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?

CHAP. XVI. To whom the right of dispensing this Ordinance doth appertain.

IN the handling of this Question, he seemeth to me to dis∣course 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 Propo∣sitions: The first is, page 76. When the Churches are compleated with all the Officers of Christ, the right or rite of Ordination (the margent cannot tell whether it be right or rite) belongs to the teaching Elders; the act appertains to the Presbyters of ruling and teaching Elders, when an Officer is invested in his place; for of these it is expresly spoken, 1 Tim. 4. 14. This is all his proof, of which place I have spoken, I think, abundantly, in the hand∣dling the case of Episcopacy: but consider the Conclusion; 1. He supposeth a Church compleated with all its Officers; then there is none lacking, then there can be none elected or ordain∣ed by him, because in his Divinity Election is Ordination. 2. He sayes, that the right of Ordination belongs to the teaching Elders. Mark; here a man would think were a learned di∣stinction, and an heedless Reader would be beguiled by such a di∣stinction of right and act: but, consider, that the right of Ordi∣nation is nothing but the Jus, the Authority to do it, for Ordina∣tion is an act; how can one have the right to act, and yet the acting belong to others? That which follows is nothing but great words against Bishops, which like froth vanisheth of it self.

His second Proposition is; Though the act of Ordination be∣longs to the Presbyters, yet the Jus & Potestas Ordinandi is con∣ferred 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 ••lders do not ordain, but the Church; the Elders, saith he, instrumentally, she originally; this is not well said: The Elders cannot be the Churches instruments, but Christs; they cannot be guided or directed by the Church, but are the guides and directors of the Church. Nay, I will go fur∣ther than these men, and say, the Elders are not physicall instru∣ments of this Ordination, but only morall; it's Christ that works all in all, and these only come in like morall instruments appoint∣ed by Christ to do this great work, which Christ blesseth; but, to say, they are instruments of the Church, is a strange phrase: they are the Churches Ministers, objectivè, busied about the Church; but they are Gods Ministers, as I may so speak, sub∣jectivè, subject only to his commands and directions. I should have wished that he had endeavoured to confirm these Proposi∣tions 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 trou∣ble 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, &c. I need adde no more, Posito quolibet sequitur quidlibet; suppose impos∣sibilities, and you may collect untruth enough. Christ hath promised not to leave his Church destitute: it is true, there is no promise to their particular Congregations, but to his Church in generall; and therefore to dispute upon an impossible ground, yeelds little or no strength to that Argument; and so I desist from it.

His second Argument begins in the end of that page, and pro∣ceeds in the next. It is thus urged:

If the Church can do the greater, then she may do the less; the acts appertaining to the same thing, and being of the same kind.

But the Church can do the greater, namely, give the essentials to a Pastor, ut supra; Ergo,

I put his words down verbatim; but now he should have na∣med

the less, which must be, or he speaks nothing; dispence this Ordinance of Ordination, and then I would know what that is, if not giving the essentials to this Officer: So here is idem per idem, the Conclusion proved by it self, and therefore must be denyed upon the same grounds which I spake of before; and this is all he puts down for his second Argument.

His third Argument, page 78. is thus framed:

That which is not an act of power, but of order, the Church can do: he proves this Proposition; for, (saith he) the reason why it is conceived and concluded that it is beyond the power of the people, is, because it is an act of supream jurisdiction:

But this is an act of order, not of power.

Suppose I should deny his Major; have the people power to do any thing that is an act of order? Indeed, I know no Ecclesi∣astick power they have, or any spirituall power of acting any thing, that concerns more than their particular demeanour, and all the rest is obedience.

But then to his Minor: To dispence Ordination is an act of power; for although the thing dispensed (as I have shewed) is called an order, yet it is an act of power that gives it, as in a Civil State, the precedency of place is meerly an order, but yet it is an act of power in the supream Magistrate that gives it. Now such is this; although we should conceive it meerly an or∣der, yet it must be given by an act of power: but this besides that notion of order, hath in it self great powers which are con∣veyed 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 Bi∣shop, which by humane invention and consent is preferred before a Presbyter in dignity, only, if they will hold themselves either to the precedent, (he writes, but I think he means president) or pat∣tern whence they raise their pedigree, and it is from Hierom ad Evagrium, Vnum ex se electum in altiori gradu colloca∣runt.

