and likewayes in the very manner of these designations and their circumstances when atribut to such inferiour officers doth state the distinction betwixt them and ane Apostle in his proper acception clearly holding out that they had neither name nor thing of the apostolick office properly so called but that Ministers are so improperly only called Bishops He will never prove But now what is his last shift It maybe saith he their were no Bishops settled as yet at Philippie so it may very well be But our Informer here supposes two things in Question which he will prove ad calendas graecas 1. That their were Bishops superiour in office degree to Presbyters appointedby the Apostles The first and second Answer tells us of Bishops he means diocesian Bishops either with Paul when he wrot to Philippi Or come from their diocesses forsooth and present accidentally there And haveing told us that the diocesian Bishops were among the rest of the Presbyters Bishops in his third answer His last shift is that they were not it may be yet sett up at Philippy But remark that as all these proteus like shifts and answers contradicts one another So they all lean upon this Egyptian reed that the Diocesian Bishop is ane officer divinely appointed and then existant Now how impertinent dealing this is let any judge We prove from this and many such like texts that the scripture Bishop is a meer presbyter they in all there answers doe coyne glosses of these Texts which doe suppose the Jus existence of the diocesian prelat which is the very quaesitum the thing in Question 2. He supposes that the Bishop over presbyters the Chimaera of his own braine though he was not settled at this tyme yet was to be Settled afterward at Philippi But how proves he that the Apostle was to setle after ward such a prelat there This is another of their shifts that the Apostles first sett up prebyters keeping still the government of the Churches in their oun hand till at last towards their end they sett up prelats committing the government to them But how doth he or they prove this after-institution of the diocesian Bishop we have already abundantly evinced the Contrary both that the presbyters were the highest ordinary officers established by the Apostles that without any such fancied reserve as this is the wholl power both of order jurisdiction was committed to them exercised by them supposed by the Apostles to continow so in their last farewelles to the Churches and therfor may conclude that the Bishops of Philippi were meer presbyters and that Paul acknowledged knew no other Arnold in his Lux in Tinebr on Act. 20. 17. He called the elders c. represents the Orthodox opinion thus Episcopos Presbyteros c. That Bishops and Presbyters are not names of diverse gifts in the Church but of one and the same office because they who are here called Presbyters verse 28. are called Bishops The Papists object saith he as this Informer that in these times the names were common but yet the office of Bishops and Presbyters diverse he answers 1. This is to affirme not to prove 2. When offices are distinct there also the names are diverse 3. there was one office both of Bishops and Presbyters viz. the office of teaching 4. Upon the Papists supposition there can and ought to be only one Bishop in one city but so it is that there were here many therefore Bishops signifie Presbyters Thus Arnold classes our Informer among the Papists in this point and represents our principles as the Orthodox principles of the Protestant Churches and so in several other passages as we may after shew Chamier de Oecum Pontif lib. 10. cap. 3. Haveing represented the Papists glosses upon Matth. 20 -25 the Kings of the Gentils c. the same with our Informers viz. That our Lord discharged only that sort of Tyrannical Domination haveing answered and confuted them as we heard Iunius and Whittaker did before and haveing prefixed to the 7. chap. this cirle An jure divino c. Whether the Bishop be greater than the Presbyter by divine right he represents the affirmative answer as Bellarmins together with his arguments and confuts them and haveing proved Presbyters power in ordination from their imposeing of hands upon Timothy he afterward confuts the Papists this Informers pretences for Prelacy from the Government of the jewish Church the Apostles Superiority to the seventy disciples and adducing Bellarmin's argument from this passage act 20 28. to prove that the Holy Ghost sett up Bishops he answers thus locus exactis alienus est c. that place of the acts is impertinently cited for from thence it is evident that Bishops and Presbyters are the same Witnes Ierom. and others for they whom Luke before called elders or Presbyters of the Church those Paul afterward affirmes to have been made Bishops by the Spirit and indeed for feeding and as the latine Interpreter for governing the Church So we see Chamier classeth also our Informer among the Papists in those his prelatick principles and glosses upon those Scriptures Calvin upon Tit. 1 7. Collects the identity of Bishop and Presbyter from the Apostle's calling them Bishops who were before called Presbyters and as we heard above reprehends upon this ground the distinction placed betwixt them as profane and anti-scriptural The same he inferrs upon Act. 20. where the Presbyters of Ephesus are called Bishops makeing our Informer's great topick anent the calling of such Ministers Bishops qui primas tenebant in singulis civitatibus or had a precedency in every city a corruption and sin of those times The Dutch annot on Act. 20 28. observe that those termed Bishops in this verse being called elders in the 17. verse it doth then appear that in the Holy Scripture there is no difference made betwixt elders and Bishops referring us to Phil. 1. 1. verse upon whch passage they assert the same thing and especially from the plurality of such Bishops in one and the same Church conclude this referring us to 1 Tim. 3. 1. verse and Tit. 1 chap. 5 7 v. upon which places they obserue that by Bishops and Elders one kinde of Ministry is signified viz. the labourers in the word and doctrine citeing 1 Tim. 5 17. 2 Pet. 5 1 2. and from the Apostles description of the Bishop in the 1 Tim. 3. they conclude that by Bishop we are to understand all teachers of the Church without difference referring again to the forementioned places The english annot expresse the same sense of these places under debate and upon Acts 11. 30 v. adduce both fathers and councells to prove this point The Nixt Scripture argument which the Doubter bings against prelacie and the Last too is taken from Ephes. 4. 11. where the Apostle reckons up Church officers makes no mention of Bishops Our argument from the Scripture enumeration of Church officers here and
in the parallels 1. Cor. 12 28. Rom. 12 6 7 8 Is this That the Holy Ghost therein describing purposly the various kindes of Church officers and speaking of the office of the pastour makes no distinction of a higher and lower pastour nor gives the least hint of either Name or thing of a diocesian prelat although both ordinary and extraordinary officers be enumerat even the ruleing elder and the deacone from which silence of the Scriptur as to this imaginarie Bishop we conclud him to be no plant of the heavenly fathers planting by the same reason that our divines conclude the pope to be such To this our Informer answers 1. That it is ill reasoning that because such ane officer is not in such a particular place or enumeration that therefor he is no where to be found in scripture for how prove we that the Apostle intended in that place a cempleat enumeration Ans he is guilty of a palpable forgerie here whillmaking his Doubter instance in this place only as if we held that there is here a full enumeration wheras he cannot but know that presbyterians in this argument against prelats as also protestants in opposition to the papacie doe together with this passage joyn the parallels 1. Cor. 12 28. Rom. 12 16. In which places collated there is found a compleat enumeration of all Church officers ordinary or extraordinary and adiscoverie of their duties and gifts who are ordinary officers even of the very Deacon Lykwayes we take in with these Texts the several descriptions of ordinary officers and particularly of the Bishop his gifts and duties found in any other places of the new Testamament And since this Informer cannot deny the Apostles or rather the Spirit of God his intention of a full enumeration in these places Collated Such a full Catalogue of Church-officers being therein found our argument from the Scriptures utter silence of the Diocesian prelat in all these places stands firme by his own Confession until he shall disprove this silence and prove the Contrary 2. Wee might tell him also that upon his own ground even the Silence of this Text as to the Prelat will prove our point for it being upon the one hand the Apostles scop to enumerat the most illustrous excellent gifts and offices given by Christ to the Church for her grouth and edification as his royal Mediatorie Donations upon his ascention into heaven and upon the other hand the Apostle descending as low in his enumeration as the Pastor and teacher whom this man holds to be officers inferiour to the Diocesian Prelat Certainely upon both these grounds he would have mentioned him in order to this scope had such ane officer been allowed or apappointed And as for this Text it is enough if we prove that the Apostle intended therein though not a compleat enumeration of all yet of the most excellent functions and officers given by Christ to his Church amongst which the Diocesian Bishops office hath the prime place in this mans Judgement How then I pray can he be here ommitted and ane inferior officer named His 2d Answer is That Bishops are comprehended under pastoures and teachers Bishops being such though of a Superior degree to ordinary Pastoures Ans. first that Scripture Bishops are comprehended under the pastor and teacher is certan but that the Diocesian should be so is Impossible and by him gratis dictum For. 1. he cannot shew that in these enumerations the Superior officer gets the designation of the inferior now he holds the Diocesian Prelat to be ane office and order Superiour to the Pastor Nixt this were no proper enumeration as he acknowledges there is here of distinct officers offices if they had not all there proper distinct names and designations And since Apostles Evangelists Pastors are proper designations of distinct officers and offices why ought not the Diocesian Bishop to have had his proper epithet and to have come in between the Evangelist and the Pastor for this was his proper Classe as the higher Church officer Againe This answer and shift is the same with that of the Papists to save the pope for they answer our divines Argument from this Text that he is included in the office of the Apostle But as we tell them that according to there account and Character of him he ought to have had a more peculiar designation So we may say to this Informer here Besides may not Patriarches and all the rabble of the popes locusts have this pretended for them that they are included in some of these officers Sure we may in Charity suppose that if a Papist were pleading thus This man would tell him that it were no defence to shape out officers of their own devising then alledge they are included in some of these scripture designations which answer suites his own case Since he cannot make it appear that the Diocesian Bishop is appointed in Scripture And we have proved his office to be contrary unto it Lastly Hetels us That if we will have here ane perfect enumeration of all Church officers we must comprehend ruleing elders and deacons in some of these words and why may not he doe so with Bishops Ans. 1. We need not in order to our scope nor argument from this text alledge either a full enumeration of all officers or goe about to includ elder and Deacon under some of these words It being enough if wee con shew that the most eminent Church officers given for the Churches edification are here enumerat that the enumeration comes the length of ane officer inferior to the Prelat in this mans esteemâ—… down from ane Apostle which renders our Argument from this Text impregnable 2. If we should include the elder and Deacon in one of these words we should but include therein inferiour officers of divine appointment in the designation of Superior which he will acknowledge to be no unusual thing in Scripture But his including the Diocesian Bishop is both the including of a forged anti Scriptural officer of his own deviseing and likewayes if he includ him under the Pastor and teacher ane including and comprehending of a Superiour officer under the designation of ane inferiour both which differences doe cutt the sinnewes of Reason and answer CHAP. XII The Informer offers Scripture warrand for Bishops His Argument from the Government of the Church under the old Testament and from the Apostles superioritie to the seventie disciples examined The first Argument concludes a lawful subordination of Church-offiers in general but reaches no help to the Diocesian Erastian Bishop The second beggs the question in supposing Prelats to succeed the Apostles immediately and Pastoures the seventy disciples and from a Superiority among officers of different kindes groundlesly concludes a superiority among officers of the same kind No Image of our Prelacy in the Iewish-Church-Government or in the Apostles superioritie above other Church-officers The Informer contradicts his fellowpleaders in this cause
