A TREATISE Of the Nature of a MINISTER In all its Offices. To which is annexed an Answer to Doctor Forbes concerning the necessity of Bishops, to Ordain. Which is an Answer to a Question, proposed in these late unhappy times, to the Author, What is a Minister?  
LONDON, Printed by Thomas Ratcliff for the Author, and are to be sold by Edward Man at the sign of the Swan in the Strand near York-House. 1670.   

To my ever most dear and now only Brother Francis Lucy, Esq  
My most dear Brother,  
I Send you here no new Present, but such, as you have been long acquainted with; and did first by sending me the Question in the Title, occasion my Writing: and what I remember St. Basil saith in his Epistle ad Amphilochium, in putting the Question, you taught me. For although a studious man cannot but read of these things here discussed, yet I am confident they had never by me been digested into Method, and by that been so conclusive to mine own and other men's judgements, without your satisfaction had provoked it. Indeed in those sad times when this was writ, there was a rebellion against virtue itself, and men's friendship was extirpate, Root and Branch; For the communication of friends, scattered about the Kingdom, was broken, by the intercepting, yea, the betraying of Letters, to the Writers prejudice, which I felt: but yet we kept an intercourse by that dumb man's language, of inviting, as oft as we could with safety; and communicated our thoughts by Letters, when we could not personally meet. You were tied to live in London, by a necessary duty you had to a very near and dear friend of ours, who was committed to your care; I at a parochial charge to attend my flock, so long as I could in that time; How were my thoughts perplexed for you when those accursed Oaths (for which with their dependencies I know the Land ought to mourn, or else I fear will suffer more) flew about, fearing by some surprise, you might be ensnared, to act that, which your soul abhorred. I was often satisfied by letters of your freedom, yea, sometimes by the questions you sent me about these inquiries which were then started; As my fears were great before, so my joy in your integrity was high afterwards, as my admiration, how it could be: But do you praise God daily for that, whose Providence invisibly looked over and protected you from those evils; And trust in him, who will always preserve you loving and fearing him; Amongst others this was one question, you enticed me to write about, which, at such leisure, as I could steal from Domestic troubles, I answered in a treatise: You writ to me to Print it; I knew not, nor could remember any such thing, which I meddled with; when I came to London, you showed it me, I knew my good friend Mr. Thomas Otwayes hand, who took the pains to transcribe it for me; read it, and knew mine own Notions some of them, and so gave way to the Press: If there be any thing which adds to the common Notions of Scholars, let the Reader thank you, who were the occasion and informer of my studies in it; and not so only, but a preserver of it; In the first, you were a Father; In the second, a Foster to it and by this other men may take notice of our mutual kindnesses and wherein our friendship did consist in those times; When men could scarce know, how to live; our thoughts were employed about thinking, how to live for ever. Farewell, God bless you you, is the hearty Prayer of him, who is not more truly your brother, than.  
Most dear Brother Your Most Real and Hearty Servant WILLIAM St, DAVID'S   

To the Reader.  
Reader,  
THere are some things which I thought fit to acquaint you with; first, with myself who am here styled a Bishop, and so may be mistrusted to speak, as a man biased in the cause, writing for myself, and our Order; but although I am one, yet when this was writ, I was none: but a Presbyter only, and never thought to be a Bishop, or to see one in England, nor could; unless I could have foreseen such a miraculous deliverance, as it pleased God to give the King; for which his Name ought always to be magnified; so that the writer, should not prejudice the Cause, being then impartial.  
The next thing is concerning my meddling with Mr. Thomas Hooker of New England in this controversy, which I cannot call to mind by what reason: But this I remember, that there was a Clergyman of mine acquaintance, who warping that way, highly commended that Author, and had some Conference with me about his Book, and it was much honoured by a friend of mine in London, who occasioned my buying of it, an ingenious man he was, with a very Logical and Methodical Head; but so overcome with his own opinions; that even opposite expressions appear to him, as if they were for him, as will appear in perusing the Treatise.  
My way of writing was to follow my businesses, as they lay before me; not consigning myself to any others Method, who had treated of such things; Many times you may find me writing the same things, which twenty before me have done, Aliter non sit Avitaliber it must needs be so; but sometimes again you may be rewarded with such notions, as are not ordinary; without which, a Book is but repetition, but in all you shall find mine own manner of expressions, which may possibly meet with some, understanding more agreeingly, than others have done; and so may be profitable to the quieting of different judgements, the greatest and most Noble work of any man's industry; and if I have done it, but in part, I am satisfied and God should be glorified, which is all the endeavour of your Brother in Christ Jesus.  
WILLIAM St. DAVID'S.   

An Answer to a Question proposed in these late unhappy times to the Author, What is a Minister?  

CHAPTER. I. What the word Minister signifies.  
IN this Question first we must clear the Quid Nominis, and then discourse of the Essence of it.  
First, in the Greek, this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its own genuine signification is properly rendered some Serving work, or Industrious serving, so Luke 10. 40. Martha was cumbered with much serving; the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is there rendered serving. The places which would illustrate this truth might be exceeding many, but, as needless, I let them pass; from hence it comes, that sometimes this word is used in the New Testament for such Service as is done about Spiritual things, by such as are destined to that work: so Saint Paul, 2 Cor. 3. 7, 8. If the Ministration of Death was glorious, how shall not the Ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? and so likewise in the 9 verse. In all which is signified under this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the whole Negotiation that Spiritual Officers perform for the Spiritual good of men. Again, it is used for a particular Office, which was allotted to the taking Care of the poor; thus ye may find it, Acts 6. 1. In those days there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily Ministration: there is the same word again; and upon that ground the Apostles instituted the Office of a Deacon, as you may see afterwards, and for that reason because of their Ministration they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, as we use to call them, Deacons, but indeed is Ministers. Again, from hence it comes, that this Office being the lowest, and the foundation of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, because all that serve God for the good of men's Souls, are at the least Deacons or Ministers: That this word is sometimes in its general Notion applied to the very Apostleship, Acts 1. 17. speaking of Judas who was one of the 12. Apostles, He obtained part of this Ministry: and verse the 25. speaking of him whom God should choose, that he may take part of this Ministry and Apostleship from which, etc. where you see the Apostleship called Ministry; so likewise 2 Cor. 11. 23. Are they Ministers of Christ? I speak as a fool, I am more, speaking of the Apostles, I am more, more Ministerial, more industrious. Thus, as we may say, a man is a vegetable Creature, which is the remote Genus, so are these said to be Ministers; but I can never observe, that in any particular Application, this word Minister is used for that second Order of Presbyter either in Scripture or Antiquity, as in this corrupt Age by usurpation it is abused; But I think in this question you understand by it the whole body of the Clergy by what Titles soever, and in that sense I mean to speak of it, and so address myself to the consideration of what a Minister is, and I conceive that I may thus define him.   


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 men's Souls.  
In the first place, his Genus is an Officer, which nature he hath 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 honour 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 than this Ministerial Function requireth God's Ordination: but by the word Ordination I not only conceive an Institution of God, but likewise some Duty commanded which God order 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 faithful; that is, to lay out the moneys according to their Lord's 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 keys 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 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 Thiefs and Robbers; John 10. 1. He that entereth not by the door into the Sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, he is a Thief and a Robber; they are Thiefs, 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 keys of this power, had them not given them, and the Devils rend and tore them? from all which it appears, that the enabling with this power such as may be justified, comes from a Divine Ordination, and not else. The next Term is, To do something conducing to the Salvation of men's 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 Mystery, and so with wresting, bring in those little Ecclesiastical Officers into the Number; but we may observe, that for aught 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 Keys 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 man's 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 useful, and commendable in them, nay are done out of Duty; as the Example of a good life, discreet admonishing men of their faults, encouraging 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 villainy, 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 confess that he was the Son of God; But these persons are in themselves the Devil's Ministers, though Gods almighty power and providence Conjured them about, as he will the very Devils themselves, and draw his honour out of their Wickedness, his light out of their Darkness; 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 Christ's 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 Attorney▪ for it is a Legal, Juridical business▪ and a legal phrase befits it) to act these things betwixt him and men, and teach them his Laws 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, unless it be given him from Heaven, as St. John speaks, John 3. 27. Heaven being God's 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 aught I know denied 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 show what Officers Christ hath appointed to this purpose, and this must be done two ways: First, to show Historically what was done; and Secondly, to show how that History shall agree with the Design it had to bring men to Heaven, and how unfit other pretensions are to it. The History I shall divide into two parts; First, to lay the Foundation of this glorious Building, to show what our Saviour acted himself in it, what the Church Discipline was in Embrione, in Ovo, in the Foundation, then to show what Superstructures the Apostles built upon it, what it was in the birth when it was a Chick. The first must be sought out of the Gospels, or the beginning of the Acts, where the Story of our Saviour's 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 laid.    


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 listened 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 persuaded, because that after the Apostasy 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 Complete 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 Patriarches; 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, and whatsoever Structure should be raised must be erected upon these: But besides their Number we may mark their Office, which was twofold, 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 Witness 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 sickness, etc. This Gift of Miracles was not the Office itself, 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 accompanied 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 than 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 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 gloss, 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 Saviour's 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 lawful for a Jew to have any Communication or keep Company with a Gentile, as he expresseth it to Cornelius, vers. 28. So than 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 Caesar's 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 God's 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 Footstool: So then, by his Kingdom, or, the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, is meant, that Christ's Kingdom was coming near; That now the time was Coming, in which he should conquer the Devil, and lead Captivity captive; now the time was Coming 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 settled his Government, and therefore, as their Commission was settled 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 Diocese, 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. IU. 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 divers Lection of the Number is not material to any thing in hand; but we may observe, first, that there was the same business, 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 man's Salvation. But hitherto we find only 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 Saviour's 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 baptised, that's expounded Chapter 4. v. 2. that he did not baptise, 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 baptised 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 itself: 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 baptising without a Commission, and that they did baptise 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 Baptism.  
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 threefold Baptism in Consideration in this Question: the Baptism which we are baptised with, which in express 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 Saviour's or no? and I am in this Conclusion against Calvin, and do think that he causelessly rejects the Fathers with a sleight in his Institutes, when certainly in itself the Question is of no great use to any Design of faith or piety; I will not trouble the Controversy 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 baptised? they answered; unto John's Baptism: Then in the 4th. verse, St. Paul tells them, that John indeed baptised 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 baptised 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 express phrase appointed by our Saviour; and then, that they were baptised 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 rebaptised.   

SECT. VII. Whether the. Baptism of the Disciples before Christ's death, was the same with john's?  
THere is a second Controversy, whether the baptism of the Disciples before Christ's Death, differed from john's? sure it seems to differ; because John's Disciples came to him in the 3d. of John, v. 26. and told him how Christ baptised, and seemed enviously to clamour, that he and his baptism was followed more than St. john's; which, if it had been the same, they would never have done: because by that their own Church was increased; but wherein this Difference was placed, we can hardly discern, by the Gospel; for, as I have showed, 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 Coming. 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 Christ's death?  
NOW the third, may be betwixt that Sacramental Baptism, which we have, and that which they administered before our Saviour's 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, until 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, 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 until the Abolishing of the old, which was not (as I say) until our Saviour's 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, until after his Death. Again, the signification and mystery of Baptism, which it imparts to every baptised 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 baptised into Jesus Christ, were baptised into his Death: (baptised into I●sus Christ) that is, by Baptism Incorporated into his mystical body, or as he speaks, planted, verse 5. (were baptised 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, than we must be buried with him, and then we must be raised with him: Now this mystery could not effected until our Saviour's Death and Resurrection; For, although I doubt not that the Death of Christ was powerful to the saving of believers, which believed in his Death to: come, before it came; yet it was a divers way of Faith which looked upon Christ to Come, and Christ already Come. And again, as the Faith was divers, so the Means to get this Faith and the Covenants, by which Christ was impar●ed, were divers. Now this Baptism looks upon Christ dead; it could not therefore in this Notion be applied 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, until after it was done, as you may observe Luke 24. 25. where our Savour chides their slowness 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 baptised others into it. These reasons are not observed 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 Christ's Death was powerful 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 show of prosecution of the first Argument: that although Baptism was not Complete omni ex parte, in all Circumstances, in respect of its remote Effect, which is to open the Gate of Heaven, until 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, until I studied the reason of it, which was, What meant all our Saviour's 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 settled 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. John's Gospel, ver. 26, 48, etc. which yet had not its truth and force until the Institution of the Communion, and Commission to Celebrate: So likewise for the power of the Keys, Matth. 18. 27. Tell the Church, which could not be in force till Churches were settled, 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 indefinitely, 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 but like other Laws, it was then made, Christ taught Nicodemus the Doctrine which afterwards should have its force and vigour, 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 Laws 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 Christ's life.    


CHAP. IU. 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 particularise 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. 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 show 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 alleged, you may observe, that he took bread, etc. But in the 10th. of the 22. of St. Luke, at the later end of the verse, he said, this do in remembrance 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 applied 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 expressly 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 Christ's Institution; now there is a Question raised, which I do not find from Christ's 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 man's Soul that ever was, Heaven or Hell is at Stake upon it, if we miss. 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 business; this only appertains to my business, That the Apostles were Instituted, and they only the Ministers of it; only this little I will add, lest some men's observation may stagger at it.   

SECT. III. The Communion was Instituted before our Saviour's Death.  
THat though our Baptism may, perchance, appear to take its force from some Command of Christ's, 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 determined, but the Passeover was, which prefigured the Lords Supper; and this which he now celebrated, and had finished, was the last which by God's Command should be celebrated among the Jews; 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 Interim 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 King's 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 baptise, 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 far they had a Commission I find not, and therefore dare determine nothing.    


CHAP. IU. God's Method for Man's Salvation.  
WHen our Saviour was Dead, and had suffered for the Sins of Mankind, he then broke 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 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 apostatised, 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, etc. 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 fullness 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 myself; 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, baptising, 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 World's 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; we see their Diocese enlarged, preach to all Nations, and as preaching, so baptising as large, they go together; we see the Subjects of their Sermons enlarged, before Christ's 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 Saviour's Death two sorts of Officers, Apostles, Disples, their Office at the first, limited to preaching, and that to the Israelites; that they did baptise we are assured, but not in what Form, nor by what Commission, until after our Saviour's 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, Baptism, preach, celebrate, forgive Sins, to choose and send forth others; and for aught 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 troublesome to me, and so proceed to show 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 Saviour's 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 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 needful; 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 until 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 Saviour's Life, and until his Ascension, 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 only had the power of baptising? 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 add 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 Keys, 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 baptise among the Hebrews, as well as they, their Commission of preaching and baptising, 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 men's Souls; so that they, or men sent by them, have this power or none; I know there is a great dispute, whether Laymen can baptise? 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 betwixt our Saviour and Nicodemus, John 3. 3. Except a man be born again 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 o'er 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 ingeniously urgeth, That Children which die uncircumcised 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 than 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 laid 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 God's mercy to such, who add not evil of their own Acting which should hinder the Effect of Christ's 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 rebaptise such a Child which he knew had true baptism 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 God's Seal to any Article or Covenant, by which he might be obliged to any Duty.   

SECT. IV. Whether administering the Communion was appropriated to the Apostles, in our Saviour's 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 God's part; and because from Christ's time downward the right of Consecrating was never pretended to by any Man until 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 Keys was given to them only?  
AND then next I will examine, Whether the power of the Keys was given to them, and them only? by which power, I understand the power of binding and losing, 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 Controversy betwixt the Church of Rome and Us, hath been so vastly handled in such large Volumes, as it would be a little impudence 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 Controversy 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 persuaded I could add something, at least ●llustrations to some Arguments which are Discussed in this Controversy, 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. Peter's prerogative is settled, no man living can show 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 etc. 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. Peter's 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 derivatiuè, 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 Keys 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 mere Simile of pastorizing; but let it be what it can, there can be no more in it, but preach, baptise, give the Communion, give Orders, govern the Church; all which are involved in those two places insisted upon before; and therefore I desist from further discourse of them; and supposing that the Apostles had equal Authority to minister Divine Mysteries to the whole World with St. Peter, we will now come and inquire, 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 Keys 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 Ecclesiastical 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 settled, for as yet there was no such Thing as any Discipline settled, but like a Commonwealth in the framing 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 settled Laws which our Saviour made after his Death, of which I have discoursed: Now that this Law could not extend to any other men, but these Apostles, who had all the powers given them, as I have explained, will appear first; First, because it seems to be a Juridical way of proceedings; and it is impossible that the multitude should have Juridical Discretion to make a man as an Heathen or a Publican, being many of them illiterate men, and we should 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 public 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 lose; So that then, I can see nothing that can hinder us from agreeing, that after our Saviour's 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 enthroned 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 virtue 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 until 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 Administering the Sacraments, of Preaching, of Giving Orders, of Governing; these will always be necessary in the Church, and therefore must be insisted upon. For this therefore; the first thing we find them Acting in this kind, was to settle their own Society, and Complete 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 Lots, 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 man's. He received his Baptism by the Ministry 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; 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 inquire, 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, etc. 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 surnamed 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 Apostles: 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 soldier, 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 Ambassador, a nobler phrase; but indeed the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, your Apostle; and so those Epithets before express him, my brother, etc. This may likewise be showed ●ut of the 1 Cor. 4. 9 God hath set forth us the Apostles last, the Translation here likewise is not good; for it is not, he hath set forth us last, but us last Apostles, us that were the last Apostles, who are they? in particular, vers. 6. he names Apollo, these things I have in a figure transcribed to myself 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 myself, 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' 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 man's 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 process of time they left the name of Apostles to them who were truly Apostles, and they gave the name of Bishops to those which were formerly called Apostles: So likewise St. Hierome, on Gal. 1. 9 Procedente Tempore & alii ab his quos Dominus elegerat ordinati sunt Apostoli; In progress 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 less, or inferior to the Chiefest Apostles. Amongst the Apostles the Twelve, there were not some Chief, and some Inferior; but the Twelve were the Chief, and the rest Inferior. Now he having his calling and enabling from Christ immediately, was not inferior 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 (methinks) 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 man's; yet being in their Integrity, would have so enjoyed all, that it should have been to the good of all, and hurt of none: So these holy men were Bishops, Apostles of all the World, all the Churches throughout the World, had absolute, not order only, as the School speaks, to give holy Sacraments to any any where, but Jurisdiction to Govern and rule all. That which Eusebius saith, hath some truth, That they divided themselves into several parts of the World, but not appropriating to themselves any piece, nor excluding any other from that Share or 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 Crect, Timothy in Ephesus, Epaphroditus in Philippi; not that they were Confined or pegged here immovably, (So is no Bishop in his Diocese, no not quoad Officium, as if his holy Duties which he performed out of his Diocese were invalid, or of no force; for without doubt, if a Bishop baptise, preach, celebrate the Communion, give Holy Orders, secundùm materiam & formam, Canonically, according to Matter and Form, out of his Diocese, 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 Diocese 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 Ministering 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 Bishops were the Pastors of their Diocese 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 bodies, 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 Dioceses committed by the Apostles, and (as I shall show 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 increase the Church beyond the expectation of men, or less 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 fearful Story of Ananias and Sapphira; who would seem righteous, 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 guests) 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 men's 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, etc. 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 Authorising 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 politic 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 might be persuaded, 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 settled Commonwealth, where the politic Laws 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. Paul's 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 holiness; There he acknowledgeth the Christians abundant Charity in those days, 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 Sweetness 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 business 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 Lord's Table, and the Ministration they were employed about, was the Communion; but these phrases of Daily Ministration, and the murmur of the Grecians, do enforce 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 than if they were of those Seventy two, it is not reason to think that they should be Ordained into an Inferior 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 baptise 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, etc. 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. denies 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 powerful 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 phrasing his discourse, I will show 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 alleged, although he omits this verse, yet citys the 38th verse of that 8th. Chap. where Philip is said to baptise the eunuch; therefore more than a Deacon by his Doctrine: but in vain that, as I shall show 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 baptise. 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 baptise; 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 laid all the burden upon the Apostles, when they put it off, than 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 travel 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 Inferior 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 address himself to receive what is brought into the Treasury, but mark, not what is, but what ought to be brought into the Treasury, to be committed to his Trust; for this (briefly I will set down his sense) purpose he must inform himself, by advice and counsel from the body, what every man's freewill Offerings should be; this upshot results out of his Discourses, that only freewill Offerings should be accepted; yet because the maintenance of Church and poor must not be arbitrary, they must understand men's Estates as well as they can, if they be negligent, admonish them, then if they stir not, go to Christ's Discipline, tell the Church: and so upon contempt of that, to Eccleliastical Censure. To this purpose he citys 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 freewill 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, unless 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 persuaded, 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 ditty 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 lest men may think I introduce a new Opinion into the world, know, that this was the Opinion of St. Chrysostom, and Oecumenius: Estius in 4 Sent. dist. 24. Sect. 18. observes as much; and for Oecumenius, throws him out with Cujus Authoritas non ita magni est momenti; For St. Chrysostom (it is in his 14 Homily upon the Acts, about the middle) he saith, it is so obscure, that it may be suspected of Corruption I answer, it is very clear, and no man will corrupt a Father without a design, which cannot appear in this what it should be; but rather than yield, he will charge the rest of his Doctrine, because, saith he, he affirms, non fuisse Episcopos tunc in Ecclesia, when Acts 1. it is said, let another take his Bishopric, 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 inquire 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 Orders 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 pass 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 Superior or Prelate in his Office, so do these in respect of their Superiors, 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 Baptise, 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 Licence; 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. hooker's opinion concerning a Deacon examined.  
HE therefore, Part 2. Chap. 1. falsely 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 purpose in hand, it sets out such Officers who are designed by the Church, to dispose the State and Treasures, to those several purposes for which God hath appointed them, as the occasions and necessities of the body, and any member thereof may require.  
This is his definition, or rather description at large of a Deacon, which I conceive to be very short, because it toucheth but the poor; concerning whose Care I acknowledge, that in the primitive Time there were certain persons employed, because those times were times of persecution, and the poor of the Church could not exist without some such Collections by Church Officers to take care of them; but that this was the sole Office of a Deacon I deny. He proves it thus; Romans 12. 8. He that distributes, etc. 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 Margin, 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 Prophecy, to Ministry, in the 7th. verse▪ as well as the rest, which is the most general way with the Ancient Father's discourse upon that Text; but he explained himself before in the first Chapter of this 2d. Part, pag. 8, 9 That Prophecy 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, showing mercy, are three distinct Species' or several Offices under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Ministry: so than this word (these) must be by him applied 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 pass by this, and will examine his Ground upon which he builds. [It being (saith he) the Apostles aim by a Similitude drawn from the body, ver. 4. to discover several parts, by the Actions which were in a peculiar manner appropriate to them; as there are many Members in the body, and all have not one Office or Action, so in the Church there be many Members, but their several Offices appropriate to them. Whereas, were this a Christian Duty common to all, he should overthrow his own purpose; for he should have showed things agreeing to all alike, when he should have showed 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 myself in expounding this place, which I intent to do, and show what I conceive of it, and then refute his imagination, and show 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, etc. present your bodies, etc. which is your reasonable service; vers. 2. Be not conformed, etc. but be transformed, etc. 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, etc. that is, have some Arguments by which you may know it; he that doth thus mortify, etc. and presents his body thus, that doth transform and conform his mind, shall find Arguments to prove what is God's will for him to do; vers. 3d. For I say unto you, etc. 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 Gloss of our Translators, not the Text; and indeed this same too high thinking, whether it concerns a man's self, or his work he hath to do, is that which disturbs a man in his duty, whatsoever he is, or it is; as if he think himself too good to be an hearer only, it makes him thrust himself into the Preachers office; or when he hath that Office, he thinks too highly of himself, that he is too good for it; or when he thinks too highly of that Duty which he doth, it makes him, with the Pharisee, despise his brother, who is not excellent or eminent in that way; so that this same high thinking puts a man besides the way of God's 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 business, 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 entrusted by God, according to that measure of trust which God hath laid upon him; there will not be difference, I guess, about that, and therefore I let it pass; 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. IU. No Argument can be enforced from a Simile, farther than the Parallel 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 aught 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 Sour of the Tares, Mat. 13. where our Saviour expounds pieces of the parable; 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. hooker's Argument is weak, because members have divers offices in the natural body; and St. Paul saith, we are a body, and one another's members, like the other so far, but leaving out the rest, and divers 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 divers Offices in the body of the Church, like divers members in the body; Anselm, H. Rabanus Maurus, with others, have paralleled 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 duties, which are not compatible to other: so it is in the Church, there are divers Members, which have distinct Offices, and those Offices assisted with divers 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 another's Members.)   

SECT. V. Divers Gifts and Offices.  
HAving then, etc. I will stand upon no Criticism here, to talk of an Hebraism without necessity; methinks the Text is full, having then divers Gifts; mark, divers Gifts: there are many Organical members, which have besides their Offices, Abilities and Gifts, as beauty, strength, and the like, which are powerful Assistants ad benè operandum, to do their Office more dexterously and commendably; Now then, as we find amongst us there are divers Officers, and divers 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 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 Prophecy or Ministry: that this is the sense, appears out of that clause in the Similitude not paralleled. 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, etc. 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 premises 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 Prophecy, etc. 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 Prophecy to foretell the will of God concerning things to come, of which there were divers in the first Age of the Church; or else by Prophecy 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 Prophecy here a Genus of Teaching and Exhortation, because they would make them two sorts of Officers; and Prophecy 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 Prophet, both belonging to the same Offices.  

Concerning Prophecy.  
Prophecy, if you will, is a Gift sometimes as well as an Office, every Office is a Gift, but not every Gift an Office; but whether Prophecy be taken for a Gift, or an Office; it is not a Genus to the other two, but the other are rather Integral parts or qualifications belonging to it: and therefore I wonder at these men, that they expound this Text to such an impossible Sense. Hooker gives this reason, because, saith he, if these (Prophecy he means, & Ministry) were several functions, than there should be seven: what if there were seventeen? If there be so many, what is that to the purpose? this he speaks, Chap. 1. of his second Book, p. 10. Well, but what saith the Apostle? He saith not this is a distinct Office, as the Eye in the body, but drives at the main, that we are one another's members; that this man must not think too highly, but follow his business; let him prophecy according to the proportion of Faith: what that is, I will not examine, it is something for the good of others, who are his fellow Members.   

Concerning Ministry.  
The second is: Or Ministry; let us wait on our Ministry: Hath a man received the Gift of Ministry; Here a man might have looked for a Deacon, for the very word is put; but because the word is not to his sense, he lets that slip, and takes his sense without his word. And it is worth any man's marking, that in his treating of the Office of a Deacon, which begins Chap. 1. page 32. he first sets down the Acceptation of the Word, and page 33. he explains the word strictly as it concerns our purpose, but shows not one place, where this word is used to his Sense, and indeed he cannot; he had showed Phrases in the Scripture for the other, but not for this; but in this very place the Word is used according to his sense, for the Genus of three Officers, but another for his Office. Well, let us examine it: this is the general Nature (saith he) to a sort of Ministering Officers, which come after; he faith so, what proof? none but his own Authority; and then ask him, where it hath that restrained sense to these three Officers, he cannot show it in Scripture, nor Beza, nor Tolet, nor any other; St Chrysostom upon the place, saith, it signifies all Ministration, even Apostleship; and Oecumenius, with Theophylact, is to the same sense, and Anselm something like it, sive habentes Ministerium sicut Diaconu● ut ministremus sacris Altaribus, vel Ministerium, ut terrena alimenta Sanctis ministremus. Now consider the meaning: If you have received the Gift of Ministry, in what kind soever, use i● as a Member of that body, think not so highly of yourself, to be too good for that Office which God hath enabled you for, but serve in it: I go on.   

Concerning Teaching and Exhortation.  
Or he that teacheth on teaching: Here now the Authors before mentioned will make this a Species of Prophecy; but this and Exhortation are not Species' of Prophecy, but Parts, Endowments, Qualities, for there can be no Prophet without these powers and acts, nor can they be severed; the same man that teacheth a Doctrine, in that exhorts to a Duty; suppose it the most speculative in the World, the Doctrine of the Trinity, he that teacheth, when he teacheth it, exhorts to the Adoration of each person; and so for Exhortation, no man can exhort, but upon Grounds of Doctrine, he exhorts foolishly else; therefore they cannot be distinct Offices, but parts or Gifts in the same Office; for one Preacher may have a greater power in Logic to prove his Doctrine or Conclusion, and another in Rhetoric to persuade the practice, and these divers abilities and Gifts bestowed upon those men by the Grace of God: and therefore in these, as in the other, have you the whole Gift of Prophecy, use it as a Member, not thinking too high, but use it for the good of your brother, who is your fellow Member: so likewise the Spirit is given in measure, one excels in one piece, another in another, do all like fellow Members; but no one word, that these are distinct Offices, as that of the hand, or the eye, or the ear, that piece was not paralleled, nor is exemplified.  
And therefore these Sentences cannot be enforced for two Offices, but two Qualities of the same Office, which may and must be in him who is a Prophet; but because they may according to their Eminency well be severed, one may have one eminently, and not the other, and likewise because they cannot be both actuated at the same instant; therefore directions are given either to the divers persons or to the same man of his several seasons to do both these.    

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 Latin 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, unless it be a too much love of their own newly hatched Opinion. But see what weight Mr. hooker's Opinion hath: By this is meant a Deacon; what word shows 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, than the two other Species must be Deacons as well as he, which he will deny, as you 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 myself. 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 shows mercy, let him do it with cheerfulness.  

What is meant by He that showeth mercy.  
WHat a deal of do Beza, and he, and Lapide the Jesuit have, to make an Office of this? They make it to be the Widow; He, Masters of Hospitals: when Antiquity insists chiefly upon the Inward Act of Mercy, which is larger than giving; Mercy is in forgiving, as well as giving, and the like: but what one word is there all this way, of distinction of Offices? not one; but of Gifts, which like members of the same body, must with lowliness of mind be used to the good of our fellow Members.  
Now I having showed what appears to me to be the meaning of the Text, and although by this his sense is already Confuted; yet in a Logical manner I will now undertake it again.    

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 of the Church, etc. 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 Prophecy; 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 signify 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 signify 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, they were Ministers, they were Doctors, Teachers, Exhorters, did give to the poor, did rule, had bowels of mercy, with all the requisites.  
Take Prophecy for Preaching, many a man now hath all these in the same Lump.  
Secondly, Teacher and Exhorter cannot be severed: This Gentleman styles 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 Rhetoric to persuade? These things seem to me inconsistent, a Teacher, and not an Exhorter, or an Exhorter, and not a Teacher: so far 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, unless they be both; the Clergy must not be altogether upon the receiving hand, there is time and place for them to give, as well, yea rather than others, and take Care of the poor, and have bowels of Compassion towards them, and by their good Example exhort others to do as they do. I have been something too tedious here; but this will save future labour.   

SECT. X.  

His Second Argument refuted.  
HIS Second Argument to prove his kind of Office, is drawn from the● 1 Tim. 3. 8. where the Description how he must be qualified, is set down: I grant it; but is it set down, that he is an Officer to dispose Church Treasure, and nothing else, which he disputes for? For he offers at such a thing, and therefore that place, in his own Judgement, can speak nothing, for it proves only, that there is such an Office as a Deacon; and how he should be qualified, but no one word what the duty of that Office is, and therefore he draws no Argument from it, but only sets it down with a figure of 2. for his second Argument, although he argue nothing from it.   