How many (to speak modestly) weaknesses may be obser∣ved in this Discourse? First, That it is imputed and obtruded up∣on

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 a∣gainst them; and although St. Hierome hath spoken enough otherwhere, yet in this Epistle being pressed somewhat with the p••ide of De••cons, who were lifted up above Presbyters, by the sloath and vanity of many, he somewhat passionately defended the cause of Presbyters, and here of all other places speaks the least for Bishops, making the name be used reciprocally in Scri∣pture. But then lastly, he quotes the place false, and by the change of a letter makes him speak what he meant not: to whom it may be answered in this, as Bishop Andrews did to Bellarmine in the like case, Verbum caret litera Cardinalis fide; he saith, Vnum ex se electum in altiori gradu colloc••runt, when it is, C••l∣locatum Episcopum nominaverunt; in which sence there is a migh∣ty difference: in the first, as if they had placed and given their Bishop his authority which he had; in the other only, that they called him Bishop, who was set over the other Presbyters; so that it intimates, that the name grew distinct not from the first instant of the Office. I am sure I have spoke of this place before, and let us consider it in its fullest and most averse sence that it can abide: consider, that just there in the heat and height of his Disputation against Deacons, and upon that ground his extolling of Presbyters, to which only Order he was exalted, he proves that the difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters, and the ex∣altation of them, was Apostolical, and from the Apostles deri∣ved to his age, from the Church of Alexandria, which was foun∣ded by St. Mark, where to his time from St. Mark was a suc∣cession of Bishops above Presbyters; and it is a derogation from the reverence due to the Apostles, to call their institutions meerly humane inventions, in such things which concern Ecclesiasticall Government, concerning which they had that great Commissi∣on, As my Father sent me, &c. and in this case it is most weak of all other, since concerning Ordination, St. Hierome in this very Epistle, immediately after these words, saith, Quid facit Epis∣copus excepta Ordinatione, quod non faciat Presbyter? thus in English, What doth a Bishop except Ordination, which a Presbyter

cannot do? Here then a Presbyter cannot ordain; and yet to shew the full sence of the words, understand that a Presbyter may do any thing, (I upon a sudden can except nothing, not it may be he when he wrote that Sentence) I say, he can do any thing that a Bishop doth, except ordain; but the affairs of ru∣ling other Elders or judging them, he cannot do by an origi∣nal; or to use Hookers 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, then 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 shewed that Presbyters elected their Bishop? which yet may be true, and the consequence most weak: for after their Ordinati∣on by Bishops, they may elect their Bishop, but not ordain him. Elections may be, and are various, according to humane Con∣stitutions, assigning this or that Pastor to this or that particular Congregation; sometimes the Parish, sometimes the Patron, sometimes a Bishop; but the Ordination, and giving him power to Officiate, must be only by the Bishops: the Bishop ordains and makes a man a Presbyter; a Bishop of the Catholick Church, he may by humane Laws and his own consent be tyed to Officiate and execute that Pastoral duty in this particular place: nor can any man shew me Authority from Scripture, or the times near to the Scripture-Writers, where any man was instituted and or∣dained to do these spirituall duties, by any other Authority than Episcopal. Nay I think since the Apostles Age, no considera∣ble Church, or body of Men, did conceive Election to be of va∣lidity to do these duties, till now.

Well then, all the premisses considered, which have a full consent of Scripture, and the practice of all Ages to confirm them, conceive with me, that it must be a bold and impudent thing of such men, who dare Officiate in these divine duties,

without Authority granted from Christ, which he only gave to the Apostles, and they to their Successors, Bishops; and it is a foolish rashness in those men, who adventure to receive the Co∣venants of their eternall Salvation from such men, who have no Atturnment from Christ to Seal them.

If the Case were dubious, which to me seems as clear as such a practick matter can be, I should speak more; but it being clear, I need write no more in this Theam. I intended to have spoken to Mr. Hobs; but lately there came to my hands a Book of learned Dr. Hammond, entituled, A Letter of Resolution to six Queries; in the fifth of which, which is about Imposition of hands, you may find him most justly censured for that vain and un-scholastick O∣pinion, pag. 384. But the business is handled sufficiently in the be∣ginning of that Treatise, pag. 318. wherefore my pains were vain in this Cause.