more advance the general Good of the whole Flock, o­ver which they are made Overseers, they ought to remove to­tally to that great Occasion: So when a man of great Abilities shall be beneficed in a private Corner, where perhaps lesse Abi­lities would as well, if not better agree, it becomes him to be removed to a place better befitting his Qualifications, or a man indowed with the strength of rational Divinity, such a man to be sent to the propagating the Gospel in the Indies among the Heathen, and he ought to endeavour to put himself into such an employment; because he is a Pastor of the whole flock for which Christ dyed: So that now I think it appears manifestly, that an Apostle and another Pastor differ not in this, that one was an Universal Pastor, and the other a Particular; but con­trarywise they are both habitually, or Potentià, Pastors of the whole Word, actually pastorizing in some particular only. This caused all those admonitions from one Bishop to another, of which the Fathers are full; This made sometimes Contentions; because it was the Duty of every man that was a Pastor to take care of the whole flock he is Pastor over; and therefore to endeavour their good: So that here you see his Argument fully answered by a flat denial of his Minor, he is not a Pa­stor without a Flock, nor an Officer sine Titulo, he hath Title to the whole Catholick Church, he is Pastor at large; He hath a long Dispute with Mr. Rutherford about Preaching and Ad­ministring the Communion out of his own Congregation, and the Communication of Sister Churches, which touch me not; yet I will give the Reader a Note, that whereas before he made Preaching almost the whole Act of a Presbyter, he now seemes to make it no proper duty of a Pastor, pag. 63, 64. But I let these things passe as not pertinent, and apply my self to his fifth and last Argument, pag. 67. which is.

SECT. XV. His Fifth Argument answered.

IF Ordination gives Essentials to a Pastor before Election, then by that alone he hath Pastoral power. Against which he dis­putes thus, He that hath Compleat power of an Office, and stands an Officer without Exception, he cannot be hindred Justly from do­ing all Acts of that Office; but this is the Condition of a Pastor. Ordained without the Election of the people, he may according to rule be justly hindred from Executing any Act of a Pastor. I could quarrel, were I pinched with this Argument, with almost every word; as first, the changing of the Terms of that Propo­sition he was to prove. In the Proposition he was to prove the Terms were, give the Essentials of a Pastor, now they are, a Compleat power and an Officer without Exception. Many things are essentially right which lack Completion, and are not with­out Exception: Then again, where it was in his first Proposi­tion, A Pastor before Election; here is added in his second, Election of the people. But I insist upon this, upon which the Ground of his Argument is founded, That an Ordained Officer may according to rule be hindred from executing any part of his Office, as he enforceth: Suppose all Congregations full. To which I answer, Ordination doth not give the Act, but the Jus, or right to execute, and a man may have the Essentials when these do not work: Mark, Mr. Hooker was a Pastor when asleep, and had the Essentials of it, but not the Operation: Es­sentials do work their proper work, omnibus positis ad agendum requisitis: The fire it self, although it have the Essentials of sire, cannot burn things too remote, or such Things which are not combustible; the reason is, that those things which are requi­site to burning, as fit distance, disposure of the matter, are not rightly disposed; I may say the same of the Eye; Place the Ob­ject too near, too far, in the dark, it cannot see; the requisites to sight are not sittingly disposed, although the Eye have all the Essentials belonging to sight: So I may [...]ay of a man Ordained, If there be not a place, not any piece of the flock of Christ which [Page 146] hath need of him, or having need he knoweth not of their need, or knowing their need, cannot by distance, or some such moral Impediment come to supply then need, the Circumstan­ces required to his Operations are so taken away that he cannot do the Duties in Act which he hath power to do. St. Paul himself could not officiate any where where others of Authori­ty were labouring, yet he had Authority and was ordained by God; but saith he, if all places are full, he may according to rule, be hindred from executing any part of Pastoral Office, I would fain know by what rule the Apostles were Authorized by Christ to preach to all Nations, and so are all Pastors by Ordination, they have Authority over the world, but are restrained by Ecclesia­stical Law founded upon the Law of Nature, which forbids any thing to go into a full place, which with another Law saith, Deus & Natura nihil faciunt frustra. And again, non sunt multipli­candae Entia sine necessitate: so that when one looks to this part, then the other should not intermeddle without the first give way to him, yet he hath the power and can do the work of a Pastor, when any place is empty, and he invited to it; But yet Consi­der, with me, he doth not only build who layes on the bricks, and mortar, or timber, but he who brings these Materials, and helps to make the mortar; yea chiefly he who steers the work, and directs this or that way: So is it in building this House, this City of God, his Church. The Builders may study to provide Materials for it, and improve their Abilities by Study in the U­niversities, and if they are not called thence may live there, and write such Things as may direct the Workers in this Building, and by that rather build than they; however they have such a power as may be reduced into Act, when all Circumstances are fit, which is enough to give the [...]ssentials to an Officer.

And thus you see an Answer to his Arguments out of this Discourse, Conceive it applyed to that Proposition, He that hath Compleat power of an Office and stands an Officer without Ex­ception cannot justly be hindred from doing all parts of his Of­fice.

This should have been, who hath the Essentials of an Offi­cer, as I said before; but let it run as it doth, I deny it slatly in these Terms, Ab Actu ad potentiam non valet Argumentum ne­gativè, he can be hindred from working, therefore he hath not [Page 147] the power, doth not follow; when a man sleeps he is hindred, and that justly, from working, yet is a Pastor; it is true, in na­ture; it is true in Moralty, that which hath essentially the power of working may be hindred in nature, you may put the light out of your Chamber, which essentially hath power to enlighten it. In morality, he who hath the virtue of Valour in a gallant and high portion, I speak of Active valour, of Military valour, as suppose our Saviour himself, of whom this Question is disputed in the School, he had all virtues in the highest degree, and yet for lack of Opportunity to use this virtue, did never produce an Act of this virtue. In policy the same, We have in England many Barresters, learned men in the Law, yea perhaps as lear­ned as any Pleaders, who by their degree of Barresters have power to plead in any Cause at any Barr, yet because not enter­tained by Clients, do not plead, yea cannot plead, are justly hin­dred from pleading; the same footsteps of that Axiom are evi­dent in all Practique businesses: so that that Consequence, he may be hindred from working, therefore he hath not the power to work, is very weak, when the hindrance is without; but if it be within that omnibus positis ad agendum requisitis in outward Accommodations. If then he cannot do his pastoral Duties, then it is an Argument he is no Pastor; but his Case is otherwise; I say again, he who is a Bishop or Presbyter may of­ficiate to the flock of Christ any where throughout the World, when places are voyd, and opportunities given, otherwise not.

Thus you see I have enlarged my self upon this Conclusion, which being little spoke of by others, required more discourse, and I hope not impertinent.

He saith now, that he hath finished the negative part of his Dis­course: What it is doth not give the Essentials of the Call of a Pastor; and I think I have shewed he hath prevailed little in this, because he builds upon that false foundation, That a Pastor must have a particular flock. Then he comes to the positive and affir­mative part, to shew what doth give the Essentials, pag. 66. which I find is false printed, and should be pag. 67. as the former 6 [...].

SECT. XVI. His Conclusion, that the Pastor rightly orde­red by the rule of Christ, gives the Essen­tials to Ordination, discussed.

HIS Conclusion is, Election of the people rightly ordered by the rule of Christ, gives the Essentials to an Officer, or leaves the Impression of a true outward Call, and so an Office, power upon a Pastor.

This is the Proposition he undertakes to prove; and here I expected an explication of his Terms, especially of that, what he means by leaves an Impression; for since he before had de­spised the Schools for treating of an Indelible Character, not only for making it indelible, but for making it a Character, and con­temned both its being quality or relation; I did justly expect he should expound what he means by this Impression of an out­outward Call, left in the receiver; but not a word. It must cer­tainly be one of those, either quality or relation; for it cannot he substance, or quantity, and nothing else can pretend. But a­gain, I expected he should have shewed, what was that rule of Christ he spake of, which should order the Election of the peo­ple, for without we know that, we dispute at random; for that must be our sole guide; and indeed, at the first blush, when Christ is called and his rules to countenance any Cause, it will stagger any heedlesse Reader; but be not troubled with it, Christ never gave rule to the people to do any such Thing, If he had, this man would have shewed it; but the Truth is, he did not, all the Rules he gave were by his Apostles, as before expressed, and therefore Christ cannot Countenance that Cause with which he had not the least businesse to do: and therefore al­though the Lawes of Disputations would have required this at his hands, yet he wisely avoids them, and from his Conclusion leaps into proofs of it; the first of which is.

SECT. XVII

CHAP. IX. SECT. I. Mutual Covenanting of the Saints gives not being to a Visible Church.

IN his first part therefore of this Book, page 46. he discour­seth of the formal Cause of a visible Church, and he puts this Conclusion; Mutual Covenanting and Confederating of the Saints in the fellowship of the faith according to the Order of the Gospel, is that which gives Constitution and being to a Visible Church. This Term Consederating of the Saints is indefinite, and seems therefore that he should mean all the Saints should Confe­derate, which is impossible in any of their Congregations; if he had meant of any limited Company of Saints, he should have said of a Company of Saints, or a number of them, which he did not, but puts it indefinite, of the Saints. Secondly observe, that whereas he interposeth in his Conclusion (according to the Order of the Gospel) neither doth he, nor can any man living shew any likenesse or resemblance of any such Order in the Gospel, nor doth he in his whole discourse endeavour to shew any such Thing.

Upon my perusal of this Discourse, I find that I have treat­ed of it already in some papers which passed betwixt me and ano­ther, who is since (as I hear) dead, and I think I sent them you; [Page 158] therefore I shall speak only briefly to it, first setting down his Conceit, then answering his Arguments, then Consuting his Conclusion.

SECT. II. His Opinion explained.

HIS Conceit is, as I apprehend it, That a Company of Saints, as he calls them, enter into a Covenant one with another, and with one which they call Pastor, to submit to him in Pasto­ral duties, and he to perform Pastoral Offices among them, as likewise in respect of themselves to submit to and exercise Churchly Censures one towards another; some such Covenant (if I can reach his sence) is that which gives to the receivers an Obligation and bond, and it is in Conscience one towards ano­ther, which bond is the formal Essence and being of a Church; I conceive this, but for lack of some Copy of one of their Cove­nants, I can only guesse at it; by the main drift of his Discourse he denyes Baptism or Profession to give the being to a Member, and only makes a Covenant to be it, a superadded Covenant be­yond Baptism. Page 47. he delivers, that this Covenant is ei­ther Explicite or Implicite; Explicite, when there is an open ex­pression and profession of this Engagement in the face of the Assembly; Implicite, when in their practice they do that where­by they make themselves engaged to walk in such a Society, ac­cording to such rules of Government which are executed a­mongst them, and so submit themselves thereto, but do not make any verbal profession thereof.

And thus he saith the people in the Parishes of England, where there is a Minister put upon them by the Patron or Bishop, they constantly hold them to the Fellowship of the people in such a place, &c. This being warned, that upon their grounds there could be no Church in the Christian World, but in New Eng­land, he could not choose but allow this Implicite Covenant to be sufficient (which is the common opinion among them) although I doubt in some other Things he will reject an Argument drawn from an universal practice.

SECT. III. His Conclusions concerning this Covenant.

PAge 48. he addes some Conclusions. First, an Implicite Covenant preserves the true nature of the Visible Church.

Secondly, (which is much the same) an Implicite Covenant in some Cases may be fully sufficient.

Thirdly, it is much agreeing to the Compleatnesse of the rule, (what rule I would know) and for the better being of the Church, that there be an explicite Covenant. He gives reasons of this Conclusion;

For thereby the judgement of the Members comes to be inform­ed, and convinced of their Duty more fully.

SECT. IV. This Covenant of his cannot agree to Tra­vellers.

THen he enters into a Second Question, how far this Covenant requires Cohabitation? His handling of which is very weak, in my Judgement; for since he allows Merchants and others upon diverse Occasions to be absent sometimes divers years, he gives no satisfaction at all to shew how these men in their absence can partake of Church-blessings: But me-thinks they must live without Preaching, without Sacrament, or any blessing of any Covenant of Gods, because their Pastors and Of­ficers reside at their constant place; but contrarywise our Doctrine, which makes each Presbyter an Officer of the Catho­lick Church, and each Christian a Member of it; it follows, that any Ship may carry a Pastor, and every man receive the Com­forts and blessings of Gods Covenants from him, which is like our Saviours providence for all and every particular. But I omit this, at this time, as not necessary for our businesse; and apply my self to his Reasons for his Conclusion, That this Co­venant gives the Essentials to a Church; which he begins, page the 50th.

SECT. V. His Reasons answered.

HIS first Argument is thus framed, in these words, Every Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Corporation receives its being from a Spiritual Combination.

But the visible Churches of Christ are Ecclesiastical or Spiri­tual; Therefore.

I can justly complain here, that the Terms are altered, which [Page 161] In a Logical Discourse should be the same; I will reduce them therefore, and so discourse upon it; Combination must here be taken for Covenant, or a Combination by Covenant; so that the sence of that Proposition is, Every Ecclesiastical Corporation re­ceives its being from a Combination by Covenant.

In the Examination of this Proposition, I will follow his own Expressions, because I will dispute, ex concessis; He inst [...]nces in the Corporations of Towns and Cities: There (saith he) they have their Charter granted them from the King or State, which gives them warrant to unite themselves, to carry on such works, for such Ends, with such Advantage: So (saith he) their mutu­al Engagements each to other to attend such Terms to walk in such Orders which shall be sutable to such a Condition, gives being to such a body. Thus he. Co [...]sider now, that the form of every thing is that which last comes, to give every thing its being, and make it Compleat; Secondly, it is that which enables every thing to do its proper work. Now Consider, a Corpora­tion hath first a Charter by which they are enabled to unite, by Authority of which they assemble and come together, and per­haps enter into some Engagement required by that Charter; by this Engagement they are made the Matter of this Corporation; but the form is the Influence of the Charter, by which these men so engaged by Covenant are authorized to do this: So in every question when it is moved concerning any Action, we have re­course to the form; Ask why this did heat or burn? It is answe­red, because it was fire, had the form the burning form of fire: Why did that grow? because it had a vegetable form. Now ask, why did a Corporation do this or that, let this Lease, make that man free? The answer is not made, because they were Com­bined by a Covenant, but because they have a Charter to do it; so that the influence which that Charter hath upon the Corpo­ration, is the thing which gives that Corporation its being, not their Union by Covenant, which makes them but the Matter, when the other gives the life and being, force and operation solely to the Corporation.