His Third Argument refuted.  
HIs Third Argument is drawn from the place before hand led, Acts 6. to which I have (I doubt not) spoken enough; but that it may appear wherein he and I agree, and wherein differ, in this point; Consider with me, that he saith, that this was a public Office; I grant it. Secondly, that this service was about Tables: I grant it. Thirdly, page 35, that the full and careful attendance upon this work, could not stand with careful, constant, and conscientious Attendance upon the Ministry of the Word, as the Office of a Minister so employed did require; This I deny: because I have proved they were Ministers of the Word, and have before answered his Arguments drawn from the Apostles, It is not meet, etc. vers. 3. and do now add; It is one thing to say, It is not meet; another to say, It is inconsistent, it cannot stand with it. Again, many things might be and were sit for Inferior Ministers, which were not fit for the Apostles: It is not meet, was truly said by the Apostles: But now I doubt, whether this Office was for this occasion only, or for their lives. I 2dly. affirm, as before, that these men were Ministers. And 3dly, I deny that this was of that Deacon St. Paul speaks of, and was after used in the Church. His continued Discourse is but a repetition, only a passionate expression or two, that we make a Deacon half a Priest, or a Preparation to it, and he saith, that this was the first Inlet into the Usurpation of Bishops. I let these things pass, and come to his Dispute against us.   

His First Argument from Reason, Answered.  
THat which is made by Christ a distinct Office from Pastor and Teacher, that cannot be any part of either, or a preparation to either. But so the Office of a Deacon is.  
I answer: That, First, I deny that ever the Office of a Deacon was instituted by Christ; but by the Apostles. Secondly, although I grant that the Apostles instituted this O●●●ce distinct from them, yet it may be a preparation or part of either; for that which is a preparation, is distinct from that it is prepared for, and although all the parts united together do not differ really from the whole, yet any one part doth. And Thirdly, I say, that although it were neither part nor preparative, yet it may be subservient to them, in which Consists the Office of a Deacon.   

His Second Argument from Reason, answered.  
HIs Second Argument: That Office which is to attend Tables, hath nothing to do with Pastors, or Doctors, etc.  
But this Office is to attend Tables.  
To the Major: That Office may do both, those in the Acts did.  
To the Minor; I deny that the Office of a Deacon is solely to attend Tables; but if he leave out that word solely, his whole Argument is lame▪ that which he urgeth out of Acts 6. is not to the purpose, for as I may deny them to be Deacons, because never so called in the Scripture: so I do deny them to be those Deacons St. Paul directs, 1. Tim. 3.   

His Third Argument answered.  
HIs Third Argument: If the Apostles who were extraordinary persons, could not, shall men of ordinary Abilities be sufficient?  
I have answered this before. It is no where said, that they could not, they could without doubt have done much more; but as they were men of extraordinary abilities, so they were men of extraordinary employments; and it was not meet, that that employment should be impeded by any of these less affairs. Again, we deny that the Office of a Deacon exacts the duty of a Pastor from him, but only that he should minister to the Pastor, which he may do well with such a Charge upon him.  
Page 36. Number 3. I understand not those Figures; He saith somewhat that would be answered.   

Another Argument from 1 Tim. 3. 8. answered.  
THE Gifts of Deacons which are required by the Apostle, are such as will not furnish a man to be a Minister; (he means a Presbyter, I think) for such should be Apt to teach: to be a teacher, and not apt to teach, is to be a Bell without a Clapper.  
I could answer this in his own Coin, but I love not scurrility and sharpness in these Grave and Serious things; they taste not of that lowliness of mind which should be amongst fellow Members.  
I answer therefore; That the Gifts of Deacons are not such as qualify a Bishop, of which St. Paul spoke there; but I will tell you, very like them; and as that Clause is not inserted to a Deacon, that he should be apt to teach: so it is not required of him; but when he is found fit to teach, and it is required, he may: I think I have spoken enough to him. If I knew any more of this kind, I would not account it lost time to handle it, although tired with this.     


CHAP. VIII. SECT. I. Of a Ruling Elder.  
THE next particle or Branch of Ecclesiastical Authority which I will undertake to handle, is that they call a ruling Elder, or a Lay Elder: he is called an Elder, but I am confident that the Name is new, and the Office not known in the Primitive Church; nor hath any mention in Scripture, but by fancy. Now to understand this, I shall first show, 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 voice is to be taken in with the rest in the Consultation and Consideration of the business, (by which, I think, he means the business 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 business, by way of praeconsideration, to state the Cause right, etc.  
Thirdly, when the Church is met, he may interpose his Judgement, without ask 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 Physicians 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 scandalised, he is to inquire of the Truth, and (I think) inform, or else all is in vain.  
Fifthly, He is to Consider of the persons that are to be admitted into the Church, and to pronounce Excommunications.  
Thus, in general, we see what manner of Office this is; let us now examine, whether there be semblances of any such thing in Scripture, which they pretend should be the Guide in these Affairs. And ●irst, I will begin where I left; for that, in the first place, he citys 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 do 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 Christ's 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 Christ's sake to a Pastor or Teacher, an Elder or Deacon. Secondly, the Operations which issue from these Functions evidence as much, Prophesying, etc. Exhorting, etc. I would he had put in showing mercy too, but we see they do not; showing mercy, giving, ruling, may relate to any member of this body. There is nothing therefore in these Arguments that enforce, these should be Ecclesiastical duties of members in the mystical body of Christ.  
He hath another Figure of 2, I think he means by it another Argument for the Cause, that is, pag. 9  

An Argument of his answered.  
GIfts here, are not such as are Common, and belong to all Christians, as Faith, Hope, Charity, etc.  
What if they are not? are they Ecclesiastical Orders? that will never follow; but he proves it, although to no purpose, if it were proved.  
First, those Gifts are here meant, by which the Members of the body are distinct one from another, and have several Acts appropriate to them. He proves that, because verse 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. all members have not the same office; this, I have said, is not paralleled in the Simile, and therefore not to be urged further; But, saith he, Common Graces are not so distinct, for in them they do agree. I answer, these are not Common, nor yet Ecclesiastical only, nor the duties required, witness this one which is instanced in, He that ruleth with Diligence: To be a Ruler, is not only in Ecclesiastical Affairs, but Civil; and he that ruleth in Civil affairs, is to do it with diligence; so Origen upon this very place: so St. Ambrose, St. Hierom, Theophylact, Anselm, H. Rabanus Maurus, out of them; all of which use phrases to this purpose, qui praest vel fratribus vel Ecclesiae. So that by this, although there is not a Common Grace that is universal to all Christians, yet it is so Common, as that it belongeth to all Governors whether Lay or Ecclesiastical, nemine contradicente, but these late men; and the duty enjoined, is as Common as the Grace given, to wit, to govern or rule, not barely, but with diligence. So that this Conclusion is Confuted out of this very Instance, and may as easily out of any other, but Prophecy, and teaching and exhorting, although, perhaps, something of this sense may be affirmed of them. Again, he urgeth the Emphasis of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The weight (saith he) of the phrase having the Article in that manner added, notes not every member, but some by way of Eminency, to whom these appertain; it is true, and so doth this Instance; He who ruleth, notes not all men, but Rulers only; but doth it note by these Caveats a Layman, ruling in Ecclesiastical Affairs? or if it should, why not a Chancellor? that were a fearful Exposition.  
His 3d. Argument, drawn from the Distinction mentioned in the 4th. verse, is abundantly answered before, and his new division of these Offices; I come therefore to his 2d. Argument, to prove that there is such an Office.   

Another Argument of his answered.  
THis is drawn from 1 Cor. 12. 28. where the Apostle expressing many other Offices or Gifts which God hath given to his Church, he names Governments, or, as we read it, helps in Governments; or as Beza and he, helps Governments: I shall not trouble myself with that phrase much, here he lays this Foundation, That the Apostle names here some ordinary, some extraordinary Offices; amongst those ordinary ones which are to last in his Church, he reckons (what he pleaseth, and how) Teachers, Helps, which were Deacons, Governments which were Elders; were all this granted, will all this prove them Lay Elders? I can grant likewise his second Foundation that he requires, That the Gifts themselves are put in the Abstract, yet the persons who were possessors of them were understood in the Concrete; by these abstract Phrases I can grant his third Foundation likewise; which is, That although some, as the Apostles, had all these Gifts, yet they might formally be in some Subjects, as appointed by Christ to that purpose. I deny not this; but because they might be, will it follow affirmatively, therefore they were; certainly à potentia ad Actum valet Argumentum negatiuè, It cannot be, therefore it is not; but not affirmatively, It may be, therefore it is.  
Now let us Consider his Arguments: As the Apostles, Prophets and Teachers were distinct, so are helps and Governments distinct; for the Apostle puts them in the same rank; I deny that, for they are put in distinct ranks, first, second, third, and then these Phrases put (after that) then, (then) and no distinction betwixt. Gifts of Healing, Helps, Governments. I could here show the Expositions of St Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theophylact, Anselm, St. Hierom, in no one of which do I find a Lay Elder understood, by this phrase Governments. I could show you the Expositions of others, some making him an Archdeacon, some a Parochian; but I study brevity where there is no proof, and I will add but one thing, which I find observed by none, which is, That, as if the Apostle would prophetically in his manner of writing, as well as the words he writes, Confute this man, and this side of men, if they prove such an Office from this place, they must prove, that this phrase Government signifies a distinct Order, and that this phrase signifies that thing they intent it for; this latter is against Antiquity, and hath no colour for it The former, upon which the latter is grounded, he thinks he hath proved, because that Apostles and Prophets, etc. were distinct Offices or Gifts in distinct persons. I answer, it follows not; for St. Paul in the two following verses, 29, 30. reckoning up a distinction of the other Gifts, Are all Apostles, are all Prophet's, & c? doth never say, are all Helps, are all Governments? but doth reckon that which comes after this, Do all speak with tongues? So that methinks the Apostle doth, as it were of purpose, to make this not appear a distinct Office from the rest. Indeed all the other are helps, and most of them Governments, and therefore he could not use this phrase to them, are all helps, & c.? as he did to the other; but he stands not much upon this, these are too weak Grounds to support this new Building: The Achilles which is ex●lted of follows, and that it is taken out of (as Mr. Hooker calls it) that Famous place 1 Tim. 5. 17. this is, pag. 11. where before. Here he spends a great deal of Rhetoric in Commendation of this place to his purpose, and in Scorn and Contempt, and vilifying his Adversaries, which might have been better spared, and he immediately fallen to his business, as I will.    

SECT. IV. His Argument from 1 Tim. 5. 17. answered.  
THE words of the Text, are, Let the Elders which rule well, bt worthy of honour, especially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine. First, we may observe, that from hence is pretended no Institution of such an Order. Secondly, that there is not pretended any Demonstration, that there was any such Office executed with the Approbation of the Apostles; for that although the Institution were not registered, 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 only, and another, to labour in the Word and Doctrine. I will first endeavour to expound the Text, and then satisfy 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;) last, what by (especially.) First, this word Elder is diversely 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 politic 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 Grey 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 entreat him as a father; there the Elder in Age is understood, as all agree, both ancient and later Writers: this word is again used in this Chapt. a little after this Text, verse 19 Against an Elder receive not an Accusation, but before two or three Witnesses; How an Elder is understood here, is disputable: The Grecians, St. chrysostom, 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 Latins, St. Ambrose, etc. 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 Grey 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 show that this word Elder is not always 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 show any where in the New Testament any usage of this word, but either for a mere 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 divers Actions; for there are but two sorts of Elders, as I find: either that Lay Elder, which is an Elder by Age, 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 than 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, than 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 goodness or badness 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 joined 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 painful 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 signify divers Officers, but divers performances in that Office; that one man is more careful in Ruling, another in Teaching; the one rules well, the other labours well.   

SECT. VIII. What Double honour signifies.  
WE will pass 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 applied, as double honour to Rulers well, and much rather to Labourers, it being the same word and sense in both, and in both applied distinctly where distinctly put, and implyedly▪ where implyedly put, as the same word ●lder is expressly or implicitly 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 adds but an Increase 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 divers Shepherds belonging to the same flock, he shall best or chiefly deserve it, who having Cunning to do it, 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 twofold relation, to the Subject, and to the King; he deserves his honour well, that rules well; but especially he that adviseth his King well: yet these are not two Offices, but two duties of the same Office, and, as we have seen, distinct Abilities have shown themselves in these divers 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 evidence confirmed by it.   

SECT. X. The Arguments answered.  
MR. Hooker, where before, Part 1. Chap. 2. p. 13. thus lays his Foundation: the words carry a distribution, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (neither of which are in the Text, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but I let pass 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 Sum (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 cavil at the phrase, the singular number for the plural; it is Ruling Elders, and teaching Elders: but I deny that proposition absolutely, It is not a ruling Elder and a teaching Elder, but such ruling Elders and such Teachers, which labour not in the Word; There is a great difference in this sense, it is a fallacy 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 fallacy 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 Logic, 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 lays 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 Epithet (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 mere Juggling; 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 divers persons, and the same Office, the Office is not distinct.  
He proceeds to this Sense, that their phrases are the Subject of the proposition only, and therefore the persons and Officers being the Things compared, it is certain they must be distinct persons. This is the very phrase, he names here only distinct persons, which I grant, but deduceth this Concession out of that Addition of Offices to persons, but I will grant they are distinct Officers too, but not distinct Offices, which is the Question.  
He goes on: First, those Conceits vanish, that Elders are not attended for their holiness 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 divers 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 enforce divers men, or divers Officers, not divers Offices, which he must prove, or he proves nothing to the purpose; but Consider how fallaciously he deals; now he labours to prove thence divers persons, which is granted; then divers Officers, which is granted, under these notions hoping to beguile the heedless Reader; when he never comes close to prove divers 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 vanisheth, which makes the Comparison to be betwixt the two Acts of one man, namely, the well ruling of a Pastor is worthy of Double honour, be it alone in its self considered; which is an Assertion grossly cross to the rule of Divinity, as the former was to the rule of Logic.  
What the Logic of his deduction is, I have showed, what the Divinity, will appear anon; he seems to prove it against Divinity thus.  
That Interpretation which makes the performance of the least part of a Pastoral Calling, though it be with the neglect of the greatest Work, worthy of Double honour; that is grossly contrary to the mind of God, and the verdict of Scripture, etc. rather a double Woe is to be denounced against them, than a double honour 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 divers duties in a pastoral Charge, Preaching, Administering 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 useful 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, unless 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 useful that which the Apostles did with them; Baptise them after Conversion by preaching, Baptism is necessary, than the holy Communion to confirm and strengthen them in all godliness and righteousness. Now it is possible that a Soul, after he is Converted, and studious, himself may persevere in Godliness, and improve (no doubt of it) without hearing more Sermons, but by Study and Contemplation, as in the Times 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 necessary; yea, because many administer Sacraments who cannot have the opportunity of Preaching, therefore 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 authorise to preach) are the welcome men; but he that can bring the Seals of God's 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 applied that way will be more grateful, and better to God's 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 man's soul is capable of; yet he is an honest man 〈◊〉 deserves honour, that applies himself to Husbandry, and a Conscientious 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 needful. And again, that ●ord to neglect the better, which is inserted in his Major, is ●oo h●rsh to be applied 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 preaching abundant, and many such as abound in Divine Eloquence, there prudence of ruling is more necessary; the best Preachers are not always 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 abilities in ruling 〈◊〉 g●●●ter, he ought to apply himself to that 〈◊〉, and ●or force himself 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 God's Covenants, these are most necessary; but I wonder what a Lay Elder should do with them, who must neither Preach, nor apply God's 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 showed, 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 laid these premises, 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 days 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 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 less 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, than 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, than there were some Preachers, who preached not at all; but there be no Preachers who preach not at all.  
The second part is past denial; 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, etc. did not labour in the Word, but etc.  
I have put down his Argument verbatim word for word, that the whole force of it may appear, as well as the weakness 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 showed 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 and main. I will retort this Argument. If none may preach but Clergy Elders, than it seems here, that these must be Clergy not Lay Elders, which rule well; for the Text that says the one labours in the Word, implies 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 magnify 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 digress a little, to discourse of this Theme; 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 Ox, as he expresseth it vers. 18th. of this Chapter, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox 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 Ecclesiastic Officer is not for himself, but for the Church, this reading and meditating, must not be for his private Contemplation, but for the public, to teach him to rule well, upon Occasions to exhort to all piety, to teach the Truth of God's 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 duties: 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 these put their Talents out to use; and I doubt not but they may hear, Well done, good and faithful Servant, thou hast been faithful 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 than this is done by words written or spoken, either of these a man preacheth by: He preacheth, that writeth such Arguments as Convince or Persuade, as well as he that speaks them; yea, perhaps, doth more by that, and makes an Everlasting Sermon, like a presume when the body is gone, yet there is a sweetness remaining behind, which is grateful 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 persuade to Godliness, Again, it is preaching, and he pre●cheth, who using others words and matter in the Pulpit, persuades 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 useful 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 balance the Doctrine they deliver, by the Analogy of Faith, or if they could do it by leisure and study, take not time to do it, being always preaching, but never learning; these men, if they were humble, would content themselves either with such Sermons as are penned by the Church to be read or got without book; or with such excellent Sermons which St. chrysostom, 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 fearful presumption, of undertaking to teach, being not taught, and that vanity of being unestablished in the Faith, and being carried about with winds of Doctrine, and that other pride of seeking their own vainglory; truly these 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 another's Homily or Sermon is preaching, it is teaching the people the Gospel of Christ; for it is not material who penned 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. Paul's saying, 1 Cor. 9 Woe is me if I preach not the Gospel, and then Gloss upon it, that St. Paul meant none of these preachings I have named; it is true, he did not; but yet Consider, that St. Paul's 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 selfconceited, that they should do as much good amongst us, as the Ro●ans, Corinthians, Galathians, etc. 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, unless 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 preaching, 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 necessary 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 amiss? But it is objected, Tit. 1. 9 there it is required, that he should be holding fast the faithful 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 faithful 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 Margin; or secundùm Doctrinam Sermonis, as Beza; the business 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 faithful word in his teaching; and then I answer, this 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, Judaisme? 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 Heresy which I had newly lighted on, and those Arguments were made for it, he was forced to Confess 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 men's 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 Heresy 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 man's own penning, it is not material; for although those who have least Abilities, commonly do most magnify 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 Elizabeth's days, 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 licenced to 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 handful, 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 public Assemblies, when in public Opportunity is offered to manifest the Glory of God, or Convert or Confirm by Conference any soul to or in the Christian Religion, or Godliness 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 Confer, as to persuade men to a newness 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 man's strength is chiefly discerned in holding fast the Word of Truth, that so he be not carried 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 Master's sheep, but it is a comely Charity in every Servant, though he be not the Shepherd, when he finds his Master's 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, unless he be sent? that is, how shall he take upon him the Office of doing it, unless he be authorized for it; let us then Consider who is authorized.   

SECT. XVIII. Who is authorized to Preach.  
THat this Authority must be joined 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 encourage us to, is the chief Duty of preaching; and this is done (I am persuaded) 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 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 Caesarea, by Authority given him from the Bishops of Palestine, interpreted the Scriptures publicly in the Church when he was not a Presbyter, nor, that we know of, had received any degree in Ecclesiastic Office; Demetrius the Bishop of Alexandria, who envied 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 licenced 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. Paul's How can he preach unless 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 Saviour's 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 baptise 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 Supreme Pastor, he may, if he find an Inferior 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 Supreme 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 Theme; and I can guess, that this may satisfy 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 licenced, 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 Administering 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 signify 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, and yet 1 Cor. 1. 14. he baptised 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 Bishop's Factors provide ill for them; for by the Apostles determination, the meanest Minister that is conscientious and laborious in preaching should have more respect than his Diocesan, who sits, etc. but labours not to feed them with the Word of Life.  
The Text doth not say the meanest conscientious Minister, etc. 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 studied 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 Ancient and truly to be honoured Father of the Church, St. Ambrose, which he rejoiceth 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 brightness and patenesse of the Witness is such as though it had been writ with a beam of the Sun, and dazzles the Eyes of almost Envy itself. 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 cyphers: So here the words seem to serve his turn, but the place where they are put overthrows it; (but it is not set down by him) I have hunted it out, and it is upon the first verse of the 1 Tim. 5. the words are these. Apud omnes ubique Gentes honorabilis est Senectus, unde & Synagoga & postea Ecclesia Seniores habuit, sine quorum Consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesiâ, quod quâ negligentiâ obsoleverit, nescio, nisi forte Doctorum desidiâ, aut potius superbiâ, dum soli volunt aliquid videri. Now consider, this is Writ upon the first verse before. The Words he comments on are these, Rebuke not an Elder, but entreat him as a Father, and the younger men as brethren. St. Ambrose, with all Commentators (even Beza) doth acknowledge this word Elder to signify 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 than what doth St. Ambrose mean, but that in the Jewish Synagogue and in the Church, they used grave men to assist and counsel, 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 withal, 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 sloth, 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 applied 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 licence to preach; now then, why he should say the sloth of the Bishops, I cannot tell, for slothful men are willing to have others joined in Commission with them, that so others may act what through laziness 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 Curtsy 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 less by a Divine right which is pretended to, but only some Chancellor, as I have said, to advise with; and now suppose, I say, clean contrary to him, that the sloth 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 sloth, because they would not act in business, 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 themselves eminent, by the disannulling the honour 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 strangeness of these men, who opposing a known truth, and the universal practice of the Christian world from Christ's time downward, dare urge these places for their Conceits, which had very little semblance for them, although they had been expounded by practice; but having none but great words and commendations of their own to that purpose, it will easily persuade 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 myself 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 engrossed by one. So these men breaking from Episcopacy, would persuade the people from the old to the new yoke 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 avoid all Equivocations and doubtful 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 always render for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and signifies always a Superintender, and it is applied to Presbyters, who have a Particular Charge to overlook and see to. I stay little upon this, because it hath received very little Controversy; 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 Godliness, although perhaps this word may be extended farther than to them; but these were the Chief names by which that superior Order which succeeded the Apostles were called in the Primitive Church, in the writings of the Apostles and after; and this is the Sense employed by these names.   

SECT. II. Certain Concessa by all who have engaged in this Controversy.  
BUT now to sever Granted Truths from Questioned, and not to waste 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 show 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 pass 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. hooker's 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 handsome Circumlocution, exceeding fine expressions of the Rhetorical persuasive part of a Preacher, the result of all which is, to persuade by such Arguments as have power over the Will and the Affections, as it is pag. 19 The Teacher's Office is to lay the Fundamental points of Christian Faith, the Principles of Religion, as he expresseth it in the bottom of Page 21, and the top of 22. These two parts he makes distinct Offices in the Church, both of them being ruling Elders as well as teaching, and both of them having power to administer the Sacraments; but in their preaching the one is to bend his force, his endeavour, to the Teaching and informing the Understanding, the other to the persuading 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 replies, 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 diversely to be endeavoured, there should be divers 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 rendering them to a legal sense, he applies himself and endeavours to that most; another hath a great ability in reconciling and taking up Quarrels, and persuading men to friendship, he endeavours that most; and perhaps did either of these by framing himself to endeavour what he were least fit for, less attend what he were more dexterous in; he might attend his Office in general, but the less profitable way, and these are both one Office, though in it divers Gifts or Abilities, which cannot both be attended with any man's utmost endeavour. Pass from Civil to Ecclesiastical Offices, and this very business: Among Presbyters Preachers, one hath great Excellency in giving the Grammatical sense of the Text, another in expounding it Scholastically, a Third in the Historical part of Divinity; and these are several Gifts or Abilities, and men according to them apply their utmost endeavours, but these make not distinct Offices, but several Gifts and Abilities in the same Office, which is just the same with these; and as there is no foot-step in the Historical part of Divinity, to show any one precedent: 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 showed in the Case of their Deacon, not to signify 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 Talon 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 signify distinct Abilities and Endeavours, in those two ways which they intent 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 joined.  
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 Apostle distinguisheth the rest, with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ and joins these with, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and, is put to join these together, can any man imagine these to be severed, he names Hierome and Austin, but he might have cited St. Crysostome, Theophylact, 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 add 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 another's Turn so far as their own design leads them, but no further; for Beza makes this Teacher's place to be such as should read a Divinity Lecture, Scholam regere Ecclesiasticam; but Hooker denies 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. hooker's, which as it is most singular, so it is far from the language of St. Paul. I will add this only note, That he nor any other can show me that place of Scripture directing any Duty to either of these Offices, in their distinct Notions as they express them, which will not agree to both, and therefore they have no ground upon which to build this fancy.   

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 men's expressions in another way than they have done, that which I shall write shall fit some men's understandings better than other men's 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 myself; yet because I find others are not satisfied, I conceive our blessed Saviour's 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 pre-eminence beyond Presbyters that are barely such, yet it is not the nomine, barely of the Name, whether this word Bishop be such as must always 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 pre-eminence above other Presbyters; and then, because the word Bishop, or Superior, or Superintendent, or Superinspector, being a word applied to this Office, will by Consent of a perpetual Language in the Church be well fitted 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 express 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 Gloss 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 men's apprehension; but Laws antiquated or grown old must be entrusted to the letter) so likewise it is most reasonable to think, that they could not write or do amiss in these public Acts or Writings without control; and therefore, certainly, it must needs be the best Comment, when the Text abides a doubtful Interpretation, to show, that the Apostles disciples which Conversed with them, did so understand them.  
Fifthly, That the pre-eminence 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 Truth's being granted, as they must without impudence, I address myself to the Question, wherein I can Complain for lack of mine Adversaries books; for such as write for the Opinion, I profess I care for none; the Scriptures and Ancient 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, discuss 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 Controversy.  
FOR their Hooker, he undertakes this Controversy, Part 2. Chap. 1. pag. 22. in which he wastes that Page and the 23d. upon a bitter invective distinction of a threefold 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 Usurped Order (as he calls it) which I undertake at this present.  
His ●irst reason is, as he saith, the express Testimony of Scripture, than which nothing can be more pregnant, Titus 1. 5. 7. he only cyphers out the place, I will put down the words; For this cause left I thee in Crect, 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, etc. Now (saith he) the Apostle having enjoined his Scholar to Appoint Elders in every City, and how they must be qualified, he adds ●he reason of his Advice; For a Bishop, etc. Where the Dispute of the Apostle shows, not only the Community of the Name, but 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. Paul's 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 heedless Reader swallows 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 Superior Dignity, which, as I showed 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, 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 divers 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 Latins, 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 superior 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, inferior to the Supreme, 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 Inferior 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 Superior Sort, the word Priest or Presbyter to the Inferior 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 days. 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 Crect 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 Crect himself, he had laid 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 amiss; 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.  

Their Exception, that Titus was an Evangelist, answered.  
THey say so; but do they produce one word out of Scripture or Antiquity for it: they might say he was an Apostle as well, and with much more semblance; and I think he was of the Inferior rank; but then, can they tell me what an Evangelist was? This is a shrewd Question; Those four that writ the Gospels, are only known by that name amongst Ecclesiastical Writers: so that if a man should say, the evangelist saith so, we would Conclude one of them. Philip is indeed called an Evangelist▪ Acts 21. but no man else in the New Testament; it may be, because he was an excellent and powerful Preacher. Beza, with those who affect new Opinions, makes an Evangelist to be one who was an Associate and Companion to the Apostles in their travel; but there is nothing in Scripture or Antiquity to give light to that Conclusion: I am sure St. chrysostom, Theophylact, etc. are against it in express Terms, upon the 4th. to the Ephes. St. Ambrose makes him a Deacon to the Apostles, which hath some show of reason for it, because Philip was an Evangelist. This word Evangelist is but three Times used in Scripture, Acts 21. 8. where Philip is called an Evangelist; Ephes. 4. 11. where an Evangelist is reckoned amongst the Ecclesiastical Officers; 2 T●m. 4. 5. where he is bid do the work of an Evangelist; which could be nothing but industrious preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ; or, as some of the Ancients, suffering for Christ, because he is bid in the same verse, immediately before these words, to endure Affliction, and in the words following, to make full proof of his Ministry; but is there the least Colour that this Office should enable him to ordain Presbyters, or Correct Misdemeanours, or to regulate things that are amiss, which Titus was Commissioned to do. Again, it is generally agreed amongst them, that this Office of an Evangelist was a Temporary Office; but these Duties of Correcting, of Ordaining Elders, must needs be perpetual in the Church, and therefore could not Constitute the nature of that temporal Office: Well then, to dispel that cloud that would darken the light of this Text for Episcopacy, by saying that Titus was an Evangelist, there is no word in Scripture, nor any Author in Antiquity of any reputation in the World, which offers any thing towards that Opinion. 2dly. If they did, yet they would be at as great a loss to show me, that the Office of an Evangelist was to do such things as Titus is here commanded to do. 3dly. If they could show Evangelizing to Consist in the performance of such Duties; yet we might justly then Conceive them to he Bishops, such as we require, and a Standing Office in the Church, because these Duties are so: and it is evident, that Titus had Authority in both these kinds; Therefore there were some men which had such Authority above others. But let us go on with Hooker, as he doth Confirm his Mistaken Opinion.    

SECT. IX. hooker's 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 enjoined 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 implies 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 showed their Commission, thus far 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 baptising, administering 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 express myself: 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 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 Crect, 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 adds, 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 signify; 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 Superior; but he cannot be superior; every Superior Order hath superior Acts and honours belonging thereunto, above the Inferior; but Bishops have neither above those that are Presbyters; for if labouring in the Word and Doctrine be an Act above ruling, and is most worthy of Double honour: then the Act and honour of a Presbyter is above the Act and honour of a Bishop; for they only assume the Acts of rule, but give the Presbyters leave to labour in the Word and Doctrine.  
I have at large discoursed what labouring in the Word and Doctrine is. I will not repeat now, but begin with his last [For they only assume, etc.] 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 fruitful Industries than those of our Bishops, whose Works live to bear witness 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 less 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 persuade, than to compel men to virtuous Actions. They are but half virtues 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 Diocese, 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 add 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 toil in the heat of the battle; could any man Collect from hence, that it were a better Act to labour in the Act of fight, than to steer and direct the fight? No sure: it is an Act becoming 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 Diocese, to encourage, to command Inferior 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 persuade 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 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 easy 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 unless he can show 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 Logic, posita Causa ponitur effectus, but it must be totalis Causa, not partialis. But now suppose his Consequence were good in Logic, 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 showed) are but one, yet Apostles are different, and these seem without distinction to be necessary to the perfecting of the body of Christ, and Bishops by all Consent succeed the Apostles in t●is Duty; I will not descant upon Prophet, to show the sense and meaning of it, as not pertinent; this is enough to show the weakness 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 sufficient Teaching Ministryes, to perfect the Church; then there needs no more but these.  
I will not lose myself 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, etc. Binding and losing 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 Inferior 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 showed that there were parts of the Apostles fullness of power imparted to one, and part to another, as the Divine Wisdom directed them to divide it for the good of the Church; this they must grant, who make Pastors, Rulers, Teachers, distinct Offices.   

SECT. XIII. Ordination not given by Presbyters.  
FOR the Second, Ordination, he brings Scripture, 1 Tim. 4. 14. He only cyphers the Text, I will put down the words; Neglect not the Gift that is in thee, which was given thee by Prophecy 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 Prophecy, 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 Jews, no Christian Order; then from the use of the word in other places, it cannot be Collected that this should particularise this lower Order, which he fancieth, sith there is no place to parallel it: But because Presbytery doth signify an Ecclesiastical Order in the Ministry, 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 Priesthood, both Bishop and Presbyter, (it were in vain to insist upon particular places▪) So then must this be would be know, which I am Confident all Antiquity understand it of that rank of Presbyters which we term Bishops, St. chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, no man contradicting, but these late Expositors; Then let us add 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. Paul's imposition had some signal force, but theirs was only a Circumstance by the by, not operative: But I enforce not this, although I am persuaded the Text would make it good; but answer peremptorily, That Presbytery, there meant, was not a Presbytery of the Inferior Order, and I speak no more than St. chrysostom in express 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 show 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 signify that inferior Order. Thus have I done with this reason of his, I could collect even hence a Strong Argument against them, but I will refer it.   