to confirme Instruct and Comfort other Churches as Philippi Troas So Paul writes to him 2 Tim. 4. 12. that Tychicus was for this same end sent to Ephesus and that he wrote the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians from Rome whom the Apostle chap. 6. 21. v. of the Epistle directed to that church sent to them as a faith full Minister who therefore lookes liker their Bishop then Timothie That the same is supposable of Titus is also apparent both in that he is called as Timothy not Bishop but Pauls fellow helper and that concerning the Corinthians not the Cretians and likewayes in that he is imployed to the church in corinth after he was left by Paul at crete as his fellow helper in that church 2. Cor. 2. 13. and was fixed to no one place of residence That being charged to come to Paul at Nicopolis his stay is found very short at Crete so that after half a years residence there he was sent to Corinth and Dalmatia c. But the Doubter acknowledging Timothy and Titus their power over Ministers at Ephesus and crete since they are taught how to ordaine them what qualifications are requisite how to proceed in their tryalls and censures alledges that this they had as evangelists companiones to the Apostles in their laboures and as appointed to settle and water these Churches which they had planted In what respect these things are attribute to these Church officers will be after examined when we shall consider how our informer pleads for their episcopall power upon these grounds But to this exception of the Doubter he answers That this supposes them to be extraordinarie officers whose office was not to continue in the Church And the Doubter affirmeing this Because Timothy is called ane Evangelist 2. Tim. 4. 5. and that therefore he could not be a Bishop To this our Informer Rejoynes That in a large sense he was ane Evangelist or a preacher of the gospell but that he was ane Evangelist in astrict sense can no mor be proved from that scripture then that he was a deacon Because the Apostle in that same place sayes fulfill thy deaconship as the Greek signifies Or that Philip was ane extraordinary evangelist because he is called ane evangelist Act. 2. 8. for he was a deacon Act. 6. and Act. 8. 5. did preach the gospell but was not therefore one of these extraordinary evangelists whose office was to cease in the Church And Finallie He tells us that ordination and jurisdiction is properly no worke of ane Evangelist but rather preaching and spreading the gospell Ans. 1. This man casts up but a mist of Insignificant words in this distinction whereby he endeavoures to elude so clear a scripture Timothies Evangelistick office wee see is a gripping argument which our Informer would faine Elude but with what success shall presently appear He grantes he was ane Evangelist in a large sense or a preacher but not in the strict sense but what that strict sense is in which he denyes Timothy to be ane Evangelist he doth not clear and so his strict sense is left without sense and his distinction must flie with one wing He knew that his assigneing ane explication of his strict sense would have so palpably included Timothy that his evasion would be presently shut up therefore he left the other branch of his distinction a meer mute under the clouds and gives us a distinction which stands upon one leg 2. If he will take Eusebius sense Hist. lib. 3. cap. 33. oâ—… 37. with some he will tell him that this title is taken but two wayes either for such as wrote the Gospel in which sence we grant that none of them were Evangelists or such as taught the Gospel and these againe were either such as had ordinary places or gifts or whose plaees and giftes were extraordinary that is who were not settled upon any one charge but were Apostolorum vice having a vicarius care of all the Churches as the Apostles had the principal care The Evangelists as Ambrose phrases it did Evangelizar sine Cathedra or preached without a fixed charge Here by the way I cannot but admire the inconsistant subtilty may I call it so of Saravia de divers grand minist cap. 6. who in answer to Beza pleading that the appellation of Evangelist is given not to every on who preached but to the Apostles temporary coadjutors in watring the Churches not yet fully constitut c. tells him that Apostolus nunquam Timotheum Euangelistae nomine compellat That the Apostle no where puts the Title of Evangelist upon Timothy and that this title was given to none but Philip. Yet immediatly addes-Evangelistae nomen non nego Timotheo quem Paulus Evangelistae â—…pus sacere jubet I deny not the name of Evangelist to Timothy whom the Apostle bides do the work of ane Evangelist If he deny not this name to him and the thing therein imported how can he quanel the Apostles not putting this title upon him or deny him the title and the peculiar office therein imported Calvin takes the word hereto Import that special extraordinary office mentioned Ephes. 4. Now that Timothy was such ane Evangelist is already fully proved and by consequence that the objection stands untouched and unanswered by him viz. That he was ane unfixed extraordinarie officer and not to continue and therefore any authority which he is supposed to have over this Church layes no foundation of Prelacie For he sayes nothing to this consequence but admitts it upon the supposition that Timothy was ane Evangelist in a strict sense and ane extraordinary officer Cartwright answering the Rhemises upon this place takes it in the strict sense mentioned telling the Jesuites that Paules calling Timothy once ane Evangelist hath more pith in it then all denominations of Pishop that others can give him 3. The Informers reason of denying the special office of Evangelist to be here imported viz That he might be as well called a Deacon as being enjoyned to fulfull his Miuistery or Deaconship in the Greek is very poor For 1. It being clear that the Scripture holdes out such ane office as that of Evangelist specifically distinct fromother offices Ephes. 4. as this man acknowledges and it being equally certain that this or any other office and relation hath a work and dutie proper andpeculiar therunto and likewayes that the office layes ane obligation upon the person who carryes it to perform the duties thereof And Finallie Jt being evidently the Apostles Scope from the consideration of the office to exhort to the duties suitable thereunto its destrable by its own light that Timothy is here stirred up to the duties of that peculiar station office which we have proved he sustained thereforit cannot be understood of a general Ministery or service Will any doubt what the sense of such phrases is do thework of a parent do the work of a Master do the work of a Pastour
the deacons Phil 1. were meer Presbyters he is forced to acknowledge and so condemnes our Informers shifts about Extraneus Bishops accidently there or with the Apostle himself or that the Diocesian is included in the word Bishop in epistola ad Philippenses salutem dicit Episcopis diaconis unde quemadmodum intelligitur Philippensium ecclesiam habuisse Presbyteros diacâ—…nos c. de Grad Cap 8. In the Epistle to the Philippians Paul salutes the Bishops and deacones hence as we are given to understand that the Church of the Philippians had Presbyters and Deacons c. Again the Informer layes aside the Highpreist as a type of Christ when he pleads for prelacie from the Jewish Church-government But in this Saravia gives him the lie for t He holds the inferiour priests to have been in there administration types of Christ as well as the high priest And 2. That the Government whether of the inferiour or high priests is not abolished as typical de honor praes prysb deb cap 10 de Divers grad Miniser cap 14. Besides the Informer holds that that place 2 Tim. 2 4. Commandes Churchmen to be as Abstract as possible from publik civil imployments and not intangle themselves therein But Saravia adstricts the affairs of this life spoken of in that Scripture unto the endeavours which belonges to the nourishment and mantainance of this life and holds that it doth not at all speak of nor discharge Churchmens holding of publick state imployments under Princes He minces not the matter as this man Vitae negotia saith he sunt ea quibus quae ad hujus vitae victum pertinent comparantur non quae sunt principis aut civitatis publica And de â—…on praesul Presbit deb he praefixes this title unto Cap 26. As that which he undertakes to prove Idem Homo tanquam episcopus curam ecclesiae Domino Iesu fidem ac obsequium regi tanquam ipsius beneficiarius reddere potest That the same man may perform his duety to Christ as a Bishop and attend the Church and also render faith and obedience to the King as his vassal c. The doubter nixt excepts to better purpose That they could not be Bishops because they were not settled at these places especially Timothy had he been Bishop at Ephesus he had been fixed to his charge but he was left only there upon occasional imployment and for a season 1 Tim. 1 3. To this he answers 1. That they were rare and singular persons usefull for the Apostle at that time and therefore it is no wonder that they were called from their particular charge when the Churches good required it Philip. 2 19 20 2 Cor. 8 23. As with us a Minister may be called from his charge for a season when the good of the Church else where requires it To which I rejoyne 1. This answer supposes the thing in Question viz That Timothie and Titus were once fixed as Bishops in these Churches But the ground of the exception is That because their occasionall transient Imployment in these places is so clear expresse therefor they were never fixed to these Churches as their particular charge but had it for their charge to water all the Churches which the Apostles planted and attend their planetarie motion from Church to Church So that they cannot be in their worke and duty paralleled to a Pastours transient Imployment from his particular charge for the Churches greater good whose fixed charge is supposed But we have proved that Timothie and Titus their ordinarie Imployment was this transient and unfixed Ministery which is clearly holden out in scriptur both befor and after their officiating in these Churches 2 It is also cleared above that as the scripture is utterly silent of their return to these Churches againe after Pauls recaling them from the same and after their transient Imployment therein So we have made it likewayes appear that they did officiat thereafter in many other Churches performing to them the same duties of Evangelists as in Ephesus and crete And that in Ephesus elders were called Bishops and had the whole Episcopal charge before Timothie committed to them in paules last farewell In a word it can never be made good that any who were fixed to particular charges did so travell up and down as these Evangilists are proved to have done Againe he tâ—…lls us That Gerard thinks they were first Evangelists then made Bishops by Paul at Ephesus and Crete Ans. If he think so too he must quite all his plea for their Episcopacie from these Epistles for Paul calls Timothy to doe the worke of ane Evangelist here and Titus worke was the same And he must understand this in the strict sense if he offet Gerards exception to any purpose which according to him secludes power in ordination and jurisdiction So that a worke and office being enjoyned Timothy in this Epistle which hath nothing to doe with ordination and iurisdiction he was not yet made a Bishop and if not yet it will be hard to find out his commission and patent afterward in scripture since he was in perpetual evangilistick Imployments and sure if Paul ever designed him Bishop over Ephesus he would not have called the elders of Ephesus Bishopes befor Timothy in his last farewell We heard Saravia plead that Paul intitles not Timothy an Evangelist non compellat nomine Evangelistae how did he not see that that Paul numquam compellat nomine episcopi never puts upon Timothy or Titus the title or name of a Bishope neither in the inscriptiones of the Epistles writen to them nor in any place of these Epistles or else where in scripture nor injoynes any of them to do the work of Bishop As he injoynes one of them expresly to do the work of ane Evangelist And since the Apostle disertis verbis in 〈◊〉 these elders of Ephesus Bishops and to use Saravia's phrase compellat nomine Episcoporum and that with the signal emphasis of being made Bishops by the Holy Ghost his reason from epiâ—…hets and compellations will the more strongely evinc them to be such 2. This is a great degrading of ane Evangelist and derogatorie to his high function to make him a Bishop The Councel of Chaldecon judges it sacrilegious to degrade a Bishop to a Presbyter such must he acknowledge this degrading to be and therefore that being once Evangelists of necessity they behoved to continue so Next the Doubter objects what we have been saying that Paul gave to the elders of Ephesus the Charge not to Timothy which he would not have done had he been Bishop since it is probable he was present at this time for v. 4. He was in Pauls companie Here he gingerly nibbles at this Argument least it prick him omitting these pregnant circumstances of the context 1. That this was Pauls last and farewell exhortation 2. That he not only gives these elders the Charge over that Church before Timothy and not