To apply this to our purpose: Suppose every little particu­lar Church were a Corporation, first they must have a Charter to unite in a Covenant, which nor he nor any man living can shew me; and although these men vaunt mightily of Scrip­ture, [Page 162] and Contemn all Doctrine which is not delivered there, yet this which seems to me their Corner Stone and main founda­tion they have, no not the least shew of any words of Scripture, which can authorize, much lesse exact any such Covenant; but then suppose they had some such Commission, yet not their uni­on upon the Commission, but the other Authorities expressed in the Charter must be it which enables them to do whatsoever they do, not their union by that Covenant; for ask, why any man preacheth, administreth the Sacraments, or the like, the answer is not made from any union, but from the Charter which granted it.

Now I come to his Minor, but the visible Churches of Christ are Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Corporations.

I deny this Proposition absolutely, that every particular Church is a distinct Corporation, (and else he saith nothing to his purpose) but are Members, or branches of that great Corpo­ration the whole Catholick Church.

SECT. VI. Scripture Phrases abused by him.

HE offers at Scripture to prove this, page 51. Every parti­cular Church (saith he) is a City, Heb. 12. 22. an house, 1 Tim. 3. 15. The body of Christ, Ephes. 4. 13, 16. 1 Cor. 12. 12, 27, 28. Here is Cyphered Scripture, All these places (saith he there) are spoken of particular visible Churches. When I view­ed the places I was amazed, to read the holy Scripture so injured, and that mighty Article of our Creed, I believe the holy Catholick Church, to be made such a Nothing, as by his Application of these Texts it is. Let us Consider the particulars; the first place is Heb. 12. 22. But ye are come unto Mount Sion, and unto the [...]i­ty of the living God, (this is the phrase he must pitch upon to prove it a City, but mark what follows,) The heavenly Jeru­salem, and an innumerable company of Angels; then vers. 23. to the General Assembly and Church of the first-born, which are writ­ten in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the Spirits of just men made perfect. I cannot imagine with what colour of [Page 163] reason this can be applyed to a particular Church; for although it may be affirmed, That such men who are religiously united to such Churches are come to this glorious Society, yet that that peculiar Church should be this City, this mount Sion, this heavenly Jerusalem, cannot be admitted; for first it is called Ci­ty, not Cities: now if one Church be this City, another cannot be it; it is the heavenly Jerusalem, an Innumerable Company of Angels, the General Assembly, the Church of the first-born, which can be spoken of none but the universal Catholike Church, of no particular in the world. That it is this, and such a Company; let us look then upon his second place, where he saith his parti­cular Church is called an house, 1 Tim. 3. 15, That thou mayst know how to behave thy self in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God. Hence he collects, or no where, that a Parti­cular Church is a Corporation, because an house; A poor Con­sequence, but see, is this spoken of a Particular Church? Mark the words following, the pillar and ground of all Truth: Can this be spoke of any particuliar, of a little handfull of men in New England, or in one Corner there? I am sure the Church of Rome hath much more semblance for Rome, than they can have for any of their Congregations, which have been and are most unstable themselves, much lesse supports for Christs Truth. His 3d. place to prove this, that particular Churches are Corporati­ons, is because they are termed the body of Christ, for this he pro­duceth Eph. 4. 13, 16. The 13th verse hath not that phrase bo­dy; but only saith in general, that Christians must grow up in the unity of [...]aith to the perfect Stature of Christ; but in the 16th verse there is the name body, from whom the whole body fitly joyned together and compacted, by that which every joynt supplyes, accor­ding to the Effectual working, &c. To understand this, read the preceding verse, where Christ is called the head, and then think with your self, whether this little Congregation can be his body spoke of, or the whole Church? or whether Christ be the head to so many bodies? or whether all Christians are not Members of the same body? His last place is, 1 Cor. 12. 12. for as the body is one and hath many Members, &c. I am weary of transcribing; Consider, the body is one; therefore not every Church a di­stinct body, but there is one body, the Catholick Church. Then he urgeth, ver. 27, 28. of the same Chapter, verse 27. Now ye [Page 164] are the body of Christ, and Members in particular: Can a man choose but wonder, to think that any man should offer to apply this to a particular Church, to say it is the body of Christ? The 28th verse reckons up the diverse Officers which God gave to govern these Churches, which can be affirmed of none but the universal, I am sure not of their particulars, they have no Apo­stles neither literally nor successively Bishops, no way. This doth weary me; but now you see all that is brought to prove this mighty Conclusion out of Scripture. In brief, to illustrate this Truth a little farther: Conceive, that the universal Church of Christ is like a City, of which he is the King, or Supream. All men in baptism submit themselves to his Government. He in­stitutes Officers over the whole, as I have before expressed, these cannot actually be present every where, and therefore by consent appoint these and these in their particular Wards or Pre­cincts; and as any man when he comes to plant in this or that City, implicitely submits to the Government, as of the City, so of that particular part of the City where he lives: so is it with Christians where they go any where in the Christian world, ha­ving in general by Baptism submitted themselves to Christ and his Discipline, take it in all places wheresoever it is. So likewise the Church is an house, Christ the Master, in which every person, in what room soever he rests, can receive no­thing but from his Officers. The Church universal is a body, he the head, from which flow all those Spirits and Graces by which the body is enlivened. Now, as nothing can induce me to believe, that each house in this City should be the City, each Chamber in the house should be the house, each member should be the body: so a man cannot be perswaded that these parti­cular Congregations which are parts of the whole, should be that whole which is called by these Names.

CHAP. X. Another Argument answered.

I Now come to his second Argument, which is thus framed: Those who have mutual power each over other, both to Com­mand and Constrain in Conscience, who were of themselves free each from other, they must by mutual Agreement and Engagement be made partakers of that power.

But the Church of Believers have mutual power each over other to Command and Constrain in Conscience, who were before free.

Therefore they must by mutual Agreement and Engagement be made partakers of that power. I can guesse what he means by his Discourse, but make no sense of this syllogism, for in his Minor there is a Nown of the Singular number put to a Verb of the plural, against Grammar (the Church have); when indeed if he would have expressed his meaning; it should have been, men in the Churches of believers, or all men in all Churches of be­lievers; were such, but I take it so.

SECT. II. The Text, If thy Brother offend thee, Tell the Church, vindicated.

HE offers to p [...]ove his Minor by Mat. 18. 15. If thy brother offend thee tell the Church; In which (saith he) we have a legal and orderly way laid forth by our Saviour, in which breth­ren only of the same Church ought to deal one with another, which they cannot exercise with Infidels, nor yet with other Christians, as our own experience, if we will take a taste, will give undeniable evidence.

I deny his Minor, being understood as I expressed, for that ambiguous way of his delivering it in Nonsence, poseth a Rea­der, what to speak or think.

[Page 166] I say then, that every particular man in a Church hath not power to command or constrain anorher; let us examine his reason therefore, out of Mat. 18. 15. If thy brother, that is, one of the same Church, not an In [...]idel, nor yet other Christians. This is his Collection, but extreamly amisse, for I dare confident­ly affirm, that every Christian is our spiritual brother of what Congregation soever he is, and it is an high kind of Impiety to deny it: nay, he is nearer than a brother, a member of the same mystical body of which Christ is the head, and therefore this Ar­gument falls in the very first setting out, and can proceed no fur­ther; but to understand the Text, and so more abundantly the weaknesse of this Argument.

SECT. III. What is meant by Church.

FIrst know, that by the Church we must understand the visi­ble Catholick Church, which hath this power, and indeed almost all the promises of Christ, which is his City, his house, his spouse, his body, but then it is understood of her according to that part which hath that faculty of receiving Complaints; he who bids you tell a man any Story, bids you not speak it to its [...]eet, or hands, but his Ears, which are fit parts to receive the Story, or if he be deaf, you must do it by writing, that his Eyes which are organized for that purpose, may entertain that relation: Again, when a man commands, he doth it not with his Eyes, or Ears, but his Tongue, which is the part fitted for that purpose. The Church is Christs body, it hath many parts; when you are bid tell the Church, you are not bid tell the feet or hands, but the Ear, those who are proper for that work; when the Church speaks, it is not with hands or eyes, but with the Churches Tongue, which are the Officers for that purpose; these men would make the body of Christ all Ear, all Tongue, every mem­ber of the Church fit to receive Complaints, and fit to Judge and Censure, which is ridiculous; Take his own Simile, Sup­pose the Church universal a Corporation; there was never any such where every man was a Judge: It cannot be therefore so [Page 167] here; Tell the Church, that is, tell those Officers in the Church, who are designed, and organized, authorized for such a purpose; and then if he refuse to hear them, let him be, &c. and this that very word brother, which he introduceth for the prop of his cause, evinceth, for all Christians throughout the Catholique Church are brethren, and the Duty belongs to them; this I think doth satisfie, and what he adds is of no moment, for he (being full with his conceit, that by Church is meant a particu­lar Congregation, and each man in it) labours to build upon that foundation, which being overthrown, his building perisheth.

He urgeth a place out of Whitaker, to prove that Lay-men have Authority of Censuring, pag. 52. but because he confesseth, That Whitakers meaning is of a General Council, that it hath power over any particular Pastor; in the Conclusion of that page, and the top of the 53. he forms this Syllogism.

SECT. IV. Another Argument of his answered.

EVery Member of a General Council hath power in the Censu­ring of a Delinquent.

Brethren or Lay men (as they are termed) are Members of a General Council.

I deny this Minor; he brings no proof, although if he had studied this question, he could not choose but know it is gene­rally denyed by such Writers as Treat of it. Although he is ex­traordinarily Confuted, I am unwilling to let any thing slip which may disturb a Reader. He saith, the Proposition is proved by In­stance and Experience, but I know not where. He addes imme­diately, If others had not Church power over this or that party, if he would have refused to have come into their fellowship and joyned with them, then it was his voluntary Subjection and Engagement that gave them all the power and Interest they have. To under­stand this; there is voluntary engagement in Baptism, and be­sides this there is no more needfull; for it is true, he who lives in Scotland cannot be governed by the Bishops of England, be­cause they cannot have cognizance of his State; and because [Page 168] that the Church hath confined the Exercise of that habitual pow­er which they have every where, that it shall not break out into Act in such places, and upon such causes which they cannot have a full knowledge of; but if he who now lives in Scotland will come and live in England, and receive the blessings of Gods mer­cies in his Covenants from the Church of England, if he of­fend, he must be admonished and convented before the [...]hurch quoad hoc, that is, the Church Officers, and if he obey them not, be as an Heathen. If he refuse to Communicate with us in these Spiritual blessings, he makes himself as an Heathen: So that in some Sence there is a Covenant required, that which he calls implicite, even in a baptized man; for else he makes himself an Heathen towards us, in regard of us: but this implicite is not like their Covenant, which seems to be perpetual; This is only pro tempore, for the time of his abode and no [...]onger. That which he yet urgeth, that men travell into farre Coun [...]ries, where are Churches planted; certainly that man, if they be Pro­testant Churches, he will claim a right in the Church Seals, if he be a Protestant; if a Papist, and they Papists, he will do so like­wise, or else he will be as an Heathen. To conclude this, he brings some places of Scripture to shew that some would not joyn with the Apostles, as Acts 5. 13. where Heathens re­fused to joyn with the Apostles; Luke 7. 30. The Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the Council, &c. But can he shew me, that any who were Christians refused Communion with them, of what Church soever? It is not imaginable,

His Third Argument is only against Presbyterians; I meddle not with it: His Fourth Argument is thus framed.

SECT. V. Another Argument of his answered.

THat Society of Men who may enjoy such priviledges Spiri­tual and Ecclesiastical, unto which none can be admitted but by Approba [...]ion of the whole, that Society must be in an Es­pecial Combination.

[Page 169] But a particular Combination is such a Society who enjoy such Spiritual priviledges, &c. Ergo.

I deny this Minor: Laymen in a particular Congregation have no such power, to admit, allow, and approve of every man who comes into that Congregation; they may inform, but they can­not judge.

His last Argument from an Induction avails nothing, where he saith, If the Inventory of all other respects being brought in, none can constitute a Church visible, then this only must, he reckons up mutual Affection and Cohabitation only, which are insufficient to make his Indu [...]ion. I shall therefore set down what makes a Church visible.

CHAP. XI. SECT. I. What makes a Church Visible.

COnsider what makes a Church, that if it be visible consti­tutes a Church visible; and certainly for the first, if we consider the Church to be the body of Christ, the City of God, the Heavenly Jerusalem, then as we must conceive it consisting of many men, we must conceive it likewise having these men united in some form of Government under Christ, and like a City, an house, a body ruled by their King and head Christ, who by his Inferiour Ministers and Officers rules and governs this bo­dy, this City; he is of this City, who is ruled and governed by the Lawes of this City; of this House, who is governed by the Oeconomical discipline of this house; of this body, who is guided and governed by the head of this body; So he is of Christs Church who is governed by the Lawes of his Church; we are not born Citizens of the Heavenly Jerusalem, but re-born by Baptism, by which we submit to that Discipline, and are Incor­porated into his body: Now then, as a man of any City if he live in the East part, so long as he lives there, is governed accor­ding to the Laws of that City by the Constables and Officers, whose Authority is there prevalent; yet if he remove to the West part, by the Lawes of the same City he is governed by other Of­ficers, [Page 170] yet by force of the same Law which ruled him before; so a Christian submitting himself to Christs Discipline by Baptism, if he live in any part of this City, submits to those Governours which are there, if in another, to those which rule in that, and all because a Citizen of that City; and these are the powers of that City; yea, perhaps there are kinds of Governments in one part of the City diverse from another, according to the condi­tion of the pl [...]ce, one fittest for that one, and another for that other, and [...] he submitting to the Law of that City, varies in the manner of his Subjection▪ according to the exigencies & rules of every place, by that general rule of submission to the Government of that [...]ity. This likewise is apparent in an house; A Servant admitted into an house (so a man by Baptism) submits himself to the Oeconomical Discipline of that house, and according to the diverse rules of that house in diverse rooms of it, submits himself to divers men, perhaps diverse Disciplines: So in the Hall he meets with one Governour, with another in the Kitchin, another in the Larder, another in the Pantry, and in all these he hath diverse Officers to submit to, and diverse wayes of Submis­sion in diverse Things. Consider it a Body, and in a Body con­sider those parts which walk up and down, and go to several parts of the body, as blood and spirits; each of these, by that general rule and Law of being Ministerial parts of the body, in their pas­sages through diverse parts receive diverse disciplines, and are o­bedient to several Lawes in the heart, the hand, the head, yet all by that obedience they have to the Law of humane bodies, not by a New Covenant in every particular place, but by virtue of that first Covenant to be Servants to that head which governs all: Now then, thus you see by Baptism we are made Citizens of the Heavenly Jerusalem, and that being a visible sign, makes us visi­ble Members of this visible Church.