SECT. XIV. Mr. hooker's 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 Evagrium shows 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 prefer Deacons before Presbyters; this I can guess to happen upon the rise of Cardinal Deacons, which began to flourish in those days▪ upon this St. Hierome magnifies the Presbyterian Order, shows 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 presently 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 Inferior Priests and Levites.  
Whence it abundantly appears, that not only St. Hierome otherwhere, but even here opposeth these men expressly 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 downward 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 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 College is elected to his Office by the Fellows, and ordained according to the Laws, yet unless by Authority delegated from him, no Fellow can choose, much less 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, than 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 less; yet it is not true in Politic Affairs, as thus. In an Elective Kingdom, or the Empire, they who have power to choose the Emperor himself, yet, when they have chosen him, have not power to choose the least Constable or Inferior Officer, but the Emperor only: so that here are wonderful 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 follows (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 Dependence it hath upon the premises; ●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 gross; 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 choose 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 Latin, 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 Office; there are divers Things communicated to one, which were not to another, according to their very Doctrine, only Bishops succeeded them in their fullness 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 myself to se● down what I Conceive ●it to prove my Conclusion, which is, That there was such a Thing as Episcopacy settled by the Apostles in the Church; If I had no other reason, ●t might persuade 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 paralleled in Polity so well as Nature, it should be reasonable for men to think, that where is no Ground for a Difference in this second Church under the New Testament, from that former under the Old, there God should not vary in the Discipline; and, I think, no man can show me a reason for such a Difference: either that men are more united, or that the Church doth require a less 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 show 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 showed) in other things, without some Language expressing a difference in a dubious Case, it were ●it we should adhere to God's former practice.  
But then again, our Saviour in his life-time hatching a Church in Embrione. He, as I have showed, 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 quarrelled 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 Supreme; So these men are not Content with their rank, which is high and great in the Church of God, unless they shall pluck down the highest of all; and not be subordinate, but supreme 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 stubbornness study Scripture, and wrest it to their purpose, which how weak it is for them, hath been showed, 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 denied; for, as I have showed, we ought not to seek for express Terms to show 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 Crect, 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 showed that in more express Terms St. Paul could not Authorise one man to that Office, which we pretend to, than he did here; I have spoken likewise 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 showed that he was an Evangelist; and 2dly. it can no wher● be showed that an Evangelist had such an Authority belonging to his Office; 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, joined with them, not severed 〈◊〉 them▪ but by such Tricks men may cast off all Scripture; but 〈◊〉 I would have them show me where ever there was such a Commission given to a Presbytery, which they can never do. Secondly, Let them Consider, it would be as safe, nay much safer, for me to say, that power given to the Presbytery, must be by the Sole virtue of Association with the Supreme, as they can, when I show 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 implies 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 join. 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 Gloss 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 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 men's carnal designs; 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 shows any reason for what he saith, but refers 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 ways, leisurely 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 join 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 Brightness in itself, 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.  
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 avoid 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 Superior Shepherd over Inferiors.  
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. chrysostom 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 add 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 traveled? 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 Shadows, 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 show, that any such Authority is assigned 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 mere Illusion, I shall here therefore for a while leave St. Paul's 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 asserting 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 Angel, as I have showed, hath in its own signification genuinely the same sense with Apostle, and therefore may well be fitted to the same Office; and as that was never applied to any under a Bishop; so neither this, as any man can show 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 applied 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 show any place where this word doth less than signify 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, etc. 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 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 yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers, that is, Bishops; 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 inferior 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 superior 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 Governor such as the Presbyterian allows, a Precedent of a Synod who this year governs, but the next resigns 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 Superior, I am Confident that I never read of any such Thing, and therefore am persuaded, that no man can show me out of Ecclesiastical Story, that any man was outed of his Bishopric, but for Heresy, Schism or Gross Impiety of Life; when men have grown, through old Age or Infirmities, otherwise incapable of executing 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 die Bishops. And it seems a mighty selfishness to me, that any man should oppose his reasonless 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 Confidently) of the Church of Pergamus, He commends him, because thou hast not denied my Faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful 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 days of Domitian, for the Testimony of his Religion, put into a brazen Bull, and in that Bull burned: now than this Bishop's faith was Eminent, that in such a cruel and fiery Trial he kept his Integrity, even in such a Time when tha● horrid Precedent 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 profane 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 fiction 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 the precedent of a Synod, to direct the business, not Command more than others, and this certainly the frame of these Letters doth Confute mightily, for they make the Angel's responsible for the faults and heresies which were under the Government, which they could not be, if they had only the Authority of Precedents, but not of Bishops; for a Precedent of a Synod hath no Coercive power in himself, but as conjoined 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 Inferior Clergy or people laid 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 Precedent 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 Diocese, 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 practice, that it was lawful 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 abhors. And now Consider, what fault would it be in the Angel, that these things were he●d in his Church, but that he had Coercive Authority to Command, and hinder the proceedings of these Opinions.  
A Third Exception is, That these Epistles were written to the Angels, the Precedents, but by Name, but to the whole Synod by Intention: so that although he direct his Epistle but to 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, etc. thy, in the singular number, and so in the rest; now if he had meant it to the whole Synod, although directed to the Precedent, 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, etc. 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 business in hand; and than that being finished, I shall review my Work, and if there appear any thing unsatisfied, I shall insert such Discourses as shall be useful to remove those Scruples: Mr. Hooker undertakes 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 lies, 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 show 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 settling 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 Settling 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 settled in particular Congregations: So that as his Genus, Approbation, on, precedes Ordination, so settling thus in his Office, is Consequent to it; last of all, the whole Description is too wide for the Thing described. He takes settling in his Office in that sense I have showed, 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 Ecclesiastic 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 divers 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 business to understand the whole Definition: Order is the disposition of things either according 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 Logic) 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, etc. where there is a sub & supra in the Commonwealth, but belong not to our business. Again, because there are many Ecclesiastic Orders in the Church of Rome, which are not truly such; but only additions of human Invention, according as their Church fancied would conduce to the Decorum of God's Service, I add this Term of Divine Institution, 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 myself from Rutherford, and then apply myself to Hooker: I say therefore, that first a man must be chosen, before he is ordained a Presbyter; 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 Authority, for else they could not have right Authority to admit Converted men into Christ's 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 fitness for such a Work; but their Drift is, the people over whom they are to Pastorize. Thus than it is evident, that in some Cases Election of the Congregation or Church over which a Presbyter is put, cannot always 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 hooker's Discourse upon this business, 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, among 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 citys 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 enforce 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 public 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 understood 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, 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 Schisms, 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, unless 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 Bishopric 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 shows 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, than 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 Aim; 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 myself 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 aimed at here; but what I said then, will serve my Turn now; First, that Election was Occasional, and therefore cannot be drawn to a Precedent; 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 than 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 divers 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 itself. I may add to this, that the people in this inferior office did not authoritatiuè 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.  
First, how far 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 Christ's?  

How their Ministerial Offices may be given by men.  
COncerning the first of these, he makes his first Conclusion thus; There is a Causal virtue put forth in a Subordinate way by some under Christ, to bring the formality or specifical being of an Ecclesiastical Office to a person or party that is Called thereunto, or stands possessed thereof.  
Alas▪ what mighty words are these, and how easily might the business of this Proposition have been expressed to the Capacity of any Reader, if he had said, there is some power under Christ to Constitute Ecclesiastical Officers; there is no need of such high and difficult Terms of Causal virtue, Formality, or Ecclesiastical being, which do amuse a weak Capacity, and no way satisfy an Intelligent.  
The Drift of his Conclusion is to prove, that there is an outward Call necessary to a Minister, which, he saith, is by none denied, but by Anabaptists and Familists, which folly and madness labours (as he saith) with the loathsomeness of itself: so he contemns them, but truly they are now grown a Considerable Enemy; but I let them pass to answer for themselves, which I am confident they cannot justly; and indeed I grant this whole Conclusion, and let alone his proofs of it. But yet because he placeth a necessity upon it as surely is Tru●h, I would ask, whether the necessity be not required out of the part of such as are to receive the Pastor or Elder? and I am sure he must yield it; for there is no reason Men should receive such a P●stor who is not lawfully called, (to use his own phrase;) but then why doth he despise the Bishop's Seal and Parchment in a Box, as he speaks page 40. when there can be none other Evidence to the people of his Call, but this? And again, because this is a● 〈…〉 a Causal virtue, which he useth, I shall add something 〈◊〉 Explication of it, which he hath omitted; there is a physical Cause, and a Moral Cause. This word Cause at the first reading sounds like a Physical Operation; and although in his second Conclusion he adds this Term, Instrument or means, yet that is not to be allowed in a physical notion; for these powers in men have no physical influx into these Effects, no not as Instruments; for, as the Philosophers speak, an Instrument hath its particular work in the Effect: so a knife or axe, which be both Instruments, have their several ways of Operation, though used by the same hand, and do their work according to their particular and proper dispositions; but now these Agents have no Influence on the Subject, but only as moral Instruments; as a hand and seal have no physical Nature to pay a Debt, but only a moral force, which is granted it by the Law of the Realm; and from thence it hath this moral force, not a physical. Of this nature I conceive this power granted to men to give Orders, and it is founded upon that great Commission; As my Father sent me, so send I you, with that Authority to grant powers to other men; so that the powers, the Authority granted by them, are Confirmed by God▪ they having a moral Causality to do such Things which God will Confirm, but they working not so much as Instrumentally any physical Effect. Thus the Conclusion being explained, I grant it, but in his handling of it, many things deserve Censure; for although he brag at the Top of the 44th▪ Page, that he will lend such help to the weakest Reader, that he may lay his finger upon the several Things; yet indeed he is mightily perplexed and intricate, which I pass, and granting his Conclusion, will not disturb his manner of handling it, only repeat what he saith at the bottom of the 45 page, whoever in a Complete way hath received this outward Call, he is then a Complete and true Officer, and may act any part of his Office, though not inwardly graced or fitted worthy of such a place or Work by God; this I put down, lest he may start from it hereafter, and so will pass it over, and proceed with the same succinctness to his second Conclusion, which is p. 48. and is this.  
It is an Act of power as an Instrument or means under Christ to give an Officer the being of an outward Call in the Church. Here an Instrument being taken, as I expounded it before, a moral Instrument: This Conclusion hath Truth granted likewise, and so I pass to his second head, pag. 49. by what means the essential of this power may be Conveyed?    

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 things he insists upon; First, to show 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 Authentic 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, than 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 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 business or mine inserted.   

SECT. X. Of the Character left after Ordination.  
AND such another passage I shall have with his 2d. Discourse, concerning the Indelible Character, a Thing not material to his business, but only to vaunt and show 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 confess, 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 Authorise 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 Quality or Relation, and such unnecessary Discourse, unless he could show what it is, if not one of these, since he holds that it is somewhat, & I must needs say, that the worst of those Writers hath done better than he, because those Authors have expressed something with a guess 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, unless 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, 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 administered 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, etc. 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 refused, 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 Alteration I spoiled his Argument.)  
But the first is plain from the place alleged. 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 dependence 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 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 concur; 2ly. Though the people may have a fitness 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 Crect, that thou shouldest Ordain Elders in every City, as I have appointed; there the power of Ordaining Elders in Cities is left to one man, not to the people. He answers; the Apostle did appoint 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 business, 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 employed in St. Paul's Command, it should be done that way, and none other; but neither he nor any man living can show me any way prescribed by our Saviour; therefore that was in vain. 2dly. For St. Paul's 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 showed for this particular. Take the Geneva reading, that the elders were ordained by Election, yet let us Consider what election can be meant there, certainly that Election of which I have formerly discoursed, 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, than they fled to ●ystra, in the 19th verse, you may observe St. Paul stoned at Lystra and Iconium, where they ordained Elders in every Church, by Election, saith the Geneva; 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 powerful; 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 necessarily 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 licence of expounding Scripture, to abuse a clear and evident Text by wresting it with a Gloss (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 show; for it is added, that he should redress Things that are amiss: 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 showed the rule, for that which perhaps may be aimed at; our Saviour's 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 redress such Things as were amiss.   

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 Ciphers out that place, 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the Gift which is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, 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 Prophecy?  
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 sum of what he saith; For the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rendered Gift, he after Discourse of divers 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 Prophecy) he first discourseth impertinently of the Office of an Evangelist, to show it was extraordinary; yet sometimes given by means, neither of, which hath any foundation in Scripture: That he saith, Philip was made an Evangelist immediately, without the mediation of man, hath no one word of Scripture for it, but only Acts 8. where he is called an Evangelist, but not described which way Authorized, either immediately or mediately. For the 2d. That one should be made an Evangelist by the Ordination of men, he produceth this Text, where there is no word of Scripture nor Exposition of any Antiquity, which saith, That he was by this Ordination made an Evangelist, but Antiquity, Theophylact, and abundance▪ say Bishop. Again, he confesseth it, against his own Exposition of this word Gift, which before was only Ability, but now must be both Ability and Office: so hard a thing is it for Error to be constant, and to raise a strong building upon a tottering foundation. Then he proceeds, which is most pertinent to his intent, to show what is meant by Prophecy; and concludes, pag. 57 that Prophecy 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 says, 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 Timothy's 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 fearful incongruous stuff to abuse Readers with; Who can but guess by his unusual language there is something in it, but he cannot tell what. Who can tell what that is which he calls the outward gifting and sitting an Officer for his Call? I thought this Gift here spoken of had been an Inward (as he calls it elsewhere a gracious endowment of the soul) which enabled him to serve God in his Bishopric, 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 Prophecy hath furnished, and betrusted thee withal, the laying on of the hands of the Eldership by way of Consent and approbation concurring therewith, to thy farther Encouragement and Confirmation in this work.  
Now suppose all this were true, will this prove, that the scope of Ordination by God's appointment, is not to give the Essentials of an Officers Call, which was his antecedent 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. rutherford's Presbyterian Ordination.) I say, all this doth not prove, that Timothy was not ordained by St. Paul's 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 loathe it as unreasonable.  
His Inferences pag. 59 are without all relation to the former Discourse; Hence it is plain (saith he) that Ordination therefore praesupposeth an Officer Constituted, doth not Constitute. The rest are like this, in which there is no manner of Dependence 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 employments, and applied 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 applied 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 Confirmation 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 Order, 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 Man's understanding upon which particular he should look, and breaking of bread is an Action common to divers Occasions, yet is sometimes used in Scripture for the Communion: so likewise Imposition of hands, which is used in other duties, is sometimes particularly proposed to signify 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 pass to his next.   

SECT. XIV. His Fourth Argument answered.  
HIS Fourth Argument is; If Ordination 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 pastures, medicines, and doth all this by the Supreme Pastoral power that is granted him, either by his own hands, or by the ministry of those Inferiors which are under him; but they have partial Authorities, only to feed or ●old, or catch or drive, as their several shares are designed; the second part of the Division of the Pastoral Charge, these men must grant, who divide their Governors into several Offices, Pastors, Teachers, Rulers, which have their several Duties assigned them, and it is most unreasonable for them to deny the first, That one should have Superiority over the rest, since as reason would direct, without some body to overlook and attend them, they would easily entrench upon one another's 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 showed 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 Council had decreed it, is absolutely to be denied, namely, that an Apostle differeth from a Pastor, that the Apostle is a Pastor throughout the whole Christian World; but the Pastor is tied 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, etc. and John 20 As my Father sent me, etc. 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 acts in any, they might Episcopize, Apostolize in any place of the World: They did Episcopize, Apostolize only where they were resident; Just as I have Conceived, if Adam had lived in his Integrity, every man had had an habitual 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 Traveled any where, and have justly enjoyed any part of the World, although actually he could possess but his Share; Now this was the Jurisdiction of every Apostle in all the whole Catholic Church, habitually, not actually, as the Church of Rome would have their Apostolical Man as they call him, the Pope, and all this was necessary for them as Apostles, which is, men sent for the propagation of the Gospel, to the planting and confirming of Churches, other powers they had of Languages, of Miracles, which were necessary to the first plantation, but no longer; and therefore they were not peculiar to them, but others had them besides, as likewise that mighty power of being Inspired to write Scripture, which did not appear in all of them; and some others besides them had that power, as St. Luke and Mark; 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, settling 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 yourselves, 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 spoke to many, and divers 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 Catholic 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 Officers of particular Churches, and confined them there, but making them Officers of the Universal 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 ways, 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 Intermeddling in other men's precincts, and likewise because the main scope of their endeavours may be applied 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 Diocese; yet we must further Conceive, 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 man's Pastoral precincts, and Officiating there, yet factum valet: so that if a Bishop give Orders in another man's Diocese, as was the famous Case of Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus, in St. Chrysostoms' Diccesse at Constantinople, or a Presbyter Administer the Communion in another's 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 Superiors, 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 public good called aside from the more particular Charge to the more public, 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 less Abilities would as well, if not better agree, it becomes him to be removed to a place better befitting his Qualifications, or a man endowed 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 died: 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 contrariwise 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 Catholic Church, he is Pastor at large; He hath a long Dispute with Mr. Rutherford about Preaching and Administering 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 seems to make it no proper duty of a Pastor, pag. 63, 64. But I let these things pass as not pertinent, and apply myself 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 Complete power of an Office, and stands an Officer without Exception, he cannot be hindered 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 hindered 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 Complete 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 hindered 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 itself, 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 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 hindered 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, than 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 lays 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 essentials to an Officer.  
And thus you see an Answer to his Arguments out of this Discourse, Conceive it applied to that Proposition, He that hath Complete power of an Office and stands an Officer without Exception cannot justly be hindered 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 negatiuè, he can be hindered from working, therefore he hath not the power, doth not follow; when a man sleeps he is hindered, 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 hindered 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 Bar, yet because not entertained by Clients, do not plead, yea cannot plead, are justly hindered from pleading; the same footsteps of that Axiom are evident in all Practic businesses: so that that Consequence, he may be hindered 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, than 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 void, and opportunities given, otherwise not.  
Thus you see I have enlarged myself 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 showed 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 show 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 out-outward Call, left in the receiver; but not a word. It must certainly be one of those, either quality or relation; for it cannot he substance, or quantity, and nothing else can pretend. But again, I expected he should have showed, what was that rule of Christ he spoke 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 heedless 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 showed 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 business to do: and therefore although the Laws of Disputations would have required this at his hands, yet he wisely avoids them, and from his Conclusion leaps into proofs of it; the first of which is.   

SECT. XVII  

His First Argument answered.  
ONE Relate gives being and the Essential Constituting Cause to the other.  
But Pastor's and People, Shepherd and Flocks are Relates. He introduceth not his Conclusion, nor is it possible for him, out of these premises; for the natural result out of these Propositions can be only, That therefore Pastor and People give the Essentials one to another, in which is not one full Term of his Conclusion. But I will examine his Major, One Relate gives being, etc. Relationis esse est ad aliud, non ab alio; and therefore relation, the whole Predicament is termed by the Translators of Aristotle, Ad aliquid, not ab aliquo, the whole being is a relation to another, not from another: it is true they cannot exist severed, without either is neither is in a Relative Notion; yet so we may say an Accident, it cannot be without its substance, yet that Accident doth not give the Essentials to the substance. So here you see were high amazing words to amuse the Reader with, but no force to his purpose: It may happen indeed, That one relate may 'Cause the other, for Cause and Effect are Relates; the Father causeth the Son, but the Son doth not give Essential being to a Father, no not as a Father, but that Act which made him a Father did it. I write this to let a Reader see, that when Propositions are delivered even by such a one as Mr. Hooker, who may have Authority with the Reader, and it may be thought will deliver nothing as an Axiom, which is not such, yet men are as partial to their Opinions as their Children, and will expound every Thing that comes in their way to the Advantage of them, yea, it will seem so to them; and therefore even these Propositions are not to be swallowed without Examination. But yet suppose this were granted, that one Relate (as he phrases it) did give the Essentials to another, would this prove, That the Election of the people by the rule of Christ did it? Certainly no: for the Pastor and people are the two relates, not the Pastor and Election of the people; People, and the Election of the people are two Things; This latter an Act of the former. He says Mr Rutherford seems to be much moved with this Argument; I have not seen his books, but by that I have heard of him; it would be strange he should; but I leave them together, and see what he urgeth for Confirmation of this Argument which may concern my business; Pag. 68 He saith, the Proposition is supported by the Fundamental Principles of Reason, so that he must raze out the received rules of Logic that must reject it; High language! But why so, I ask? He answers immediately, Relata sunt quorum unum constat mutua alterius Affectione; This is nonsense; for should I ask, if Vnum, which of the two? he could not answer, the reason is, because as relates there is the same reason of one as of the other; But I think he means utrumque; but Consider then, what is this to his purpose? Suppose they did Consist in a mutual Affection one of another, could one properly be said to give the Essentials to the other? The Father indeed gives the Essentials to his Son, and Father and Son do mutually as Father and Son depend upon a reciprocal Affection, as he calls it, one upon the other, but the Son cannot be said properly to give the Essentials to the Father, no not as Father, because all he hath he hath from his Father; as Suppose again a Master and Servant are relates, neither of these give the Essentials one to another; But properly that Covenant which engaged them in their mutual Duties, that Covenant gave them the Essentials of that relation, not one another; and therefore this Discourse, though he think it very Evident, yet begets no Acceptance in me, although declared with the name of a fundamental principle: That which he deduceth, that relata are simul natura is most true, but not deduced, yea it is against that principle he deduceth it from, for that which Constitutes another's being is prius natura to that which is Constituted, but these are simul, and therefore cannot give Essentials one to another. His Assumption, that Pastor and Flock are relates, no man (saith he) that hath siped in Logic, can deny; I grant it: Then (saith he) the Conclusion follows, but he sets not down what; I am sure his doth not, That this Election gives the Essentials to an Officer,  
In the Conclusion he saith, Hence again it follows, that Ordination, which comes after, (he means Election,) is not for the Constitution of the Officer, but the Approbation of him so Constituted in his Office, for relata are unum uni, saith the rule; there is no Connexion in this neither; and for unum uni, that must be understood in that particular relation, a Father may have many sons, and so One to Many, but there are distinct paternities, and the Logicians say, that although absolute Accidents Numero tantùm distincta, cannot exist in the same Subject at the same Time, yet relative may. So one flock may have many pastors, the Catholic Church a Thousand visible ones, invisible only Christ. The Church of Rome would desire no more, but that you grant, one ●lock must have but one Pastor; they will quickly prove the Catholic Church one Flock, and then will follow, the Pope to be the Universal Pastor; for none else pretends to it; but indeed they themselves grant many Pastors to the same flock, for their Teachers are Pastors, and their Lay-Elders have Pastoral Authority of Governing. But now punctually after a long Discourse: A Paster and Flock are relates, there may be many Pastors to one Flock; where the Flock is great there must be; the Flock of Christ is the Universal Church, in which he hath placed many Pastors, and there is no Christian man who is a Member of Christ's Flock, wheresoever he is, in the World, and finds any Pastor, but he may receive and require the Duty of a Pastor from him, and he ought to give it him. Again, there is no Pastor wheresoever he is in the world, if he find any of his Master's Flock in any place who have need of him, but he ought, out of duty, if he can to supply his lack. And thus are the mutual bond● and relations betwixt Christ's Pastors and his Flock supplied; as soon as he is made a Pastor, the Church of Christ is his Flock; and which way he can advance the good of it, he ought, and i● bound in Duty to do it.   

His Second Argument answered.  
AND so I pass to his Second Argument, which is this; It is lawful for a people to reject a Pastor upon Just Causes, (if he prove pertinaciously scandalous in his Life, or haeretical in his doctrine) and put him out of his Office; Ergo, it is in their power to call him outwardly, and to put him into his Office.  
The Consequence is plain from the Staple rule, Ejusdem est Instituere (he would say I think) & destruere.  
The Antecedent is as certain by God's word, Beware of Wolves, Mat. 7. 15. Beware of false Prophets, Phil. ●. 2.  
Now because he begins with his Consequence, I will so likewise; and that which he so highly commends for a Staple Rule, I will examine, and from henceforth receive this rule: That great words with him are forced to be the Cloaks of least performances; I do not believe he read that Staple rule in any Logic Author; and am very Confident it is absolutely false in all Sciences. In nature it is most evident, that water which destroys fire cannot make it. If he answer, that in general the power of Nature which by Water doth destroy fire, by another hand of power doth make. I will apply this to our particular, and say, that in general men destroy it; therefore men give it, by the same way as Nature by water destroys fire, and by fire makes it. If we look into Policy, we shall find that sometimes when Kings have settled power, the people have plucked them down; Those whom the people have Instituted, Kings have destroyed; but perchance he may say, that lawfully out of right the same power can destroy, that did institute; perhaps there may be Legality in some of these Instances, but see a Clearer: A Tithing man is elected by his parish (like as he would have Pastors) afterwards he is sworn by the Steward of the Court (like his Ordination) or perhaps by some Justice of Peace; The Parish for his misdemeanours cannot pu● him out, but the Justices who cannot choose him, may. A Barrister who received his Degree at the Inns of Court, is degraded by the Judges, who cannot make him a Barrister. I think I speak Law; if I do not, I am sure this may be Law without any prejudice to the policy of this Nation, and then I am sure this rule is false; and indeed besides Instances, there is reason that that which gives life should preserve, not destroy, and that men should look for other hands to pluck down, besides those that set up; but as it is not universally true, so it is not universally false; and I think will not be false in this instance he speaks of, and therefore I will apply myself to his Antecedent, concerning which, he saith, it is as certain as the other by warrant from the Word, and no more certain: His places out of Scripture are, Beware of Wolves, Mat. 7. 15. Beware of false Prophets, Phil. 3. 2. Here I expected to have found these two Texts in these two places; but it is not so: both in the same manner are in the first, and something like that he saith in the other. The words of the first are, Beware of false Prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening Wolves. A man may wonder how he could deduce hence that Conclusion, That it is lawful for a people to reject, or put a Pastor out of his Office; Consider the words, Suppose it had been said, Beware of a wicked Judge when your Cause is to be heard, or beware of false Lawyers which will come to you in sheep's clothing with fair and excellent Language, but within are ravening Wolves, will secretly destroy you; would any man think, that here were Commission granted to put either out of their Office? It is Just so here, beware of false Prophets, such as pretend they are Prophets, but are not, or false Prophets, such as prophesy f●lse Things, nor can there be more meant in this, than that we should not be deceived by them; for though they come in sheep's clothing, speak never so fair words, commend their Doctrine never so much, it will destroy you, there can be no more in it; This Speech is spoke, no doubt, to all and every person in singular, yet I hope Mr. Hooker doth not think that although every man must beware he is not deceived by them, yet that every man, every particular Man can depose his Pastor.  
The same reasons which have disproved the force of this Allegation, will likewise▪ overthrow the Strength of the second against this Cause. The 2d. Text is, Phil. 3. 2. Beware of Dogs, beware of evil Doers, beware of the Concision: Suppose all or some of these were Pastors, which can in no strength of reason be induced, yet what can this word beware enforce? Can it imply depose? there was never such an Exposition, but only take heed of them, that ye be not deceived by them; so that there is not the least thing in the Word of God to prove that the people may depose their Pastor, and yet all his discourse which follows in page 65. is as if this were most true, sublato uno relatorum tollitur alterum; but where is either relatum taken away, or by whom? Again, (saith he) this rejection cuts him off from being a Member of that Congregation where he was, and so from every visible Congregation, and therefore cuts him off from having any visible Church-Communion with Christ, etc. Consider how he builds upon a foundation in the Air, hath no reality; nor indeed were his foundation good, are his Consequences, and see what an unhappy Condition such a Pastor were in, s●th it is evident these Texts of Cautions are directed to every particular man, and then the malice of one particular man may destroy a Pastor's Interest in heaven, because he can put him from Church-Communion with Christ: but suppose these Texts were understood of whole Congregations, yet sometimes they are very few: or, if an hundred, it is hard that the Opinion and Error for the most part of Ignorant men, though an hundred, should shut a man out of the pale of Church-Communion; these things fall of themselves; beware, therefore depose, is not, cannot be admitted amongst reasonable men; yea the clean contrary might rather be urgent; Beware, therefore they cannot depose, for what a man can depose, he need not much Caution about it, the work is quickly done. But here if any should ask, What, must the people submit to any Pastor, though heretical, though scandalous in his life? If not, what can they do? Certainly, to the first; there are some things which Heresy or wickedness of life do not hinder, that is, administering the Seals of God's Covenants in the holy Sacraments. To this purpose he himself speaks, as I think, I forewarned, in the latter end of page 45. and the beginning of page 46. in higher and fuller Expressions than I make, but I need not set down; only Consider this, that such Heresies as deny the Trinity, because they will not nor can baptise in the form prescribed by our Saviour, that is, the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, their baptism is not valid, and by their Ministry, erring in the root, cannot effectually apply those Seals; but for other mistakes in opinion, not fundamental, nor such as immediately reflect upon that Seal they administer; so they set the Seal rightly to, according to matter and form, their Act is good; and a man, a Layman may submit unto them, but take care not to be misled either by his false Doctrine or wicked life, of which he is not to take upon him, like a Judge, to censure his person, but like a Cautelous hearer to avoid what is ill, and suck out what is good; The sheep do not refuse the good hay, though they swallow not the worse, which the Shepherd delivers; they may complain to them who have Authority, the Bishops, who are to receive the Complaints made against Elders, and so have him soberly Convented and adjudged, but without this course they have no power to depose him; and this I think they ought to do, and more than this they have no power granted them to do.   

His Third Argument answered.  
I Come now to his 3d. Argument, into which he enters slowly himself, with a long Discourse, the heads of which being examined, will remove the difficulty; pag. 69. he saith, this Argument is taken from the manner of the Communication and Conveyance of this power, To express this, He bids you know that Conveyance of power is done two ways, either by Authoritative Commission or Delegation from Office, or Office, power, or voluntary Subjection. The first is, when a particular person or body and Corporation, delegates a power to another, of themselves and from themselves alone, leave an Impression of Authority upon another. Here he hath a mighty tedious Discourse of the Way of Communicating this power of many little Inferences and Consequences, which he draws from his Imagination of no such power left to men, which, lest I should vex the Reader, I omit, and direct him to page 70, 71, 72. for the foundation being destroyed, the Invective and Scorning of his enemy's, (as many have done with an imagination only or rumour of Victory, when there was no such thing) will fall of its self.   

There is a power left by Christ to men, by which they communicate powers to others.  
FIrst then, I shall show that there is such an Office, power amongst men, whereby they can Convey an Office, power Authoritativ● to others. This may appear out of our Saviour's Commission, As my Father sent me, etc. John 20. and the like. Now then, if our Saviour was sent to appoint Officers, than so were they, I will be with you to the end of the World, that cannot be understood of their persons, it must be of their Succession, and that Succession they communicated by the former Authority; So Acts 13. they sent Ba●nabas and Saul; so 14. 21. They ordained Elders in every Church; so Titus was by St. Paul left in Crete, Timothy received from Imposition of his hands his power; so in succession Timothy and Titus are directed to lay on hands themselves upon others, which is by all understood of Ordination: So then there is evident a delegate power given by men of Authority, by which others are Authorized to operate in this Divine Administration, I need say no more to this, but enter his Second Conclusion, which he is briefer in, but is indeed the foundation of this other. This you may find page 72. thus. Secondly, There is a Communicating power by voluntary Subjection, when though there be no Office, power formaliter in the people, yet they willingly yielding themselves to be ruled by another, desiring and calling him to take that rule, he accepting of what they yield possessing that right which they put upon him by free Consent; I put down his very words which are not sense, making no Complete Proposition, but it may be the fault of the Printer, and therefore read it possesseth that right, etc. (for possessing.) The reason (saith he) is, those in whose Choice it is, whether any shall rule over them or no, from their voluntary subjection it is, That the party Chosen hath right, and stands possessed of rule and Authority over them.  
This Argument is mighty Lame, for the Minor which is not set down, if produced, would be, that the Case stands thus with Christians; That it is in their Choice whether any shall rule over them or no, which is absolutely false, taking Christians for such men who have given themselves and their names to Christ in baptism, and supposing that they intent to be saved by persevering according to that Covenant, for without doubt such must submit to this Government; and indeed I wondered how any man had Confidence to obtrude such a Conclusion concerning so high and material points, without pretence of reason or Scripture, as he doth in this place; but I remember how heretofore I had read something to this purpose, in his First Part, and it seems he supposeth this granted out of his former Grounds, although he might have done well to have eased the Reader with a reference to it; but I have hunted it out, and God willing will pursue the Chase wheresoever.     


