Church matters Hence it is evident that this Author is obliged if he would answer his undertaking in pleading for the present Prelacie not only to evince the warrantablenes of the Diocesian Bishop in all his pretended spiritual power over Church Judicatories But likewaves of the Erastianbishop deriving all his Authoritie from the Civil Magistrat Wee shall then befor wee come to examine his pleading upon this Head offer I. Some Arguments against our Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church-officer and shall shew his office to be contrare to Scripture 2. As ane Erastian Prelat deryving all his spiritual power from the Magistrat I. As a pretended Church officer the Diocesian Bishop is contrare to Scripture in many respects I. In narrowing and restricting the Scripture term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to ane office and officer distinct from and Superior to a Presbyter or Pastor For since the Spirit of God in Scripture appropriats this term to Presbyters and consequentlie the work and office therin imported Tit. 1 5 7. Act. 20 28. 1 Pet. 5 2. 3. Sure it must be ane anti-Scriptural and Sacrilegius robbing of Presbyters of their right and due designation to make this proper and peculiar to a Diocesian Bishop onlie as the Characteristick of his office Episcopal men themselves and this Author particularely doe acknowledge this term to be in Scripture applyed to Presbyters Let them then shew a reason why they have made it peculiar to a Prelat as distinct from Presbyters Or let them shew where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denots such ane officer as they have shappen out viz. A diocesian Prelat having sole power of ordination and jurisdiction over a wholl diocess with a negative voice and a sole decisive suffrage in the Church Judicatories thereof Should they appropriat the term Pastor or Minister to a diocesian Prelat onlie Who would not call this ane Anti-scriptural usurpation of the Presbyters due And why also shall it not be thought such ane usurpation when they appropriat the term Episcopus or Bishop to such a pretended distinct officer Since this term is as much given to Presbyters in Scripture as the terme of Pastor or Minister Judicious Calvin hath some remarkable passages to this purpose in his Comentaries On Tit 1 7. Having observed that Bishops and Presbyters are all one He calls the appropriating of the name Bishop to the Prelat a profane boldnes and ane abrogating of the holy Ghosts language Abrogato Spiritus Sansti sermone usus hominum arbitrio inductus praevaluit nomen officii quod Deus in commune omnibus dederat in unum transferri reliquis spoliatis injurium est absurdum Deinde sic pervertere Spiritus sancti linguam nimis profana audaciae est Act. 20 28. He collects the identitie of the name office of Bishop Presbiter from the elders being called Bishops And having observed the same on Philip. 1. And that after the name Bishop became peculiare to one He adds id tamen ex hominum consuetudine natum est Scripturae autoritate minime nititur Telling us that under this pretext of giving the name to one ane unlawful dominion was brought in But of this againe II. The office hereby designed doth alwayes relate to the Flock and hath them for its immediat object and Correlat as much as the word Pastor The Bishops of Ephesus were made by the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the flock of God whom they were to feed Whereas our supposed Diocesian Episcopus or Bishop His office and inscection relates immediatly to the wholl Pastores of his diocess who are alse much his flock and the object of his oversight care direction correction and censure as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or layetie Peter bids the Episcopountes feed the flock act the Bishops over them But our diocesian Prelat pretends to feed and rule the Pastores themselves The Scripture Bishop is Populi Pastor but the Diocesian Prelat is Pastor Pastorum Presbiter Presbiterorum And therfor is ane Antiscriptural Monster III. The Diocesian Prelat usurpes and takes from Presbiters that authoritie allowed them of God in his Word For both power of ordination and jurisdiction is soly and properlie in the Diocesian Prelat according to Episcopal men and likewise according to our Lawes As we saw above in the act anent Prelacy For according thereto the Prelat is a Superior ordinar Church officer above Presbyters he is sole as to ordination may doe it alone and assumes Presbiters onelie proforma Which no more lessens his Principalitie and Supereminencie in this pointe then a Prince in assumeing Counsellors saith Dounam Def. lib 5 Cap. 7. weakens his princely power and authoritie Presbyters exercise all their Acts of the power of order in a dependance upon him he only is the proper Pastor of the diocess as shall be afterward cleared Presbiters are but his substitutes and helpers They are likwayes Subject to him as their proper Sole judge and censurer by Ecclesiastick censures of suspension deposition excommunication the decisive power in Church judicatories is properlie his For the most unanimous Acts and conclusions of the diocesian Synod falls unders his cognisance to be ratified or Cassat at his pleasure He is the Sine quo non and hath a Negative voice in the judicatories the law allowing his Presbiters only to give him advice Nay and not that either unles he judge them of known layaltie and prudence Now in all these he usurps over Presbiters authoritie allowed them of God For I. Wee find the Scripture atributes the power of order jurisdiction equalie to all Presbiters who have both keys of doctrine discipline given them immediatlie by Christ. In that I. They are command 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5. 28. Act. 20. 2. which comprehends the authoritie and exercise of both the keys of doctrine and discipline 2. In all commands relating to the exercise of this power ther is not the least hint of ane equalitie among them which were very cross to the Lords Scope if the Diocesian Prelats Superioritie were allowed and appointed The Presbiters or Bishops of Ephesus and those of the Churches which Peter writs unto are commanded to feed and rule jointlie equallie and with the same authoritie but non of them in dependance upon and deryving a precarious authoritie from another in feeding and ruleing 3. In all the commands relating to peoples Subjection obedience to Church Rulers in the exercise of their power their is not the least hint of disparitie among these Rulers 1 Thess. 5 12. People are commanded to obey them that labour among them and are over them in the Lord and to esteem them highly And Hebr. 13 17. They are commanded to obey them who have the rule over them and watch for their Soules but nothing of a special degrie of obedience to this supposed highest supereminent watch man is heard of in these or any
such like precepts And no wonder for thes simple Gospel times knew no Bishops who watched not over Soules and laboured in the word and doctrine When the Apostle Peter commands Christians to obey civil Rulers He distinguishs the King as Supeream and Governours sent by him that a Chief subjection may be yeelded to the one and a subordinat to the other But nothing of this is heard of in enjoining peoples subjection to Ministers Ane honour must be allowed by Timothey by the people of God consequentlie to elders that rule weil yea and a double honor but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especialy to those that labour in the Word and Doctrine The Apostle in stating a distinction in the degries of honour allowed to elders and in this different character of the one from the other diversifies elders higher lower Now by the same reason upon which Divines doe rationaly build this conclusion it must be granted that the enjoyning obedience to all Pastores promiscuusly and without any Note of distinction will inferr their equal office and authoritie And by the same reason that the Apostle added this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or especialy in this place he should have added in these or some such comands relating to the peoples obedience a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or especialy to distinguish the Diocesian Prelat from other Pastores and expressed it thus esteem them all highly obey them be subject to them that teach and watch over you All your Pastors but especially the Supereminent Pastor or Bishop who hath the cheifinspection and from whom all the rest derive their authoritie Likwayes in enjoining the pastoral duties he should have been especially noticed who had the cheif hand and authoritie therin which is a Topick improven by this informer but nothing of this is seen in Scripture as shall be after more fully cleared 4. Wee find accordinglie A practical Equalitie among Pastores or Bishops in the exercise of this governing power abundantlie held out and exemplified in Scripture The judging and censuring of the incestuous man is by the Apostle enjoyned to the Church Officers or Ministers of Corinth joyntlie 1 Cor. 5. Chap. compared with 2 Cor. 2. Chap. The Apostle all along supposeth ane inherent authority in these Ministers to put forth this grand juridical Forensical Act â—…ydes them for so long neglecting it and shewes its object viz. This person under the formalis ratio of wicked or scandalus Again he shews its nature to be Ajudging or puting from among them and delivering to Satan upon this judging previous thereunto He also shews that this authoritie touches all Church Members not them that are without whom God judgeth but those that are within Now as hee supposes I say ane authority of this Nature and extent inherent in these Church officers so he speaks to them indefinitly and universally all along which were very cross to his Scope If he had set up or allovved the Diocesian Prelat whose sole prerogative this were And the inflicted Censur he calls with the samine indefinitnes A punishment inflicted by many who accordingly are commanded with the same indefinitnes or universality of expression To receave absolve him upon his repentance The exercise of the binding and â—…owsing power being in the representative juridicall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church to whom scandales must be delated and to whom the promise of ratification of her juricall Acts in Heaven is made Matth. 18 17. Besids we find the exercise of ordination in a Presbitry 1 Tim. 4 14. And that even in relation to ane Evangelist Timothy The Presbitry here must be a juridicall Senat and meeting for the Office can lay on no hands And ordination is ane hie authoritative juridicall Act. Pauls presence and laying on of hands together with them confirmes their authoritie as being cumulative thereto not privative therof even as his countenanceing of or concurring with our Adversaries pretended Diocesian Prelat let us suppose it in his Act of ordination would not infringe his pretended right herein Ergo. By their own Confession and by paritie of reason it cannot infringe or Impeach this power which is attributed to the Presbitery Had the Apostle in stead of Presbyterie put in Prâ—…at and expressed it thus By the laying on of the hands of A Bishop or Diecesian-Bishop I suppose our Adversaries would have thought the Episcopal power of ordination invincibly demonstrat ther from notwithstanding of Pauls saying 2 Tim 1 6. By the laying on of my hands viz together with the Bishop Pauls extraordinare Apostolicall imposition of hands being no white derogatorie unto the supposed Episcopal ordinarie power now verte tabulas the Apostle sayes by the laying on of the handes of the Presbitry Ergo the ordinary and equal power of Pastores and its equal exercise in ordination is herin convincingly made out Nixt The Prelats monopolizing thus in himself the decisive suffrage of Judicatories is cross many wayes to Scripture For I Its a stepping up in a peice of Diotrephese-lik or rather papal-pride above the Apostles themselves who in Churches constitut did alwayes take alongst with them the advice consent and authoritative concurrence of ordinary Ministers and Elders in Government As is evinced in the premised Scriptures wherin it is convinceingly clear that Paul though ane Apostle of all the Churches indewed with extraordinarie unconfined inspection over the same and Pastor thereof in actu exercito having extraordinary Miracolous-gifts being the Master Builder and Spiritual Father who by the Gospel had begotten both Pastores and flocks of many Churches Yet would neither excommunicat the incestuous Corinthian alone but put it upon the Church Officers as their duty to doe it by a judicial decisive joynt suffrage Nor yet did he exclud the presbyters in ordaining even ane Evangilist but took in their judicial and presbyterial concurrence And in Act. 15. In that meeting or Counsel at Jerusalem where was a wholl Colledge or Presbitery of Apostles and mett about ane Act or decision of a high Nature wherein was put forth both Adegmatick critick diatactick authority or power in relation to the clearing of that great pointe of truth anent the abrogation of the Mosaicall ceremonies and censuring the opposers of Paul and Barnabas herin who had disturbed the Churches and belied the Apostles Doctrine And accordingly in order to the restoring and establishing truth and order in these disturbed Churches The ordinary Ministers or elders concurr with the Apostles in every step viz In the conferrence disquisition the authoritative decision the drawing forth of the sentence and decree the sending out of the decreeing and censuring Epistle the imposeing of the decrie upon the Churches to observe and keep the same c. 2. This cutts the throate of that juridical forensical joynt decision of Church Judicatories which the Scriptur doth so clearly hold forth Where is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the censureing juridiall court drawing sorth a joynt decision or censure Wher
any judge 2. The Diocesian Prelat debases and tramples upon this noble work in that be makes it in all the Pastores of the Dioces to depend upon his Lordly disposal and the authoritie thereof to be deryved from him as the sole proper Pastor of all the Diocess whose deputs the preachers are in this work although himself is obleiged to feed no flock 3 He maks these high and noble Acts of the power of order preaching and administration of Sacraments a lower and subordinat work and office to the work and office of ruleing only which is his Characteristick whereby he holds himself Superior to all the preachers of the Diocess whereas the Scriptur doeth as we heard appropriat the highest honour to the labourer in the word and doctrine as the nobler employment and office above the Ruler only 6. In this the Diocesian Prelats office is contrare unto and reprobat by the Scriptur in that by Apocriphal Antiscriptural new invented Degrees and orders It diversities and cutts asunder what God hes made one and the same I mean the Pastoral Office and by consequence other offices mentioned in Scripture as that of Prophets Evangelists Deacons non of which offices admites of Subordinat Spheeres and degrees but all the persons that are Intrusted with these offices are of the same degree and authority therin by the Word of God No Evangelist Prophet or Apostle is found of a Superior office or order to other Apostles Evangelists c. Whence comes this diversity then in the Pastoral office that one Pastor must have a Lordly Dominion over some hundreds of his fellowes If it be said that the Episcopal office succeeds that of the Apostles or Evangelists besides that wee shall disprove this afterward and shew that these offices taken formaliter as superior to that of the Pastor are expyred as sound Divines doe almost universally grant I answer that most if not all Prelatists ancient and modern doe hold the Diocesian Prelat to be no officer Specifially distinct from the Presbyter or Pastor but only gradually distinct as being a Pastor with a more amply extended authority for order of Government Mr Burnet in his pretended vindication of the present Prelacie 4t Conference pag. 310 311. tells us that he is not clear anent the notion as he calls it of the distinct offices of Bishop and Presbyter and akonowledges the Presbyter to be of the hiest office in the Church telling us that the Prelat is but a different degree in the same office Although in this he and the rest doe speak most inconsequently the forementioned ingredients of the Prelatical function being such as doe certanly amount to make up a new species of ane office such as a different work consecration or ordination the actus primus of a State Ruler different qualifications by consequence above and beyond these of a Presbyter The diversitie of these distinguishes the Scripture offices of Apostles Evangelists c. which Paul setts in several Classes as first and second 1 Cor. 12 28. Mr Burnet his reason is the same with that of others herine viz the Pastors authority to administer the word Sacraments which are the highest acts of the power of order He tells us that since the Sacramental actions are the highest of sacred performances he cannot but acknowlege that such as are impowered for them must be of the hiest office in the Church now I say since they will needs have the Diocesian Bishop to be only a different degree of the Presbyterat or Pastoral office they cannot with any shaddow of reason make him Successor to the Evangelists or Apostles in their formal office which they will not dare to affirm to be only a different degree of the Presbyterat or Pastores office and will affirme it to have been specifically distinct from the same The Ancients and Schoolemen held that the Pastor in his ordination receaved the same Power of Government that the Prelat hath but that the Prelat is the primus Presbyter who hath the raines of all the exercise in his hand But how cross is this to Scripture that any Church officer hath a power and authoriritie which he cannot exercise To whomsoever God hath given the power he hath certainlie commanded the exercise of it and particularly Pastores or Presbyters are as we have heard enixely commanded to exercise all their Pastoral authority and power as they shall answer to their great Master Besyds if the Pastoral office or its official power of order and jurisdiction may be warrantably thus divided and cutt out in Shreeds and parcells and divyded among different recipients then it were lawful to divyde preaching and administration of the Sacraments so as one Presbyter notwithstanding of his authority and mission in relation to both word and Sacraments receaved in his ordination might have preaching only allowed to him but no administration of Sacraments Another might be allowed to administer Sacraments but not to preach One Presbyter upon the pretence of order or union pretences are never wanting to humane inventions might be sett a part and authorised to Baptise all the Children in a wholl Province doing nothing else of the Pastoral Office And this power by the same authority might be taken from all the Pastoures of the Province Sure all would acknowledge this to be a most wicked divyding and diversifieing what God the conjoyned And such is this Prelatical divyding of the Pastoral charge in relation to order and jurisdiction or the keys of Doctrine Government the power wherof the Pastor receaves intirely in his ordination as well as the Authority of administrating Sacraments 7. In this the Diocesian Bishop is contrare to Scripture In that his Office is in many respects cross to the very nature of the Gospel-Church Government and is ane Office which the man that exercises cannot but in so farr cease to be a Gospel Church-ruler Which I prove thus 1. Since all authority in the Diocess as to either the Word or Disciplin is deryved from the Bishop as its proper fountaine and subject this power of the Bishop is properlie and of its own nature not a Gospel Ministery But a dominion and principalitie discharged to Church Officers of what ever sorte whose authority is not a despotick nomothetick or architectonick power but a Ministerial Stewardship only Matth. 20 v 25 26. 2 Cor. 1 24. 1 Cor. 4 D. 1 Pet. 5 2 3. 3 Epist. John 9. The work of all Church Officers is called a Ministery Pastours Doctores yea Apostles Evangelists were appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the worke of the Ministery Ephes. 4 12. 2 Cor. 4 v. 5. Paul calls himself a fellow servant with Epaphras Collos. 17. with Tichicus Collos. 4 7. And calls Ministers his fellow-souldiers and fellow-labores Philip. 4. 3 -2 25-Rom 16 3 -2 The Bishops power inverts Christs rule as to the gradation in point of censures and appealls which is from one one to more from the lesser number to the greater from
not to add new spirituall officers who must have a new work c. And the Bishops authority must either be comprehended among the rules anent these officers enumerat and the exercise of their power or he is anâ—… apocriphal officer and unlawfull Or he must say we may add new officers and offices and institutions in poynt of government to these contained in Scripture and so our divines argument against the pope from the Scriptures silence anent him in its enumeration of officers is naught 3. Christ exercising ane external visible kingdom over his Church visible and all Church officers and their administrations being in his name and authoritis as is above cleared every Church officers mission and warrand must be found in his word other wâ—…yes he runs unsent and cannot expect his blessing all that come be for him and anticipat his call are theeves and robbers 4. All Christs officers and their gifts are Christs royall and mediatorie donations to his Church and by him peculiarly set and authorized therein Ephes. 4. 〈◊〉 7 8. c 1. Cor. 12. 28. He as the great Master of the house gives all his Stewards their Keys their Orders Now how Christ the king and head of his Church his donation his commission his giving his Keyes Should be instructed other wayes then by his clear warrands and institutiones in his word and Testament I would gladly learne of this Informer Is there any officer of State any subordinat Magistrat allowed in a kingdome which hath not the clear warrand of the lawes Surely not and so the case is here Finallie The ground and reasone which he builds this shifting evasion upon viz. That many things are not otherwayes commanded then under some generall as that all things be done decently or to edification instancing in the moderator and Clerk of a meeting of Ministers is very poor For since the authority which God gave Paul was to edification all ordinances which have the most clear institution must be thus qualified and to this end that which is not Otherwayes commanded then under this generall must needs be the alterable circumstances only commone to Civill and Sacred actions and such as supposes the thing it self cloathed with these circumstances to be that which is to be done and by consequence falling Hactenus under the Compasse of a command or institution for it is these only which are left to the regulation of Christian prudence according to the generall rules of the word But as we have above cleared such ane eminent Church officer as the Bishop is supposed to be or any Church officer can be no such circumstance but is such a substantiall point of government as requires a clear and positive warrand or else must be holden unlawfull and this he must acknowledge or contradict himself for He dare not say but that Church officers are other wayes commanded then under this generall and himself alledges the prelats divine institution so He can be none of these things which hath only this generall warrand Besides I would know if He will say that this officer the prelat must be sett up and Act with decencie and order surely He will not deny this If then the prelat himself is but a peece of decentie and order as being only commanded under that notion and a species under that generall then he sayes that order and decencie must be managed cloathed with order and decencie which will be very hard to reconceale to sense or He must say that the prelat must act with disorder and confusion or to evit these rockes that the prelat must be warranted under another notion then that of a circumstance of meer order and so must have a particular warrand His instance of the Moderator and Clerk is very foolish the Clerk not being necessarly a Church officer and the Moderator no distinct Church officer from the rest of the members and so is utterly Impertinent to this pointe and question anent a Church officer distinct from and Superior to a presbiter whither he ought to have a particular Scripture warrand Besides that the same divine warrand that a judiciall procedor by disquisition votes and suffrage hath and is exemplified in that Synod Act. 15. this being the necessary frame of judicatories as such and consequently of all Church judicatories the moderator hath the same foundation of his office but He will never let us see a shaddow of this for the prelat Now to shew what good Harmonie this Informer keeps in this point with some chieff men of his way others also let us hear what they hold Institutum Apostolorum de regimine Ecclesiastico ea gubernationis ratio quae aetate Apostolorum fuit c. The Apostles appointment as to Church government and that way and method of government which was in their time is perpetuall and can no more be changed then the priesthood of Aaron could saith Saravia con tra bezam Whitaker controv 4. Quest 1. Cap. 9. Tells us That the Church must not be governed-vt humano ingenio arriserit as pleases mens fancie sed ut Christo Ecclesiae domino so lique principi placet But as it pleases Christ her only head and Lord. Hence he concludes that the forms which He hath institut must be held fast as the best Matth. Sutliv de Pontif Roman lib. 1 Cap. 1. Answering Bellarmins argument from Civil to Ecclesiastick Monarchie tells him that-sicut unus Ecclesiae summus princeps c As thereis one chieff Prince of the Church so there is one true essential forme therof differing from the various moulds of commone wealthes that as she hath but one head so but one frame of policie which those who resyle from Christi leges transgrediuntur-they transgress the lawes of Christ and blotts her true government Field of the Church lib 5. Cap 45. Argues thus against the popes temporal power that among men non hath power of chaingeing any thing but he alone to whom in an eminent degree it belongs and from whom it is originally derived but to govern the Church as such is not eminently in the Magistrat It is a Bad omen cespitare in limine our informer we see in his first answer to his doupter is so anhappie as therin to justle with soom chieff champions of his cause CHAP. IX The Informer undertakes to answer the Arguments of Presbyterians against Episcopacy His answers to our Argumets from Matth. 20 25 26. and Petr. 5 3. Examined at large The genuine strength and nerves of our reasoning upon these Texts which he dare not medle with His answers found inconsistent with themselves the same with Papists answers for the papacie and contrare to the sense of sound divines THe doubter in the nixt place alleages Prelacy to the forbidden and therefore unlawful bringing for proof Matth. 20 25 26 27 28. And the Argument from this text he makes his poor doubter slenderly and curtly to represent thus That Christ forbids any of his
among other corruptions and since he drawes his first instance of the Levits subordination from Exod 6. before that tribe was set apart at all to the Holy Ministery that passage at least and as I said in the judgment of some its parallels also aftermentioned by him doe speak of the Civil Government and subordi nation of the Levites in that capacitie and that any of their Chief rulers are by the Greeks termed Episcopus is a very poor argument to conclude their Ecclesiastick rule it being notourly known that the best Greek Authores put his designation upon Civil Governoures This subordination among the Levites in Exod. 6 15. is unquestionably civil upon the ground assigned And numb 3. It is evident that the heads and princes of Families are numbered And accordingly the heads and Chief of the families 1 Chron. 24. and in Neh 11 14. He that is set over the priests is the son of one of the great men Haggedolim or eminent in paris and place as many take it 1 Chron. 24 4. before the division and order is set down it s said there were more Chief men found of the sones of Eleazar then of the sones of â—…thamar c. all which doth much plead forthis assertion but we need not be peremptor in pressing this since the weight of our answer lies not upon it Our Informer comes nixt to his New Testament proofes for Bishops and produces first the superiority of the twelve Apostles above the seventy Disciples Where 1. Wee see He is still in the clouds of a general superiority which is farr from the Prince-like Arbitrary and Erastian superioritie of the Diocesian Prelat now existent and whom he undertakes to plead for which this Informer Had he intended to have informed right should have condescended upon Had the Apostles such a superioritie over the seventy Disciples Were they subject to the Apostles as their Rectors and judges Did the Apostles as our Prelats assume a Sole Decisive conclusive suffrage and a negative voice over Church Judicatories notwithstanding of their extraordinary and high prerogatives Did we not see the contrary exemplified in that meeting of Apostles with ordinary Ministers Act. 15 Had the seventy onely a derived precarius Ministry under the twelve Apostles as their Vicars Substitutes in their Ministration Had they no Interest in the Church-Government but upon the Apostles meer pleasure As Curats are now in all these respects subject to their Prelats Had not the seventy their mission their institution immediatly from Christ as well as the Apostles themselves Were they not consequently to exercise their Ministery upon this ground without such a servil dependance upon the twelve as Prelats doe arrogat to themselves ane arbitrary principality over Ministers Were the twelve to rule only and to committ the preaching worke to the seventy as their deputes as our Prelats now doe Or were they not rather to help forward the great harvest and the work of the Ministery together with the Apostles themselves So that this Informer will never find the least shaddow of ane Episcopall superiority here But 2. Granting that the Apostles were officers in asuperiour degree to the seventy which is the utmost Conclusion which he can draw from Scripture how will this infer a superiority among officers of the same degree We grant the Apostles were superior to Evangelists they againe to Pastoures Ergo one Pastour may be a diocesian Prelat over hunderds of other Pastours is a consequence known to no logick Christ appointed both extraordinary and ordinarie officers in their severall degrees as Apostles Evangelists Pastours Ergo he appointed different degrees of Pastours hath no connexion imaginable 3. Tht basis of his argument lyes in this that the Prelats are immediat successours of the Apostles in their degree of superiority to the seventy Disciples and Pastours come after the seventy in their supposed subjection and are not the Apostles immediat successours in the ordinary Ministery but this as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the quesitum or question must be proved not begged and supposed by him We did already evince the contrary viz That the Pastour to whom is committed the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments and both the keys immediatly from the Apostles are the highest ordinary officers and the Apostles immediat successorus as to both order and Jurisdictione But the doubter and I object furder that the Apostles superioritie over the seventie was extraordinary personall temporarie and to cease with themselves In answer to this He grants that in some things their priviledges were extraordinary and to cease with themselves such as their immediat cas ling their sending to all nations their infallibility gifts of tongues or whatever was necessary for the first founding of the obristian Châ—…rch but in other things wherein they were superior to other Ministers their power was not extraordinary and temporarie but still to be continued such as ordination of Ministers and governeing them by ecclesiastick authority in which power the Bishops succeeds them who are the children in stead of the Fathers as Augustin applies that of Psal. 45 v. 19. Ans. 1. Then it seems that with him the Episcopal office properly succeeds to that of the Apostles and is a continuation of their power in ordination and jurisdiction over Pastours which contradicts his second answer to our Argument from Ephes. 4 viz that Bishops in that place may be comprehended under the the office of Pastours teachers For here he makes their office the same with that of the Apostles as importing ane authority in ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors and teachers and so he should have said rather that it is comprehended under the Apostolick office 2. He yet againe contradicts himself in this answer whill granting that whatsoever was necessary for the first planting of the Christian Church is a priviledge ceased with the Apostles and yet making their power of ordination of Ministers and in governing them to be still necessary he must understand it as performed and done by them since therein he imagins the pattern of episcopall power to ly For other wayes the Presbyterians doe hold and prove that ordination by the Presbytery and Government by Presbyters collegiatly is still continued and necessarie This he will not allow and so must understand it of the manner wherein the Apostles performed this at first Now I say their Apostolick power in ordination and Government as exercised by them at first was necessarie for the first founding of the Church For 1. Their power of ordination was of equal limits and extent with their mission to all nations Goe disciple all nations I hope he will grant was extraordinary as being necessary for the first founding of the churches Ergo say I. so was their power in ordination and Government of Ministers since it was of a like nature and of the same extent for to what ever nations they were sent together a Church therein there they were to ordaine Ministers
were adressed to a Moderator would that infer his Authoritie over the Synod Nay since a Presbytry laid on hand 's upon Timothy himself Since the Presbyters of this Church of Ephesus had the Episcopal power in Common committed to them as the Holy Ghosts Bishops Since the Corinth-Presbytery did excommunicat the incestuous we may clearly infer that these directions though immediatly addressed to Timothy yet belonged to Presbyters of that and Other Churches as well as him 2. Supposing that this adress will give him a speciall Interest herein yet how will the Informer prove that it respects Timothy any other way and in any other Capacity then of ane Euangelist which he sayes it might be he yet was and not a Bishop He dissallowes not of Gerards opinion who sayes that he was not yet made Bishop Now if these Rules were to be observed by him and this his supposed singular Authority exercised as ane Evangelist whose office was to cease It will plead nothing for the Episcopal power Surely upon our supposition that he was a fellow-helper and assistant of Paul in his Apostolik function and had a transient occasional Imployment here as is clearely held out in the Text these rules are very suitable unto him in that capacity Besids these Directions are for instruction of every man of God or Minister in point of Church-Government 2. Tim. 3 16. 1 Tim. 4. 6 But doth not give them Episopal power Or will he say that every man hath the formal office or place in the nature whereof he is instructed The dedication of a book to a man anent rules of kingly Government will not make the man or suppose him either King or Governour In the 3d. place As to these Directions themselves particularly as to Timothies direction as to laying on of hands 't is Answered that laying on of hands in ordination is found in Scripture a Presbyterial Acte competent to meer Presbyters which as I said they exercised upon Timothy himself though Paul was present 1 Tim 4 14. 2 Tim. 1. 5. And therefor Timothy could have no single or Episcopal authority therein in Churches Constitute So that the precept directs Presbyters as well as him in that point Nay this addressed direction mainly respected them as the proper subject of this power and the Presbytery received their lesson here not to lay on hands suddenly rather then Timothy Nixt As for his Authority and directions anent rebuking and Censures I answ That neither can this be Timothy's sole prerogative for either it is meaned of a Privat rebuke and this every Christian hath authority in Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour and not suffer sin upon him Levit. 19 17. Prov. 9 8. Or of a ministerial rebuke and this is competent to every Minister of the word Isa. 58 1. 2 Tim. 41 2. Tiâ—… 1 13. 2 Sam. 12 8. And besides Institutions and reproofs of Church officers will not prove a fixed Episcopal power Prophets rebuked but had no jurisdiction over Priests nor Paul over Peter though he reproved him As for that which he particularly mentions about receiving ane accusation against ane Elder It is answered That this also belongs to the official juridical power of Elders since Ruling Government attribute to them in Scripture doth necessarily import ane authority to receive accusations and correct delinquents by reproofs and censures Matth. 8 16. 17. There is ane accusation to be delated ecclesiae to the Church or the juridical Court not to one Prelat as is above cleared and therefore the direction anent the receiving of the accusation respects them who were to judge upon it and not the Prelat Compare this with 1 Cor. 5 4 5. The Presbyters must meet together to rebuke the Incestuous there and they that are Spiritual must restore the delinquent Gal. 6 1. The Church officers or Ministers of Thessalonica must note and admonish authoritatively the disobedient Brother 2 Thess. 3 14 15. To which I may add that as upon the one hand Timothy is forbidden to rebuke ane elder and positively enjoyned doubly to honour them when faithful So the receiving ane accusation is no more then that which every privat Christian and Minister is capable of even against the superiour whither in state or age in relation to admonition Counsel or Comfort accordingly Levit. 19 17. Gal. 6 1 2 Joh. 10 11. None in whatever capacity are exeemed from this precept not to receive accusations lightly Hence the 4th Council of Carthage cited by Blond Apol. Sect. 4 enacted That no Bishop should hear ane accusation without the Clergie and that without their assent the sentence should be voyd where was the negative voyce here Whittaker thus answers the Popish pleading upon this text and our Informers too controv 4. Quest. 1. Cap. 2. That Timothy is commanded not rashly to receive ane accusation proves not that he had dominion over Elders which according to the Apostles minde is to bring a crime to the Church to bring the guilty into judgement openly to reprove which not only superiors may doe but also equals and inferiors In the Roman Republick the Kings did not only judge the people but also the Senators and patricii and certainly it seems not that Timothy had such a â—…sistory and Court as was afterward appointed to Bishops in the Church what this authority was may be understood by that which followes those that sin rebuke before all which equals also may doe Thus bishops heretofore if any elder or Bishop had ane ill report referred it to the eeclesiastick Senat or Synod and condemned him if he seemed worthy by a publick judgement that is did either suspend excommunicat or remove him the Bishop condemneing nocent elders or deacons not by his authority alone but with the judgment of the Church and clergie in case of appeals even to the Metropolitan he could doe nothing without the Synod what they did was ratified The same is the answer of Bucer de vt usu Sacr. Minister Willet Sinops Papis Contr. 5 Ques 3 part 3 In the appeudix Eucer de Gub. pag. 300. to 398. The Informer tells us in the next place that these directions concern after ages and are of ordinary use and therefore they cannot be extraordinary officers in these Acts that in calling Timothy and Titus extraordinary officers in these Acts we lead the way to their errour who call ordination and jurisdiction extraordinary Answ. As we have proved that none of these directions will infer in Timothy ane Episcopal Power properly such but that any power he had above Presbyters was by his special Evangelistick Legation so the concernment of after ages in these directions and their being of constant use is a pitiful argument to prove the continuanc of the power in that manner Are not all the old Testament precepts anent the antiquated ceremonies all the acts directions given to extraordinary officers both under the Old and New Testament of perpetual