SECT. II. Baptism is not the Form which Constitutes a [...] Church-Member, but the Visible Act, by which men are made such.

I Would willingly leave this Truth so clearly expressed, as it might be without Question; therefore Consider a little fur­ther; that I do not conceive that Baptism is the Form which Con­stitutes a Church Member, but that Baptism is that visible Act by which a man is made a Member, a visible Member of Christs Church, and the Effect of that Act is that form which [...]o Con­stitutes him. The Indenture is not the form of an Apprentice, but the Deed by which he is made an Apprentice, and that re­lation or Quality which is got in the person bound, is the Effect of that Indenture, and is the formality of his Apprenticeship.

Now because Mr. Hooker seems to oppose this Doctrine, I will examine his Arguments, which he enters upon, Part 1. Chap. 5. page 55. Proposing this Question, Whether Baptism doth give formality to make a Member of a visible Church? He an­swers negatively. His First reason is.

SECT. III. His First Argument, and the Answer to it.

IF there be a Church, and so Members, before Baptism; Then Baptism cannot give the formality.

But the Church as to [...]um Essentiale is before Baptism; Ergo.

He proves his Minor, because Ministers are before Baptism; this he proves, because there must be a Church of believers to choose a Minister lawfully, for none but a Church can give a Call.

One Absurdity granted a Thousand follow; Consider which were first, Ministers or Churches, and whether the Churches [Page 172] did choose their [...]rst Minister; Did the Church, or Christ choose their first Ministers, the Apostles? Did Crete choose, or St. Paul ordain Titus their Minister? In the second part he supposeth all true which he had discoursed in the first; in the first part he supposeth all true which he means to discourse of in the second, and indeed both grosly false, Ministers were before Churches, and did constitute Churches, not they them; but he gives an In­stance page 56. Let it be supposed the coming of some Godly man (I draw up his sence) amongst Pagans, and they are Converted by him; may not these men choose him for their Pastor, &c. I an­swer, Instances upon Extraordinary occasions cannot make ge­neral rules; but in particular, I deny that (if he were not a Pres­byter before) they could make him their Pastor, or that he hath power by any Call of theirs to administer the Seals; and I can give Instances in particular passages of the same nature in Ec­clesiastical Story; but that which is an invincible reason against this, and the whole force of this matter, is, that although people may have power to dispose of their own obedience to whom they will give it, yet they cannot of Divine benedictions which God shall give them; they must in that submit to Gods Ordi­nance; and they who are not authorized by him cannot be cho­sen by them: and therefore they cannot choose him a Pastor, where God doth not make him his Officer for that purpose; which, unlesse he is a Presbyter; he is not.

SECT. IV. His Second Argument answered.

HIS second Argument is, If Baptism gives the form to visible Membership, then whiles that remains valid, the party is a visible Member.

But there is true Baptism resting in the party, who hath no vi­sible Membership; Ergo.

He proves his Minor from short Instances; in an Excommuni­cate man, in him who renounceth the Fellowship of the Church, or when the Church is absolutely destroyed, then all Church Mem­bership ceaseth.

[Page 173] To understand the force of this Argument I must deviate a little, and discourse of what it is to be a Member of the Church, of the force of Baptism in this work. Know then that the Church is a body, and an org [...]nical body, which hath many mem­bers which have diverse Offices, an eye, a foot, &c. and as St. Paul philosophyes 1 Cor. 12. and all this body is animated and informed by the same soul, the holy Spirit, the head of this bo­dy is Christ, all this needs no proof I think; but then, that men are made Members of this body by Baptism, that I shall apply my self to. Consider therefore the 13. verse of that 12 Chap. of 1 Cor. By one Spirit we are baptized into one body, whether we be Jewes or Gentiles, &c. Having in the preceding verse shewed that there are many members, he shews here which way we are made members of it, that is, Christs body; to wit, being bapti­zed by the same Spirit into Christ; the Spirit which enlivens us makes Baptism effectual to the incorporating a man into the bo­dy of Christ; For what else can that phrase be, into the body, as a work of Baptism but into the body of Christ, his Church? Well then, Baptism is the Act, the relict of Baptism, as before, is the Thing which makes us members and parts of this body. Consi­der then next, Gal. 3. 26, 27. Ye are all the Children of God by faith in Christ Jesus; for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. Here you see phrases wonderfully expressing the same thing. As God is considered in Oecono­micks so he is a father, so by Baptism we are adopted the chil­dren of God; as Christ is the head of the body, so we are bapti­zed into him and engrassed (as the Spirit speaks elsewhere) into the body. Suppose Christ to be an holy Garment, with which the Crimes and Sins of his Servants are hid, by Baptism you cloath your selves with his righteousnesse, and you put on Christ, under whom your unrighteousnesse shall be hid, and your sins co­vered; or else, as others expresse it, Matters put on a form, &c. But then if you will adde the last verse, If ye be Christ, ye are Abrahams seed, & heirs of the promise, you may see these 3. things, Children, Members, Heirs, most heavenly united in the second Answer of our Catechism, In my Baptism, wherein I was made a Member of Christ, a Child of God, and an Inheritor of the king­dom of Heaven; which three in expresse Terms are put down [...]y St. Paul: and what necessary Thing and Essential (as he calls [Page 174] it) of another Covenant can adde to a further union than this, matters not much; Well then, it is proved that Baptism doth constitute a Member. Now I will examine how this may be ju­stified against his Objection, which consists only of Instances against this, and no proof of them; An Excommunicate man (saith he) hath no Membership, He that renounceth the fellow­ship of the Church, or when a Church is utterly dissolved, there is no Church-Membership.

CHAP. XII. His Instances Examined and Confuted. The Dissolution of a Church doth not destroy Membership.

I Will take all these apart, and discourse the Evidence of them, and begin with the last, of which I may justly say, posito quolibet sequitur quidlibet, Let it be granted, that the Church should be dissolved and torn to pieces, that being the entire bo­dy of Christ, Christ could have no body, and then there would be no Members; but it is impossible, the Gates and powers of Hell shall never have power to dissolve it; the winds shall blu­ster and the rain fall, but not have force to beat down the City of the living God; It shall be in persecution, and suffer many miseries; but the darknesse shall not be able to comprehend or suppresse the light of it; it is true, one of their poor particular Congregations may be and hath been shaken and sc [...]ttered, and their Union dissolved, because it is wrought by man, and mans hand guards it; but it shall never be so with Christs body, it shall be a pillar, a strong support of all truth, yea the ground and foundation in which Truth is inherent, and by which Truths are supported: that instance therefore falls of its self, the foundati­on is cast down, and then the Castle hangs only in the Air.

SECT. II. How Excommunication doth extirpate Bap­tisme.

I Apply my self then to the first Instance of an Excommunica­ted man, in which case I would have wished he had brought some reasons to have proved they were not of the Church; but he not doing it, I will undertake the question against such Oppo­sition as I can find elsewhere. The Question is, whether an Excommunicate man be a visible member of Christs visible Church? I put the Terms as strict as I can, because I will avoid all future Cavilling, and I answer affirmatively, he is; he brings no proof to the contrary: So we are upon even Terms, if I should say no more, only the difference will be in the Autho­rity of the Speaker, in which I think he will prevail; and there­fore I will examine it by reason, and as well as I can satisfie the Objections made by some Jesuites against it.

To understand this: Consider that any part continues so long a member of its body, as it is united to it, and so long it is united to it, as it can receive influence from the head, and be active and operative in its proper works, by the fountains and originals of those motions, assisted any way, by any outward applications or inward medicines; the members of a mans body (as it haps out in some Palsies) may be utterly unactive, so that they can­not stirre or move, no not feel or be sensible of any hurt, and yet these parts remain members of the body still, and it may be by Physicians directions be restored to former vivacity, and be quickened by spirits as before coming from the same foun­tain, and this is a Sign it is a member still of this body. That which is a member of another body, canot by any Act be made a member of this, nor that which is an entire body of it self; so that when physick can restore a member, though it appear to our Senses never so dead, yet it is still a mem­ber.

Again, Consider for the other Term of distinction, That if a baptized man though excommunicate be a member by his [Page 176] Baptism, he is likewise a visible member by the same Baptism, for Baptism is a visible sign of the Effect it produceth, and is as visible in the Excommunicated man, as in him that Communi­cates.

Thirdly, Consider that many parts of the body are by ob­structions hindred from that influence of blood and spirits which would enable them to do their duties, which yet, that obstructi­on removed, hold the same Commerce and Society, with giving and receiving mutual correspondence in their several offices a­gain with both head and members. These things premised, as I think apparent Truth, I now addresse my self to the bu­sinesse.

SECT. III. Bellarmines Arguments answered.

THere is a great Dispute betwixt Cardinal Bellarmine and others, Whether an Excommunicated person be a mem­ber of the Church? I must oppose Bellarmine; for although the Conclusion seems the same in Thomas Hooker and him, yet Hooker offers at no reason for it, Bellarmine doth, lib. 3. de Ec­clesia militante, Cap. 6. And he saith, Excommunicated persons are not in the Church; his first Argument is drawn from Mat. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church, let him be as an heathen, &c. This (saith he) is understood of Excommunication, I yield. But, (saith he) Heathens are not of the Church, I grant that likewise; but do adde, neither doth the Text say they are Heathens, no more than Publicans, but resembling, as, Sicut, being in that like them, that they are severed from the Actual partaking of the Sacraments. He addes 1 Cor. 5. 2. as he reads it with an In­troduction, why rather have you not sorrow that he who hath done this might be taken away from among you? Then he s [...]ips to verse 6. A little leaven leaveneth the whole Lump; and there­fore in the last verse 13. Put away therefore from among your selves that wicked person. In which words (saith he) the Apo­stle describes what Excommunication is.

I yield all this; but this doth not prove, that this man was [Page 177] out of the visible [...]hu [...]ch; for although he be severed from actually participating many blessed Covenants o [...] God's, yet not severed from his membe [...]p This is but physicking the sick part, you shall [...]ind vers [...]. 5. To deliver such an one to Sathan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord; like as a man who hath [...] member expo­seth [...]to the Chirurgion, that he may be cured of his former ma­lady, so that I observe two ends of Excommunication in this Chap [...]er: the separation of the person from the Conversation with [...] members, lest they should be corrupted by him, lest the Lump should be leav [...]ned; and a punishment and chastise­m [...]nt of the person, that he m [...]y amend; Now if that Chirur­gery doth at [...]ny time produce [...] Effect of Amendmen [...], he then [...] where he was to the Actual enjoying and participa­ting of all [...]ods mercies and Church-blessings: The ob [...]tructi­on is removed but [...] man ought to be excommunicated for Destruction, but for Amendment of his own person; or the saving others from the con [...]agion of his [...]; so that it is a sign whilst he is [...]xcommunicate that he is member, a sick one, only obstructed from the par [...]icipation [...] of m [...]ny [...]cclesi [...]stical felicities, but not taken away from the Esse and being of a Christi [...]n.

His 2d. Argument is dr [...]en from a Rule of the Canon Law; That violators of Churches should be put out of the Communion of Christianity.

This is nothing but the participation of those Actual blessings that are communicated to such in w [...]om there is no ob [...]truction; as suppose a mo [...]tified and numbed member, it partakes not of that influence of spirits and blood which others which [...]re live­lyer members are indued with, but yet it remains a mem­ber.

Thirdly, He argues from the Fathers, Hillary, St. Chryso­stome, Theophylact, who say, to be made as an Heathen is to be cast out of the people of God, cast out of the Church: So likewis [...] St. Austin, Every Christian qui à Sac [...]dotibus excommunicatur Sathanae tr [...]ditur, He who is ex [...]ommunicated by the [...]acerdotes, the Priests of God, (I render it) is delivered to Sathan: Now, be­cause out of the Church the Devil is, as in the Church Christ, I grant all these phrases to have their Truth: That the Excom­municated [Page 178] man is out of the Church, as I said before, that is, out of the participation of all those heavenly Covenants and mercies which are appropriated to them who in a more constant Con­versation and fellowship have Commerce with it, yet he loseth not all union. Suppose then the Church a Body Politick, a City, this Baptized person one of the Corporation, for some fault by him committed he is by them expelled the City, untill such time as either he humble himself for his fault, or else give such sa­tisfaction as is enjoyned; This man so long as he is out of the City loseth all priviledges of a Citizen, yet not all union; when he satisfies, he is re-admitted upon his first Title: so that Ex­communication is a kind of suspension from the participation and execution of those Divine benedictions which other members have; it is not a degradation from his Christian being; like a Tree which is dead in the Winter, and brings forth neither fruit, nor leaf, yet revives in the Spring; or else like a withered part, which by Chirurgery is recovered to a lively being. Consider St. Pauls expression, Rom. 11. 17. and the following part, we are said to be graffed into Christ; now that Act which grafts us in is baptism: Now, as we may see some branch of a graft in the Fruit season bearing neither fruit nor leaf, giving forth no expression of livelyhood; yet when we find by any Experience that there is any hope in it, or a possibility of restoring it to a vivacity with care of Husbandry, we know that branch is not dead, nor ut­terly hath lost union, because his restitution is by physick, not re-grafting: so it is with Baptized persons, which being Grafts, not Sprouts, when any decay whatsoever is restored or repaired by repentance and sorrow for Sins, not by re-grafting by Bap­tism, it is a certain and undoubted sign that it retains still an uni­on by the former Grafti [...]g: So that this Act of Excommunica­tion is nothing but his suspension from his Acting many duties of a Christian, and an obstruction of the influences of many Graces of God to him, but yet not a total destruction of either; for as he may pray, repent in himself, and upon that justly re­quire Absolution, and the Church is bound to give it: so before these he may receive motions and incitements to them, and up­on the use of those Talents proceed from grace to grace, until he obtain such a measure of humiliation and repentance as ought to be accepted of the Church, and accepted upon humiliation, [Page 179] not Baptism again; which is a sign the branch was not cut off, but sick only: so that now having spent (I hope not wasted) so much time and paper in Explicating what Excommunication doth, Conceive my Answers to these pieces of Fathers thus; By Excommunication a man is put out from many Actual priviledg­es and blessings, which those who are not excommunited enjoy, that they are put out of the Lap, the Bosom, the near Caresses and Embraces of the Church; not out of the absolute being in or with her: And lest any man should think this a forced Expli­cation, take an Instance in Mat. 27. 46. Our Saviour complains, My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me? How can this be un­derstood? Not that the Deity had taken away that supe [...]natural hypostatical union; but that, for that while there was a suspence of the influx of the fulnesse of those all-comforting graces, which were other whiles constantly attending his humanity.