such a president or primat as diotrephes affected to be distinct from the Divinely appointed Bishop And therefore whatever he might suppose to be creeping in at that tyme he must needs upon this ground interpret it to be a recesse from the divine appointment and in so far a Corruption As for what our Informer repeats here againe ad nauseam That Bishops were immediatly the Church before all the Apostles were gone and imediatly after which is a commentary upon Timothy and Titus and the Asian Angels and Diotrephes I answer I beleive indeed as to his last instance that there were Diotrephesies earely enugh and Beza's Episcopus humanus or fixed president but that there was either in the Apostles time or ane hundered years and more afterward I speak far within compass his Diocesian Prelat with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction in a Diocess he will assoone joyn the poles together as prove it by any faithful and authentick Testimony CHAP. XII The Informers appeal to antiquity in the point of Episcopacy That antiquity is at most testis facti but not judex veri may witness matter of fact but is no judge of what is right therein proved from the Testimony of Scripture and the fathers The Informer's reasoning on this head reduced to a formal Syllogisme and discussed That in the first purest age the Church was governd by Presbyters withtout Bishopes proved by Testimonys of the fathers particularly of Ierome His Testimony at Large vindicated from the exceptiones of the Informer OUr Informer hath by this time got out of the straites of his Scripture Arguments for prelacy and his pretended replyes to Scripture arguments against them Wherin we have seen how pittifully he lies been Bruillied in his endeavours to put the fairding of some Scripture Characters upon this Monster The Diocesian Prelat Now he wil lanch out in to the vast Ocean of Antiquity wherein he supposes and not altogother amisse that this Leviathan can swim much better And therefore he fills up the Third part of the pamplet with a tedious legend of human Testimonyes in relation to Bishops But in this his argueing from antiquity he playes the same petty Sophister as in his pretended Scripture proofes For he is still pleading for a versatil Chimaera of his own braine and dare not state the Question as to the Prelat now existent in his Diocesian and erastian mould like to whom if he will shew me but one Prelat among all his ragged Testimonies I will yeeld the Cause to him So that we are not concened in his Testimonies They being all Mute or Ambiguous as to our debate Wee shall therefore proceed to Consider the substantials of his Argument on this head and add some Chapters which will be found abundantly to cutt the sinneâ—…es of his reasoning from pretended Testimonies of the Fathers and vindicat our Cause even in point of Antiquity 〈◊〉 I Suppose this man if he will not renounce his protestant profession cannot but grant that it is not Antiquity as he call it or human Testimonies but the Scriptures of truth which most judge in this debate So that I hop I may suppose that he lookes upon his Antiquitity as ane accessorie appendix onely to his Scripture arguments and that the Scripture is not for him but against him I hope it is conuincingly apparent from that is said above we must to the law and the Testimony in this and all other points of faith Antiquity without the first Scripture antiquity deserves not the name Id adulterum quod posterius id verum quod pri nium said Tertullian That is adulterat which is Last and trere which is first I am the way the truth and the Life said Christ but not I am Custome And Cyprian tells us that Consuetudo sins veritate est vetusias erroris Antiquity without truth is but a mouldy error Our Lord himself rejected this argument it was said of old and apposes unto it but I say Well may we then oppose the Scripture sayings to our Informer's it was said of old and by our Lords warrand reject his pretences from Antiquity to warrand any thing which the word condemnes and for this we have good warrand of antiquity it self for the fathers universaly doe hold that onelie the Scriptures must judge in points of faith Sunt libri Dominici quorum authoritati utrique consentimus utrique credimus there being in them all things to be believed and practised utrique servimus ibi quaeramus ecclesiam ibi discutiamus causam nostram is great Augustins advice The books of the Lord are they to whose Authority we both consent which we both beleive To which we both submit There let us seek the Church There let us discusse our Cause Jerom on Chap. 23 of Matth. tells us quod de scripturis authoritatem non habet eaedem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur That which derives not its authority from Scripture the contemneing of it is as ready as the proof is offered and on the 1. Chap. of Hag Quae absque athoritate Testimoniis scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit Gladius Dei Such things as men of there own accord find out forge upon pretence of Apostolick tradition with out the authority and Testimonies of Scriptures the sword of God strikes throw the same Besides this discovers the plea from Antiquity to be very Impertiment in this debate Because the Question betwixt us is not defacto but de jure not what sort of Bishops have been as to matter of fact introduced into the Church of old or of late but by what warrand and right they have possessed their places We alledge and prove that the present Prelat now existent stands condemned by Christ the great lawgiver his rules in point of Church Government set down in his Testament Now to answer this Charge with humane Testimonies as to Custom or practise of the Church even granting that his Testimonies did prove the matter of fact viz That our present Prelat is exemplified in the ancient Bishops what is it but to oppose humane corruption to Gods ordinance The practise of men to Gods rule and mens Testimonies who are liars to the divine Oracles of the God of truth This man thinkes it a Herculean argument when he drawes his human Testimonies as to prelacy neer the Apostles time as if he had travelled to Hercules pillars and wonders how we can suppose that the Church could so soon alter the divine institutions But I pray how long was it after Gods Holy law was proclaimed from heaven by his own terrible voice that the wholl Church of Israel together with Aaron himself set up and worshiped the golden Calf contrary unto the very express letter of the Second command Now suppose that idolatry several hundered years afterward had pleaded this Antiquity or ancient Custome of the Church of Israel after frequently imitated and which had its plausible pretexts of intention to
our obligation to preserve the Government of the Church of Scotland page 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59. His fancied contradiction which he imputes to us as to the sense of the first and second article refuted The Informer stands in opposition to Mr Crofton The sense of the English Presbyterians as to the first Article not different from our own ibid. That the English Presbyterians did looke upon themselves as oblidged to reform according to our pattern which is the Scripture pattern proved at large from several passages of Mr Crofton page 60 61 62 63 64 65 The Informers allegeance that the first Article is ambiguous and that our Church and state being but a part of the imposers of the Oath their sense cannot determine its meaning vain and impertinent pag 65 66 67. Chap. 4. page 67. The grounds upon which the Informer undertakes to prove that the obligation of the Covenant ceaseth although its oblidging force for the time past were supposed examined He begs a supposition of the indifferency of prelacy how poorly and impertinently cleard page 68 69 70. His first ground taken from the command and authority of Rulers generally considered and found impertinent to support his conclusion though his supposition were granted page 71 72. His 2d ground touching the alteration of the matter sworn as also his third taken from the hinderance of a greater good by the performance resolving in his sense wholly upon the Magistrates command absurd when applyed to our case which is fully cleared page 73 74 75 76 77 78. His absurd and inconsistent reasoning about a greater command overruling the lesse and our obligation to obey the rulers as prior to that of the Covenant page 7. ibid. also page 79 80. His Argument taken from Num 30. examined at large he contradicts Casuists and the text hath manifold incosistencies in his reasoning while resolving all his rules into the Magistrates lawes the Informers rules pleaded against him and according to the mould of his ple ding doth cast dirt upon the Magistrate page 80 81 82 83 84 85 86. His impertinent repetitions some further absurdities wherewith his Explication of the second rule in reference to the Magistrate is lyable page 87 88. His Argument from Eccles. 8 20. weighed page 89 90. His limitations of the third rule anent the Oaths hindering a greatergood resolving still upon the command of the powers absurd and contradicted by Casuists and many wayes crosses his design and pleading cleared at large page 91 92 93 94 95 96. His reflection upon Ministers in leaving their charge examined as also his Arguments from the Rechabites page 97 98 99. Chap. 5 page 99. The Informers answer to our Argument for the Covenant obligation taken from the Oath to the Gibeonites His trifling way of moulding our Argument And in what sense wee plead this passage page 100 101. The Informers absurdity which he endeavours to fasten upon us in this Argument viz that an Oath can bind against a command of God impertinent to the point and such as the Informer himself stands oblidged to answer in maintaining the Authority of the sacred text page 102 103. he is contradicted by Jacksonand inconsistent with himself in this point Page 104 105 the violence which he offers to that passage Deut. 20 10 discovered and cleared from Interpreters and many circumstances of the sacred text and parallel Scriptures page 106 107 108 109 110. His grosse and foolish distinguishing in this transaction of Joshua the league and the peace discovered page ibid. as also his opposition to learned interpreters here He supposes but doth not prove a limitation in Gods command to cutt of the Canaanites His absurd supposition that Joshua brake his league with them when he know them to be such page 111 112. his instance anent Rahab to prove the limitation of Gods command to destroy the Canaanites considered and emproven against him As also his Argument from the 11 of Joshua 19 examined And Solomons imposing bond servants upon these nations pleads nothing for him page 113 114 115 116 117 118 119. The manyfold inconsistencies of his answers upon this point observed page 120 121 122 123 124. The impertinency of all he answersupâ—… this point though granted His answers to our Arguments from Zedekiahs Oath to the King of Babylon examined As also to the Argument taken from Psal. 15 4 Page 125 126 127 128. His reflection on the Assembly 1638. In declaring the nullity of the Oaths of the Intrants under Prelats groundlesse and impertinent to the point ibid. His argument offered by way of retorsion Comissaries though abjured in the Covenant are owned by us and why may not also Bishops without hazard of perjury largely scannd The vast difference betwixt the one and the other practice cleared in several points both in respect of the officers owned and of the manner of owning them page 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136. THIRD PART Chap. 1 pag. 2. THe question stated and cleared from our Churches state before and since the introduction of prelacy and the different condition of Presbyterian Ministers and Conformists page 2 3 4 5 6. The different grounds which the presbyterian and prelatick party and this man particularly plead upon for the peoples adherence exhibited Separation in many cases not Schism The many groundlesse suppositions that this charge of Schisme is founded upon exhibit and cleared page 7 8 9 10 11 12. The state of the question largely drawen forth upon a true account of the matter of fact and of our principles aâ—… Arguments offered to acquit this practice of the charge of Schisme such as 1 That the Presbyterian party are this true Church 2. That they are under no obligation to joyn to the prelatick interest 3. They have a ground of retorsion of all that is pleaded by the prelatick party on this point 4. The Covenant obligation engadges to the practice controverted which is cleared in severall particulars page 13 14 15 16 17. 5. It falls under Scripture obligations which is cleared in several particulars page 18 19 20 21. 6. That the Prelatick party will be found in their persecution the grand renters and dividers of this Church 7. This practice controverted hath nothing of the ingredients of a sinfull separation from this Church which is cleared in 7 particulars at large page 22 23 24 25 26 27 28. Finally this practice cannot be that Schisme abjured in the Covenant The Informers Argument hereanent emproven against him and that the disowning of presbyterian Ministers falls under the imputation of such a Schisme cleared page 27 28 29. Chap. 2 page 29. The Informers charge of internall Schisme upon non conformists his Elogies of Schism and Testimony of Cyprian considered and this charge retorted upon him page 30 31 32 33. His charge of condemning all Churches for a thousand years who have owne Bishops liturgies c. examined found groundlesse and impertinent to the point His Argument from Rom