use in after ages But are they therefore to be imitated and retained What will he say to the Papists pleading for the anoinâ—… of the sick upon the Apostle James his precept let the elders anoint the sicke with oile and pary this is ane Act enjoyned to ordinary officers viz to elders and joyned with with prayer a constant standing dutie and he will not say that this Apostolick precept is to be ex punged as useles What must we therefore retean anointing would he not in this case distinguish betwixt that which is a constant dutie and a temporarie concomitant and appendix Acted not the Apostles extraordinarely in their very preaching both as to its extent its confirmation by miracles their gifts of tongues and are not the Acts of preaching and baptizing of constant use in the Church Must not this Informer grant that these Apostolick Acts of preaaching and baptizing are perpetual though the mould and maner is extraordinary and gone in so far as their extraordinary Apostolick power interposed therein Thus the Acts of ordination and jurisdiction are moral but the modusrei is extraordinary in so farr as their Evangelistik authority and special legation interposed therein He must either acquiesc in this and acknowledge this his argueing Sophistick and pueril or he will contradict what he said before anent the Apostles extraordinary Priviledges which are gone with them viz infaillibilitie their immediat call sending to all nations and what else was necessary for the first founding of the Church Now is not that which was thus necessary of perpetual use Are we not built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Are not the ordinances and Ministery receaved from them of perpetuall use And their most extraordinary Acts if we mean it of improvement Nay did not the new-Testament Church receave the Law of God and ordinances from the Jewes Must we therefore Judaize 2. How will he prove that the asserting that any officer hath ane extraordinary authority conversant about such ane Act will give ground to say that the Act it self is extraordinary or the ordinance touched by that Act expyred Will his asserting that the Apostles exercised ane extraordinary authority which is now ceased in their preaching unfixedly by ane immediat call and confirming their doctrine with miracles and strange tongues give ground to conclude that the ordinances of preaching and baptizing are expired also I trow he will not grant this How then will our asserting that Timothy and Titus put forth ane extraordinary Evangelistick authority in ordination and jurisdiction infer that the Acts of ordination and jurisdiction or these ordinances themselves are expired can he not distinguish betwixt the power it self and the different subject and manner of its exercise ordinary or extraordinary can he not see in Scripture ane extraordinary power derived and cut out in a succession of different and ordinary channels and diverslie exercised Sayes he not that the Apostles had ane extraordinary power of both ordination and jurisdiction and both the keyes But I trow he asserts that there are different recipients who bring down ane ordinary power by succession Some Prelats forsooth have the key of Governmant others viz Presbyters have preaching for their work but no rule properly And sayes he not that the extensive authority in which the Apostles exercised their Ministry is gone and a limited ordinary Ministry derived from them If the extraordinary Mission of twelve Apostles hath derived from it a Ministery and ecclesiastick authority spread throw all Church-officers in the world who succeed them not into the same office let this Informer shew me why may not Timothies Evangelistick extraordinary power in ordination and jurisdiction be deryved by and seatted in a Presbytery though the Evangelistick Office is extraordinary and as such not succeeded unto The service and worke of teaching and governing to continue in all times doth not render the Apostolick mission or commission ordinarie nor infer their being succeded in idem officium eundem gradum the ordinary power being institut and settled in the hands of ordinary officers by a new warrand and commission according to the Scripture rules of ordination The office of Moses was not rendered ordinary because many works of Government exercised by him were recommitted to the Elders of Israel and so the case is here The Evangelists extraordinary office and commission necessary as that of the Apostles for the first founding of the Churches and watering and building them up in their organick being for settling all their ordinary officers is changed into the Presbytery their ordinary Collegiat power of ordination jurisdiction which we find was in the Apostolick Churches exercised and even in this of Ephesus His 2d Reason to prove them Bishops is Because their commission at Ephesus Crete was nâ—…t voyded upon the first settling of Ministers in those places therefore their office was to be constant since if meerly as Evangelists they were to settle a Church there then they were to give place to the Presbytery when some Ministers were ordained but they did not so â—…itus needed not ordain Elders in every city if some few ordained might ordain the rest Ans. 1. This is a poor argument and hath no twist of a connexion their commission at these places was not voyded upon the first settleing of Ministers ergo they were not extraordinary officers but had a standing Episcopacie there which is a meer rope of sand The Apostles office and commission was not voyded over all Churches when settled Ergo they had no extraordinary inspection office or commission towards all these Churches What consequence is here So may it be said of these Vicarious Apostles their commission to these or other Churches could not be voided or expired though they were never so much settled but they were prore nata to visite and water all the Churches and bring Apostolick instructions to them and reports from them anent their case We have proved that Timothie and Titus exercised their extraordinary office and commission towards many other Churches after their return from these of Ephesus Crete so that their commission towards these or other Churches could be no more voided whil the Apostles Imployed them therin then their office Besid this Informer should advert that Timothy is left To charge some that they teach no other doctrine which was a commission beyond the meer settling of Ministers and supposing some already settled 2. Will he say that Timothy and Titus were ordinary standing officers or Bishops over these severall Churches where they might reside some time and have Imployment therin even after they had officers of their own did they not visite and water many other Churches were they therefore their Bishops if so he must quickly transport them to be Bishops of other Churches after they were Bishops here exalt them to metropolitan's as some of the ancients make them 3. Their Evangelistik inspection direction and assistence even after
in all his antiquity A prelâ—…y deryoing all its power both of ordination and Jurisdiction absolutly from the civill Magistrat having no intrinsick spirituall authority and in all its administeration acting by way of deputation and commission from the Magistrat as accountable to him in every piece thereof immediatly and solely as other inferiour civil Governours Dar he say that these Bishops in the first ages exercised not ane inherent Ecclesiastick spiritual power distinct from and independant upon the Magistrat Was all their meetings and all matters cognoscible in them given up to be pro libitu disposed of by any Prince or potentat whither heathen or Christian Did not all Ministers and Bishops of these times exercise ane Ecclesiastick independant authority as being totally distinct from and not a part of the civill Government Was ever there Erastian Government heard of in the Christian World till Thomas Erastus of Heidleberge brotched it And hath it not since that time been Impugned by the most famous lights of the reformed Churches as contrary to the Rules of the Gospell Church Government So that our Informer must acknowledge the present Ecclesiasticocivil or linsy-wolsy-Prelacy to be a speckled bird of new fashioned coloures never before seen to which he will not find a paralleel among all the Fathers or Bishops of former ages 9. Let me add how will our Informer make it appear That in the first purer ages any of the ancient Bishops did deny wholly exclud ruling elders from Church Iudieatories We have proved this officer to be juris divini from Scripture And the full consent of Antiquity also of reformed divines is abundantlie clear exhibit by many of the learned for the divine right of this officer Ambrose is brought in compleaning of the disuse of these officers on 1 Tim. 5. As a devation from the Scripture-patern proceeding from the pride negligence of Doctors Origin his Testimonie lib 3. contr Celsum is remarkable who shewes that among the more polite hearers who were above the Catechumenists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Non nulli praepositi sunt qui in vitam mores eorem qui admittuntur inquirunt ut qui turpia committunt eos communi caetu interdicant qui vero ab istis abborrent ex animo complext meliores quotidie reddant There are some set over the rest who inquires into the life and manners of those who are admitted that such as committ these things that are vile they may discharge them from the publick assembly and embracing from their heart such as are farr from these things they may render them every day better Here are censurers of manners found in the ancient Church though not Ministers and designed and constitut to their work with authority in their hand to interdict the scandalous and what are these but ruling elders So Augustin Epist. 137. writeing to his Charge directs it thus dilectis sratrbus clero Senioribus universae plebi Eccleâ—…ae hippo ensis To the beloved brethren the Clergie the elders and the wholl people of the Church of Hippo. So Contr. Crese Gramattic omnes vos Episcopi Presbyteri diaconi Siniores Scitis All you ' Bishops Presbyters deacons and elders doe know Here are Tuo sorts of elders mentioned in one comma who can be nothing else but ruling elders For the same purpose the learned in handling this theam doe cite Barronius Ann 103. Where he enumerats Episcopi Presbyteri diaconi Seniores Bishops Presbyters Deacons Elders So also Tertullian Apolleget adversus gentes c. 39. Cyprian Epist. 39. Optatus lib. 1. p. 41. and many others See assertion of the government of the Church of Scotland Christoph justell observ not in Cod. Can. Eccles. affric p. 110 111. jus divinum Regim Eccles. Smectim c 10. The Ancient Bishops were not set over whole provinces but city by city for most part yea severall Cities had more which sayes they were not at all Bishops properly Clemens in Constit. l. 7. c. 46. shews that Evodius and Ignatius had at once the Episcopacy over the Church of Antioch and what was this but a meer Collegiat Ministery Council African Cap. 21. appoints that to examine the cause of a Presbyter sex Episcopl ex vicinis locis adjungerentur 6 Bishops from neighbouring places be adjoyned Poor dorps had their Bishops as is clear in History Nazianzon a little towne neer Caesarea yet was all the Episcopall See of Gregory Nazianzen In Chrysostoms time the diocess contained but one citie Homil. 3. in acta nonne terr arum orbis imperium tenet imperator c. doth not the Emperour saith he Govern the World but this man is a Bishop only of one city Sozom. Hist. Bcclesiast lib. 7. cap. 19. Tells us that he found with the Arabians and those of Cyprus Bishops in little Dorps 11. The Ancient Bishops placed preaching among the chief partes of their office and were not idle drones as ours are Theophilact on 1 Tim. 3. tells us that docendi officium omnium precipue ut insit episcopis est necesse that the office of preaching which is the chieff of all others its necessarie that the Bishop be indewed with it As ours Court-prelats so our non-preaching Prelats are strangers unto and condemned by the ancient Canons Photii Nomocan tit 8. cap 12. de Episcopis qui non convertunt haereticos de Episcopis clericis qui non docent populum he presents and digests the Canons against Bishops and clergy men who convert not haeretiks and teach not the people some of these Canones are as followes The 58. canon of those called Apostolick runes thus Episcopus vel Presbyter qui cleri vel populi curam non gerit eos piet atem non docet segregetur si in socordia perseveret deponatur The Bishop or Presbyter who takes no care of the people or clergy and teaches them not piety let him be set aside and if he continue in his folly let him be deposed Balsamon upon this Canon tells us that Episcopalis dignitas in docendo consistit omnis Episcopus debet docere populum pia dogmata c The Episcopal dignity consists in teaching and every Bishop ought to teach the people holy statutes for the Bishop is for this end established to attend the people c therafter he shewes that the presbyters ought to be so imployed quia etiam prope Episcopos sedent in superioribus cathedris because they sit beside the Bishops in the higher seats they were not then the prelats underlinges as our curats are now hence he concludes that the Bishop or priest who neglected this duety were to be set aside and if continuing to be deposed The 36. of these Canons puts this censour upon the Bishop who neglects this duty Si quis ordinatus Episcopus non suscipiat ministerium curam sibi commissam sit segregatus c That the ordained Bishop shal be set asid sured who goes not
solemnlie consecrat by their fellowes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to their new episcopall order In a word we heard from Cassander that the Canonists and Theologues who dispute this Question doe both accord that as to a jus divinum or divine right there is no difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter either in order or degree And so though it were granted which yet the Informer himself dare not positively assert that the Fathers tossed this question it will nothing help him nor prejudge Mr Durhams quotation which speaks of a jus divinum As for what he adds That the Fathers cited by Medina might hold the same notion Let him hear how Bellarmin no friend to Presbyterian Government represents his assertion de Cler. Cap 15. Michael Medina lib. 1. De sacrorum hominum origine eminentia Cap. 5. Affirmat sanctum Hieronimum idem omnino cum Aerianis sensisse neque solum Hieronimum in ea haeresi fuisse sed etiam Ambrosium Sedulium Primasium Chrysostomum Theodoretum Oecumenium Theophylactum atque ita inquit Medina isti viri alioqui Sanctissimi Sacrarum Scripturarum consultissimi quorum tamen sententiam prius in Aerio deinde in Waldensibus postremo in Joanne Wickleffo damnavit ecclesia That is Michael Medina in the first book concerning the originall and eminencie of sacred men 5. Chap. Affirms that St Jerome was every way of the same judgment with the Aerians And that not only Jerome was in that Heresie But also Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostom Theodoret Oecomenius and Theophylact And thus saith Medina these men otherwayes most godly and most expert in the holie Scrptures whose judgment notwithstanding the Church condemned first in Aerius Next in the Waldeneses And lastly in Iohn Wickleff Let our Informer note here 1. That it is beyond debate with Bellarmin that with Medina at least all these Fathers were Aerians 2. That his holy Catholick Church of Rome is the grand condemner of this Heresie 3. That this is one of the Heresies of the old Waldenses these famous witnesses against Antichrist And of John Wickleff and such like eminent reformers Afterward he adds That in Jerome and these Greek Fathers that opinion was of old dissembled out of reverence to them But contrarily in the Hereticks alwayes condemned So we see the Presbyterian Principles are with him one of the Heresies of Protestants Peter Swav in the History of the Council of Trent pag. 664. edit Francfort relates That when the Authoritie of Ierom and Augustin was brought to prove episcopacie to be but ane Ecclesiastick constitution Michael Medina answered That it was no wonder that Jerom Augustin and others of the Fathers fell into that heresie not having throughly searched the matter that he maintained pro virili this to be their opinion Finallie to make these Fathers one with themselves whom this man enforceth in his next passages cited page 71 72. Anent the derivation of Episcopacie from the Apostles and higher to speak palpable contradictions we must say with Whittaker that they call the Apostles so because they did that upon the matter which Bishops then did And because their power quadam similitudine or by a certain similitude or likenesse as Junius expresseth it was like to that of these extraordinarie Church officers whom notwithstanding they could not succeed in the same office nor could these Fathers think so upon the grounds formerly mentioned Tilen in his Specul Antichr ortum aperiens Aphoris 88. Tells us that episcopos Presbyteros re nomine eosdem fuisse non Hieronimus solum in 1. Tim. 3. Sed etiam scriptura perspicue docet Tit. 1. Act. 20. Phil. 1. Proinde humani instituti sive positivi ut vocant juris est illa sub diversis nominibus munerum distinctio That Bishops and Presbyters were the same in name and thing or office Not only Jerome on 1. Tim. 3. But the Scripture also doth evidently teach Tit. 1. Act. 20. Phil. 1. And therefore that distinction of the offices under diverse names is of human institution as they call it or of positive right A fitt looking-glasse this had no doubt been to the same Tilen when he wrote his paraenesis and changed his note And likwise it is a fitt looking glasse for this Informer CHAP. XVI The harmonius consent of ancient Fathers Modern divines and confessions of Reformed Churches for Presbyterian Government in all its essentiall points of difference from Prelacie is exhibit IT is clear that Presbyterian Government the pure ancient and genuine Government of this Church in every essentiall ingredient of it as it stands in opposition to prelacie is approved by such a consent of antiquity and modern diuines that it would take up almost as much roome as this Informers pamphlet to reckon up their names That we may present them in 〈◊〉 compendious view take it thus 1. That jure divino there is no difference betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter hath a very large consent of antiquitie collected by many of the learned whose testimonies we may see in Bishop Jewel against Hardin edit Ann. 1570. p. 243. And Reynolds in the forementioned Epistle at large cited Petries Hist. part 3. p 469 470 471. Where there is exhibit a full consent both of the Greek and Latin Fathers for this point of truth The Doctor in his conference with Hart holds That the president chosen out at first to moderat is be whom afterwards the Fathers called Bishop and that the name Bishop common to all Ministers was by them thus appropriat to this president Next for modern writers the same Dr Reynolds tells us in the formentioned Epistle that those who have laboured about the reforming of the Church these 500 Years have taught that all Pastours be they intituled Bishops or Priests have equall authoritie and power by Gods word Citing the Waldenses in Aen. Silv. hift of Bohem. Chap. 35. Pich Hierarch Ecclesiast lib. 2. Cap 10. Marsil Patavin Defens pacis part 2. Cap. 15. Wickleff in Thom. Waldens Doct. Fil. Tom. 1. lib 2. Cap 60. and Tom 2. cap 7. And his Schollers Husse and the Hussits Aeneas Silvius Loccit Luther Advers falso nomin Scot Epise adversus Papat Rom. Calv. in Epist. ad Phil. Tit. 1. Erentius Apolog. Confess Wittenberg Cap. 21 Bulinger Decad. 5. Serm 3. Musculus Loc. Com Tit de Ministerio Verbi Then he adds Jewel Pilkington Dr. Humphrey in Campian Duraeum Jesuit Part. 2. Raâ—… 3. Whittak ad rationes Campian 6. Confut Durae lik 6. Mr Bradfoord Lambert Fox Act. Mon. Fulk Ansr. to the Rhemeflits To these may be added Cartwright against the Rhemists Bishop Bilson himself against Seminartes lib. 1. p 318. Bishop Morton in his Catholick Apologie Part. 1. Cap. 33. Erasmus upon 1 Tim. 4. To which add that in the Oâ—…cumenick Counâ—…les of Constance Basile it was concluded that Presbyters should have decisive suffrage in Councils as well as Bishops because that by the Law of God Bishops were not greater then
they and it is expreslie given them Act. 15. 23. To which we may add the Concil Aquisgravense sub Ludovico Pio Imperatore 1. Anno 816. Which approved it for sound divinity out of Scripture that Bishops and Presbyters are equal bringing the same texts that Aerius doth To these mentioned the learned Reynolds doth add the common judgement of Reformed Churches viz. Helvetia Savoy France Scotland Germanie Hungary Poland the Low Countries citing the harmonie of Confessions Yea their own Church of England Chap II. of the harmonie Therafter he learnedly refutes our Informer as to what he sayes anent Ieroms so often repeated a Marco Evangelista shewing both by the decree of the 4t Council of Carthage Cap 3. Anent Presbyters interest in ordination which saith he proves that the Bishops ordained not then alone in all places although Ierom sayes quid facit excepta ordinatione c and by Ieroms proving Bishops and Presbyters to be all one in scripture and even in the right of ordination 1. Tim. 4. 14. That Ierom could not mean Bishops in Alexandria to have had that Episcopall power since Mark about which the question is Where also he vindicats Calvin Jnstit 〈◊〉 4. c 4. Sect 2. cited by Bancroft as likwayes by our Dialogist here as consenting to the establishment of ane Episcopacie since Mark at Alexandria He saith That Calvin having showen that Ministers choose out one to preside to whom especially they gave the name of Bishop Shews that notwithstanding this Bishop was not above them in honour and dignitie that he should rule over them but was appointed only to ask the votes to direct and admonish and see that performed which was agreed upon by their common consent And having declared that Ierom shews this to have been in by the consent of men upon Tit. 1. He adds that the same Ierom other where shews how ancient ane order in the Church it was even from Marks time to Heraclius c In which words of Calvin saith the Doctor seeing that the order of the Church which he mentions hath evident relation to that before described and that in the describing of it he had said The Bishop was not so above the rest in honour that he had rule over them It followes that Mr. Calvin doth not so much as seem to confess upon Ieroms report that ever since Marks time Bishops have had a ruling superioritie over the Clergie A contradictorie Conclusion to that of our Informer The Doctor proceeds thus Wherfore to use no more proofe in a thing manifest which else might be easily proved more at large out of Ierom and Mr. Calvin both it is certain that neither of them doth affirme that Bishops so long time have had such a superioritie as Dr. Bancroft seems to father upon them To all this adde that Dr. Holland the Kings professor in Oxford at ane Act Iully 9. 1608. Concluded against Mr Lanes question an Episcopatus sit ordo distinctús a Presbyteratu eoque superior jure divino That is whither Episcopacie be a distinct order from the Presbyterat superiour thereunto by divine right That the affirmative was most false against the Scriptures Fathers the doctrin of the Church of England yea the very Schoolmen themselves Lombard Thomas Bonaventur A 2d Essentiall point of Presbyterian government in opposition to Prelacie is in the mater of ordination and jurisdiction viz that these are not in the hand of any single Prelat but that Presbyters have ane essentiall joynt interest therin And this also hath a large Consent and Testimonie of the learned both ancient and Modern For this the 4t Council of Carthage is adduced Can. 5. and the Councils of Constance and Basile anent Presbyters decisive suffrages in Council Cyprian Epist. 33. and 78. Council of Antioch Canâ—… 10. of Aneyra Can. 13. Ruffins hist. lib. 10. Cap. 9. Sozom l. 2. c. 23. and many such Smectim pag. 28 29 30 31. cites many Testimonies for this See Blondel Apol. Sect. 3. pag. 120. to 130. Prins un-Bish of Timothie and Titus from pag. 52. to 83. Where the full Consent of reformed divines is adduced such as Ioannes Luckawits in his confession of the Taborits against Rokenzana Cap 13. the Waldâ—…nses and Taborits apud Fox acts Monum p. 210. Illyric Catol testiumveritatis Tit. Waldenses 455. Melanchton Arg. Respons par 7. De Potest Episcopi Arg. 2. Hiperius on 1. Tim. 4. 14. Hemmingius ibid. Gerardus Loc. Theol. de Ministerio Ecclesiastico proves this at large Peizelius Arg. Resp. Par. 7. de Ordin Ministrorum in Arg. 1. Musculus Loc Com. de Ministerio verbi Mornâ—…y Lord of Pless de Eccles. Cap 11. Nay Canonists and Schoolmen themselves Summa angelica ordo Sect 13. and Innocentius there cited Filiuâ—…ius Iesuit de Casibus Consc. Par. 1. Tract 9. Alexander Alensis Sum. Theol. par 4. Quest. 9. M. 5. Artic. 1. Cajetan on 1. Tim. 4. 14. and many others Likwise it is made good that the Bishops swallowing up this power of Presbyters and reserving it only to himself comes from Popish Authority Leo primus Epist. â—…8 on complaints of unlawfull ordinations writing to the German and French Bishops reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops and among the rest Presbyterorum diaconorum consecratio the consecration of Presbyters and deacons Then adds quae omnia solis deberi summis pontificibus authoritate Canonum praecipitur That is All which things are commanded to be reserved to the cheife priests by the Authority of the Canons For this see also Rabanus Maurus de Instit. Clericorum l. 1. c. 6. And to this truth of Presbyters power in ordination the Confessions of reformed Churches gives a harmonious echo The latter confession of Helvetia Harmon of Confess Chap. 11. pag 232. asserts That the holy function of the Ministery is givinâ—… the laying on of the hands of Presbyters no word of Pre lats hands So the 18. Chap pag. 236. they are to be ordained by publick prayer and laying on of hands which power they say is the same and alike in all citing that passage Luke 10. he that will be great among yow let him be your servant So Act. 15. and Ierom on Tit. 1. therfor say they let no man forbid that we return to the old appointment of God so they call the Presbyterian way of ordination and rather receive it then the Custome devised by men So they call the Episcopall Method Thus the Confession of Bohem. Chap. 9. Harm Sect 11 pag. 246. 247. after setting down the qualifications of Ministers As to ordination they say that after prayer and fasting they are to be confirmed and approved of the Elders by the laying on of their hands So the Confess Sax Chap 12. Harm Conf par 2. affirme that it belongs to Ministers of the word to ordaine Ministers lawfullie elected and called Where we have asserted both the Presbyters power in ordination and the peoples interest in the Call of Pastors in
opposition to prelacy So the Confession of the French Church Credimus veram Ecclesiam c We believe that the true Church ought to be governed by that policy which Christ hath ordained viz that there be Pastours Presbyters or Elders and Deacons And again we believe that all true pastours wherever they be are endued with equal and the same power under one head and Bishop Christ Iesus which strikes our Diocesian and Erastian frame of government starke dead Which is seconded thus by the Belgick Confess Art 30. All Christs Ministers of the word of God have the same and equal power and authority as being all Ministers of that only universall head and Bishop Christ. To thesewe might adde many other Testimonies of reformed divines as Calvin Piscator Marlâ—…rat on 1. Tim 4. 14. Tit. 1. 3. Zanch. de Statu Pâ—…ccat and Legal in 4tum praecep Chemnitius Loc. Com. Part. 3. de Eccles. Cap. 4. Exam. Concil Trid. part 2. de Sacram. ordinis pag. 224 225. proving also that Election and vocation of Ministers belongs to the whole Church Antonius Sadael Resp. ad repetita Turriani Sophismata par 2. loâ—… 12. Beza de divers Ministrorum gradibus Iunius Controv. 5. l. c 3. N 3. Chamierus Panstratia Cathol Tom 2. de Occum Pontis Cap 6. A 3d. Great point of Presbyterian Government in opposition to prelacie is the peoples interest in the election and call of Ministers And for this there is as full a consent of divines and Churches both ancient and Modern Severall of the forementioned Confessions clears this the peoples election and call being taken in together with Presbyters ordination Cyprian Epist. 68. is full to this purpose Plebs ipsa maxime habet potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi quod ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere ut Sacerdos sub omnium oculis plebe presente deligatur dignus atque idoneus publicâ—… judicio ac Testimonio comprobetur That is The people themselves have Chiefly the power either of Electing worthy priests or refusing the unworthy which mater we see even of it self to descend from the divine authority that the priest be set apart under the eyes of all in the peoples presence and as worthy and qualified be approved by a publick judgment and Testimony So lib 1. Epist 4. is full for the Churches libertie and right in elections The 4t Council of Carthage Can. 22. Requires to the admission of every Clergy man civium assensum testimonium convenientiam The consent of the citzens their testimonie and agreement Socrat l. 4. c. 25. sayes that Ambrose was chosen Bishop of Millan by the uniform voice of the Church In the pretended Apostolick but truely old constitutions of Clement lib. 8. cap. 4. The Bishop who must be ordained is appointed in all things to be unblameable chosen by all the people unto whom let the people being assembled on the Lords day N. B. with the Presbytery and the Bishops there present give their consent And a Bishop askes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbytery the peopleâ—… if they desire such a man to be set over them The Helvetick confession told us that the right choosing of Ministers is by consent of the Church So the Belgick confession tells us that Ministers Elders and Deacons are to be advanced to their office by the lawfull election of the Church Greg. Nazian orat 31. commends Athanasius his calling as being after the Apostolical example 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the suffrage of all the people Blondel clears this from a large consent of antiquitie page 379. to 473. And this is cleared also by a large consent of protestant divines Luther de potest Papae Calvin on Act. 6 3. Beza confess Cap. 5. Art 35. Musculus in Loc. com Zanch. on 4t com Junius Animadvers on Bellarm Controv. 5. l. c. 7. Cartwright on Act. 14. v. 23. Wallaeus Bullinger Wittaker See Mr Gilesp Misc. quest pag 18 19. Our first book of Discipline appoints to the people their votes and suffrage in election of Ministers in the 4t head And the 2d book Cap 3. discharges any to intrude contrary to the will of the congregation or without the voice of the eldership A 4t Essential point of Presbyterian Government in opposition to Prelacie is in relation to the office of the ruleing elder as appointed by Christ. This we cleared from Scripture and there is as cleare a consent of antiquitie for it and of modern reformed Churches and divines exhibited by our writers For this Ignatius Epist ad Trallianos ad initium pag. 66. edit oxon An. 1644. is cited Likewise Baronius in his Annals Anno 103. in the Gesta purgationis Caeciliani Felicis Tertul. Apolog. Advers gentes Cap. 39. Origen ontra Celsum lib. 3. Cyprian Epist. 36. Optatus lib. 1. pag. 41. edit paris An. 1631. Ambrose comment on 1 Tim. 5 1. And for modern writers Whittaker contra Duraeum lib 9. Sect. 47. Thorndicks discourse of religious assemblies cap. 4. pag. 117. Rivet Cathol Orthodox Tract 2. quest 22 Sect. 4 Finally Presbyterian Government as it stands in opposition to the present Prelacie in its Erastian mould and maintaines a spirituall authoritie in the hands of Church officers distinct from and independent upon the civill powers of the world hath as full a consent of the learned As Erastianism was first hatched by Thomas Erastus Physician in Heidleberg about the year 1568. And much catched up and pleaded for by Arminians since so it hath been impugned by a full consent of reformed divines who have fully proved it to be contrary to the rules of Church Government set down in the Scripture both in the old and new Testament and utterly eversive of the Gospel Ministrie and Church The eminent divines who have written against it are Beza who encounters with Erastus himself upon this point Zachriasursin Wallaeus Helmichius Triglandus Dr Revius Dr Voetius Appollonius and many others Especially the famous and learned Mr Gillespy in that elaborat peice entituled Aarons rod blossoming wherein the consent of the ancient and modern Church as to this great point of truth is exhibit See 2. book 1 Cap. pâ—…g 167. Now from all that is said Whither Presbyterian Government hath not the patronage of the purest Scripture antiquity and a full consent of the after purer times and of reformed Churches and divines in all the forementioned points of its opposition to the Prelacie now established Both in holding 1. The identity of Bishop and Presbyter as to name and things 2. Presbyters right of ordination and Jurisdiction 3. The peoples interest in the Election and call o. Ministers 4. The ruleing Elders office 5. The Churches intrinsick power of Government I leave to the Impartiall to judge And consequently of the vanity of this new Dialoguist His pleading upon this point A Confutation Of the Second DIALOGUE Anent the Covenants Against EPISCOPACIE Wherein the Informers reasonings against the
onlie as interpreted against Prelacie supposing that it will not in its self strike against it but the league they simply abjure and disclaime its obligation as to a change of this Prelacie Ergo they doe upon the mater acknowledge that it stricks against it Finaly Our adversaries doe grant that it strikes against Bishops Arch-Bishops Deans c That we are bound therby to extirpat such officers though its onlie that specifick complex forme expressed in the Second Article which they think is properlie abjured But 1. Is it not a prelacie inconsistent with Presbyterian government which we engadge to preserve in the First Article which wee abjure and engage to extirpat in the Second and under this formalis ratio as thus inconsistent in the sense and judgement of our Church and State the Imposers of the Oath And are not Bishops Arch-Bishops Deans c contrary to Presbyterian government then in being 2. Dare this man or any of that partie deny but that the former prelacie which we had in Scotland was intended to be abjured by our Church and State and the Imposers and renewers of this oath and doe not all engagements bind according to the sense of Imposers in the judgement of Casuists 3. Is not our Government now by two arch-Arch-Bishops and twelve Bishops Have not these their Deans Archdeacons Chanters c 4. Are not our Prelats restored to all their pretended priviledges taken from them by the Parliament who Imposed this oath Nay redintegrat to a more absolute possession of pretended Spirituall authority then ever any befor them possessed since our reformation 5. Are we not engadged to extirpat all Eeclesiastick officers depending upon that hierarchie as we are engaged against whatsoever is contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of godlinesse not in bulk onlie but every thing Sigillatim upon this ground and formalis ratio And dare any of them deny that in the sense of Imposers a diocesian Bishop or Arch-Bishop especially as their power now stands enlarged and qualified is contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godlines Dare he say that any of the Imposers judged ane Arch-Bishop or Bishop especially in such ane Erastian mould as he is now to be consistent with the word of God Sure he were very Impudent who would assert it This being clear then that these engadgements leavells against the present Prelacie let us point out Next their obliging force This will be clear if we consider these oaths 1. In their forme or formalis ratio or nature and essence 2. In relation to their subject whom they affect 3. In their mater and object 4. Their end and designe 1. In their Forme and that either in relation to severall sorts of tyes included in them Or 2. The Qualifiations of these tyes For the 1. They are oaths wherin God is invocked as a witnesse of our sinceritie and as a swift witness against us if we breake The Scripture is full in pointing at the Sacred nature of oaths The Third command of that fiery law which Gods own voice pronounced from Heaven and which his finger wrote upon the Tables and which he commanded to be keept within the Ark is thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vaine and with this severe Certificat that he will not hold them guiltlesse who thus profane his name He threatens to be a swift witnesse against the false swearer Thou shalt performe to the Lord thy oaths is amongst the grand and morall precepts frequentlie inculcat in Scripture See levit 6. 3. 19. 12. Numb 30. 2. Psal. 15. 4. In this egagement the debt accrews to God and the absolution consequentlie must have his speciall warrand Quia religio juramenti pertinet ad forum divinum Hence the Scripture is full of Instances of the Lords dreadfull punishing the sin of perjurie witnesse that of Saul and Zedekiah whereof afterward Now in both these engadgements there is expresse mention made of Swearing by and unto God 2. These engadgements are promises or promissory oaths whererein we express our purpose and resolution as to important duties both to God and man invocking himselfs as a witness of our sinceritie we have opened our mouths to God and to one another in reference to great and weighty duties relating to the first and Second Table O what strong bonds are promises especially of this nature what conscience did even heathens make of them where of instances are abundantly adduced in the Apologie pag 334 335. c. 3 These engadgements are vowes unto God that is promises made to God in the things of God such as publick and personall reformation God here is not only invoked as a witness but is the proper Correlat and partie in this engagement and O but it is a fearfull thing to fall into his hands to be punished for the breach hereof The Scripture is full as to commands and precedents to pay and performe our vowes see Numb 30 2. 1. Sam 1 21. Ps. 76 11. Ecc 5 4. 5. 4. They are Covenants and that both with God and man viz engadgements to God for performance of duties revealed in his word such as the people made when upon the lawes promulgation they said whatsoever the Lord commands we will doe Exod. 19. 8. cap. 24 3 7. Deut. 5 27. and 26 17. and therefore are so often charged with breach of Covenant in their after disobedience We have engadged to God in these vowes speaking to us in his word from heaven touching nationall and personall reformation Here is also a mutuall stipulation betwixt the nations and with one another touching important duties of the 2d table in relation to there mutuall rights Now the Scripture is full in pointing out the weight and importance of such engadgements see Ezek 17. Jos. 9 18 19. Neh 9 38. Jer 34 18. So that in these Sacred bonds there is the tye of an oath from the reverence we owe to God whose name we must not take in vain The obligation of a vow from the homage and fealty we owe unto him the strength of a promise both to God and man from the influence of truth and righteousnesse all concurring to render the same Sacred and inviolable The binding force of these engadgements does further appear in their qualities as 1. they were solemnly taken on It s a Maxime that the obligation grows with the solemnity of ane engadgement and the Scripture aggregeth the breach from the solemnity such as the cutting the ealfe in twain and Zedekiahs giving of the hand c. For this imports deliberation and resolution in the engadgers and renders the breach more scandalous and infamous These oaths were taken by solemn assemblies and Parliaments after conference prayer fasting c. 2. These are holy and most weightie engagements in the great concerns of Gods glory and our own salvation the crown and kingdome of Christ against Anti-christ 3. They are large and extensive including duties of the whole word of
then established in all its previledges which clearly excludes the episcopacy formerly existent therein And the extirpation and reformation ingadged to in the 2d Art must relate to the then existent Prelacy in England and Ireland and that by way of mids leading unto and for execution of the ends of preserving our own established reformation engadged unto in the first Article 2. We said already that our Parliament did rescind all acts against our episcopacy together with the solemne league and restore Prelats to the sole possession of Church Government under the King declaring clearly that the preservation engadged unto in the first article cannot consist with our Prelacie Again as this duty of extirpation is engadged unto in so far as is necessary in order to the preserving of our own established reformation by this Church principally vowed and intended so that clause in the end of the 2d Article viz. to extirpate whatsoever is found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness amounts both as to us and England to such an extensive engadgement in opposition to Prelacie that it totally excludes it even in our adversaries mould under this formalis ratio as thus opposit to sound doctrine c. Which hath been cleared upon the first Dialogue Next will this man deny that these officers Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Chapters c. are not in themselves and simply abjured in that 2d article or that the Presbyterians in England would not disowne them as inconsistent with the Covenant Sayes he not that it is only a fixed presidency of order which they are for and is this all that Arch-Bishops and Diocesian Bishops do possess have we not in Scotland Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans and are we not engadged to extirpat these in the 2d article how then can he say that it is only that complex frame with all these officers which we are oblidged against Do not two remarkable clauses contradict this gloss I we engadgeto extirpate all Ecclesiastick officers depending on that Hierarchie what is it only all in bulk and not all and every one this were equivalent to such a wilde assertion as if one should say that after the enumeration of these evills schism heresie profannesse which are thus Summed up whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness this engadgement did only relate to all these evills complexly and not to every one sigilatim or apart 2. Whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine in our principles is there abjured as I said but such are Bishops Arch-Bishops and I adde whatsoever is inconsistent with our established reformation and with Presbyterian government is also here formally abjured In the 3d place Timorcus is clearly against our Informer for in explaining what is that prelacy which is abjured he distinguisheth a Prelacie of jurisdiction and of meer order The prelacie of jurisdiction he saith is twofold the first is whereby the Bishop hath sole power of ordination and jurisdiction such as is our prelacy now in Scotland in which government Timorcus saith that Ministers do meet with the Bishop only ex abundanti to give him advice which is all that our Curats are allowed by law as is said above and scarce that The 2d sort of prelacie he calls paternall wherein the colledge of Presbyters have a constant Prelate or President who must concurre with them ordinarly in ordination and acts of jurisdiction He interprets the Covenant expresly to strick against the Prelate with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction which prelacy he calls Popish even though the Bishop admit Presbyters to concurre with him in ordination and government Now let this man say since Timorcus whom he will not assert that these others divines do contradict in this point together with the parliament of England according to Timorcus do disowne such a prelacie as is here described and interpret the Covenant obligation as reaching the extirpation thereof doth not this articlé of extirpation according to their sense clearly reach and cut off the present prelacie of diocesian Bishops and Arch-Bishops obtruded upon this Church can he deny that they have the sole power of ordination jurisdiction that all the power which Curats have according to our Law is to give the Bishops advice yea and not that either unlesse he judge them to be persons of Known loyaltie and Prudence And surely if this precedency of meer order here exprest be the only primitive Episcopacie it is far short of what our Informer pleads for and will never come up to justifie the prelacie now existent And if in the sense of Timorcus and the other divines mentioned and in the sense of the imposers of that oath the extirpation engadged unto cuts off whatsoever is beyond this precedency of meer order it is incontrovertibly clear that even in their sense the prelacie now existent is abjured That Mr. Crofton and the Presbyterian Covenanting partie in England according to him are not reconcilable to our prelacie nor the Covenant in their sense appears evidently by his pleadings for the Covenant against the Oxford men and others In his Analepsis pag. 74. 75. he mentions a breviary of reasons to prove that the prelatical government in its formality is a plaine and clear papacie and that a Diocesan Bishop and ane universal Metropolitan or Pope differ only in degree and limites not in kind citing and approving of Salmasius and Beza's calling episcopacie a step to the papacy so that the very office of a diocesian Bishop as such is as unlawfull as the Papacie in Mr Croftons judgment it being with him a part thereof Again pag. 78. whereas the Oxford men plead that they cannot swear against episcopall government which they conceive to be of divine or apostolick institution he chargth them and Dr Gauden with sophistick concealment of the ratioformalis objecti and not describing of episcopall government And tells him that episcopall government may denominat a government communi concilio Presbyterorum with a Moderator or Chaireman ordinis causa which he sayes is of divine institution and exemplified act 20. where Bishop and Presbyteter are terms synonimous denominating persons invested with the same office and authority This he sayes the Covenant strikes not against and the prelacie which is abjured he describes to be a government wherein one person is advanced into a distinct order of Ministrie above other Ministers and is invested with Prince-like power over them enjoying an authority peculiar to him eo nomine as Bishop of sole ordination and jurisdiction unto whom all other his fellow Ministers are subject and must swear obedience to him c. I wonder if our Informer will deny this to be the characteristick of our present Prelats or affirme that they possess no more authority in Church judicatories but a meer precedency ordins causa which is all the Episcopacy which Mr Crofton holds that the Scripture and the Covenant according therunto will allow Thereafter pag. 72. He tells these Masters that Christ