Lastly, Bellarmine disputes out of reason: First, Because Ex­communication deprives a man of all Spiritual Commerce; and he urgeth a piece out of Tertullian for it, Cap. 39. of his Apology: But the sence of him and Bellarmines Supposition is to be under­stood as I before Explained, he is deprived of the Actual Con­versation of [...]he Church in many things, not the union; and there­fore Tertullian in that place saith, summum futuri Judicii praeju­dicium, the greatest prejudice in this World of the future Judge­ment, the greatest Injury towards it that a man can have, to be barred from the Communion, from the association of prayers; but it canot exclude his own praying, or the power of it by Jesus Christ to obtain Mercy, to whom he remains knit by his Baptism.

Again he urgeth, It is the greatest punishment the Church can inflict. I answer, The greatest Excommunication is the greatest punishment, but neither man nor men have power to sever that member from [...]hrists body which he hath joyned.

Again Bellarmine, Excommunication cannot be to any but Contumaci [...]us and Incorrigible Sinners, because they will not hear the Church.

I answer, what follows? but that they who now are Contu­macious, anon at another time will be humble.

[...]ast of all he urgeth, In Absolution the phrase is, Restituo te, I restore thee to the unity of the Church, and participation of mem­bers. [Page 180] I answer, he might have added what follows by way o [...] Explication in their forms of Absolution, and to the Communion of the faithfull. A man is restored to the full enjoying his union, his membership, by such a Communion which he had not before, but only an union: So now I think it appears, if you apprehend the Church as a body natural, Excommunication is an Obstru­ction which stops many Influences with which both head and members Communicate, but not union. If you apprehend the Church a political body, Excommunication is a Suspension from City powers and priviledges untill some satisfaction, but Condi­tional, not an absolute annihilation of his Charter, and this will appear out of that Phrase of St. Paul in the Chapter urged by Bellarmine, 1 Cor. 5. 5. Deliver such a man to Sathan for the destruction of the Flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus; so that it seems by this, Excommunication is a sharp Physick for the good of that man, to make him ashamed, to humble him, for his correction, not destruction; and it ap­pears again by his restitution, which is only an Absolution, not a new engra [...]ing, or an Absolution by a new readmission, not a new Incorporation; and this answers all the Objections that I have read either in Bellarmine or in any other.

SECT. IV. Such as renounce the fellowship of the Church, are members.

I Must now addresse my self to Hookers second Objection, which is, That such as renounce the fellowship of the Church, though they have true Baptism, yet are not [...]embers of the Church. By this renouncing, I think he means professing against it, or let it be what it will, turning Turk, renouncing Christ, he is yet a member, he retains his true Baptism, for by Baptism a man is accepted a Child of God; and no more than he who renounceth his Father doth by that Act make himself not his Son, no more can he unchild himself by any of these Actual oppositions. Here in this he only sets down his Conclusion, but brings no Argu­ment [Page 181] for proof. I will hunt them out amongst the School and Jesuites, and clear the Truth as perspicuously as I can▪

Cardinal Bellarmine in his 3d. Book De Ecclesià militante, Cap. 4. handles this Question under this Title, Whether Here­ticks and Apostates which are baptized be parts and members of the Church? He denyes it. His fi [...]st Argument against it is drawn from Scripture, 1 Tim. 1. 19. where it is said, That some con­cerning faith have made shipwrack. Where (saith he) by the me­taphor of shipwrack he understands Hereticks; who, one part of the Ship being broken, is fallen into the Sea. [...]or Answer, I grant them to be Hereticks and Apostates, I grant the Church their Ship, I grant them in the Sea ready to perish, yet even when they are there they belong to the Ship, and perhaps were prin­cipal members of it, not in it, but of it; and therefore read the next verse, of whom were Hymeneus and Alexander whom I have delivered unto Sathan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. This great Pilot took care of them, as members of his ship, and endea­voured their recovery, which was a sign they were still in union with the Church.

But (saith he) this is signified by the parable of our Saviour, Luke 5. of the Net which was broken by the multitude of Fishes; That word Parable slipt from the Cardinal un [...]dvisedly. It was a real Story; but the learnedest man in the world may let slip such an Expression. But why any such sence should be forced on that Story, I know not, but only that such a Thing was done, and if such a sence were granted, it yields no more, but that some men are slipt out of the blessing of the Church, when they are ready to come to the shore, even to Heaven.

But he urgeth further, Titus 3. 10. A man that is an Here­tick after the first and second Admonition, reject, Vers. 11. know­ing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself; Now (saith he) if this Heretick were in the Church, Titus would not have been commanded to reject him, but exhort him. I answer, Reject him for a time, for his Conviction to a­mendment, as became a Carefull [...]astor, and a loving Father, who intends the good of his Children by withholding Tempora­ry favour for a season: that so his Son may be ashamed, and shame breed an Amendment. Bellarmine adds out of St. Hie­r [...]me, that he is not put out of the Church, but puts himself out▪ [Page 182] I grant it, out of that glorious Communion and participation of Heavenly mysteries, which belong to men of right faith and manners.

But he addes another place out of the 1 of John 2. 19. They went out from us, but they were not of us; which he expounds out of St. Augustine, That they went out of the Church, but if they had been of the Church by Election, they would not have gone out from us I am sorry to read so learned a man forget himself▪ I am sure in another Controversie he would not allow this Ex­position, nor can I allow it in this; for without doubt many Elect do go out of the visible Church, understand Election in the most rigid way, they do go out and come in again; that cannot be the right exposition therefore. If you would have my sence of it, we may observe, that in the preceding verse the Apostle speaks of many Antichrists, of these he saith, that they went out of us, that is, out of the Communion with us; now (saith he) they were not of us; that is, when they went out from us; it may be they had been before, but then they were grown to a defiance of us; for if they had been of us, they would not have gone out from us; if they had had the same Principles they would not have left us. This I Conceive the sence of this Text; and indeed, I know not whether any man hath given it this Exposition. Those which I have looked in have given me no satisfaction, of what Religion soever: Now let us see what concerns this Text; and perhaps will serve to Illustrate other Doubts. The difficulty will be in this phrase, to be of us, that is, our Society; that may be diverse wayes, in respect of that Inward Thing which unites us to Christ, either in a perfect union, or in a remisse, or in the low­est degree: In a perfect union, that is, by it which St. James phraseth a lively faith, a faith quickned and infl [...]enced with Charity, that dare with Abraham forsake all Lands, Wife, Chil­dren, yea offer his Son himself a sacrifice to the good pleasure of God; this the Church of Rome calls an informed saith, actuated and informed with Charity; this is the highest union and com­munion. Then there is an union lower than this, which is, the faith which believes aright, and makes a profession of it, but will not bide the Test of a Confession, when it comes to the Touch, and these are by all held so long to be in the Church, as they have this union with Christ, and so long retains its Community, untill [Page 183] some Temptation of fear, or hope, or perhaps some Carnal Ar­gument perswade otherwise, and then they fall into Heresie or Apostacy, to have or g [...]in something; and these I think to be those of whom the Apostle spake, men who lived in a formal shew of a right faith, by conversing in a seeming manner with the Godly and the Church, but then went from them, (I will not dispute the falling from Grace here.) But thus, when men had this faith before spoken of, and professed it; or professed it, and had it not; they had an union with the Church, at the least outward, if but by profession, but inward likewise if they had that second sort of faith, yet they were not of us, the number of those who had justifying faith then when these left us; but now there is another union, and that is per Sacramentum fidei, by the Sacrament of Faith, as Baptism is called, the which no man leaves; and this is an union by which a wicked man after his repentance hath a Title to claim mercy and absolution, as likewise the Church owes it him: So that I dare say Bellarmine, nor any Jesuite I have read against this Doctrine, can deny that there is such a Title, or that that Title is not by this union: So then they went from us, that is, the Communion with us, that shewed they were not then of us, of that dear union of a lively faith, for then they would not have left us; you see this cannot be understood of lack of Election: The Elect may go out, and come in again: It cannot be understood that they left union, but Communion; for the Antichrist himself hath a union with the Church, though he keeps a Communion against it. I think this is enough to shew, that although this departure which St. John speaks of be by Heresie or Apostacy, as Bellarmine insinuates, yet it is not a leaving all union of and with Christ, but only Communion, as I have before expressed. Reader, be not hasty to Judge of this Conclusion, and then I hope thou shalt find it most agreeing to all principles of Religion.

Secondly, Bellarmine quotes the Council of Nice, Can. 8. & 19. Where, saith he, Hereticks are said to be received into the Church, if they will return, upon certain Conditions.

For Answer: It is worth our marking, that those two Ca­nons are made for two sorts of Hereticks, the 8th Canon for the Cathari or Puri, as the Canon calls them; or the Novatians, as Balsamon expounds it, for they were the same; these the Ca­non [Page 184] receives into the Church upon repentance, with Imposition of hands only, but they must expresse their profession in wri­ting.

The other in the 19th Canon were the Pauliani, or Paulia­nites, who were re-baptized upon their re-admission; the first was a reception of such who had gone out of the Communion of the Church, by denying re-admission of Penitents, who for­sook their Religion, by sacrificing to Idols, and communication with the Digami, such as had been twice marryed, whom they held unclean. These things were their Heresies, and therefore were called Cathari, because they must by these Things pro­ [...]esse themselves holyer than other men; but these being not things which nulli [...]ed Baptism, although pertinaciously held, they could not be rebaptized. But for the Paulinians, because they they denyed the Trinity, they could not baptize according to Christs Institution, and therefore such as came from them to the Church were re-baptized. You see now, how upon examina­tion of these Canons of that most sacred Council, the Case is sta­red for me, because it seems the Cathari had but left the Com­munion, as is before expressed, and therefore the removing the Obstruction with proper physick [...]; but the Paulinians had no union, and therefore to be grafted into the body.

I have insisted the longer upon this, because the Story of these several Heresies is not perhaps apparent to every one, and that difference of Condition upon the diversity of the Heresie, per­haps, by a negligent Reader would not have been observed.

What he produceth out of the Council of Lateran, That the Church is Congregatio fidelium, I need not examine, I yield it; but he saith, That Hereticks are not fideles, is denyed by many of his own Religion; for although that they have not a fulnesse of faith, which he cannot exact in a member, yet they may have faith in many Articles, which may preserve them in the unity of members, though sick members; but this serves not my turn, comes not home to my businesse; I therefore say, that as homo is Animal rationale, which is one of the compleatest Definitions given to any thing, and the most exemplar, yet eve­ry part of man is not rationale; the hand cannot discourse, nor the feet: so the Church is Congregatio fidelium; but it doth not follow, that every part of the Church is faithfull▪ Infants are [Page 185] members of the Church, and such members as are in a saving Condition, yet they have but Sacramentum Fidei, and Faith in Potentiâ, they are not actually sideles, nay, perhaps not habitu­ally, I am certain as we know of, they have no habit of it. But it may be objected, that these non ponunt Obicem, as the School speaks; as they reach not out their hands of faith to lay hold on Christ, so they do not hinder or oppose it, but these men do with violence thrust Christ from them: I answer, that violence re­turns to their own Soul, in thrusting themselves out of the state of grace and favour with God protempore, for that time they do so, and it hinders Grace in its operari, in its great and noble Ef­fects which it drives at, but doth not extinguish it in its first Act, which is to make a man a member; yea therefore they are more sinfull, than if done by an Heathen or any who had not know­ledge of Gods Law, nor been admitted into his membership: Therefore the Apostle urgeth this Argument, Shall I take the members of God, and make them the members of an Harlot? In a word therefore, the Church is the Congregation of the faithfull; the Essential and Constituting parts of it are such, yet many parts of it are not such: which no man can deny if understood Actu­ally, because no man can have actual faith at all Times, nor is it necessary that faith should be habitual in every member; for In­fants cannot be proved to have it, but only Sacramentum fidei, which is the first hand which gives an Interest in Christ, and thus much these have of whom we dispute.

The Sentences which he alledgeth out of the Fathers, may be answered out of what hath been already delivered.

His only reason is, That because the Church is a multitude united, and this union chiefly consists in the profession of the Faith, and in the observation of the same lawes and rights, no reason will permit that we should have any of the body of the Church, which have no Conjunction with that body; he means in these things, but he handles this Controversie negligently.

I answer: The perfection of the union consists in these things he names, such are in the highest, and nearest and dearest way in the Church, but the absolute union consists in Baptism.

I have perused many later Jesuites, but they are almost all Excerpta out of him, scarce changing his words; but because in his Answer to one Argument which is objected against him, [Page 186] he confesseth in my Judgement what I require, I will put down that, and so passe on.

It is Objected 3dly. (saith he) That Hereticks are in the Church, because they are Judged by the Church. So saith St. Paul, 1 Cor. 5. 12. What have I to do to Judge them which are without? therefore they are in the Church. He answers, That although Hereticks are not of the Church, yet they ought to be. This is poor hitherto, for then they ought not to be Judged untill they are of the Church; and yet he addes, Et proinde ad eam pertinent; How do they pertain to it, if they are not of it? Yes (saith he) as a stray Sheep belongs to the fold, as we use to say, this Sheep belongs to this fold; This speech pleaseth me, That fold hath an Interest in that Sheep, and that Sheep in that fold; though it have now no Communion with it, yet it hath an union and interest in Communion, whensoever he shall legally lay Claim to it, to be sed with the rest, and every way provided for as they are: Thus I think all stray Sheep which are mark'd by Christ for his, belong to his fold, his Church, and by his mark in Baptism may claim it, and the Church exact a Christian observance from it, neither of which can be in a­nother man.