14. Examined and retorted upon him His charge of Externall Schsme in separating in acts of Worship fortified by that passage Heb. 10 25 Examined page 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42. The doubters argument from 1 Cor. 12 v. 31. that wee ought to seeke the best most edifying gifts advantageously for himself but fraudulently proposd by the Informer Considerations to clear and enforce this Argument The Informers answers examined at large page 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 42 His Argument for adhering to Conformists taken from the reciprocall tye betwixt a Minister and people Ezek. 33 8. Heb. 13 17. Mal. 2 7. 1 Thess. 5 11 12. As also from Mr Durham on the revelation page 105 106. examined at large page 53 54 55 56 57 58 59. the premised texts improâ—…en against Conformists plea from this supposed tye and relation ibid. Chap. 3 page 58. The doubters argument from Curats not entering by a call from the people and that passage Acts 14 23. cleared and emproven page 59 60 61 62 63. The Informers first answer that several whom we refused to own entered by this call ibid. his exception upon the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 examined his first answer touching the use of the word to expresse the action of onesingle person proved from Acts 10 41. examined the use of the word cleared from parallels criticks and Interpreters page 64 65 66. His second Answer that Greek writers use this Word to signifie ordination without suffrages and that this was the action of Paul and Barnabas examined The granting that this was the action of Paul and Barnabas distinct from the Churches suffrage will not help the Informer Page 67 68 69. He walks crosse to interpreters in this answer page 70 71 72. His third answer that wee will thus give advantage to independants for popular election of Ministers examined wherein the difference betwixt the independents and us in this point is cleared from the Judgement and principles of Presbyterian writers page 73 74 75 76 77. His last answer is that if wee disown Conformists for want of this call we null the Ministry of the Christian world for above a thousand years upward and the Ministry of this Church to the year 1649. examined even the later Antiquity clear for this call by the testimony of Marcus Antonius de Dominis the Council of Paris anno 559 the examples of Eradius Ambrose c. Yea of Bishop Bilsone page 78 79 80 81. That patronages are abjured in the Covenant cleared against the Informer and his exception anâ—… our Churches perjury because of the use of patronages after the Covenant repelled In what sense the prelatick ordination is pleaded by us in disowning conformists of the term Curat The Informer honestly grants that it signifyes one who serves the cure though not the Minister of the place but the substitute of another page 82 83 84 85. His answer anent the charge of Perjury and reasoning anent the lawfulnesse of disowning Ministers because of Scandals who are not censured examined His reasoning found frivolous and retorted upon him page 86 87 88. his great argument from Math. 23. Anent the supposed command of hearing the Scribes and Pharisees examined Several circumstances of the sacred text offered to discover how very difficult it is to prove that there is a command of hearing them as Church officers The consequence from hearing of them though granted to the hearing of them denyed upon five grounds As also his reasoning from Simeon Anna Joseph and Mary their attending the Temple-Worship examined page 89 90 91 92 93. Mr Durham on Revel 3. pleads nothing for the Informer in this point page 94 95 96. His reasons to prove there is a command of hearing Matth. 23. as above described examined and repelled page â—…7 several answers of the Informer to our charge of intrusion and the queries that he propones thereupon as also his retorsion upon this charge examined and found vain and frivolous page 98 99 100 101 102. His answers to the doubters Argument anent the abjuration of Episcopall Ministers in the Covenant as dependent upon the hierarchy confuted His retorsion that wee were bound upon this ground to disown all the Ministers at the taking of the Covenant who had been ordained by Prelats unlesse they renounced their ordination ane empty knack reflecting on the reformed Churches justifying the popes plea against them page 103 104 105. Chap. 4 page 105 The Informers answer to the doubters Argument anent separation from a corrupt Church In what respects and how far this separation is owned His answer anent the not separating from the Churches of Corinth and Galatia and the asian Churches Rev. 2 3. Though tainted with most grosse corruptions c examined The discrepancy of our case from theirs in this point cleard in some particulars and our cause fortified from Scripture directions to these Churches page 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113. The impertinency of these instances to our case cleared from hence several wayes ibid. The Informers answer to these Scriptures 2 Cor. 6 14 15 16. 1 Cor. 5 11 2. Thess. 3 6. Rev. 1â—… 3. Examined and found contradictory to his concession anent a necessary separation from a corrupt Church when highly corrupted page 114 115 116 117. His answer to the retorted charge of Schisme upon Conformists for seperating from this Church examined and found naught He therein cuts the sinnewes of his arguing against us page 118 119 120. His answer and reasoning concerning lecturing examined God never appointed a dumb reading the Levites gave the sense of the Law c. the exceptions anent the disuse of our first Method of lecturing and the want of Circumcision and the passover for a considerable time in the Jewish Church help him not in this point page 121 122 123 124 125. Chap 5. page 126. The Informers answer and reasoning upon the point of scandal and offence in reference to the owning of Conformists considered The Informers groundlesse supposition anent the duty of hearing Conformists Our Orthodox sense of Rom 14. and 1 Cor. 8. in the point of Scandal cleard at large from the exposition of Chrysostome on the first text and Pareus on the second page 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133. The Informer upon supposition that a practice is lawfull and offence flowes from it holds that the command of the powers will loose the giver of offence from guilt and remove this liberty of the practice and the nature of offence how absurdly cleared in fyve points page 134 135 136 138. He is herein contradicted by Amesius The instances of the Brazen serpent and Gideons ephod improven against him ibid. His absurd glosse upon Acts 15 28 that the things before indifferent were made necessary by the meere determination of the Concil largely repelled Calvin classes him with the Papists herein His manifold inconsistencies observed and absurd exposition of scandalum acccptum and datum which
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
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
comming mediatly from God but immediatly from men by a determination of the generall divine principle and ane application therof to particulares which they illustrat by that passage where Paul sayes to the rest speak I not the Lord applying Gods generall command anent divorce to the Corinthians particular case There are likewise mediat accidental commands deduced from Gods generall Rule upon rare transient occasiones yet necessitating to such a determination So the abstaining from blood and thinges strangled was enjoyned Act. 15. to the gentiles and as necessarie upon the ground of Charitie when the use grew scandalus although the law hereanent was abrogat as being originallie Ceremoniall Hence we may Inferr that this Informer in denying the necessitie of what is commanded only under some generall head Cutts of from the Categorie of things necessarie all the duties in the decalogue which are subserviant to the duties expressly named and thus destroyes the Spirituality and extent of the law acknowledged by all divines yea Cuts off all necessarie Scripture consequences and duties founded therupon as Ministers preaching the gospell administring the Seales Infant baptism womens receaving the Sacrament the Christian Sabbath c. But to come neerer him in the Nixt place I suppose this man will not deny That there are many things sufficiently discharged and consequently unlawfull by Scripture rule because theyare not commanded either mediatly or immediatly and that all ordinances of worship Sacraments and the substantialls of government also doe require clear divine commands and institutions by the acknowledgement of all protestant divines So that the not commanding of any part or supposed ingredient therof is a sufficient discharge discovering the thing superadded to be sinfull Not that which seems good unto thee shalt thoudoe to the Lord thy God but what He hath commanded thou shalt add nothing thereunto nor diminish from it adde thou not to his words lest He reprove thee and thou be found a liar In vaine they doe worship me teaching for doctrines the commandements of men See deut 4. 2. prov 30. 6. rev 22. 18. deut 12. 32. Isay. 29 13. These Scriptures do clearly fortifie this principle Otherwayes if he deny this He will open a door to all popish superstition yea deny the very definition of it assigned by all sound divines in calling it ane opposite extrem in the excess to true religion adding to Gods worship beyonde what is commanded Our Lord reprehended the pharisees their washing of hands befor dinner a decent ceremonie in it self as simply unlawfull when they made it a point of Religion Because it was beyond the command That text Isay. 29 13. In vaine they worhsip me teaching for doctrinés the commandements of men is applyed in this case unto them Our answer to the Papists demand Where finde we their bastardSacraments and other Superstitiones discharged is That they are discharged as sinfull in Gods worship because not commanded Should they rejoyne with this man that this will prove them to be not simpy necessarie but not unlawfull upon the ground which He alleages let him conjectur what his answer would be and correct himself For the substantials of government He cannot but grant that they fall under the same consideration It being most certain and universally acknowleged that the Scripture layes down rules as to the excercise of both Keyes of Order and jurisdiction the officers and censures of the Church Nay himself asserts page 118. That the substantials of government and policie of the Church are utterly necessarie and unalterable Now it being thus the Question is whither the diocesian Bishop or Episcopal government be among those things which must either have a clear Scripture institution or warrand or else is to be rejected as sinfull and unlawfull That the diocesian Bishop is such I prove it thus the Bishop which He pleads for is supposed by him to be a Church officer distinct from and Superior to a Pastour or presbyter haveing a distinct worke ordination and qualifications Therfore say I Hee must either have clear warrand or institution in the word or Hee is unlawfull The consequence leans upon these clear Scripture grounds 1. This officer cannot but fall in among the substantials of government wherin the Scripture is full and perfect as himself acknowleges So as to make even the man of God perfect It is full in setting down all administrations relating so the Key of order as prayer and thanksgiveing 1. Tim. 2. 1 2. 1. Cor. 14. 14 15. Singing of Psalmes preaching of the word publick reading of it and Cathechiseing falls within the compasse of Christs commands and regulations Collos. 3. 16. 1. Cor. 14. 15 16. Ephes. 5. 19. 2. Cor. 3. 14. Matth. 28. 19 20. 2. Tim. 4. 2. Hebr. 6. 1 2. So doth the administration of Sacraments Baptisme and the Lords Supper Matth. 28. 18 19. 1. Cor. 11. 23. And as these administrations of the Key of Order so all the administrations relating to the Key of jurisdiction or discipline falls under Christs clear institutions Such as Ordination Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 4. 14. The dogmatick power as to Ministeriall judgeing of doctrine Act. 15. The critick power as to the publick rebuke and purging out of the Scandalous and receaving of the penitent Matth. 18. 15 16. 1. Thess. 5. 14. Compared with Matth. 16. 19. John 20. 21. So the diatactick power in relation to Ritualls and and alterable Circumstances is clearly asserted and rules laid downe anent its exercise 1 Cor. 14. And as the administrations ordinances and acts of Church government So the administratores officers yea and Courtes falls under clear Scripture warrands and institutiones Pastoures Doctores Elders Deacons their severall works the greater and lesser Church judicatories have their clear warrand 1. Tim. 4. 14. Matth. 18. 17. Act. 15. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. Now let this Informer shew me a reasone of this distinctnes If not to point out all the substantialls of government and if it be lawfull to add any new officers or administrations or ordinances to these expressly warranted He dare not say but is unlawfull therfore say I upon the same ground that hee shall acknowledge this to be unlawfull this eminent officer the Bishop or Arch-Bishop must either produce his warrand and institution among the forementioned Rules or he must be holden unlawfull 2. The Scripture coming this length in the forementioned condescendencie in point of Church government as to Ordinances Officers Lawes Censures Courtes c it must needs amount to determin Some species of government and presbitery and Episcopacie being of contrary moulds it must needs appointe and authorize the One and discharge the other For all Church offices and officers have a positive institution 1. Cor. 12. 28. God hath sett c. Ephes. 4. 11. God hath given c. Rom. 12. 6 7. The office not given is not a gift of grace And surely the command not to add to the word includes a command