gave his Disciples charge that they should not affect superiority one over another or princely power over Gods heritagâ—… and puts them to prove that the office of the Ministry may in ordination be divided or that there are more orders of the Ministry then one which our Informer still begs a supposition of viz. Bishop or Presbyter or more officers in the Church then Elders and Deacons appointed by Christ or his Apostles by their apostolick authority That the Presbyter in whom are required the same qualifications to whom is to be yeelded the same obedience subjection andrespect who recives the same ordination and is charged with the same duty and invested with the same power of feeding and governing the Church of God with the Bishop and none other is an order distinct from and subject to the Bishop to be ruled by him and not to exercise his office but by the Bishops licence and that the Presbyter must swear obedience to the Bishop as his ordinary Which are the grand postulata and topicks of all this mans reasoning in point of prelacy The autitheses of which tenets we see Mr Crofton most evidently maintaines as the sense of the Covenant in point of episcopacy he further describes pag 80. and 81. the prelacy covenanted against and anent which he challengeth these Masters proof of a jus divinum to be such wherein one Minister or Bishop doth stand charged with all the congregatious and pastors of a Countie or many Counties making one diâ—…cess who is by office bound to a pastoral correction and government of them that these Bishops may be subject to one Metropolitan Church and Archbishop to whom they shall swear obedience adding that if the Word of God conclude such superiority over the Church in one Kingdom it will conclude a Catholick superiority over the universall Church and advance the Pope as warrantably above the Archbishops as the Archbishops are above the Bishops and the Bishops above the Presbyters these not being differences of kind but degree Adding further that no more is pleaded for Prelats divine or Apostolick right in the Church of England but what is pleaded by Bellarmine the Council of Trent for she Papacie Now from what is said I darre referre it is this Informer himself whither Mr Crofton doth not clearly disowne all the essentialls of our present prelacy and hold it to be abjured in the Covenant the office of our present Bishops and Arch-Bishops being incontravertibly such as he here describes And whither Mr Crofton holds not our prelacy arch-prelacy and metropolitan primacy to stand upon the same basis with the papacy and to be equally with it excentrick to the Scriptures and that he esteems consequently the Bishops and Arch-Bishops which I hope he will not deny to be abjurd in the Covenant to depend as such upon the Pope as a part of his hierarchy Next pag. 81 he sayes that it is not the first sort of episcopall government formerly described wherein all Ministers are invested with equal power and auhority or dignity are all of the same order and governe by common counsel but the specificall prelacy last described which presumes it self to be a Hierarchie So that with Mr Crofton our present prelacie falls within the denomination of the Hierarchy abjured in the solemne league and of the Popes wicked Hierarchie abjured in the nationall Covenant for he tells us in the preceeding page that none can deny that a quantenus ad omne c. He tells them moreover in that same pag. that had he lived in the Churches of Ephesus Antioch Phillippi Creet or the seven Churches of Asia invested with the same ministeriall authority which he then enjoyned he might have stood up a Peer to any Bishops therein so that he esteemed no Bishop there but Presbyters Besides pag. 82. he cites severall writers to prove that the authority and distinction of Episcopall and Archiepiscopall chaires metropolitan primacies owe their institution to the Church of Rome or politick constitutions of Princes He tells us pag. 84. out of Cartwright and Whittaker that the Church in respect of Christ its head not his vicar or superiority of single prelats is a monarchy in respect of the ancients and pastors that governe in common all the Presbytrie with like authority among themselves not a superiority over them it is an Aristocracie and in respect the people are not excluded but have their interest it is a Democracy The inserted parentheses are Mr Croftons and let any judge whither he assert not with these authors a Presbyterian frame of government opposit to diocesian Bishops and Arch-Bishops In his Analepsis in answer to Dr Gauden pag. 2. he charges him as before the Oxford men with an uncertain proposall of the object and the ratio formalis of the Covenant obligation as to prelacy under the general terme of Episcopacie therein also lasâ—…ing our Informer for the same laxness and ambiguity telling them that by good demonstration Bishop and Presbyter have been asserted to be synonimous titles of Church officers and are found to have been so used in the primitive times of the Church and of the Fathers adding that the government of the Church by its Ministers in their severall assemblies with a Moderator Ordinis causa to dispose and regulat what belongs to order is the primitive episcopacie which he grants to the Doctor that the Covenant will not strike against then pag. 3. and 4. he describes the Episcopacy which the Covenant strikes against And pag. 5. summeth it up thus that the Covenant cannot be accomplisht by the removal of Prelats pride c. Whilst the Preeminence prerogative Paternal power and juridicall authority assumed by them as distinct from and above all other Ministers of the gospel as the only immediat successors of the Apostles So our Informer makes them c. are continued What will this Oedipus answer to Croftons assertion Have not our Prelats this preeminence above Presbyters as a distinct order from them and have they not a juridicall authority over them by our law and practise and his pleading too doth not Mr Crofton in terminis assert that the Covenant obligation can never be satisfied untill such be removed are they no more in Church judicatores but Moderators and Chairemen set up Ordinis causa to order the actions of the meeting doth not our law give them a negative voice in the meeting and alloweth Presbyters only to give them advice if their Lordships do judge them prudent and loyall Again wheras the Dr pag. 18. did conclude that the Hierarchy being dead must rise in another qualitie Mr Crofton tells him pag. 6. That if it arise according to the Covenant it must be in the establishment of Congregational Classical Provincial and National Assemblies or Synods of Church officers Communi consilio Presbyterorum this phrase of Jerome he frequentlie useth to debate and determine the affaires of the Church and Exercise all acts of discipline and Ecclesiastick power
of Prelacy in Scotland and for Englands reserving I have told him that what ever glosses any may put upon that 2d article yet if the generall clauses and expressions mentioned will exclude all kinde of prelacie their glosses will not comport with the simplicity and genuin sense of the oath and therfor are not to be admitted Since if it can be made good from the scripture that all kinde of prelacy is unlawfull dissonant to the divine rule and repugnant to the power of godliness the oath doth most clearly strike against it Mr Crofton pag. 110. in answer to the Author whom he calls Dr Featly's ghost objecting that in the Covenant the Church of Scotland is set before the Church of England tells him that it is in relation to different acts the Reformed Religion of Scotland to be preserved of England to be Reformed that it is no Solecism to put the factum before the fieri to sweare the preservation of good acquired before ane endeavour to obtain the same or better to prefix the pattern to that which is to be therunto conformed He adds that his Antagonist hath little reason to grudge that Scotland should be propounded as a pattern of Reformation to England since Beda reports that this nation did as first communicat the science of divine knowledge without grudge or envy unto the people of England citing his Eccles. hist. gent. Ang. lib. 5. cap. 23. Hence he infers that it is no folecisin to propound us as a pattern of Reformation who had first obtained it and from whom Christianity it selfe was ar first transmitted to them Here let out Informer informe himself first that in the sense of the English Presbyterians the preserving of our establisht Reformation is that article wherin our obligation to Presbyterian government is properly included and that the article of Reformation yet in fieri relates properly to England 2. That they state a distinction betwixt preserving and reforming as distinct acts the one relating to our Reformation in Scotland already obtaind the other to that in England yet in fieri wherin they check this mans blunt measuring our obligation against prelacie first and principally by the second article and his denying our obligation to preserve Pretbyterian government containd in the first and his blunt confounding the obligation of the two articles to give some shadduw of his fancyed contradiction which he would fasten upon us viz. That we are bound against all Episcopacie in the first article and yet the second can admit of some For as we have before answered so Mr Crofton tells him here again that the acts and objects are different The preserving of the Reformation government and discipline of this Church which we see he holds to be Ptesbyterian government according to our two books of discipline and opposit to diocesan prelacie as such is a different act and object from these of extirpating Prelacie out of the Church of England And thirdly that with Mr Crofton and the English Presbyterians it is no such paradox as this man afterwards endeavours to perswade us that the Covenant obligeth them to Reforme England according to our pattern which we see they hold to be the Scripture pattern For Mr Crofton tells his Adversary that our factum was to be their Fieri and our acquired good in point of government the measure of their good to be obtaind and that the good they were to obtain according to the Covenant was the same with ours and tells him in terminis and expresly that our pattern is in the first article prefixed to which they are to be conformed From what we have said out of Mr Crofton touching his sense of the Covenant and the sense of the English Presbyterians who adhere thereunto it is evident that it strikes against all prelacy including the priority and power of diocesan Bishops and Arch-Bishops That prelacy disputed against by Gerson Bucer in his dissertations de Gub. eccl Didoclavius in his Altare Damascenum Cartwrights Exceptions Paul Baines his Diocesans tryall Smectymnuus Mr Pryn in his publick and positive challenge for thâ—… unbishopâ—…g of Timothy and Titus cited by Crofton pag. 83. as unanswerable pieces Yea all Bishops whose office and authority is such as Mr Crofton to use his own expression might not stand up a Peer to them in officiall power tho a simple Presbyter so that our Informer is quite out in telling us that in their sense the Covenant is reconcilable to our prelacy and strikes only against that of England Again Mr Crofton in the Analepsis pag. 129. answering the charge of Ambiguity put upon that clause of the best reformed Churches tells the Masters of Oxford that the sense is in endeavouring the reformation of England the word of God shall be our rule and the best reformed Churches our pattern Wherein he clearly asserts with us that the obligation of the Covenant reaches the extirpation of whatever Prelacie is found contrary to the Word of God But so it is that the Apostolick Churches as we shall finde Mr Crofton here assert owned no Bishops but such as he might stand up a Peer unto so that the Scripture rule and by consequence the Covenant according thereunto strikes against and cuts of all Prelacy of Diocesian Bish of whatever Goverment doth admitt of any Church officers above Presbyters And in his sense they are oblidged to reduce Englands prelacy or hierarchy to a compleat presbyterian parity The Scripture makes with Mr Crofton the Bishop and presbyter meerly Synonima So that no prelacy wherein a distinction is admitted can consist with the Covenant in his judgment nor can any glossings of men prejudge this rule and the obligation resulting from this clause to extirpate Prelacy foot and branch Our Informer might have seen this his notion further refuted by the Author of that peice intituled The case of the accommodation examined pag. 39. 40. who shews that in so farre as England had attained we might close with them in a particular Oath for extirpating an evill discovered and yet for a further advance rest upon the more general tyes so surely cautioned till God should give further light so that the engadgement of both parties expresly only to extirpat that species did no way hinder the setting up of Presbyterian Government and rejecting of all prelacy to be Covenanted unto under the General provisions That it was aggreeable to truth and righteousness for us to concurre with that Church convinced of evills but not so enlightened as to remedies in Covenanting against the evills in particular and also to endeavour a reformation according to the Word of God and by vertue of this general oblidgement become bound to make a more exact search anent the lawfullnes or unlawfullness of things not so fully clear in the time of entering into the Oath and after the discovery to reject what seemed tolerable So that no hesitation among them doth hinder England and Scotlands respective obligations to extirpate all episcopacy as contrary
obedience can flow from spirituall knowledge The Doubter next objects that his Oath against Bishops had the first obligation and therfor he cannot be loosed by the after Law To which he answers that the 5th command and submission to the ordinance of man had the first obligation and that obedience to authoritie comes under the baptismall vow that to say our Oath will oblidge against the Magistrats Command to the Contrary will elude the express precept Ecl. 8. 2. to obey the kings command in regard of the Oath of God Ans. This is nothing but what we have heard repetitions ad nauseam and still idem per idem Our obligation in the 3d command not to take Gods name in vain and to keep and stand to all Lawfull Oaths and vows unless in cases which God himself excepts is surly a verie arlie and a baptismall obligation prior to any Law of the Magistrat and such as no authoritie and Laws of men can evacuatand enervat and our obedience to the ordinance of man or the higher and Lower Powers being for the Lords sake that is upon the motive of his authoritie doth infer that we must not dare to cross his authority under pretence of obedience to the powers in breaking lawfull Oaths and vows which he has commanded us to keep Sure no Laws of men can supersed this obligation That the Oath under debate is such hath been already made good and needs not be here repeated As for that of Eccl. 8. 20. It makes clearlie against him the English annotations having upon that text mentioned the mutuall tye oath and Covenants betwixt King and subject instancing 1. Chron. 11. 3. do tell us that this is not only ane enforcement of the duty of subjects but likewise that the clause contains a limitation by which our obedience to men is bounded And thus they sense the precept keep the Kings command yet so that thou do not violat thine Oath and obedience due unto God Our service to the one say they must be such as will consist with our fealty to the other We are bound to God and his service by Oath and Covenant and no subordinat obedience to others must make us forget our duty to him Which clearlie crosses this Miss-Informers scope who would perswade to perjurie and breach of Covenant with God upon pretence of fealty to the Magistrat Mr Poole in his annotations having told us That the first branch of the verse is not to be understood universally but of such commands as do not crosse the commands of God expones this Oath of God mentioned in the second part of it either of the Oath we are under to keepe all Gods Laws or the subordinat Oath of fealty and allegiance But adds that this also may be understood and is by learned Interpreters taken as a limitation of their obedience to Kings the words being thus rendred as the Hebrew faith he will very well bear but according to the Word of the Oath of God obey the Kings commands with this caution that they be agreeable and not contrary to the Laws of God which thou art obliged by thy own and thy parents Oaths oft renewed to observe in the first place As for what he adds out of the grand case anent Iesuites Oath in Rome to preach in England Catholick doctrine and of a Law made in England against the same It is so palbablie impertinent and unsuteable to the point that I wonder at the mans confidence in presenting to the world such poor trifling fopperies in so weightie a matter Dare he say that the matter of our vows which our Rulers themselves have taken is in any measure like to this Nay doth he not suppose the Matteâ—… of this Oath to be Lawfull he must then confess this instance to be most impertinent But the knack is That abstracting from the unlawfullness of the Matter it was declair'd that ane Oath cannot bind against a Law although the Law be made even after the Oath is taken This was no doubt a lax determination And such as he dare noâ—… himself subscribe unto in everie case what anâ—… Oath cannot bind against a Law in universum and simply what if the matter be necessarie or falling under divine Prescriptions or institutions What if convincingly expedient in its circumstances Will thiâ—… Law yea and after the Oath is taken overrule thâ—… divine Law determining the same Well resolveâ—… Mr. Informer You may go sell absolutions anoâ—… of a high rate Come we now to his third case anent the Oath hindring a greater good then the performance it ill amount to and the dissolution therof upon that ground This the Doubter thinks will furnish people with a readie excuse to free themselves of Oaths by alledging that some greater good is hindered thereby To this he answeres 1. That Casuists admit this rule with these limitations viz. when that greater good is certain and no otherwise attainable but by the discharge of our Oath and a good to which we are pre-obliged before we took the Oath Ans. We shall not much contend about these rules limitations of this Maxime in thesi or in the generall only I shall adde some more limitations here That 1. This greater certain no otherwise attainable good must be such not in our apprehension only but according to the Rule of the Word for otherwise we are just where we were as to the hazard of perjurie if every mans thinks so or the Magistrats arbitrarie Laws shall be the only Rule to determine this as this Informer makes all resolve thereunto which he pretends in this case in relation to that greater good which he offers in breaking this Oath Hence Gregorius Sayrus clav reg l. 5. cap. 8. n. 15. having determined that every man hath a power to commute ane oath for something better is opposed by Silvester and others who say that the Pope must determine the good to be better So rationall and Consequent to their Principles are even Papists in this point And must not Protestants be ashamed to refuse this limitation that the Scripture with us the onlie and supreme rule must determine this greater good Next Timorcus will tell him that the Oath thus irritat must be onlie made to God for if it be to our brother and for his advantage we must have his consent as necessarie towards the commutation This he tells us is agreed upon by Casuists as well as the other limitations To these we adde Dr. Sand. rule de jur prom Prel 3. Sect. 12. that precise ob hoc quod videtur impeditivum majoris boni obligandi vim non amittit Id est That the Oath loseth not its obliging force meerly because it seems the bindrance of a greater good unless other circumstances also concurr as usuallie there do which either evince it unlawfull or not oblidging His reason is because in all cases it is not true that everie one is oblidged to do what is best he means simpliciter
that Prelacy is condemned in the word and consequently the matter of these Oaths and likewise found contrary to the priviledges and reformation of this Church to maintain which the se Prelats themselves who exacted such Oaths stood engadged and such like grounds they prove them to be Materially sinfull iniquitatis vincula and from the beginning null or never obliging and do not pretend as he to loose from Oaths antecedently lawfull and binding Besides Prelats being removed this Oath supposing their existing power and office was ipso facto null and void as the souldiers military Oath to the captain upon the disbanding of the armie and so its root was plucked up Sublata causa tollitur effectus Sublato relato tollitur Correlatum So that he gets but a Wound to his cause in kicking thus against the pricks But he tells us that he will come yet nearer with an other argument and so he had need for the preceeding have never yet come near our cause nor his designe Well what is this Commissaries he saith were abjured in the Covenant as officers depending upon the abjured bierarchy yet we ownd them before Bishops were restored and why may not he the abjured Bishops also But will he suffer a Reverend father Bishop Lighton to answer for us and shew him the disparity of our Commissariot a meer civil administration influenced and authorized by superiour civil Governours as a part of the politicall constitution of the Kingdom with a Church office In his first letter anent the Accommodation printed in that piece entituled The case of the accommodation examined he will tell him that though we have the name of Commissaries yet they excercise not any part of Church discipline Which he sets down expresly to distinguish them from the Commissaries abjur'd in the 2d Article of the Covenant Now the difference of this owning our Commissaries in Scotland from owning and swearing fealty to the Bishop as a Church officer in all his Spirituall usurpations is so palpable that any may see the impertinency of this instance even in Bishop Lightons Judgement Moreover we abjure in the Covenant all Ecclesiastical officers depending upon that hierarchy But will he dare to say that the Commissary whose administration is properly Civil and when the Covenant was taken had not the least dependance upon a Prelat was an Eclesiastical officer depending upon that hierarchy Surely the meanest capacity may discover the vanity of this argument The Doubter objects this that the Commissaries did not then depend upon the Bishops and therfore might be ownd as not contrary to the Covenant To this he answers that upon this ground of a non-dependance upon Bishops we might have ownd a Dean at that time or a Bishop as having no dependance upon an Arch-bishop and that he cannot see why any member of the hierarchy under the highest might not have been owned and retaind on this ground as well as the Commissary Ans. The disparity is manifest to any of Common sense the Dean sua natura is an Ecclesiastick officer and the very office denotes a relation unto and Ecclesiastick dependance upon a prelat in spirituall administrations so that Prelacie being laid aside and the hierarchy smoothed to Presbyterian Parity and Government the Dean is a meer Chimaera and so is the diocesan Bishop and can no more subsist the basis and fountain of his very office qua talis or as such being removed and extinct But the Commissary a civil officer and Magistrat his administration of its own nature civill depends upon and is regulat by superiour civil Rulers and so in that case subsists intirely as a part of the civil Government where prelacie is abolished and can no more be scrupled at because a prelat did somtime usurpe an authority over that office then the office of the Lord high Chancellour or any other civil office of state and inferiour offices theron specially depending because somtime a Prelat was Chancellour and usurped authority in these matters ought to be disowned or scrupled at upon this account 2ly He sayes this answer comes near to what he said before anent the English divines who hold only that complex frame to be abjured in the 2d article which consists of all the officers there enumerat Ans. 1. It is more then he hath proved that the English divines do owne even sigillatim or apart all these officers or looke upon themselves as only obliged against that complex frame consisting of all the officers enumerat in that article We heard before out of Timorcus whom Bishop Lighton in that letter and the Informer himself cites as holding that our Prelacie is consistent with the Covenant and whom they appeal unto in this debate that they disowne all Prelacie where one single person exerciseth sole power in ordination and Jurisdiction all Prelacie beyond a Proestos and particularly the name and thing of Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Chapters Arch Deacons Timorcus in the 7. Chap. adds all Bishops not Chosen by the clergie and people all Bishops who act by Deans prebends and exercise their power by Chancellours Commissaries c. Doth not the article it self abjure all ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy So that though we did come near to what they say in this answer we come never a whit nearer him 2ly we told him already that the Commissaries office is properly Civil though usurped upon by the Prelat so that when purged from this usurpation and running in the channell of a meer civil administration influenced and authorized by Superiour civil Governours as a part of the political constitution of the kingdom it falls not within the compass of an Ecclesiastical officer depending on the hierarchy by his own Confession and Bishop Lightons How then was the owning of him before the introduction of Prelacie contrary unto the Covenant But because he suffered not his poor Doubter to tell him that the Commissary besides that in our late times he did not depend upon the Bishop is really and upon the matter with us a Civil not a Church officer he thinks to surprise him with a third answer That now the Comissaries do actually depend upon the Bishops yet we scruple not nor decline their Courts and authority and if we decline them not as according to our Principles we are oblidged how are we free of perjury and if we can acknowledge a Commissary notwithstanding the Covenant why may not he also a Bishop Ans. What poor tatle is this we told him already that the Commissariot is of it self a lawfull Civil administration not ane Ecclesiastical function and the prelats usurped authority cannot render this civill office unlawfull Wheras the dicoesan Bishops office is a pretended Ecclesiastical function and in its very nature a gross corruption and contrary to the word of God as is above cleared Which disparity is palpable to any that will but open their eyes Do we abjure any Civil courts or officers in that article are they not termd expresly
them then those that are meerly ordained by the prelats 3. He tells us That on this ground we would not adhere to these whom Timothy and Titus ordained nor would we have heard a minister for many ages of the Church Then he tells us of Jeroms quid facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus and that ministers have now a hand in ordaining Conformists That on this ground we would not have heard the members of the Assembly 1638. who were thus ordained and some now though non-conformists who were ordained before the year 1638 by Bishops the valitidity of which ordination is vindicat by â—…us dicinum minist Angâ—…ie Ans. We have already proven that Episcopal ordination is not in the lest warranted by the Authority of Timothy and Titus supposed in these Epistles but rather a Presbyterial ordination which is the pattern shewed upon the mount 2. We have also proven that his prelatick ordination whereof the Prelat hath he sole and proper power according to this constitution is a stranger in the first purer ages and even in Jerom's time 3. We have also proven that the granting of the essentialls of their ministerial call who are ordained by Bishops will plead nothing for owning Curats who are both scandalous and perjured intruders and have nothing for the most part which may in the least ground a charitable construction that they were ever called of God and are standing in opposition to a faithful ministry by them excluded and persecute from their watcthowers none of which can be said of the instances which he mentions As for that concurrence which he pretends Conformists have with the Bishops in ordination of ministers it is according to our Law meerly precarious and pro forma And therefore utterly insufficient to found his conclusion The Doubter objects that tho some of them were ordained by the Presbytery yet they are now turn'd the Bishops Curats He might have added and turned court or Erastian-Curats since the all of our present Conformists authority is derived from the court and subordinat to the supremacy as is evident in the act of restitution and other subsequents acts In answer to this he alleadges weakness of Iudgement strength of passion in the objecter but really shews both in himself by telling us that we may fear Christs threatning he that despises you despises me since he hath not yet made it appear that the men he pleads for have a relaion to this Church as her true Pastours according to the principles and tenor of our Reformation Then he tells us that Curat signifies a cure of souls But the True Non-conformist told his fellow Dialogist that this term owes its invention to mens vanity loathing the lowly Scripture style of Minister and is in effect nothing but the issue of the corrution of the Churches humility and that what they pretend herein while destroying in stead of feeding is like to stand in Judgement against them at the great day For his next interpretation of Curat viz. he that serves the cure tho not the Minister of the place but the substitute of another We owe him thanks for one egg is not liker another then they are to such vicarious substitutes But he will not have them called the Bishops Curats as if he were Pastour of the diocess and they deputed under him and Bishop he saith hath such thoughts of ministers What their thoughts are is best seen by their deeds We have proved that according to this frame of prelacy the Bishop is properly the sole Pastour of the Diocess In the 7. Argument against Prelacy The Doubters next objection is that they are perjured persons and therefore not to be heard He answers 1. That many of them never took the Covenant and therefore are not perjured which is already removed when we did prove from Deut. 29. that it oblidges even those who did not personally swear It s remarkable that Deut. 5. 2 3. God is said to have made a Covenant with his people in Horeb even with us saith Moses and all of us alive here this day They were dead who engadged at Horeb and many there present were not then born So Neh. 9. 38. all entered into Covenant but some only did seal it Sure the intention and relation of the Covenanters and the matter of the Oath it self will make it thus extensive Next he sayes Ministers that took it and comply with prelacy are not perjured for the reasons which be gave in the last conference Which reasons I have there answered and proved that there is nothing in our case which may in the least limit or invalidat its obligation and upon the grounds which are offered to evince the standing obligation of that Oath I do affirme that they are perjured 3. He tells us That scandalous faults tho deserving censure yet while it is not inflicted and the person not convict his Ministry ought to be waited upon as Iudas who came cloathed with Christs commission to preach so long as he was not convict yet was to be heard Ans. 1. He grants that scandalous faults specially of an high nature and if the man be impenitent do deserve deposition Now their faults are both scandalous and of a high nature such as prophanity perjury and apostacy in all which they are most impenitent and avow the same and as for their being convict and censured which he requireth as needfull for disowning them I answer they stand upon the matter convict by clear scripture grounds and by the standing acts and Iudicial decision of this Church in her supreme judicatories and assemblies which have condemned and made censurable with deposition their present principles and practices in opposition to her vows and government Again there is a great difference betwixt what ought to be people's carriage toward scandalous Ministers when a redress by Lawfull Church Judicatories may be had to which people may have recourse and what the duty of a people is in that case wherin a prevailing backsliding party and a persecuting Magistrat owne such Ministers so that the true Church can have no access for censuring and removing them In this last case supposing their scandals to be of a high nature this inevitable necessity of the Churches incapacity for present may supply the defect of a formal censure in the judgment of some and ground a disowning of them as if they were already cast out especially if their entry be by perjurious intrusion and their profanity and scandals therafter notour to all Now how applicable this is to Conformists needs not my paines to subsume We might also here tell him that there are scandals which are officiall rendring the man coram Deo no officer and that in case of their becoming very atrocius Mr Durham will allow to depart to more pure ordinances On scandal page 129. Although we will not take upon us to determine how in what cases during the Churches incapacity discomposed state a Ministers atrocious scandals after his entry and
Presbytry p. 131. l. 13. supple in the proper Scriptural senc l. 32. r. grad p. 137. l. 1. dele had ane office next to that of apostles and doctours p. 139. l. 20. r. his p. 140. l. 21. r. for p. 148. l. 12. r. supple Taking it in ane authoritative Juridical senc p. 150. l. penult r. pray p. 157. l. 14. dele apostolik and. p. 162. l. 27. r. circle stil. p. 163. l. 9. r. with l. ult r. ceremonial ibid. r. part p. 164. l. 31. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. dele ane p. 167. l. 5. r exemplify p. 170. l. 14. r. Prov. 9. p. 171. l. 14. r labourers l. ult add wee p. 174. l. 34. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 177. l. 10. r. ubi p. 177. l 31. for even r. except p. 178. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 183. l. 30. Ar. it self p. 186. l. 16. r. and pride l. penult add in p. 188. l. ult r. true p. 191. l. 30. r. profligat p. 195. l. 16. r. interval the l. 21. r. nothing p. 196. l. 3. r. bold p. 198. p. 199. l. 5. r. what p. 200. l. 2. dele message or l. 13. add in p. 201. l. 33 p. suppositia l. 33 r. suppositious l. ult what p. 203 l. 17. r. till 204. l. 6. r. consuetudo p. 206. l. 24. r. for 1. p. 211. l. 21. through the. p. 215. l. 25. r. distributively 217. l. 9 dele by l. 19. add is p. 219. l. 6. r. or p. 221. l. 24 add the. l. 25. r. opposed p. 222. l. 25. r. of p. 226 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 227 l. 12 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 229. l. 24. r. deligatur plebe p. 231 l. 30. r. ligandi l. ult in p. 236. 11. r. â—…rum p. 238 l. 26. r. fit segregatus l. 27. r. set aside or cesured p. 241 l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 25 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 142 l. 10. r. lowly p 143. l. 10. r. unalterablenes l. 19 r. harmonious p. 245 l. 7. r. commune p. 246. l. 28. r. name p. 247. l. 28. r. office ibid. r. none l. 30 r. us p. 252. l. 3. r. 5. l. 33. supple and besides l. 34 r. this ibid. supple which is p. 261. l. 28. r. forgat 29. r. for p. 261. l. 26. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 265. l. 10. dele as to soom acts p. 272. l. 6. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 281. l. 9. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Part. pag 2. l. 15. supple both p. 7. l. 24. supple anno 40. and 41. p. 24. l. 17. r. 1671. p. 62. l. 4. r. this p. 73. l. 2. r. then l. 20. r. cannot p. 99. l. 18. r. commissaries p. 117. l. 4. dele me p. 124. l. 4. r. consonant p. 132. l. 19. r. Diaeceseos l. 21. supple the. Part. 3. Pag. 2. l. 13. r. our l. 14. r. or p. 4. l. 29. r. declared p. 12. l. 13. supple and are p. 14. l. 28. r. doe p. 26 l. 15 supple ane p. 28 l. 28. r. and. p. 29 l. 16 r. of p. 35 l. 31 supple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 32. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 36 l. 1 r. motion p. 37 l. 28 r fourth p. 39 l. 32 r. constitution p. 40 l. 32 supple comparing this with what he pleads from the instance of Solomons deposing Abiathar p. 48 l. 9. r. by p. 53 l. 2. r. obligations p. 59 l 8 r. intrusion p. 61 l. 32 add therof p. 64 l. 27 r chousing p. 67 l. 15 r. petitio p. 69 l. 25 r. they p. 73 l. 32 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 78 l ult r. Sabinus p. 81 l. 15 r. the p. 83 l. penult r. relation p. 84 l. 15 r. no Bishop p. 90 l. 21. r. Priest l. 27 dele hearing of p. 28 dele and attending their Ministry as such 15. p. 94 l. 11 adde graceless men p. 95 l. 4 dele of p. 103 l. 18 r. ofl 23 r scruple p. 113 l. 1 r. supremacy p. 127 l. 28 r. inquies p. 130 l. ult r. calceorum p. 134 l. 12 r. another p. 138 l. 26 r. authority l. penult r. our p. 160 l. 1 add this p. 162 l. 27 r. Presbyterian p. 165 l. 17 r. they p. 167 l. 27 r. for or r. againe p. 168 l. r adde especially p. 170 l. 10 r. which notwithstanding is 179 l. 29 r. Magistrats p. 181 l. 12. r. a purer Church p. 183 l. 16 r. and which doth p. 186 l. 2 r. thousandes l. 16 r. this p. 190 l. 11. r. more then l. 28 r. offered p 162 l. 8 r. Smectymnuus p. p 162 l. 25 r. the Holy Spirit dele of ibid. p. pe command p. 76. l. 19. After Ambition r. The text being most expresse in it that the inequality which they were striveing about included a dominion and primacie p. 77. l. 13. after touched adde since our Lord was now exerciseing an absolute supremacie over his Church how then I pray will this argument taken from his example Suite his Scope purpose of dischargeing a Supremacie p. 79. l. 20. 21. r. thus did not Christ discharge ane inequality in dischargeing a primacie an inequality of the highest pitch p. 79 l. ult r. Seeming to make p. 80. l. ult After power adde to use his way of speaking p 81. l 20 r. and neither despotick nor princely p. 83. l. 28 29. r. That Church-officers are of superiour or inferiour orders or kinds p. 84. l 26. r. A preaching Presbyter or Pastor l. 31 32. r. Such Presbyters have the Scriptural Episcopal authority p 85. l. 17 r. Superiour and inferiour kindes or orders p. 87. l. 6 r. After Church rulers adde we all know how Prelatists and the popish Church apply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Clerus l. 9. after denomination adde considered in its true extent import p. 89. l. 5. r. To the highest ordinary office bearers intrusted with the Power of the keys l. 14 r. Whatever Power of order or jurisdiction the Scripture Bishop can lay claime unto p. 90 l. 1. r. The Scripture Episcopal Power l. 9 r. All this Episcopal Authority l. 25 r. Elders or Bishops in a perfect parity and in common So l. ult after flocks p. 91. l. 3. after Presbyters adde when applyed as is said to the highest ordinary officers entrusted with the Power of the keyes l 12 r. preaching Presbyters or Pastors So l. 18 l. 32. after elder adde he must understand the preaching elder or Pastor if he speak to the point l. ult and pag. 92. l. 1. r. When God is pointing out thereby the highest ordinary officer intrusted with the word and doctrine l. 5. r. preaching Presbyter l. 15 r. preaching elders l. 17. r. this highest ordinary standing officer often mentioned p. 92. l. 17. r. When the Word Bishop is applyed to the highest ordinary Church officer entrusted with the Power of the keyes l. 24. r. preaching elder or