CHAP. IX. SECT. I. Mutual Covenanting of the Saints gives not being to a Visible Church.  
IN his first part therefore of this Book, page 46. he discourseth of the formal Cause of a visible Church, and he puts this Conclusion; Mutual Covenanting and Confederating of the Saints in the fellowship of the faith according to the Order of the Gospel, is that which gives Constitution and being to a Visible Church. This Term Consederating of the Saints is indefinite, and seems therefore that he should mean all the Saints should Confederate, which is impossible in any of their Congregations; if he had meant of any limited Company of Saints, he should have said of a Company of Saints, or a number of them, which he did not, but puts it indefinite, of the Saints. Secondly observe, that whereas he interposeth in his Conclusion (according to the Order of the Gospel) neither doth he, nor can any man living show any likeness or resemblance of any such Order in the Gospel, nor doth he in his whole discourse endeavour to show any such Thing.  
Upon my perusal of this Discourse, I find that I have treated of it already in some papers which passed betwixt me and another, who is since (as I hear) dead, and I think I sent them you; therefore I shall speak only briefly to it, first setting down his Conceit, then answering his Arguments, then confuting 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 sense) 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 guess at it; by the main drift of his Discourse he denies 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 Implicit; Explicite, when there is an open expression and profession of this Engagement in the face of the Assembly; Implicit, 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, etc. 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 Implicit 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 adds some Conclusions. First, an Implicit Covenant preserves the true nature of the Visible Church.  
Secondly, (which is much the same) an Implicit Covenant in some Cases may be fully sufficient.  
Thirdly, it is much agreeing to the Completeness of the rule, (what rule I would know) and for the better being of the Church, that there be an explicit Covenant. He gives reasons of this Conclusion;  
For thereby the judgement of the Members comes to be informed, and convinced of their Duty more fully.  

His Reasons of his Third Conclusion answered.  
I Would ask, whether a new Duty added by this Covenant, or an old Duty which arose out of Baptism? If a new, I cannot judge of the fitness without I knew the particulars, but am assured, that whatsoever is added to the Covenant in baptism, although it may have possible Allowance in Acts of Religion to some particular men upon some particular Occasions, yet in general to press such a Thing upon all Christians, is not tolerable; If it be no addition to that Covenant, the only refreshing of that Covenant to the memory of a Christian is abundantly enough. This likewise answers his 2d Argument, page 49. They are (saith he) thereby kept from Cavilling and Starting aside from the Tenure and Terms of the Covenant which they have professed and acknowledged before the Lord, and so many Witnesses. I answer, as before, If the Terms be additions to what was in Baptism, he ought not in general to prescribe them to all Christians. If they are not Additions, than that Covenant is the strongest he can make which was made in Baptism. The same answer may be applied to his third reason; For (saith he) thereby their hearts stand under a Stronger Tye. I answer, no stronger than Baptism.    

SECT. IV. This Covenant of his cannot agree to Travellers.  
THen he enters into a Second Question, how far this Covenant requires Cohabitation? His handling of which is very weak, in my Judgement; for since he allows Merchants and others upon divers Occasions to be absent sometimes divers years, he gives no satisfaction at all to show how these men in their absence can partake of Church-blessings: But methinks 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 contrariwise our Doctrine, which makes each Presbyter an Officer of the Catholic 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 God's Covenants from him, which is like our Saviour's providence for all and every particular. But I omit this, at this time, as not necessary for our business; and apply myself to his Reasons for his Conclusion, That this Covenant gives the Essentials to a Church; which he begins, page the 50th.   

SECT. V. His Reasons answered.  
HIS first Argument is thus framed, in these words, Every Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Corporation receives its being from a Spiritual Combination.  
But the visible Churches of Christ are Ecclesiastical or Spiritual; Therefore.  
I can justly complain here, that the Terms are altered, which In a Logical Discourse should be the same; I will reduce them therefore, and so discourse upon it; Combination must here be taken for Covenant, or a Combination by Covenant; so that the sense 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 suitable to such a Condition, gives being to such a body. Thus he. Consider now, that the form of every thing is that which last comes, to give every thing its being, and make it Complete; 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 show me; and although these men vaunt mightily of Scripture, and Contemn all Doctrine which is not delivered there, yet this which seems to me their Corner Stone and main foundation they have, no not the least show of any words of Scripture, which can authorise, much less 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, administereth 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Zion, 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 firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the Spirits of just men made perfect. I cannot imagine with what colour of reason this can be applied 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 Zion, 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 firstborn, which can be spoken of none but the universal Catholic 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 thyself 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 handful 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 less supports for Christ's 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 joined together and compacted, by that which every joint supplies, according to the Effectual working, etc. To understand this, read the preceding verse, where Christ is called the head, and then think with yourself, 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, etc. I am weary of transcribing; Consider, the body is one; therefore not every Church a distinct body, but there is one body, the Catholic Church. Then he urgeth, ver. 27, 28. of the same Chapter, verse 27. Now ye are the body of Christ, and Members in particular: Can a man choose but wonder, to think that any man should offer to apply this to a particular Church, to say it is the body of Christ? The 28th verse reckons up the divers 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 Supreme. 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, implicitly 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 persuaded 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 guess what he means by his Discourse, but make no sense of this syllogism, for in his Minor there is a Noun 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 prove 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 Nonsense, poseth a Reader, what to speak or think.  
I say then, that every particular man in a Church hath not power to command or constrain anorher; let us examine his reason therefore, out of Mat. 18. 15. If thy brother, that is, one of the same Church, not an Infidel, nor yet other Christians. This is his Collection, but extremely amiss, 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 weakness of this Argument.   

SECT. III. What is meant by Church.  
FIrst know, that by the Church we must understand the visible Catholic Church, which hath this power, and indeed almost all the promises of Christ, which is his City, his house, his spouse, his body, but than 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 organised 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 Christ's 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 Church's Tongue, which are the Officers for that purpose; these men would make the body of Christ all Ear, all Tongue, every member of the Church fit to receive Complaints, and fit to Judge and Censure, which is ridiculous; Take his own Simile, Suppose the Church universal a Corporation; there was never any such where every man was a Judge: It cannot be therefore so here; Tell the Church, that is, tell those Officers in the Church, who are designed, and organised, authorized for such a purpose; and than if he refuse to hear them, let him be, etc. and this that very word brother, which he introduceth for the prop of his cause, evinceth, for all Christians throughout the Catholic Church are brethren, and the Duty belongs to them; this I think doth satisfy, 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 Laymen 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 denied 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 adds immediately, If others had not Church power over this or that party, if he would have refused to have come into their fellowship and joined with them, than 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 needful; for it is true, he who lives in Scotland cannot be governed by the Bishops of England, because they cannot have cognizance of his State; and because that the Church hath confined the Exercise of that habitual power which they have every where, that it shall not break out into Act in such places, and upon such causes which they cannot have a full knowledge of; but if he who now lives in Scotland will come and live in England, and receive the blessings of God's mercies in his Covenants from the Church of England, if he offend, he must be admonished and convented before the church 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 Sense there is a Covenant required, that which he calls implicit, even in a baptised man; for else he makes himself an Heathen towards us, in regard of us: but this implicit 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 travel into far Country's, 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 show that some would not join with the Apostles, as Acts 5. 13. where Heathens refused to join with the Apostles; Luke 7. 30. The Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the Council, etc. But can he show 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 privileges Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, unto which none can be admitted but by Approbation of the whole, that Society must be in an Especial Combination.  
But a particular Combination is such a Society who enjoy such Spiritual privileges, etc. 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, than this only must, he reckons up mutual Affection and Cohabitation only, which are insufficient to make his Indution. 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 Inferior Ministers and Officers rules and governs this body, this City; he is of this City, who is ruled and governed by the Laws 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 Christ's Church who is governed by the Laws of his Church; we are not born Citizens of the Heavenly Jerusalem, but reborn 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 Laws of the same City he is governed by other Officers, yet by force of the same Law which ruled him before; so a Christian submitting himself to Christ's Discipline by Baptism, if he live in any part of this City, submits to those Governors 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 divers 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 divers rules of that house in divers rooms of it, submits himself to divers men, perhaps divers Disciplines: So in the Hall he meets with one Governor, with another in the Kitchen, another in the Larder, another in the Pantry, and in all these he hath divers Officers to submit to, and divers ways of Submission in divers 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 divers parts receive divers disciplines, and are obedient to several Laws 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 Christ's 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 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 grossly 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 sense) amongst Pagans, and they are Converted by him; may not these men choose him for their Pastor, etc. 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 God's 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, unless 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, than all Church Membership ceaseth.  
To understand the force of this Argument I must deviate a little, and discourse of what it is to be a Member of the Church, of the force of Baptism in this work. Know then that the Church is a body, and an organical body, which hath many members which have divers Offices, an eye, a foot, etc. 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 myself to. Consider therefore the 13. verse of that 12 Chap. of 1 Cor. By one Spirit we are baptised into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, etc. Having in the preceding verse showed that there are many members, he shows here which way we are made members of it, that is, Christ's body; to wit, being baptised 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 baptised into Christ, have put on Christ. Here you see phrases wonderfully expressing the same thing. As God is considered in Economics 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 baptised 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 cloth yourselves with his righteousness, and you put on Christ, under whom your unrighteousness shall be hid, and your sins covered; or else, as others express it, Matters put on a form, etc. But then if you will add the last verse, If ye be Christ, ye are Abraham's 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 express Terms are put down ●y St. Paul: and what necessary Thing and Essential (as he calls it) of another Covenant can add 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 darkness shall not be able to comprehend or suppress the light of it; it is true, one of their poor particular Congregations may be and hath been shaken and scattered, and their Union dissolved, because it is wrought by man, and man's hand guards it; but it shall never be so with Christ's 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 Baptism.  
I Apply myself 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 Christ's 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 satisfy the Objections made by some Jesuits 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 man's body (as it haps out in some Palsies) may be utterly unactive, so that they cannot stir 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, cannot by any Act be made a member of this, nor that which is an entire body of itself; so that when physic 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 baptised man though excommunicate be a member by his Baptism, he is likewise a visible member by the same Baptism, for Baptism is a visible sign of the Effect it produceth, and is as visible in the Excommunicated man, as in him that Communicates.  
Thirdly, Consider that many parts of the body are by obstructions hindered 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 address myself to the business.   

SECT. III. Bellarmine's 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, etc. This (saith he) is understood of Excommunication, I yield. But, (saith he) Heathens are not of the Church, I grant that likewise; but do add, 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 adds 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 yourselves 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 out of the visible church; for although he be severed from actually participating many blessed Covenants o● God's, yet not severed from his membership This is but physicking the sick part, you shall ●ind vers●. 5. To deliver such an one to Satan, 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 Chirurgeon, that he may be cured of his former malady, so that I observe two ends of Excommunication in this Chapter: the separation of the person from the Conversation with 〈◊〉 members, lest they should be corrupted by him, lest the Lump should be leavened; and a punishment and chastisement of the person, that he m●y amend; Now if that Chirurgery doth at ●ny time produce 〈◊〉 Effect of Amendment, he then 〈◊〉 where he was to the Actual enjoying and participating of all ●ods mercies and Church-blessings: The obstruction is removed but 〈◊〉 man ought to be excommunicated for Destruction, but for Amendment of his own person; or the saving others from the contagion of his 〈◊〉; so that it is a sign whilst he is excommunicate that he is member, a sick one, only obstructed from the par●icipation● of m●ny ecclesiastical 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 obstruction; as suppose a mortified and numbed member, it partakes not of that influence of spirits and blood which others which ●re livelier members are endued with, but yet it remains a member.  
Thirdly, He argues from the Fathers, Hillary, St. chrysostom, 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 likewise St. Austin, Every Christian qui à Sac●●dotibus excommunicatur Sathanae tr●ditur, He who is excommunicated by the ●acerdotes, the Priests of God, (I render it) is delivered to Satan: 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 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 Politic, a City, this Baptised person one of the Corporation, for some fault by him committed he is by them expelled the City, until such time as either he humble himself for his fault, or else give such satisfaction as is enjoined; This man so long as he is out of the City loseth all privileges of a Citizen, yet not all union; when he satisfies, he is readmitted 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. Paul's 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 livelihood; 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 physic, not re-grafting: so it is with Baptised 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 Grafting: 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 aught to be accepted of the Church, and accepted upon humiliation, 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 privileges 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 supernatural hypostatical union; but that, for that while there was a suspense of the influx of the fullness of those all-comforting graces, which were other while 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 sense of him and Bellarmine's 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 cannot 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 christs body which he hath joined.  
Again Bellarmine, Excommunication cannot be to any but Contumacious 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. I answer, he might have added what follows by way o● Explication in their forms of Absolution, and to the Communion of the faithful. 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 privileges until 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 Satan 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 Physic 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 address myself to hooker's 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 for proof. I will hunt them out amongst the School and Jesuits, 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 Heretics and Apostates which are baptised be parts and members of the Church? He denies 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 shipwreck. Where (saith he) by the metaphor of shipwreck he understands Heretics; who, one part of the Ship being broken, is fallen into the Sea. ●or Answer, I grant them to be Heretics 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 Satan, 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 slipped from the Cardinal unadvisedly. It was a real Story; but the learnedest man in the world may let slip such an Expression. But why any such sense should be forced on that Story, I know not, but only that such a Thing was done, and if such a sense were granted, it yields no more, but that some men are slipped 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 Heretic 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 Heretic 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 Careful ●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▪ I grant it, out of that glorious Communion and participation of Heavenly mysteries, which belong to men of right faith and manners.  
But he adds 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 Controversy 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 sense 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 sense 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 divers ways, in respect of that Inward Thing which unites us to Christ, either in a perfect union, or in a remiss, or in the lowest degree: In a perfect union, that is, by it which St. James phraseth a lively faith, a faith quickened and influenced 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, until some Temptation of fear, or hope, or perhaps some Carnal Argument persuade otherwise, and then they fall into Heresy or Apostasy, to have or g●in something; and these I think to be those of whom the Apostle spoke, men who lived in a formal show 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 Jesuit I have read against this Doctrine, can deny that there is such a Title, or that that Title is not by this union: So than they went from us, that is, the Communion with us, that showed they were not then of us, of that dear union of a lively faith, for than 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 show, that although this departure which St. John speaks of be by Heresy or Apostasy, 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, Heretics 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 Heretics, the 8th Canon for the Cathari or Puri, as the Canon calls them; or the Novatians, as Balsamon expounds it, for they were the same; these the Canon receives into the Church upon repentance, with Imposition of hands only, but they must express their profession in writing.  
The other in the 19th Canon were the Pauliani, or Paulianites, who were rebaptized upon their readmission; the first was a reception of such who had gone out of the Communion of the Church, by denying readmission of Penitents, who forsook their Religion, by sacrificing to Idols, and communication with the Digami, such as had been twice married, whom they held unclean. These things were their Heresies, and therefore were called Cathari, because they must by these Things pro●esse themselves holier than other men; but these being not things which nulli●ed Baptism, although pertinaciously held, they could not be rebaptised. But for the Paulinians, because they they denied the Trinity, they could not baptise according to Christ's Institution, and therefore such as came from them to the Church were rebaptized. 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 physic 〈◊〉; 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 Heresy, 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 Heretics are not fideles, is denied by many of his own Religion; for although that they have not a fullness 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 business; 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 faithful▪ Infants are members of the Church, and such members as are in a saving Condition, yet they have but Sacramentum Fidei, and Faith in Potentiâ, they are not actually sideles, nay, perhaps not habitually, I am certain as we know of, they have no habit of it. But it may be objected, that these non ponunt Obicem, as the School speaks; as they reach not out their hands of faith to lay hold on Christ, so they do not hinder or oppose it, but these men do with violence thrust Christ from them: I answer, that violence returns to their own Soul, in thrusting themselves out of the state of grace and favour with God protempore, for that time they do so, and it hinders Grace in its operari, in its great and noble Effects which it drives at, but doth not extinguish it in its first Act, which is to make a man a member; yea therefore they are more sinful, than if done by an Heathen or any who had not knowledge of God's 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 faithful; 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 allegeth 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 laws 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 Controversy 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 Jesuits, but they are almost all Excerpta out of him, scarce changing his words; but because in his Answer to one Argument which is objected against him, he confesseth in my Judgement what I require, I will put down that, and so pass on.  
It is Objected 3dly. (saith he) That Heretics 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 Heretics are not of the Church, yet they ought to be. This is poor hitherto, for than they ought not to be Judged until they are of the Church; and yet he adds, 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 said with the rest, and every way provided for as they are: Thus I think all stray Sheep which are marked 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 Bellarmine's Confession hath assisted me in giving him satisfaction; hut because this Question hath been little pried into by such Writers as have come into my hands, I will for far farther Illustrations add 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 baptised 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 Pope's Supremacy, and being the visible head of the visible Church, that the Pope may be an Heretic, yea an Apostate, and so no member, much less the head of the visible Church; He flies 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 baptised 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 baptised man) is at the same instant b●●h faithful and unfaithful, a Member of Christ and his Church, and extra membra Christi, without the Members of Christ and his Church in divers respects, and therefore divers 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 Sense, 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. 2daes 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 baptised man is a member of the Church; but if he be an Apostate or an Heretic, he is not a Member internally. This is somewhat he saith, but it is not enough; for if there be no internal adhesion, it will be rather a show, 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 myself in this manner;  
First, If you take the proportion of this body, called the Church, from that communion it hath with a natural body, as St. Paul seems to do, we shall then find a baptised man grafted into the stock, and whilst 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 several kinds, as it enlargeth its self in bringing forth fruit; but if it bring not forth fruit when the season for fruit requires it, than 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 man's 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 baptised man engrafted into Christ's body, you see him bringing forth fruit, and lively, you see him not lively, but living, and whilst 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 Politic body, a Corporation. Suppose a Corporation, with this fundamental clause in its Statutes, that whosoever is once admitted, though he may be thrust out of it for such and such offences, though he 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 privileges of that Corporation. This man by being once admitted loseth not this union, until he come unto that condition of never laying hold of the privileges of that Charter; he keeps his union, though he enjoys not the communion of that Corporation. This is the state of this apostatising 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 Noah's Ark, the Church, in which alone is salvation, and without repentance; and until repentance, which is commonly called, Secunda post naufragium tabula, he is in that state of damnation; and yet if he lay hold on that plank after his shipwreck, 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 hooker's: the same member is at the same time a member of Christ's mystical 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 myself, then to Mr. Hooker. This man who is baptised, 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 privilege 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 baptised, 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, than 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 Christ's 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, than 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 baptised are by that made the Sons of God, and if Sons, than 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 prodigal 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 Prodigal, like Esau, that he may alien 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. Paul's saying true, If a Son, than an Heir? Thus; because by being a Son, he hath a title to the reversion of his Father's estate, but he may alien 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 prodigal Son, so long as he lived in that dissolute and prodigal 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 baptised Christian once adopted the Son of God, hath Heaven so entailed, that he cannot alien 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 prodigal Son have a sense of his misery, by living in that dissolute condition, and longing after the blessings of his Father's house, shall creep to him, confessing his sins and begging his favour, with a, Father I have sinned against Heaven, and before thee, etc. This is the state of every baptised man, who by that is adopted a Son of God. I will not enter into those large and tedious discourses of Gods hardening men's hearts, by dereliction of them, or of that which is termed the sin against the holy Ghost, how these may divest a man of his Inheritance. It is enough for my purpose that any baptised man hath such an interest in God, as when he reputes he is sure of admission; and therefore though many Laws have been severe in punishing Delinquents, as enjoining 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 Diocese, some reserved only for the Pope, yet in case of death all these Ecclesiastic 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 baptised 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 symbolising 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 material) 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 ourselves, 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 sense of the phrase, throughout this Chapter; he saith, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth differ from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; to commit sin, differs from sinning, because to commit sin, is to do it knowingly against his conscience. To conclude, he makes it an high kind of sinning, and to sin with reigning sin. I know no necessity to force any such exposition from the phrase, and I am sure he chose a most unlucky verse to obtrude that exposition upon; for in that place the Apostle saith, He who commits sin transgresseth the law, for sin is the transgression of the law; phrases which are affirmed of him that committeth sin, but agree to all sins, for every sin is the transgression of the law; and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to commit, or do, or make sin, is no more than to sin: and to this inconsideration in Beza, fuller, the Apostle in verse 6. useth only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He who remains in him, sinneth not. There, because the sense is as pregnant to show 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 showed, there could be no such sense 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 sense of the Text than others. Vasques Comes in a word or two towards it likewise, and many touch upon it; his sense 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 sense 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 assimilated 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, struggling at the same time in the same womb, who shall come out first, and like fire and water contending at the same time for pre-eminence, 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 sense, see that this thread, this clew, must lead ●ord● to the exposition of the pieces in this same business of this Chapter, verse 6. He who sinneth hath not seen God, nor known God. This must be understood, quatenus, in that regard every man hath sinned, than 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, whilst 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, whilst 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, than 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 required, 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 Judaical 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 baptised and adopted without it: and therefore although faith do not constitute the child of God, 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 myself in all controversies of these times, and here handle this Question otherwise than this Objection exposeth itself against this Conclusion; and therefore Answer, that as Infants have not actual 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 substantial 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 expressed, and likewise in the very matter, that men's wits are much troubled to reconcile them. So in material 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 replied, we do not hinder them from coming, we forbid only others to bring them, oru Saviour's 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, personal in them that can have personal faith, as their own feet in them that have feet, but other men's feet serve the turn for them who have none of their own, & so other men's faith: 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 spoke 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 powerful with God for his good.) That other men's faith and prayers are prevalent with God for their children's or Friends good, I need not repeat the story of the Centurion, Mat. 8. whose faith was powerful to the curing of his Servant, verse 13. So likewise Mark 9 where Christ cured a man's Son by the prayer of the ●ather, and did it upon the Father's 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 palsy, S●n, thy sins be forgiven thee. Observe▪ they were divers persons whose f●ith he saw, and but one to whom he spoke; 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, than they could operate themselves, for no second causes do cooperate one with another, but when each hath the power, than 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 spoke 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 palsy, arise, take up thy bed, and walk, and did the miracle: so that it appears evidently, first, that faith precedes to induce Baptism, before men can come to God, that the coming of Infants is by others feet, that the faith pre-required in Children is other men's faith: for as it is with all supernatural works, there is a passive faith in the object, necessary to make it capable of that miracle, without which, miracles (in the course of God's ordinary doing them) are not wrought, and with which all things are possible, both for ourselves, or those which belong to us; and this faith in a Father is powerful for his Son, in a Master for his Servant. So is it in Baptism; faith is necessary to this great work of Adoption, but faith of others in Children is only necessary: and this is excellently expressed 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 ways of prudent nature, and the universal Axioms 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 themselves, 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 filial 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 Jews 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 God's 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 Paralytic; shall not the faith of the world of the whole Church be effectual to these Infants? A Father begs for his Son, a Master for his Servant, shall not Christian Parents, yea the Christian Church, be heard in prayer for these Infants? God hath Covenanted, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you, John 16. 22. Ask (say Divines) constantly, faithfully, for good things, according to Gods will, non ponenti Obicem, either for himself or others, who do not stop by self-wickedness the power of prayers; can then the constant prayers of the Church, with that unshaken faith of hers, be denied its efficacy, in a thing so pleasing to God, to such persons who actually can put no hindrance to the power and efficacy of that prayer? These things in Christian men cannot be denied; 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 baptised 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 baptised, and they put on Christ. The faith of him who is master of his own actions, makes him be baptised; the faith of him who is master of his Child's 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 itself is not the Covenant.  
Thus I suppose I have spoken abundantly to Mr. hooker's 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. hooker's third Argument answered.  
THomas hooker's 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 baptised. 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 showed, and it is most true, that many men be in a Church, yea in the Catholic 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 add, 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 wilful errors, but their other errors are such as are invincible, and upon that ground beg, with David, the Lord to forgive them their secret sins; I say, such a soul shall be saved, notwithstanding multitudes of errors both in belief and practice. And this Doctrine is taught in the Church of Rome, although mixed with many errors, for which yet they have many such seeming reasons, as to such who are not allowed to converse with men, or read Books of another belief, may be sufficient to excuse them at the last day. So that although the errors taught in the Church of Rome are not safe, yet the fundamentals taught among them, annexed to that Doctrine of repentance, may be accepted by Almighty God, according to his Covenant in Jesus Christ, to their salvation. This Controversy hath been most learnedly handled by Chillingworth, and others: I let it pass therefore, and will examine his Major, which is extremely 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 grossly false; nor can I add 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 several parts, and yet these are true parts of their several bodies, these hands of Richard, those of William: so there may be divers Laymen 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, etc.  
Let me add 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, than 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 show that although the Conclusion which he conceives of an undeniable evidence, were true, (as I have proved it false) yet it would in no means be deduced from that Major, no not with the addition of two or three the most assisting terms I could add 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 add his Minor, But Baptism is the Seal, etc. 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 grossly 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 adds against Mr. Rutherford, I am nothing concerned in, nor do I know what Mr. Rutherford replies 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 essential 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 denied his Minor, and have said, that Baptism is not a bare Sign, as he will and doth confess, but signing and delivering on both sides.  
Now to illustrate this Proposition; in such cases such Seals as I have described, are the form of those Covenants. Consider, that the form of every thing is that which gives it ability to work that which is its proper work; this doth signing, sealing, and delivering do: every Deed is like a dead body before, but when sealed it receives a soul, and is able to work, which it could not do before. Again, the form of every thing is the last addition to it; that which he speaks, in his proof that a form goes before the thing sealed, or rather informed or constituted, and a Seal comes after, is very vain and weak: for it is true, as it being a constituting principle, and a cause of that it produceth, it is therefore, as the Logicians speak, prius naturâ, non effectu, before it in nature, not in time. The Sun is in nature before its light, because its light proceeds out of it; fire before heat, yet they are simul tempore, children of the same birth, and one cannot be without both are. The soul of man is before a man in nature, because it is a constituting cause; yet by them that hold it created, Creando infunditur, & infundendo creature; and they that hold it ex Traduce, give it no preexistence in time to the man; and what he says of a Seal, it comes after: in such cases where Seals are essential, 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 expressed, 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 itself in my thoughts whilst 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 itself, and is the Seal, effective, in its moral existence, to all those moral 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 powerful to all its effects. I did avoid to speak of this intricate business, hoping I might have escaped it; but since I cannot, do thus undertake it now, and define it thus.    


CHAP. XIII. What the Character left in Baptism is; and this Character defined.  
THe Character or Relict of Baptism, by which a Christian is constituted a member of the Catholic Church, is a spiritual power, by which the baptised man is interessed with right, both to receive and do what belongs to a member of Christ's 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 join with the Christian Congregation in devotions and prayers; to demand and receive absolution, the Communion, with all other things which a Christian man doth in his several 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 internal principle, to act what the power directs him to, and no man obtains any such, but by a real 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 dies, the son is immediately invested with the power of his father's Estate, and yet the son is the same in all absolute things, hath no such change in himself. Again, a man is chose a General, 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 baptised person, who receives these mighty powers, we can discover no alteration, yet these powers are in him, by the force of this moral form, which enables him to act or receive such or such things.  
Next let us consider that it is a spiritual power: that Attribute is given it in regard of its object, and end, because the power aims at spiritual blessings, and is conversant about spiritual means, to obtain this end: for as it is called moral, because it considers not natural actions, but such as concern a man's manners, his doing well or ill in relation to God, and that Christian Community in which he lives; so it is spiritual, in respect of the spiritual 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 employed before, that it is not a natural but a moral power: natural powers enable a man to do, as the power to move, to speak; but the moral 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 Christ's Church. This gives him interest in no civil right, nor Office in the Church, but only a right as a member, that is, such a right as by Christ's 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 baptised, he is made capable of these, which otherwise before, and without Baptism, he was not.   

SECT. TWO 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 natural things, found out names for them in his Ten; but being ignorant of spiritual, 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 natural things. But yet because those old names would better please a Reader, I will keep myself 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 baptised man hath.  
Aquinas, with that great Army of learned men who follow his colours, sight against this Conclusion vehemently, with many Arguments seemingly powerful, the nature of which consisting of such matter as is not usual 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 easy sight: and therefore I undertake them. The first Argument urged by Cabrera, (for I will take them where I find them strongest maintained) Cabrera in 3. Quest. 63. Art. 2. Disp. 1. Sect. 3. Conclus. 3. thus argues, There is no motion to a bare relation, (ad relationem per se, is his phrase) for this he produceth Aristotle, 5. Phys. Text. 10. for saith he, all change is to an absolute form, but there is a motion to this Character, (as he and the whole School call it; I term it the relict) for the Sacramental motion is terminated in this Character, as is evident in him who should feignedly take this Sacrament; he receives nothing but the mere Character, no grace, nor any other supernatural quality, but only this Character. I may urge it further, because, as I have showed, this relict may remain in a man who is void of all grace, and full of all impiety, and therefore is something in itself, 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 actual being, that respect must needs arise out of them, (and this indeed must show 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, but there ariseth out of them that mutual relation of fatherhood and filiation; so likewise no sooner is one paper died black, but there ariseth that mutual 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 moral 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 physical or natural 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 baptised 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 baptised: 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 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 baptised 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 Angelical 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 real 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 real 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 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 principle of any real 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 showed, 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 natural relations are not principles of natural actions, nor do they give men natural powers, as by being a Father, a man neither eats, nor drinks, nor sleeps the better; yet relations are principles of moral actions and passions, and give their moral powers interests and duties, which immediately result out of those relations: and of this nature is this, they are moral endowments, spiritually moral, 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 than 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 multiplied 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 itself 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 internal; but in moral relations, whose original is from abroad, there the foundation of this relation must be abroad: as thus, What is the foundation of this man's Mayoralty, but either the Charter by which it is supported, or else the will of the Supreme, 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 baptised 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 God's 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 substances: these accidents, most differing relations, are dispositions to many great actions of piety in Parents, of duty in Clergymen, 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 real 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 forty I think at least. The principal Arguments which are urged against him are Authorities, first, out of the Florentine Council, 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 Council of Trent, Sess. 7. Cap. de Sacr. Ca●. 9 which saith no more than the other, that this Character is a spiritual 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 heresy 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 real 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 Councils 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, than the Priesthood of the new Testament should no otherwise impress its Character, than the Priesthood of the old Law. To this I answer, That I 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 extremely false, that indeed there is no Ens Rationis in the world which doth not terminate a real act: take the most fictitious Chimaera 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 man's reason.  
Again, (saith he) If a Character should be Relatio rationis, than 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 aught to do in that: he can make nations of Pigmies, Silves, Nymphs, and philosophise 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 join a man, an horse, and a bird together; and his busy fancy can bring forth births monstrous, to all the effects of God in nature; yea you may observe these expressions wonderful in the Prophets. Now as the works of God which he made are such as we call real things, both those absolute entities, and those which are relations, for those relations which God hath made by the hand of nature, (as smoke and fire, father and son, and the like, are real relations; so those works which are wrought by men's reason alone, those be Entia rationis, the things of reason, all Chimaeras, all men in the Moon, all imagined things, which have no existence in the world, out of man's head and intellect; these are things of man's making, and attain not that excellency of God's works to be real things, but barely things of reason. Yet besides this, God hath not only given man power to make these strange beings, existing in man's own intellect, but likewise to mix them, and join them with his own real things. So we may see amongst men which are Gods creatures, and real things; men make by the power of their intellect this man a master, that a servant: this humane power gives the particular interests which several men have in these real 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 real duties exacted by him, yet the particular way of interest is allowed to humane institution. Thus have men power to add to divine works and beings, their relations, which so far as they are of humane making, are things of reason, nor real; 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 man's 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 merely as a moral 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 real, such is this: did no man in the world contribute any thing to it, but only that instrumental application; did no man think upon it, yet God had a near particular interest in that baptised person, and would exact his proper duties from him, which were not in a man unbaptised: So than this being a work of Gods, must be a real 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 intent 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 always 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 man's 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 God's 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 spoke too diminishingly of such a most heavenly and divine work, to call it a relation of reason; and therefore 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, wisdom) clear and easy, 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 wisdom, and free it from the encumbrances of Scholastic discourses; and I am persuaded, 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 itself, 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 stamped, which is most invisible, but yet most sure, and therefore the safest way for any man to speak in this case.   