Thus I apprehend Bellarmines Confession hath assisted me in giving him satisfaction; hut because this Question hath been little pryed into by such Writers as have come into my hands, I will for far farther Illustrations adde some Pro­positions which may clear it from some Oppositions, which arise out of mine own understanding, rather than in the peru­sing any Adversaries Writing.

SECT. V Some difficulties cleared.

THe mighty difficulty which troubled my mind all this while I have been discoursing of this union, was, how it may be said that the same person shall be a member of Christ, and yet in the state of Damnation, as without doubt many a baptized person is? Somewhat like this I read in Cardinal Ca­jetan, who in his Treatise of the Pope and a Council, Chap. 22. having been pinched with an Argument against the Popes Supremacy, and being the visible head of the visible Church, that the Pope may be an Heretick, yea an Apostate, and so no member, much lesse the head of the visible Church; He flyes to my Conclusion for refuge; (I will not meddle with the force of it against the Conclusion he Treats of, but only as he handles it in its self) That the Pope must be a baptized person, and that union of Baptism will retain him in his Mem­bership; Then (saith he) if we will cast the eyes of our minds a little higher, we shall see that he who hath only the Character of faith, (which is a baptized man) is at the same instant b [...]h faithfull and unfaithfull, a Member of Christ and his Church, and extra membra Christi, without the Members of Christ and his Church in diverse respects, and therefore diverse and contrary things are affirmed of such a man by the Doctors: In a word, he saith, That such a Man, as much as is in his own power, is out of the Church; but Christ by his power keeps him in. This is his Sence, and he goes further, That he who hath this Character is a Member, though in Hell. But his Expressions and Explications of this Conclusion are not so full as I could have desired; he saith, he is aliqualiter membrum, after a sort a Member, but sets not down clearly after what sort: Bannes in his large Notes upon 2. 2dae Quest. 1. Art. 10. saith, that in the Constitution of the visible Church there are two Things Considerable, one visible, and the other invisible; one Internal▪ and the other External: In respect of what is visible a baptized man is a member of the Church; but if he be an Apostate or an [Page 188] Heretick, he is not a Member internally. This is somewhat he saith, but it is not e [...]ough; for if there be no internall adhe­sion, it will be rather a shew, and outward appearance of a thing, than a reality of it. Other expressions made by Jacohus Granado, or such later Writers as I have seen, scarce come up so far; Secundum quid (saith he) they are Members, and such phrases, which make a man to know no more than if they had said nothing.

I shall therefore express my self in this manner;

First, If you take the proportion of this body, called the Church, from that communion it hath with a naturall body, as St. Paul seems to do, we shall then find a baptized man grafted into the stock, and whilest he clings to it by faith, and brings forth fruit, by charity he is a lively member of this body, as those branches in all bodies are which bring forth their fruit in due season; the best branch bringeth not forth fruit in all sea­sons, not in winter, and yet is a lively branch; if it bring forth its fruit in its proper time, and so more or less excellent in its se­verall kinds, as it enlargeth its self in bringing forth fruit; but if it bring not forth fruit when the season for fruit requires it, then it is not a lively branch, but yet living, which we may know, because many such a branch hath afterwards brought forth fruit again, by the discipline of pruning and husbandry. The same may be said of the parts of a mans body; and yet to express this fuller, it is likely that this branch is then in the state of mortality, and would perish, were it not repaired by husban­dry. Here you perceive a baptized man ingrafted into Christs body, you see him bringing forth fruit, and lively, you see him not lively, but living, and whilest he yet lives in the state of death and destruction, unless he be pruned and disciplined by repentance. Now it is an invincible sign that that branch is yet knit to the body, because its livelihood is repaired by pruning, not grafting again, and this according to the Analogy betwixt a natural body and its members, and the Church and her mem­bers.

Secondly, Draw the proportion from a Politick body, a Cor­poration. Suppose a Corporation, with this fundamentall clause in its Statutes, that whosoever is once admitted, though he may be thrust out of it for such and such offences, though he [Page 189] thrust himself out, yet if he return again, making satisfaction, although not of equality, yet such acknowledgement as being ordained by Law shall be accepted, this man shall be admitted into his former community of the priviledges of that Corporati­on. This man by being once admitted loseth not this union, untill he come unto that condition of never laying hold of the priviledges of that Charter; he keeps his union, though he en­joys not the communion of that Corporation. This is the state of this apostatizing man, and by the Laws of God granted by all he is upon these terms admitted again, whether he thrust himself out of the communion, or be thrust out. Thus this man (in Answer to the former Argument) is at the same time in the state of a man that is damned, having put himself out of Noahs Ark, the Church, in which alone is salvation, and without re­pentance; and untill repentance, which is commonly called, Secunda post naufragium tabula, he is in that state of damnation; and yet if he lay hold on that planck after his shipwrack, he shall be saved, and hath title to a room in that Ship, a place in that Corporation; and this is the union I labour for, and that which sufficeth to answer mine own Argument and Hookers: the same member is at the same time a member of Christs mysticall body, and in the state of damnation, a member though not lively, but only living; and in the state of dead men, and with­out repentance must be in that state for ever, yet by his Baptism hath a foundation for that to work upon; thus to my self, then to Mr. Hooker. This man who is baptized, is still by that Cove­nant in the Church, Tanquam pars in toto, though not tanquam locatum in loco; he is a member in the first act, though he by his sins and opposition neither may nor can use any priviledge of a member in the second act, to receive blessings from or with them, like a dead branch; dead to the second act, though a­live in the union: he hath not lost his membership by these acts, but only communion in the second.

SECT. VI. Another Argument answered.

ANother Argument I can frame somewhat like this former out of Scripture; First, from Rom. 8. 1. (as it is urged after by such who draw Conclusions from curtalled Scripture) There is no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus. These Apostates who are baptized, by your Doctrine should be in Christ, therefore there should be no condemnation to them, which is impossible to be; for if there be none to them, then there is none to any.

This Argument may be blown away by the very air and breath of the following words, rather than need any Answer; for the following words are, who walk not after the flesh, but af­ter the Spirit: But to such who are in Christ by Baptism, and in their lives are far from him, their condemnation is more abun­dantly just, and their very Baptism, by which they Covenanted to serve God, will arise in judgement against them.

Again it may be Objected, John 10. That Christs sheep hear his voice and follow him; these run away from him, therefore not his sheep.

It may be Answered; His sheep who are in his fold do hear his voice, so long as they keep in that blessed communion; but when they leave that, and go into the wilderness with the stray sheep, then they listen not to it, nor follow him, but go from him, as is in the parable of the lost sheep, Luke 11. But yet it is evident that sheep belonged to his flock, by the shepherds search after him, and that it was called his sheep, though a stray one, and gone cle [...]n from the fold and communion with the rest of the flock; so that it owed obedience to his voice, and to his steps, to follow him, though it ran from him: and this is all I require, a bond of duty, the obligation of a Covenant, not the force of any violent Tye.

SECT. VII. Rom. 8. 17. Answered.

IT may be Objected once again, that the baptized are by that made the Sons of God, and if Sons, then Heirs, as St. Paul disputes the Case, Rom. 8. 17. But these Apostates cannot be accounted Heirs of Heaven, therefore they lose their filiation and their Sonship by such wickedness, and so may all those other con­sequences of the Adoption of that Covenant.

This Question is fully handled by our Saviour, Luke 15. in the Story of the prodigall Son: there is no Apostate can do more than that dissolute young man did, but only perseverance, and yet when he returned was not begot anew, that cannot be, but admitted into his former estate of a Son. Take it therefore lo­gically, by way of Answer; He that is a Son, quatenus, as a Son, he is by that title an Heir, but yet he may so dispose of himself, like the Prodigall, like Esau, that he may aliene and sell his Birthright, and in that state he is not Heir, though a Son: So that a Son, non ponenti obicem, if he alien not his Birthright, in himself is an Heir, but if he do, he hath no Inheritance, though an Heir, he loseth his Birthright. But how then, may one say, is St. Pauls saying true, If a Son, then an Heir? Thus; because by being a Son, he hath a title to the reversion of his Fathers estate, but he may aliene it, which he could not do, unless he had title to it: And yet we may say, that although he is by his Adoption the right Heir, yet he is by his lewdness disinherited. So that as the prodigall Son, so long as he lived in that dissolute and prodigall estate, received no favour from his Father, nor any relief from his estate, yet when he returned, he was resto­red to all again. So it is with a Christian; a baptized Christian once adopted the Son of God, hath Heaven so entayled, that he cannot aliene it without a power of revocation, which power it then acted, when with true repentance and humiliation he shall prostrate himself before the Throne of grace for mercy, when he shall with the prodigall Son have a sence of his misery, by living in that dissolute condition, and longing after the bles­sings [Page 192] of his Fathers house, shall creep to him, confessing his sins and begging his favour, with a, Father I have sinned against Heaven, and before thee, &c. This is the state of every baptized man, who by that is adopted a Son of God. I will not enter in­to those large and tedious discourses of Gods hardening mens hearts, by dereliction of them, or of that which is termed the sin against the holy Ghost, how these may devest a man of his Inheritance. It is enough for my purpose that any baptized man hath such an interest in God, as when he repents he is sure of ad­mission; and therefore though many Laws have been severe in punishing Delinquents, as enjoyning penances for many years, sometimes more or less, as sins were adjudged greater or less, and of later times, and at this present in the Church of Rome, there are Casus reservati, reserved Cases not to be pardoned, some not by the Parochian, some not by the Bishop of the Dio­cess, some reserved only for the Pope, yet in case of death all these Ecclesiastick Constitutions are adjudged dissolvable by the best Casuists, and the Parochian hath power to absolve and re­mit them. So that, for Answer to this Argument, I may justly say that these baptized Apostates are still Heirs of Heaven, but such as have aliened their estate, with a power of revocation upon certain conditions, which when they perform, the estate is theirs again: and agreeing to this will the Answer be to another place, which is much insisted upon by the Antinomians, and many others symbolizing with them.

SECT, VIII. The 1. of St. John 3. 9. expounded.

THat is, 1 John 3. 9. Whosoever is born of God, doth not commit sin; from which is deduced, That sinners are not Gods children, are not born of God, not heirs, therefore have not title to him and his blessings: if not sinners, much less so great sinners as Apostates.

To understand which Text, and farther to illustrate this truth, conceive with me, First, That this phrase sinneth not, or commit­teth not sin, (that will not be materiall) cannot be understood of doing nothing that is sin, for our Apostle in this very Epistle hath declared the contrary, Chap. 1. 8. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive our selves, and the truth is not in us. Again, Verse 10. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him (that is, God) a liar, and his Word is not in us. Again, Chap. 2. verse 1, 2. If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins. Then, they sinned, and in such manner, as they have need of Christ for a propitiation.

Secondly, I cannot conceive these words so as Beza expounds them, in the 4th verse, which he would have guide the whole sence of the phrase, throughout this Chapter; he saith, that [...] doth differ from [...]; to commit sin, differs from sinning, because to commit sin, is to do it knowingly against his conscience. To conclude, he makes it an high kind of sinning, and to sin with reigning sin. I know no necessity to force any such exposition from the phrase, and I am sure he chose a most unlucky verse to obtrude that exposition upon; for in that place the Apostle saith, He who commits sin trans­gresseth the law, for sin is the transgression of the law; phrases which are affirmed of him that committeth sin, but agree to all sins, for every sin is the transgression of the law; and therefore [...], to commit, or do, or make sin, is no more than to sin: and to this inconsideration in Beza, fuller, the Apostle in verse [Page 194] 6. useth only [...], He who remains in him, sinneth not. There, because the sence is as pregnant to shew the incon­sistence of the birth or being in Christ, and sin, as before he re­fers the Reader to the fourth verse, so that there was a distincti­on in the 4th verse betwixt sinning and committing sin, but here there is none in the 6th verse; but to sin, must be to do it, as is expounded, with an high hand. But I have shewed, there could be no such sence in that verse, and therefore much less in this, where was not the least phrase guiding to it. I come now to the Text; I have tumbled over divers Expositors, and he that pleaseth me best is Cardinal Cajetan in his Comments upon the Text, who seems to me to dive deeper into, and drive closer to the sence of the Text than others. Vasques Comes in a word or two towards it likewise, and many touch upon it; his sence is, that he who is born of God, and he who remains in him, sins not, nor can sin: this must be taken (saith he) formaliter, formally, quatenus, say the Logicians, as he is born of God. This we may perceive to be the sence of the Text, because throughout this Chapter the Apostle describes two sorts of acti­ons, good and evil, two principles from whence they came; the good from God, whose sons we are called that do good, and are as [...]imilated to him by such actions; the evil from the devil, verse 8. Now these two principles are in every man; when he doth well his actions come from God, and so far forth he is from God; and when he doth evil his actions are from the devil, and so far forth he is from the devil: nay we may not only find these two principles working their effects in the same man, but like Jacob and Esau, strugling at the same time in the same womb, who shall come out first, and like fire and water contending at the same time for preheminence, as St. Paul wonderfully de­scribes, Rom. 7. insomuch that in the 24th verse it made him cry out like a woman in labour of this birth, O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? So that these two principles are in the same man; perhaps sometimes he sins, in that he sins, quatenus, as he sins, he is not born of God; then he doth righteousness, out of that regard as he doth righte­ously he is born of God. Now yet that you may farther see that this is the sence, see that this thread, this clew, must lead [...]ord [...] to the exposition of the pieces in this same business of this [Page 195] Chapter, verse 6. He who sinneth hath not seen God, nor known God. This must be understood, quatenus, in that regard every man hath sinned, then no man hath seen or known God, no, but quatenus, in that regard that he sinneth, he hath not seen God, nor knoweth him, he sets not God before his face, so that there is a necessity of this exposition from the like speeches of the Apostle; so likewise from that phrase in the 9th verse, He cannot sin. (Certainly he who cannot sin, cannot but do righteously) because he is born of God, out of that cause and principle, whi­lest he keeps himself close to that, quatenus, as he is born of God; as likewise he sinneth not, because the seed remaineth in him: yet St. Paul, whilest the seed was in him, did sin, but not quate­nus. A man may have the seed of God, and the seed of the De­vil together; the seed of God brings forth good fruit, the seed of the Devil that which is ill; as he works from the seed of God he cannot sin: and A Lapide expresseth in another phrase, much conducing to the same purpose, in sensu composito, con­cerning a man working by that principle he cannot sin, or work­ing by the Devil he shall sin, but taking a man in sensu diviso, as not knit to that principle, nor working by the divine seed, he may sin.