themselves into which wee hopâ—… will be aboundantly clear to the understanding peruser of what I have offered upon that head and the state of the question as It is exhibited how clear and full our confessions and principles are in asserting the due right of Magistracy as well as of a true Gospel Ministry and how harmoniously wee join to the confessions of all the Reformed Churches herein is sufficiently notour to the unbyassed and judicious and consequently that no precipitations or strayings from the scripture path upon these heads can be charged upon our cause and principles Great and manifold have been the assaults of Satan upon this poor Church and reproaches of that grand accuser of the brethren upon our Reformation and the faithful promoters thereof And the plowers have long plowed upon her back and enemyes of all sorts have many time afflicted her from her youth O that our provoked jealous God would shew us wherefore he contends and give both Ministers and People a heart-affecting sight and sense of the true grounds of this controversy and shew unto us our transgressions wherein wee have exceeded and provoked him thus to lengthen out our desolation that he would excite Ministers to make full proof of their ministry and open up to them an effectual door and engadge his people to a due and suitable subjection to their Ministry that this word might run swiftly and this sword of the Lord eut the cords of the wicked that wee were all excited to encompase his throne with strong crying and tears in order to the returning of the Ecclipsed departing glory that this great Shepherd Israel would shew himself the only wise of God and the only Potentate in dissappointing and crushing the crafty cruel stratagems and designes of Satan now acting both the roaring lyon and subtile old Serpent and of his grand Lieutenant Antichrist and his Artizans That this our Isle upon which the â—…ay-spring from on high did early shinâ—… and which did early wait for his Lawâ—… who is Zions great Lawgiver was recâ—… vered from Popish darknesse and froâ—… decayes after the times of Reformation may have a restoring healing visit and being made a maried land may be upon this ground a land of desires That Christs Tabernacle now fallen down may be rear'd up according to the pattern and planted among us untill his glotious appearance to accomplish his Churches warfare and to make up his jewells This is the Expectation of the prisoners of hope and in this expectation let us turn in to the strong hold even to his name which is a strong tower and go on in his strentgh keeping his good way which hath alwayes been strenth unto the upright Let us contend for the faith once delivered to the saints and be stedfast unmoveable alwayes abounding in the work of the Lord since he comes quickly who is our head and judge and his reward is with him so that neither our labour nor suffering shall be in vain in the Lord. The Contents FIRST PART Chap. 1. page 2. THat the prelat now established in this Church is both Diocesian and Erastian cleared By the present standing acts hereanent page 2 3. A twofold state of the question proponed accordingly Arguments from Scripture against the Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church officer such as 1. appropriating the term Episcopus common to all Pastors to a Prelat The absu diâ—…y of this discovered Calvines remarkeable Testimony on Titus 1 7. page 4. 2 making it relate to Pastors which hath the flock for its immediat object Cleared from 1 Pet. 5 3. Invading and nulling the Authority allowed to Presbyters The matter of fact cleared from the principles of Prelatists and the absurdity hereof from severall Scripture grounds page 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. 4. Impeaching Christs Kingly office as head of his Church and the perfection of his word in obtruding an officer on his Church of a different mould from those described and allowed by him cleared from the nature of the prelats office and some Scripture grounds page 13 14 15. Chap. 2. page 16. Some more Arguments against the Diocesian Prelat that his office debases the acts and exercise of the power of order cleared from the matter of fact and Severall Scripture grounds page 16 17 18. It maimes and diversifies the Pastorall office by Anti-Scripturall new invented degrees thereof cleared at large page 19 〈◊〉 His office many wayes contrare to thevery nature 〈◊〉 the gospell Church Government cleard also at largâ—… from the nature of the Prelats office and several Scripture grounds page 21 22 23 24. Cap. 3 page 25. The Diocesian Bishops office debases extraordinary offices in consounding them with ordinary cleared from the Scripture-account of these extraordinary offices and the nature of the Prelats office according to the principles and pleading of the Episcopall party Pag 25 26 27 28 29. 30. The derivation of the Prelats office from the Apostolical Authority and the power of Timothy and Titus loaded with absurdities ibid. Chap. 4. page 30. The Diocesian Prelats office takes away the peoples right to call their Pastor This right proved from Scripture and divine reason page 31 32 33. It excludes the office of the ruling elder proved from the practice of Prelatists as likewayes the preceeding charge the divine right of this office proved from several Scripture grounds especially 1 Tim. 5 17. And some chief exceptions of the prelatick party examined Page 34 35 36 37 38. Chap. 5. page 39. That the present Prelacy is grosse Erastianisme proved from the matter of fact some Arguments against it under that notion It excludes and denyes all Church Government in the hands of Church officers distinct from the civill contrary to the Churches priviledge both under the Old and New Testament which is demonstrat at large Page 41 42 43 44 Is in many points ane incroachment upon the liberties of the gospel Church and upon Christs mediatory Authority over the same which is cleared page 45 46. Chap. 6 page 47. Erastianisme denyes the compleat constitution of the Apostolick Church in point of Government Removes the Scripture land marks set to distinguish the civil and Ecclesiastick powers which is cleared in several points page 47 48 49 50. It is lyable to great absurdities ibid. Chap. 7. pag. 51. The Informers shifting and obscuring the true state of the question anent Episcopacy and flinching from the point debateable discovered several wayes page 52 53 He declines a direct pleading for the Prelats civill offices yet offers some arguments in defence thereof wherin his prevarication and contradiction to himself is made appear His pretended Scripture Arguments from the Instances of Eli and Samuel and the Priests concurrence in that Court 11 Numb to fortify the Prelats civil state offices ad examined page 54 55 56 57 58 59. He is contradicted by interpreters in this point Antiquity full and clear against him The grounds of the Assembly 1638 Sess. 25. Against the
judge in matters of faith and practice not Custome and Antiquity Ibid. The Informers reasoning on this head reduced to a formal syllogism The Major proposition the Informer though oblidged offers no proof of It is scannd and likewayes the assumption and the unsoundnesse of both discovered Page 192 193 194 195 196. The Informers Arguments from the Catalogues of Bishops largely scannd and the insufficicy thereof discovered in the Judgement of sound divines Several things do invalidat Eusebius Testimony page 197 198 199 200 201 202. That the first purest Church was governed by Presbyters without Bishops Jeroms Testimony in his commentary upon Titus and the Epistle to Evagrius for the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter and a Presbyteriall Government in the Apostolick times largely vindicated from the exceptions of this Informer which are discovered to offer violence to Jeromes Words to be inconsistentent with themselves and contrary to that sense of Jeromes Testimony which is exhibit by learned Protestant divines yea some adversarys themselves Page 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 316 217 218 219 220 221 222 Chap. 14 misprinted Chap. 13 page 223. The difference betwixt our present Prelacy and the ancient Episcopacy stated and evinced in many points Such as 1 The power of ordination and Iurisdiction above Presbyters cleared in several particulars And from the Testimony of the Ancients and eminent Protestant divines Chrysostomes Testimony on 1 Tim. I. Homely II. explaind 2. That they were set up by the Presbyters free choice and election Proved from Antiquity 3. In referenâ—… to the peoples Interest in their choyce 4. That they could not ordain alone 5. That they did not invade Presbyters decisive suffrage Cleared also from Antiquity page 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231. 6. In the point of their ciuil state-offices which is proved to be contrary to the canons called Apostolick other canons of ancient Councills 7. That metropolitan Primacy is a stranger to antiquity also cleared 8. So likewayes Erastian Prelacy page 232 233 234. 9. Our Prelats exclusion of the ruling elder from Church Indicatories crosses Antiquity 10. Their large and Provincial inspection 11. Their laying aside the preaching of the Gospell renders them Monsters to pure Antiquity and exposes them to the censure of Ancient Canons page 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242. 12. In their fastuous pomp and sumptuous grandeur ibid. Chap. 15 misprinted Chap. 14. page 243 The Informers pretended Testimonyes out of Calvin Beza Blondell c. For Episcopacy examined Their Anti-episcopall Judgement cleard from their ings particularly Calvines from his Commentariâ—… upon the controverted Scriptures in this point severall passages of his Institutions and Commentaries vindicated page 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251. As also of some Epistles page 252 253 254. As also of Beza page 255 256 257 258 259 360. The Informers two absurdities which by way of 〈◊〉 Dilemma he offers unto us from our assertion of the unalterablenesse of Presbyterian Government and our concession of a Proâ—…stos early brought in scannd and retorted upon himself Page 260 261 262 263. Some passages of Blondel vindicated and of Chamier and Moulin page 264 265 266 267 268. misprinted 236 the Authors of jus divinum Ministerii anglicani vindicated at some length and in special from imputations of a contradiction imposed upon them by the Informer page 269 270 271 272 273 274 misprinted 237 238 262 263 264 a passage of Bucer vindicate ibid. Chap. 16. misprinted 15. page 275. misprinted 265. Severall Testimonyes of the fathers offered by Mr Durham in his commentary upon the revelation for evincing the identity of Angel Bishop and Presbyter vindicated from the exceptions of the Informer his Exception to Mr Durhames testimony of Augustine examined as likewayes to that of Ambrose and Chrysostome Page 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 misprinted 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 the Informers inconsistences noted page 281 282 283 misprinted 271 272 273. Chap. 17. misprinted 16. page 284. misprinted 274. The Harmonious consent of ancient fathers modern divines and confessions of reformed Churches for Presbyterian Government in its essential points of difference from Prelacy exhibit 1. That there is no diffence betwixt a bishop and Presbyter Iure divino Page 285 286 287 misprinted 275 276 277. 2. In their point of ordination jurisdiction that these are not in the hand of a single prelat but that Presbyters have essentiall joint-interest therein page 288 289 290 misprinted 278 279 280. 3. In point of the peoples interest in the election and call of Ministers Page 290 291 misprinted 280 281 4. In relation to the ruling elder as appointed by Christ. Page 292 misprinted 282 5. As it stands in opposition to Erastian principles and the present prelacy in that respect and maintains a spirituall Authority in the hands of Church officers distinct from independent upon the civil powers of the world ibid. SECOND PART Chap. 1. pag. 2. A Twofold state of the question proposed the one touching the abjuration of this Prelacy in either or both Covenants the other concerning the obligation of these Oaths against it That prelacy is abjured in the national Covenant proved from severall clauses of it page 3 4 5 6 That it is also abjured in the solemn league and Covenant proved from several passages thereof and the then state of our Church page page 7 8 9 10. The standing force of these Oaths upon the present and succeeding generations proved 1. from their nature and essenc page 11 12 13. 2. From the subject they affect 3. Their matter and object 4. Their end and scope and even as to Presbyterian Government page 13 14. Chap. 2. page 16 The Informers Arguments against abjuration of Prelacy in the National Covenant Some reasons of his against an Oath in general or this Oaths obligation upon the posterity weighed page 16 17 18 19 20 Mr Croftons Testimony in his Analepsis for the obligation of the Covenant upon the posterity page 21 22. The Informers reasons against the abjuration of prelacy in the National Covenant examined The Author of the Apologetical relation vindicated together with the Assembly 1638. page 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41. Chap. 3. page 42. The Abjuration of Prelacy in the solemne league and Covenant vindicat from the exceptions of the Informer The Informer alledges it is only the English Prelacy that the Covenant oblidges against how im pertinently cleared page 43 44 45. That Timorcus affords no help to him in this answer cleard ibid. Nor Mr Crofton which is also cleard page 46 47 48 49 50. From several passages of Mr Crofton in his Analepsis The Covenant excludes our Prelacy and oblidges to Presbyterian Government in his principles proved ibid. His objection anent the sense of the 2 Article offered by the Parliament of England Answered As also his Exceptions to our Argument taken from
the Presbytery to the Synod as from the Presbytery at Antioch to the Synod at Jerusalem Not to any one Apostle Pop or Prelat Whereas the last appeal and reference in this Diocesian Mould is to the Bishop Our Lords rule is this in relation to the removeing of Scandales First tell the offending Brother Alone then take two or three more then if he be farder contumacious tell the Church the greater embodied court or Judicatorie who have the official power of binding or lowseing He bidds not toll it uni to one but unitati a multitud gathered into one for so the Greek word doth necessarly Import whereas in the Diocesian sea the gradation is from many to one Prelat whose sole prerogative this highest censure is And with Prelatists the rule runns thus tell two or three lastlie and finallie one Lord-Bishop Which is point blank contrare to the Scripture rule 3. The Diocesion Bishops power and Ministerial Pastoral pretended duties as Diocesian Bishop are such as falls within he compass of no command and which it is impossible to performe according to Scripture rules which I prove thus 1. The Prelat according to their principles is the proper Pastor of the whole Diocess for he being peculiarly Bishop of it and consecrat in order to his Episcopal inspection over the same for to the participation of his power office denoted by this term Bishop of Edinburgh c. He admitts non in the diocess it being the characteristick of his Superioritie over Presbyters withall it including the wholl Ecclesiastick Authority both of order and Jurisdiction with in the Diocess It followes of necessity that he is the sole and proper Pastor thereof according to this mould of Government Now it being so let it be considered 1. That the trew Scripture etimon of Episcopus or Bishop imports all the Pastorall duties of feeding and ruling and layes aâ—…e obligation upon the person under this relation and cloathed with this Office to perform all these duties accordingly to these to whom he stands in that relation 2 That its impossible the Bishop can feed Rule Oversee and perform the Pastoral duties unto and watch for the souls of all that large flock in which some hundereds of painful Pastores will find their hands full of work So that the Bishop assumes a charge which it is impossible he can dischag or perform 3. The Scripture allowes no Derivation or Deputation of the Pastores work and Office to which he is called of God unto other subserviant Officers Because God intrusts no man with any peece of Stewardship in his Family but what he must both oversie and execut immediatly by himself and is likewayes disposed and enabled to manage and overtake God still conjoyneing the Office gifts and call together for every peece of his work Which the man that is intrusted with and called unto must himself immediatly waite upon and attend Rom. 12. 7. and not intrust it to others for him Hence 4. By clear consequence it followes that the Diocesian Bishopes work qua talis is such as he can neither mannage nor hath warrand from the great Shepherd to exercise or assume In the 4t Place the present Diocesian Bishop is a Person who is authorised to sitt in Parliament Council and other civil Judicatories as a constituent member therof For they are restored to their places in Parliament civil pretended dignities which places they aâ—… by there Office bound to manage as civil Rulers But so it is that all civill dominion Magistraticall Rule is expresly prohibit to Church Rulers so that the Church Officer who is installed in these Offices falls from Heaven to Earth The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them and they that are great exercise authotie upon them but it shall not be so among you Matth. 20 25 26. This charge our Lord gave to his Apostles and their Successors Pastores or Bishops who are here forbidden all civill rule or Magistracy the nature wherof is properly a Dominion and thus distinct toto coelo from the nature of Ecclesiastick Offices which is a Ministerial service or stewardship only All our divines impugne from this text the popes civil Dominion and the amphibius civily ruleing or domineering Prelat falls under the lash thereof Non who goe Christs errands and his warrfare must be inâ—…angled with these things that are temporal The Minister must waite upon his Ministrie So the civil Magistrat is Gods Minister in civiles attending Continually upon this employment Rom. 13 4 6. Now those being in their nature so disparat employments and both requireing a constant waiting and attendance he is a strange man That can be called and sufficient for both Who is sufficient for these things said the great and highly gifted Paul speaking of his Ministerial employments Are our Prelats beyond his sufficiencie who can act the Pastor of a wholl Diocess and guide State affaires too Christs Kingdome is not of this World and so are not its Officers the weapons of whose warrfare must not be carnal Who made me a judge said the great Shepherd himself when desired but to giue a deciding advice in a civil cause Luk 12 14. Where is there any thing like the work or qualifications of the Magistrat in all the New Testament Rules and instructions anent the work Office and call of Church Officers CHAP. III. The Diocesian Bishops Office debases extraoadinarie Offices in confounding them with the ordinary That Timothy and Titus power layes no foundation for Prelacy cleared at large The derivation of Prelacie from them loaded with gross absurdites VIII THe Diocesian Bishops Office is in this contrare unto the word in that It debases the Apostolical and Euangelistick Offices and confounds the ordinarie extraordinarie functions administrations which Scripture Reason all sound Divines doe diversifie distinguish The Prelats Advocats this new informer particularly pleads for and derives the Episcopal preheminence from the office and inspection of the Apstles and Euangelists whom they affirme to have been properly formally Bishops in the sense they take the Diocesian Bishop and that the formal power and offices which they exercised are to be continued still in the Church That Timothy was formally constitut Bishop of Ephesus Titus of Crete Iames of Ierusalem And that the Prelats office is the same and properly Succeeds them and is as it were A continuation of their office in a formal sense Timothy's authority is is one maine ground which the Episcopal men at the Isle of Wight and this Auther also do plead to legittimat the Prelats office This being clear I say this pretended Mould of the Diocesian Bishops Office and Authority is lyable to the charge censure of debasing these holy extraordinarie functions and confounding them with the ordinary which I prove thus 1. All sound protestant Divines do harmoniously assert the extraordinary nature of the Apostolick office as such and likewayes of the Euangelists reckening the Apostles Prophets
and Euangelists as the extraordinary New Testament Officers whose proper formal Office died with them and admits of no succession for thus they ordinarily defyne the Apostles that they were Christs immediatly called and extraornarily gifted universal Ambassadours sent out to lay every where the foundation of the Gospel Church and to plant the Gospel government therein Particularly Polanus in his Syntagma reckens up these as their extraordinary expired prerogatives to which we will find this Informer in parte give assent 1. Their immediat institution by Christ. 2. Their immediat mission to teach Paul had his from heaven 3. Their universal legation to found and plant Churches throw the world 2 Cor. 11 28. 4. It s visible badge viz. the conferring of the Spirit by the laying on of hands 5. Their extraordinary authority beyond any of their Successors as being set over the whole Church c. Hence all the ingredients of their formal Office as such must needs be expired And no Church Officer can be said to succeed them therein Their Call was immediat sure non can succeed them in that Their special or proper work was to plant Churches and the Gospel-government in them and set up their Officers of all which Churches they were Ministers in actu exercits sure no Church Officer could succeed them in this Their Qualifications as such Ambassadours were correspondent to this great work viz. their gifts of miracles gifts of tongues Prophesie infallibility in Doctrin Sure now can pretend to succeed them in this Nixt for the Euangelists their Office was equally extraordinary it consisting in a planetary motion from place to place to water where the Apostles planted to bring reports of the Churches state to the Apostles and commissions from the Apostles to them Their various motions pro re nata upon down even after these Epistles wherein they are supposed to have receaved their Episcopal charge were written to them and the Scriptures absolut silence as to their ever returning to these Churches againe besides the Apostle Pauls shewing expresly in these Epistles their occasional transient employment in this places and express recalling of them therefrom to the further prosecution of their extraordinary employment and in these very Epistles identifying the Office of the Bishop and Elder All these clear grounds I say do evidently demonstrat that the work and office of Timothy and Titus as Euangelists is expired and cannot be pretended unto by any ordinary Church Officer it being an appendix as it were of the Apostolick charge and supposing its exercise and existance and the Churches then infant state and condition Now to make these high and extraordinary functions ordinary and thus confound the two together must be a very gross usurpation 2. Hence it is manifest that the Episcopal function as above described in the quality and mould of the Diocesian Bishop will never be found in these extraordinary functions either formaliter or eminenter and consequently it must be a gross belying of the Spirit of God to pretend this in the assuming of this usurped Office First The Episcopal Office will not be found in that of the Apostles or Euangelists formaliter For these were universal unfixed Officers set over no particular Church or Diocess But were pro re nata to officiat to the whole Church as being the Apostles especially Officers thereof in actu exercito Nixt the Episcopal function is not included in these Offices eminenter or in the ordinary power whiâ—… the Apostles or Euangelists exercised or transmitte 〈◊〉 the Church And that for these Reasons 1. Neitâ—… the Apostles nor Euangelists in respect of their perpetâ—… ordinary Ministerial authority transmitted by them in 〈◊〉 Church did exercise Superiority Episcopal over other Ministers but as to the perpetual Pastoral Charge they held them their equals and in the ordinary power of government as wee saw above in the Apostles practise in ordination and Jurisdiction amongst Churches constitut and farr less can we suppose that the Euangelists were in such Churches to exercise any single or Episcopal preheminence in government For it were strange if Timothy who was ordained by a Presbytrye wherein Paul himself was present should notwithstanding usurpe preheminence over a Presbytery though inferior to ane Apostle And that whereas Presbyters did concurr pari passu with a whole Presbytery of Apostles in every peece of a judicial Act and decree yet that ane Euangelist inferior to any of the Apostles should take Episcopal preheminence over a Presbytery 2. The Apostles planted no such ordinary Officers in the Church as had that Episcopal Power therefore the Episcopal Power was not transmitted by them in the Church And by further consequence it is not included in their Office eminenter For it is evident that in the first plantation of the Churches they fixed Presbyters or Pastors as their immediat Successor's in the Ministerial power and likewise in their last farewel's into Churches they committed unto these Pastors the ordinary power of government without the least hint of a Super-institution of any officer of a higher order Act. 20 28 29. Compared with 25. 1 Pet. 5 2 3. with 2 Pet. 1 14 3. It was in respect of Paules ordinary Ministerial power and in that Capacitie that he had hands laid upon him by that Presbytety at Antioch and was sent out with other commissioners to that Synod at Jerusalem by them which looked like a humble submission pro tanto unto them and is far from the Episcopal preheminence since the Prelats dissoune all Subjection to the Prophes in greater or lesser assemblies 4. The Prelats authority is this he is upon the mater the only proper Pastor of the Diocess whose Episcopal inspection reaches Pastores and flocks both as is above cleared He is the fountaine from whom the power of order and Jurisdiction in the wholl Diocess is deryved and the exercise of both depends upon his Lordly disposal Now this is contrare both to the Apostles and Evangelists their ordinary and extraordinary power contrare to its very nature in universum their office being a declarative executive Ministerie onlie And Dominion or Lordship being discharged to all Apostles and all Church Officers whatsoever Hence in the 3d. place This Episcopal pretence aâ—…nt the derivation of their Lordly grandour from the Apostolick Office fastens a grosse charge of unfaithfulness upon them 1. In assuming a power in its nature distinct from what there Lord allowed and enjoyned them viz. a Lordly dominion not a ministerial Stewardshipe service only such a dominion as Princes of the gentiles exercise even to have the actus primus of a civil Lord-peer yea Chieff-peer or Parliament man 2. In debaseing and Straitening their Apostolick Inspection and carrying ane Office incompatible with it and thus unfaithfully tearing out a parte of their commission For in becoming Diocesian Bishops they should be fixed to particular diocesses and therin exercise ane ordinary fixed poever wheras their commission was to
preaches not is worthy of double honour for living well which will make very harsh sense Some understand this ruleing elder of the Deacon but the Deacon is no where called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or elder his work being to help to distribut not to rule 1 Cor. 12 28. Rom. 12 8 Some would being in under this Ruler The ancient Superannuat Bishop But this gloss will in honour preferr unto him the diligent preaching Minister which will wound their cause to death Some by the Ruler will have such understood as did administer Sacraments but preached not But Paul knew non of these non preaching or seldom-preaching Ministers far less would he allow them a double honoure who rather deserved the contrary Paul will have all Ministers apt to teach and able to convince Some by the ruling elder would have Inferior Magistrats understood who were appointed for ending civil Striffes but the Apostle is here prescrybing rules to Church office bearers not civile rulers and teaching Timothy how to cary in the Church Againe they had then no Christian civil Magistrats as all doe grant and for their going to Heathens to compose their civil differences Paul himself dissallowes it 1 Cor 6. Some againe will have the laboring in the word doctrine to be nothing else but ane explanation of rulcing well but this inadvertant gloss will set asyde My Lord Bishop as no good ruler Againe as is said the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here or the word especially is discriminating and discretive distinguishing one thing from another not explaining one thing by another If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were thus sensed what odd work would it make in other places 1 Tim. 4 10. Who is the Saviour of all men especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them that believe This gloss will sense it thus the Saviour of all men greatly believing Others yet by labouring in the word and doctrine will have a higher degree of labouring as to diligence understood yet so as both branches speak of labouring in the word and doctrin But as the Leyden Professoures doe well answer this will allow double honour to the less-labouring or lazie elder who deserves rather a double rebuke the Lord requiring the the utmost faithful diligence of all labourers in his vineyarde Besides that this gloss justles out and makes Superfluous that clause of the verse viz in the word and doctrine which according to this exposition should either have been totally omitted or added unto both the branches of this sentence Some to escape the dint of this text invent yet another Shift all Sort of Rulers whither civil ecclesiastick or domestical are worthy of double honour so they sense the first branch and say they this General proposition the Apostle might premise to enforce the honour he enjoyns to the labourer in the word c. But the context fully rejects this gloss since the Apostle speaks not generally of Rulers but of elders that rule well and of such elders and rulers to all which he allowes double honour So that this gloss will mak pitiful work both in allowing the Churches honorarium double honour or honourable maintinance to domestick Rulers and likewayes will allow more honourable maintinance to Ministers then Magistrats Some woulde by the labourer in word and Doctrine as distinct from the ruling elder take in transient visiting Presbyters distinct from fixed preaches but where will they shew us any such who were not Evangelists Wee find that meer ordinary Presbyters were ordained for several cities and places as there peculiar charges whom they were fixedly to feed Act. 14 23. Tit. 1 5. Act. 20 28. But where find they such Presbyters as had no fixed charge Neither can Evangelists be meaned as Dr Burnet would gladely shift it in his first Dialogues the Apostle all along speaking of ordinary preaching Presbyters These and several such like exceptions the evidence of this text hath long since refuted So that we may conclude solidely from what is said the divine right of this Church officer and by consequence the horride Sacriledge and usurpation of Prelacie in robbing Christs Church of the same And likewise the Babilonish confusion which this Antichristian Hierarchie hath introduced into our Church both in divyding and maiming the Pastoral office in bringing in offices which the Great Shepherd hath not allowed and in excluding and thursting our offices and officers which the hath ordained upon which grounds and upon all the preceeding wee hope we may now safely conclude the Diocesian Prelat existing among us to be a plant which the father never planted and consequently as a poisonus weed to be rooted up CHAP. V. That the present Prelacie is grosse Erastianisme Some Arguments against it under that notion It excludes and denies all Church Government in the hands of Church officers distinct from the civil contrar to the Churches priviledge both under the Old and New Testament which is demonstrat at large Is in many points ane Incroachment upon the liberties of the Gospel-Church and upon Christs mediatorie authority over the same HAving thus farr impugned the Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church officer Wee shall nixt offer some Arguments against him in his Erastian Mould as deriving all his power from the civil Magistrat Althogh the office of the Diocesian Bishop were acknowledged warrantable yet this will help nothing the Erastian Prelat these being very distinct theams and questions What is that Species of Church Government allowed and commanded in Scriptnre and whither there be any inherent Church Government allowed her distinct from that of the Civil Magistrat and whither Church officers or the Civil Magistrat be the proper Subject therof that the Present Prelacie is gross Erastianisme is manifest for after all Church Judicatories were in Anno 16 62. discharged untill they were authorized by the Bishops nominat by his Majestie the disposal of the Government is declared to be the Crown-right and inherent pâ—…rpetual prerogative and thereupon the Bishops are restored not only to their civil dignities but to their Episcopal function presidencie in the Church and over all Church discipline c. And it is expresly declared that there is no Church power jurisdiction or Government in the Church office bearers or meetings but what depends upon and is subordinat unto the Supremacie and is authorized by the Bishops who are declared accountable to his Majestie for their administration In the Act for the National Synod the constituent members thereof the maters to be treated of the authorizing of the constitutions as Church Canons is soly in the Civil Magistrat there work being only to give advice to him without any decisive inherent suffrage By vertew of which Ecclesiastick Supremacie his Majesty puts excommunication and Spiritual censures and consequently the power of the keys into the hands of persons meerly civil in the Act for the high commission Hence it is aparent that his Majesty as the fountaine of all Church Government impartes this
Authority to such as he pleases and the Bishops are nothing else but his Majesties Commisioners in the exercise of that Ecclesiastick Power which is originally in himself Now that this Erastian Prelacie or Church Government is a stranger to the Scripture is many wayes evident 1. This Erastian Prelacie Denyes all Church Government in the hands of Church officers distinct from civil Magistrace which is ane error fully confuted and largely bafled by all who have written against Erastus and his followers and is contrare many wayes to Scripture I. To that distinction betwixt the Ecclesiastick and civil Sanbedrin under the Old Testameet asserted and cleared by many Scripture Arguments by our divines paraicularly Mr Gillespie in the Aarons rode I. From the institution of that Court of elders supposed in Exod. 24. Who were not those elders chosen for the government of the Commonwealth Numb 11. For this was done at Sinai shortly after they came out of Egypt But on the 20 day Of the 2d Moneth in the 2d Year they tooke their journey from Sinai to the â—…dernes of Paran Numbr 10. 11 12. And there pitched when the Seventie elders were chosen to relieve Moses They were not the judges chosen by advyce of Iethro for he came not to Moses till the end of the first year or the begining of the Second after they came out of Egypt Nor could they be judges who judged befor he came for he observed that the burdine lay upon Moses alone So they must needs have been Ecclesiastick Rulers under the presidencie of Aarone and Hur. vers 14. Who were called up as the representatives of the Church of Israel after the Judicial lawes were given Chap. 22. 23. In this 24. Chapter there is a transition to the Ceremonial lawes concerning the worship of God and the Structur of the Tabernacle Deutr. 17. 8 9 10. All grant there a Supream Court of judges therfor also the text must be granted to hold forth a Supreme Ecclesiastick Court For it caryes the authority sentence of the priests as hie as the authority sentence of the judges that in adisjunctive way as Two distinct powers each binding respective in their oun proper Sphere 3. From these judges officers 1. Chr. 23. 4 26 29. Supposed set to their work when the Levits were divyded to there Charge who were not tyed to service attendances in the Temple but to judge give sentence concerning the law its meaning and this saith the text over Israel coming to them from any of the cities of the land 4. From Jehoshaphats reformation 2. Chron. 19. 8 10 11. Who restoring the government of the Church did sett in Ierusalem levits priests Chieff of the Fathers of Israel for the judgment of the Lord for controversies Here is 1. A Court of priests Levits with power of Suffrage thus consisting of Ecclesiastick membres 2. In Ecclesiastick matters Maters of the Lord distinct from Maters of the King 3. For ane Ecclesiastick end viz. to warne that they trespasse not not only against one another but against the Lord. 4. All causes of their Brethren that dwelt in the Cities were to come to them unto Jerusalem 5. They have Ane Ecclesiastick Moderator or president Amariah the chieff priest over them in all Maters of the Lord â—…istinct as is said from Maters of the King These many such Arguments are made use of by him others To clear this poynt of the Two distinct Sanhedrins which fully overthrowes this Erastian Confusion of these two powers governments 2. This fountaining of all Church power in the civil and denying of Church government in the hands of Church officers distinct from the Civil government is Cross to that distinction of the Gospel Church her government from that of the Civil power wich is clearly held out in the new Testament Wherin it is evident 1. That the visible Church is Christ the Mediator his visible kingdome as Mediator And so its Officers Lawes Censures falls with in the compasse of his Mediatorie appointment and inspection Matth. 16. 19. 28. 29. Joh. 18. 36. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11 12. 2. That the gospel Church was Compleated in her being essence both as to Rulers Ruled Members officers and in rules directions for the exercise of her government accordingly when no Magistrat was so much as a member of her 3 That in all the precepts anent the exercise of this power it is enjoyned to the Church to these Church officers as such with the same freedome independancy upon the Civil power as at the first without the least restriction limitation in case of the Magistrats becoming Christian All the grounds made use of in pressing the exercise of this power being moral perpetual respecting the Church her condition as a Church whither the Magistrat be friend or enemie In the 2d Place This Erastian prelatick mould of government brings in many grosse encroachments upon the liberties of the gospell Church As 1. Denying her liberty to exercise her power Key of Censure without the Magistrat Contrare to all the New Testament instances of the exercise therof with out him 2. Introduceing a dominion arbitrary power upon all her government Contrare to her liberty the very nature of her government which is a Ministerial Stewardship not a dominion for thus the Church is the proper object of the Magistrats dominion that being the Nature of his power Rom. 13. And the present prelatick Church ounes the Supreme Civil governoure as her Chieff Church officerer 3. Giving to the Magistrat qua talis for this power in Church matters is by Prelats and their adherents aknowledged to be a perpetual Croun-right the proper Sole decisive suffrage in all causes falling under Ecclesiastick cognisance for Prelatists onely meet to advise him in there Suprem Court or national Synod according to the forementioned Act. Now this Cutts off all Church judicatories ther decisive suffrage as Church judicatories which as is cleared above they did fully at first exercise of themselves without the Magistrat 4. This mould will make the Civil Magistrat the proper immediat subject of the Keys and Impartes all Church government to One who as such is not so much as a Church member and impowers him to give out this supposed fountaine power to no Church members or to here enemies at his pleasure As his Majesty gives to persons Civil the power of excomunication Yea it gives him a power by his oun proper clicite acts to dispense all her external government as the law terms it which if we look upon it as including all externall ordinances contradistinct from the internal government of the inward man the Church invisible will necessarely import include the exercise of both the Keys all the external dogmaticke diatactick Critick authority power intrusted to the Church representative Which is a meer