SECT. IU. What is the Subject of this Relict.  
IF any man shall inquire, 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 general by the School, for which I see no Argument of strength objected: That which is said, That if a man baptised, after his death with Lazarus should be raised again, or a Priest who had received Orders; should that man be consecrated or baptised again? ● answer, no; for although there was a suspension of the personality of that man, yet he is the same individual 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 useful to the understanding of any man, we see which way to expound that place before touched, Gal. 3. 27. As many as are baptised 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 rags of their corrupted nature, and clothed themselves with the glorious robe of Christ's righteousness? no, not in act, but in obligation, like him who is admitted into any Corporation, 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 baptised; when they are baptised 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 myself bound to satisfy, 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.    

CHAP. XV. How there may be Pastors of Pastors.  
I Come therefore now to the satisfaction of his fourth and last Argument in this cause, which is thus framed, pag. 75. of the second Part. Chap. 2. If the essentials of a Pastor be communicated by the Eldership or Bishop merely, then there will be Pastor of Pastors, and that in propriety of speech. He no way illustrates this, or proves it, but only thus: for (saith he) the Pastor that is made by them hath reference to them, and dependence upon them, as Pastors only, for it is that which is contended for in the Question in hand, that it should be appropriate to their places to make Officers.  
For Answer, first, to this last; If this were it which is contended for, he should have proved what he contended for: See his proof, how weak by a retortion; if this consequence were true, That if the essentials of a Pastor were communicated by the Elders, etc. then there will be Pastors of Pastors, etc. Then the truth of this ariseth out of this, that because Elders give Pastors their Office, therefore they should be their Pastors: than it holds by the same Logic, that if the people give the Pastor his essentials, than the people should be Pastors of their Pastors, than the flock should be Shepherds of their Shepherds, which would have served well in the Play of the Antipodes, and complete the Jest of that witty man, who said, that heretofore God led the people like sheep by the hands of Moses and Aaron, but now they lead Moses and Aaron like sheep by the hands of the people. And indeed thus it happens with them in this Controversy, they give the people power of ordination and correction of their Pastors, so that the Corporation judges their Mayor, the Scholars whip their Masters, the Sheep have power to expel their Shepherd, the Children to punish their spiritual Parents; than which nothing can be conceived more abhorring to reason. But then leaving the examination of this rerortion, let us consider the Argument itself; If Pastors should be made by Elders or Bishops, than Pastors should be Pastors of Pastors: Doth he mean, that these inferior Pastors should be sheep to the superior? that follows not: see an invincible instance; Suppose a superior Pastor-Shepherd should have power given him to constitute all the inferior Shepherds or Officers, (which is the Polity agreeing in the analogy to all States, and all great families which resemble little States) in this case, it would not follow that the inferior Pastors were sheep, but under-Shepherds, which he governs, not as sheep, but as Officers, somewhat inferior to himself. Secondly, Let it be taken, that the inferior Pastors are governed like inferiors, which are accountable to the superior, this is so far from bringing any inconvenience with it, that it is most consenting to all the Ecclesiastic and Politic Governments which are settled by God in Church or State, and all those prudent Authorities which our wise men, imitating God, have established in any Commonwealth. So that then this Argument falls to the ground; and this being all that he hath urged in this case, he hath said nothing to prove, that the election of the people gives the essentials to an Officer. So I have now ended his third Question, viz. What Ordination is. Secondly, His first Question, Whether Ordination precede Election. Thirdly, His second Question, Whether Ordination gives all the essentials to an Officer. Now I come to his fourth and last, Part. 2. pag. 74. To whom the right of dispensing this Ordinance doth appertain.   

CHAP. XVI. To whom the right of dispensing this Ordinance doth appertain.  
IN the handling of this Question, he seemeth to me to discourse most wildly; yet he proposeth this method; 1. To state the Question, then to confirm his Conclusion. In that which he calleth stating the Question, he discourseth upon some Propositions: The first is, page 76. When the Churches are completed with all the Officers of Christ, the right or rite of Ordination (the margin cannot tell whether it be right or rite) belongs to the teaching Elders; the act appertains to the Presbyters of ruling and teaching Elders, when an Officer is invested in his place; for of these it is expressly spoken, 1 Tim. 4. 14. This is all his proof, of which place I have spoken, I think, abundantly, in the handdling the case of Episcopacy: but consider the Conclusion; 1. He supposeth a Church completed with all its Officers; then there is none lacking, then there can be none elected or ordained by him, because in his Divinity Election is Ordination. 2. He says, that the right of Ordination belongs to the teaching Elders. Mark; here a man would think were a learned distinction, and an heedless Reader would be beguiled by such a distinction of right and act: but, consider, that the right of Ordination is nothing but the Jus, the Authority to do it, for Ordination is an act; how can one have the right to act, and yet the acting belong to others? That which follows is nothing but great words against Bishops, which like froth vanisheth of itself.  
His second Proposition is; Though the act of Ordination belongs to the Presbyters, yet the Jus & Potestas Ordinandi is conferred firstly upon the Church by Christ, and resides in her; it is in them instrumentally, in her originally.  
The right of Ordination just now was in the teaching Elders, but the Jus & Potestas is now in the Church; the Church hath the Latin names, and they the English; I, but the right is firstly in the Church: mark, the Jus, the right to ordain, that is, to act, and then the elders do not ordain, but the Church; the Elders, saith he, instrumentally, she originally; this is not well said: The Elders cannot be the Church's instruments, but Christ's; they cannot be guided or directed by the Church, but are the guides and directors of the Church. Nay, I will go further than these men, and say, the Elders are not physical instruments of this Ordination, but only moral; it's Christ that works all in all, and these only come in like moral instruments appointed by Christ to do this great work, which Christ blesseth; but, to say, they are instruments of the Church, is a strange phrase: they are the Church's Ministers, objectiuè, busied about the Church; but they are Gods Ministers, as I may so speak, subjectiuè, subject only to his commands and directions. I should have wished that he had endeavoured to confirm these Propositions either out of Scripture, reason, or antiquity; but I see neither; neither do I think that the matter will afford either: he indeed names three or four late Writers, which never trouble me to examine, but yet I could answer them if there were need; but the Argument from them is of no force at all, and that the very quotations are of no force, were the persons. See his collection from them, page 77. which perhaps he means a third Proposition, because he saith, Thirdly, In case the face and form of all the Churches are generally corrupted, etc. I need add no more, Posito quolibet sequitur quidlibet; suppose impossibilities, and you may collect untruth enough. Christ hath promised not to leave his Church destitute: it is true, there is no promise to their particular Congregations, but to his Church in general; and therefore to dispute upon an impossible ground, yields little or no strength to that Argument; and so I desist from it.  
His second Argument begins in the end of that page, and proceeds in the next. It is thus urged:  
If the Church can do the greater, than she may do the less; the acts appertaining to the same thing, and being of the same kind.  
But the Church can do the greater, namely, give the essentials to a Pastor, ut supra; Ergo,  
I put his words down verbatim; but now he should have named the less, which must be, or he speaks nothing; dispense this Ordinance of Ordination, and then I would know what that is, if not giving the essentials to this Officer: So here is idem per idem, the Conclusion proved by itself, and therefore must be denied upon the same grounds which I spoke of before; and this is all he puts down for his second Argument.  
His third Argument, page 78. is thus framed:  
That which is not an act of power, but of order, the Church can do: he proves this Proposition; for, (saith he) the reason why it is conceived and concluded that it is beyond the power of the people, is, because it is an act of supreme jurisdiction:  
But this is an act of order, not of power.  
Suppose I should deny his Major; have the people power to do any thing that is an act of order? Indeed, I know no Ecclesiastic power they have, or any spiritual power of acting any thing, that concerns more than their particular demeanour, and all the rest is obedience.  
But then to his Minor: To dispense Ordination is an act of power; for although the thing dispensed (as I have showed) is called an order, yet it is an act of power that gives it, as in a Civil State, the precedency of place is merely an order, but yet it is an act of power in the supreme Magistrate that gives it. Now such is this; although we should conceive it merely an order, yet it must be given by an act of power: but this besides that notion of order, hath in itself great powers which are conveyed by it, of which I have treated somewhat in their distinct notions: and this Argument is absolutely unvalid.  
He hath another Argument which follows, but it concerns only the Presbyterians; yet from thence he takes occasion to asperse Bishops thus:  
It is as certain (saith he) that it cannot firstly belong to a Bishop, which by humane invention and consent is preferred before a Presbyter in dignity, only, if they will hold themselves either to the precedent, (he writes, but I think he means precedent) or pattern whence they raise their pedigree, and it is from Hierom ad Evagrium, Vnum ex se electum in altiori gradu collocarunt.  
How many (to speak modestly) weaknesses may be observed in this Discourse? First, That it is imputed and obtruded upon the defenders of Episcopacy, that they should consent that it is an humane invention, than which nothing is more against their Discourses. Secondly, That they found their opinion only upon this place of St. Hierome, which is as flat against apparent reason, as the other, since this place is commonly objected against them; and although St. Hierome hath spoken enough otherwhere, yet in this Epistle being pressed somewhat with the p●ide of Deacons, who were lifted up above Presbyters, by the sloth and vanity of many, he somewhat passionately defended the cause of Presbyters, and here of all other places speaks the least for Bishops, making the name be used reciprocally in Scripture. But than lastly, he quotes the place false, and by the change of a letter makes him speak what he meant not: to whom it may be answered in this, as Bishop Andrews did to Bellarmine in the like case, Verbum caret litera Cardinalis fide; he saith, Vnum ex se electum in altiori gradu colloc●runt, when it is, C●llocatum Episcopum nominaverunt; in which sense there is a mighty difference: in the first, as if they had placed and given their Bishop his authority which he had; in the other only, that they called him Bishop, who was set over the other Presbyters; so that it intimates, that the name grew distinct not from the first instant of the Office. I am sure I have spoke of this place before, and let us consider it in its fullest and most averse sense that it can abide: consider, that just there in the heat and height of his Disputation against Deacons, and upon that ground his extolling of Presbyters, to which only Order he was exalted, he proves that the difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters, and the exaltation of them, was Apostolical, and from the Apostles derived to his age, from the Church of Alexandria, which was founded by St. Mark, where to his time from St. Mark was a succession of Bishops above Presbyters; and it is a derogation from the reverence due to the Apostles, to call their institutions merely humane inventions, in such things which concern Ecclesiastical Government, concerning which they had that great Commission, As my Father sent me, etc. and in this case it is most weak of all other, since concerning Ordination, St. Hierome in this very Epistle, immediately after these words, saith, Quid facit Episcopus excepta Ordinatione, quod non faciat Presbyter? thus in English, What doth a Bishop except Ordination, which a Presbyter cannot do? Here then a Presbyter cannot ordain; and yet to show the full sense of the words, understand that a Presbyter may do any thing, (I upon a sudden can except nothing, not it may be he when he wrote that Sentence) I say, he can do any thing that a Bishop doth, except ordain; but the affairs of ruling other Elders or judging them, he cannot do by an original; or to use hooker's language, by an Authority firstly ●eated in him, or given to him, but by a delegated; but no delegation can serve the turn in Ordination, because it was given to the Apostles by Christ, in those words, As my Father sent me, so send I you, to give Authority to ordain; and they, and they only who were so authorized by the Apostles, can do it. Thus you see that place out of St. Hierome expounded; his Arguments deduced from thence falls of its self:  
If Presbyters elected and gave first being to a Bishop, than were they before him, and could not receive Ordination from him. At primum ex concessis. Ergo,  
I set down his words, and all his words; where hath he showed that Presbyters elected their Bishop? which yet may be true, and the consequence most weak: for after their Ordination by Bishops, they may elect their Bishop, but not ordain him. Elections may be, and are various, according to humane Constitutions, assigning this or that Pastor to this or that particular Congregation; sometimes the Parish, sometimes the Patron, sometimes a Bishop; but the Ordination, and giving him power to Officiate, must be only by the Bishops: the Bishop ordains and makes a man a Presbyter; a Bishop of the Catholic Church, he may by humane Laws and his own consent be tied to Officiate and execute that Pastoral duty in this particular place: nor can any man show me Authority from Scripture, or the times near to the Scripture-Writers, where any man was instituted and ordained to do these spiritual duties, by any other Authority than Episcopal. Nay I think since the Apostles Age, no considerable Church, or body of Men, did conceive Election to be of validity to do these duties, till now.  
Well then, all the premises considered, which have a full consent of Scripture, and the practice of all Ages to confirm them, conceive with me, that it must be a bold and impudent thing of such men, who dare Officiate in these divine duties, without Authority granted from Christ, which he only gave to the Apostles, and they to their Successors, Bishops; and it is a foolish rashness in those men, who adventure to receive the Covenants of their eternal Salvation from such men, who have no Atturnment from Christ to Seal them.  
If the Case were dubious, which to me seems as clear as such a practic matter can be, I should speak more; but it being clear, I need write no more in this Theme. I intended to have spoken to Mr. Hobbs; but lately there came to my hands a Book of learned Dr. Hammond, entitled, A Letter of Resolution to six Queries; in the fifth of which, which is about Imposition of hands, you may find him most justly censured for that vain and unscholastick Opinion, pag. 384. But the business is handled sufficiently in the beginning of that Treatise, pag. 318. wherefore my pains were vain in this Cause.    

An APPENDIX. etc.  

CHAP. I. In which is an Introduction to the Discourse, and the Question stated.  
SInce I came back to my Study, I found one conclusion delivered in this Treatise, opposed by a learned Scotchman, one Doctor Forbes, in a Treatise entitled Ironicam, and in it he hath divers Arguments not inserted in my former Papers, against this proposition: That it is a proper and peculiar act of Episcopacy to ordain Priests and Bishops, which he denies in his second Book, Chap. 11. Proposition 13. in his Exposition, and proof of that proposition, page 159. And I observing it whilst my Papers are with the Printer, thought it ●it to interpose that which satisfied myself in his Arguments. In the top of the page before named he begins thus. Gradus quidem Episcopalis est juris divini. (here we agree;) Ita tamen ut Ecclesia esse non desinit. Sed esse possit, & sit quandoque vera Ecclesia Christiana in qua non reperitur hic gradus; Here we begin to differ; I say there neither is, nor ever was a Christian Church without a Bishop: and I will now begin to distinguish, there is the universal Church, and there are particular Churches. The particular Churches we may, yea must conceive to be sometimes without Bishops, yea without Presbyters, as by the death of their Bishops or Presbyters, or by such persecutions, as may so scatter them, that they dare not show themselves in their Churches. In such cases these places must needs be without these Magistrates. And yet those Christians who are by such means defrauded of this divine and blessed government, keeping their first faith continue members of the Catholic Church, and of that universal Church, which have and ever shall have Bishops as long as the World stands, so that if that proposition be meant of particular Congregations; It is true they may be without a Bishop: But if the universal, they shall never be by the promise of our Saviour, (I will be with you to the end of the World) without a Bishop. And those particular Churches, which may by such means be without Bishops, may be without Presbyters likewise, upon the same occasions. This I think is clear, I shall now examine his Arguments, which oppose this which I have delivered.   



His first Argument drawn from Scripture answered.  
HE saith, he will prove it before the Institution of Bishops and after. First, before; I am persuaded he can show me no Church before the Institution, for their Episcopal authority was given in its fullness to the Apostles in that language of our Saviour, As my father send me so send I you, as I have explained. All the Commission was given to them, and they imparted all or part of it as they pleased; they were the first and only Bishops, until they settled Provincial Bishops; they were of the whole world, as those latter of particular Dioceses; he proves that there were Churches before Bishops out of Scripture, but it is ciphered Scripture first, Acts 8. 12. There Philip the Deacon (so he terms him) converted Souls to Christ, where was no Bishop: And by his leave, if Philip were but a Deacon, there was no Presbyter neither, and by the By, the Independent Thomas Hooker of New England, and his fellows may take notice, that a Deacon may preach and baptise; for so did Philip in Samaria in that verse. But Reader take notice, that although men may be converted by Presbyters, yea Laymen, any; and when they are converted and baptised, are members of the Catholic Church, and parts of the mystical body of Christ, and have no Bishop resident in that place; yet without a Bishop it cannot be; for the providence of God over the Church is such, as that there shall always be such an authority resident in the Church universal, whither men may in convenient time, such as will be accepted of God, repair for Church-discipline. The next place be vergeth is Acts 11. 20, 21. But there is nothing observable to any such purpose, but only that they who were scattered upon the persecution of Stephen, converted many Souls to the true faith. His third place is Acts 14. 20, 21, 22. He should have added the 23, without the which all the former were imperfect to his purpose, and in that verse are the words which he argues out of, that is, they ordained Elders, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now there was a Church he inverts, and no Bishop; I will tell him there was a Church and no Presbyter, until the Apostles ordained them, and the Apostles Barnabas and Paul ordained these Presbyters, not a Presbytery, and they themselves ●ineran●● throughout the World, visited their Churches with letters and directions, sometimes when they could not personally be present, until they settled Bishops amongst them. His next place urged is Acts the 20. he leaves me to look the verse, but affirms that the Church of Ephesus was governed first by Presbyters, only from that Chap. afterward they had a Bishop, who was called, The Angel of the Church of Ephesus, Apocalyps 2. That which hath any colour for this in this Chap. must be deduced out of the 17th. verse, where it is said: That from Miletum Paul sent to Ephesus for the Elders of the Church, Therefore it seems the Church was governed by Elders at that time; but let the Reader consider whether St. Paul did not Episcopize over them, conventing the Elders before him, and giving them that most heavenly charge; And then consider that these men in the 28. verse are called Bishops, Take heed to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath mad● you Overseers, (we read it;) but it is Bishop in the Original indeed, as I have showed in this Treatise. The words were not distinguished at the first, but they were promiscuously used until the great increase of Christianity, when the name of Apostles began to wear away, and they had more generally settled Churches and planted Bishops over the other Presbyters in the chief Cities, and then these were called Bishops; and indeed every Presbyter, who hath a charge of Souls, is a little Bishop in the Superintendency of his parish, though no● in the nature of the office; he must look to his little fl●ck, as Bishop over them; so that nominally every Presbyter with charge of Sols, is a little Bishop superintend●ing them for their Souls good; But a Bishop is higher, over them and their flocks to take care that he doth his duty in these places of Scripture. I see no manner of Argument to show that a Church may exist without a Bishop, for they had Apostles, and then Bishops in their places.     

CHAP. III. His Argument drawn from Panormitan answered.  
HE than urgeth a Sentence out of Panormitan, Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam, & ordinabant sacerdotes, & consecrabant omnia Sacramenta. Sed postmodum ad schismata sedanda fecerunt se● ordinaverunt Apostoli & crearentur Episcopi. Let me examine this bold assertion of Panormitan, and of St. Hierom, who hath much the same word (Olympia) that was in the first plantation of the Churches; I know no record of any authentic authority in the case, but the Acts of the Apostles or their Epistles, in which I can never find that any man or Company of men, who were barely Presbyters, did ordain Priests, or did perform any Act of Jurisdiction in communi, as he speaks, which would intimate a Sentorian Government; of which, as they urge none, so I cannot imagine what words in these Acts or Epistles should tend thereunto; but then his last Clause I in part yield to, that the Apostles did ordain Bishops, and am confident they did it by divine Right, which was given them by our Saviour, saying: As my Father sent me, so send I you; but whether only as they say, ad sedanda schismata, to appease schism, upon the occasion of some that said they were Paul's, or else for the absolute better government of the Church, (which I rather adhere to) I leave to the Readers Judgement; but in general think it too great a boldness for men to limit God's designs to their weak measures, when God hath not determined or expressed them; therefore such a passage in Panormitan is of no vallidity.   

CHAP. IU. His first Argument to prove their ordination after Bishops were instituted, answered.  
HE proceeds with the second Number of his distinction, to show that not only this was done before Bishops were instituted, but after likewise the same was done; and he gives this reason: for saith the Doctor, Non enim ad esse, sed ad melius esse Ecclesiae necessaria est haec oeconomia, This discipline is not necessary to the being, but well-being of the Church; suppose I grant it, 'tis true, no discipline is necessary to the being of a Christian but Baptism, by which we are made members of that mystical body of Christ, of which he is the head; political Laws, Civil or Ecclesiastical, are not necessary to our being Men, or Englishmen of this Country; but to our happy being in it, we may be Christians and members of Christ's Church, where is no Presbyter as well as no Bishop; As suppose a Diocese and Kingdom conquered by a Pagan, as alas too many have been, not a Bishop or a Priest left remaining, Those noble Christians who remain without them have the being of Christians, but not the well-being of Church-communion, enjoying the blessed Sacrament which requires sacerdotal administration, and likewise Church-discipline, which conduce to the well-being of a Church; but here we see the same necessity of one as the other, for Bishops as Presbyters.   

CHAP. V. An Argument out of Johannes Major answered.  
BUt he proceeds and produceth a place out of Johannes Major de gestis Scotorum, that he should write that the Scots were governed by Priests and Monks until Anno Domini (429.) from whence he collects, that they were two hundred and thirty yens without Bishops, he might have urged other late Writers likewise in it. But I answer to this, that the Registers of that illiterate age were very ill preserved throughout Christendom, but worse in those parts amongst the Picts and Scots, than almost any where, by reason that they were miserably oppressed with the almost perpetual Wars they had with their Neighbours, Britons and Romans, the Saxons, and scarce any eminent man for learning, who recorded any thing, was acted amongst them; and in that Gap of time in which they place this lack of Bishops, their troubles were at the height; for as there was all that space Wars for dominion, so there was persecution for destruction of Christianity, and the Scots in general were banished that Country. The Christians fled every where for safety to the adjacent Isles to Ireland, from whence they came, to Normandy, to Denmark, any where for safety; which it may be, although unhappy to their worldly content, yet advanced the propagation of the Gospel, as it was in the Apostles time upon the persecution of St. Stephen. Well then, I think in this unhappy season, they can find good Record for neither Bishops nor presbyters, but every Christian shifting for himself, and especially those who were in authority, and in Christian office, because they of all others were sought after, and therefore were concerned to hide their heads; besides this, it being the custom of Bishops to place themselves in some eminent Cities, whereby they might be the more eminent, and the better oversee their Dioceses: There were few such in Scotland then, but these Bishops which were then in the Kingdom were forced to inhabit many obscure places. All which considered, it is not possible for any man to expect a pedigree of their Bishops, as it hath been preserved in more eminent Churches, and yet in the best of them there are mighty difficulties to make them certain, but yet they may know, that they might have Bishops in that time and Presbyters ordained by them, although the Register's not apparent; for it is evident out of such stories as we have, that King Lucius the first Christian King we read of in our Nation, when he settled Christianity here, he was to extirpate the former Pagan Religion, used by the Druids in these Country's. Now they had here three Arch-flamins, besides divers other Flamens inferior, according to their Method: so he settled Christianity, he made three Archbishops, York, London, Caerlyon; this last governed Wales and divers adjacent Countries, London the Mediterranean part of this Island of Britain, but York had the Northern part of England and Scotland for his government, and this lasted until Anno (1470) or thereabouts, at which time there was erected one Archbishop at St. Andrews; so that there was a place, to which in case of necessity men might repair for Orders when they would, as we know by our late sad experience in these last sad times; and no doubt but many did where they knew were Bishops, as since the first plantation of Christianity there was in Wales. But to come nearer to this, Crathling King of Scots in Dioclesian's time, which was in this Interim he mentions, entertained all Christians who fled out of these parts of Britain, and g●ve them the Isle of Man to plant in, and settled Amphibolus their Bishop there, and built a Church, and endowed it nobly, who governed all the adjacent Isles, and had a succession of Bishops after him; so that they could never lack Bishops either to give orders to Priests, or to order any thing that were amiss. Beside this, in this time I read of Ninias, who was Bishop of Candida Casa, and of Regulas amongst the Picts; and I think it would be hard, if not impossible, for John Major or any of his followers, to show me so many Presbyters men of Note as I have showed Bishops. It is true for a while after Maximus had extirpated the Scots; upon the cruel, mercyless; malicious; and indeed foolish instigation of the Picts, against the disposition and manners of a Roman Conqueror, there was about forty years, in which there was not seen in that territory so much as a Scotchman or Woman, but all forced to ●ly their Country, and therefore Hollandsilde might well say that their Bishops and Priests were forced to fly away, but that is a sign there they had Bishops then; yet as soon as Fergusus that gallant person came with his conquering Army thither, no doubt he brought all such persons with him as were ●it for the plantation foe the Church, as well as his Kingdom; and therefore I may affirm that there were Bishops within this time, prefixed by Major before the extirpation of the Scots in the time, and after by the Bishop of Man and his successors. As likewise those which that gallant heroic King Fergusius did bring with him; and certainly throughout the world where were Presbyters, there were Bishops either in particular Dioceses or hard by, from whom men might receive orders, or somewhere in Christendom where they might hunt them out, if there were any number of Christians which might provoke that industry, if particular persons, as heretofore have been, and may be cast away or cast in a Pagan or impeopled Land, they may be without a Presbyter, although that may be more easily purchased, yet they may be without him, or having one he may die, and they still continue in a Christian condition, Man or Men, and all the defects of these Officers may be supplied with soliloquies, and a holy conversation with godly Prayers; but the same, though a greater misfortune, is theirs, who cannot have so much as a Priest with them, who may be sufficient for a ●ew Christians; but if many, the other is necessary both to ordain their Priests, and to govern Priests, and them likewise; so that in answer to John Major, Hector Boethius, Bacanan, and all others of that Crew, I answer, there was never any time (I mean any considerable time) in which the Scots lacked Bishops after there was a considerable conversion of them to Christ. But they had Bishops to repair to at York or at Man, Candida Casa, or other where; and then because Major saith that they were governed by Priests only and not Bishops, I think it will be a mighty hard thing for him to show any judicial Act of Government performed by Presbyters, unless they were commissioned by some Bishop, and therefore all he said is only said, and cannot be proved; I have done with this.   

CHAP. VI Another Argument drawn from the Church of Rome, answered.  
HIs next Argument begins page (165▪) where he says: Ecclesiae etiam Romanae sede vacante Presbiteri per undecem menses & quindecem dies post caedem secundi Romani pontificis immanissima persecutione comitia pontificalia Romae prohibente, Anno Domini (259.) I will yield all this, and perhaps that Sea may be vacant a longer space at another time, or any other Sea; but what then, the College of Presbyters may govern; but what can he show from Onuphrius or Platina, Binius, or any other who write those stories, that they gave orders which they set down constantly at the end of every Pope's life? what orders they gave? or can they show that they did confirm, which are proper to Episcopal duties? or only order the pontifical affairs, which they might do; but not as Bishops? they never say they did; his next Reason follows.   

CHAP. VII. His Argument answered drawn from Deacons.  
DE jure divino est ut in Ecclesiis Diaconi sint Clerici Canonici per manuum impositionem ordinati, & per totam vitam adstricti, here he ciphers two places of Scripture, Acts 6. Tim. 1. 3. Now consider that he saith that these are Jure divino; then I have showed Bishops to be by Apostolical constitution; I could trouble this speech, but I let it alone, only this must be questioned, what he means by this, ut in Ecclesiis Diaconi sint Clerici; there is no question but every Church throughout the world acknowledgeth, that Deacons are an inferior sort of Clergy, which is all that these words imports; but I think his meaning is ut sint in Ecclesiis, Diaconi Clerici, that there should be in every Church such inferior Clergy as Deacons; and this the following words with the force of his Argument will make good, and then I can reply to him that there is no such divine Law, that there should be Deacons in every Parochial Church; that he speaks of in the Acts was an occasional office set up for that purpose, and that cannot be a Law, no not a precedent, but upon the like occasion. That in Tim. hath no one word of the ceremonies of ordaining in particular Churches, but only what manner of persons they should be who are to be ordained, this is his Major, now let us examine his Minor.  
In nostrâ tamen Ecclesia reformata Scotanica id haberi nondum potuit propter Ecclesiasticam pa●pertatem bonis Ecclesiasticis laicorum hominum sacrilegio dir●ptis. The force of this Argument runs thus: Although Deacons be a divine ordinance, yet the Scots by reason of their poverty, are not able to maintain such an Officer, and there is the like reason for Bishops in such places where the supreme authority will not allow them: so that necessity may excuse men, even where the divine Laws requires any thing; I must confess that invincible necessity excuseth many Acts, but it will lie upon the Souls of these Churches who live without Bishops to answer at the last day to Almighty God, and make it good before him that their Omission is such; but the difference betwixt Bishops and Deacons is exceeding great; I do not find any one place so much as directing that Deacons should be in every particular Church; in many there is no need of them, where a small congregation of twenty or a hundred may well be os●iciated in the meanest duty by a Presbyter only; but in Cathedral Churches, where are many little offices, for which perhaps we cannot find Presbyters so fit, or that it is not fit that we should take them from their greater employments, to bestow their time upon those lesser duties, in such cases there is a necessity for those lesser offices to be used; but if they shall think their Deacons to be ordained for that employment mentioned in the sixth of the Acts to minister to the poor, I may say that such an employment can hardly complain of necessity by sacrilege, since that out of the collection for the poor he may be allowed a stipend competent for such an office; but then to consider that which he would have to parallel a Bishop, where is any such a small congregation as I have before specified, all things may well be regulated by a Presbyter, and he alone supply all the duties belonging to the Salvation of Souls. But if there should be many such congregations, or that Presbyter who did govern there die in that Government, it is necessary for him or them to seek out some Bishop to authorise him or them for this duty. The upshot of all this is, that Deacons are not instituted as necessary for all lesser Congregations, that Bishops are authorized to give Orders, to dispose of such affairs as are useful or necessary to the Government of little or great Congregations, but especially in the latter, where are usually more, and more dangerous exorbitancies. That which follows in that page is only a Discourse, but no Proof, and so I pass to 161. page, where he labours to prove that the Presbytery, as he calls it, or Company of Presbyters gathered together, may give Orders thus.   

CHAP 8. An Argument drawn from Scripture, answered.  
APostolus Paulus manuum impositionem per quam ordinatus est Timotheus, modo vocat impositionem manuum s●arum 2. Tim. 1. 6. Modo impositionem manuum Presbiterii. 1. Tim. 4. 14. Idest concessus Presbiterorum, sic enim in Novo testamento passim et apud antiquissimos Scriptores Ecclesiasticos. The effect of which is, that St. Paul in those two places, terms the giving Orders to Timothy in one place the laying on of his hands, and in another the Laying on the hands of the Presbytery; which, saith he, was the Company or College of Presbyters, as that word is often used in the New Testament; and amongst the most ancient Ecclesiastical Writers: I have expounded these two places already; and though he say Presbytery is often used for a College, or Concessus of Presbyters, I have showed it is no where so used in Scripture, and for the most ancient Ecclesiastical Writers I would have been glad to have Read, where I should seek them, for remember them I do not; I will trouble the Reader no further with this Argument, it would be but a Repetition.   