Let us see then this Text applied to this business, He who is born of God by Baptism, sinneth not, not quatenus, not so long as he works according to the design and intent of Baptism, which is to forsake the Devil, and follow Christ; and this seed of this Co­venant remaineth in him, to produce sanctity and holiness of life, which so long as it is watered and cherished, it will do: and be sure when you do evil, you work from another principle; but this no whit derogates from the constant union which such a per­son keeps as a member, or a filiation.

SECT. IX. Another Argument against the Filiation wrought in Baptism, answered.

I Would willingly clear this from all seeming opposition, and therefore will discuss whatsoever appears to me of any diffi­culty.

I seem to place the Adoption, the Filiation of a Son of God, in the Covenant of Baptism, and because that remains firm, therefore this Filiation doth so likewise, and is not extirpate by these greater sins. But now if it appear that this work is done by other things, and not by it, then the foundation of this discourse perisheth, and what is built upon it must fall to the ground; but the Antecedent is true, Gal. 3. 26. Ye are all the Sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus; there faith, not Baptism, is set down as the mean of our Filiation.

I do not find faith put there as a constituting cause of our Re­generation, but may well be a motive to it, and have a proper in­fluence in it, but not the constitution of it. To understand which, consider, that this Filiation is an Adoption, and so there is two things requird, the consent of the parties, and the obligatory Covenant which they both enter into. This is in this Adoption; Christ would have all men to be saved, to repent and come to him: they do covenant with him by Baptism to serve him, as the children of Israel covenanted in Circumcision, to serve God according to their Judaicall Laws, so do they with him in Baptism, according to his Evangelicall Laws. Now as no man will submit himself to any Father, by being adopted to him, unless he believe that he will bless him, that his Covenants upon Adoption shall be made good to him; so no man cometh unto God, as St. Paul, Heb. 11. 6. He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them who seek him. This act of faith must precede every access to God; no man would take this Covenant, no man be baptized and adopted without it: and therefore although faith do not constitute the child of God, [Page 197] yet it is the means of his constitution, but without which no man would be constituted, and indeed not only sine quà non (as the Logicians speak) but likewise a means moving, and inclining men to it.

There is commonly objected the case of Infants, that they can have no faith preceding their Baptism. I must not entangle my self in all controversies of these times, and here handle this Que­stion otherwise than this Objection exposeth it self against this Conclusion; and therefore Answer, that as Infants have not actuall faith of their own that any man can know of, so they do not come with their own feet to Christ, neither doth Christ ex­act it of them, or any other, more than they can do: and there­fore we may observe in that famous story recorded in our Baptism, Mat. 19. 13. Mark. 10. 13. Luke 18. 15. That when they brought little Children, or Infants, (as St. Luke calls them) and the Disciples rebuked them who brought them, our Saviour rebu­ked the Disciples, and said to them, Suffer little Children to come unto me. First, mark this here, That these three Evangelists re­cording this fact, although they varied in other phrases, yet all agree in these two, that these little ones were brought by other men, and that our Saviour said, Suffer little Children to come un­to me; whereas in things not substantiall to a story, the Evange­lists most oft vary in the relation: and we may observe so great difference both in the phrases by which they are exprest, and likewise in the very matter, that mens wits are much troubled to reconcile them. So in materiall points the matter is constantly the same; but when the phrase is the same likewise, it is a most assured Argument that things were so disposed in that very man­ner and words, and some excellent thing of high note is delivered, which I conceive thus; If the Disciples had here replyed, we do not hinder them from coming, we forbid only others to bring them, oru Saviours reply was couched in the very words. Chil­dren, Infants, come with others feet when they bring them; now no men come to God but believers; they come then with others feet, why not believe with others faith as well? Nay there seems to be great reason for it, because faith is necessary to coming, that is, personall in them that can have personall faith, as their own feet in them that have feet, but other mens feet serve the turn for them who have none of their own, & so other mens faith: [Page 198] and for my part I wonder why we should be so shy to allow this faith, since there is nothing more frequent in Scripture, than (as the Bishop spake of St. Austin, though a man of a loose life, and carried away with those wicked and horrid Opinions of the Manichees, Fi­lius tantarum lachrymarum non potest perire; He who had a Mother so zealous for him with such showers of tears, would not perish; her piety was powerfull with God for his good.) That other mens faith and prayers are prevalent with God for their Chil­drens or Friends good, I need not repeat the story of the Centu­rion, Mat. 8. whose faith was powerfull to the curing of his Ser­vant, verse 13. So likewise Mark 9. where Christ cured a mans Son by the prayer of the [...]ather, and did it upon the Fa­thers faith, as is evident by verse 23. If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth; all things, then for other men as well as for themselves. There are many such stories, but men throw them off with this shift, that those things are con­cerning their bodies, not their souls: Alas, what more reason is there for one than the other? But see it more closely; read Mark 2. 3. There many men bring one sick of the pulsie, who was carried of four, and let down from the top of the house, verse 5. It is said, That Jesus seeing their faith, said to the sick of the pal­sie, S [...]n, thy sins be forgiven thee. Observe▪ they were divers persons whose f [...]ith he saw, and but one to whom he spake; and because some avoid it, and say, that within this word (their) is involved his who was sick, his faith as well as theirs who carried him: although this will appear a forced explication to them who consider the Text, yet let it be granted; I hope they will no [...] say his faith alone, then theirs co-operated with him in the work, then they could operate themselves, for no second causes do co­operate one with another, but when each hath the power, then they had force of themselves towards the procuring of this bles­sing. Consider then the blessing, Son, thy sins are forgiven thee; what this was appears by the Dispute which followed: the Scribes said, He spake blasphemy, none can forgive sins but God; and our Saviour proved immediately that he was God, in the 21. verse, by saying to the sick of the palsie, arise, take up thy bed, and walk, and did the miracle: so that it appears evident­ly, first, that faith precedes to induce Baptism, before men can come to God, that the coming of Infants is by others feet, that [Page 199] the faith pre-required in Children is other mens faith: for as it is with all supernatu [...]all works, there is a passive faith in the ob­ject, necessary to make it capable of that miracle, without which, miracles (in the course of Gods ordinary doing them) are not wrought, and with which all things are possible, both for our selves, or those which belong to us; and this faith in a Father is powerfull for his Son, in a Master for his Servant. So is it in B [...]ptism; faith is necessary to this great work of Adoption, but faith of others in Children is only necessary: and this is excellent­ly exprest in the practice of the Civil Law, which whether it re­ceived its rise from this, or Circumcision, or that the same prin­ciples which direct one, are evident in the other, I dispute not, but it is some comfort even in Religion to see it illustrated by the wayes of prudent nature, and the universall Axiomes of it. This then is so illustrated, although Adoption requrie the consent of both parties, yet personally that is only done in such as are sui ju­ris, grown to such years as they are masters of themselvs, and their own actions: but such as are of such weak years, as they are governed, and under parents, they can be, and are adopted by their parents to another; an adopting Father, and their Cove­nants for the behalf and in the name of the Child, both oblige the Child to filiall duties towards his new Father, and likewise the Father to a fatherly care of the Son, both in life by protecting him, and in death by estating him in his Inheritance. Thus did God with the Children of the Jewes at Circumcision; that act by the Parents made the Child a debtor to that law, and God to his Covenant of mercy to him. So here is the hand of God accept­ing this act of Parents for their Children, in Nature, in the Law, and in all footsteps of Gods Government, the same discipline is observed. I will conclude somewhat like that passage in Petrus Claniacensis, a man famous for learning and piety as any of that Age, in the Treatise of his against the Petro-brusians, whose Opinions agreed in the point with our Anabaptists; You see multitudes of men in Scripture had a faith prevalent for others, and those but single persons, or a few men that carried the Para­lytick; shall not the faith of the world of the whole Church be ef­fectuall to these Infants? A Father begs for his Son, a Master for his Servant, shall not Christian Parents, yea the Christian Church, be heard in prayer for these Infants? God hath Cove­nanted, [Page 200] Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you, John 16. 22. Ask (say Divines) constantly, faith­fully, for good things, according to Gods will, non ponenti Obi­cem, either for himself or others, who do not stop by self-wick­edness the power of prayers; can then the constant prayers of the Church, with that unshaken faith of hers, be denyed its efficacy, in a thing so pleasing to God, to such persons who actually can put no hinderance to the power and efficacy of that prayer? These things in Christian men canot be denyed; and therefore in brief to the Argument: Faith in all introduceth this Cove­nant in Baptism, and moves the receiver to be adopted to God; and therefore observe, that the Apostle, as he, verse 26. Ye are all the Children of God by faith; so in the 27th verse he brings a reason, For as many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ. The reason why they are the Children of God by faith, is be­cause that such as have this faith are moved to be baptized, and they put on Christ. The faith of him who is master of his own actions, makes him be baptized; the faith of him who is master of his Childs actions, causeth him to bring his Child to this Adop­tion: and yet (methinks) it hath not only power concerning this blessing, before the act of Adoption, to bring men to it, but even in it to accept it; for although there were all the af­fection in the world to it before, yet if faith fail in the Act, that man would hold from accepting such a Covenant, whereby he had no confidence to be blessed: but this faith doth only make him Covenant, but it self is not the Covenant.

Thus I suppose I have spoken abundantly to Mr. Hookers se­cond Argument, and to such Objections which I have thought upon, as most opposing this Doctrine I have delivered: and al­though I could frame many more of this nature, yet what is said to these will serve the turn for them likewise; and therefore I let them pass.

SECT. X. Mr. Hookers third Argument answered.

THomas Hookers third Argument, page 54. is thus framed, This Tenent doth necessarily evidence the Church of Rome to be a true Church, which is thus gathered.

Where all the members are true members, there the Church is a true Church.

But all the members in all the Congregations of Rome are true members, Ergo.

This Minor he proves, because they are baptized. I would first know, what is the harm if we allow the Church of Rome to be a true Church; true in the essentials of a Church, though sick, and full of corrupt Doctrines. I have shewed, and it is most true, that many men be in a Church, yea in the Catholick Church, and not be saved; and perhaps there may be an whole Church, such as Mr. Hooker would have, and scarce a man of them saved without the same means, as many in the Church of Rome are saved by. And therefore by the way I adde, that the Church of Rome is not only a Church, but a saving Church, such as I doubt not but multitudes are saved in; for they have not only a Doctrine of essentially true Baptism, to admit men in­to the Church, but they have a Doctrine essentially true of re­pentance, to let men out of it: and I am confident, that those men which so die, with their repentance and contrition for sins, and a desire of a new life, and a trust in Christ, that he hath sa­tisfied for their sins, and have no wilfull errors, but their other errors are such as are invincible, and upon that ground beg, with David, the Lord to forgive them their secret sins; I say, such a soul shall be saved, notwithstanding multitudes of errors both in belief and practice. And this Doctrine is taught in the Church of Rome, although mixed with many errors, for which yet they have many such seeming reasons, as to such who are not allowed to converse with men, or read Books of another belief, may be sufficient to excuse them at the last day. So that although the errors taught in the Church of Rome are not safe, yet the funda­mentals [Page 202] taught among them, annexed to that Doctrine of repen­tance, may be accepted by Almighty God, according to his Co­venant in Jesus Christ, to their salvation. This Controversie hath been most learnedly handled by Chillingworth, and others: I let it pass therefore, and will examine his Major, which is ex­treamly far from truth.

Where all the members are true members, there the Church is a true Church. This Proposition is false: all the members of a dog are true members, all the members of a man are true mem­bers; but there is no true Church where that Turk is, or where that dog is. Thus as he sets it down, it is grosly false; nor can I adde any one term to mend it: the likeliest I can may be this;

That Church where every member is a true member, that Church is a true Church: But yet this is false, according to them­selves; for a Church as we dispute of, it is totum Integrale, un­der that notion we conceive it to have members, but many times there may be many hands and many feet which stick together, and yet do not make a true totum Integrale, which consists of a perfect body, with all its severall parts, and yet these are true parts of their severall bodies, these hands of Richard, those of William: so there may be divers Lay-men Congregated, or di­vers Pastors, which are severally each of them true members per­haps of other Congregations, yet in that body make not up a true Church, which consists of all parts, Pastors, Teach­ers, &c.

Let me adde one term more; In that Church where all the members are true members of it, there that Church is a true Church. This is false likewise: for in a representative Officer, each member is a true member of him; of a false or counterfeit King, each member is a true member of him, but he is not a true Officer, or true King; and for him to urge that he who is a false Officer is no Officer, and that Congregation which is not a true Church is no Church, then he by making these members of the Church of Rome, and calling it a Church of Rome, makes it a true Church himself. So that either this Proposition means no­thing, or it is absolutely false.

This I speak, to shew that although the Conclusion which he conceives of an undeniable evidence, were true, (as I have [Page 203] proved it false) yet it would in no means be deduced from that Major, no not with the addition of two or three the most as­sisting terms I could adde to it; and so I come to his fourth Ar­gument, which is thus framed.

SECT. XI. His fourth Argument answered.

THat which is a Seal of the Covenant, and our Incorporation into the Church visible, that cannot be the form of it.

At primum verum, Ergo.

I put down his very words, which forceth me to adde his Mi­nor, But Baptism is the Seal, &c. Ergo, Baptism is not the form.

This Proposition he proves thus, Because the Seal comes after the thing sealed, but the form goes before. These things are so grosly delivered, and so without all illustration, that it is hard to speak to it, for this is all he speaks in that place to this busi­ness: what he addes against Mr. Rutherford, I am nothing con­cerned in, nor do I know what Mr. Rutherford replyes to this, nor can conceive it by him. In a word, I deny his Major. That (say I) which is the Seal may be the form of the Cove­nant, in such cases where the Seal is made an essentiall part of it, as in such deeds where Sealing is necessary, as in Law, where signing, sealing, and delivering, altogether, make the form of that Covenant where they are so required; and Baptism is all these: so that if he had said, that which is a Seal alone cannot make the form, I would have denyed his Minor, and have said, that Bap­tism is not a bare Sign, as he will and doth confess, but signing and delivering on both sides.