Civil papacie the grossest of usurpations which the Church can be exposed unto as shall be afterward touched Finally This will inferr that Children Heathens yea women may be chieff Church officers and heads of the Church too since they may possesse the Crown of these Kingdoms to which this Headship and Supremacy is annexed But of this also againe 3. This Erastian government is a gross encroachment upon Christs prerogative over his Church And that in these wayes 1. In assumeing a power over the Church which is proper to Christ only I mean a Magisterial architectonick power That this is assumed by this Erastian mould of government is evident He who can dispose of government and governoures of the Church arbitrarly and dispose of all Church meetings and Church maters as he pleases and thinks fitt Hath certanly this power but that this Magisterial architectonick power and dominion over the Church is Christs Sole prerogative is abundantly clear by manifold plaine positive Scripture assertions To Christ is all power given in Heaven and Earth Matth. 28. 18. And he as Mediator is given to be head over all things to the Church Ephes. 1. 21 22. To hâ—…m is all judgement over her committed John 5. 22. Hee it is also who possesses these high tittles to be the Governoure over his Church by way of eminencie Matth. 2. 6. That great shepherd of the sheep Hebr. 13. 20. the shepherd and Bishop of Soules 1. Pet. 2. 25. Hee is that one Master over all Church officers who are but Brethren Matth. 23. 8 10. To us there is but One Lord Iesus 1. Cor. 8. 6. Hee it is to whom onely the imperiall acts of power are ascribed as the giving of lawes to his Church the gospel precepts are his law Gal. 6. 2. Hee it is who gave commandments to his Apostles Act. 1. 2. there is but one law giver who can save and destroy Jam. 4. 12. The Lord is our judge the Lord is our lawgiver or Statute maker the Lord is our King I say 33 22. He it is who Constitutes her ordinances preaching of the word Matth. 10. 7. 1. Cor. 1. 17. administration of the Sacraments as of baptisme John 1. 33. the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 11. 20. dispensing of Censures Matth. 16. 29. Hee it is who appointes his Officers Prophets Pastores Teachers Ephes. 4. 11 12. 1. Cor. 12 28. In his name onely all ordinances are dispensed Not in the name of Magistrats or of any Mortall The Apostles spake and taught in the name of Jesus Act. 4. 17 18. In his name we are to Ask Joh. 14. 13 14. In his name onely Ministers are to preach and baptize Matth. 28. 18 19. 2. Cor. 5. 20. In his name onely they are to Censure to deliver to Satan 1 Cor. 5. 4. In his name only Church assemblies are to be gathered which seems the Smallest Act. Matth. 18 20. See jus divinum Regim Eccles Appollon Revius c. 2. This Erastian government incroaches upon Christs prerogatives In taking and using the Keys against Christs donation and authoritie Christ is the only Lord giver of both the Keys and all their power But in this Usurped power the Kevs are 1. Divyded against his prescription who gave both the Keys of Doctrine and Discipline joyntly to the proper recipients theâ—…of viz. Church officers Matth. 16. 19. This Erastian government â—…ches away One Key viz. of government from such to whom Christ the great Master of the House hath Intrusted both Christ in this donation of the Keys making no mention of the Civil Rulers but only of Church Officers then appointed who were distinct from the Magistrat Hence 2. The Key of disciplin is taken and used against his mynde by these to whom he hath not Intrusted it which is a great encroachement upon his authoritie In the 3d. place this Erastian government encroaches upon Christs authoritie over his Church In superadding Ane officer to theseChurch officers institut and appointed by him For in all the Scripture rolls of Christs Church officers the Civil Rulers are not found Eph. 4. 10 11. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 6. 7 8. 4. This encroachment appeares in making Church officers as such imediatly subject to the Magistrat in all their Spirituall administration which is a hie Censure of the Primitive exercise of this power independantly as we shal shew 5 In exeeming him from all Spiritual subjection unto and censure by Church Rulers For where â—…pray shal we find the Magistrat excepted and the hiâ—…herCivil powers if within the Church from Christs lawes and rules anent subjection to Church censures and to his Spiritual office bearers intrusted therewith CHAP. VI. Erastianism denyes the compleat constitution of the Apostolick Church in point of Government Removes the Scriptur Land-markes set to distinguish the Civil and Ecclesiastick Powers which is cleared in several points It is lyable to great absurdities IN the 4th place This Erastian Government presumes to impeach the primitive Apostolick Church her compleat constitution and faithfulness of Administration in relation to Government and makes here to have had but a defective maimed constitution and authority thereanent while the exercise of the civil power in her was wanting Which charges a gross deficiency upon Christs prescriptions in relation to her Lawes and Officers Which are found in Scripture very full and suited to her state and condition in all times until all the Elect be made up and here warfare is accomplished and consequently it impeaches Christs saithfulness and authority as Mediatour whose proper work this holy constitution is 5. This Erastian Prelacy takes away all the Scripture Landmarks and Limits which are fixed therien by God to distinguish the Civil and Ecclesiastick Powers and Governments and makes them every way the same in all things wherein Scripture and Reason do distinguish them both as to their Nature and Acts and likewayes as to their Causes 1. As to their Nature this Erastian Government doth confound them 1. In that it makes the Church and Commonwealth the Political and Ecclesiastical Societies one and the same which are formally distinct It being a visible profession that make a Church member and outward habitation and subjection to the civil power that makes a Subject Which may be where there is no profession and consequently no Church-membership For in this mould the Kings Government Civil is Church Government for it is his Government as King in which capacity this Ecclesiastick Supremacy is his prerogative and his Ecclesiastick Government is also Civil Government for it is his Government as the Supream Civil Magistrat And thus the Church respected by his government is the Common-wealth vice versa 2. This confounds the Officers of Church and State which the Scriptur doth aboundantly distinguish For as is said The Church had all her Officers of Christs appointment when no Magistrat was a Member thereof and on the other hand Common-wealths had all their civil Rulers before they became Churches But in this Erastian
Prelacy this order is confounded The chief Officers of this Church are the Magistrats Commissioners to Church and State whereas Church Officers are given by Christ as Mediatour to his Church as a Church 1 Cor. 12 Ver. 28. 3. The actings of civil and Ecclesiastick authority are thus confounded Spiritual church Rulers Act onely in Spiritual matters by Gods appointment and civil Rulers there immediat proper Acts are only in matters Civil But here Church Officers are Parliament Commissioners and civil Rulers in the high commission do excommunicat Againe in the 2. place This Erastian Prelacy confounds these two powers in their causes which are wholly diverse 1. The efficient cause is diverse God as Creator is Author of Magistracy Rom. 13. But Christ as Mediatour appoints Church Government Matt. 28 18. But here the Magistrat qua talis is a suprem Church Ruler And thus is supposed to have his power from Christ as Mediator and Head of his Church Which is ane opinion fully confuted by those who havewritten against Erastus particularly Mr Gillespie in the Aarons Rod. 2. They differ in the material cause the matter on which the two powers do act are diverse Ecclesiastick power doth act in the exercise of the Keys the administration of the Word and Sacraments having this for its proper Object and matter The civil power consists in the civil and secular Sword the one reaches the inward the othere the outward man But in this Erastian Prelacye the Sword and Keys are made one promiscuously used and put into the same hands 3. The two powers differ in their formal cause the civil power is put forth in political punishments the Ecclesiastick in spiritual censures But here the same power is the first Radix and Fountaine of Spirituall Censures and Civil punishments and gives them their formal essence and being as such Finalie The proper immediat end of Civil power is the Temporal External political peace of the commonwealth Rom. 13. 1 2. 3. But the proper end ofEcclesiastick power Is the Churches Spiriual good and edification as such Matth. 18. 15. 1 Cor. 5. 5. 2. Cor. 10. 8. and 13. 10. But here the Magistrat quatalis being the Churches head these ends are Confounded These and several such like arguments are made use of by our writers against Erastus which doe fully evince the unlawfulnes of this Erastian prelacie Whosoever shal peruse Apollonius His jus Majest Circ Sacr the jus Div regim Eccles the Aarons rod wallaeus against Vtenbog and such like will find this abundantly clear To shâ—…t up all with One word more Ther are these 3. horride absurdities in relation to Church government which the premised mould of this Erastian prelacie will necessarly inferr 1. That a man may be borne not only a Church member but a Chief Church Ruler Nay that a Heathen and a man that never professed the true religion but lives and dies ane ingraind enemie to it and so hath neither mater nor forme of Church membership may be a Chieff Church officer For his Majesties present authoritie herine acknowledged by our prelats and which is the Fountaine of their power is the proper Croune dignitie of all that ever shall possesse and wear it and so here is a monstrous Church officer who 1. hath no qualifications of any Church officer whom ever Christ appointed 2. A Church officer who is not Set in the Church which is the essential marke of all Church officers 1. Cor. 12 28. for that supposes he must be a Church member A 2d absurditie is this That Children and women who may have a lawfull lineal right to the Croun may be Church officers Yea the Fountaine of our prelats authority and of all their Underâ—…ings and the chieff governoure of this Church and thus they who are forbidden so much as to speak in the Church shall be Chieff Church Rulers and likewayes such as have not the use of Reason 1. Tim. 3 5. 1. Cor. 14. 34 35. A 3d. absurditie is That the Church government upon earth may be Monarchical and that One man may be her Supream head legislator And architectonick Monarch and Ruler for aquatenus ad omne valet consequentia Upon the same ground that the Suprem Civil Ruler is Chieff head and Ruler over the Church in his dominions the Church in all other places being a body of the same nature Should the Christian Church be contracted within his dominions he were her Supreme universall head And it were so if his Civil dominion should be extended over all the Churches By this same reason of his headship over One he may be head over all and exercise ane arbitrary at least a legislative power over all her ordinances and officers And if this will not Clearly set the popes Treeple Croun upon his head and disowne all that ever the protestant Churches have writen and acted against his blasphemous Supremacie let common discretion judge Ambrose Epist 33. ad valentinianum imperatorem Saith noli gravare imperator ut putes in ea quae divina sunt aliquod imperiale jus habere opliticorum tibi munerum jus concessum est non Sacrorum Grieve not O Emperour so as to think that you have any Imperial authority over these things which are divine the right or authority of politicall offices is committed unto thee but not of Sacred CHAP. VII The Informers deceitfull shifting and obscuring the true State of the Question anent Episcopacie and flinching from the point debatable discovered Severall wayes He declines a direct pleading for prelats civil offices Yet offers some arguments defence therof Wherin his prevarication and Contradiction to himself is made appear TO come now to examine what this new Dialogist hath produced in defence of the present prelacie established amongst us And to examine his answers to our plea against it We shall not stand upon the trifling debate about the personal good qualities of some that have been prelats with which Hee prefaces this Dialogue it being altogether extrinsick to the Question anent the lawfulnes of the office it self And would be no argument in our case against him as this man cannot but acknowledge else Hee must give up the cause upon his concession of the Unquestionable eminent pietie and integritie of many burning and Shining lights who have been the Lords Constant witnesses against prelacie That which is here mainely considerable Is his prevarication in Stating the Question anent prelacie viz. Whither the ancient Bishopes had a Superioritie over other Ministers wherin he utterly â—…ches away from the pointe debeatable 1. In making this the State of the Question what Bishopes were in the primitive Church wheras the true State of our Question is whither the prelat now existent in this Church be a Scripture Bishop and consonant therunto Or ane officer appointed by Christ in his house Yea or not And not whither there have been Bishops or such as we now have in the ancient Church The Question is not of the mater of
primacy or ecclesiastick Monarchy even as abstracted from his civill Dominion is not here discharged And if it be as all our divines assert it is then our Lord understood another sort of abuse of power then invadeing a Dominium civile even all despotick or Lordly power whither civill or pretended ecclesiastick in Church officers Besids if he discharged Lordly power he discharged that which Peter discharged 1 Pet. 5. Even to Lord over Gods heritage What will he dare to say that it is only a civill Lordship which is there discharged not rather ane ecclesiastick dominion Which bath Gods heritage or Church for its object And if so then the Prelats Dominion is expresly stricken against since as we have above cleared his power is a meer despotick Lordship or rule For to be the proper object fountaine of all ecclesiástick authority in the Diocess to have sole power in ordination jurisdiction the sole decisive suffrage in Judicatories is either a despotick Dominion and Lordship or it is nothing and if the Churches power is of another nature then this civill Dominion as this man tells us of what nature is it Only of another nature because it touches spiritual objects Then for any thing that is here forbidden a papall ecclesiastick monarchy is never touched Or is it of another nature because in it self Steward-like and Ministerial not despotick or Princely like that of the Magistrat which is the sense of all sound divines and must be his too if he speak sense then who sees not that the power of the Prince-or Lord-Prelat is most formally discharged It being evidently of this nature Yet againe it is in this apparent that he shiftes and shuffles the question and its terms here anent the power of the Prelat and the power discharged in this text For in saying in the beginning of his Answer that Christ discharges that kind Dominion of onely which civil Princes exercise he must needes be supposed to contradistingush from this ane ecclesiastick Dominion which is allowed yet when he speaks of this he alters the terms telling us that the Churches power is of another nature he should have said the Churches reserved Dominion if he had spoken consequently as that other kind of Dominion which he allowes and by the consequence of his discourse holds that the Text will allow In a word that all sort of Dominion whither pretended ecclesiastick or civil is here discharged to Church officers and consequently his offering violence to the Text is apparent from the context two wayes 1. In that the strife among the Apoles flowing from this desire of unlawful greatnes and which drew forth this exhortation and prohibition under debate was not about a civill despotick rule properly or onely but anent a Lordship chief rule in the Church and in matters ecclesiastick under Christ as their head So that though the Lord exemplified the greatnes which he discharged them in that of earthly princes there being no other then existent and apparent yet it was not this primarily but ane ecclesiastick Lordship or dominion which he strycks against Since he is directing them both negatively and positively anent the nature And exercise of their spiritual and ecclesiastick Authority and Rule 2. The positive parte of his injunction touching a Ministerial service or humble Ministery excludes all sort of dominion in what ever sense it can be taken and not a civill dominion onely Our Informer tells us nixt That sundrie interpreters interpret Christs words as discharging only Tyranny such as earthly Princes exercise And in this he Informers us right Onely he should have been so ingenuus as to tell us that they are interpreters beyond our line that is popish interpreters for this is directly Bellarmins shift to which since he stands here upon the same ground with him I shall return learned Whittakers interpretation and answer which hitherto I believe hath passed current with all sound Protestants Christ sets before them the example of the Kings of the Gentiles not to the end they may flie ambition on'y as this man shifts it but to let them understand that they have nothing to doe with a kingly rule For saith he though the words translated exercise dominion or authority which Matthew maks use of doeth sometimes signifie immoderat dominion yet Luke Omitts the preposition in both these Words But so it is that the simple verb is attribut to these who obtaine power and dominion not to these who insolently and tyrannically overerule for all those who among the gentiles obtained principality did not reigne tyrannically or unjustly nay the Clemency of many such and their justice is praised Thus he de pontif Quest 1. To which I may add that our Lord speakes of such Princes as were called Benefactoers or gracious Lords a very unsuiteable designation for Tyrannes How easie is it from the Informer reasoning here and with his net to fish out a papacy That which the Apostles here desired was in it self lawful and the fault was onely in the ambitious desire as it was with diotrephes who desired a lawful preexistent office This he clearly asserts I subsum But that which they desired and were striving about was a primacie or papacie Ergo that office is lawfull in it self The pope will thank our Informer for this The nixt text objected by the doubter is that pregnant passage 1 Pet. 5 3. Be not Lords over Gods heritage And from this he maks him mutter out this slender argument is not superiority among Church men there clearly forbidden Still we see our Informer keeps him under the covert of his own groundless supposition that we doe from this and such like texts Impugne Superiority among Church men as he terms it whereas wee allow as he cannot but know with all sound divines and scripture it self superiour and inferiour degrees among Church officers And he cannot shew that any Presbyterian did ever draw forth from this text such ane insignificant notion as this against Prelacy But hee behoved to make the knot easy since himself must loose it Our Argument from this text is this That the Apostle here injoyneing Ministers their duty both negativil and positively he first dehorts from evills they are lyable unto such as heart reluctancy at their laborius employment covetusness and usurpation or Lordship and Dominion whither over their fellowes which Dietrephes affected or over the people by taking ane arbitrarie masterly imperious way with them or a way of force and rigoure as these reptehended Ezek. 34 4. He nixt positively exhortes them to lead or rule in a holy exemplarie Shepherd-like Method expressing the word of grace in their practise Now I say from this genuine sense and scope of the place wee argue against Prelacie thus 1. The Apostle exhorts these elders or Ministers as their fellow-elder supposeing them his immediat Successors in the highest Spheere of ane ordinarie Ministery for he supposes them to have non higher over them now when he
was shortly to put off his Tabernacle 2. He enjoyns them to feed and take the oversight or exercise Episcopal authoritie over the flock as Paul did likewayes the Presbyters or elders of Ephesus in his last farewel Act. 20. a scrybing a compleat Episcopal authoritie to them both as to jurisdiction and ordination 3. Yet he discharges any of them to Lord it over Gods heritage commending instead thereof ane exemplarie humble service or ministery Hence wee inferr against the Diocesian Prelat 1 That there is no higher officer then a Presbyter left by the Apostles as their ordinary Successor since the Apostle as their follow Presbiter exhorts themas the highest ordinary officers and therfor the Prelat pretending to be ane higher ordinary officer is Apocriphal 2. All Episcopali authority is in Presbyters both as to ordination and Jurisdiction and they have both name and thing of a Scripture Bishop and therefore the Prelat arrogating this name solely to himself all the Episcopal power of ordinationand Jurisdiction as his solely and denying it to Presbyters is ane Anti-scripturall Monster Since these Presbyters had this in a compleat parity 3. Non of these Elders must exercise a masterly power and dominion over the flocks therefore the Lord Prelats imperious Lordly power is palpably condemned which he exercises over both Pastores and flocks Now this being our argument from this text let any man judge of this Informer ingenuity while representing it in such a disguise that he may seem able to grapple with it Whereas we shall find that his answers to his Argument presented thus in its genuine strength are like the conflict betwixt the giant and pigmee But what sayes he to the Argument as in his own mould 1. He answers That superiority among Churchmen is not discharged By Churchmen if he understand in General Church officers though the terme be some what odd we shall easily Admitt that this Text discharges not superior and inferior degrees among them but this will nothing help his cause as is evident If he mean superiority among preaching Presbyters or Elders we have proved it to be here discharged since the Apostle attributes episcopal Authority to these elders in common and discharges Lordly preheminenc in any of them Well what is it that our Informer will admitt to be here discharged domineering and Tyranny saith he which may be the fault of ane ordinary Minister towards his flocke This is the old popish song made new again to which I repon two things 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is parallel with that of Matth. 20. and Luk. 22. Where peter learned the prohibition and as is said imports indeed Dominion but no Tyrannical domineering it being made use of by the seventy interpreters to express Dominion unquestionably lawful 2. The positive parte of the precept refutes this gloss he sayes not Not Tyrannically domineering but using Dominion moderatly which ought to have been the other alternative branch if this mans gloss were true and the Apostle had allowed a lawfull Lordshipe but He adds for the other branch in expressing what is injoyned being examples to the slock Injoyneing thus to feed by example and a humble Ministery And this is opposit to all Dominion and Lordship whatsoever and doth not discriminat only one Dominion from another which is also apparent in the alternative branche and positive precept of the above mentioned paralel texts Besides we might here tell him That the Episcopal preheminence being so many wayes cross to the Scripture rules in pointe of Government may be truely called a most TyrannicalDomineereing But the reasons of his gloss follows He tells us That this domineering and Tyranny may be the fault of ane ordinary Minister towards his flock and that the Apostle is not here speaking of Church mens carriage towards one another or of their equality or inequality among themselves but of their behaviour towards the people who are called the flock or Gods heritage Ans. This is a strange reason and very hard to comprehend only Tyrannical domineereing must be understood because it relates only to the flock Can there not be a Tyrannical domineering over the Clergy also And because the Apostle forbids to Lord it over the flock therefore he forbids not Dominion over the Clergy The quit contrare conclusion will better follow If the Apostle forbids them to Lord it over the flocks who were subject to them as their spiritual guides therefore a fortiori he much more forbids them to Lord it over their fellow Presbyters who were their equalls in this Spiritual trust and Authority over the flocks And if it be unlawful to play the Domineering Prelat over one poor flock it must be much more unlawfull to Act this Tyranny over some Hundreds of both pastores and flocks So that Ministers or if he will Churchmens carriage towards one another must be here clearly pointed out by a very necessary consequence from the less to the greater and the equality of Ministers in their spiritual Government and Rule by he same topick strongly inferred from this place It strange that the Apostle should discharge to Lord it over the flocks and yer allow a Lordship over both Clergy and flocks But another wonder is how he comes to excludMinisters from that tittle of Gods heritage which his party from whom our Informer here proves a separatist do often make peculiar unto Church Rulers one would thinke that they should have a special Interest and share in that which grounds this denomination Are they not the Lords purchase as well as the people Act. 20. Nay they are in a singular manner such and Christs glorie Are they not such as he will never cast off and alienat Psal. 94 14. They are the starrs which Christ holds in his right hand nay as being singularly dedicat to him they are singularly his as the Levits had the Lord for their Inheritance in a speciall way So they were singularly his set aparte for him beyond all the rest of the tribes And are not Ministers taken from among the people for his Priests and Levits And called therefore men of God stewards of God Ministers Servants Ambassadoures of Christ because of their singular relation to him And as this is a strong disswasive from Lording over the people that they are Gods heritage who therefore most not be the servants of meâ—… So upon the ground of Ministers speciall interest in this denomination the Apostles argument as to them is the more forcible Againe since he so expresly forbids any of these Pastoures to Lord it over Gods Heritage enjoyning them a humble exemplary Ministery and far less to exercise a Lordly Rule over one another he establishes by clear consequence as I hinted ane equality among them in their pastoral official power and authority Withall the Apostle speaking to them indefinitely in this precept without the least exception and reserve as to any one of them and making their episcopal inspection relate to the
him Besids will any say that the Deacons joyned with these Bishops in the period of this verse were not at Philippi or belonging to that Church but with Paul But they are mean men and their credit needed not to be saved by such a conceit as this All the fear of that Father was â—…east these Bishops at Philippi be found meer Presbyters of that Church And how to ward off this blow hoc opus hic labor ese Well what further answers he He tells us nixt That others think they were Bishops of theChurches about conveened at Philippie which Paul knowing of salutes them with the Church Since he first salutes the Saints as intending mainely to write to them and then the Bishops So wee see the Prelatists saile every point of the compasse to save the credit of these Bishops If Bishops cannot be gotten sett beside the chaire with Paul when addressing the Epistle this gloss standing clearely antipod to the Text the nixt shift is rather then these Bishops be degraded to meer Presbyters to send for some other Bishops to Philippi at this tyme of Paules Writing that this casual Mustere of Bishops of other Churches may warde off the deadly blow which the cause will gett by seating all these Bishops at Philippie as officers of that Chuch and to compass this designe they must be but occasionally saluted here and not as fixed members or officers thereof upon the Apostles Information comeing to late to his ears from our Informer and his fellows that there were several Magnates there besides the ordinary Presbyters at Philippi But which also odd they must become so humble as to fall behind the Saints the persons mainely written to Had our Informer left out this clause which notwithstanding his answer did require Our Prelats Parliaments order Who are before because behind the most would have saved their reputation still But many of the Ancients are more ingenuous Thodoret confesses that Presbyters are here understood because their could not be many Bishops in one-city on Philip. 1. Oecumenius on Philip. 1. Tells us That we are not so to understand it as if there were many Bishops in one citty but that the Apostle calls the Presbyters Bishops Chrisost. ibid. acknowledges That they were Presbyters who were called thus because the names were then common and the Bishop himself was called Deacon and that the distinction of names came afterward This conjecture is sib to that other shift to take off the strength of our argument from Act. 20. viz. That these Elders were not Church Officers of Ephesus onely but the Bishops of all Asia mett together at Ephesus and sent for by Paul from thence least if the Episcopal authority be found seated in these Elders of Ephesus at Pauls last farewel it breake the Diocesian Prelat all in peeces But as it is well replyed that since Paul sent to Ephesus for the Elders of the Church it is a groundless conjecture to call them any other Elders then of that Church to which he sent and that there is no hint in the text of any other Elders there at that time So this fancie is as fond when applyed to this passage and may receave the same reply What shaddow of proof can be produced that therewere any other Officers there at this time then the Bishops or Ministers of this Church And what Logick I pray or sense is there in this inference that because the Apostle first salutes all the Saints or the Church collective in bulke and then the Church Officers Bishops and Deacons or the Church representative in special that therefore he salutes these Church Officers as casually there and not as Officers of that Church Beside had the Apostle saluted them as casually present they would have been saluted with every Saint in Christ Chap. 4 21. rather then in the inscription The English Annotations thus sense it That by the Bishops and Deacons we are to understand the whole Ministery at Philippi consisting of Presbyters to whom the government of the Church was committed and Deacons who not only had the care of the poor but also assisted the Ministers in their Ecclesiastick function But our Informer hath a third Answer wherein He grants that these Bishops and Deacons were Officers of this Church and askes where were the ruling Elders here and if we say they are included in the word Bishop then he tells us that upon better ground he can affirme that Bishops here signifies both the superiour Bishop and the ordinary Minister who may be called Bishop as well as Epaphroditus is called ane Apostle Answ. 1. Our Argument from this place and such like beside the Scriptures silence as to the Diocesian Bishop is That the Scripture Bishop doth therein stand so described and qualified that it is impossibe to understand him of any other officer then a meer Presbyter which is most manifast here It being impossible that a multiplicity of Bishopes could be at Philippi as is universally acknowledged And if he grant that these Bishops were officers of that Church in Philippi he must either say they were meer Preebyters which is all wee seek and the yeelding of his cause or he must prove that either here or els where the word Episcopus or Bishop designes the diocesian Bishop and place a multiplicity of such Bishops here against the old Cannons particularly that of Nice But 2. As to what he sayes of the ruleing elders it is utterly impertinent and answered already We proved the ruling elders office as distinct from the preaching elder by clear Scripture grounds and did shew that the Scripture points out two sorts of elders giving them both this generall name of elder then distinguishing them into such as rule and such as labour in the word and doctrine But this Informer will never prove that Episcopus or Bishop designes two sorts of Pastors a higher and a lower or that there is any difference of degrees in the pastoral office So that he cannot include here his Superior imaginarie Bishop of whose office the Scripture is utterly silent As we may the elder in the Bishop And till he make the Diocessian Prelat appear in Scripture we must still hold that when Ministers are called Bishops they get the proper specifick designation and characteristick of their office are not called â—…o in a general figurative sense or Catachrestice as Epaphroditus is called the Philippians Apostle or messenger But how viz. their messenger sent to Paul who ministered to his wants Phil. 2 25. So 2 Cor. 8. v. 23. Titus and others are called the Apostles and messengers of the Corinthianes viz as it is there inumar in that bussines of the collection for the Saincts at Jerusalem for which end they were sent to the Corinthians So the Spirit of God in Scripture both in holding out the distince office of Apostle properly so called for I hope our Informer will not upon this ground make different degrees of Apostles as he doth of Pastors
and himself also THE Doubter over come by this Informers mighty Answers forsooth Confesseth Episcopacie not to be unlawful and only pleads that it may become inexpedient and a better put in its place Whereupon he promises That if we will not stand out against light he will let us see warrand in the word for Bishops and so he may easily doe But the Bishop he must let us see the warrand for is the Diocesian Erastian Bishop haveing sole power in ordination and jurisdiction bound to preach to no flock and deriving all his power from the civil Magistrat Now when he hath given us Scripture warrand for such ane ordinary Church-officer as is of this mould under the new Testament erit mihi magnus Apollo Wee see he still walks in darknes as to the State of the Question and dare not exhibit to us the mould of the present Bishop now existent when he offers to produce Scripture warrands for him His 1. Warrand is that under the old Testament setting aside the hie Priest who was a Typ of Christ there was a subordination among the rest of the Priests mention being made of chief Priests 2 King 19 2. Ezr 8 29. c. Matth. 2 3. Act. 19 14. And over these againe a chief priest under the hiest preist who only was Typical since two hie priests are sometimes mentioned Luc. 3 2 So there was a subordination among the Levites Exod. 6 2. Numb 3 18 19. with 24. 30. v. Neh. 11 22. One is set over the Levites called by the Greek Episcopus and another over the Priests v 14. From all which places he concluds That subordination among Churchmen is no such odious thing as some believe Ansr. 〈◊〉 If this be all the Conclusion which this man drawes out against us from the premised trite argument of Bellarmin and others viz. that there is a subordination among Church men It will never help him nor wound our cause in the least for as we grant without the least preiudice thereunto that there is a subordination both of Courts and Church-officers under the new Testament Pastours being above ruleing elders and they aboue Deacons Presbyteries also being above Kirk Sessions Synods above Presbyteries National assemblies above Synods as the jewes had there Supreme Sanhedrin Exod. 24. 2 Chron 19. And also betwixt the Sanhedrin and Synagogue a middle Ecclesiastick Court called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Preâ—…bytery Luk. 22 66. Act. 22. 5. and also their least Sinagogue-Iudicatorie wherein was both ruleing and censures Act. 26 11. Compared with Act. 9 1 2. And with Mark 5 35 36. Act. 18 8. Answerable to our Kirk Sessions which is largely demonstrat by Mr Gillespie Aar rod. lib. 1. Cap. 3. pag. 8. to 38. As this I say is clear so it is evident that it is much more then a meer subordination of Courts or officers which he most prove if he will conclude any thing to purpose against us viz The Prelats sole decisive power and negative voice in judicatories and their deryvation of all their authority from the Magistrat as his deputs in their administration Now from the subordination of Courts or officers mentioned under the old dispensation to conclude the lawfulness of a Prelat a pretended Minister of the new Testament his taking from other Ministers all the power of Government contrary to our Lords express command his laying aside the preaching Talent and giving up all the ecclesiastick authority which he pretendes unto to one who is not Qua talis so much as a Church member is a wide and wilde conclusion yet that this is the conclusion which he must infer to prove his point is beyond all Question 2. Giveing not granting to him that there was under the old dispensation such a Hierarchy as he pleades for and such a difference of degrees among Church officers as he represents how will he prove this consequence that the Government of the Church under the New Testament must be thus moulded and have the same degrees of Ministers as the Jewes had of Priests and Levits this Connexion he supposes here and offers afterward some smatterings in proof thereof but with what success we shall see with in a little Will he say that it is lawful to bring into the christian Church every point of the jewish policy Bilson ane English Bishop even in pleading for Prelacie will give him the lie if he say so and shew him the disparitie betwixt their Church government and oures Perp Gov. Chap. 2. for the tribe of Levi saith he was neither subjected to the Government of another tribe nor without manifest confusion could it want all Government wherefore as all the rest so this tribe also had its proper Magistrats to wit it s Pinces Elders judges c. He adds that the Jewes Law contained in the books of Moses comprehended the mould of their civill Government and the Priests and Levits being most skilful in this knowledge we need not wonder that they were placed in the same benches with the judges this we offer to our Informers observation to snew how this Bishop Pulles his care in argueing from the Priests sitting in civill courts numb 11 To Justifie our Prelats civill rule but now to our purpose in relation to Church government he adds further that the offices of the Sanctuarie and rites and ceremonies of the Sacrifices from which all the other tribes except the Levites were restrained were not of one kinde So that it needs be no wonder that these degrees of the administrators were distinguished according to the diversitie of offices and services But in the Church of Christ the Word and Sacraments concredited to all Ministers without distinction as they are of one kinde neither admitts any difference of administration or celebration so neither doe they require different degrees of Ministers Thus he Sure had our Informer listened unto this information of this Father of the Church as he speaks he would have spared this Argument as not worth the repeating The Ministry of the Levites who served in the sojourneing Tabernacle is compared to warrfare Numb 4. Because of the Militarie order which the Priests and Levits observed in their externall Ministry Where there was one common Temple a common Ministry of the priesthood a thousand administrators in every family the twenty four families who served each their week in the Temple being called courses by Luke stationes by the Talmudists the term being borrowed from warrfare as Scaliger observes in Canonibus isagogicis it is no strange thing if in this Ministry and Priesthood their were such degrees of administrators but the Prieststood being changed there is made of necessity a change of the law saith the Apostle Hebr. 7 12. And the policie suitable to the state of that Church must by necessary consequence be changed also 3. The antecedent of the Argument from that policie will be a harder taske then he imagines and this Informer would be quite out if put to draw
governe them by ecclesiastick Discipline which he makes to be the Bishops office 2. Their sole power in ordination and Government here supposed by him did certainly presuppose the Christian Church in fieri whereof they were to be founders First They were as Christs immediat extraordinary Ambassadours to convert and bring in Churches then to plant officers the Gospel Government in them Now who will say but this power was necessary for the first planting of the Churches and so comes under the Character of these things which this man acknowledges to be expired Surely where no other officers were to concurre the Apostles of necessity behooved to ordaine solely and their Apostolick Inspection over them did necessarly depend upon and flow from their Apostolick extraordinary mission and infalibilitie So that this power in so fare as Episcopall like was indispensibly needful for the first founding of the Churches and consequently must be expired by his own confession the nature and exercise of this power supposeing and requiring their peculiar mission infallibilitie and gifts of tongues which are acknowledged by this man to be expired privileges necessary ry onely at that time Moreover the Apostles power in ordination and government did include extraordinary miraculous rodes and censurs a power in coerceing the rebellious thus Peter stroke Ananias and Sapphira dead for their lying which was a fearful Apostolick Censure put forth by his Apostolick authoritie at that time Paul stroke Elimas the sorcerer blind for withstanding the truth besides their power in ordination at that time included their miraculous conferring of the Spirit by the Imposition of hands 2 Tim. 1 6 Act. 19 1 2 6. Now all these Apostolick priviledges which this man must needs acknowledge upon his own ground to be expired and extraordinarie being necessarily included in essential unto the Apostolick power the nature and exercise thereof must be expired also Wee shall offer here to the Informer a distinction of the learned Iunius who in his answer to Bellarmins argument for the Apostles Episcopal singular power from that word Shall I come to you with a rod distinguishes the ordinary and extraordinary rod secundum illam c. de Concil lib. 2. Cap. 16. that is according to the commone ordinary rode Peter was a fellow Presbyter 1 Pet. 5. But according to the singular and extraordinary he stroke dead Ananias and Sapphira In respect of this commonrode saith he Paul saith 1 Cor 5. You being gathered together with my Spirit in the name of our Lord Jesus but as to this singular one he saith Shall I come to you with arode 1 Cor 4 21 this common rode he denyes to have him in the hand of any one man whither Apostle or other or that they had any sole or singular preheminence in Churches constitute And this cutts the winde pype of our Informers topick and argument here for the prelats power Which leads to a 3d. Answer 3 We proved already that the Apostles exercised no singular Episcopal preheminence in Churches constitut and what they did in churches not as yet constitut and infieri is not to the purpose by his own confession since it falles in among those things necessary for the first planting of the Churches which priviledges the acknowledges are gone That the Apostles exercised no such single preheminence in churches constitut is abundantly cleared in the 2. Argument against Episcopacie where we shewed that neither in ordination nor excommunication nor in Ministerial decision of controversies the Apostles assumed ane Episcopal power in Churches constitut but had the ordinary Church-officers Presbyterialy concurring with them Wee likwayes proved in the 8. Argument that the Episcopal power is neither formaliter nor eminenter contained in the Apostles authority but is inconsistent there with and contrary therunto there sole directive corrective power over the diocess as being the proper sole pastoures thereof their sole decisive suffrage and Lordly dominion over Church-judicatories besides their civil rule like that of the princes of the gentiles rendering our prelats power ex sua natura in universum different from the very nature of the Apostles authority and the authority of a Gospel Ministery altogether and consequently it could not be transmitted by the Apostles to the Church as any peece of the Gospel Church Government and by further consequence they are none of the Fathers or Children whom the true church or the Apostles brought forth but the Spritus brood of Satanical Antichristian pride As for what he addes of the Fathers making Bishops Successours to the Apostles Iunius will tell him De cler cap 14. Not. 15. That this is not to be understood of a Succession from Christs institutionquia nunquam instituit Christus ut Apostolis secundum gradum in ecclesia succederetur because Christ never appointed Successors to the Apostles in the Church according to degree And that the fathers understood it of a succession ex simili non ex pari a succession of similitude not of paritie and of a similitude secundum quid or imaginary according as Prelats were then moulded CHAP. X. The Informers great argument for Prelacy from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus Their Episcopal office disproved from the office of Evangelist ascribed expresly to the one and by good consequence to the other from many circumstances of the sacred text and the judgement of Interpreters The Informers pleadings from there power in ordination and jurisdiction supposed in the precepts addressed to them there anent from the necessity of this power the concernment of of after-ages therein c examined The unsoundenes and inconsistency of his arguing and answers upon this head several wayes discovered THe Informer presents unto us Nixt the pretended Episcopacy of Tymothy and Titus at Ephesus and crete and the Douhter alledging that Paul calls all the Miniters at Ephesus and crete Bishops He rejoynes That Tymoth and Titus were Bishops as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop was afterward taken that is had a power in ordination and Iurisdiction over and above inferiour Ministers This argument from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus as also the nixt taken from the supposed Episcopal power of the seven Asian Angels hath been so fully answered and baffled by many That it is a wonder how he hath the confidence to repone to us these oft sodden coleworts We gave already a hint in the St Aâ—…gument of the acknowledged extraordinary function of Tymothy and Titus which is abundantly cleared by many from their unfixed motion and officiating their occasional transient imployment in these places Paules actual revocation of them both there from the condition of these Churches as being but in fieri as to their organick settlement and constitution Particularly that their power in ordination and Jurisdiction was not episcopall I prove from these grounds 1. In Churches already constitut this Authority was not solely resident in Tymothy and Titus Falluntur qui putant saith Calvin Instit lib