CHAP. 9 An Argument drawn from Saint Hierome, answered.  
HE comes next to the formerly examined place of St. Hierome and Evagrinus, but he puts it down more truly than Thomas Hooker doth; and after adds one phrase, which the New-England-man left out, which is, Sicut exercitus imperatorem faciaet, quibus verbis, non abscurè indicat Presbiteros Alexandrinos' initio ordinasse sibi Episcopum; by which words, as an Army makes an Emperor, he doth not obscurely intimate that they did ordain their Bishops. Thus Forbes, if instead of Ordain he had said Elect, I should not have been offended; but to take upon them the power to ordain was too much, unless they had the Armies to maintain their Act by force, as they did; The Soldiers upon the death of the Emperor proclaim and cry up commonly their General to be the Emperor, and make it good with their sword; but would Doctor Forbes or Hierom think that they did ordain or make him Emperor, or rather according to their power elect? it was often seen even in the age about St. Hierom, that two or three Armies in their several places chose so many Emperors: And it is not impossible that the Presbyters in Alexandria might have the Election of their Bishop, as in most places, but the Consecration of him was by others; and mark this place of St. Hierom, the phrase he useth is Presbiteri not Presbiterium, which he calls the ancient Language; howsoever there is nothing in these words which can instance a Consecration from Presbyters, no not in the Simile of an Army, unless a Rebellious Election might pass for a Consecration; I think I need not speak no more to that at this time, but if there be any further need, I foresee that the answering other Arguments will further illustrate this business.   

CHAP. X. An Answer to the Argument drawn from the Consecration of Pelagius the first Pope of that name; in which is discussed the Story of his Consecration; as likewise that no Argument can be drawn from that Act, That Pope's Consecrations and Elections have been erroneous.  
HE proceeds, page 162. Pellagium hujus nominis primum Romanum Episcopum ordinarunt duo Episcopi & unus Presbyter Ostiensis nomine Andreas qui tanquam Episcopus munus illud ordinationis obivit dum non invenientur tres Episcopi qui secundum Canon's Pelagium ordinarent. The sum is, that this Pope, when there could not be three Bishop● got, which according to Canons should join together in the ordination of a Bishop, there being no more to be found, they took in a Presbyter to officiate with them: and therefore he thinks Presbyters may ordain; for answer, let no man think that I will undertake to defend the Consecrations of Rome, it is a task too hard for me to manage, or I think any other, and materially no doubt but this was irregular, yet it may be excused and perhaps justified by what I shall say; take therefore the Story of these times.  

SECT. I. Where is the Story of the matter of fact in his Consecration.  
THe first Bishops of Rome who succeeded St. Peter were chosen by the Clergy, the Nobles and people, who were Christians, and durst assemble together for such purpose; and indeed were men of such excellency that they accepted that Bishopric with a design to be Martyrs, which they were, many, one after another; afterwards when it pleased God to bless the Church with Christian Emperors, they proved Nursing-fathers' too their Bishops, and under them the Bishop grew great; which being discerned, the Emperor's considering what a great stroke the Bishop of Rome had in the management of all affairs of the Empire, they put in for an Interest in their Election, and there was no Pope elected but by their approbation, until the Emperor granted his Congee de liere (as I may term it.) Now at this time Italy was full of Soldiers. Narses that gallant General of Justinians lay then about Rome, whose favourite Pelagius was; and Doctor Forbes must forgive me, if I think he is somewhat mistaken in the Story, when in the next page he writes that Pelagius was but a Deacon, when Binius calls him archdeacon; and again where he saith there, that he was chosen by the Command of the Emperor Justinian, when it is recorded by Platina that after the Election he sent to Justinian at Constantinople to excuse the Consecration without his Approbation, which could not be had in those busles; but Narses was as good as Justinian, and 〈◊〉 doubt but by him the will of Justinian might be intimated well (Rebus sic stantibus) Pelagius must be the man, he lay under the scandal of being accessary to his Predecessors death, upon this the generality of the Bishops refuse to be present at his Consecration, only two, and these took a Presbyter to them, and ordained Pelagius in that Act, rather complying with the Canon so much as in them lay, than violating it in Contempt. It is a sure Rule, Silent Leges inter Arma, so they are not Gods Laws. Now it is evident that there was the terror of that Army upon them; for the story related both by Platina and by Binius, and others, affirm, that a multitude of the Nobles as well as the People and Clergy fled, because their Consciences would not allow them to be assistant. And the terror of the Army would not permit them to oppose; that this ordination was not questioned was, because the Pope purged himself of that Scandal afterwards, and so that which made them desert him at his Consecration being removed, made them wink at small faults when he was Pope. Thus the Story being cleared for matter of fact, I will examine this Argument logically; it must run thus:   

SECT. II. The Argument discussed, and his Major disproved.  
HIs argument termed must be thus: That which was acted in the Consecration of a Pope, that is lawful for us to do; but a Presbyter did Consecrate Pope Pelagius, therefore he may Consecrate a Bishop or a Presbyter with us: for the Major it must run so; for there can be no difference of Pope Pelagius from other Popes of Rome; I deny the Major then, and I will disprove it by the Predecessors of Pelagius, Vigillius: his Consecration cannot be lawful, for he was intruded into the Papacy by Justinian the Emperor, and Belisarius his other General, his Predecessors; Silverius being by violence forced from Rome, cast into banishment, and so died in misery starved as Baronius. This Vigillius was put into his Chair, and yet for all that Silverius being of a mighty invincible Courage▪ got a few Bishops together, and excommunicated Vigillius; from which he never released Vigillius; Silverius dies, Vigillius then renounced his former Election, and by the interest of Bellisarius, Vigillius was again Elected, being an Excommunicated Person, and abominated for that and many other Crimes, as even Baronius confesseth, who was his Friend in his story as much as he could. Now then Doctor Forbes his Major fails, the instances in the Church of Rome must not be precedents, nor are they Arguments for us to build upon: I but he will and doth say this, If so, Pelagius would have been punished by his successor, if it had been nought. I answer, that doth not follow; there is not that Law of God or Man which hath not been violated unquestioned: I remember Binius writes of it, that it had never been so before; Baronius only tells the story, but passeth not his Judgement upon it. They mention the Scandal he lay under, it being that he was accessary to Vigillius his death. They mention his purgation which he made, as doth Platina, and in that it is evident, that they who were scandalised at his imagined offence, were satisfied with his purgation; and so we see that block of offence being removed which made him unfit to be Chosen and Consecrated Pope, they never questioned his Consecration its self; but this is sufficient for satisfaction to his Major. Now let us come to his Minor; And here we must examine whether this Presbyter did consecrate the Pope or no; And first we will undertake that Question, whether it be essentially necessary to the being of a Bishop that he should be Consecrated by three Bishops?    


CHAP. XI. SECT. I. That Question entered upon, Whether three Bishops are necessary to the Consecration of a Bishop.  
GAbriel Vasques, a very learne Jesuit, and one that Doctor Forbes acknowledgeth much to countenance his opinion, in his 243. disp. upon the third of Thomas, Cap. 6. Page 706. justly complains, that Pauci ex nostra Schola, few of our Schoolmen have handled this Question exactly, or delivered it defined in their writings; I shall undertake him, and endeavour now to show a more clear truth than I have observed delivered by others; for indeed, because some Canons of Counsels seem to make for it, and they have been swallowed without chewing, and have not been ex mined, it hath passed undoubtedly by a general practice in all quietly settled Churches. But I much mistrust that there is not an absolute necessity in persecuted and unsettled Churches; after Vasques had produced Arguments against this necessity, he puts his own determination fully, Mihi tamen probabilior visa est sententia; that opinion seems to me to be more probable of them, who say, first, that to the right ordination of a bishop three Bishops at the least are necessary by Divine Law, as the ordinary Ministers but by commission (he means from the Pope) two may do it, or one; thus far he. I will take it peicemeale; And first I say this Canon, that three Bishops should Consecrate a Bishop hath no Colour to challenge a Divine Right; for that can have a lawful claim to a Divine right, must either draw it from God himself prescribing it, or else from such men who were immediately authorized by God, as the Apostles; for if we will go further, we must make all Humane Laws Divine; for if the next to the Apostles should have their Dictator termed Divine, from their authority, the same reason will be for the next to them, and so to the last, and so even the Prescriptions of the now living Bishops should be Divine, than which nothing can be more abhorring to reason. Well then, what I have said before, will serve likewise here, that is, that what Divine Laws were established by the Apostles we may find in the Acts and Epistles; now there is no such Decree observable any where in them; The Commission given to the Apostles, by which they and their Successors were and are authorized to send others, was not given to them conjunctim, as if they should act only altogether, much less was there specified that three of them should join in it; but without doubt separately every one had this power given, to punish, to forgive Sins, to Baptise, give the Communion, Ordain; and we find upon this foundation it is that St. Paul gave Commission to particular persons, to Titus, to Timothy, and the like; But I need not trouble the Scriptures about it; I do not find the Patrons of that opinion producing any; And therefore I wonder that Vasques did term it a Divine Right, when he attempts no where to prove it, nor his Predecessors or Followers, in this Conclusion.  

The Consecration of St. James to be Bishop of Jerusalem, discussed.  
BUt they urge the Decretal Epistles of Anacletus, and out of him Amcetus, that St. Peter, James, and John, (I mean James the Great, as the other is called James the Less) that these three Apostles did Consecrate the other James Bishop of Jerusalem: and St. Peter, by whom he saith himself Anacletus was made Priest, told him, that it should always be a Law hereafter that there should be three Bishops to Consecrate one; I do wonder if this were so, how St. Peter's pretended Successors should be bold to dispense with this Law of St. Peter's; of which we shall see more hereafter; but it is well known by learned men how unlike these Epistles are to be these men's writings upon whom they are fathered: But I acknowledge the story so far as it affirms the Consecration of St. James, for by better authority than theirs it is justified, which is by Eusebius, lib. 1 cap. 1. But Eusebius saith not that St. Peter gave it for a Rule for the future, which this Anacletus seems to enforce; Nay Eusebius doth not name this Anacletus in his Relation, which if there had been any such Epistle extant in his time, no doubt but he would have done as well as Clemens; but I grant the story; and as Adam Tanner a learned Jesuit speaks, Tom. 4. Scholasticae theologiae disputatione prima, Quest. 3. Dubio. 2. Numero 3. It might be done ad quandem solemnitatem ordinis Episcopalis; I may say Episcopatus ejus, than whom never man deserved more honour in his Consecration, for he is esteemed the father of that Epistle which goes under his name, than he was the Brother (that is the nearest kinsman) of our blessed Saviour; then a man so honoured for virtue, that he was called James the just, and so esteemed by Josephus a Jew, who attributes the great Judgement of God upon the Jews in the destruction of Jerusalem to their iniquity of stoning that just man; so that if ever there was a man to be honoured with so glorious a Consecration, it was he. But give me leave by the By to say, that from this I can add one strong Scholastic reason to the excellent industry of Doctor Hammond, who in his Preface to St. James the Apostle proves from antiquity that this Bishop of Jerusalem was none of the Twelve, either the son of Zebedee or Alpheus; I can add this, for if he had been any of them it is not reasonable to think, that he had need of a new Consecration to a Bishopric, whom Christ himself had ordained an Apostle, or our Saviour made him only Bishop of Jerusalem, as many affirm; let no man think that he could be Consecrated again by these three; for Orders must not be given twice; and no man can think that either our Saviour's Ordination to make him an Apostle, or Bishop, was insufficient; but let it be which you will, it is not needful to trouble the Reader with discussing the truth of it, nor indeed in Actions so far remote, where are such great Authorities of both sides. Is it possible to conclude any thing peremptorily? I therefore let it pass, and for the present grant he was Consecrated by these three. But what can follow but this, that so great a Person, of such an extraordinary merit, was so honoured by these Apostles, who (as Clemens saith) did not contend for the honour themselves, but pitched upon him to be the first Bishop of that Sea, which without doubt was then the most glorious Episcopal seat in the World; but is there any rule given that every Bishop should have that honour done him, which was given to St. James?    

SECT. II. The first of these are called Apostolical Canons, examined.  
THe next thing in order to this dispute to be examined, will be the first of those which are called Apostolical Canons; the words of which Canon are (Let a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops;) this Canon comes next to be examined, and by them who require three Bishops to the Consecration necessarily; it is answered, that these two Bishops are required, but with an addition of an Archbishop, two Bishops & an Archbishop. So Cardinal Bellarmine in his fourth Book de Ecclesia militante, which is, de notis Ecclesiae cap. 8. and from him the latter schoolmen with one consent. But let a man consider whether this be not a violence to the Text, when the name of Archbishop is not mentioned in these Canons, nor in the Scripture; for if these Canons were of the Apostles Constitution▪ then they must be penned in the language of Scripture-phrase, bearing the same date with them, and so not to vary from their sense; for although Archbishops are of great necessity, and antiquity, where there are many Bishops to keep them in peace and unity with Ecclesiastical discipline, so a Patriarch over them; yet neither he, nor a Patriarch, have any thing but jurisdiction, by Ecclesiastical authority, nothing of Order by divine right more than a Bishop, and therefore no more necessity of him than another Bishop, in the Consecrating of a Bishop, but only by the Canons of the Church, and therefore it is a violence offered to that Canon by them who have a veneration of it.   

SECT. II. Some Canons of Counsels examined.  
THe next thing to be considered will be the fourth Canon of the first Council of Nice; Episcopum apparet maxime quidem ab omnibus qui sint provincia constituit, si autem hoc sit difficile, vel propter urgentem necessitatem, vel viae longitudinem, tres omnino in eundem locum congregatos, absentibus quoque suffragium ferentibus, scriptisque assentientibus tunc electionem fieri, eorum autem quae conficiunt confirmationem in una quaque provincia, à metrapolitano fieri. The meaning of the Canon is, that a Bishop ought to be constituted by all the Bishops of that Province, if it be possible; but if that be difficult to get the Bishops together, either by urgent occasions, or by reason of the length of the Journey, yet three being together in the same place, and the other which are absent, giving their suffrages in writing, than he shall be chosen; This Council was held Anno Christi (325.) according to Baronius, when it is not material to our business; There are divers opinions, majus & minus, non variant speciem, be it more or less; we see a Metropolitan, and they were before certainly. Let us now examine the Canon, which indeed I cannot but wonder how it should be arrested to such a sense, as if it did import a necessity that three Bishops should consecrate every Bishop. To which purpose here Belsarman; who was Patriarch of Antioch, and surely had great reasons to understand the great Counsels, better than Cardinal Bellarmine, Binius, or any other of these latter learned men; he saith in his Notes upon the word (constituit) That the Council here provides against Popular Elections, which indeed were very scandalous, and oft bred tumults, as almost in all cases they do; the Council therefore order the Election of a Bishop to the Bishops of the whole Province, which if that cannot be had, to three at the least of that Province, and the Archbishop is to confirm the Election; But he refers the Reader to the 13th Canon of the Council at Carthage; the words of the Canon in him are these.  
Non licere Episcopum nisi a multis eligi; sin autem nec esse si●, etiam vel a tribus eligatur; Aurelius Episcopus dixit, quod adhoc dic it vestra sanctitas, ab omnibus Episcopis dictum est, quae ab iis qui nos Praecesserunt constituta sunt, debent a nobis observari, quae quidem temere & inconsulte, qui in quavis Provincia prima tum tenent, audent, negligere: Multi ergo Congregati Episcopi Episcopum eligent, si autem necesse sit tres Episcopi in quccunque loco fuerint primatis jussa eligent Episcopum: Et si quis in alique propriae consessioni vel subscriptioni adversatus fuerit, ipse seipsum honore privabit. I need not trouble the Reader with a Translation, his notes will clear all; his observation here is, that the word which is here rendered Eligi in Latin, is in the original Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first of which signifies Election, by holding up the hands; the other ordination by imposition of hands; so then according to his understanding of that word (which is the usual sense in almost all Writers) these Canons are understood of Election, not of ordination. But then observe his reasons, which he delivers afterwards; you may find that it is necessarily to be understood so in these Canons, both of Nice and this of Carthage; the Nicene saith, that all the Bishops shall send their Suffrages by writing; what can they ordain by Suffrages? It is not possible but they may Elect. It is as clear here, for saith Belsarman, in the end of this Canon it is showed, in which it is provided, that if any Bishop shall oppose his own confession or subscription, he shall deprive himself of his honour, which subscription is not to Ordination or Consecration, but to Election; for indeed conceive if you can, how a man should be ordained by Subscription; a man may Subscribe his consent to an Election, and give his voice, which may in many cases pass in an Election; a man may Subscribe that such a man shall be ordained, which indeed is Election, but a man cannot be ordained by Subscriptions: so that here you have the authority of the learned Patriarch, which persuades much with me you have the sense of the words, and his reason, which may have the authority to persuade any reasonable man; and then I am sure there is nothing in these Canons to enforce three Bishops to the Consecration of a Bishop, but only to the Election: and here, as I cannot but wonder how these men should deduce the necessity of three Bishops to the Consecration of a Bishop, so I do admire that none of them, neither Bellarmine, Binius, Vasques, Hurtado, Occhogamia, Occandus, nor multitudes of others, which have urged this Canon at the fourth of the Council of Nice, have so much as taken any notice of Balsamans' exposition of it, to return any but pretended satisfaction to it. The rest of authorities which are produced I slight, as not worthy the troubling the Reader with the naming of them; but I shall meet with the Chief hereafter.   

SECT. IV. The second part of Vasques his Proposition examined, that the Pope may dispense with the triplicity of Bishops.  
BUt now the second part of Vasques his Proposition, is, That although it be by Divine right that three Bishops should Consecrate a Bishop, yet the Pope may dispense with it, and allow two or one to do it; as in the case of Austin the Monk, when he came into England, but afterwards the first Archbishop of Canterbury, Pope Gregory the first, say they, granted him a dispensation to Consecrate Bishops alone, until there were a good number to join with him. How can the Pope dispense with Divine Law? this is too much; but let us consider the Story, as it is set down even by the Admirers of the Pope's greatness; Austin the Monk being made Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote to the then Pope Gregory the first, a very learned man, and one whose Works are full of devotion, and indeed by whom he was sent first hither, to satisfy him in divers Questions of which he doubted, how he should demean himself in his Government in England; amongst which this was one, Peto si long inquitas it ineris long a interiavit, ut Episcopi facile non possunt convenire, an debent sine aliorum Episcoporum presentia Episcopos ordinare. In English thus; I require if the great length of a Journey should interpose itself, that Bishops cannot meet easily together; whether he ought without the presence of other Bishops, ordain Bishops himself. Mark, here the Question is put somewhat after the language of the former examined Canon, upon the difficulty of the Journey. I need not put down the Pope's answer verbatim, but it is to this effect; that the having no Bishops in England but himself, might do it; but he should take care to settle them near together, that hereafter there might be no excuse, and when they were near, they should meet together, to Celebrate that Spiritual Marriage of that Bishop; this is called a Decretal Epistle: but consider, Reader, if there be a word like as Decree in this or any other Answer in that Epistle, but only an Advice upon Reason. Thus the Pope's Decrees having been made Laws, his Counsels come to be Decrees; in this Epistle there is not one word like a Decree, but only an Advice to him; nothing like a Commission, as Vasques, and divers others phrase it, for than it should be mandamus, or concedimus potestatem, we Command or grant you power; nor of dispensation, as Cardinal Bellarmine, and others, for than it should be in that language, we dispense with you, or non obstante, notwithstanding any Law to the contrary, but here is no such thing; but sometimes he saith, fraternibus vestra, your brotherhood knows this or that, and the like, and here shows him the reason why he should come by more Bishops to assist him, (although I think he was deceived in his supposals, for there were Bishops in Britain at that time; howsoever that reason was good to authorise Austin at that time, and the like may be good for any man in the like Condition; for this triplicity of Bishops to Consecrate, cannot be necessary to Consecration, according to any Divine Constitution, but only Ecclesiastical, which cannot be understood to exact impossibilities, or else to make a particular Church to lose all the benefit of Episcopal Government; But then consider the language of all these men, and see how inconsistent it is with their first principles, that there must be three Bishops by Divine right, to the Consecration of a Bishop; can the Pope dispense with what is due by Divine authority? or can he grant a Commission to act against Divine Laws? I hope they will not say so, unless they will set themselves against all that is called God, and make an earthly god above our Father which is in ●eaven; then let us consider how it was possible that Christian Religion could have been planted, unless the power essentially had been in one Bishop to Consecrate: when Timothy, Titus, and St. John, who you will, that went about with the power of Tongues into unknown Countries, to plant Religion, and God blessing their industry, the Churches increased, learned Men were Converted, fit to make Bishops of. Can you think that these Itinerants would suffer them, like Austin here in England, to send to Rome for advice in such a matter, or much less for a Commission, or dispensation, to use their Language? it is not imaginable; nay when a Church is in persecution, (I know a little what belongs to that) can they send to many Bishops in the same Province, to send their votes in writing; or without that, there can be no Consecration? It cannot be; I conclude thus, although in a settled Church there is a great decency in practiseing, according to that Rule of having three Bishops at a Consecration, yet in these Cases it is not necessary, and it may be validly acted by one alone, and no Commission or dispensation is necessary.  
And now Reader, having walked through this intricacy, I cannot think myself nor the Reader satisfied, until I have applied another Question; which is, what is it which so enables a Consecration, that we may say when that is done; this man is a Bishop.    


CHAP. XII. In which is discoursed what is essentially to the constitution of a Bishop.  
THe Question introduced. To understand which (that I may write distinctly, take this for a Praecognitum, that since the power was given to the Apostles in these words, As my Father sent me, so send I you: Therefore when this power is given by Apostles and Apostolical men, than this dignity is conferred upon Men, But again, because that it is necessary for the Church of Christians, not only that they have the power, but that this power should be so administered, as that other men who are to receive blessings from it, should be able to take notice; (for else how is it possible to repair to the wells head, unless they can know where it is) that there is such a blessing bestowed upon them; therefore this power must be given by some such means as are visible, and that men may discern when it is granted: for if it should be given by the Apostles, without any outward sign, only with a vehitie, a kind of secret grant, it must be most uncertain to other men, because each man may pretend to it, and there is no confuting but by some outward sign, which being proper to this Action, may be an infallible assurance that then and not till then it is given: and here will be required a diligent and curious inquest; there are divers things pretended to, which are not right, and they being severed, we may then safely pitch upon what is the truth; to do which, let us first consider that Ad●m Tanner in his fourth Tome of Scholastical Divinity, upon the third of Thomas, and the supplement, Disp. 7. Quest. 2. Dubio. 4. handling the doubt, what is the matter and form of a Priest and Bishop, at the last page (1900.) he names as a Concessum, and things to be supposed, eight Actions at the consecration of a Bishop: he quotes the Roman Pontifical for it; I will not set them down, the writing them is too much pains; but what hath grown in reputation amongst Scholars, I shall examine. But yet I must make another pause.   

SECT. II. A discourse of Petrus Arcadius illustrated and applied.  
THere is a learned man, one Petrus Arcadius, who hath writ a Book with a most pious title, which is of the concord betwixt the occidental Church, or the Latin and oriental, under which head● he reduceth the African, and sometimes the Rutherian, in the administration of the Sacraments, which controversy he hath very industriously and happily handled in very many things in particular in this business; having handled before the form used in both Churches, at the ordination, title 6. de Sacramento ordinis, cap. 4. he comes to reconcile them, and doth it upon this foundation I am now handling, that is, that they agree in the essentials, that is, the Doctrine of all the three Churches, and the difference is only in accidentals; this saith he, may be done, first, by saying our Saviour did so institute this Sacrament, that the Consecration of Ministers should be by certain words and outward signs, by which it should sufficiently appear to what part of Ministry; they were ordained but he left it to the arbitrement of the Church, what these signs and words must be, this he illustrates by the Council of Trent, wherein S●ssion 23. Canon 3. the Council decrees the thing, that holy ordination should be made with signs and words, but determines not what; so that it excludes not the Grecian or African Ordination. Again he illustrates this by Marriage most rightly, (for they make Matrimony a Sacrament, as well as ordination) there the word of God establisheth for men how they should live in holy wedlock, but never determines what shall be the manner, with what words or signs they shall be married, but leaves that to the determination of every Church, yea Commonwealth; thus you may perceive his Conclusion how strengthened. I will set down my Judgements and reasons, and so pass on: first then, that our Saviour did institute many holy offices in themselves, you may say (even his Sacraments) so as there may be divers Ceremonies, according to the prudence of divers Churches, is apparent; for let us consider Baptism, the matter, as it is positively set down in the Institution, is water, this must not be altered; and that which is called the form, which is the words by which this Baptism is administered are in part set down; it must be, In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; but now whether it should be, I Baptise thee, as the Latin Church; or, let the Servant of God be Baptised; or he is Baptised, which are severally used in other Churches, is not determined by our Saviour, and the words of either do fully express the meaning of Baptism; so that neither doth the Latin Church re-baptize those who are Baptised by the Grecians, nor the Grecians such as are Baptised by the Latins, although both are bitter enough one against another; so that you may see, there may be variation in the administration of these duties in their Circumstances, where there is a Communion in the Substance; and truly for my part I think in such a man who lives in either of these Churches, it would be a Schismatical Act for any of them to vary from that usage, which is in the Churches wherein he lives; for although these things are indifferent in themselves, yet when they are determined in the Gree● Euthology, and the Roman Rituals, they are not indifferent to them which live amongst them in their several Churches, but a varying from the Church wherein they live makes a breach of Charity and violates the Band of peace.   

SECT. III. Another Precognitum explained.  
ANother Introduction may be, that whatsoever is instituted by Scripture, in any of these holy performances, whether as form or matter must not be altered, nor can lawfully by any man; for since the blessing which is bestowed, is only God's gift, and Man is only ministerial in it; he must act according to that Method whic● God hath prescribed, and that only having his Covenant, can bring the blessing.   

SECT. IV. Another Observation expounded.  
ANother note may be that Additions explicatory, so they are certainly such, and are not intruded for essentials, do not destroy the notion of that which they explain; it is necessary, for otherwise why should men expound the Scriptures in Sermons or otherwise; yea, our Saviour expounded his own Parables, and after his exposition to his Disciples, we write further Comments ourselves, but that there is in none of these an alteration but a dilatation of the conceit of them; these things being premitted, I shall return where I left at Tanner and the Roman pontifical.   

SECT. V. Many mistakes about Ceremonies in the Church of Rome.  
IT is an apparent truth that the Church of Rome doth very of● clog Divine duties with so many Ceremonies, and its mischief is frequent in that mischance, that even their learned writers do in a little time grow o such mistakes, as to think that some of those which are Ecclesiastical Ceremonies, only instituted by the authority of the Church: to be the essentials, and that which is essential, to be but accidents; this particular business I have in hand will demonstrate this conclusion.   

SECT. VI It is an Error to think that the Anointing the Bishop's Hand, is a necessary Essential.  
THe third Ceremony by Tanner, out of the pontifical, is the Anointing of the Bishop's hand, which is to be Consecrated in these words, ungantur manus istae oleo Consecrato; that is when he Anoints his hands, he saith, let these hands be anointed with holy oil: And Francis Silvius, I must say truly a learned man and most perspicuous writer in his fortieth Quest. upon the supplement of Thomas Art 5. in resp. ad 8m., saith that the essential Consecration of a Bishop consists in this unction, and the words pronounced with it; (for the Church of Rome calls the outward sign the matter, and the words the form) and this to be it, he proves by a very strong Argument against the Romanist: because in the whole frame of Ordination, the Bishop Consecrated, is cal●ed in the pontifical until then, Bishop Elect only; But then absolutely Bishop from that time; and his Argument is as weakly answered by Tanner where before quoted that, Neque obstat quod in pontisicali ordinandus Episcopus post unctionem primum vocatur Consecratus, antea vero solum Electus id ●nim ad scriptorem Rubrici & modum l●quendi pertinent, plus non significat quam ante unctionem nondum esse plene Consecratum, That is that the Language of the Pontifical aught to be attributed to the writer of the Rubric, and that there is no more imported in it, but that before the Unction he is not fully Bishop: Truly I think Silvius doth desire no more, but if men can shift off such grave and weighty observations with saying it was a fault in the Writer or Printer; there can no authority be produced but may be so answered: But he is more to bl●me who transcribed it false, but why hath it not been amended, and that fault corrected: The truth is, the Pontifical itself is to blame, there is no such thing in that much more ancient Ponti●ic●i, I mean the fourth Council of Carthage, Canon 2. I will put down t●e words, because I am likely to make use of them hereafter; the words are these.  
Episcopus quum ordinatur duo Episcopi ponant & teneant Evangeliorum codicem super caput & cervicem ejus & uno fundente benedictionem reliqui omnes Episcopi qui adsunt, manibus suis caput ejus tangant. That is, a Bishop when he is ordained, two Bishops shall put and hold the Book of the Gospel over his head and neck, and one giving him the blessing; the other Bishops shall put and hold the Book of the Gospel over his head and neck, and one giving him the blessing; the other ●ishops which are present shall touch his head with their hands; here is not any word of anointing, and therefore according to this Canon neither of these Unctions, I mean head and hand are necessary, for although the Canon may name somethings which are not necessary, yet it is not to be imagined that it should leave out any thing which is necessary.   