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
For 1. He grants that these two words Bishop and elder signifies one and the same officer oftentimes supposeing that sometimes they express diverse officers but where can he shew us that the word Episcopus signifies one officer and Preshiter another when the Spirit of God is pointing out therby the Churches standing Officers and Ministers and not when either the one or the other is in a generall sense applyed to ane Apostle 2. The state of the Question is whither the scriptur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 designe a higher ordinary officer then a Presbyter And this Informer should have adverted that the drift of the argument from the texts mentioned is to prove the Apostles promiscuous use of these words in describing the office of the highest ordinary office bearers in the Church Moreover the Diocesian Episcopus is ane ordinary officer haveing the inspection over some handereds of flocks and the sole power of jurisdiction and ordination in the diocesse is by him held to be ane officer of Gods appointment by this designation of Bishop as the Characteristick of his office is distinguished from Pastoures or elders Now if presbyterians doe prove that wherever the word Bishop is used to point at ane ordinary standing officer in the Church it imports a pastor or presbyter no higher officer they sufficiently over throw the diocesian Episcopus or Bishop of his mould as having no scripture warrand And if he grant that in the forementioned Scriptures other passages where the word Bishop is used to point at a necessarie standing Church officer it signifieth no higher officer then ane elder or ordinarie Minister he grants enough against himself all that the presbiterians desire for there from it followes necessarly that their diocesian Episcopus or Bishop contradistinct from superior to the preaching presbyter is apochriphal antiscripturall Since the preaching presbyter Bishop are the same ordinarie highest officer in all the Holy Ghosts expressions theranent 3. Whereas he denyes that we con prove That the officer meaned by these words is never understood of any above the degree of ane ordinary minister Let him add this necessary limitation when the words are applyed to designe ane ordinary standing officer which he must admit if he speak to purpose and the proofe is very easy since the forementioned Texts and all the parallels where elder or Bishop is thus used doe evince it Again 4. Since this Informer with his followes have diversified the Bishop from the elder in the manner above exprest we challing him as the affirmer to shew in all the new Testament where the officer meaned by this Word Episcopus or Bishop when pointing at ane ordinary standing officer in the Church is to be understood of any above the degree of a Presbyter or Pastor of a congregation This lyes upon him to mak good else if Episcopuss denotte only a Presbyter sure the cause of the Diocesian Prelat is lost He fortifies his answer with two Reasons 1. We find the name elder given to the Apostles themselves 1 Pet 5 1. Iohn 2. 1. Epist. 3 1. And if Apostles be called elders why not also Bishops Ans 1. The pointe debeateable is whether the word Bishop and elder doe Import the same officer when applyed to a constant standing officer in the Church His Presbyterian doubter offers the forementioned Texts to prove this and he answers That one of these names are sometimes attribut to ane extraordinary officer whose formal office is ceased Now how impertinent this is to the pointe and Queston let any judge To prove that Episcopus or Bishop imports ane ordinary standing officer above a Presbyter and that the Word Bishop and Presbyter signify not the same ordinary officer because sometimes the Word elder may be applyed to ane Apostle is a consequence as we use so say a baculo ad angulum and known to no logik 2. We told him already that we prove enough against him when we prove that the Scripture-Episcopus or Bishop is never found to Import any ordinary officer above the Presbyter and that the Office Work Qualifications Duties of these officers as ordinary standing officers are one and the same 3. The Instance of the Apostles assumeing the name of elder doth in this further appear to be ane impertinent exception to the Argument adduced in that the office of ane Apostle is in Scripture both by a proper name work qualification call c. diversified and distinguished from that of ane ordinary elder so that though in a general sense the Apostles be called elders their Specifick difference from the ordinary elder is apparent But this Informer will never shew the least vestigies of the Diocesian Bishops distinction from the preaching elder or Presbyter in any of these respects And therefore his reason added here viz. The Bishop may be called ane elder as well as ane Apostle and yet be ane officer superior to him is a begging of the Question since he cannot shew that there is a higher ordinary officer then a Pastor or Presbyter appointed in the Word nor can he shew any designation qualification work or ordination of his Diocesian Bishop as distinguished from the Presbyter by the Prelatists And therefore the Apostles being called elders can no more ground a distinction betwixt the Bishop and the elder then betwixt the Pastor and the elder whom he acknowledges to be one and the same or betwixt the Minister and the elder I suppose one should alledge the Pastor to be a higher officer then the preaching elder and Presbyter notwithstanding that in Scripture their names and qualifications are one as of the Bishop and Presbyter and should ground his opinion on this Informers reason here viz. that though the two words are promiscuosly used often times of the same officer yet the officer meaned by one of these may be somtimes understood of one above the degree of ane ordinary Minister what will he say to his own reason pleading for this foolish distinction Would he not say that the Apostle and elder are elsewhere clearly distinguished on Scripture not the Pastour and the elder which answer he must here bestow upon himself Sure this man will not deny but that the various Church officers both ordinary and extraordinary have their proper formall office is deciphered and distinguished from other offices and officers As Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and particularly he will not deny that there is such ane ordinary Church officer as the Pastor or Presbyter distinguished by his proper designation from others notwithstanding that the Apostles took this name in a general sense So that from this it followes that if the Bishops proper designation work ordination qualifications as distinct from a Presbyter cannot be produced he must be alwayes understood in that sense viz. ane ordinary Pastour and no more And not as the Apostles when termed elders whose distinct Superior office and proportioned designation is
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
and others owned as such a tradition lib 1. de pecc mer. Basil names four Apostolick traditions signeing with the cross praying to the east anointeing with oyle praying in the standing postur from Easter to whitsuntyd See the Appendix to jus divinum minise Evan prop. 2. The informer and his fellowes make a great bustle anent the condemneing of Aerius for holding that Bishops and presbyters are all one But Beza could have informed him de grad 346. that Epiphanius Haeres 75 imputs to him as great heresies these Tenets 1. That he held it unlawfull to offer and pray for the dead 2. That he held that Saincts departed were not to be invocat 3. That there were not fixed fast dayes to be keept 4. That the jewish pascal was not to be observed because ourpassover is already offered Now if our Informer condemne him for these also we weed care the lesse for his condemning him in the point of prelacy 3. It is certain that the account of the first times immediatly after the Apostles is as to mater of fact very dark uncertain consequently a very slippery rule Hegesi pus apud Euseb lib 3. Cap 28. tells us that immediatly after the Apostolick age was gone tunc impii erroris conspiratio per seductionem eorum qui alienam doctrinam trad ant initium caepit Then the conspiracy of wicked error but the seducings of those who delivered another doctrine took its begining Eusebius himself the prime writer from whom in a manner is the wholl of all that is delivered anent Church Government and Bishops and who presents these fragmens of writers out of which our episcopal men gaâ—…her up their proofes in the proem of his History acknowledges that he is in that worke entered into a dark desert therein he hath no footsteps of any goeing before him but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some litle occasions or some pitty narations which every one in their own time hath left and delivered let any read haumer ane Inglish Bishop his translation of Eusebius wherein this will be found very clear Scalliger prolegom in Chron. Euseb. Saith Intervallum illud ab ultimo capite actorum c. the nterval from he last chotter of the Acts of the Apostles until the midst of the reigne of Trajan in which tract Quadratus and a Ignatius flourished let our informer observe this as to Ignatius may be truly called with varrâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or obscur wherin nothinthat is certan hath come to our hand concerning the affairs of Christians except some very few things which the enemies of godlines carches up by the way such as Suetonius Cornelius Tacitus Plenius Cecilianus which gap that Eusebius might fill up he drew some things without discretion and choise out of the upotiposes or exemples of I know not what Clement for he is not that learned Clement who wrote the Stromataâ—…â—…nd out of the fyve books of hegesippus a writer no better Tilen himself a great pleader for the Episcopal cause yet tells us Contr 3 l. 2 c. 2 Not. 39. and c. 3. Note 6 That the history of these first times hath great blacks and gapes which the Spurius Clements and other writers of the same stamp filled up with petty fables drawen from their own braine That from the end of the acts of the Apostles until Traian's times thereis almost nothing extant which is certain hence he saith occasion was taken by men of bad dispositions to make hold to faine anything whom even the Apostles times wanted not Not to insist upon the many things written and observed of Eusebius which may invalidat the credit of his history and his many gross errors therein and in other poynts observed by Scalliger and others How fabulous is that history of Christes Epistle to Agbarus rejected even by pope Gelasius in a Councel of Seventy Bishops at room That which Philo the jew wrote of the Essae Ans a Sect among the jewes Eusebius affirms that he wrot it of Christian mmks which Scalliger shewes to be false out of Philo himself in elencho tribaeresii He proves peters crucifixion at Rome by a tomb proofe In the computation of times Scalliger observes his gross errors Nay which is more considerable he discovers gross ignorance of Scripture in saying that the Cephas reprehended by Paul was not the Apostle peter but another of the number of the Seventy disciples Besyds many things in his personall cariage and qualities which may weaken the Credit of his History as his presideing in the councel of Tyre against Athanasius and standing upon the Arrians side Scalliger in his Thesaurus temporum Animad p 268 Setts down the testimonies of the Ancients concerning his errors Arrianisme wherein some affirme that he died When he wrote the history he was ane Arian Moreover Admitt his Testimony were abeve all exception yet that his history hath been corrupted by some ignorant impostor is demonstrated from this by Didocl cap. 4. p. 119 that he maks mention of Sozomen who was born ane hundred years therafter Lastly As to the Catalogues of Bishopes which our Informer and his masters befor him exhibit to us from the Apostolick times he might have found them aboundantly invalidat by many of the learned whose judgement and Testimonys are collected by Didocl cap 4 p. 121 122 123 124 c. Which we may well challeng this man to answer Therefore we shall dismiss it with these observes 1. That Tertullian Irenaeus and others who make use of this Argument of Succession against hereticks designe only to shew a derivation of true doctrine from the Apostles against them and that the Church had the Traduoes Apostolici Seminis a derivation of the Apostles Doctrine but never meaned it of a Succession of men of the same office every way Tertullian saith Arise o truth and expone they Scriptures c. Irenâ—…us in his time speaking of this Succession from the Apostles pressing adherence to the truth which they delivered makes mention of Presbyters opportet adhaerere iis c We must adhere to them who keeps the Apostles doctrine and with the order of presbitery mentain the word And again therefore we must obey these presbiters who are in the Church who have their Succession from the Apostles as we have showen Then he adds qui cum Episcopatus Successione charisma veritatis certum Secundum placitum patris acceperunt That is who with the Succession of Episcopacy have receaved from the father the sure gift of truth thus he l. 4. c. 44. And because this Informer singes their old song who before him will still Shuffle in Bishops when the Ancients speak of Presbyters Let him remarke what he sayes lib 3. cap. 2. Speaking of the contumacy of the adversaries of truth quum autem ad eam iterim traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per Successiones presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos c But when wee apeall them again to that