to him but also the wholl Episcopal charge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed and rule as the Holy Ghosts Bishops set over the same which comprehends both ordination and jurisdiction But what sayes he to this Argument 1 It may be he was not â—…et settled Bishop as Gerard thinks But sure he had all the 〈◊〉 as Bishop which the first Epistle afoords him from which this man derives his Episcopacy and power in ordination and jurisdiction and if for all these â—…ur Informer will grant that he might have been not â—…s yet Bishop but ane Evangelist Then 1. he must acknowledge that all his pleading for his Episcopac in the nixt pages from the power he is supposed 〈◊〉 have in the first epistle is but a beating of the aire an impertinent since it might be Antecedaneous to hâ—… Episcopacie and by the Informers confession he migâ—… have had yet no more Episcopal relation to the Church then any who was never Bishop there Hencâ—… 2. Not being yet Bishop but ane Evangelist still aâ—… Gerard takes him in a traveling posture up and down with the Apostle as also Bishop Hall Downam and Hooker acknowledge him I wonder how this man wil sustean his denyal that he was ane Evangelist in the proper and strict sense such as his was Sure if this his supposition or may be will hold good timothies office as sucâ—… ane Evangelist was to cease in the Church as he expresseth it and Pauls bidding him doe the work of ane Evangelist sufficiently Unbishops him at least pro tunc which notwithstanding we heard him deny 2. He tell us that Irenaeus who lived not long after the Apostles thinks there were Asian Bishops mingled with the elders of Ephesus and with Timothie their Bishop to whom in common Paul made that exhortation comprehending the Bishops under the name of elders as Apostles were sometymes called Ans. We may be much in love with this scripture in the present debate since it forces adversaries upon such simple incoherent shifts First it may be he was not yet made Bishop then least that concession prove too gripping there must be other Bishops of Asia minglcd with these elders and Timothie of necessitie must be now Bishop or hardly well after and their own Bishop and the extraneous ones must be all shuffled up unde the name of elders and exhorted in common a he shifts the argument from Philip. 1. But thâ—… text it self sufficiently discovers the folly of this pooâ—… shift For 1. Paul called the elders from Ephesus anâ—… the elders of the Church there not imaginary elders or Bishops from other places 2. He sent for the elders of the Church in the singular number not of the Churches and so all he sent for had a particular relation to that Church for had there been elders of other Churches there It would have been expressed elders of the Churches If other elders or Bishops of Asia had been there they would have receaved the Scripture denomination of provincial Churches which are expressed in the plural So we read of Churches of Asia Revel 1 II. Churches of Iudea Gal. 1 22. Next This answer still supposes The existence of the diocesian Bishop over Presbyters at that time which is a poor begging of the question Wee prove from this and such like texts that the Bishops of Asia and Ephesus were meer Pastours who had in Common the Epicopal charge over the Church and that the Holy Ghost set up these and none else Infine This is but a meer shift in the Iudgment of Chrysostom Hierom Theodoret and the Current of Interpreters who take these elders for meer Presbyters and is contrare to the Syriack translation which reads it Presbyteros ecclesiae Ephesinae So the Concilium Aquisgravense But now comes his proofe of Timothie and Titus their Episcopacie from these Epistles His first Reason in general is That in these Epistles more fully then any where else in the new Testament Paul gives direction to Timothie and Titus how to carry in ordination and jurisdiction which Two comprehends the Episcopall office Ans. 1. With him there is a possibilitie or may be that forall these directions Timothy and Titus were evangelists still and not yet Bishops and so these directions might be given to them as extraordinary officers who according to him were to cease and consequently though comprehensive of the Episcopal office yet the office might cease with their persons as exercised in that manner and the power of ordination and jurisdiction be deryved to different recipients to be exercised in another maner viz by presbyters in common 2. By what consequence will he infer ane Episcopall authority and inspection from the Apostles prescribing rules to them anent ordination and jurisdiction May not all Ministers be herin directed as well as Timothy and Titus or will his giving directions to them in this poynt infer their sole and singular authority therein Surely not at all in Churches constitute and as for what they did in the frameing and constitution of Churches yet in fieri as to their organick being is not to the purpose 3. We did shew above that the prelats power and their way as to ordination and jurisdiction is in its very nature different from that which either Apostle or Evangilist exercised as being a dominion and arbitrary power yea including in it a civil dominion and derived from the civil Magistrat None of which can be said of any authority which Timothy and Titus are here supposed to have In a word as it is clear that the elders of Ephesus at Paul's last farewell were intrusted with the whole power of ordination and jurisdiction and as the Episcopi were commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed and rule with out any respect to Timothy which clearly demonstrats that he and consequenly Titus had no Episcopal power of ordination and jurisdiction over these Churches established in their persons by any prescriptions here delivered So it is as evident that the same prescriptions might be delivered to any Moderator of a Synod or vnto a transiently visiting Minister though even in relation to a province which being necessarly to be understod Salvo jure Ecclesiae would import no Episcopall or sole authority and thus the case is here But what were these directions importing this power He instances 1. In the qualifications which they must require in such as were to be ordained-not suddenly to lay on hands which respects ordination next the rules anent government how to rebuke offenders not to receave ane accusation but before two or three witnesses how to deal with heretikes c. Ans. 1. These Apostolik directions in point of Government are good excellent but how doth he prove that the adressing of these directions to Timothie will infer his Sole and single authority in all these so as to seclude Presbyters from their share therein And if he prove not this it will say nothing to evince ane Episcopal authority What if such directions
some ordinary officers were settled could no more prejudge the ordinary power and authority of these officers then the Apostles extraordinary inspection and infallible universal directive power could prejudge the Churches ordinary authority in ordination and jurisdiction The Apostles power which could not be voyded nor expyre whil they were alive being Cumulative unto but not privative of the Churches ordinary power so it is here I would ask our Informer was Pauls apostolick commission to Crete and Ephesus voyded after Bishops were set up there Nay he will not say it But did this Null the Episcopall power of Timothy and Titus over these Churches I trow not Well no more could Timothys extraordinary inspection make voyd the ordinary power of presbyters 4. We told him already that how long soever Timothy and Titus were resident there they were to doe nothing pro imperio and were not to lord it over the presbyters 5. Although elders once ordained have power to ordaine others yet the bene esse did call for the Inspection and direction of such highely gifted and extraordinary officers herein as these were And Moreover in that Infant-state of the Church Apostolick precepts and rules in reference to Church government and the exercise of both the keyes were to be delivered by these extraordinary officers consequently might call for protract their continuanc therein even after ordinary officers were ordained Infine He cannot deny but that the Apostle recalled both Timothy and Titus from these places to the further prosecution of their employment in other Churches and that their transient imployment therein is held out after their return from Ephesus and Cret as likwayes their occasionall employment in both these places which will in so farr voyd their commission in relation to them as clearly to refuâ—… the supposed episcopal ordinary charge which he alledges they exercised Next from the Authores of jus divinum Minist evangel concluding against the peoples power of ordination upon Timothy and Titus being left at these places to ordaine elders The Informer inferrs against them thus why was Timothy or Titus left to ordaine elders after some were ordained by Paul If Ministers so ordained could ordaine the rest and after some were ardained by Timothy and Titus they were left still upon that imployment I answer his inference touches not these Reverend authors in the least The ordaineing of elders in relation to the beue esse even after some elders were there and the furder directing and compleating of these Churches in their members and officers did require ane Evangelistick inspection though the ordinarie power of ordaineing remained with the ordinary elders and Church officers as the scripture doth clearly hold out Paul haveing after committed to the elders of this Church of Ephesus the whol power of government But the scripture gives not the least hint of the peoples power to ordaine but attributs this still to Church officers as proper to them So that this Inference stands good in the generall though some were converted to Christianity there yet they could not ordaine officers but Church officers were sent upon that Imployment ergo Church officers must ordaine and not the people but the speciall inference will not hold ergo Biohops must only ordaine for the reasons already given no more then from Paules ordaining the first elders it will follow ergo Paul or ane Apostle only must ordaine which is a Consequence our Informer dare not admitt else he will contradict himself It is a good consequence Paul a Church officer preached and baptized ergo none but Church officers must preach and baptize but ergo none but ane Apostle must preach and baptize is bad logick So his inference is neither logicall nor theological His 3d. Reason to prove Timothy a Bishop is taken from Pauls solemne Charge 1. Tim. 6. 13. to keep what he had commanded him till the appearing of Iesus Christ. That presbyterians particularly jus divinum Minist pag. 74. hold these Directions to be for all ages of the Church making them paralleel with Matth. 28. 20. anent Christs promised presence to the end and 1 Tim. 5. 7 21. Anent Pauls Charge to observe these things Whence he concludes that they were to have successors in their office and were not extraordinary officers since these divines say page 160. That Apostolick examples in things necessary for the good of the Church and which cary a perpetuall equiry and reason in them have the force of a rule and the Apostles setting Timothy and Titus over these Churches is ane example Apostolick for the good of the Church and hath a perpetuall reason and equitie in it Ans. 1. Wee have made it appear that no directions given to Timothy will amount to demonstrat any episcopall dominion over this Church and that he had no sole or arbitrary power either in ordination or jurisdiction consequently that the charge of keeping that which was commanded him will Import inferr no keeping of ane Episcopall charge 2. Wee have also shewed what a bad consequence it is to argue from the perpetual use of precepts or directions given to extraordinary officers in relation to extraordinary acts towards the Churches imitating of these acts and retaineing these expired functions which is palpably a non-sequitur as this man can not deny else he will swallow horrid absurdities Every thing which is for our constant use and Improvement is not likwayes for our Imitation Againe 3. I would ask this Informer if the Command 1. Tim. 6. 13. joyned with the promise Matth. 28. 20. Will not reach and include every peece of the Apostolik and evangelistik office Sure he cannot deny this and yet he acknowledges there were severall peeces of their work temporary and expyred Will he dare to say that what the apostle commanded Timothy in this Epistle was confined within Ephesus or reached him only as oversieing that Church and not in relation to his Evangilistick office throw all the Churches and that the promise Matth. 28. did not reach the most extraordinary Apostolick Acts So that himself must distinguish unless he be inconsistent with himself betwixt what is moral and extraordinary in this command and charge and accordingly reached by the promise 4. His citation from the Ius divin Minist c Cuts the throate of his cause for argueing thus against privat persons intrudeing into the ministry That the scripture layes down rules for calling men to that office they instance in the qualifications of the person Citeing 1. Tim. 3. 2 3. anent the properties of the scripture Bishop or presbyter Then they add That the Scripture directs as to the maner of his calling viz who are to ordaine how hee is to be ordained citeing 1. Tim. 4. 14. viz that the presbytery is to ordaine and ordaine by the laying on of hands adding that these directions are for all ages and citeing â—…1 Tim. 6 13 14. Now if these perpetuall directions for all ages be touching no other Bishops but
Miâ—…prin un Bish of Tim and Tit p. 34. The Doubter objects against Timothies Episc. That he was ordained by the layingon of the hands of the presbytery 1. Tim 4. 14. and therefore could not be a Bishop Since a Presbytery which is a company of Ministers cannot make a Bishop To this the Informer returns 1. That Calvin thinks that by presbytery is meaned the office I answer Suppose Calvin think so what will that say to the argument it self Againe Calvine upon the place doth not wholly dissoun the ordinary comment which takes the presbytery for a company of elders but thinks it may well sustean Presbiterium qui hio saith he Collectivum nomen esse putant pro collegio presbiterorum positum recte Sentiunt meo judicio Such as esteem the presbitery here to be a collective word put for the assembly of elders doe rightly judge in my judgement Besids that the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyterie especially as it stands here constructed cannot in any tollerable sense import the office for the office hath no hands to lay on 2 The Informer flies to his old shift of shâ—…uding the diocesian Bishops under the lapp of these presbyters which he tells us we need not think strange of since he hath shewed that the Apostles are called elders or presbyters Ans. Wee have already disproved what he alledges from the Apostles being called elders in agenerall sense here as befor he but begges the Question in supposing his imaginary different degrees of preaching presbyters or Pastours to be at this tyme existent which untill he make it appear from Scripture is as easily denyed by us as affirmed by him What a pitiful cause must that be which needs the support of such vaine shifts In phil 1. and Act. 20. Bishops diocesian Bishops must be set up among the presbyters So here they must be brought into this presbytery whereas the very Question is anent the being and existence of any such Bishops at all at this tyme. Next If hi-man were posed upon it why he maks the presbyters here to be of his imagined hiest class of diocesian Bishops and not also in all placâ—…s where they are mentioned as Dr. Hamon doth And how it comes that there were so many Bishops so early here befor Ephesus Crete and other Churches had even his inferiour elders or ordinary Ministers He could give no answer but what would render him rediculous in his running the Circlestick and begging the Question Besides Timothy was yet no Bishop for he was advanced to this office when set over Ephesus in the Informers judgement and he was now only with him a sort of unfixed preacher of the gospell or ane Evangelist in his large sense And Hooker sayes the Evangelists were presbyters of prime sufficiency assumed by the Apostles to attend them This resolver will have him to be no other wayes ane Evangelist then Philip who he supposes was still a deacon when so termed Thus it evidently appears that Timothy according to him and upon the sequel of that answer receaved at the utmost but a meer presbyterat in his ordination and then I wonder what needs a number of Bishops be mustered together for ordaining him Might not Paul and the Inferiour presbyters ordaine such ane one Thus we see he is still inconsistent what himself in all his shifts But he hath a 3d. Answer taken from the laying on of pauls hands mentioned 2. Tim. 1. 6 which he sayes gave the substance of the ordination although the presbyters might share in the Ceremonial pare of is Ans 1. If it were denyed that the Apostle 2. Tim. 1. 6 affirmes That Timothy was ordained by the laying one of his hands since hementiones onely the gift conferred by the laying on of his handes which Paul might confer upon him antecedaniously to his ordination since he laid on hands in order to gifts of the Spirit abstracting from ordination as other Apostles did Act. 8. 17. And also because the different maner of expression in 2. Tâ—…m 1. 6. and 1. Tim. 4. 14. viz 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the one place and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other diversifies the conferring of gifts and the ordination or at least wil plead that Pauls laying on of hands was in order to the Conferring of the gifts and not necessarie for the ordination it self which he receaved intirely by the laying on of the presbyteryes hands even supposeing that they were both contemporarie If I say Some presbyterian Doubter should suggest these difficulties to our Informer he would be puzled to come liquide off with this his answer Surely the Charisma the gift is a differing thing from the office And the Apostles laying on of hands as ane Apostle being in a speciall way in order to the end mentioned thouh contemporarie with the presbytryes action yet migâ—…t be temporary and expired 2. What Calls he the cemonial part distinguished from that substantial pat of his ordination which Paul gave which he admitts the presbyters unto if we will Nay Sir we will not 't is known your party are much in love with ceremonies and we quite them unto you where they want substance Was it the Ceremonial part to lay on hands Then I would propose to our Informer 1. That since this was neither in order to the gifts which Paul gave nor any part of the sacred authority and mission as a Church officer which Paul only gave according to him what signified their laying on of handes at all Was it only to signifie their consent Where can he shew in all the scriptures where laying on of hands is mentioned that it Imports onely consent and not authoritie this Ceremonie borrowed from the old Testament doth alwayes present a badge of ane Authoritative blessing flowing from Prophets Patriarchs and others to which though there were many assenters yet none of these assenters laid on hands Next since this Ceremonie was used by our Lord towards his Apostles and thereafter by them and particularly in this work withall since it must needs Import here a solemne blessing of a setting apart unto God and sending out into his vineyeard the person thus ordained not to debate whither this Ceremonie be of the essence of ordination as some judge yea or not let our Informer shew me why it may not upon all these grounds be looked upon as a badge of Ministerial authority and supposing this authority inherent in the presbyters I would ask him 3. Since Paul commended the whol official power of ordination jurisdiction to the presbyters Act. 20. Peter 1. Epist. 5. Ch Imputs ane 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or actuall exercise of Episcopall authority to the elders who were as himself acknowledges set over the flocks onely and so none of his imaginary Prelat elders With what sense or reason can he or anyelse say that they could not share in the substantials of ordination many no doubt concurred with the publick blessing
at Timothies ordination for I suppose it was done in the view and presen ce of the assembly But did any of them lay on hands Besyds we might here tell him that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presbytery doth alwayes Import a juridicall authoritative Court so the word is taken Luk. 22. 66. and Act. 22. 5. As likewayes the word presbyter Imports ane officer cloathed with authority so that this Court of elders must needs have ane interest in much more then the rituales of ordination His Last Exception is That upon our supposition That Timothy was ane extraordinary officer and Evangelist he could not be ordained by ordinary inferiour officers or Ministers Ans. 1. As some say of the Prince that though Major Singulis greater then every single person yet he is Minor universis lesse then the whol body so it may be said that though Timothy as ane Evangelist were superiour to any meer elder yet ane eldership the juridical Court the Church representative might be above him if at least such a superiority was here necessary else let him say whither the Prophets at Antioch were in Capacity to Impose hands upon Paul and Barnabas and send them out upon a gospel legation Himself is bound to answer this whither these Inferiour officers in that act were greater then he yea or not and how these ordinary officers and teachers could authoritatively bless and lay hands upon ane Apostle And when he hath cleared this he will easily exped our difficulty in this point 2. Though it were granted that a presbytery consisting of meer ordinary officers could not ordain ane Evangelist yet I hope he will grant that a presbytery where such a one as paul was might doe it who as ane Apostle might ordaine alone If he say what is then become of our presbyterial ordination which we draw from this text I answer it is much confirmed but not weakened by what is said for if the Apostle Paul took along in this high Act the ordination even of ane Evangelist the authoritative concurrenc of a Presbytery therefore much more doth this power of ordination belong to the Presbytery now in relation to ordinary Church officers or fellow Presbyters when the office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased 3. If the ground and topick of our Informer's argument They who ordaine must be greater then he who is ordained were denied he would be more puzeled to make it good then he Imagines Because 1. The blessing in ordination being only ministerial and instrumental by way of service but not by ane original primative authority as a learned man distinguishes here God and Christ alone ordaining thus whose servants and Ministers both the ordained and ordainers are Ephes. 4 11 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Matth. 9 37 38. 2 Cor 4 5. 1 Cor. 3 5. 21 22. Act. 13 1 6. The ordination will no more infer a superiority over the ordained then peoples blessing of God will make them greater then Hee Jacobes blessing of Pharaoh will make him greater then Pharaoh the peoples blessing of Solomon greater then Solomon The Kings Acturney saith he who drawes the noble-man or officer of state His patent and commission is not greater then hee But the King who is the original of temporall honour So Ministers in this work doe only draw out the Kings patent and apply it but Christ only is the original proper ordainer As for that text Hebr. 7 7. He sayes iâ—… is meaned of Christ himself who by Melchisedeck his type blessed Abraham by his own inherent authority and power 2. Admitting that the ordainers behoved to be greater then the ordained before the ordination is execut yet it will not necessarly follow that they must be still greater after the ordination is past finished the very end of it being to conferr upon the ordained a like Ministery with that which themselves have Hee instances Matthias and Paul who were inferiour to the Apostles before they were called and ordained But being called they became equal with other Apostles in Apostolick power dignity degree c. Wee might exemplitie this in other instances if intending to Press it As the armie Creats the Emperor which of the two is greater Three Bishops creat a Metropolitan the Council of Cardinals a pope c. But enough is said to rectifie our Informer's thoughts of Timothy and Titus and so we proceed unto hâ—…s next Argument CHAP. XI The Informers pleadings for Prelacy from the seven Asian Angels discussed That the stile of Prophetick writinges and of this book doe strongely conclud a collective sence of the term Angel fully proved The admitting the Angel to be a single person will not help the Informer his reasonings from the pretended Catalogues of succeeding Bishopes in these Churches frivolous and vain as also his new Argument taken from diotrephes's love of preeminence wherein he imbraces Bellarmins evasiones and offers violence to this and parallel Texts OUR Informers next great Argument for Prelacy is taken from the seven Asian Angels Revel 23. Whom he holds to be Diocesian Bishops Because though there were many Ministers at Ephesus Act. 20. Yet when that Church long after this is written to and when increased there is but one Angel addressed and commended or blamed according to what was well or amisse in the Church And in all the rest whatever is commended or discommended is directed to one Angel who by his place and authority was mainely concerned therein Ans This man if he had been so ingenuous and seen in this debate as he would appear might have found all this and much more then he hath offered fully removed and answered by many Godly learned But they must still tell over and over their old baffled arguments to which satisfying answers have bein often returned But to the point the weaknes of this proofe is many wayes evident 1. It is grounded upon a Misterious Metaphorick terme of Angel and starrs Revel 1 20. the mistery of the Sevenstarrs so must the expression of Angel be likwayes a part of this mistery The Maxim is known â—…heologia Symbolica non est argumentativa Far less can this be rationally opposed unto so many pregnant clear scriptures as are produced for Presbyterian Government Besides that the word Bishop is no where in Johns writings made use of who calls himself a Presbyter and never mentions superiority of one Presbyter over another but in condemneing Diotrephes He calls Christ the word and the Sabbath the Lords day these are expressions not found before in Scripture Surely he should have made mention of a new office as well as of a new phrase had any such thing as a Bishop been allowed by him Besides the Metaphorical terms of Starrs or Angels doe import the qualities of light heavenlines of frame c which are proper and suiteble to all Ministers of the Gospel and therefore they cannot ground the peculiar preheminence of a Bishop over many Ministers 2. The great topick of
all that Synodall assembly or Church Surely not at all The Moderator may be a man as little concerned therein and possibly less then any of the meeting Or will the Kings Message or Charge to a parliament adressed to the speaker containing reproofes and commendationes of that great body and assembly fix the guilt or commendation principally upon the speaker or president He will not say it As for Timothy and Titus we have proved that they had no such power as he pretends and that their inspection was extraordinary and Evangelistick which cannot with any shew of reason be said of these Seven Angels As for Beza his acknowledgment of a more eminent Authority in government which these single persons had this man cannot with any shew of reason alledge Beza to understand thereby any other thing beyond the eminency of his Episcopus divinus which with Beza is the Pastour among whom jure divino he will not aâ—…mit so much as a perpetual president far less a Bishop for the perpetual president or Moderator is with Beza the Episcopus humanus which he distinginshes from the divine or scripture Bishop and the diocesian prelat pleaded for by this Informer who hath the Chief and sole power in ordination and jurisdiction is the Satanical Bishop In his Treatise de triplici Episcopatu So that Beza cannot Imput to these single persons any authority over their brethren or ascribe to them any other eminency then what the eminency of a Moderatorship will give If Beza doe not compare them with the Elders of the Inferior sort who rule only as some would readily admit who take these Churches to be Congregational As for Mede it is no great matter whither he take the Angels Collectivly or for Single persons if he Imput not to these Asian Angels ane Episcopal Authority which this Informer proves not in telling us Thaâ—… the Tuentie four Angels about the Thron doe with him represent the Bishops unless he can shew that he means his Diocesian Bishops for he may mean the Bishops indefinitely according to the genuine scripture acceptation He holds there are Seven Bishops of Asia here only written unto where are the Tuentie four Bishops if Mr Mede take them in his sense As for Mr. Brightman his exponeing ordinarly the Angel of a single person as the Informer alleadges Let us hear Brightman himself To the Angel c. The Epistles are intituled saith he one by one to the Pastours Becaus the safety of the Congregation depends upon the soundnes of the Pastours for there was not one Angel alone at Ephesus but many Neither yet any prince among these as is manifast by Paul who to Miletum sent for the Elders or Bishops of Ephesus adding that nothing is spoken of their obedience to any one Chief Bishop That a Prince hood came after the Apostles and was not yet borne save only that Diotrephes gave some shew of it hence he concluds thus therefore under the name of one Angel the Epistle is written to the whol order of Pastours c And by this account of Brightmans acceâ—…tation of the word Angel Let any judge of our Informers fidelity But now comes his last Argument for Episcopacy which surprises not only his Doubter but I believe Most if not all else who have seen it taken from Diotrephes his loveing to have the preeminence 3. Joh. 9. who he sayes ambitiously loved to be first and to have the Chief place and that this ambition only John speaks against he adds that ane office may be good and lawfull though ane ambitions seeking of it be sinfull That Beza renders it qui primatum ambit that our Inference of the unlawfulnes of the office he aimed at will not follow from his seeking of this chief place but rather that their was such ane office at this time in the Church and now void into which he meaned to put himself or had already done so out of ane ambitious desire to be great which was a sinful end that he looked after himself not the good of the Church Ans. 't is long since we had this answer and gloss from Romanists though not as ane argument Wee see popri and prelacy in despight of all conâ—…radiction will strick hands When Luk. 22. Touching our Lords forbidding a Dominion or primacy among his Disciples is objected to Bellarmin he resolves it just as this resolver viz. That the Lord rather institut and established a primacy in the Church then removed it And commanded his vicar to preside but not as the Heathen who seek themselves and their own glory and commodity de Pontif Ques 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Yee shall not rule as the Princes of the Gentiles saith he Imports that he admitts one to preside but not after that manner He presses the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a Prince or Captaine just as this man doth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or loving of preeminence to shew that such a Prince or primat was designed de Pontif. Lib 1. Ch. 9. Thus the Papists glosse generally the Text under debate Tilen in his Not. 67. answering him That if it were so then Christ rather inflamed then quenched their ambitious thoughts which they â—…hil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or loving preeminence intertained makes this sin of diotrephes the same with theires which the Lord reprehended viz. A sinful desire of ane unlawfull forbidden primacy Adding That the Lord said not he who by my appointment shall be Chiefâ—… but he who from his sinfull desire would be Chieff Bellarmin and the Papists fine notions and old exploded evasions we see stands these men in much stead And doe furnish usefull materials to dress up Prelatick pamphlets But what will this man say Will he indeed owne this popish Argument and answer upon Luk 22. Which the topick of his argument here will necessarly inferr Was their a lawfull primacy supposed among the Apostles the ambitious desire only forbidden Bellarmin presses that ane exorbitant dominion or tyrannicall only was forbidden since the Princes of the Gentiles are mentioned which this man also taks hold of which seems to put a restricton upon that prohibition but there is no such restriction in this place under debate So that he is cut off from Bellarmins evasion We heard before he admitted a lawfull Church Dominion as not discharged in Luk. 22. And here he admitts a lawfull primacy over this Church and in his pretended antiquity we will find him not to diâ—…owne a Chief patriarch if not directly to plead for him And then I see not why he may not take in the High Priest into his old Testament Argument in relation to a morall standing primacy in Church-Government and merite a coâ—…l in some Popish order â—…r it be long Now it is evident that the Apostle simply dissounes this lover of preeminence and censures him upon the account of the preeminence he desired And the Informer himself though as I observed before he
tradition which from the Apostles is preserved by Succession of Presbyters in the Churches They will alledge that they are more wise then the Apostles themselves or these Presbyters dare this man say that Irenaeus meaned that it was only a Succession of Bishops in these Churches who keep that Apostolick truth That Presbyters are successoures of Apostles properly and immediatly in the power of the keyes is evident by a full Testimony of ancient fathers â—…gnatius about whom our Informer makes a great bustle in several places of his Pamplet in the Epistle ad Trallianos calles the caetum Presbyterorum the Assembly of Presbyters Conâ—…unctionem Apostolerum Christi a meeting of Apostles of Christ. â—…rinaus lib 4. Cap. 43 holds Presbyteros in Ecclesia ab Apostolis successionem habere that Presbyters in the Church have there succession from the Apostles Cyprian lib. 4. epistol 9. asserts omnes praepositos vicaria ordinatione Apostolis succedere that all overseers so he calls Presbyters succeeds the Apostles by a vicarious ordination Ierome on 2. Chap. of mica cited by Cratian in decretis distinct 5. cap speaking of himself a Presbyter saith si in Apostolorum loco simus non solum sermonem eorum imitemur c. If we be in the Apostles place let us not onely imitat there doctrine but also their conversation Augustin serm 36. to the fratres in Eremo and these too Preâ—…byters call them sal terrae Apostolorum successores the salt of the earth and the Apostles successours 2. As it is certan that these Catalogue-drawers did not understand veri nominis epâ—…copos or diocesian Bishops properly suoh thogh speaking after the manner of their times they gave them all one name So it is equally certain that the Testimoyns out of which these Catalogues are patchâ—…d up are most inconsistent and contradictory to one another as the divines at the I le of Wight and many learned men have made appear and still the nearer the Apostles times the Catalogues are the more darke and various They make Peter Bishops of Rome a fable contradicted by many of the learned proved to be such but whither Clemens was first or Third and who or in that order next after Succeed them whither Linus or Anacletus is never yet cleared Some make Titus Bishop of Crete some Archbishop Some Bishop of Dalmatia Timothy and John are made by many Bishops at the same time Some say Policarp was first Bishop of Smyrna Some make him succeed one Bucolus some make Aristo first Some give Alexandria one Bishop some tuo at once See appendix to jus divin min. Evangel And wheras our Informer replyes that notwithstanding of this yet all agree that a Succession of Bishops was and that these different relations cannot impeach the certainty of the Succession it self no more then difference about the Succession of princes will invalidat the certainty of the History I answer if he could prove that they understood Bishops properly so called or his diocesians in all these Catalogues of Succession this evasion might have some Shew of truth but it is certain that they did not Patres cum Iacobum Episcopum vocant c. the Fathers saith Whittak de pontif quest 2. c. 15 se 2. When they call James Bishop or Peter take not the name of Bishop properly but they call them Bishops of these Churches wherein they stayed for some time and againe if spoken of a Bishop properly its absurd to say the Apostles were Bishopes fore he that is properly a Bishop cannot be ane Apostle Because the Bishop is set only over one Church but the Apostles were founders and overseers of many Churches After he tells us that non procul distat ab insania c. it differs little from madnes to say that Peter or any other Apostles were Bishopes And to this purpose he speaks afterwards at large Q 3. c 3. Sect 9. proveing this from the unfixed extraordinary nature of their message or mission who were to follow the Spirits conduct towards all places whither they were called Which argument reaches evangelists upon the same ground So that Whitaker will send our Informer to Bedlam if he mend not this information and revocke not this principle anent the Episcopacy of Apostles and Evangelists and the Succession of Bishops from them The learned Iunius also Contr 3. lib 1. cap. 23. not 3. mantaines ane aequivocall acceptation of the word Bishop in this matter so that his paralleel holds not as to a difference about the Succession of Kings when a Monarchy all aâ—…e Supposed such but here the difference and equivocation is as to the authority of these Succeeding Bishops When he shall read Scallig Animadvers 277. The Informer may possibly suspect Hegesippus his naration anent James yet jerom and Eusebius depend upon him Scalliger holds Clemens Romanus to be no better likwayes jerom Catol Scrip is a Counterfit not the true jerom since he mentions pope hilary who lived long after jerom was in his grave And wheras the Informer maks a great outcry of jerom that jerom begins at the Evangelist Mark in the Alexandrian Catalogue which our wâ—…itters leave out in their citations its easily answered that it needs not be putt in since the Author sayes A marko from or after him the Presbyters choosed out one whom they made president wherein it s evident that he speaks of this custom after Mark and excluding him who was ane Evangelist before and needed not be set up by the Presbiters And surely if the first Bishop was ane Evangelist the rest were very heterogenious to their first pattern Besides in that jerom sayes Presbitiri a marco unum ex se electum c. Hee clerly insinuats that it was the Presbyters thereafter no Mark that it for if by Marks Apointment these Bishops wereset up he could not attribute it to the Presbyters etion Should one say in Scotia a regimine presbit Anno. 62. Episcopi introducti Ergo ab isto regimine introducti were â—…t not a bad consequence Here I will offer to him the remarke of a learned author Repl to Dun 143. anent the Circle which he and his fellowes doe ryde in this argument Timothy and Titus c. had ane Episcopal authority why because their authority was not Evangelistick Why so because it was not to die with them why that Because it was ordinary and perpetually necessary And how is that proved Because if the Apostles being alive they behooved to instruct Timothy and Titus with Episcopal authority much more being dead this was necessary to the Churches But when it is inquired how this Episcopal authority is proved it is fairely assumed againe as if it were granted that the Apostles made them Bishops of Ephesus and Crete So the last medium is still that which is in Question Let him ponder also what Didocl p. 125. and 139 hath produced anent the confusion and contradictions in this Alexandrian Succession Tilen himself de pontif l. 1.