Now to illustrate this Proposition; in such cases such Seals as I have described, are the form of those Covenants. Consider, that the form of every thing is that which gives it ability to work that which is its proper work; this doth signing, sealing, and de­livering do: every Deed is like a dead body before, but when [Page 204] sealed it receives a soul, and is able to work, which it could not do before. Again, the form of every thing is the last addition to it; that which he speaks, in his proof that a form goes before the thing sealed, or rather informed or constituted, and a Seal comes after, is very vain and weak: for it is true, as it being a constituting principle, and a cause of that it produceth, it is there­fore, as the Logicians speak, prius naturâ, non effectu, before it in na­ture, not in time. The Sun is in nature before its light, because its light proceeds out of it; fire before heat, yet they are simul tempore, children of the same birth, and one cannot be without both are. The soul of man is before a man in nature, because it is a constituting cause; yet by them that hold it created, Crean­do infunditur, & infundendo creatur; and they that hold it ex Traduce, give it no prae-existence in time to the man; and what he sayes of a Seal, it comes after: in such cases where Seals are essentiall, they are before the Seal comes, and like a soul put in­to a body, it gives it ability to work, and in that state is prece­dent in nature. So that you see, Seals in such Deeds as well as forms, are before the vivacity of a Covenant in nature, though both are simul in time; and therefore such Seals may be forms, and indeed are forms, as is before exprest, being that which gives the Covenant sealed its form and power to work, and likewise the last thing which comes to actuate that thing in which it is: but because that when the Seal is gone, yet the form of the Covenant remains, and forms having permanent beings as Seals transient, it may be further doubted how Seals can be forms. This I urge, though not a Book-Objection, (as indeed I do not find the Question disputed in the School under this Notion) but only which started it self in my thoughts whilest I was writing, and indeed may do so with others, for I am unwilling to let any thing pass which may disturb a Readers assenting; and therefore in An­swer to this Objection do say, that although the Seal be gone, yet its image, its likeness, when it is gone, remains in the Wax, which is as valid to all its intentions, as it self, and is the Seal, ef­fective, in its morall existence, to all those morall effects which it produceth: so it is in Baptism; there is that the School calls the Character, which remains after the act of Baptism is gone, and is powerfull to all its effects. I did avoid to speak of this intricate business, hoping I might have escaped it; but [Page 205] since I cannot, do thus undertake it now, and define it thus.

CHAP. XIII. What the Character left in Baptism is; and this Character defined.

THe Character or Relict of Baptism, by which a Christian is constituted a member of the Catholick Church, is a spiritual power, by which the baptized man is interessed with right, both to receive and do what belongs to a member of Christs Church.

First, It is a power: Powers are either active, or passive; active, to do, as fire to burn; passive, to suffer, or receive, as wood hath a passive power to receive the ignifying nature of fire, which gold hath not. This relict of Baptism doth both these, both enable a man to demand and receive Confirmation; to joyn with the Christian Congregation in devo [...]ions and prayers; to demand and receive absolution, the Communion, with all other things which a Christian man doth in his severall duties and occasions. But we must here distinguish betwixt natural powers, and moral; the first are faculties in man, by which he is enabled by that internall principle, to act what the power directs him to, and no man obtains any such, but by a reall change and alteration in himself to some absolute quality, as a power to walk, to speak, or the like, that he had not before. But in moral powers, as the right to an Estate or to an Office, these may come to a man without any such alteration: As the father dyes, the son is immediately invested with the power of his fathers Estate, and yet the son is the same in all absolute things, hath no such change in himself. Again, a man is chose a Generall, a King, he h [...]h in himself no such change, no such alteration, but is the same he was before in all absolute things. In moral powers we are not to expect an alteration in the party who receives them, to any ab­solute reality: so that although in a baptized person, who re­ceives [Page 206] these mighty powers, we can discover no alteration, yet these powers are in him, by the force of this moral form, which enables him to act or receive such or such things.

Next let us consider that it is a spiritual power: that Attribute is given it in regard of its object, and end, because the power aims at spirituall blessings, and is conversant about spirituall means, to obtain this end: for as it is called morall, because it considers not naturall actions, but such as concern a mans man­ners, his doing well or ill in relation to God, and that Christi­an Community in which he lives; so it is spirituall, in respect of the spirituall conversation it hath with God, and those men of whose society it is.

And now we seeing the genus in this definition, let us exa­mine the difference, a power by which he is interessed with right: here is apparent that which was implyed before, that it is not a naturall but a morall power: naturall powers enable a man to do, as the power to move, to speak; but the morall power gives him not ability, but authority and right to move or speak thus; or now he hath interest and right to do it, to receive and do (this power is both active and passive, as before) what be­longs to a member of Christs Church. This gives him interest in no civill right, nor Office in the Church, but only a right as a member, that is, such a right as by Christs Laws appertain to him: If a sinner, in such a degree, he is shut out of the Commu­nion; if a penitent, he may require absolution, and by his being baptized, he is made capable of these, which otherwise before, and without Baptism, he was not.

SECT. II In what Predicament this Character is.

THus this Definition being explained, there is a great Questi­on, what manner of thing, in what Predicament this relict power is] For my part, without disparagement of my great Ma­ster in Philosophy, Aristotle, I think that these spiritual & theolo­gical powers need not be tugged into any of his Predicaments, nor was he to be blamed as insufficient in his number, because he be­ing acquainted only with naturall things, found out names for them in his Ten; but being ignorant of spirituall, must of ne­cessity leave them, [...]nd such as studied them, to shift for their room elsewhere: and we might therefore with more ease invent another for them, than be forced with unjust violence to hale them to these, which were only provided for naturall things. But yet because those old names would better please a Reader, I will keep my self to them.

And first, I opine that this relict is of a relative nature, in its proper being, for it is that interest which a man hath as before in Christ as his head, and the rest of the Church as his fellow-mem­bers, which is a relation, for pars & totum, part and the whole are relates, so are head and member, in such bodies as have heads; and in this consists the nature of this relict, and therein are seated all the interests and powers which a baptized man hath.

Aquinas, with that great Army of learned men who follow his colours, sight against this Conclusion vehemently, with ma­ny Arguments seemingly powerfull, the nature of which consist­ing of such matter as is not usuall in English Authors, it may chance not be unpleasing to him who reads this, to study a little that Christian Philosophy which will be opened in this discourse; and I am confident, it will by drawing aside such curtains as are interposed, give admittance to such light as will illustrate the bu­siness in hand to any easie sight: and therefore I undertake them. The first Argument urged by Cabrera, (for I will take [Page 208] them where I find them strongest maintained) Cabrera in 3. Quest. 63. Art. 2. Disp. 1. Sect. 3. Conclus. 3. thus argues, There is no motion to a bare relation, (ad relationem per se, is his phrase) for this he produceth Aristotle, 5. Phys. Text. 10. for saith he, all change is to an absolute form, but there is a motion to this Character, (as he and the whole School call it; I term it the relict) for the Sacramentall motion is terminated in this Cha­racter, as is evident in him who should feignedly take this Sacra­ment; he receives nothing but the meer Character, no grace, nor any other supernaturall quality, but only this Character. I may urge it further, because, as I have shewed, this relict may remain in a man who is void of all grace, and full of all impiety, and therefore is something in it self, which is the terminus, the bound, the effect of that motion.]

SECT. III. Motion is to Relation.

I Answer to this, that motion is to relation, and that relations may be the effects of motions, that language which Scotus and his followers use in the explication of this Conclusion, is not amiss; that it is true, such relations which arise ab intrinseco, from some inward principle, cannot be produced without a change in the subject, or fundamentum, or the object to which it is referred; but such relations which arise ab extrins [...]co, from abroad, are terms and proper effects of motions. His followers, Franciscus de Pitigianis, Ruiz, Faber Faventinus, in Q. 4. Dist. 6. Quest. 10. amongst the later: as likewise the more ancient touching upon it, explain this distinction thus, These relations arise from within, out of the very nature of both the relates, which putting both the relates in actuall being, that respect must needs arise out of them, (and this indeed must shew such relati­on to arise from an inward principle, because it results from their being, like heat from [...]ire, as soon as it is. For instance, a son and a father are no sooner in the world both at the same time, [Page 209] but there ariseth out of them that mutuall relation of fatherhood and filiation; so likewise no sooner is one paper dyed black, but there ariseth that mutuall similitude and likeness it hath with ano­ther paper which was black before: that relation comes from abroad, which doth not naturally arise out of the being of the re­lates, but requires something else to give it a proper being. They illustrate it thus; an agent and patient have relation one to the other, but the agent, as fire, and the patient, as wood, may both he in being, yet not have their relation one to ano­ther: they may be at such a distance, as the fire cannot work upon the wood; yea in a sit distance, and all things else dispo­sed, there may be some medium interposed, and the fire not be agent, nor the wood patient, and without any new change in either of them, but the removing the interposed body, they shall have instantly the relation of agent and patient; and the mo­tion only of the interposed body, without any new absolute qua­lity introduced into either, the fire or the wood, shall cause that relation: thus they; but see it clearer in those morall relations which have a nearer affinity with this of my business in hand; a man is chosen Mayor of a Town, Judge in a Circuit, he is the same in all absolute things he was before, can do no physicall or naturall act which he could not before, he was as wise before, could before give sentence as well as after, but his sentence was not definitive before this, only that relation which the power of the Magistrate gave him of being a Judge or Mayor, enabled him with, and this was extrinsecall, from abroad; for he was be­fore, the Town or parties to be judged were before, but only this outward investiture in his Office, (outward in respect of both the relates) gave him this being. So it is with the busi­ness in hand; the baptized man had all the absolute qualities be­fore that he hath afterwards; he could receive the Communion, he could pray with the Congregation, he could be absolved, the same things he could do or suffer, but he had right to none, he could not do or receive these blessings effectively before he was baptized: he was before, Christ was before, the Church was before, but his relations to neither were before, but this act of Baptism introduced them. And thus relation we see may be the term and effect of such motion, for mutation or change is what­soever hath novum, else a new thing is something which it was [Page 210] not before, now that which hath a new relation, is something that it was not before: the Mayor is the Governor of his Town, the Judge of his Circuit; so a baptized man, a Christian, which he was not before. I think there needs no more be spoken to the first Argument; for the place in Aristotle, the Scotists say, it is only to be understood of those relations which have their be­ing from an inward principle, not such as are from abroad, that it is true of those which are in the predicament of relation, not of all respects which are transcendent, or of which the six last pre­dicaments are constituted; for Suarez makes Angelicall motion to be to the predicament of ubi, which is one of those respects which constitute a Predicament of themselves, but are not in the predicament of relation: And we may observe, that our tran­sposition of our body in our place to a new situs, is a motion to a relation, which is another Predicament of the same nature. But Cabrera, where before, saith, that Dominicus Soto despi­seth this Answer, in 4. Dist. 1. Quest. 4. Art. 2. You may read it towards the later end of that Article; His Answer is, That there is no such thing as a relation arising out of any outward cause, for every relation ariseth immediately out of its foundation: The instances of Scotus he seems to overthrow. First, That of fire, (saith he) the foundation of the relation, to the patient the wood, is the action of warming, not the heat; but let that warm­ing act to the wood have its being, presently the relation re­sults: and for the action to Vbi, he denies Vbi to be a relation, but the esse in loco, to be in a place, which is a reall thing. I will not dispute these instances, although they are the only in­stances given by the Scotists, and they do not observe this reply in this place; but my instances of a Mayor or Judge can in no man­ner be excepted against, for there is the Mayor absolutely the same way endowed with all qualities and defects as before, who is the foundation of this relation, and he living in the same Town, conversing with the same men, and yet hath this new relation of being Mayor, arising from the constitution of an outward pow­er, and that motion from an outward cause works no change in him to any reall and absolute quality. But perhaps he will say, that this Mayoralty is the foundation of that relation, and so the relation immediately results out of it: Let him tell me then what that Mayoralty is, but that relation he hath to that Society of [Page 211] which he is Mayor; for certainly he can make it nothing else, but that very Mayoralty must be that relation.

SECT. IV. Relation may be the principle of Action.

I Come therefore to his second Argument, which is clean con­trary to that before: for as he said, Motion could not be ter­minated in relation; so now he saith, Relation cannot be the prin­cipl [...] of any reall action or passion: but this relict or Character of Baptism is the principle of those receivings of those blessings, before spoken of; therefore it cannot be a relation.

To this I answer, His Major hath no foundation to build upon. Look upon all moral relations, as I have before shewed, yea up­on moral powers in natural relations; as you may see, a Father is no sooner a Father, but presently out of that Fatherhood ariseth that moral power to have dominion over his Son, and that duty of providing for him: so likewise from the relation of Mayoralty ariseth that power of governing and ruling in the Corporation▪ So that although perhaps naturall relations are not principles of naturall actions, nor do they give men naturall powers, as by being a Father, a man neither eats, nor drinks, nor sleeps the better; yet relations are principles of morall actions and passions, and give their morall powers interests and duties, which immedi­ately result out of those relations: and of this nature is this, they are morall endowments, spiritually morall, as before explained, to act or receive the blessings appertaining to such members.

SECT. V. One Relation may be the foundation of another.

A Third reason of his is, That one relation cannot be the foun­dation of another; this is by some confirmed, That if it could be founded in another, there would be relation upon relation, infinitely.

This is absolutely false likewise as well as the other Major. To prove this, the instances of Scotus and his followers are such as abide dispute; I will avoid that, and make it as clear as day: Two sheets of paper have the same writings, or (if you will) but black spots in them, these two sheets have a similitude or likeness in them; then take two sheets of parchment, and let them have the same writings or spots in them; there the first re­lation is the foundation immediately of the second similitude, as relations; yet clearer, Fatherhood in Thomas is a relation, so is Fatherhood in Peter; from hence results a likeness betwixt these two, Thomas and Peter, which is founded only upon the for­mer relation of Fatherhood.