SECT. VII. Another Error concerning the Book, confuted.  
THere is therefore another opinion which has gained great Reputation with many Schoolmen, and that is of some who place the essentials of a Bishop's Ordination in the first ●eremony named in the Pontifical, and that is the same with that of the Council of Carthage; to wit the putting the Book upon the Head of the Consecrated Bishop, and the laying on of Hands, and the Benediction; this certainly is most conform to that Canon of Carthage, but as I said before, as it is not reasonable to think that these Canons should omit any essential thing by Divine Apostolical institution; so it is reasonable to conceive it may add something Ecclesiastical to that which is Divine, so it be not destructive to the foundation, of which nature I shall show there is somewhat in this Canon: For the Book which was imposed on the head and shoulders of the Bishop to be Consecrated, is the Book of the Gospel, or four Evangelists; Now it is impossible that that Ceremony should be necessary, because what is necessary to any thing must agree, to all of that kind which this cannot, because there were Bishops when this Book was not written; yea when not one of the gospels were written, this therefore cannot be essential to the Consecration of a Bishop, which must needs follow his Consecration; this Argumenr is taken notice of by divers although not in this ●ase, but in that which concerns a Deacon, where the Book of the Gospels is delivered at his Ordination to the Deacon, and by most of the Church of Rome is made the matter essential to that Ordination as they call it, or as we, the outward sign of it, you see this Argument which they are pinched with: Let us consider how they shift from it, Vasques in his (238) Disp. Cap. 4. Number 43. and Ochogamia in his Book of Sacraments in his title of Orders Cap. 4. out of him affirmed that this Order of Deacons, (as well as is evident of Bishops) was before the Gospels were written, and they were then ordained without that Ceremony, but by a Dispensation of Christ, that is Ochogamia's Phrase; but Vasques by a Commission of his, the Phrase doth not materially differ; with these kind of shifts any thing may be affirmed, can they show any the least word in the New Testament intimating any such probability, a dispensation must be upon a former Law, there could be no Law made to ordain with giving Gospels before either all, or any of them were written, and it is most evident that none of them were writ, when the first Bishops were made, Gasper Hurtado goes therefore another way to work, and although he grants that at first they were ordained only by the imposition of Hands, yet he saith that it is probable that afterwards Christ instituted, that when the Gospels were writ, they should be delivered to the ordained: it is an easy thing to say, it is probable but he should give a reason why we should think it reasonable; I have reason to think that when the Gospels do abundantly deliver to us such things which are necessary for us to know concerning the will of Christ, and there is no such thing in the Gospels, and they would be of great ease to the satisfaction of such men as expect to receive Divine blessings from some men in holy Orders; It is necessary that they should have some means chalked out to them, by which they might be assured, that these are such hands by which they expected those blessings are promised to be given them; but above all others, I wonder at Henricus Henriques, who is so bold in his sum of moral Divinity Lib. 1●. Cap. 8. Tit. 1. in his Comment to affirm, that probabilius videtur quod in primitiva Ecclesia dabatur Diacono charta in qua continebantur Mysteria fid●i quae habentur in Evang●lio, which is, that it seems probable, that in the primitive Church there was given to the Deacon som● paper in which were contrived written the Mysteries of Faith which are in the Gospel: He saith it seems so, I would ask to whom it seems so; certainly to no man living fifteen hundred years after and upwards, nor did ever any man say, he saw any such Scripture, nor heard of it before; It cannot therefore seem probable to any man, for sure such a Scripture would have given a Glorious light to many other Doctrines which now lie in darkness, I therefore love occandus for a clear and ingenious con●ession in this point who in quartum sententiarum ●ist. 24. Proposition 1. Page 83. saith thus, Contra hoc est unum Argumentum cujus solutionem fateor me nescire, & gaudenter & libentur ignorabo. Against this Conclusion, which is that the delivery of the Book should be essential to the Order of a Deacon; against this there is one Argument whose answer I know not, and am cheerfully and willingly ignorant of. And then he urgeth this Argument of mine, and shows that even St. Mathews Gospel who was his tutelar Saint, was not writ when Deacons were instituted, he calls him Pater meus Spiritualis, this ●s it was honest, so it was ingenious; and then he quotes Durandus rightly in Quartum Dist. 24. Quest 3. who agrees with me much in my opinion concerning this matter, and saith, that in the Arician Diocese where he was Bishop; this Ceremony of the Book was never used, so that there is neither Scripture for it, nor any universal Tradition, and therefore hath no strong foundation; the chiefest argument that ●ives me any consideration, is that Canon of the forth Council of Carthage, of which I spoke before, where in express terms, the use of the Book of the Evangelists is enjoined in the ordination of a Bishop; but doth that follow, it is therefore necessary essentially, I think I have writ before that it is reasonable to think that Eminent Council consi●●ing of 200. and odd Bishops many of them as eminent for learning and piety as the world h●d; we may justly think that such a Council would omit no essentially mater●all circumstance, but that it should add nothing to the Apostolical Canons is not reasonable, and this might now be, because now that Book was extant which ●t the first in the Apostles time was not, so that I am confident that such who lived in obedience to that Church ought to observe it, there being no opposition to the essential part; but indeed rather an explication of it, and yet I may say that the Church of Rome did not, doth not observe the manner of using the ●ook there enjoined; for as Hu●tado difficultate decima de ordine (olim) saith he, heretofore the Book was not imposed by Bishops as that Canon requires but by Deacons, and now by the Bishop's chaplains, for the use of the Book was impossible to be Apostolical as it is before proved, it may be used, and aught to be when ordained in a well governed and settled Church, but it is not essential to the Ordination or Consecration▪    


CHAP. XIII. In which, what is essential to this Consecration, is set down.  
THus having removed the principal Rubbige which might impede my structure. I come now to lay my foundation concerning the Building, first then let us conceive that what is essential must be Apostolical, and what is so, may probably be thought to be essential, for although it is a most assented Conclusion that the Sacraments which convey Grace, must be of Divine Institution, of which Nature they make Orders; (I contend not about words) and the Apostles were instituted with full authority to act since, after his departure to the end of the world: It is necessary therefore for us to think that such things as are delivered by them are Divine, for although Canons of Counsels general or particular, are excellent Guides for the establishing Peace and Unity in the Church, and so may require obedience from their Subjects, yet because they are but men without an annexed infallibility; without doubt they may vary in their practice and Discipline, and their Dictates being introduced upon occasions may be altered; and therefore cannot add essentials to any thing, for the essences of things are always certain and necessary. This is my Major: Now to search what is Apostolical in this business, we must examine the Scriptures where first we find our Saviour authorising his Apostles, As my Father sent me, so send I you to give power to others. We find him using no Ceremony, but breathing upon them gave them the Holy Ghost, and truly that Breathing was most significative of that blessing he bestowed upon them; but from thence we find not the Apostles using that Ceremony, for they being enabled with this plenarty of power to give others that blessing, they only gave it, and for a sign that they did establish it laid their hands upon them; so that as we conceive these two places 1 Tim. 1. 6. by the laying on of my hands or the 1 Tim. 4. 14. with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery to be Ordination, so likewise we shall find this Ceremony taken for the whole 〈◊〉 or Ordination. Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man. Now then without doubt if any outward Act must be essential to this Heavenly work; this only being Apostolical must be esteemed most essential; and there I think it most proper for men to conceive that this is the only Ceremony essentially necessary (if any be) to the performance of that duty, for the power originally being given to the Apostles nakedly and absolutely without any qualification or mode, in what manner they should use it to others; we are to receive the manner at their acting it, for our best Rule and guidance which is only in Scripture delivered to be imposition of Hands: Thus much for that which the Doctors of the Church of Rome called the material part in the essence of Consecration, and we may truly term, the outward sign. Let us now examine that which they call the form, and we may term the words which express it; the words which our Saviour used John 20. 22. are, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; these words expressly are used in the Roman Consecration and Ordination, but in the Grecian the words are varied, but the sense reserved, not giving this blessing in the Imperative-mood, (which is much stood upon by many Schoolmen and Casuists) but in a more humble stile, The Grace of God Creates or Promotes thee to this Dignity of a Bishop, or Priest, or Deacon, where we find the truth more largely expounded though materially the same, for certainly the Grace of God is that which empowers men with these authorities are given, and men are only Instrumental, but that they are, and therefore there is added how this is given by the suffrage of the Bishops, which denotes them instrumental, for the African Church you may discern in the Canon of Carthage before cited, that the Consecration is expressed in a Language of such extent as may be applied to them both, which is (uno fundente benedictionem) one of them pouring out the benediction or blessing, but implying strongly the sense, such as is proper for this work; to Confirm which, all the present Bishops lay on their hands; and this universally so consented unto as agreeing to the Holy Scripture, that although in the heat of disputation, I find men sometimes over peremptorily asserting their own opinions, yet I do not find that either Church did refuse such as were Consecrated in either, although in ways and modes differing from their own, so that I may justly say that the whole Catholic Church Concenters in this Conclusion, that when words importing the blessing are Delivered by a Consecrating Bishop, and those words are sealed by imposition of Hands, than these holy Orders are effectually given; I shall then need to do little more in this Point than to answer such objections, which are commonly made against it, or I can apprehend proper to be opposed to it.   

SECT. II. The first Objection against the Truth, answered.  
THe first is common in the School made against the pontifical, in this point, because that in all that part of the Pontifical it is said only, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, and that Language is the same in the Ordination of Priests; as likewise the Imposition of Hands; so that by this no man can know what Order is given; in the Church of Rome it is answered that the design which they are about will show it, whether to one or to the other Order; and again the manner of the Imposition of Hands, in the Consecration of a Bishop, divers Bishops Impose Hands, in the Ordination of a Priest one Bishop only with some Presbyters, in the Ordination of a Deacon the Bishop alone, but in our Church that scruple is clearly taken away by a great Prudence, where at the Ordination of a Priest, the Consecrating words are, Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a Priest, and at the Consecration of a Bishop the words are, Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God; where we see that universal cause of all Spiritual blessings, (I mean the Holy Ghost) applied to that particular duty, in which at that time he works, and therefore the Consecration is free from that Exception.   

SECT. III. Another Objection drawn from the Council of Carthage, answered.  
ANother Ojection may be, that the Council of Carthage before cited; mentions the laying on the Book by two Bishops upon the head and shoulders of the Bishop to be Consecrated, and therefore that is necessary; I answer that I much reverence that Council in which was St. Augustine, and divers other Bishops' famous for learning and piety in their Generations; but yet as I have said before, this was never practised any remarkable time, as sundry Doctors in the Church of Rome observe, and again it is impossible to be essential because not Apostolical and that because the Holy Bible, and that highest part of it the New Testament was not writ when Bishops and Priests were Ordained, it is therefore worth our marking, that there is a difference in the decrees of Counsels concerning Doctrine and Discipline, or Ceremonies of the Church in a point of Doctrine, they show in what sense they understand such and such a Conclusion, but in the other they set down what is to be practised to preserve Orders and decency in those Churches where they have to do; and indeed there can be no more required of obedience than in quiet and settled times, in which times only Counsels can be Congregated, and in other times as things necessary by Divine right must always be kept close unto, so what is only humane may be spared. it is not possible for humane power to add any thing of absolute necessity to Divine justice which cannot be altered; now of this Nature in this Ceremony of the Gospel as is most apparent. For first the Pontifical varyes extremely much in this very point from the Council of Carthage, not only in adding to it that the Book must be open which is not expresed in Carthage but by Changing those few Circumstances which are particularised there, as first where it is said in Carthage that two Bishops shall lay on the Gospel, the Pontifical saith, that it must be done by the Consecrator and the assisting Bishop. Antonius is peremptory out of Hostiensis that it must be done by three in the third part of his sums Tit. 14. Cap. 16. Sect. 9 towards the end of that Section, secondly where the Council saith that the Book shall be put upon the head and the neck of the Consecrated Bishop. The Pontifical saith supper scapulam & cervicem upon the shoulders and the neck, thirdly whereas the Council saith (uno fundente benedictionem) one pouring out the blessing; they make them altogether to give it in these words, Receive the Holy Ghost, Antonius where before is peremptory that three must do it; thus you see how in the Doctrine of the Church of Rome the Compiler of that Book is preferred before that ever to to be honoured Council consisting of above two hundred Bishops; amongst which were many most eminent men and indeed the Pope's legates likewise, although they could only keep up his pretensions to it, not prevail for his universal superiority, besides this I observe in the Ceremoniale Romanum put out by Pope Leo the tenth and licenced by him in the second Sect. litera Charta (as the Printer calls it) or as we, fol. 11. the Ordinator and the rest put the Book only upon the neck of the Elect Pope when he is made Bishop; so that here in these Records of the Church of Rome, besides these other practices of Chaplains or deacons before mentioned we find a great liberty taken in varying from the Council of Carthage; and amongst themselves the Council appointing the Book to be put upon the head and neck, the Pontifical upon the shoulders and the neck, the Ceremonial names only the neck which evidently makes it appear that this Clause hath been looked upon only as an humane ordinance, subject to Change and alteration, but the other of imposition of Hands, as Divine which no humane power could abrogate or alter: Give me leave since I am in the canvasing of the Canon to make one observation for the further illustration of a Conclusion before treated of, that is the Phrase (uno fundente benedictionem,) the blessing is given by one, when the Pontifical makes it to be given at the same time by many, and so divers Doctors in the Church of Rome, which certainly may be very confused one beginning sooner and so ending, but to avoid that, the Ceremonial before cited saith, that the Consecrator with the rest of the Bishops saith, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, receive the Holy Ghost, but he adds the Consecrator alte, the rest submiss, he with a loud voice, the rest with a soft; and now consider that one is called the Consecrator as surely he must be, and the rest do but come into his assistance to lay on their Hands in token of the assurance of it, and therefore they speak lowly and humbly, he that is the Consecrator doth Consecrate, the rest come in as assistants and to this purpose they speak lowly and submissly, and to this purpose Vasques after a long discourse about this Question concludes Disp. 240. Number 65. that it is enough that one speaks the words and lays on his Hands likewise, where we may observe by him that the Consecrators words are, that they call the form of Consecration, we may say convey the Consecrating virtue, this being received in all Christian Churches but the other unconstant amongst themselves. Another Argument may be objected against us of the Church of England who use a giving of the Bible to the Bishop who is to be Ordained in our Consecration.   

SECT. IV. An Objection against our practice answered, and the force of the Argument satisfied.  
IT is true and it is according to the first Ceremony used in the Pontisical; where it is said that the Consecrating Bishop takes the Book from the shoulders of the Consecrated, and with the other assisting Bishops, gives it shut to the Consecrated with these words Accipe Evangelium receive the Gospel, we use this, and with it a godly exhortation to the Bishop, but it is after his Consecration, for that is perfected in the first Act, Receive the Holy Ghost for the office of a Bishop in the Churches of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our Hands. In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost; this only is essentially the Consecration, and if the Archbishop should be struck dead immediately after the pronouncing these words; the Consecrated Bishop should receive no other Consecration, we use likewise an examination before the Consecration according to the first Canon in the fourth Council of Carthage although not punctually the same yet virtually containing all substantial matter in it; that reflected principally upon those Heresies which afflicted that Church at that time, our examination as it included these, so it particularizeth upon such as more nearly concerned the disturbance of our own, but neither that proceeding, nor this subsequent exhortation are essentially necessary ad esse to the Being of a Bishop, but conduce to the gravity and decency of the Administration of so high a duty, as likewise for a memorial to every Bishop to put him in mind of the bene esse the well and good execution of his Order, which is a most excellent office, and being no where forbid but indeed in many places of the New Testament taught, yea commanded, no man can think but that at such a Holy time as his Consecration, it is seasonable to put the Bishop to be Consecrated in mind of such performances which the Holy Ghost requires of him; this is all I hope is needful for the satisfaction of that Argument; drawn from the Consecration of Pope Pelagius the first, who was Consecrated by the imposition of Hands from two Bishops and one Presbyter,, first it is evident th●t one particular act cannot satisfy a Right to do that again which hath been done once, because there is no rule or law against which no man ever trespassed.  
Secondly, that the Errors committed in elections and Consecrations of Popes are no Precedents, because they have too often much transgressed in that kind. Thirdly, that Consecration in necessary occasions when more cannot be had, may be by two or one only Bishop, and yet be essentially good. Fourthly that nothing is essential but giving the proper blessing with imposition of Hands: for the addition of one Presbyter to the two Bishops is served only to fill a gap, and to comply with an unnecessary received Ceremony; it added no virtue of its self, no● impeded the virtue of the Consecration.    

CHAP. XIV. His Discourse examined, and an Argument from some Father, answered.  

SECT. I. The Preface to his Argument examined  
NOw we will enter upon another Argument being Page 164. towards the bottom, a discourse unnecessary for me to write down at large, but I will set down what is material in it, and so pass to his Argument; thus saith he, Habent Presbyteri Presbyters have by a Divine right the power of Ordaining (Sicut) like as they have the power of Preaching and Baptizeing; he expounds this, that where there is a Bishop there this should be done, sub regimine & inspectione Episcopi under the government and eye of the Bishop, but in other places where the Church is governed by the common Council of Presbyters, that Ordination is valid and good which is made by the imposition of the Hands of the Presbytery; Thus he, but I desire, and so do many more, to know where that Church was ever in the Christian world that gave simple Presbyters power to Ordain others; before these latter times; the practice whereof I think nothing can excuse in some Reformed Churches, but a mere necessity in which Case the vote supplies the Act; but I will proceed no further with this, all to the midst of the next Page is only Discourse, his conclusion there, is, that Presbyters may Ordain, I come with him and will consider his following Arguments.   

SECT. II. His Argument from St. Ambrose and St. Augustine answered.  
HE begins with St. Ambrose upon the Epistle to the Ephesians Cap. 4. the words are truly cited by him which are apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus, I will not disturb this, before I observe his second Quotation, and make one answer serve both which is Augustinus sive quicunque sit author in quaestionibus ex utroque testamento mixtum Quest. 10. In Alexandria inquit Presbyter Consecrat, the force of this Argument is this, that in Alexandria and throughout Egypt in the absence of a Bishop a Presbyter or Presbyters do Consecrate, by these Fathers in the Citation of St. Augustine he ingeniously saith, sive quicunque author est illius operis, whether he or whosoever is Author of that work, indeed it is evident that it is not his, and he might have said as much of St. Ambrose as is apparent, because these Comments are much suspected upon strong grounds, but indeed are thought to be some Author of that age, and then though an Heretic or Schismatique in a matter of Story which concerns not that business for which he is branded, I see no reason why that matter of fact may not be credited, I therefore must allow that authority neither will I quarrel at that word in him which is not Consecrat (as in the counterfeit Augustine) but Consignat which is of a largersence; but ye because that word is often used for Consecration, I will allow that likewise, yea I will add that, which some Schoolmen who incline to Doctor Forbes his opinion have observed, which is that the word Consecrat cannot here be taken for Consecrating the holy Eucharist of the Consecrating the Lords Supper, for that was allowed lawful in any place, now this seems to intimate a peculiar custom in Alexandria and Egypt for that, therefore know that other things are in Ecclesiastical Story said to be Consecrated besides these of Bishops or the Elements of the Communion, to wit, Holy houses, Churches, Virgins and Utensils but some may object that this Cons●●ration may be understood of Bishops; I answer no, out of a famous Story recorded by Athanasius, which is in his second Apologue, and a letter writ by the Marcotici Praesbyteri & Diaconi (as they style themselves) to Curiasus and Evagrius. It is there Registered that one Colluthus counterfeiting himself to be a Bishop when he was none, but only a Presbyter Ordained divers persons amongst others, one Ischyras for which he was condemned by Hosius and other Bishops in a general Council, that he should leave off Episcopising and be reduced into his former Order, and therefore saith the letter, Ischyras could be no Priest, who was Ordained only by him who was no Bishop: give me leave now to show the truth of this Story; it hath so great authority for it as Athanasius, who was Bishop of Alexandria, in his Apology for himself writ to his adversaries, both Lay and Ecclesiastical; if he had been a man of less Sanctity, yet out of policy he durst not tell such an errand Lie; granting this, I say, that if the other authorities were authentic which they are not, that word Consecration must be understood of other, Consecrations not of Bishops or Priests, because in Alexandria this act was condemned. And so I think that there is enough said to that Argument drawn from the pretended Ambrose and Augustine.    


CHAP. XV. SECT. I. His Argument drawn from the Council of Antioch answered..  
ANd now I proceed to another Argument drawn from the Council of Antioch Canon 10. in which it is Ordained that Chori Episcopi (which saith he, were only Presbyters) might Ordain Readers, Subdeacons and Exorcists, but neither Priests nor Deacons as Dionysius Eriquus translates it, p●aeter Civitatis Episcopum we may render it besides the Bishop of the City. Gentianus Hervetus renders it absque Vrbis Episcopo without the Bishop of the City, but he saith Hidorus Hispalensis hath a third Reading which he favours above all that is praeter▪ ●anscientiam Episcopi, as I may say without the Conscience of the Bishop: here he puts down three various Translations or Readins, I can add a fourth which is of another Isidore, Isidori Mercator, who put out the Counsels by the advice of Fourscore Bishops as he himself writes in his Epistle before them, but indeed hath no remarkable difference from the rest, although it varyes from them; Now saith Doctor Forbes, Pope Damasus in his first Epistle to Purisper Bishop of the Prime Seat of Numidia and other Orthodox Bishops, he condemns the Chori-Episcopi as an irregular Order being in themselves but Praesbyteri, and taking upon them Episcopal power. To go methodically in the examination of this Argument, I propose to myself three things, 1. The Consideration of the authority of the Canons made in this Council; next the examination of Pope Damasus his decree; and last the Nature of those Chori-Episcopi or Country Bishops who are therein mentioned. And first I apply myself to the Council which I am content to admit because the Canons thereof were anciently received into the Code of the Universal Church, and mentioned both in the Council of Chalcedon and the Council in Trullo, though Estius in Quartum Distinct. 25. Sect. 2. is bold to reject the Canons of this Council because there was an ill use made thereof against two eminent Fathers of the Church St. Athanasius and St. John chrysostom who suffered much trouble and persecution upon the pretence of the IV. and XII. Canon's thereof from their Adversaries, and were sentenced by them before they well heard. But in particular concerning the Canon of this Council about the power of the Chori-Episcopi it is well observed by Estius (ubi supra) that the words thereof are very intricate and perplexed, as we shall now declare in the Chapter following.    


CHAP. XV. The Argument to prove these Chori-Episcopi and their power to Ordain Presbyters examined.  
I Think the likeliest man in the world to expound this Canon is Balsamon who was Patriarch of that Church, and although he lived a good while after this Council, yet the sense and meaning of the decrees of his own Church is likelier to be preserved by him and them in that Church, than in any other places, and men which lived further remote: Therefore in his Comment upon the Canon and those particular words upon which the whole force of this Argumentis built, Illud autem sine Episcopo qui est in Urbe non accipitur pro eo quod est sine ejus mandato, sed pro eo quod est sine ejus Ordinatione, seu Consecratione; et si enim fuerit Chori-Episcopo mandatum ut Praesbyterum ordinet, & hoc fecerit, irrita erit Ordinatio, quia non sit data Praesbyteris ordinandi potestas, than which words nothing can be more clear to show that these Chori-Episcopi here spoken of could not Ordain, so now in answer to this Argument of Doctor Forbes drawn from the tenth Canon of the Antiochian Council it is not of any force, because the Council is of none, being made by Heretics in a wicked Schism, conspiring against that ever to be honoured person Athanasius, and urged to the destruction of that incomparable person John chrysostom. Secondly granting it to be of force yet by the best expositor in the world for that Council Balsamon expounds the dubious language of that Canon against Doctor Forbes, now then the business of Pope Damasus his decree falls of itself, which introduceth a new work for me.   

SECT. II. Pope Damasus his decree examined.  
THis Epistle in Crabs Edition of the Counsels is the fourth, but in Binius the fifth Epistle of Damasus, and it is sufficiently Pontifical, it destroys all Chori-Episcopi, and saith, that they were prohibited as well by that Seat of Rome, as by all the Bishops in the world, this he saith there, and we must take his word for it only, for I find no such thing upon record before or after, as will appear when I treat of the nature of them, but he inveighs justly agaisnt the Laziness of Bishops, which saith, he brought them into, like Nurses to suckle their children for them, whilst they the Bishops might enjoy their ease and pleasure. To conclude, the whole drift of that Epistle is to prove that these Country Bishops are▪ but Presbyters and therefore have no power to Ordain Priests, and Doctor Forbes saith clean contrary, that although they were but Presbyters, yet by that accursed Council of Antioch they might Ordain Priests; The words of that Canon Damasus mentions, although he do not name the Counsels and truly these words seemed to me to be of great force, quamquam impositionem Episcoporum perceperint, where he observes the Plural number, imposition of Hands of Bishops, many in the Plural number, of which more hereafter: now if they did, I know not what can hinder them by any Canon from a remote power to Ordain, which may be acted by only leave from the Bishop himself, but this is enough for the business of the decree of Damasus, it seems he was angry with them, and disputes against them, and condemns them, but as Doctor Forbes well observes this decree of his, was but little or not at all obeyed; either because this was no true but a counterfeit Epistle, or whether these decrees of Pope's extra Cathedram were not valid, I know not, but do know this, that it was not observed, so here we see a wicked Council condemned by a Pope; and that Pope neglected by all men afterwards; what he urgeth out of Isidore Hispalensis is of no consideration; but only to mark that the Pope's decree was not observed in his time, for Isidore there which is Lib. 2. de Ecclesiasticis officiis Cap. 6. sets down only the bare words of the two Counsels of Neocaesarea and this of Antioch, that of Neocaesarea only compares the Chori-Episcopi to the Disciples, this of Antioch will prove a most perplexed decree in its self, and such which may probably be objected against Doctor Forbes, as well as expounded for him, for that out of Neocaesarea which compares the Chori-Episcopi to the seventy Disciples, Damasus shows that they Ordained, but only the Apostles, and Isidore hath not one word of discourse concerning this office, as he uses to have concerning all others, but only sets down the words of the Canons; so that it remains for all him, just as it was, which is most intricate, Damasus seems to conceive that the Records of this Canon did allow them with leave of the Bishop to Ordain Deacons and Priests and that the Laziness of Bishops connived at it, for which reason he condemns them, not the fault only, but for the faults sake, the very office, this office we find continued in Isidores time, after him in the Church, and in late times as I shall show, so that as the Pope thought the Canon of that Council not obliging, so the Christian world thought his decrees invalid, wherefore I might well lay them both aside.   

SECT. III. This Canon Reviewed.  
BUt I will examine the Canon to see if it have any necessary construction that way. There are two principal things which are disputeable in this Canon, first, whether these Chori-Episcopi might give Orders to Presbyters with leave of the Bishop of the City whereto they appertain; secondly, whether any of them were Bishops by Episcopal Ordination, in both which we may find the Canon so perplexed as it will be hard to collect a clear conclusion of it.  
For the first, it is urged by Doctor Forbes that the words of the Canon in all Editions, of which he quotes three, make for him, the first is of Dionysius Exig●us a grave Author and he urgeth his words truly, Nec Praesbyterum nec Diaconum audeant Ordinare praeter Civitatis Episcopum, speaking of Chori-Episcopi, they should not Ordain a Priest or Deacon, praeter besides the Bishop of the City, to whom he with his possession is subject; Is not this rightly termed by Estius a perplexed Canon? then next take the Edition of Gentianus Hervetus which reads it absque Vrbis Episcopo, he must not Ordain these without the Bishop of the City, this I take to be in his Edition of Balsamon, for so it is there, and then why Balsaman who was Patriarch of Antioch, although a good while after, should not be thought ●itter to understand the practice of that Church, than those who lived after him in other Churches, I apprehend not: His Comment upon the Text is this Sine Vrbis Episcopo without the Bishop of the City, is not to be understood without his Command (as we term it his Fiat) but saith he, his Ordination or Consecration, for saith he, if the Bishop Command the Chori-Episcopus to Ordain and he should do it, that Ordination were void, so that by this learned Author this perplexed Canon must be understood against Doctor Forbes, but he hath a third Edition of Isidore Hispalensis which reads it praeter conscientiam Episcopi without the conscience of the Bishop, and here he magnifies this Edition and calls it probatissima Versio the most approved version; but he doth not set down by whom this is approved, besides himself, neither do I think he can, nor doth show any reason why it should be so approved, but his own Authority; and let us see what he hath got by it, for certainly it seems not to me to enforce his interpretation, which is that he may Ordain these offices with the leave of the Bishop, for it is not praeter consensum; but conscientiam; now conscience is not the same with consent, consent is most proper to another man's action, Conscience to his own, the great actions of Conscience being to accuse or excuse a man's self, or to judge of a man's own act, or whether they have been done according to right science; but it meddles not with what concerns other men either to judge, accuse, or excuse them, unless we are authorized in foro publico, or privato in confession, and then it is an act of the Confessors Conscience only out of this regard that he is bound in duty to apply his knowledge to others; and therefore to understand this Phrase better, let us conceive that Praeter or beside the Conscience of the Bishop, is nonsense, but if he or any others are delighted with this word Conscience in this Canon, I will show them a fourth reading where he may find it used most properly and significantly, which is Cresperius his sum word Chori-Episcopus where he quotes this Canon, and therein saith that a Chori-Episcopus must not Ordain Priests or Deacons propter Conscientiam Episcopi for the conscience he hath of the Bishop of his City, that is because his Conscience tells him that the Bishop is only to Ordain such; thus I think that it is no way evident from the Canon that these men did Ordain Priests or Deacons, we come next to the second, whether any of these Chori-Episcopi had Episcopal Ordination, and so might in a case of necessity Ordain.   

SECT. IV. Doctor Forbes to blame for Censuring Bellarmine too sharply in this point.  
IN this Question Doctor Forbes falls soul upon Cardinal Bellarmine which I was sorry to read, gives him ill language, calls his opinion ridiculous and childish, and again Page 170. detestanda est Bellarmini impudentia, Bellarmine's impudence is to be abhorred or else miseranda imperitia, his Ignorance is to be pitied; for although the Cardinal may seem to deserve such language himself, after giving learned men who differ from himself in judgement, as bad or worse, yet these Pen-Combates should in that resemble those with swords, where the first engagers in the quarrel being high with animosities against each other will give no Quarter, but after the experience of a continued war hath taught, that what happens to one, this day, may be the fortune of the other to morrow, they manage the war more civilly in the future, so it should be with us now, when the wars have continued a long time: and experience hath taught us that the most learned writer is a man, and subject to error; may be mistaken in his judgement, may sometimes in Quotations miss the right conceit of them: we should spare such reproachful languages, and deal with one another even our enemies more courteously; but let us see why he is so severe against Bellarmine, because saith he, Bellarmine doth oppose Damasus and all antiquity, in saying that there are some Chori-Episcopi which had Episcopal Consecration, and some which had only Presbyterial; to this I say, Bellarmine may be mistaken and so may Vasques the Jesuit who opposeth him in that conclusion; but I doubt it doth not clearly appear out of antiquity, Which is mistaken; Bellarmine de Clericis in his seventeenth Cap. conceives that these Chori-Episcopi which he and all writers make to be vicarii Episcoporum may be of two sorts, either such as are mere Presbyters or else such as are suffragans or titular Bishops; the first sort are they which Pope Damasus condemns, and will not suffer to encroach upon the Episcopal office; the other he saith which were suffragan Bishops or titular might do it with leave from the Bishop of the City; the fault of this saying appears not to me; for they being vicarii may be of either sort or both, and I spoke it knowingly (as will appear presently in the next Cap.) if they were such as are called suffragans (as is reasonable to think) than they were Ordained Episcopally and might Ordain Priests, yea Bishops, and did do it, nor doth any thing in Vasques or Doctor Forbes necessarily confute it, first for Cardinal Bellarmine, he seems to be of opinion, that this Canon doth approve of the Consecration of these Chori-Episcopi, and that they might give the Order of Priesthood with leave from the chief Bishop, to avoid that, that they who were presbyters might then do it, he puts down this distinction, that some had but Presbyterian Ordination and some Episcopal and this he thinks this Canon implies when it saith speaking of the Chori-Episcopi, etiamsi manus impositionem Episcoporum acceperint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mark it is in the Plural number, they had the imposition of Hands of Bishops, not of one only, as Presbyters, and then again it is said, & ut Episcopi consecrati fuerunt and are Consecrated as Bishops, which words saith Doctor Forbes were by the translator added, and are not in the original Greek, it is probable Pope Damasus who lived near that time, a thousand years and more nearer than he, and is reported to be learned in the Greek as well as Latin, should know the words of the Council, as well as he or any other, yet he puts down these words, and they are in both the Lections of Peter Crabb I will not trouble myself to look further, but Pope Damasus writing against them, and condemning them, would not have put down this Argument against himself, if it had not been the Language used in that Canon▪ what force his Arguments have I shall examine speedily, but now let us consider the Argument which is only touched by Bellarmine, if they were a sort of Chori-Episcopi which had the imposition of Hands from divers Bishops, what reason can be imagined why such should not Ordain Priests, Vasques in answer to this saith, that the imposition of the Hands of Bishops is not to be understood of many Bishops laying on their Hands at the same time upon the same man, but that several Bishops at several times laid their Hands upon several Chori-Episcopi, but to this may be urged that word (quamvis) as one, or etiamsi as another Edition, why should the Canon say, although he be Ordained by the imposition of Hands of Bishops, and Consecrated as a Bishop, this although would there signify nothing for he should not be by it distinguished from a Presbyter, but because some were and some were not Ordained by Bishops, it reacheth even those who were so Ordained, Doctor Forbes is not content with this answer of Vasques but adds another of his own at the bottom of Page 171. and throughout 172, where before cited, the sense of which is that the imposition of Hands here mentioned is not to be understood passively for the imposition of Hands which they receive themselves, but actively for that imposition of Hands which they had power of to give. I think I have set it down as clearly as his words can be rendered, for indeed his Language is as obscure as the Canon itself, but this is most forced, nor indeed can a man conceive Canonically, how a Chori-Episcopus could receive that active which he mentions, unless he had received it passively first, by the imposition of Hands of divers Bishops, nor can a man well imagine in that Language, & ut Episcopi Ordinantur, what that (ut) should mean if it did not come to explain the former Phrase of imposition of Hands of divers Bishops; so that then for aught I see Bellarmine's exposition against both these adversaries is the most clear and congruous to the Canon, let us now examine Pope Damasus' Arguments as they are scholastically urged by Vasques and that is the marrow of all that is in this Epistle.   