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
worshipping of Images c. Doth this man think that these Reformers would have admitted such corruptions presented under another notion then the Popes authority and obtruded by this Argument that their dependance upon him being broken off they were no more to be accounted his corruptions or that they would have embraced extreme unction or some other of his Sacraments and the inferiour orders of Lectors Acoluthi Exorcists c upon some other consideration then his Sacraments or orders surely he dare not assert this and so the case is here 2. As for his reason that otherwise all Ministers and Deacons should be abjured It is very impertinent Because 1. Ministers and Deacons are officers of divine appointment so that the abuse being removed this divine officer stands but prelacie is exse or of it self contrary to the word of God as we have proved 2. The Hierarchie is abjured in that Covenant as contrary to the then discipline of this Church but so are not Presbyters and Deacons 3. We have proved that the Hierarchie and the speciall prerogatives which prelates arrogate to themselves ar originaly papal and they in a speciall manner are looked upon by him as his creatures 4. as the Papacy cannot subsist without prelacie and any otherwayes then upon its shoulders so neirher prelacie nor the Papacy can consist with Presbyterian government and Presbyters divine right and power The Doubter next objects that all Bishops depend on the Pope citing Appol pag. 395. And that therefor all Episcopacy is abjured in this oath He answers the Apologie sayes they depend upon the Pope in esse operari but asks how he proves it and tells us that to say it is so because the Pope acknowledges they depend upon him alone is a poor because evident to any ordinary capacity resolving this upon the Popes ipse dixit like a Papist and gives the Papists that advantage over Protestant Churches that a Bishop depends upon the Popes supremacie now and from the beginning wherein he saith protestants do oppose the Pope and prove that his supremacy was contradicted by Councils and Fathers Anf The silly Impertinency of this new agent of the tottering cause is here very evident in thus reflecting upon that Author whose answers to these poor arguments of the Seasonable case he dare not touch For that Pamphleter alleging that Prelates are not abjured in that Covenant but as they depend on the Pope as it abjures the five bastard Sacraments as he makes them Sacraments and that therefor the corruptions only of these offices which flow from him are abjured and as a part of his blasphemous priesthood The Apollogist taking this concession inferrs thereupon That if these offices be abjured as a part of his Hierarchie and as confirmed by and depending upon him then Prelates are abjured who depend upon him in esse operári The Prelate as such being no officer of divine appointment as the Presbyter and deacon which if they were then this Casuists argument would hold good that we were to remove the corruption and retain the institution and ordinance of God But since we do suppose the office itâ—…self to be a corruption and he hath not proved the contrary his paralled as to the bastard Sacraments is naught And to clear this matter of fact that they are a part of the Popes hierarchie by the Popes acknowledgement that Author cites Peter-Suave in his history of the council of Trent where the Pope would not have it determined whither Prelats were Iuris Divini lest they should not depend upon him after this as formerlie Now the question here being whether the Pope lookt upon Prelates as a part of his hierarchie as in the capacity of Prelates in order to the clearing of this other question depending betwixt this reverend author and the Author of the Seasenable case viz. whither our Reformers intended to abjure Prelats in that Covenant as a part of the Popes hierarchie To clear this matter of fact what could be more pertinent then the Popes own acknowledgement and judiciall declarator that de facto they depend upon him and areowned as parts of his hierarchie is in this convincingly apparent That de jure they have no divine warrand this author supposed it as his principle the contrary wherof neither that Pamphleter nor any other hath proved So that the Popes ipse dixit in this is sufficient to prove this matter of fact That he made not the Popes ipse dixit the rule to decide whither this officer be juris divini or not is in this convincingly evident and by consequence this mans obvious folly in imputing to him such ane assertion that he grants that if this Casuist had proved the Prelate to be juris divini and institute by Christ or his Apostles then the abjuring of the Popes wicked Hierarchie would import only the abjuring of the corruption of this officer whose lawfull office might be still retained but this casuist taking this for granted that he is so institute and reasoning upon that supposition the author had good ground until his Antagonist as the affirmer shouldpro vehis supposition to hold fast his own principle viz that the prelats Episcopal being is papal which is cleared by many of the Learned from convincing Testimonies Let this Resolver read Leo epist. 86. and Swave Tom. 4. pag. 465. of the Council of Trent sess 23. cap. 4. de Sacram. ordinis where Anathema is pronounced upon any that denyes Prelates power of ordination c. over Presbyters I suppose he were alleging against a Papist that some of the Popish orders are essential pieces of his hierarchie and should prove it by the Popes acknowledgment and constitutions would he think the Papists rejoynder good ergo ye owne the Popes authority and make his ipse dixit judge Say it were a question anent ths Acoluthi or Exorcists c. Whither they are a part of the Popes Hierarchie would he not think the Popes acknowledgment and owning them for such to be a sufficient argument to prove this Since he supposeth and rationally that they have no other right either in esse or operari Do not all our divines draw Arguments from the Pope and his councils acknowledgment to prove their owning of many corruptions and that they are properly theirs But do they justifie the Popes Ipse dixit in proving this or in this method of arguing since they do suppose aliunde that they have no divine right as the Apologist in the point of prelacie rationally doth 2. as for what he adds of protestant Churchet or Prelates their opposing the Popes pretended right and Supremacy hereanent we say that they impugne his supremacy best who lay an axe to its root prelacie And to grant that prelacy is of its self a part of his Hierarchie will no more justify his supremacy then Pauls saying that the mysterie of iniquity was working in his time would do it And al tho the first Proestotes or Bishops did not
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
to that doctine which is according to godliness What inconsistency will the Informer shew us in this that one nation vow adherence to its owne establishment in point of reformation and Church Government and likewise vow assistance of another nation in the removal of a corruption therein tho the removall will not amount to such a compleatness of reformation at first as will be every way like unto this establishment both nations being notwithstanding oblidged respective under generall clauses to make this reformation compleat The Informer next tells us that it is doubted by the learned whither in the first Article there be any obligation to maintain presbyterian Government His first reason is because there is no express mention of presbyterian Government therin but only of our reformed religion in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government Ans. this reason of the Seasonable case which he hath borrowed is very insignificant Our Church after long wrestling being recovered from corruptions both in Doctrine and Worship which Prelates had introduced and her Discipline and Government according to the Scripture pattern set up in Presbyteries synods and Assemblies and all the priviledges of these her courts authorized and establisht both by civill and ecclesiastick constitutions and laws will any doubt but the sceptick who will dispute that snow is not white that the discipline then reformed and establisht is in that oath sworn to be maintained He may al 's well alledge that it is not the doctrine and worship then established which we Covenant to preserve as to doubt of the government since this reformation then established takes in all the three together and in the same sense Besides his Master the Seasonable Casuist grants that there was then in Scotland no such officers as are enumerate in the 2d article but an establisht reformed government was then existent Now dare any of these new absolvers or resolvers say that it was not Presbyterian government or that this was not the sense of the imposers of that oath His 2d reason is that Independents took that Covenant and had a hand in wording that article that it might not import any particular forme of government That the words import no one forme of government but with this proviso as reformed The Seasonable case said this already to which the Apologist returned answer That the government of this Church at that time being Presbyteriall as he acknowledged there could be no other government understood then what was then existent established and reformed That to say Indendepents understood it of their government will no more reflect upon the Covenant then upon the Scripture it self which Independents do alledge will plead for their government Next I would ask this man why may not the same insignificant quirk be also objected as to the doctrine and worship viz. that only the doctrine and worship with this proviso as reformed but not the then established doctrine and worship is understood in that article and so sectaries may lurk under this generall also Thus he may alledge that no engadgement or oath in relation to his Majesties authority will binde except his name and Sirname be in it because some may entertaine a chimera of their own under his Majesties general titles Alas what ridiculous conceits are these The Doubter next objects that the English parliament who together with our Scots Commissioners imposed that oath did by the reformed government understand Presbytrie which was then settled here and that therefore we are to understand the oath in their sense who imposed it whatever Independents think He answers by denying that the English parliament understood the 1. article of Presbyterian government for then they would have thought themselves bound to reforme England according to our pattern but on the contraire in anno 1647 they toid our Commissioners that they could never finde Presbytrie necessary by any divine right and charged them with Superciliousness in judging that there is no other lawfull Church government but what they call so and with misinterpreting the article anent Church government This the Seasonable case also said before him and this hungry casuist catches up his cibum praemansum but could not see the answer returned to this in the Apology To this I say first that the Parliament of England tendered not that oath to us nor is their sense therof principally to be eyed by us as