and attendants although a great Bishop is highly condemned as exposeing our faith to envy and hatred Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 29. The Canon of the 4 Councell of carthage insert by Gratian in the body of the decree distinct 41. provides that Episcopus non longe ab ecclesia hospitiolum vil emsupellectilem c. That the Bishop have his little manse not far from the Church that he have meane houshold stuffe c. Et dignitatis suae Authoritatem fide meritis quaerat and purchase Authority to his office or dignity by faith and good works Sozom. lib 6. Cap 16. Relats of Basilius Magnus Bishop of Caesaria that he answered the Imperours praefect who threatned the Confiscation of his goods thus Horum nihil me Cruciari potest equidem opes non habeo preterquam laceram vestem Paucos libros None of these things can torment me truely I have no goods but a torne garment and some books See the historia motuum page 143. to 174. Now from all that is said I think common ingenuity will acknowledge and this Informer himself if he be not ane utter stranger to it that our present Episcopacy is as far discrepant from that of the Ancient Christian Church as east from west and by consequence that this pleading from the ancient prostasie or even the after Bishops to legittimat and patronize our present prelacy is a most gross nonsequitur and notorius fallacy CHAP. XIV The Informers pretended Testimonies out of Calvine Beza Blondel c. For Episcopacy Examined Their anti-Episcopall judgment cleared from their writings The Informer crosses Bishop Spotswood and Tilen His two absurdities which by way of Dilemma he offers to us from our assertion of the unalterablees of Presbyterian Government our concession of a Proestos early brought in Scanned retorted upon himself The Authores of jus divinum Ministerii Evangelici vindicated at some length WHereas the Informer is bold to affirme that Calvinâ—… Beza Blondel and other eminent divines who have written against Episcopacy are reconcilable to it yea to a hierarchy of the highest stamp Wee answer 1. The full and harmanious consent of Ancient and modern divines and reformed Churches for that which we plead for in point of Church-Government shall be exhibit in the last Chapter 2. As for Calvin's judgment in relation to Presbyterian Government It is so fully known to the world in his writings that we think there needs no more to put a brand of impudence upon any then to deny it And we doe appeal to his judicious commentes upon all the controverted places of the new Testament betwixt them and us wherein all that we plead for either as to the identity of Bishop and Presbyter in name and thing the Presbyteryes power in ordination and jurisdiction the extraordinary Evangelistick Power of Timothy and Titus the divine right of the ruling elder the peoples right in the call of Ministers the unlawfulness of Prelats sole power and dominion over their brethren the unwarrantablenes of Ministers state offices c is clearly asserted Let any consult him upon Matth. 18. 17. Matth 21 22. Luk. 22 25. Act. 6 2 3 4. Act. 14 23. Act. 20 17 28 29 30. 1. Cor. 5. 1 Cor. 12. 28. with Rom. 12 6 7. 2 Cor. 2 6 7. Eph 4 11 12. 1 Thess. 5 12 13. 2 Thess. 3 14. Heb. 13 7 17. 1 Tim. 1 3. c. and 4 14. 2 Tim 2 4 2 Tim. 1 6. Tit. 1 6 7. c. and such like places where he will be found to give sentence for us against the Prelatik party and expounding them just as we doe 3. These adversaries doe grant that the Government in this Church which famous Mr. Knox owned and all his dayes contended for was Presbyterial Government And it is as well knowne and acknowledged by themselves that he had the sense and judgment both of Calvin and Beza in that great bussiness Spotswood in his history tells us that John Knox framed our rules of disciplin in imitation of what he had Seen at Geneva Tilen in his petulant piece intituled Paraensis ad Scotos Genevensis discipline Zelotas makes this undenyable He calls Calvin and Beza all along our Masters and alledges that we can hear of nothing but out of their scool c. But that they owned Presbyterian Government as the onely Government appointed in the house of God he never took the confidence or had the forehead to deny When John Knox was desired by some to write to Calvin and others about a certain difficulty he answered that he came not here without all their Iudgments in what he had done and that they might think him unconstant in writting for a resolution in that matter Now John Knox look't upon Episcopocy as a limb of Antichrists Hierarchie and as haveing aliquid commumune cum Anti Christo. Something in it common with Antichrist So that what the Informer mentions of Measson and Bish Andrews their asserting of Calvin and Beza's Episcopall Government at Geneva and their preeminencie in ordination and jurisdiction is a gross calumny The eminent parts of these famous divines might make their judgement have great influence in determining others but that either Calvin or Beza did ever incroach upon the decisive power of their fellow Presbyters or acted any thing pro imperio or solely is a calumny which any who ever read their lives can sufficiently disprove Their laboures and practise as well as their writings was for mantaineing the due right of Presbyterian Government against enemies of all sortes In the life of Galleaceus Caracciolus It is reported That Calvin being consulted by him in a case of conscience requireing secrecy in a great measure would give him no determinat answer tho a ruleing elder in that Church without consulting his Brethren As for that which the Informer cites out of Calvines Inflit. l. 4. c. 4. Sect. 2. where He acknowledges that Jerom teaches that the proestos is ane ancient institution and that he repeats what Jerome sayes a Marco c. It s a pitiful proofe to conclud therupon that Calvin acknowledges diocesian Prelats as Ancient as Mark. For Calvine knew well that Jerome speaks but of the proestos first set up and the Informer hath not proved that either Calvin or Jerom gave their approbation to the setting of him up And for what he adds That Calvin sayes ne ex equalitate ut fieri solet dissidiâ—… orirenter That they were set up least from equality discord should arise as usuallie there doth granting that he acknowledges they were more then meer Moderators that is fixed Moderators What then Are our Prelats no more Or will his acknowledgment of the factum prove his acknowledment of the jus and though mans corruption abuse parity to discord what then our corruption will abuse the best ordinance of God As for what he cites from Instit. l. 4. c. 5. Sect. 11. Our Informer hath not proved That Calvin by Episcopi and
paraeciarum rectorcs doth understand diverse Church officers of Gods appointment as he distinguishes the Bishop and Presbyter That Calvin did not acknowledge the Episcopus distinct from the paraeciae rector his comment on Tit. 1 7. makes it evident For a Bishop c. locus hic abunde docet nullum esse episcopi Presbyteri discrimen quia nunc secundâ—… nomine promiscue appellat quos prius vocavit Presbyteros Imo idem prosequens argumentum utrumque nomen indifferenter eodem sensu usurpat quemadmodum Hieronimus tum hoc loco tum in Epistola ad Evagrium annotavit Atque hinc perspicere licet quanto plus delatum hominum placitis fuerit quam decebat qui abrogato Spiritus Sancti Sermone usus hominum arbitrio inductus praevaluit That is This place abundantly shewes that there is no difference betuixt a Bishop and Presbyter because now again he promiscuusly calls them by the seccond mane whom befor he called Presbyters nay prosecuting the same argument he maks use of both the names indifferently in the same sense as also Ierom both in this place and in his Epistle to Evagrius hath observed And hence we may perceive how much hath been ascribed to mens pleasure inventiones more then did become because ane use brought in at mens pleasure hath prevaled while the language of the holy ghost is laid aside and after he hath spoken of the first Moderators earlie brought in he adds verum nomen officij N. B. quod Deus in communi nibus dederat in unum solum transferri reliquis spoiliatis injurium est absurdum deinde sic preveâ—…tere Spiritus sancti linguam ut nobis eaedem voces aliud quam volueâ—… 〈◊〉 significent nimis profanae audaciae est That is But that the name of the office which God gave in common to all should be transferred to one only robbing the rest thereof is injurious and absurd More over to pervert thus the language of the holy ghost that the same words should signifie another thing then he pleased is too profane boldnes Thus Calvin puts this censure upon our Informer in making the name Bishop signifie any more then a Presbyter And upon Act. 20. 28. De voce Episcopi hic notandum omnes Ephesinos Presbyteros sic vocari indifferenter unde colligimus Secundum Scripturae usum nihil a Presbyteris differre Episcopos That is Concerning the name of Bishop we must observe this that all the Presbyters in Ephesus are so called indifferently hence we conclud that according to the scripture language Bishops doe nothing differ from Presbyters Now let any judge if Calvine make not the Name and thing of the scripture Bishop proper to every Minister of a parish and if he judged a Diocesian Bishop thus differenced from the parish Minister to be a warrantable office which he holds to be so crosse to Scripture So that in the passage which this man hath above cited he would have all Bishops contending for and reteaning the true scripture function for none else he can call eximium munus or ane excellent gift So that those of these places will help our Informer The Context and tenour of that 4 chapter obliedgeth as to think that this is really the meaning that whatever titles these Ancients used yet they designed not thereby to wrong that Presbyteriall Government grounded upon Scripture which Calvin is there defending And moreover even straniing that place Chap. 5. par 11. to the out most advantage it will Inferr nothing but this that Bishops and Parishpriests in those dayes had the essence of the Pastorall office which is not denyed or that their Pastorall acts when rightly performed were valid The Pastorall office Calvin cals pium eximium munus as the ensuing words doe convince As for his citation from Sect 13. it were very absurd to think that Calvine by the heirarchy which the Fathers commend as handed down from the Apostles should understand the prelatick hierarchy which this man pleads for Since 1. Many Fathers as Ierome never saw such a hierarchy set up but by Bishops understand either the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at first set up or the Bishops of whom we now heard who governed with Presbyters joyntly and had no sole power in ordination and jurisdiction 2. Calvin speaks of the Fathers commending a Hierarchy not like the papall but he tells not what his judgement of that hierarchie is 3. How could Calvin commend a hierarchie such as the Informer pleads for or so much as acknowledge it as handed doun from the Apostles who shews from their Doctrine that they owned no Bishop higher then a Presbyter as is clear from what is said To which we may add Calvins words on Philip 1. Episcopi nomen omnibus ministris est commune Sunt igitur synonâ—…ma Episcopus Pastor Postea invaluit usus ut quem suo collegio praeficiebant in Singulis Ecclesijs Presbyteri Episcopus vocaretur Solus Id tamen ex hominum consuetudine natum est scripturae authoritate minime nititur That is the name of Bishop is common to all Ministers Bishop and Presbyter then are one and the same Afterward the Custome prevailed to call the Minister whom the Presbyters set over their meeting in evry church the Bishops only but this had its rise from mens Custome but is not at all grounded on the Authority of Scripture And after he hath spoken of the advantage of one to preside for orders sake he adds this limitation de Singulis corporibus loquor non de totis provincijs c I speak of single incorperations not of whole provinces adding prestaret spiritum Sanctum linguarum autorem in loquendo sequi quam formas loquendi ab ipso positas in deterius mutare nam ex corrupta verbi Significatione hoc malifecutuâ—… est quod per inde ac si non essent omnes Presbyteri collegae N. B. adeandem vocati functionem unus sibi pretextu noâ—…ae appellationis dominium â—…n alios arripuit That is it were better in our speech to follow the holy ghost the author of languages then to change into the worse the forms of speaking set downe by him For from this abused signification of the word this evill hath followed that as if all Presbyters were not Colleagues called to the same function one hath usurped to himself a dominion over the rest under pretext of this new appellation As for what he objects p. 78. from Calvin upon Tit. 1. 5. That unus authoritate praeest c I Ansr. After he hath said that every city had severall Presbyters and asserted that there are Two sorts of elders and that these elders were the Bishops appointed to teach He moves ane objection Had Titus this Princely power and alone and answers Non permitti arbitrio titi ut unus possit omnia quos voluerit Episcopos Ecclesiis imponat sed tantum jubet ut electionibus praefit tonquam Moderator That
is It is not permitted to Titus pleasure to doe all things alone and impose upon the Churches what Bishops he pleased but he only bides him oversee the Elections as Moderator Paralleling this with Act. 14. 23. where he saith that Paul and Barnabas acted not soli pro imperio that is solely and imperiously to put Pastores upon the people who were not expetiti or electi desired and chosen but only probatos cognitos men approved and known Now let this man say himself doth not Calvin here clearely assert our principles and kill the diocesian Prelat with the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction So that nothing can be hence Inferred but that Church consistories were not then without order and that one did praeside among them for Calvine sayeth on the 7. verse porro locus hic abunde docet nullum esse Presbyteri Episcopi discrimen And he who praesided here was Titus whose Episcopacy we have aboundantly disproved As for that which he tells us Calvin adds that one was in authority over the rest at that time ergo what Had not Paul Barnabas Titus ane extraordinary authority commission for he sayes tunc or at that time wherein these offices did exist but will any think that Calvin could mean a Diocesian Prelats ordinary power which immediatly befor he was disputing against from the text He adds presently nihil tamen hoc ad prophanum tirannicum collationum morem This hath nothing to doe with the profane and tyrranicall Custome of Collations longe enim diversa fuit Apostolorum ratio for the Apostles case and ground was far different from this As for that which he addes of Calvins letters to a Bishop in the Church of Rome anent Episcopacy it self as being of God I can appeall this mans conscience if Calvin thought the Episcopall hierarchie with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction far less the popish hierarchy to be of God and whither he doth not in his Commentaries Particularlie in the places cited speak against the diocisian Prelat as such Besides we shall here tell the Informer that this passage which he cites as in the volume of his opuscul a page 72 upon a search of two several editions hath not been found As for his letter to the King of Pole approveing all the degrees of the hierarchie it is so grosly contrary to Calvins principles and writings that the Informer must excuse us not to take it upon trust from him Especially since he exhibits no part of that letter For his letter to the Duke of Somer set citted by Durel and the more to be suspected as coming from the hands of such ane enemy to his principles anent some fantastick ones fludiing to bring in confusion under the name of the gospell we think it a fantastick inferenc of our Informer to conclude therupon that he calls the asserters of Presbyterian governement such Although in that Epistle there is no express advice to remove Episcopacy what then there is no express advice for removing severall other Corruptions But the Consequence that therefore Calvine did not disowne these Corruptions the Informer himself will grant to be a gross non sequitur And some Considerationes of prudence might move to wave the express touching upon this head at that season when light was but dawning as to a Doctrinall reformation and the scales of the gross cimmerian darkness of popery were but begining to fall off from the eyes of that people Yet when the Informer shall peruse that Epistle again he will find that Calvine Leaves it not altogether untouched when heuseth these wordes habeat sane hoc locum In rebus istius vitae atqui alia prorsus est ratio regiminis Ecclesiae quod spirituale est in quo nihil non ad Dei verbum exigi fas est non est inquam penes ullum mortalem quicquam hic aliis dare aut in illorum gratiam deflectere that is let this truely have place in affaeires of this life but the Church Government which is spirituall is of a far other nature wherin there is nothing but what most be brought unto the touchstone of the word of God here I say it is not in the power of any mortall to gratify any thing unto others or to decline for their favour A passage which compared to Calviâ—…s principles in point of Church Government doth fully Antidot the Informers waspish extraction from this Epistle For his treatise to the Emperor Charles the 5i anent imbracing of a hierarchy tyed by a brotherly society among Bishops and by the bond of truth and united only to Christ I see nothing discrepant in it to Calvines or Presbyterian principles If Hierarchie be rightly taken and for this if their be indeed such a passage whereof I have no certainty I think we can in no reason suppose Calvine to owne the popish Government even as abstracted from false doctrine since he holds the very Diocesian Bishop to be contrary to the Apostolick Government far more the Hierarchy will any man say that Calvin did owne all the Locuâ—…s of the profane popish orders which are parts of this Hierachy so that Calvin by hierarchy and spirituale regimen doth indigitat the most simple and primitive Episcopacy which the fathers speake of and withall since the embracing of the gospell simplicity and truth which Calvin there desires as he sayes would quickly sned off all Luxuriant branches of humane invention in point of Government and like wayes since Calvin ownes the Church Government set down in Scripture as our pattern which doth as much reprobat the popish hierarchy as the doctrine therein set down doth their errors all this will preponderat towards Calvins meaning only a gospell Ministery which is equally distinct from Bishops in the popish and prelaticall mould As for the difference betwixt the primitive and popish Episcopacy I think there is indeed a great difference we have proved our present hierarchy to be as much different from it and soom what more if its erastian mould be taken in as the Informer must The treatise to Charles the fifth entituled de necessitate reformanda Ecclesia is so Generally cited by the informer without quoting either page or section that himself seemes half convinced of the Impertinency therof For Saravia his asserting that he defended Calvins opinion against Beza he said in this as in the rest more then he could prove For what he adds of Hooker and Durel who assert That Presbytery was settled at Geneva because another Bishop could not be gotten after the popish was away and that it was settled not out of a dislike to the hierarchie but because they were in ane equality and stood so being bent on reforming the doctrine I Answer His Authores in this assertion stand upon a very slippery and sandie fundation What Were there no able men to be Bishop after the popish Bishop was gone and had they not leasure sufficient to doe this
after the doctrine was reformed Why lived they so long without a beloved hierarchy and which is yet more strange why Imployed they their pens and their paines so much for Presbyterian government and not rather for the hierarchy why were both Calvin and Beza so active in that which Iohn Knox did here in opposition to prelacy But stay hath not the Informer told us that Masone and Bishop Andrews doe assert That Calvin and Beza assumed ane Episcopall power at Geneva How comes Durel and Hooker then To suppose a compleat parity among the Ministers to havt begun and continued at Geneva for want of a Bishop foresooth He must grant that some of these accusers are ingrained liars and accusers of the brethren in this point So he must deliberat whither he will bestow this upon Mason and Bishop Andrews or Hooker and Durepl For what he adds of these that have written for Presbyterian government that they designed only to prove it lawfull it is a gross Calumny their designe is to prove it a divine frame of government appointed in the new Testament which I hope he will say is necessary as well as lawfull since Christ promises to the end his presence with those officers cloathed with his commission And him self holds that the end of that Government practised in the new Testament and its grounds are Moral and perpetual For Blondel his calling Episcopal preeminence an apostolical constitution which the Informer cites page 84. no such wordes being in the printed copy as he acknowledges who will be so foolishly credulous as to take it upon the Informer or Durells bare word that it was in the written on Unless we will admitt the Informer as the Papists doe by the Scriptures in their unwritten traditions to add his unprinted patchments to any author and thus to dispute pro libitu and make his weapons from testimonies of authors as once a certain Chiftain's sword is said to have done to wound and kill a great way before the point He distinguishes the Government he pleads for as divinitus institutus or of divine appointment from any other frame as humane only which will say that this divine institution must stand and all other frames of Government give place to it The same may be accomodat to that which he cites out of Beza pag 85. who looked upon the very Episcopus humanus as he calls him or the first proestos as the first rise of all the popish Hierarchie and mischeiffs That sentence of Beza de min. grad Cap. 21. pag. 343. stands Intirely thus imo Câ—…nctos sic id est Archiepiscopos Episcopos hodie appellâ—…tos modo sanctissimorum illorum Episcoporum meaning Timothy and Titus c whom Saravta termed Bishops Beza allowing the designation in a sound scripture sence exemplum imitentur tam misere deformatam domum Dei ad amussim ex verbi divini regula pro viribus inâ—…aurent ut Ecclesiae Christianae fidos pastores cur non agnoscamus observemus omni reverentia prosequamur Nedum ut quod falsissime impudentissime nonnulli nobis objiciuut euiquam uspiam Ecclesiae c. certainely there walking up to such rules and patterns as are here prescribed as the proviso's upon which Beza Proefesses to reverence and owne them would so sned off the Episcopal heteroclyt excrescencies of our diocesian Erastian Prelats and smooth them to the Scripture Episcopacy as quite to destroy their power and office pleaded for by this pamphleter As his acting so his writing for Presbyterian Government accordingly was not to prescribe his owne which Beza disclaimes but Gods example How will the Informer prove that Beza's denying his prescribing of their example of Church Government at Geneua meerly as such will infer his not commending a divine frame of Church Government This was not to prescribe his example simpliciter And how will he prove that Beza looked upon a Government which he held to be the egg from which Anti Christ sprung as Dei beneficentia or Gods beneficence He makes him a very gross ignoramus for what man of the meanest capacity would say so And if Beza held the first Episcopacie or proestos to be a recess from the divine institution he certainly condemned it in so far And the diocesian Prelat he holds to be Satanicall Therefore when he seems to condemne the desowning of all order of Bishops he must understand it of a condemning scripture order the beautiful subordination among Church officers or that divine order that is among them But here again I must needs take notice that in this passage of Beza in his dispute with Saravia the Informer hath sned off that which wounds his cause to death for the words following doe discover another ground of this distinction of Bishops from Presbyters viz Beza and Jeroms humane Custome then what the Informer would persuade For it followes immediatly neque hoc scelere tenentur qui de episcopalis muneris sive prostasias finibus regendis de discrimineinter ordinem gradum postulant ut ex verbo Dei decidatur Whence it is evident that he does not understand Bishops set over Presbyters to be Iure divino or speaks of them in this place As for the passages of Beza's letters to Bishop Whitegift and Grindal which the Informer after cites pag. â—…6 I say 1. That certainly Beza's principles so largely expressed from Scripture anent Church Government and the contrariety of the episcopus humanus or humane Bishop far more the Diocesian Satanical Bishop to the divine rule in his principles will necessarly infer that in this great mans Judgement none of these Prelats had qua tales or as such a lawfull spirituall authority from God 2. It is as certaine that all Beza's pleading and arguments strikes against the diocesian Prelat or Arch prelat as in that capacity and against this office and policy in it self abstracting from its union unto the pope so that he could own no authority that way committed to them of God 3. It followes that since he judged the episcopall hierarchy unlawfull he held the first parity unalterable since he pleades for it upon morall perpetuall Scripture grounds and institutions And by these his solid Scripture grounds when ex professo handling this point and theologically we are more to determine of his Judgement then by Missives Wherein the circumstances of time and severall exigences might engadge to some insinuations in point of a civill deference and respect But however that be we are to look unto intentio and natura operis in his writings or the native designe thereof rather then critically to scanne or straine every practical conformity or disconformity therunto And the Informers answer to what we offer anent the assertions of Bishop Mortoune Bilson Iewel who write for the parity of Bishop and Presbyters by divine right viz That they held the Episcopall office themselves charging them thus with a practical breach of their principles most make him retract this
fixed prostasie and after he hath Confirmed this he addes in the next sect Cum itaque Collegium id est ordinatus ratione utentium caetus fine ordine nec institui nec Conservari nec agere nec agi amplius dicam nec cogitari potest aequabilis inter ejusdem muneris Consortes ac sese honore mutuo praevenientes sanctos paritas divina propemodum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commune Consilium in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nequaquam degenerabant stabant enim aequo in eodem gradu ordine jure omnes sed suo quisque loco erantque in familiâ quaque Ecclesiasticâ post primo genitum secundo tertio c. Geniti qui majorem natufratrem secundum Patrem caelestem colebant eique nec ambienti nec poscenti invidioso nunc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In singulis communis regiminis actibus jure volentes cedebant acprimas ubique partes deferebant ut si quando novus Cooptandus esset Collega Cleri totius jam consistentis plebisque Consentientibus suffragiis judicio Comprobatis N. B. totius Presbyterii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praeunte tamen ac reliquorum nomine solemnia benedictionum verba pronunciante promotione antiquissimo in possessionem muneris mitteretur priorum per Consecrationem quoddamodo filius factus qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratione aequo cum aliis omnibus jure licet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frater erat ubi vero quaestionis in Ecclesiae regimine quicquam emergeret consultantium in commune fratrum disceptationibus quasi naturae jure favore omnium firmato praeesset Senior non gradu alio major N. B. non nativa gradus communis potestate potior sed adventitiâ ob aetatis meritum delegata superior Which is this in summ that though the colledg of the ordained were all alike as to their official power yet least their joynt councel should fall under anarchical confusion the first ordained minister although of the same degree juridical power with his colleagues had a sort of veneration and precendency as to some acts but stille in their name by their consent who were his brethren Which will reach a patrociny to the diocesian Erastian Prelat with his sole power of ordination and jurisdiction his negative voice in Church judicatories and his delegation of Ecclesiastick power to the whole synod his civil state office c. When east and west shal meet together Then he addes Hanc originalem Ecclesiasticae politiae formam sub Apostolorum oculis natam non immerito putavit Hilarius quid enim pietati naturae rationibusque dictamini consonum magis quam ut priorum canitiem reverenter habeant aetate posteriores fac tamen Apostolis non modo nonimprobantibus sed palam laudantibus ortam ego sane libere ab initio observatam Christianisque sive ab Apostolis sive ab eorum discipulis traditam sed ut mutabilem pro usu arbitrio Ecclesiae mutandam prout in causa consimili piae memoriae Crakanthorpus sensit crediderim In which passage he pleades onely for this fixed moderatour and doth not positivly assert the Apostolik institution for it but comes neer Bezaes expressiones in reference to the Episcopus humanus As for Blondels confessing this primus Presbyter to have had authority with his precedency as the Informer is bold to assert he had done well to point us to the place where these wordes are found quis enim praesidentiamsine authoritate somniet for upon search they are not found but it seems the Informer puts this sense upon his words which follow these cited above ac forte consistorialium omnium qui Pastorum Ecclesias quasque in commune regentium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 urgent calculos evertit quod ab ipsa Apostolorum aetate collegii cujusque Presbyterialis singulare quoddam caput fuit Qui vero an nostrum ullus synedrium sibi N. B. vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hactenus somniavit an non eodem inter nos jure modoque vel per vices pares inter compares vel delegata a paribus ad tempus potestate praesunt quo inter christianismi primordia aeâ—…o honoris inter conseniores primas fuit Where he denyes that this singular head of the consistory or moderator his power did justle with or evert the common votes or Episcopacy of the Pastoures and consequently their joynt Presbyterial government because the consistory or meeting could neither be without a head or mouth nor have many heads which he assimilates to the then power of their moderators chosen from among his equals and co-presbyters either by turns or a delegated power of presidency for some time The Informers citation of Chamier p. 35. acknowledging from the beginning a primus Presbyter with a nova potestas and jurisdictio ne esset Episcopatus mere titulus Or a first Presbyter with a new power and jurisdiction c. Burns his fingers and rebounds a deadly blow upon himself for in calling this jurisdiction and power Nova or new he makes it later then the first scripture patent anent that Presbyters Authority which was the same with that of his Brethren before this humane supperadded power And consequently he must look upon him onely as Beza's humane Bishop supposing ane anterior divine Bishop which is the Pastour or Minister And here again the Informer puts us to tell him that this his citation of Chamier attributinge a new jurisdiction from the beginning to the primus Presbyter or first Minister is so general without pointing at either book or page that it seemes he resolved that in this as in other passages none should trace him to know whither he cited true or false However the place he means is lib. 10. de oecum pont c. 5. Where Chamier grants primum Presbyterum accepisse novam potestatem that the first Presbyter receaved a new power But that it was so from the beginning is our Informers incrusted eekement which as in another passage of Blondell we must suppose his lyncian eyes discovered in some written copy of Chamier which the printer was so uncivil as not to put in because this our great doubt-resolver was not overseer at the presse Any who looketh upon that chapter may discover that Chamiers scope is to prove that ab initio regimen Ecclesiae fuit Aristocraticum that from the beginning the Church government was Aristocracy and that the disparity which after came in use was ane innovation As for what he adds of Moulin pag. 76. If he hold The Episcopall power in ordination to be among these things which though in the Apostles time yet were alterable He may be probably supposed to include it among the Apostles extraordinary expired prerogatives which this man must acknowledge will lay no foundation for prelacy As for Stillingfleet we are not concerned in his principles or any debat betuixt him them For that which he
Now surely the Apostle James was not of the Presbyters meerly or chosen from among them But to undeceave our Informer as to Bucers judgment in this point and to fortify the answer adduced I shall present unto him that which Bucer asserts De Gub Eccles p 432. viz That the Fathers call these first Proestotes or Moderators yea even the Apostles themselves Bishops N. B. in a large generall appellation Becaus they first preached the gospell to those Churches and that to prove a succession of the true doctrine they named the most eminent Ministers the Bishops to shew that there was in these Churches a Constant tract from the Apostles both of sound doctrine faithfull teachers thereof Eminent I say for gifts and zeale or suffering for the gospell N. B. not in any Episcopall authoritie except what was in that prostasie often mentioned Now whither Bucer was for ane Episcopacy in the highest degree even in the Apostles time and the Episcopacy of Iames Let any judge And whither or not this Informer hath acquitt prelacie of being both a groundlesse and godlesse usurpation in Gods Church as his now prosyleted Doubter sayes he was taught to call it the appeal is likwayes made to the judicious and impartiall to judge from what is offered from the begining hereanent CHAP. XV. Mr Durhams citations of the Fathers for evincing the identity of Angel Bishop and Presbyter vindicat from the exceptions of this Informer Mr Durhame in his excellent commentary upon the revelation pag. 223. having gone throw the Epistles and embraced the sylleptick sense and acceptation of the word Angel presents in a digression several weighty and unanswerable arguments both from these Epistles and parallel texts to prove the identity of angel Bishop and Presbyter Which this Informer passes over sicco pede finding them no doubt pills of too hard a digestion for his stomack But Mr. Durham adding to his scriptureproofes of this important truth Several clear testimonys of most eminent Ancient fathers asserting the very same thing then Seria res agitur with our Informer and he bestirrs himself amain to take these weapons out of Mr Durhams hand offering several exceptions against his testimonys which in vindication of the memory of so great a Seer from this pampleters imputations and for the more full confirmation of this truth we shal now examine and repell Mr Durhame sayes That not only Ierome but likewise others of the Ancients such as Augustin Ambrose Chrysostom were of Aerius minde hereanent To this he answers That Mr Durhame brings this as Medina's assertion as he is cited by Bellarmin But knowes he not that Medina is cited for this by many others as Dr Reynolds particularly And likewise why would he not examine these Ancients cited by Medina and examine what truth is in his citations if he intended to repell this Testimony Well but what sayes our Informer to these Testimonies offered by Mr Durhame He answers 1. That though these fathers be of Ieroms minde iâ—…is nâ—… great prejudice that will hence ensue to Bishops as he hatâ—… already cleared Ans. We have made it appear thaâ—… Ierome makes the first Bishops meere fixed Moderators and likewise ane humane invention or custom discrepant from ihe first divine Bishops who are proved by him to be in Scripture the same with Presbyters And iâ—… this be no prejudice to his Diocesian Prelat with sole power of ordination and Iurisdiction let any judge 2. The Informer wonders how Mr Durhame coulâ—… cite Augustiâ—… as of Aerius minde since Augustine hold him to be erroneous upon this ground Haeres 53. Aâ—…s Why doth he not answer to that passage of Augustiâ—… cited by Mr. Durhame as he pretends to answer to somâ—… of the rest of these fathers What sayes he to Augustinâ—… words are they not his Or doe they not clearly assert the identity of Bishop Presbyter To say that Augustin accounted Aerius a heretick for this while he offers not to remove Augustins cleare assertion of the same thing is but to sett him by the ears with himself not to answer his Testimony Next as for Augustin's accounting Aerius a heretick for this he should know that the learned doe Consent that Augustin in this followes Epiphanius who first imputed heresie to Aerius and made but very simple-insipid answers to Aerius arguments for his opinion And moreover that Augustin relates his opinion anent the parity of Bishop and Presbyter or rather his denying that their ought to be ane Ecclesiastick constitution anent their difference as that which Epiphanius put among the roll of heresies himself not positively determining that this was a heresie For as is consented unto by the learned and particularly by Dr. Reinolds in his letter to Sir Francis Knolls touching Dr. Bancrofts Sermon about the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter Augustin aknowledges himself ignorant how farr the definition of heresie doth extend He enumerats the heresies which he found noted by other writers but applyes not the definition of heresie to every one of them Far lesse could he doe so in this point which was his own judgement as the passage cited by Mr. Durham doth evince That Ierom and Augustin were of Aerius minde as to Bishops is the judgment of very many sane cum Aerio sensit Hieronimus saith Whittak Contr. 4. Q. 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 30. Ierom truely was of Aerius minde on which ground we need care the less that Aerius is so oft objected to us by blockish men See how rude Whittaker is again to our Informer Saravia himself de Grad cap. 23. acknowledges that Ierom dissented from Epiphanius in this Dr. Reynolds in that Epistle to Knolls about Bancrofts Sermon asserting with the Informer That Aerius was for his opinion condemned of heresie by the whole Church proves from Ierom and other writters who were contemporarie with Epiphanius or flourished after him That Augustin Presents that assertion anent the identite of Bishop and Presbyter aâ—… hereticall only as he found it related by Epiphanius wheras himself knew not how farr the name of heresie was to be extended as he testefys in his preface concerning heresies But that Augustin himself was of the judgement that by divine right there is no difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter he proves from his words Epist. 19. he cites also Iewell against Harding the jesuit asserting likwise with the Informer that Aerius was condemned for his opinion as a heretick who proves that Jerome Augustin Ambrose were of the same minde Thus wee see Augustin made in this point consistent with Ierome also with himself whom this man makes to speake contradictions so as he may come faire off 3. He answers That Ambrose and Chrysostoms Testimony will not come Mr. Durhams length Becaus Though Ambrose or one Hilary sayes that Episcopi Presbyteri una est ordinatio that they are both priests yet the Bishop is the first So that every Priest is not a Bishop for the Bishop is the first priest
goes upon this supposition he should have travelled to Utopia with this resolution since we do suppose and have proven Prelacie to be unlawfull and so are not in the least concerned in what he saith upon this point Since he is still arguing ex ignoratione elenchi But let us see how he will absolve us upon this supposition which he must in pity be gratified with before he can draw forth his weapons Our Informer still stricks hand with the Seasonable case and the Surveyer telling us first that the oath ceases to bind if the thing sworn against be a matter wherein our superiours have power to command us they by their authority given them of God may require obedience of us in any thing lawfull and so may in that particular command us to do or use what we have sworn against it being a thing in it self lawfull and in this case our oath ceases to binde Ans. this simple notion by our Informer poorly propounded hath no taste in it and cannot reach our case even though he had won over that insuperable mountain of the unlawfullness of prelacy and had proven or his adversary had granted it to be indifferent for 1. his supposition runs thus That episcopacy is indifferent to be used in the Church or not as it shall be found expedient Now I beseech him who is the proper judge what frame of Church government best sutes her condition is not the Church representative to whom is intrusted the power of the keys by what warrand will he bring in the Magistrate primo instanti to alter and set up Church government as he thinks fit even granting it were indifferent he sought at first but a grant that prelacy was indifferent but ere he can produce one reason for his point he must have a further grant of Erastianisme and that the Magistrate is the proper competent immediat judge in matters ecclesiastick Who can stope the mouth of this hungry cause of his that must have multiplied concessions of the adversary and yet cannot subsist but starves with its own weakness when all is done For 2dly although this were also granted what will he say in this case wherein the superiour hath bound and engadged himselfe with the same Oaths vows and bonds that the subject is tyed with and hath solemnly vowed to God against such a frame of Government Sure this will tye up his hands if we may beleeve the maxime asserted by Dr Sanderson and other Casuists that juramentum tollit libertatem even in a thing indifferent Had we not the ratification of the Nationall Covenant with the band and explication against the Scots Prelacie in plain Parliament by King Charles the first under his hand writing 1641 Did not the King who now is in the Year 1650 and 51 swear and subscribe both this oath and the solemn league and Covenant and gave all imaginable assurances for upholding Presbyterian Government and in opposition to Prelacy suppose he had power to command in this matter sure his commanding power is tyed up when he hath vowed and Open'd his mouth unto God and lifted up his hand to the most high That Prelacy shall never be allow'd within his dominions far less commanded Whatever power God hath given to Magistrates over their subjects sure he hath given them no power to loose themselves from his oath and vow upon them is Thirdly it is too laxe a principle to hold that in every thing in it self indifferent the Magistrates power reaches to supercede or loose the obligation of an oath or vow of the subject For a subjects freedome and liberty as in that capacity and the Magistrats authority being coordinate as the subjects liberty must not justle with the Magistrat's lawfull Command suited to the ends of government so neither must the Command of the Magistrate incroach upon this reserved liberty of the subject who hath many things in his own power and without the reach of any lawfull command of the Migistrate A Subject and a slave are quite distinct things God restrained set bounds to the power of Kings and Magistrates whom he set over his people so that they might not command such and such things Therefor in what things soever the exercise of a subjects liberty crosses not the designe and end of the Magistrates power exprest in Scripture his vow is without the reach of the Magistrates suspending or loosing power Naboth would not give Ahab his Vineyard no not for money What if a man in a parentall capacity interpose a vow as to his childe in reference to some occupation or inheritance which are supposed before thâ—…s vow to be things indifferent Sure the Magistrates suspending power will not reach this vow This will be clear if it be considered That the preservation of the Subjectes liberty is one of the great ends of the Magistates Authority The Second case wherein the Informer tellsus that ane Oath in things indifferent binds noâ—… is when the thing sworn is so altered in its nature that it becomes sinfull and cannot be lawfully performed He tells us that Casuists say That cessat juramenti obligatio cum res non permanent in eodem statu Ans. This other case generally byhim propounded here shall be considered spoken to when we shall see how hereafter he explaines and applyes it Therefore we shall in this place dismiss it with one word That Prelacy is now the same and worse thn formerly And therfor the premised maxime cannot reach his Conclusion in the least His Third case wherein he tells us that the Oath in things indifferent ceaseth to bind is when it is impeditivum majoris boni which he sayes the Seasonable case and the survey of Naphtali do apply to this Oath And how he applyes it we shall after hear He tells us they do prove that supposing Episcopacie lawfull though iâ—… were meant in the Covenant none should think themselves bound to stand out against it our Superiours having commanded us to obey and submit to that government And that he solidly repells what is brought by the Apologie or Naphtali to the contrary But how insignificantly either he or these new Casuists do loose the Covenant upon this Pretence hath already in part and shall yet further appear What a laxe Adiaphorist is this who by his new divinity first takes this great duty of vowing or swearing quite away For no Oaths must be pleaded in things necessary in this man's judgment They canno in things that are sinfull or unlawfull have place and so all the subject thereof must be things lawfull and for this there needs no more to make all Oaths and vows evanish but a command from the superiour and then they are gone Secondly he makes the Magistrat's posteriour and supervenient command noâ—…only loose all his subjects from the obligation of what is lawfully sworn but also himself from his personall Oath Though he hath sworn and vowed never so deeply he hath no more to do but to make