SECT. V. Damasus his first Argument against the Chori-Episcopi answered.  
Damasus seems to me, either with Bellarmine to think there were two sorts of Chori-Episcopi in the time of making the Canon which may be persuaded, because although he begins with this Argument from the Plural number before urged, yet he never endeavours an answer to it; or else believing them all but Presbyters, he thinks that his other Argument may invalid this; and notwithstanding this, being deficient in other things they are not Bishops by it. His first Argument is drawn from the word (Chori) which signifies Country, they were but country Bishops, when as all Bishops should be of a City: To this I answer that although such Canons may be made for the establishment of the government of Churches in a settled Kingdom, where are such Cities for the Decorum and honour of the Episcopal Sea, yet it cannot be in unsettled States, as suppose the Gospel should be preached in the barbarous places of the West-Indies, where are no such places to give Episcopacy that honour, yet the Church may and aught to be planted and governor's put into them to regulate their discipline o● else things will go backward faster than forward in the matters of Religion. Again we may conceive if such Canons be insisted upon, that they should be understood of prime and chief Bishops, not such as are Vicarii Episcoporum that is vicar's of the chief Bishops; Now it may happen that there be a necessity of such vicar's, and they may be of great use to the Bishop of the City whose Diocese is large, as will appear shortly, and these Chori-Episcopi although they may be impeded in the execution of their office by the superior authority of the Bishop of the City, yet with his consent are empowered to Ordain in these cases, which is most agreeing to the letter of the Canon according to any Edition, either sine or praeter or whatsoever it is. This is enough I think for the first Argument of Pope Damasus.   

SECT. VI His next Argument answered.  
ANother is thus framed, there are but two Orders of Priesthood, Bishops and Presbyters, this he enlargeth and proves from the Church under the Law, where were Aaron and his Sons only in the Priesthood, as likewise from our Saviour himself who had only Apostles and Disciples; so saith he, it should be in the present Church, now it seems these Chori-Episcopi are neither, they esteem themselves greater than Presbyters and yet are not Bishops, wherefore nothing in answer; what they esteem themselves I know not, but we have good reason to think some were Bishops and some only Presbyters, and they who were Bishops might act these great offices of Ordaining Priests and Deacons with leave of the Bishop of the Diocese, those who were only Priests, could not; Thus Damasus his Arguments are are of no force against that Canon of Antioch, and therefore Vasques himself acknowledgeth in that 238. Disp. Cap. 7. That Damasus did conceive that in the time of the Council of Antioch, some Chori-Episcopi were Bishops, and he affirms that if they had Episcopal Consecration, although they were but titular Bishops, and so had no place assigned at their Consecration where they should officiate, yet they had that power granted them at their Consecration, which might be reduced into act whensoever a place was assigned them, and yet Damasus condemns them for the future which was never obeyed.   

SECT. VII. One word in the Canon more explained.  
THere is one word more in the Canon which may abide a misinterpretation and is somewhat insisted upon by Doctor Forbes; that is in the latter end of the Canon, it is said that he the Chori-Episcopus must be Ordained by the Bishop to whom he and his possession are subject; Now if he be Ordained by one Bishop only, certainly he is but a Presbyter, for although as I have said in a case of necessity, one Bishop hath been allowed to Consecrate, and the power Apostolical was to them Separative to every one to Ordain, yet when Laws were substituted by Ecclesiastic authority, for the well government of the Church and severe punishments inflicted upon the violation of them (as are in this case) it is not reasonable to think that men living in obedience to that Church, should dare ●o break them in public, and that constantly as it seems, this is for answer to this, I say that this makes it evident, that this Canon is delivered concerning a double sort of Chori-Episcopi, some that were made by the imposition of Hands of divers Bishops, and others that were ordained by one only, which is all is required, and so I will pass to my last proposal to show what these Chori-Episcopi were,    


CHAP. XVI. What the Chori-Episcopi were.  
IT is a hard task which I do not find clearly delivered by any, what I find shall be set down and leave the determination to others; In general my conceit of them is this, that as it happens in other Parisnes where Presbyters have the charge, that where they are large and require Chapels of ease, the Parson sometimes gets a Deacon to officiate in a Chapel and do all the lesser duties for him: Reads the Prayers and Lessons, yea Baptise where he cannot be present to act it himself; yet if he have a Chapel at which he cannot reside, (as it is too often in my Diocese) he must have a complete Presbyter to do that work; so it was in those greater Parishes of Bishops (which we call Dioceses, but were heretofore called Parishes) when they are large and cannot well be super-intended by a Bishop's care; he had Chori-Episcopi, such as being Presbyters only might do his work, of which they were capable by Commission: But yet if they were very large; for which it would be troublesome for the Diocese to receive the Episcopal duties which were beyond the Presbyterian authority, there it was necessary to have such Chori-Episcopi which were Bishops; And as that Country Parson may restrain his Curate in the exercise of his authority, you shall not absolve such and such faults, nor give the Communion at such and such times without my particular leave, because I mean to be present at those times, so may be the case of those Chori-Episcopi, who were Bishops, they might Ordain those lesser Orders, as they are called, Subdeacons and Readers but not Priests or Deacons, which indeed are Orders, but by leave from their superior Bishops. And this I think may fairly meet with the Council of Antioch, and all that I can find any where in antiquity spoken of them; That this may appear more clearly, consider first,  
That this office is by some made as ancient as the Apostles times, they say that Linus and Clemens were Chori-Episcopi to St. Peter at Rome, so Platina with others, and there may appear some reasons for it, because when St. Peter had pitched upon that place for his Diocese (if he did so) and was necessarily to prosecute his great Apostolical design about the world in other places; as well as Rome; it was necessary that he should have some men of eminent worth to Episcopize for him in his absence, but then I find not that they in his life time did Ordain any to these Orders (although perhaps they might do it) until they came to be Bishops themselves at Rome.   

SECT. II. The decrees of divers Councils examined.  
THe next piece I find concerning them is in Concilio Ancirano Canon 13 the effect of which is, that Chori-Episcopi should not Ordain Priests or Deacons, or Priests act any thing without leave from the Bishop's letters, or under his hand, here is nothing, whether they were Bishops or no: The next, the Council of Neocaesarea in which it is thought were the same Bishops as in the other, and did immediately follow that at Ancira Canon 13. where the Chori-Episcopi are compared with the seventy which amounts to nothing; whether they were Bishops appears not by that, but that they were assistants to the supreme Bishops, as the seventy were to the Apostles: The n●xt, shall be the Council of Laodicea, the two former are mentioned by Doctor Forbes, but not this, this Council in the fifty seventh Canon decrees this Quod non oporteat in villis & pagis Episcopos constitui sed visitatores, veruntamen jamdudum constituti nihil facient praeter conscientiam Episcopi Civitatis, saith one Edition, sine ment Episcopi, saith another; We may perceive in this Canon two things, first, that it forbids these Chori-Episcopi or Country-Bishops, secondly, that although it forbids them, yet it supposeth, that of themselves they had authority to Episcopize, and therefore restrains the Execution of that authority to the leave from the Bishop of the City, and therefore from that time they were to be regulated by him.  
The next thing I meet with in Order, is the Eighth Canon of that great and glorious Council of Nice the first where I find that upon the reconciliation of the Novations which called themselves Catharei or Puri (as more holy than other men) when these came into the Church and were received, if they had been Ordained by the Novations as Bishops; before they were admitted upon repentance into favour, they were admitted into the same Order in which they were before, but if there were an Orthodox Bishop in that Diocese, he might allow him the honour and name of a Bishop if he would, if not, he might allow him the place of Presbyter or Country Bishop in his Diocese; but to avoid a clashing of Competitors in the same City; he must have no power there in the City, where I observe that Chori-Episcopus may be such, as his Episcopal Consecration would have been good in a vacant Bishopric to entitle him to it although if he was, where was a full Bishopric he would be, but a Chori-Episcopus.  
That which follows next is that canvased Council of Antioch which occasioned all this Discourse, and then comes in the decree of Damasus to which I have spoken, and I may add the Epistle of St. Basil which is writ Chori-Episcopis, and that contains a sharp reproof of their negligence in giving Orders, and a prohibition that there should not any from thenceforth be admitted without his examination, and that these unworthy persons who had been brought into the list of the Clergy should be separated, with much more tending to that purpose; where I observe that not the defect of power, but their abuse of their powe● was it they were blamed for, that which Isidore Hispalensis or Hrabarus Maurus delivers concerning it, is not more than was in the former Councils; Balsamon saith, they were almost worn out in his time, the Meldensian allows them to be, but abridgeth their power, yet commands Bishops not to authorise them by their own negligence or infirmities, so now although Pope Damasus his decree could not prevail to extirpate them, yet this Council thought fit to restrain their practice, this Council was Eight hundred years after Christ and more, I will not write how Vasques remembers some in his time but come close to our own Age and Country; if these men were the same with Suffragans, which I know no reason to deny, than no doubt but they had Episcopal Ordination and did Consectate, not Priests only, but Bishops also; To prove this let any man peruse that excellent piece of Francis Mason de ministerio Anglicano he shall find that in the days of Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth, and Queen Elizabeth, the Suffragans of Bedford, Chichester, Taunton, were Episcopally Consecrated and did join in the Consecration of other Bishops. So now I have finished this undertaking out of this debate concerning the 10. Canon of Antioch in which I have showed that if the Council itself be admitted, yet that Particular Canon to be most perplexed, but if it lean any way it is against Doctor Forbes, since it is most reasonable to think by that story which I have set down concerning them, that there were at the least divers of the Chori-Episcopi, which had Episcopal Consecration, although perhaps some, who had not; and I think there is little of moment to be found in antiquity concerning them which is not observed by me, there is an Epistle of John, the third Pope of that name but it is rejected by Binius and so slighted by me,  
And yet me thinks some may ask my opinion of those Churches where are no Bishops, first I dare censure no man, much less such large Congregations amongst which I know there are many learned men, and no doubt, but full of Piety, I may be deceived and so may they, humanum est errare but certainly in that acquaintance that I have with antiquity there seems to me no ground for them there, nor in the Scripture; these few pieces which this learned Gentleman had Collected are but old totered Rags, which cannot abide to be stitched to this new Garment, they have nothing to excuse themselves but necessities which whether they have sufficient or no, to excuse them, let their own Souls Judge, God will, I dare not.  
FINIS.     

THE TABLE.  

A  
Apostles, their Election, and to what. 7.  
Their Number, whence their Name, their Office. 8.  
To whom sent. 9  
What to Preach. 10.  
The Apostles power whence. 22.  
The Apostles truly had the Power of Preaching to all the world. 23. 24.  
The Apostles only commissioned to Baptise. 25.  
The Apostles only to Administer the Communion. 27.   

B  
Baptism instituted by our Saviour. 12.  
The Baptism of our Saviour and St. John not the same. 13.  
Whether our Sacramental Baptism be the same with that before Christ's death. 14. 15.  
Not the same, the Objections answered. 16. 17.  
The Baptism instituted by Christ not in force till after his death. 18.  
Whether Baptism administered by Laymen be valid. 29.  
Of Bishops their distinction from Presbyters. 94▪  
First Argument from Scripture for their Points. 96.  
The Argument examined. 97.  
And answered. 99  
The Exception that Titus was an Evangilist but not a Bishop answered▪ 99  
Objection for their points from Acts 20. 28. answered. 101.   

C  
An outward Call necessary to a Minister. 129.  
This Call hath a Moral, not a Physical influence. 130.  
The Character left after Ordination. 132.  
The Communion instituted by our Saviour. 18.  
The Apostles Ministers of it. 19 20.  
Instituted before our Saviour's death. 20. 21.  
Mutual covenanting of the Saints gives not the Being to a Visible Church. 157.  
What this Covenant is, Explicit, or Implicit. 159.  
The Reasons for it answered. 159, etc.  
Other Arguments answered. 165. 167, &c,   

D  
The Election of the Seventy Disciples. 11.  
The Differences betwixt them and the Apostles. 96.  
Deacons, as afterwards used in the Church not instituted. Acts 6. 37, 38.  
Arguments proving this. 39 40.  
The opposing Arguments answered. 43.  
Some of the first Deacons Preachers. 40.  
What the Office of a Deacon. 45.   

E  
Of Lay-Elders. 59  
What a Lay-Elder is in the Disciplinarian sense. 60.  
No such Elders in Scripture. 61.  
Places of Scripture urged for them, answered. ibid.  
Third Argument of Mr. Thomas Hooker for Lay-Elders answered. 62, &c 69. 74. 75.  
St. ●auls Elder signifies but one Office. 66.  
St. Ambrose's words urged for Lay-Elders expounded. 86. etc.  
The design of making Lay-Elders. 88  
What the word Especially imports. 1 Tim. 5. 17. 68  
What an Evangelist is. 106.   

G  
Gifted men may Preach, if licenced by the Bishop, otherwise not. 84, 85.   

H  
What Double Honour signifies 1 Tim. 5. 17. 68  
Mr. Thomas hooker's opinion concerning Deacons examined. 45, 46.  
Rom. 12. 8. expounded against him. 47, 48. etc.  
His Deacon enforced from this place of Scripture Confuted. 53.  
The first Confutation of Mr. Thomas Hooker out of this Text. 54, 55.  
His Second Argument refuted. 56.  
His Third Argument refuted. 57  
His First Argument from Reason refuted. 57  
His Second and Third Argument from Reason answered. 58.  
Another Argument answered▪ 59  
Mr. Thomas hooker's distinction of Pastors and Teachers refuted. 90, etc.   

I  
Episcopal Jurisdiction proved. 115:   

L  
What Labouring in the Word imports, 1 Tim. 5. 17. 67. 86.   

M  
What the word Minister signifies. 1.  
The Definition of a Minister 2.  
The Definition explained. 3. etc.  
The Power to be a Minister must come from God. 3. 6.  
Motion is to Relation. 208, 209.   

O  
Touching Ordination. 121.  
Mr. Thomas hooker's definition of Ordination confuted. 122.  
What Ordination is. 123.  
Ordination not before Election. 224.  
Men may be Ordained without the Election of the People. 125.  
Whether Ordination gives all the Essentials to an Officer. 128.  
Of Pastoral Ordination. 140.   

P  
St. Peter had no greater power given him by Christ, than the other Apostles 28.  
The chief Arguments for his superiority answered: ibid.  
A vindication of our Common Prayer-Book in the number of the Sacraments. 131.  
A Digression concerning Preaching. 76.  
What Preaching is. 78.  
To what Preaching every Presbyter is bound▪ 80.  
The peculiar Interest a Presbyter hath in Preaching. 82.  
Who is authorized to Preach. 83.  
What a true Presbyter is. 89.  
A Power is left by Christ to some men, whereby they communicate Power to others. 156.   

R  
Relation may be the principle of Action. 211.  
One Relation may be the Foundation of another. 242.  
What Ruling well imports. 1 Tim. 5. 17. 67.   

A  
The Apostles only entrusted with the power of the Keys 29, 30.  
Other Apostles besides the Twelve. 31, 32, 33.  
The reason of it. 33.  
The Apostolical power extended to all the world. 34.  
How the Apostolical power was Communicated. 35.  
How the Apostolical power was communicated to particulars. 36.   

B  
Second Argument for Parity answered. 102.  
Third Argument for it answered. 104.  
Fourth Argument concerning Jurisdiction answered. 106.  
An Argument from Ordination by Presbyters answered. 107.  
An Argument out of St. Hierome answered. 108.  
Bishops succeeded the Apostles in all that is Apostolical, though not in their extraordinary endeavours. 142.  
Baptism not the Form which constitutes a Church-Member, but no Visible Act by which he is made a Member. 171.  
Mr. Thomas hooker's Arguments against this Opinion answered 171, 172, etc.  
Baptism hath all things necessary to a real Relation. 219.   

E  
Episcopacy settled by the Apostles in the Church. 111.  
First Argument from Scripture to prove Episcopacy. 113.  
A Second Argument to prove it. 114.  
The Revelation of St. John assorts Episcopacy. 117.  
St. Cyprian urged as favouring. The People having the power of Electing their Ministers explained, the Objection answered. 126.  
Arguments from the Election of the Deacon, Acts 6. examined. 127.  
Other Arguments answered. 133, etc. 149, etc.  
An Excommunicate man is a Member of the Church. 175.  
Bellarmine's Arguments against this Opinion answered. 176, etc.   

C  
Scriptures written of the Catholic Church grossly misapplyed by Mr. Thomas Hooker to particular Churches. 162, etc.  
What is meant by the Church, and our Saviour's saying, Tell the Church. 166.  
What makes a Church Visible. 169.  
Such as renounce the fellowship of the Church are yet Members of the Church. 180.  
The Arguments against this Opinion answered. 181, etc. 190, etc.  
Some difficulties of this Opinion cleared. 187.  
What the Character left in Baptism is, and the Definition of it. 205.  
In what Predicament this Character is 207.  
The Foundation of this Character is the Will of God. 213. 218.  
Durandus holds this Character to be Ens Rationis. 215.  
Is opposed by all the Schoolmen, but their Arguments do not confute him. ibid.  
The Subject of this Character is the whole man. 221.    

THE TABLE OF THE Appendix.  

A  
The Apostles were Bishops, proved. 233.  
The first of the Apostolical Canons examined. 249.  
The anointing the Bishop's hand, no necessary essential to his Constituion. 258. Sect. 6.  
Athanasius' testimony that mere Presbyteers could not Ordain, even in Alexandria 27●.  
The Council of Antioch, Schismatical and Illegal. 274.   

B  
Bishops have ever been in the Church. 231.  
Whether three Bishops be necessary to the Consecration of a Bishop. 246. Sect. 1. Ans. Reg.  
The Consecration of St. James Bishop of Jerusalem, objected and answered. 248.  
What is essential to Constitute a Bishop? 263. 264.  
Baptism not void by different circumstances in the Celebration of it. P. 256.  
Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch's interpretation of the Canon of that Council approved. 274, & 277.  
Bellarmine too hardly dealt withal by Dr. Forbes. 278.  
Not confuted by him. 279, 280.  
St. Basil's Opinion of the Chori-Episcopi. 286.   

C  
The Church Universal never was nor can be without a Bishop. 231.  
The Church of Ephesus not governed by mere Elders, but Bishops. 233.  
The Church was without Elders, till the Apostles Ordained them. 232.  
Christianity may be continued, but Church-communion and Ordinances cannot, without Bishops. 235.  
The Consecration of St. James Bishop of Jerusalem, discussed. 247.  
Three Bishops are not by Divine Right necessary to a Bishop's Consecration. 246.  
The Canon called the Apostles Canon, about the Consecration of Bishops examined. 249.  
The Canon of the Council of Nice examined. 250, 251.  
And proved to concern the Election, not the Consecration of Bishops. ibid.  
The second Canon of the Council of Carthage concerning the Consecration of Bishops. 259.  
The Catholic Church does concentre in this conclusion that when words importing the Blessing, are delivered by a Consecrating Bishop, and those words are sealed by an imposition of Hands, than those Holy Orders are effectually given. 265. in the begin:  
No Church in the Christian world ever gave simple Presbyters power to Ordain. 270.  
The Chori-Episcopi have not power to Ordain, proved. 274.  
Unless they be Suffragans. 279. & 282.  
Cresperius' reading of the Canon of Antioch alleged for the Chori-Episcopi, viz. not praeter but propter Conscientiam Episcopi. 278.  
Chori-Episcopi were but Presbyters, because Ordained by one Bishop alone. 282. S. 7.  
☞ Two sorts of Chori-Episcopi. P. 283.  
What they were. 284.   

D  
Dr. Forbes' arguments answered from P. 232, to 284.  
Deacons not necessary in every Parochial Church. 240.  
Difference in the Form or words does not disannul a Sacrament. 256.  
The distinction of Orders is known by the manner of the laying on of Hands and the form of words (as in our Church) used in the pronunciation of the Blessing. 265. Sect. 2.  
Damasus his reading upon the Canon of Antioch 276. vid. 279.  
Which doth sufficiently answer Dr. Forbes his Arguments against all Chori-Episcopi having power of Ordination, answered. 281.  
His second Argument answered. 282.  
Decrees of divers Councils examined. 284, 285.   

E  
The Church of Ephesus not Governed by mere Elders, but Bishops. 233.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated Eligi to be Elected or chosen 251. lin. 13  
Elders were not in the Church, till the Apostles Ordained them. 232  
What is essential to the Constitution of a Bishop? 254.  
Explicatory additions do not destroy the notion of that which they explain, 257. in the end.  
The only essential ceremony (if any be) in the Consecration of Bishops is the laying on of Hands. 264.  
The essence of Ordination chiefly consists in the pronouncing the Blessing with the notes of distinction of the Orders then conferred. 265. vid. 268. S. 4.  
The Errors committed in the Inauguration of Popes no Precedent for reformed Churches in the Consecration ●f Bishops. 269.  
The Church of England's Rites of Consecration defended. Sect. 4. 268.   

F  
Dr. Forbes' first Argument from Scripture answered. 232.  
His first Argument to prove their Ordination after Bishops were instituted, answered 235.  
His Argument taken out of Johannes Major answered from 235. to 238.  
His Argument from the Church of Rome answered. 239.  
His Argument from Deacons answered. 240.  
His Argument from Scripture answered. ibid.  
His Argument out of St. Hierome answered. 242.  
His Argument from Pelagius' Ordination answered. 244. 245.  
His Argument from St. Ambrose and St. Augustine answered. 271.  
His Argument from the council of Antioch. 274. to 284.   

G  
Gasper Hurtado's opinion about the Consecration of Bishops examined. 261.  
☞ The Gospel laid upon the Bishop's Neck, not essential to his Consecration, because there were Bishops before the Gospel was written. 260. vid. 266. to 268.  
Gentianus Hervetus his reading of the Canon of Antioch. 277. the begin:   

H  
Henricus Henriques opinion that some papers wherein the Gospel was written might be given to the primitive Bishops in their Consecrations; is found invalid. 261.   

I  
Imposition of Hands the only necessary and essential ceremony (if any be) to the Consecration of Bishops. 264.  
Inauguration of Popes no Precedent for the Consecration of reformed Bishops. P. 243. vid. 269.  
Imposition of the Hands of Presbyters alone is not sufficient for ordination. 270.  
Ischyras was no Priest, because Ordained by no Bishop. 272. the begin:  
Isidore Hispalensis his reading of the Canon of Antioch makes nothing for Dr. Forbes. 277.   

L  
The laying on of Hands only essentially necessary to the constitution of a Bishop. 264.  
Linus and Clemens were Chori-Episcopi to St. Peter. 284 about the midst.  
Laodicean Canon forbids the Chori-Episcopi to act any thing without the leave of their Diocesan. 285.   

M  
The manner of the imposition of Hands distinguisheth what Orders are conferred. 265. S. a.  
Moderation to be used towards every opponent though never so much mistaken. 278. S. 4.   

N  
Necessity only can justify the Ordination of Presbyters. 270.  
No Church ever gave mere Presbyters power to Ordain. ib.  
The Canon of Nice examined. 250, 251.  
The Eighth Canon of the Council of Nice 285.   

O  
Objections against the Author's opinion concerning the Consecration of Bishops answered. 265.  
The first Objection answered. ib.  
Objection from the Council of Carthage answered, from 266. to 268.  
Objection against the Church of England's Rites of Consecration answered. 268.  
objection taken from the Council of Antioch answered. From 272, to 274.   

P  
Panormitan's Argument answered. 234,  
Presbyters may Elect, not Ordain a Bishop. 242.  
Pelagiu' s Ordination related. Sect. 1. P. 243.  
The Patriarch of Antioch his interpretation of the Canon of the Council of Nice. 250. etc.  
The Pope cannot dispense with Divine Laws. 253.  
Petrus Arcadius' discourse illustrated and applied. Sect. 2. 255, etc.  
The Pontifical differs in many things from the Canon of the Carthaginian Council in the rites of Consecration. 267.  
Presbyters alone could not Ordain in Alexandria. 272. the begin.   

R  
The Church of Rome doth much differ in its rites of Consecration from all other Churches and from the words of the Canon of the Council of Carthage 266. to 268.  
The Church of Rome hath various practices in those rites. ibid.  
Reproaches not to be used in stead of Arguments. 278. S. 4.   

S  
Sacerdotal administration not to be enjoyed without Bishops. 235  
Scotland never without Bishops either in it, or near it. 235, 236. to 238.  
Scotland not governed by Presbyters in the time of Johannes Major. ibid.  
Variation from the customs of the Church, of which we are members, is Schism. 257  
Suffragan-Bishops by the leave of the Bishop of the City may Ordain Priests or Deacons. 279.  
Proved by example. 286:   

V  
Variation from the particular Church of which we are members is Schism. 257.  
Vasques assertions that three Bishops are required jure divino to the Consecration of a Bishop disproved. 246, 247.  
The second part of Vasques●s Argument examined viz. that the Pope may dispense with the triplicity of Bishops. 252, 253, etc.  
Vasques' plea for the laying the Book of the Gospel upon the Bishop Neck to be necessary for his Conseration, examined. 201.    

These Quotations out of the New Testament are directed to, by the several Pages of this Book.  

St. Matthew.  Ch. V. P. 3 2.  10 13.  12 7. 15.  153. 8 13.  198. 1●0● 1.5.6.  9  7.  10. 16. 19  28. 18. 15.  165. 17.  ●9▪ 176. 19  28. 27.  17. 19 13.  196. 26. 17. 19 26.  18. 27. 46.  179. 28. 18. 19 2 22. 25.  28. 141.  20.  24. 28. 
St. Mark▪  Ch. V. P. 2. 3. 11 198. 3▪ 13. 7. 9 9 23. 198. 10. 15. 196. 14. 13. 16. 22. 18. 16. 14. 15. 22. 
St. Luke.  Ch.  V. P. 6.  13. 7. 7.  30. 168. 9 1.  9 2.  10. 10.  1. 11.   40. 1. 18.  15. 196.   8.10.20. 19 22▪  14. 11. 18.   32. 94. 24.  25. 15. 
St. John.  3 3. 5. 6.  12. 17. 26. 22.  12. 26.  16. 27.  4 4.  2. 12. 6.  48. 17. 10.  1. 4. 13.  16. 8. 16.  22. 200. 20. 21. 22.  22. 28. 31. 111.   23. 106. 21.  15. 16. 17. 28, 
Acts.  Ch.  V. P. 1 8.  30. 13. 20. 25.  31. 17. 25.  2. 20.  102. 22.  7. 23.  32. 2.  4. 30.   3. 72. 4 34.  36. 36.  32. 5.  13. 168. 6 1.  32. 2.  42. 3.  57 155. 5.  37. 127. 133. 17:  139. 7.  51. 40. 8.  5. 40. 9  18. 31. 10.  28. 9 13.  2. 3. 123. 139. 14 14.  23. 21.  156. 23.  134. 19 2. 4.  13. 13.  4. 20 77. 18.  118. 28.  101. 118. 142. 21.  8. 41. 100 22.  ●. 107. 
Romans:  6.  3. 4. 5. 15. 7.  24. 194. 8 1  190. 17.  191. 10.  4. 72. 11.  17. 178. 12 4.  62. 5. 7.  61. 8.  46. 47. 61. 92. 16.  7. 32. 
1 Corinthians.  1.  14. 85▪ 4 1. 2.  3 6.  33. 9  32. 5 2. 6. 13.  176. 5.  177. 180. 12.  186. 9  16. 79: 10.  4. 28: 11.  25. 19: 12 4. 9 10.  50: 27. 28.  163. 28.  69. 105. 29. 30.  64. 14.  3. 50. 15.  10. 85. 
2 Corinthians.  3.  7. 8. 1▪ 11 5.  24. 23.  2. 
Galatians.  1 1.  31. 34. 9  34. 19  33 3.  26. 27. 173. 196. 
Ephesians.  2.  20. 28. 4 1.  92. 11.  100 12. 13.  105. 13. 16.  163. 
Philippians.  2. 25. 32. 33. 3. 2. 153. 
1 Timothy.  1:  19 20. 181. 3 1.  33. 5.  80. 8.  44. 56. 58. 59 15.  163. 4 13. 15. 18.  76. 14.  107. 136. 5.  17. 64. 65. 103.   19 65. 115.   22. 114. 138. 
2 Timothy.  1. 6. 108. 138. 4. 5. 100 116. 
Titus:  1 4.  134. 5. 7.  96. 99 113. 9  80. 3.  10. 11. 181 
Hebrews.  5. 4. 3. 9, 16. 15. 11. 6. 72. 196. 12. 22. 23. 162. 
1 St. John.  1.  8. 10. 193. 2 1. 2. 6.  193. 19  182. 3.  9 193. 
Revelations.  1.  20. 117. 2 2. 4. 10. 24.  121. 13.  119. 16  22. 200. 20, 21.   22. 28. 31. 111. 21.  15, 16, ●7. 28. Chap.  Acts. P. 1.  17. 25. 2.   20. 102.   22. 7.   23. 32. 6 1.  2. 17.  139. 9 18.   31 10. 28.   9 13. 2. 3.   123. 139. 14 14.  32. 23.  134. 19 2. 4.  13. 13.  4. 20 28.   101. 118. 142. 21. 8.   100 22. 5.   107. 
Romans.  Chap. 7. 24.   194. 8 1.  190. 17.  191. 6▪ 3, 4, 5.   15.   4. 62. 12 5.  61. 7.  61. 8.  46, 47. 11.   61. 92. 10. 4.   72. 11. 17.   118. 16. 7.   32. 
1 Corinthians.  Chap. 1 14.   85. 4. 1, 2,   3.   9 32. 5 2. 6. 13.  176. 5.  177▪ 180. 12.  186. 10.  4. 28. 11.  25. 19 12. 4.  9, 10. 50.   28. 63.   29, 30▪ ●4. 14.  3. 50. 15.  10. 85. 
2 Corinthians.  Chap.  Pag. 3. 7. 8.  1. 5.  34. 23,  2. 20. 22. 28.  23. 106. 
Acts.  1.  8. 30.   13. 20. 25. 31. 2. 4.   30. 37.   72. 4 34.  36. 36.  32. 5 13.   168. 6 2.  42. 5.  37. 127. 133. 3.  57 133. 7.  51. 40. 8. 5.   40. 14. 21.   156. 20. 17. 18.   118. 218.   41. 
1 Corinthians.  4. 6.  33. 9 16.  79.  12. 163. 173. 12. 28.  105.  27, 28. 163. 
1 Timothy.  3 5. 80. 4. 13. 15. 18. 76. 14. 107. 136. 3. 15. 163. 1. 19 20. 181. 
Galatians.  1. 1. 31. 34. 9 34. 19 33. 3. 26, 27. 173, 196. 
Ephesians.  2. 20.  28. 4 1. 92. 11. 100 12, 13.  105. 13. 16.  163. 
Philippians.  ●. 25. 32, 33. 3. 2. 153. 
1 Timothy.  5. 1   86. 3 1.  33. 8.  44. 56. 58, 59 5 1.  65. 17.  64, 65. 103. 19  65. 115. 22.  114. 13. 
2 Timothy.  1. 6. 108. 138. 4. 5. 100 116. 
Titus.  1 4. 134. 9 80. 5. 7. 96. 99 113. 3. 10, 11.  181. 
Hebrews.  5. 4. 3. 9 16. 15. 11. 6. 72. 196. 12. 22. 23. 162. 
1 St. John.  1. 8. 10.  193. 2 12. 6. 193. 19 182. 3. 9  193. 
Revelation.  1. 20.  117. 2 2. 4. 10. 24. 121. 13. 119. 
St. john:  3. 3. 6. 17. 26. Deut. 16. 10, 43. Levit. 22. 18. 19 43. 
St. Matthew.  3. 2.  10. 13.  12. 7. 15.  153. 8. 13.  198 10. 15. 6,  9 7.  10. 16.  28 18 17. 29. 176. 19 28 27. 17. 15. 165. 17. 176 19 23.  196. 17.  18 19  18. 26 26.  18. 21. 46.  179. 28 18. 19:  22. 25. 28. 141. 20.  24. 28. 22. 
St, Mark.  2. 3. 11. 198. 3. 13. 7. 9 9 23. 198. 10. 15. 196. 13. 10. 16. 18. 14. 22. 18. 16. 14, 15. 22. 
St. Luke.  6 13. 7. 7 30. 1●8. 9 1. 9 2. 10. 10. 40. 1. 1. 11. 18. 15. 196. 10. 19 8. 19 19 18, 19: 20. 19▪ 32. 94. 24, 25. 15▪ 
St. John:  5. 12. 17. 26. 22. 12. 3. 27. 6. 26. 14: 4 2. 12. 6. 48. 17. 10. 1. 4. 13. 16. 8.  
FINIS.