in his mould of the objection and answer he seems to suppose The parliaments of both Kingdomes imposed the oath upon their own subjects framed by the consent of both according to their own condition and exigence so that we are to look mainly to the procedour and sense of our Church and state for a discovery of the genuin sense and meaning of that oath Now it is most evident that the designe of our Church and state in framing and imposing of this oath was to establish and preserve our Church government then in being which he who denyes to have been Presbyterian in its compleat formes and courts he may deny any thing 2. We told him alreadie that whatever defection or liberty of glossing any might be guilty of yet the words and clauses of the Covenant as to that 1. article are clear and abundantly significant and will admit of no evasion And in relation to the total extirpation of prelacie out of that Church where it was existent the 2d Article is as clear and convincing And therefore whither they lookt upon themselves as oblidged to follow our pattern yea or not we have proved that they stood oblidged both by that particular enumeration in the 2 Article and also in the more generall clauses mentioned to extirpate Prelacie root and branch This man will make a meer Proteus of oaths if their sense and obligation must vary turne ambulatory or ambiguous according as men do shift or turne aside We told him of Dr Sandersons rule anent the import of the words of an oath in their genuin sense in reference to its obligation whatever liberty men may take to glosse or interpret which is the judgement of all sound Casuists 3. Dare he say that ever the parliament of England denyed that de facto Presbyterian government was compleatly established in the Church of Scotland or will he make them so irrationall as to deny this necessary consequence that therefore the 1. Article of the Covenant doth clearly oblidge this Church to its preservation as the reformed Government then existent and if his consequence cannot but be admitted surely whither they looked on themselves as oblidged to follow our pattern yea or not they held no sense of this article contrary to our own sense nor denyed our obligation to maintain our established Presbyterian Government And besides they never denyed their obligation to reforme the Church of England according to the Scripture pattern and that of the best reformed Churches in conformity to that pattern And that the Church of Scotland and other Churches where Presbyterian Government was existent were
of schisme which he sayes we are carrying on in opposition to the peace and liberty of this Church which Christ has bequeathed to her in legacie This heavy charge we would gladly know how he will instruct and because he cannot stay to discuss that point in this dialogue we will therfor supersed our enquiry here and pass over to his third dialogue and Examine therin the grounds of this accusation which we doubt not to discover to be as Irrational as these examined in the preceeding Dialogues A Confutation Of the Third DIALOGUE Upon the point Of SEPARATION Wherein upon exhibiting the true state of the Question the practise of adhering to Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry and denying of a subjection to Conformists as the lawful Pastours of this Church from vvhom Gods people are bound to receive the ordinances is vindicat from the charge of a sinfull Schismatick separation the true and solid grounds of this practise offered and the Informers arguments against it fully ansvver'd CHAP. I. The question stated and cleard from our Churches state before and since the introduction of Prelacy the different condition of Presbyterian Ministers and Conformists Separation in many cases not Schisme The Informers groundless suppositions Arguments presented and prosecuted at some length whereby this practise is acquit of the charge of a sinfull separation and discovered to fall under Scripture precepts and obligations as duty THE state of the Question in the third Dialogue is anent sinfull separation and Schism whether the people of God be guilty of it in adhering to such Ministers as contend for our Reformation rather then Curats or Conformists And whether they stand in this case of our Church oblig'd to adhere to the one or the other as their true Pastours from whom they are to receive the gospel ordinances and to whom they owe subjection reverence and obedience accordingly This state of the Question our Informer cannot in the least pick a quarrel at it being most suitable unto his pleading which is all along grounded upon this supposition that conformists do stand in a Ministerial relation to this Church and professours therein from which he concluds peoples obligation to adhere unto them as their only true and proper Pastours And in correspondence to this principle and inference doth universally and absolutely fasten the charge of intrusion and Schism upon Presbyterian Ministers and people as to their respective acts of preaching and hearing in their present state and circumstances So that if we can overturn this his grand topick fortify the antithesis therof he must grant that all his reasoning in this Dialogue falls to the ground For clearing this let us take a litle view first of our Church of Scotland her case at Prelacies introduction 2ly of her present case 3dly of the different grounds which the Presbyterian and Prelatick partie plead upon for the peoples adherence 4thly on whose side the separation stands Schism is a sinfull separation from a Church with whom in what acts we are bound to adhere So that when this Question is cleared who are that Church to which we stand under obligations to adhere it will go far to clear this debate First As to the state of our Church at Prelacies Introduction I shall lâ—…y down these three suppositions in relation to the matter of fact First that our Church from the infancie of her Reformation together with popry rejected Prelacy and in her National capacitie and in her supreme Judicatories disowned it as contrary to the Word of God as a piece of Antichrists wicked Hierarchy And in her National capacitie abjured the same often solemnly and universally This hath been already clear'd upon the preceeding Dialogue 2ly Presbyterian Government hath been look't on by our Church as the only Government of the Church appointed by Christ in Scripture and as the hedge of her reformed Doctrine Nay the owning of it hath been the great badge and Criterion to try her true members the subscribing the books of Discipline and the nationall Covenant of old and the solemn league of late with engadgements of adherence to Presbyterian Government have been the ordinary door of entry into her Ministry This as to mater of fact is clear and undeniable 3ly Our Church hath Judicially condemned Eâ—…astianisme and Ministers their state offices and appointed Judicially the censuring of the opposers of this her establishment as scandalows Assembly 38. Sess. 16 17. Confirmed and renewed in Assembly 39. So Assembly 40. Sess 5. In the 2d place as to our Church her present condition these things are clear and undeniable 1. That all the legall right of the late work of Reformation is removed in the act rescissory 2. Presbyterian Government is raz'd and the Church-Government monopliz'd in the Arch Bishops and Bishops obtruded upon this Church And the right and liberties of Presbyters and all our former Church-Judicatories is removed and taken away 3ly Ane arbitary and Erastian Prelacy is set up in opposition both unto our Churches intrinsick power of Government and likewise her particular frame of Presbyterian Government 4. All her vowes and great Oaths both in the National Covenant as explaind An. 1638. And in the solemn League against Prelacie and for maintaining her reformation are disown'd raz'd and cassat as far as legall enactings can reach 5. Ane express badâ—…e is appointed as to both Ministers and people their owning this course of defection and disowning the late reformation viz. ministers submitting to Erastianism and Prelacy and owning their new courts and peoples hearing their viâ—…ars and substitutes for the same scope in thâ—… rulers diclaird designe 6. Ministers betwixt three and four hundred disown and stand in opposition to this course and a great part and body of the professours of this Church have likewise disownd the same stood their ground Hence upon what is said it followes in the 7th place that ane ax is laid to the root of her reform'd Doctrine Worship and Government The great hedge thereof is removed viz her solemn vows and beside her doctrinall principles anent the Antichrist and his Hierarchy the Churches intrinsick power of Government Christian libertie the unlawfulness of significant ceremonies in Gods Worship her Doctrine anent Justification the Imperfection of obedience Christs certain determinat and full satisfaction for sinners in opposition to the Socinian and Arminian errors The morality of the Sabbath c. are opposed by this innovating prelatick partie And next for her Worship beside what corruptions are already introduced and others pleaded for as the perth Articles c. It is upon the matter subjected to mens arbitrary impositions And our National Covenant and Confâ—…ssion is disownd ae stricking against popish corruptions and also our late confession as asserting the above-mentioned Doctrine principles And for Government the Curats are meer slaves of Prelats in all their meetings by his negative voice and the Prelats themselves are but the Magistrats creatures And
other of mediat and ordinary by men the one pointing at ordination and appointing of the Apostles to their office in a general sense the other of the special or specifical mould of the call and election of Ministers 4. That this right and interest of the people in Ministers call as it is founded upon the ancient practice and unrepealed priviledge of Gods Church under the old Testament so it hath besides this and such like instances and exemplary recommendations of the new-testament a constant moral warrand of the peoples knowledge anent the case and behaviour of their spiritual guides His 3d answer to this text is That if we understand it of a hand suffrage we lose by it Why so because we give advantadge to the Independents for popular election of Ministers wherea we give this power not to all the people but to the session And he tells us that therefore understanding Presbyterians have forborn to pressthis text Ans. 1. We have proven that a congregational Eldership is Iuris divini that by consequence this election strictly taken must be their priviledge See 9 Argument against Prelacy on the 1. Dialogue Who these understanding Presbyterians are who do not understand this place as warranding the people's interest in the election call of Ministers the Informer hath not given us an account since his Doubter is none of them and if he mean the Authors of jus divinum Ministerii Evangelici he will finde that they do clearly assert this truth propos 1. so as it do not exclude the due right of Ministers herein See pag. 127. and 129. And the Assembly of divines in their directory for ordination of Ministers 4. Branch do require the people's consent and approbation as necessarily antecedaneous to the ordination Besides could the Informer be ignorant that there are several other weighty Scripture grounds arguments pleaded by our writters to fortify this right of the people why did he not then put these also into the mouth of his Doubter and give us an account of his own and his Episcopal Masters ' skill in dissolving them Moreover tho it were granted that all here did concurr in this suffrage where no Eldership was yet constitute as Mr Gillespy Judgeth probable miscell pag. 14. it will nothing infringe the power of the Eldership in Churches constitute there being a vast difference betwixt the modus rei in Churches constitute and these in fieri or that are to be constitute Again 2. We told him that the word imports a judicial suffrage by extending of hands and that in commitiis among courts senats and representatives of the people as in the Roman senate in which the Consuls presided And that among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Magistrat created by suffrages in the courts solemnly held for that purpose That the Roman senate did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Chrysostome saith which Doctor Potter expones made their Gods by suffrage Charity mistaken page 145. Again supposing Elderships here existent this phrase may be well referr'd to the people as importing their consent and approbation reserving still to the Eldership their Juridical suffrage and decisive vote in election Mr Gillespy ubi supra clears this shewing that in Athens it selfe the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they did but like well the persons nominated as when a Thesaurer offered some to be surety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom the people shall approve This he proves from Demosth. advers Timocr from which oration he makes it good that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Assembly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the court of Iudges are plainly distinguished so far that they might