It is in vain for men to say that similitude is only in qualities; for whether it be equality in quantities, or identity in substance, or convenience in any other Predicament, a relation results from one as well as the other. So then although this relict of Baptism be a relation, yet it may found and support, be the subjectum quo, the immediate subject, by reason of which other relations are in the substance. Now that which was urged for confirmation, that then relations might be multiplyed infinitely, is of no force, for there is, as we see in the former instances, a fixation, that there must be a bound beyond which it cannot go: nor is the Ar­gument of more force in relations, then because there is a cause of a cause, therefore there should be infinite causes; for we know there must be one fixed.

SECT. VI. Where is the Foundation of this Character.

I Leave Cabrera, and come to Didacus Nuguewin 8. Quest. 63. Art. 2. Difficult▪ 2. who enquireth, If this Character be a relation, [...] where is its foundation, that must be either natural or supernatural; natural it cannot be, because it is spiritual; and supernatural it cannot be, because it self is the first spiritual thing in man: now, every relation must have some absolute thing to found it on. This Argument I do not find obsorved by any of the School of Scotus, and therefore must say somewhat to it, which to me seems not yet delivered in the School in this Conclusion. I say therefore, that it is one thing to speak of the foundation of a relation, another thing to speak of the terminus, or subject, or correlate: as thus, the subject of a Fatherhood is the man who is the Father, the correlate is his Son, the foundation is his power of getting a Son, or his act, in that permanent being in which it remains. So in two white sheets of paper, the relate or subject is the white sheet, the correlate to which it is referred is the other white sheet, the foundation is the whiteness. Thus it is in all these relations which are natural, because their relations arise from within, their foundation must be internall; but in morall relati­ons, whose originall is from abroad, there the foundation of this relation must be abroad: as thus, What is the foundation of this mans Mayoralty, but either the Charter by which it is support­ed, or else the will of the Supream, or both, or whatsoever from without gave him that being of that relation. Now there­fore in this case, I say, the foundation of this relation, this relict, which is the membership of Christ, is the will of God, who hath thus constituted a baptized man a member of his Church; and this is a supernatural thing, and that which alone can endow a man with this membership: this he doth by his sacred Word, which hath confirmed this to us.

SECT. VII. Another Argument answered.

THere is one little Argument more, which is, That the dispo­sition to every form is reducible to that [...]a [...]k and series of things in which the form it disposeth to is; but this Character is a disposition to Gods graces, which are reduced to qualities; therefore.

The Major again is false, most eminently false, so that the contrary is almost [...]: see it so; heat is a disposition to [...]re, cold to water, yet they are subst [...]nces: these accidents, most differing relations, are dispositions to many great actions of piety in Parents, of duty in Clergy-men, of governing well in Ma­gistrates, of obedience in all their Subjects, yet these things of divers natures. I conclude then resolutely, that this relict of Baptism is a relation.

Now, next, in a relation would be enquired, whether real or rational; whether a real relation, or that of reason only.

CHAP. XIV. Whether the Relict be a reall Relation, or of Reason.

DVr [...]nd [...], in 4. Dist. 4. Quest. 1. prope finem, stands alone against all the Schools of Thomas and Scotus, and Ocham, and whosoever: his opinion is, that this Character is only Ens Rationis; I cannot approve of his Reasons, nor altogether of his Conclusion, yet do think him unconfuted by all that I have seen, and I have looked over fourty I think at least. The princi­pall Arguments which are urged against him are Authorities, first, out of the Florentine Councill, in that Decree of union, which indeed might rather be called the Decree of Eugenius the 4th; but howsoever that Decree hath no more, but that these three Sacraments, Baptism, Confirmation, and Orders, imprint an indelible Character, which is a Sign, all which may be allowed Ens Rationis. Secondly, out of the Councill of Trent, Sess. 7. Cap. de Sacr. Ca [...]. 9. which saith no more than the other, that this Character is a spirituall indelible Sign, so that were I of the Church of Rome, according to their own principles, even in this Age, (for he is excused from heresie by them, writing before these Decrees, but his opinion is condemned by most now after these Canons) yet I say, even now amongst themselves he might be defended by these Canons, much better than they who hold it to be a reall absolute quality; for if it be a Sign, a Sign is a rela­tion: and that is but a shift to say this word Sign is put for an explicatory term, not as the Genus, since in these two Councills it enjoys the place of a Genus, as is evident in these Canons; and then Signs may be Entia Rationis, as most be which are not na­tural Signs, but by Institution, of which nature this is. The chief reason that I find may be that of Pitigianus, in Theol. spec. & moral. Dist. 6. Quest. 10. Art. 1. That if the Characters of these Sacraments should be Entia Rationis only, then the Priest­hood of the new Testament should no othewise impress its Character, than the Priesthood of the old Law. To this I answer, That I [Page 216] know no need that it should: but yet Vasquez, Quest. 63. Art. 3. Disp. 134. Cap. 2. Num. 34. in 3. saith, That this Character differs from the other, because that was delible, this not; but this is weak, because delibility or indelibility are extrinsecall things to the nature of a Character, and both what is delible and what is indelible may have their beings upon reason, or else be real.

Cabrera, in 3 Quest. 63. Art. 2. Disp. 1. Sec. 2. urgeth Ar­guments, as before against relation, so here against this, Cha­racters being Ens Rationis: first, a real action hath a real term; but this Character doth terminate a real action, therefore.

The Major is so extreamly false, that indeed there is no Ens Rationis in the world which doth not terminate a real act: take the most fictitious Chymaera that ever was, which is the most purely the work of humane reason; yet even when I say it is the work of reason, I make it the effect and term of a real act, which is mans reason.

Again, (saith he) If a Character should be Relatio rationis, then the effect of every Sacrament should be a Character, because there are relations of reason in them all.

This hath no consequence at all; for although a Character were a relation of reason, yet it doth not follow that every relati­on of reason should be a Character.

Thus I conceive the Arguments opposed to Durand, an­swered, out of their own principles who contend against him.

SECT. II. The constitution of Man, and likeness to God.

NOw to understand the truth of this Question; Paulo Ma­jora Canamus, conceive, as it is described in the first of Genesis, that God made all the world, and the things that are in it; when he had done, he made man after his own image, as it is described there; a little God to govern the world which he had made, under God; and not so only, but this image did glorious­ly appear in the soul of man, not only that as God made the crea­tures, so he gave man the authority to give them their names, but likewise that he gave his soul a power to make another world as he had done this: so that as God hath made one world, so man, in the power of his imagination, of his reasonable imaginati­on, hath made a thousand more; and can imagine that the infi­nite power may, and hath made so many worlds, that this to that number should be but as a mote to this. He can make a world in the Moon; and as wise men do concerning this, so such men can and have philosophized what men do and ought to do in that: he can make nations of Pigmies, Silves, Nymphs, and philoso­phize what their natures are, and what their manners; yea some have told what their religion and duty to God is: he can go fur­ther, and take in pieces this world, and joyn a man, an horse, and a bird together; and his busie fancie can bring forth births monstrous, to all the effects of God in nature; yea you may ob­serve these expressions wonderfull in the Prophets. Now as the works of God which he made are such as we call reall things, both those absolute entities, and those which are relations, for those relations which God hath made by the hand of nature, (as smoak and fire, father and son, and the like, are reall relations; so those works which are wrought by mens reason alone, those are Entia rationis, the things of reason, all Chimaera's, all men in the Moon, all imagined things, which have no existence in the world, out of mans head and intellect; these are things of mans [Page 218] making, and attain not that excellency of Gods works to be reall things, but barely things of reason. Yet besides this, God hath not only given man power to make these strange beings, existing in mans own intellect, but likewise to mix them, and joyn them with his own reall things. So we may see amongst men which are Gods creatures, and reall things; men make by the power of their intellect this man a master, that a servant: this humane power gives the particular interests which severall men have in these reall estates; for although the right of dominion which one hath over another, or over any of the creatures, is confirmed by God, and the duties belonging to those relations, the reall du­ties exacted by him, yet the particular way of interest is allowed to humane institution. Thus have men power to adde to divine works and beings, their relations, which so far as they are of hu­mane making, are things of reason, nor reall; and these are the works, Rationis ratiocinatae, which reason finds some foundation in the things for, but not ratiocinantis only, which have not be­ing out of mans soul which made them. Now then to apply this to our purpose; this relict of Baptism is a relation of Gods constituting barely, where man hath nothing to do, but meerly as a morall instrument, to administer, of himself giving no influ­ence, making no constitution concerning it, and therefore can­not be Ens rationis; all such things as exist without humane pow­er, without humane invention, are reall, such is this: did no man in the world contribute any thing to it, but only that instru­mentall application; did no man think upon it, yet God had a near particular interest in that baptized person, and would exact his proper duties from him, which were not in a man unbapti­zed: So then this being a work of Gods, must be a reall relati­on, not only of reason.

SECT. III. Baptism hath all things necessary to a real Relation.

AGain, observe that it hath all things requisite to a real re­lation: The [...]irst requisite is, that it have Subjectum ca­pax, a Subject capable of it; this I mean to be man, as I intend to demonstrate anon. Secondly, That it have a fit foundation, that is, the Will or Law of God. Thirdly, That it have its Ter­minus, or Correlate co-existing, which is Christ as his head, and the rest of the Church as his fellow members, both which are and shall be alwayes co-existing; and therefore this must be a real relation; and therefore now to come to answer Durands Rea­sons, why it is Relatio rationis: The first of which is,

As (saith he) money receives its value and price from humane institution, so (saith he) do natural things receive the nature of a Sacrament from divine institution: but money receives its price and value from a relation of humane reason so appointing it; therefore, (saith he) these things receive the nature of a Sacra­ment from a relation of divine reason so appointing it: therefore again (saith he) since a Character is that by which in orders one man is capable of giving the Sacraments, and another in Baptism to receive them, it is nothing but a relation of reason by divine in­stitution.

I consent so far as he saith it is a relation, without any dispute; but it is a relation of divine making and confirming, and therefore not barely a relation of reason, which in its use of speaking is re­ferred to the constitution of mans soul, but it is a real relation, such as God makes; for if those are real relations which naturally result out of the principles of nature, because that is Gods Ordi­nance, much rather are those real which by the immediate hand and power of God are ordained, as this: and therefore although I think he hath better explained the nature of this Character than others, yet he spake too diminishingly of such a most heavenly and divine work, to call it a relation of reason; and therefore [Page 220] that learned man had very ill luck to boast of that place, Eccle­siastic. 24. 31. as in the vulgar, Qui elucidant me vitam aeter­nam habebunt, They who manifest, or make me (that is, wisd [...]me) clear and easie, shall have everlasting life. This, as if he had done, he modestly glories in, but, as I said, most unhappily, for this Text is only in the vulgar, not in the most original Copy, which is the Greek, which is the most original language that Book is delivered to us in. I must confess the sentence is heaven­ly; it is a noble work to clear an obscure piece of wisdome, and free it from the incumbrances of Scholastick discourses; and I am perswaded, as he was of himself, he did it, only he gives it too poor a name, for by this way all the great effects of Baptism are justified, of making us the Sons of God, members of his body, the Church; and yet men need be troubled with none of these nicityes which the School is perplexed with: as when a Cove­nant is made with men, and their Seal set to it, they will be forced to make it good, though their will be wicked, by the Justice of the Land; so God who is Justice it self, will make good whatsoever promise he hath made, and set his Seal to. We need not seek for new entities in the soul, whether powers or habits; here is this real relation stampt, which is most invisible, but yet most sure, and therefore the safest way for any man to speak in this case.

SECT. IV. What is the Subject of this Relict.

IF any man shall enquire, in what Subject this relation is placed, I must oppose all in that, as well as the former. Some put it in the soul immediately; some in the understanding, which hath most prevailed; some in the will; I in neither, but the whole man, who is made a member of God; the very body is a member of God; Shall I take the members of God, and make them the members of an harlot? and therefore the whole man is the Subject of this relation, or rather the relate, for relations whose nature is ad aliud, their beings do not so properly exist In, as Ad: and because the man is the Subject of this blessed Cove­nant, therefore this indelibility of the Covenant consists only in this life, where the soul of man and his body are united; not with the soul in heaven or hell, as is imagined in generall by the School, for which I see no Argument of strength objected: That which is said, That if a man baptized, after his death with Lazarus should be raised again, or a Priest who had received Or­ders; should that man be consecrated or baptized again? [...] answer, no; for although there was a suspension of the personality of that man, yet he is the same individuall person he was, and hath the same relations he had: If he arise in the same flesh, he hath the same fatherhood, and filiation to the same persons; he hath the same similitudes and dissimilitudes, the same equalities and ine­qualities; and therefore likewise as in these, so in this, he is the same. Thus the nature of this relict being explained, as I hope, so far as is usefull to the understanding of any man, we see which way to expound that place before touched, Gal. 3. 27. As many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ. What, have they in the preterperfect Tense? have they renewed themselves ac­cording to righteousness and true holiness? have they cast off the polluted raggs of their corrupted nature, and cloathed themselves with the glorious robe of Christs righteousness? no, not in act, but in obligation, like him who is admitted into any Corpora­tion, [Page 222] or Office of Government, he presently is a Governor, and we may say, hath taken upon him, and put on the Govern­ment of that place, when perhaps he never did, nor perhaps ever will do act of justice, yet he hath the bond and obligation to do it immediately, he is responsible for his neglect; so is it with men baptized; when they are baptized into Christ, they have taken this duty upon them, and they are by a new bond, which is the relict of this Baptism, made debtors to Christian duties, whether they pay them or no.

SECT. V. My Definition reconciled with this Discourse.

THere is yet one Objection left which I think my self bound to satisfie, which is, That I defined this relict of Baptism by the Genus of a power; but in all my Discourse I have made it a relation: for answer to this, I say, I defined it by that which delivered the nature of it most clearly to our capacity, the essence of powers being more easily discerned than that of relations. But farther conceive, that these moral relations either are powers, or the immediate foundations of them, as we may discern in those which are instanced in before, as a King, a Judge, a Mayor, and the like: These either are those powers, or have those pow­ers most naturally flowing out of them; about which if any will contend, I am weary of Dispute: Let him correct the Definiti­on, and say, It is a relation by which a man hath a spiritual pow­er, and it will come all to the same effect.

I have done 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.