of a dominion which is without its due sphere sure it interferres with no prior obligation which God hath lay'd upon us Even Azorius Mor. Quest. l. 11. cap. 6. will tell him that an Oath will bind Contra mores jure civili institutos if the divine Law be in any thing crossed thereby Nay Casuists even such as Abbas Silvester Azorius Molina Lessius Leyman Sanohes Swares do grant That an Oath will bind against any civill Law if it oblige ad paenam non ad culpam necessario to punishment and not necessarly to sin And further most of them admit the binding force of Oaths against the Laws or commands of superiours ubi materia legibus opposita sine peccato fieri potest where the matter of the Oath which is contrary to the lawes may be performed without sin it being non contra jus naturale aut divinum that is not against the Law of nature or the divine Law See Timorcus ubi supra 5ly Even putting episcopacie in the category of things indifferent this Oaths obligation against it will countervaile oversway our obligation to obey the Magistrate and submit to his laws In such a case wherin it is found inexpedient for the Church and particularlie for this Church as by its apparent dreadfull effects is evident such as the desolation and wasting of this Church the spreading of poperie and Arminianism the Casting out of many of the godlie Ministry the fixed division therin the endless Confusions and broiles and therby the wide door opened to all Popish invasions c. For since the Magistrats simple Command cannot determine what Government is expedient or inexpedient for the Church this must be supposed that Prelacie is best before the Command can be so much as supposed Lawfull els the Magistrat may injoyne an Hundred Oaths this year in such and such things as he calls expedient and null them all the next year though himself be engadged therin upon pretence of inexpediency of the Matter because of occurring circumstances which will make mad work of Oaths and hang them all at the Magistrats sic volo sic jubeo as to their obligation It s true that the greater duty as is clear Math. 9. 13. counter-balances the less but I Pray shall the meer will and Command of the power determine the greater dutie and be the sole and supreme rule to determine the Conscience as to the expediency of a thing hic nunc And though as he sayes every positive precept oblidge not ad Semper Yet he must acknowledge first that it oblidges semper and though not as to the act yet as to the eshewing the Contrary therof And Secondly to act semper except when Gods command superseds it as to other duties in their seasons So that till he clear this in the point of prelacie and that the renouncing of our Covenant and presbyterian Government at the Magistrats Command is in our case the greatest duty this rule makes against him The Doubter as to his first rule anent the authority of superiours interveening objects that its hard to say that mans authority can loose the Oath of God since in this Case we must say that we have opened our mouth unto God and cannot go back To this he answers 1. That the law of God in the 5th Command layes the first and Primarie obligation upon us to obey our superiours which Command we cannot bind up our selves from obeying Ans. 1. the same God who gave that Command did by the third Command oblidge both superiours and inferiours to be a ware of taking his name in vain and therfor not to presume to break their Oaths and vows in any Lawfull matter unlesse insuch Cases as himself the blest and supreme Lawgiver excepts which he hath not yet letten us see as to this Oath wherin both superiours and inferiours have entered and therby oblidged themselves to God against what he pleads for So that Gods reserved Supremacie and Dominion which to use his own argument against him is the primarie and fundamentall tye upon which this 5. Command is bottomed and according to which our obedience therto must be Regulat will cut short the obedience to the superiour in this case wherin we cannot obey him in the Lord and without violating our fealty and alleadgeance to the God of Gods and wronging his suprem dominion 2ly In this same 5. Command God hath limited the Power of superiours and tied them under many bonds of duties to their subjects or inferiours which in none of their Commands they must transgress and if they do their Commands oblidge not Inferiours to obey Now that this Loosing the obligation of these Oaths is in our case an encroachment upon the subjects right and reserved Libertie as well as christian Libertie and an encroachment upon Gods sovereign right is above Cleared Next he sayes this were a way to frustrat the superiour of all obedience and every man might pretend I have sworn against such a thing commanded therfor I cannot do it Thus privat persons might prelimit themselves from obeying in everie thing Ans. in our case there is no such hazard for the superiour hath prelimit Himself by his own oath and this will not prelimit him upon such a pretence from obedience in any thing that is Lawfull or which falls within the Compass of his Power As a Magistrate and is suitable to the great ends of his Power to say that he cannot Arbitrarly loose people from a Lawfull Oath sworn also by himself But on the contrary this pretended Informer his doctrine herein prelimtes and cuts short Subjects Libertie and Christian Libertie and Libertie of Conscience subjecting it and all Gods rules theranent all scripture Rules of Expediency and Edification and all Oaths and vows superadded to matters subordinat to these ends unto the Magistrats arbitrary disposal and laws which is a prelimitation equally if not more dangerous Our Informer in the next place for proof of this his doctrine sends the Doubter to Numb 30 where he sayes the husband or parent is vested with a Power to null and make void the vow of the wife or daughter and by Proportion the King who is Pater patriae hath the same authority Ans. it will be a harder task then this man can well mannage to bring in the King here within the Compass of the father and husbands right as to this absolving Power For first the Magistrats Power is far different from the Marital and Parental and the relation betwixt King and subject is nothing so strait as betwixt husband and wife parent and Children the one being natural the other Political the one changeable the other not A man may chuse to Live under what Magistrat he pleases but the woman cannot cast off her husband nor the Child shake off his relation and dutie to the father Besides subjects set up their Magistrats and Limite them But so it is not as to the Marital and Parental relations The husbands authority
Ecclesiastical officers who are there abjured Nay doth not Timorcus tell us that in England the Commissaries exercise a power in Church discipline by a delegation from the Bishop And doth not Bishop Lighton deny this to be competent to our Commissaries here For in that passage of the letter now cited he sayes we have nothing but the name of Commissaries he means in respect of these in England who exercise ecclesiastical discipline under the Bishops Didoclavius pag. 458. Cites Cowellus in Interprete about the office of the Bishops Commissary in England speaking thus Commissarij vox Titulus est Ecclesiasticae Iurisdictionis saltem quousque commissio permittit in partibus Diocesios a primaria Civitate tam Longe dissitis ut Cancellarius subditos ad principale consistorium Episcopi citare non potest c. That is that Commissary in England is a title of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction so faras his commssion will allow in places which are so far remote from the cheif city of the diocess that the Chancellour without great molestation cannot cite them to the Bishops cheif court Didoclavius tells us ubi supra that according to the Statutes of England the Chancellour is the Bishops principal officiall the Commissary the Bishops foraneous officiall To conclude 1. The Bishops power as to Civills and their deputation of this their power to Chancellours is a most gross usurpation Contrary to the Scripture which forbids the Minister to entangle himself with things of this life Our Lord himself would not so much as be an arbiter in a civil Cause Paul speaking of the ministerial duties saith who is sufficient for these things The Apostles must Give themselves continually to the Word Cartwright against the Rhemists upon 2. of Tim. 2. 4. Proves that pure antiquitie Knew nothing of prelats thus medling citing Jerome super Sophon cap. 1. who expounds that place against Ministers medling in Secular affaires And Cyprian who applies this place against one who took upon him to be executor of a Testament Lib. 1. Epist. 9. concil Carthag 4. Cap. 20. Apostol can Can. 6. Seculares Curas non Suscipite Likewise Ambrose who affirmes that Worldly Government is the weakning of the priest Lib. 5. Epist. 33. Smectimnuus pag. 32. Sect. 10. cites concil Hispall 2. Cyprian Epist. 28. against this deputation of prelats power to Chancellours Commissaries c. and Brings in Bishop Dounham aknowledging Defens Lib. 1. that in Ambrose time and a good while after which was about the year 400. till presbyters were wholly neglected the Bishops had no ordinaries vicars Chancellours Commissaries that were not Clergie men But this restriction they affirme to be a meer blind and Challeng him to shew any such under-officers of Bishops in those times So that they hold this to be one main point of difference betwixt their Bishops and the primitive Bishops 2dly in England not only hath the Commissary a Civil administration under the Bishop but hath Likewise power of Spiritual censures and a great part of the Bishops ecclesiastical administration committed unto him both over Ministers and others such as suspension deposition excommunication See Didoclav pag. 464 465. de officialibus Cartwright 2. repl part 2. pag. 69. who shews that the prelats not only exercise Tyrrany themselves over the Church but bring it under subjection to their very Servants yea their Servants Servants such as Chancellours Commissaries c. 3ly it is clear that since the reformation we never had in Scotland such Commissaries but our Law and practice since that time and since Popish Prelacies were dissolved hath much reduced them to the state Quality of other civil officers whose administration of its own nature depends upon superiour civil officers For this we have as I said Bishop Lightons own Confession that we have but the name of Commissaries here who have nothing to do with Church discipline Only their civil power is invaded again by the Prelats 4ly B Lighton and this Informer do both plead that its only the officers enumerat in the 2d Article of the Covenant and the Commissaries as then moulded Existent in the Church of England that this Oath oblidges against And so according to their Principles and pleading our Commissary here so vastly discrepant from theirs falls not within the compass of the Covenant abjuration Hence finally the owning of the Commissary in his Lawfull civil administrations can be no acknowledgement either 1. of the English Commissaries Power which he hath not Nor 2dly of the Prelats usurpation upon this civil office no more then the simple using of our civil Laws and the ordinary civil courts during Cromwells usurpation was a homologating the wickedness therof which this man will not dare to assert An usurper may be in titulo and such submission and improvement of the civâ—…l power invaded by him as doth acknowledge the providentiall Title and his being possessed of the power de facto and having as they use to say jus in re or actual providential possession therof If there be no active concurrance towards his Establishment is as to civills free of any guilt of the usurpation and will import no acknowledgement of the usurper his Pretended jus Which is the Judgement of all sound divines and Casuists But the case is far different as to our Informers deriving his deputed Ecclesiastical Ministery or spiritual authority from the Bishop because 1. the Prelats office it self is a gross usurpation contrary to the Scripture so is not the Commissaries office 2dly the Pelats usurped possession of unlawfull power over the Church which is Christs Kingdom cannot give him so much as a providentiall Title and therfore all acknowledgement therof is unlawfull Thirdly his submission to prelacy as now it stands Circumstantiat is an acknowledgement both of the possession and jus which this man will not deny and this is far dictinct from an act which doth but indirectly acknowledge the usurpers possession So that his Conformity is ane express acknowledgement and owning of a gross encroachment upon Christs Kingdom his Church which is toto Coelo different from acknowledging a possession de facto of and a Providential title unto a part of the civil administration of the Kingdoms of the world which are mutable And as for a testimony against this usurpation I suppose that had the people of God disowned these civil courts upon this ground of the Covenant obligation his party for the preceeding reasons had signally cried out against it as an AnaBaptistical rejecting of Lawfull civil Government more then he doth upon this Pretence alledge a homologating of Prelacie in this acknowledgement But however we say that the people of God their notour and standing testimony against Prelacie it self as now Established doth sufficiently reach this among other its usurpations although this piece of civil Government be eatenus or in its own nature and as such owned as formerly But now our Informer charges us with another breach of Covenant upon the ground
fundation other prayers according to every ones occasion Agustine epist. 121. tells us that liberum est It s free to ask what was in the Lords prayer alijs atque alijs modis some times one way somtimes another Likewise Justin Martyr Apol. 2. tells us that he who Instructed the people pray'd according to his ability 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We might also tell him of Bishop Andrews success or rather disappointment in seeking an old Jewish Liturgie which when sent to Cambridge to be translated was found to be composed long after the Jews rejection so the Bishop being asham'd suffered this notion to die and the Liturgie never saw the light See Smectim and Didoclav pag. 615 16 17 18 19. seq 2. What consequence is this that because we disowne a Schismatick party of Innovators introducing these corruptions mentioned Ergo we disowne them as no Churches wherein these have been admitted Must we bring in or comply with every corruption once purged out the retaining wherof may be consistent with the essence of a true Church what consequence or reason is here Again doth not he and all his brethren stand in direct opposition to the order and government of the Presbyterian Church of this Nation and unto all that own 's the same will he then admit this consequence that he unchurches her before prelacie came in and other reform'd Churches govern'd Presbyterially So we see himself must acknowledge this his reasoning naught The Doubter alledges that these things mention'd are of later date then the Apostles To this he answers that Bishops were from the Apostles time The contrary wherof we have proved either as to diocesan or Erastian Bishops such as he means yea even a proestos which in the Apostolick age had no place as we have made appear Next He tells us that Polycrates in the debate about keeping of Esther with Victor Bishop of Rome alledged Iohns authority But how proved he this is the Question not what he alledged surely bare alledging as in other cases so specially in divinity is bad probation Then he asks if we will hence infer that they were no good christians who used these things suppose that they came in after the Apostles times I answer we thinke that in so far as innovating they were not Sound Christians and so must he thinke unless he will be wise above what the Apostles have written Then he tells us that from Rom. 14. It appears that albeit some thought he should say understood and knew that by their Christian liberty they were fred from the ceremoniall Law and therefore made no distinction of dayes or meats yet Paul enjoyn'd them to bear with the weak to account them brethren and not despise them and the weak were not to Iudge the strong Ans. 1. How proves he that the points in controversy viz. prelacie laying aside our vows and Covenants Erastianism liturgies and festival-dayes for mystical ends and uses are such nothings or indifferent matters as meats or dayes were at that time wherin pro re nata the Church might use her liberty As for diocesan Erastian prelacy we have made its antiscriptural complexion to appear so that it is not within the compass of any Lawfull liberty of the Church to embrace or establish it We have also made the binding force of the Covenants appear and that the laying aside of them consequently is a horrid guiltyness which this liberty can never be extended unto Likewise the liturgies and imposing of set formes of prayer and adstricting publick Worship therunto have been sufficiently impugned from Scripture and divine reason by several of the godly learned and discovered to impeach the spiritual liberty of Gospel Worship The holy dayes also have with the same evidence been impugned by our divines who have proven that they do impinge upon our Christian liberty are contrary to the fouth command enjoyning worke all the six dayes except on such occasionall fasts and feasts as are held out in the word likewise are reprobate by the New Testament prohibitions about superstitious observation of dayes The Jewish dayes being abrogat as the Informer cannot but grant how dare we impose upon our selves a new yoke If it were here pertinent to dilate upon these points our principles herein might be abundantly fortifyed and the truth cleard to his conviction and by consequence the impertinency of this parallel argument and his pityful pâ—… 1. 10 principii in equiparating the points now controvered with these things which are the object of Christian liberty The Informers gives us nothing here but magisterial dictates Again that tolerance which the Apostle speaks of as to dayes and meats relates to that time and case only of the weak Jews when the ceremonies tho dead were not yet buryed as they were to be honourably especially while the temple of Jerusalem stood and the legal worship therein by Gods providence was continued But as these observances were ever discharged to the Gentiles except as to blood and things strangled for that exigence only of the weak Jews so after when christian liberty was known and this particular exigence was over and the ceremonies buried It is within the liberty of no Church to unbury them or tolerat these or such like observances in others Finally this very text condemns him tho his begged supposition were granted For 1. The eater must not despise him that eats not why then do Conformists pursue Nonconformists with such grievous punishment and Lawes they not only despise but persecute to the death and vilely reproach them who art thou that judgest another mans servant why then do they Judge censure Nonconformists so highly in their pulpits and pamphlets and the Informer in this as Schismaticks of as deep a dye as ever the Church was infested with 2. He that but Doubts is damned if he eat saith the Apostle Why then do they so violently press consciencious Doubters to their way 3. If thy brother be grieved saith the Apostle with thy meat thou walks not charitably Why then are they so uncharitable as to grieve Nonconformists with prelatick exactions if the Judging and despising the forbearer be forbidden much more are their cruell edicts and constraining Lawes whereby they burden the consciences of tender forbearers in this case The practice of Victor as to the Asian Churches was no doubt highly uncharitable but it was so mainly because of his censuring about such a trifle as Esther-observation we see from this schism the sad effects of innovations and that the Churches unity peace is best keept by adhering to the simplicity of the gospel and so our departing from the gospel simplicity in point of government and introducing abjured prelacy is the chief ground of the present schism and confusions in this Church But now followes our Informers main charge of external schism in sâ—…parating from the Churches communion in word and sacraments contrary to the apostles direction Not to forsake the assemblies Heb. 10. 25. It
call from Christ to preach in his name and so were not to be discharged by any power on earth Ans. 1. That the Apostles answer suites our case will be apparent when it s considered that our answer and Apology which we offer to our adversaries who do now accuse and persecute us upon this ground is one with theirs their grounds in their answer compared with the context are that they are Christs Ministers and witnesses employed about the great gospel message cloathed with his authority and under the obligation of Christs commands lying upon them Now will not this quadrat with our case as to the substance of this answer dare he say that the Magistrats Laws can exauctorat a Minister of the gospel or take away that ministerial authority which he received from Christ might not thus the ministry be put out of the world Dare he deny that he is a minister still notwithstanding of the Laws restraint and standing under a ministerial Relation to the Church as the Apostles were and under commands and obligations consequently in order to the exercise of the ministry can the Rulers meer prohibition loose either ministers their relation pastoral or the obligations flowing therefrom 2. Altho the call of the Apostles was immediat and extraordinary yet this will not prove that their answer will not suite the ordinary and mediat call in such a case as theirs when a minister is under a legal prohibition to preach for first we do not find that the Apostles did plead their extraordinary or immediat call mainly or only if at all in this case but their ministerial gospel call and message quatalis the authority of the one and the weight and importance of the other in relation to all Ministers are constant moral grounds bearing the conclusion of the same duty and apology as to them since the substance of this Apostolick apology lyes in this that they were Christs Ministers cloathed with his commission to preach the gospel which any faithfull Minister may plead in such a case 2. Tho their call was immediat and extraordinary upon which ground they were singularly out of the reach of the Rulers restraint as to their ministry yet they were so likewise as Christs messengers and ministers simply in a general sense for majus 〈◊〉 minus c. 3. As the Apostles had their power immediatly from Christ and not from the Rulers which is the great ground why they could not be Lawfully prohibit to preach and would not submit their ministerial authority its acts and exercise to the Rulers disposal especially the gospel-message being of so great importance so there is derived from them a ministerial authority in the Church independent in its nature and exercise upon the magistrat as theirs was tho the Apostles as I said had singular prerogatives beyond ordinary ministers and in that respect were singularly beyond the reach of their restaint Now this authority was exercised by the Church renitente Magistratu for several generations upon the same ground of this independent spiritual power and the weight of the gospel-message which the Apostles did here plead The Informer answers aly that this prohibition tended to the absolute supressing of the gospel and there was then no other way for propagating it through the world but by their preaching but now tho some be silenced others are allowed to preach Ans. 1. This piece of the apology for not obeying the Rulers mandat is of his bold putting in but nothing of it is in the text viz. that there were no others to preach the gospel but they Their Apology as I said is drawn from their authority and message simply 2 I ask him could any one of the Apostles have submitted to this prohibition upon an insinuation or assurance that the Magistrat would not hinder others to promote the gospel if they could not then he must grant that this anwer is naught that the Apostles refused because the prohibition tended to suppress the gospel For the gospel was preacht and propagat though one of them was a little after taken oft the stage if he say that any one or more of the Apostles would have submitted to the prohibition upon thir terms then 1. He contradicts his first answer that their extraordinary immediat call could not be discharged by any power on earth and 2. He charges them with unfaithfulness to Christ in laying up his talents and laying by his work upon mens command not to preach Sure Christs command and commission tyed all his Apostles conjunctly and severally Paul said too to me if I preach not the gospel and one Apostles diligence could not loose the obligation of the other and excuse his negligence 3. We have proved that there is no warrand from God for Rulers their immediat arbitrary discharging Christs Ambassadours to officiat and consequently faithfull Ministers are not obliged to obeye And upon the same ground that one apostle could not warrantably suffer the Magistrat to impose a silence upon him be cause others were permitted to preach It s unlawfull for ordinary Ministers to be silent because others are preaching and much more when those who are preaching are declaring themselves unfaithfull and destroying but not feeding So that our Informer doth but mock God if not blaspheme while blessing him that authority is opposit to our disorders not to the gospel The Doubter next asks him if the King and Laws can silence a Minister that he shall not preach the gospel He should have added by his own proper elicite acts as King or Magistrat or formally and immediatly But this man must still shrewd himself in the mist and clouds of deceitful generals and mould our arguments in his own disguise that his simple evasions may appear answers Well what sayes he to this doubt His answer is I ommit his insignificant reflection that Solomon thrust out Abiathar from the priesthood 1 Kings 2. 27. which was a restraining his priestly power as to its actual exercise to which he was bound to submit so a King may discharge a Minister to exercise his Ministry within his dominions which he must not counteract suppose he think the King and law wrongs him especially when others do preach tho he be silent Ans. This reason and instance is a baculo ad angulum Solomon punisht Abiathar civilly for a capital treasonable crime which deserved death telling him as the text saith that he was a man of death or one who deserved capital punishment according to the nature of the hebrew phrase which sentence of death Solomon upon the grounds mentioned in that passage did change into a sentence of banishment and by this civil punishment did consequenter put him from the exercise of his priestly office which he could not in that case perform Ergo he formally and immediatly deposed him and the civil magistrat may so immediatly and formally depose ministers this is a consequence utterly unknown to all rules of Logick or solid divinity The Instance
indeed proves that the Magistrat may civilly punish a Minister for crimes and consequently cut him off from the exercise of his Ministry but that he can simply and immediatly or by proper elicit acts discharge the exercise thereof can no more be proved from this instance then that the man who gives bad physick or hurts the Ministers person and eatenus stops the exercise of his Ministerial office hath an authority to inhibit the exercise of his Ministry As for our Informers restriction anent the Kings inhibiting a minister to preach in his dominions 't is a very poor and transparent sophistical cheat for no man ever said that he can exercise any magistratical power upon those who are without his dominions whether ministers or others And thus should his dominion in Gods providence be streached over all the christian Church he hath authority by this courtdivinity to silence the gospel sound in a clap and extinguish a gospel ministry when he pleaseth and then this man would do well to ponder how this consists with the nature and designe of Christs great commission to his first ambassadours his Apostles in reference to the gospel message and unto all ministers untill the end of the world and his promised presence accordingly as also whether the Apostles and ordinary ministers afterward did warrantably counteract the Magistrats opposition in this exercise of their Ministry and what our lords answer would have been in case such an objection anent Princes discharging the exercise of their Ministry had been offered by the Apostles at the first giving out and sealing of their great patent and commission to preach to all nations and whether our Lord would have told them that their commission did not bind in that case The Informer is afraid to set his foot on such slippery ground as to assert that the King can depose absolutely but yet averres that he can restrain the actual exercise of the Ministerial office and surely if this be granted in that extent he pleads for it will abundantly secure self-seeking polititians from the trouble of a faithful Gospel-Ministry they will be content to part with this nicety of a simple deposing But if in the Judgment even of some of his Rabbies whom I could name the most formal ecclesiasticall censures do amount to no more then this legal restraint of the exercise he doth but pityfully resarciat his lapse and mend the matter by this whimsey As for what he adds of Beza's letter to the non-Conformists in England not to exercise their Ministry against the Queens authority and the Bishops The often mentioned difference betwixt the then State of that Church and our present condition doth quite invalidat his proof since certainly in some cases the counteracting the Princes command as to the exercise of the Ministry requires a very cautious consideration but had our case in its present circumstances and latitude as above delineat been propounded to Beza touching the overturning the Reformation of this Church so fully setled by civil and Ecclesiastick Authority and confirmed by Oaths of all ranks by Prelats and their adherents ejecting all faithfull Ministers who will not be subject to that course Sure Beza who as we heard requested John Knox never to let Prelacy be introduced into Scotland and all faithfull Ministers to contend against it after it was cast out would have judged Minsters obliged in this our case especially after Prelacy is thus vowed against to keep their possessions to preach the gospel and testify against such a wicked course as well as it was the duty of our first Reformers to preach against the will of the then Bishops and persecuters Besides it s the Doctrine and principles of our Church that neither the Magistrate nor Prelats censures can loose a Minister from the exercise of his Ministry which is above cleared So that our Informers great Diana which he is all this time declaiming for viz. The imposing of an absolute silence upon the true Pastors of this Church that Conformists onely may be heard and ownd doth so stoop and bow down that the underpropings of his slender artifice and poor mean pleadings cannot prevent its precipice and ruine CHAP. VI. The nature of Presbyterian Ministers relation to this Church and their call to officiat therin vindicate from the Informers simple cavills Mr Baxters rules for the cure of Church-divisions impertinently alledged by him The Testimonies of the jus divinum Minist Anglic. And of Mr Rutherfoord in his Due right of Presbytery anent unwarrantable separation insufficient to bear the weight of his conclusion THE appearances of our Lords Ambassadours in his message and for promoting his Interest have been much opposed by Satan in very various Methods and versatile disguises in all ages but that Presbyterian Ministers of a pure Apostolick Presbyterian Church should be opposed in the exercise of their holy function and Ministry received from Christ and this exercise impugned from pretended Scripture grounds and Presbyterian principles may seem strange if these latter days had not produced many such prodigies of errors and wickedness The progress of this personat doubt-resolver his impugnations will discover so much which we now proceed to examine This Informer next alleages That Ministers among us make themselves Ministers of the whole Church and the Doubter alledging That a Minister is a Minister of the Catholick Church he Answers from Mr Rutherfoord Due right of Presb. page 204. That tho a Minister is a Minister of the Catholick Church yet not a Catholick Pastor of it that by ordination and his calling he is made Pastor and by election he is restricted to be ordinarly the Pastor of his flock And that Mr Durham on Rev. page 106 107. thinks there is odds betwixt being a Minister of the Catholick Church and a Catholick Minister of it as the Apostles were and the Pope pretends viz. to have immediat access for the exercise in all places that â—…ho actu prime they have a commission to â—…e Ministers of the whole Church yet actu secundâ—… they are peculiarly delegated to such and such posts But we have made our selves Ministers of all the congregations of the Countrey I answer this doctrine crosses not our principles nor practice in the least For first when we assert that a Minister is by election restricted to be ordinarly the Pastor of a flock and especially delegat and fixt to such a post particular watchtower it is not so to be understood as if there could be nolawful exercise of his Ministry elsewhere for first this were flat independency c. 2. All save they of this perswasion grant that the Minister receives no new authority as to his Ministerial acts and officiating in other places but a new application only Hence in the 2d place is to be understood of the Church her ordinary settled state under a settled Ministry but when there is a destroying enemy within her bosome wasting her and the fathfull Ministry are put from their
do destroy that distinctione Mr Gillespie Eng Pop Cerem Ames Consc Lib 5. Cap. 11. Mr Durham on Scandal part 3. Chap 1 discover the futility of his doctrine on this head page 139 140 141 142 143 144. The Doubters Argument for presbyterian Ministers preaching in the manner contraverted taken from Christ and his Apostles preaching in the fields and houses The Informers general answer anent Christs not separating people from the Synagogue weighed and found frivolous page 145 146 147. Some special reasons wherefore our Lord did not separate the people from the Synagogue ibid. The special grounds of our Lords practice offred by him to enervat our Argument considered and Answered Such as his bringing in the doctrine of the Gospell as the Messiah his being head of the whole Church page 148 149 150 151. What actions of our Lord were mitable Rules hereanent allowed by sound divines applyed to the case and practice controverted That the law allowes the gospell to be preached purely and faithfully by some though granted to the Informer will help him nothing ibid. The Informers answers and exceptions to our argument from Acts 14 19. examined His answer from the Apostles extraordinary callfrilous as also from the tendency of the rulers prohibition to silence gospell page 152 153 154 155. His reasoning upon Solomons thrusting out Abiathar from the priesthood examined as also his citation of Bezaes letter to the Non-Conformists in England Page 156 157. Chap 6. page 159. The nature of Presbyterian Ministers relation to this Church and their call to officiate therein vindicat from the Informers simple cavils Mr Rutherfoord and Mr Durhames acknowledgement that a Minister isnotmade a Catholick Minister of the Catholick Church but by his ordination restricted to a flock will not help the Informer which is cleard in six points page 159 160 161 162 His Dilemma which he offers to us viz. that our call to preach is either ordinary or extraorninary answered retorted upon him His Cavills in relationall to the Acts of Councils condemning this encroachment as he calls it and the Doctors of Aberdeen their charging Presbyterian Ministers therewith repelled ibid. His charge anent our ordaining others to perpetuat our Schisme a manifest groundlesse calumny page 163 164. His passage cited out of Mr Baxters preface to the cure of Church divisions answered page 165 as also his 5 healing advices to his half-proselyted Doubter page 65 166 167 168 169 170. Mr Baxters rules in his cure of Church divisions which he after commends unto us shortly viewed their impertinency to his purpose discovered page 171 172 173. 174. his testimonies out of the jus divinum Ministerii anglicani and of Mr Rutherfoord in his due right of Presbytery anent unwarrantable separation in sufficient to bear the weight of his conclusion The difference between the case they speake to and our case cleared in 4. Considerations page 175 176 177. His citations from the first author particularly considered and their insufficiency to bear the weight of his conclusion discovered page 178 179 180 181 The citations of Mr Rutherford particularly examined in so faâ—… relating to his scope page 182 183 184 185 186 187. In his citations from both these authors and arguing therefrom he is found inconsistent with himself to walk upon groundlesse suppositions and lyable to a manifest retorsion ibid. The Informer drawes out no conclusion upon these citations save this general one at the close viz That real much lesse supposed corruptions in the Worship or administrators will not warrand separation The impertinency of this position to help him cleard ibid. He pleads for retractions and presents at the close a character of Schisme which is retorted against him page 187 188. Chap 7. misprinted Chap 6. page 189. Animadversions upon the Informers preface and title page prefixed to this Pamphlet He pretendes conscience a design of union in this undertaking how unsoundly discovered page 189 190. 191. His Testimonies out of Zanchy and Blondel to evince their approbation of Prelacy left by him untranslated though he pretends for the advantadge of the English reader to translate all other testimonies answered A Confutation Of the First DIALOGUE Upon the point Of EPISCOPACIE Wherein it is demonstrat that the Episcopacie now existent both in its Diocesian Erastian cutt is contrare to the Scripture to the first and purer Antiquitie the Doctrine and Confessions of Reformed Churches sound Divines And the Informers Reasonings for it from Scripture Antiquitie are weighed and found wanting CHAP. I. That the Prelat now established in this Church is both Diocesian and Erastian cleared The Informer is engaged to defend both A twofold State of the Question propounded accordingly Some Arguments from Scripture against the Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church-officer Such as 1. Perverting the Scriptural term Episcopus commune to all Pastors in appropriating it to a Prelat 2. Making it relate to Pastors which hath the flock for its immediat object 3. Invading nulling the Authority allowed unto Presbyters which is demonstrat at large 4. Impeaching Christs Kingly office as Head of his Church and the perfection of his Word in obtruding ane Officer upon the Church of a different moold from those described and allowed by him THE state of the first Question in the first Conference is whither the Episcopacie now established by Law in Scotland be warranted or condemned by the Word of God For clearing this it must be understood what that Prelacie is which is now existent and which this Author pretends is consonant to Scripture and Antiquitie As to matter of fact it is undenyable 1. That the Parliament 1662. did expresly raze Presbyterian government in all its preexistent Courts Judicatories and Privileges declaring it voide and expired 2. They did Redintegrat the Bishops to their Episcopal function presidencie in the Church power of ordination and censures and all Church discipline to be performed by them with advice only and of such of the Clergie only as they shall find they themselves being judges of knowne Loyaltie and prudence And they redintegrat them to all the pretended Privileges possessed be them in Anno 1637. What time their power was at the greatest height Since of themselves they framed the Book of Canons which doth establish their sole power and dominion over all Church Judicatories razing classical Presbyteries and Parochial Sessions and drew up the Liturgie and Book of Ordination without the least shaddow of advice from this Church Threatning even excommunication against the opposers of that course 3. It is also evident that all this Power and Authoritie of our Prelats is fountained in derived from and referable unto the Supremacie As is evident by the Act restoring Prelacie after the declaration of the Supremacie as his Majesties Commissioners in the exercise of his Ecclesiastick Government and in the administration of all their pretended spiritual Authoritie as accountable to him their Head and supreme Legislator in all
flows not from the wife her donation nor the parents from the Children So that a parallel argument can hardly be drawen from the Power of husbands and parents supposed in this text in relation to Oaths and vows of the Children and wife to that of the Magistrat in relation to his subjects 2ly in the beginning of that Chap. the Lords way of Laying down this great Sanction touching vows seems to exclude the Magistrat from this absolving Power For after the propounding of the Law touching the keeping of voluntary Oaths and vows viz. that the person vowing shall not break nor profane his Word as the Hebrew signifies but do according to all that Proceeds out of his mouth 1. The Case of the wife and the Daughter not foris-familiat is Gods great and only exception exprest in the Text from his own rule and Law touching the strick observation of voluntarie Lawfull vows So that the rule and Law seems to reach all other Cases as to free vows except only this 2ly in the Beginning of the Chap. we find that Moses spoke this to the Rulers and heads of the tribes but the text is silent as to his applying of this exception anent the father and husbands Power in absolving vows unto these heads Rulers which should have been especially intimat to them Hence it may be probaby Concluded that the Rule and Law touching the observation of vows stands fast in all other Cases except these here expresly excluded by the Great Lawgiver So that ere his argument can reach us he most give in Sufficient proof that the Magistrat stands vested with this Power and falls within the Compass of this exception in relation to his subjects Not to detain him here in tasking him to prove that this Judicial statute as others of the like nature doth belong unto the Christian Chùrch But in the second place Granting that the Magistrat is here meant it will never speak home to his Point but much against him for 1. the dominion of the Superiour being the ground of this discharge wherin the husband and Parent have Power if the matter of our vow be found such as is excepted from the Magistrats dominion the Informer must grant that this text will not reach our Case And supposing the matter antecedaneously unto the vow to fall under divine Commands this is evident beyond exception But because he beggs our concession that it was before indifferent I adde if it be within the Limits of our reserved Libertie as free subjects or of our Christian Libertie it s still on both grounds beyond the reach of his dominion and consequently excluded from this exception and the vow must stand and oblidge according to the Grand precept here set down so that a hundred discharges of the Magistrat will never touch it We heard him acknowledge that by discipline of this Church in the nationall Covenant the substantialls of Government is understood and that consequently it binds therunto So he must acknowledge that our solemn Covenant will inviolably bind to this divine Frame of Government no earthlie power can loose therfrom no more then from Scripture institutions And Doctor Featlie acknowledgeth that people may Covenant without their Superiours to fulfill Gods Law Now give us all Scripture Church officers and their Rules of Government Prelacie shall be quickly gone So that upon his concession that the national or solemn league do reach the substantialls of Government or what is necessary for the ends of Government set down in Scripture it will amount to that which we plead for and he must grant it falls not under the Magistrats Dominion and that his argument from this text is lost 2dly this dissent which looses the vow must be both ane open dissent and also presentlie in the verie day he heares of it Qui sero se noluisse significat putandus est aliquando voluisse That is he that declares a late dissent may be presumed sometimes to have given his consent saith Dr Sand. de jur prom This he cannot say as to our King 3ly It most be constant the dissent suspending but not loosing the obligation The oblidging vertue being naturall and inseparable to the vow as Dr Sand. tells us de jur prom pag. 3. Sect. 10. when ever the consent comes the obligation returns Now have not our King and Rulers consented unto and ratefied all our vows both in the nationall and solemn league and Covenant 4ly This consent of the superiour once given can never he retracted by a dissent again Whither it be before or after he can never make it void as the Text doth clearlie hold out See Sand. 16. Prel 7. Sect. 6. Now have not both the nationall and solemn League the Consent vows of all our superiours ratifying the same So that this text every way pleads for the obligation therof for this their consent once given they can never revoke far less their Oath and vows but the vows of the inferiours are thereby rendered for ever valid as Casuists in setting down these rules doe grant so Aquinas Filucius Tract 25 cap. 9. Azor. Moral inst lib. 11. cap. 10. Sanches lib. 3. Cap. 9. Amesius cas lib. 4. cap. 22. Quest. 11. Sand. Juram Prom. Prel 4. Sect. 16. But the Doubter objecting this consent and ratification of our superiours which therefore they cannot make void He answers that by comparing the 12. and 15. verses it appears that after the husband hath by silence confirm'd his wifes vow yet he hath a power of voiding it again and she is exonered of her vow and bound to obey her husbands Commands Ans. Although this were granted as the Text stands in clear contradiction to it that the husband might null the vow after he hath confirmed it by a silence or tacit confirmation yet it will not follow that his nulling power will hold after he hath given not onlie a formall consent positive but also solemnlie vowed and bound his soule to the Lord in the same vow which is most evidentlie our case Have we not the solemn vows subscriptions and Oaths of both King and Rulers concurring with the vows of the subjects in this case How then shall they loose their own vows 2ly this wilde gloss is expresly cross to Dr Sanderson and other Casuists their sense of this case and text as we heard who hold that if once the superiour hath either tacitly or expressly precedaniously or subsequently consented he can never by his dissent again either discharge from the Oath or so much as suspend the obligation of it Dr. Sand. saith 16. Prel 7. Sect. 6. it s a true rule quod semel placuit amplius displicere non debet what once in this case hath pleas'd the superiour ought never to displease Gods Word declaring it established for ever If he hath consented saith the Dr either before or after be can never afterwards take away its obligation 3. He makes the text contradict it self for ver 7. upon