not be both upon one day and that tho the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet not they but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or judges did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordain or appoint a Magistrat In a word we give in this mater the Ministers call the suffrage and election to the Eldership I mean in a Church constitute and the consent which is distinct from the decisive voice as the learned acknowledge Gamachaeus in primam 2dae ouâ—… of Thomas quest 15 shewes this to the whole people and the formal authoritative mission and imposition of hands making the man a Minister and giving him the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who had it not before to the Presbytery according to the Scripture pattern which is toto coelo different from the Independents principles in this point If any object that the giving the suffrage and election of Ministers to the Eldership excluding the people makes the breach greater betwixt the Independents and us then needs it being sufficient to clear us from their principles that we allow not either to the Eldership or congregation the formal authoritative mission and imposition of hands And that our arguments upon this head seems to give to the people not onely consent but suffrage in election I shall desire first that Mr Gillespies answer be considered Miscell page 24. to an objection about our homologating with Independents in this point Who sayes that in this point of election we do not homologate with them who give to the collective body of the Church women and children under age onely excepted the power of decisive vote or suffrage in elections we give the vote onely to the Eldership or Church representative so that they carry along with them the consent of the major or better part of the congregation So that he makes the attributing of this decisive voice suffrage in elections unto the people to be down right Independency the march stone of their difference from us He tells us afterward that the consent and knowledge belongs to the whole Church without which Ministers may not be intruded the counsel and deliberation which is distinct from this consent to the ablest wisest of the congregation especially the Magistrates But he distinguishes from both these the decisive vote in Court or judicatory the formal consistorial determination in the case of election and this he sayes belongs onely unto and consists in the votes of the Eldership And that the Independents contrarily give the conference and deliberation to the Eldership as we use to do in Comittees but the decision to the whole Congregation Adding further that such as have written against Independents do thus state the difference betwixt them and us in this point viz. not whether matters of great importance and publick concernment ought to be determined with the peoples free consent for this we grant but whether the cause must be brought to the body of the Congregation to give their voices therin together with the officers of the Church citing Laget in his defence of Church-government chap. 1. and Mr Herle Prolocutor of the Assembly of Divines in that piece intituled the Independency on scriptures of the Independency of Churches page 3. where he sets down this forementioned consent to the Minister who is to
de universae fraternitatis suffragio lib. 1. Ep. 2. By the chose of the whole Brethren From the Epistle of the Council of Nice to those of Alexandria Lybia c. which is extant with Theodoret Hist. lib. 1. cap. 9. Where he shews that those who succeed in the room of the dead Prelat must upon these terms succeed si digni viderentur populus eligeret if they appear worthy and the people shall chuse That Chrysostom succeeded to Nectarius postquam in hoc Clerus populus suffragia sua contulissent after he was called and chosen by the Clergy and people Sozom. lib. 3. c. 8. That Evagrius was chosen suffragiis or by votes and suffrages Socrates lib. 6 cap. 13. That Augustine called again and again for the people's consent as to his successour Hic mihi vâ—…stra assentatione opus est Fâ—… 11. To which may be added a very impartial witness Bishop Bilson Perpetual Government Chap. 15. page 434. Where he shewes that the people had their right in chusing their Pastours Onely to prevent mistake upon these passages we would take notice that this suffrage here atribute generally and indiscriminatim to the people and clergy must be understood pro uniuscujusque modulo and according to every ones capacity for the reasons above rendred Since both Ministers right in ordination and also the right of a juridicall eldership in churches constitute in reference to the election of Ministers hath as we have shown a clear foundation in Scripture and antiquity But of this enough 2. We have also proven that we are not concerned nor in the least constrained by our principles and practice in this case to null a Church or Ministry where this call is wanting it being enough for us that the want of it is a corruption rendring a Ministry not so pure as it ought to be and that our case being a case of competition betwixt Ministers holding fast this piece of our Covenanted Reformation and a party of Schismatick Innovators opposing and rejecting it and turning back to the vomit of this and other corruptions after they have been seen cast out and vowed against We are upon the grounds of our Reformation and vows sufficiently warranted to leave these innovators and adhere to the faithfull Ministry 3. As we did shew that the granting of Curats their having the essence of a ministerial call will not infer our hearing and owning them in every case and especially in ours which himself must grant unless he fall in a palpable contradiction so it s more then he can prove that this Church of Scotland from its first beginning till 1649 had pratronages Which being founded on the Common law and several ages posterior to the pure Church in this Nation planted as we heard without Prelats by some of Johns Disciples how absurd is it to assert that it had Patronages from the beginning Finally whatever tollerance of these corruptions before they be removed may be pleaded for yet such as have embraced them now yea as a badge of owning this deformation of our once glorious Church are certainly to be disowned by all who would hold fast their integrity For what he adds anent our owning Presbyterian Ministers adhering to our Reformation tho they have been presented by Patrons It 's both impertinent to the point and already answered For it s not this simpliciter or only which we ground upon in this practice as is often said but the principles state practice and design of Conformists in this complex case Beside who sees not the difference betwixt a Minister owning the principles of our Reformation and disowning this with other corruptions although the times necessity did constrain to make use of patronages in their first entry when our Church was as yet groaning under this bondage and such as owne this corruption both in judgment and practice after it is rejected and the Church delivered from it yea and owne it as an express badge of Conformity to abjured Prelacy Sure they are very blind who see not the difference betwixt these The Doubter alleadges that patronages are abjured in the Covenant and the Informer desires to see in in what place But if he will open his eyes and but read either our National or solemn league he will easily see this for patronages being a popishcorruption contrary to the Word of God as we have proved it 's abjured among the rites or Customs brought into this Church without or against the word And likewise in being condemned in the 2. book of discipline to which we vow adherence as unto the discipline of this Church it must be in that respect also abjured And as contrary to sound doctrine the power of godliness and Government of this Church exprest in the 2. book of Discipline it is abjured in the solemn League wherein we likewise vow adherence to that discipline But saith he Since patronages were in use aster the Covenant why was not this breach discerned and was this Church perjured all that time Ans. The forecited act of Parliament shewes that this corruption had been long by this Church groan'd under and long before that time declared and testified against both in the 2. book of discipline and by assemblies thereafter and if the interposing of the civill Magistrat being necessary to remove this the Church still untill that time groan'd under this burden where can he fixe his challenge The next argument of his Doubter for not hearing Curats is that they are ordained by Bishops To which he answers 1. That all whom we refuse to hear were not ordained by Bishops He means those who were ordained by the Presbytery and have conformed Ans. 1. We have already told him that it is not the Episcopal ordination simply and abstractedly from our case which is our ground of not owning them but the Episcopal ordination of perjured intruders breaking our union and reformation and ejecting our faithfull Pastours and testified against by our presbyterian protestant Church which they have thus intruded upon 2. We have told him that the concession of their lawfull ordination for substance will no more plead for our owning them in this complex case then their concession of the lawfull ordination of Presbyterian ministers will infer an obligation upon Conformists to owne them which is a consequence that they all deny And that they must grant that owning of the episcopal ordination in this complex case is different from a simple owning of it in relation to hearing Even as Presbyterian ministers are acknowledged by conformists to have a lawfull ordination for substance whom notwithstanding they will not suffer the people to hear 3. Those who were so ordained and have conformed having as I said eatenus or in so far renounc'd their Presbyterial ordination and adhering to the prelatical as the more perfect this their disowning of our reformation especially aggreged by their perjury and apostacy puts them in the same yea a worse condition as to our hearing
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
Ministers intrusion is from parish to parish over the Labours of all the Ministers of Scotland whereas Conformists intrusion if it be so is but over one parish Ans. We told him before that Presbyterian Ministers notwithstanding the prelats violence and usurpation are Ministers of this Church of Scotland continuing still in that relation to her So that the present presecution and violence as well as backsliding of the Prelatick schismaticks and Innovators warrands their more enlarged officiating by the same grounds upon which the presecute officers of the Church of Jerusalem went every where preâ—…ching the gospel and on the same ground that Ministers enlarged officiating in the time of our Reformation was warranted to which this case of defection is parallel and correspondent So that their ministerial obligation and the many scripture commands as to diligence in their testimony Being by the present state of our Church extended to their officiating in this manner their Ministry is no Intrusion but the Lawfull exercise of their office received from the great shephered nor is it upon the flocks who are under a tye and relation to the present Incumbents as their pastours but toward poor starved flocks committed to wolves who destroy but feed not and the Curats pretended Ministry being neither of Christ nor for him is still an usurpation though over the smallest flock so that his Instance of the pyrats word to Alexander and citation of the Apostle's caveat Rom 2. 21. is extra oleâ—… and reaches himself a rebounding stroke For who I pray have usurped the name and authority of this Church and endeavoured to have it compleatly moulded in their way and to extirpat all faithfull Ministers and professors within the Nation is it not 14 usurping Prelats and their underlings this is a robbery indeed and with a witness Now follows another argument of his Doubter that Episcopal Ministers are abjured as depending upon the hierarchy and therefore cannot be heard without breach of the Oath In what respects the owning of Conformists especially as that practice is now circumstantiat is a breach of Covenant we have cleard above and need not again repeat it He answers 1. That Ministers are not mentioned in that article But if they depend upon that Ecclesiastical hierarchy as Church Officers why are they not mentioned Next it s enough for our purpose that the owning of their Ministry as depending upon prelats is in this our case abjured 2. He tellsus that dependance on that hierarchy doth suppose and is to be understood of a hierarchy made up of all the officers enumerate in that Article as the English Presbyterians sense it which hierarchy we have not in Scotland This conceit I have already confuted and proved that beside this Article we are by the first bound to preserve the establisht Reformation and Government of this Church and to adhere to all that enter into this Oath in the pursuing of its ends and not to suffer our selves to be withdrawen from this Reformation and our union therein by terrour or persuasion is an obligation lying upon us in the 6. Article which doth abundantly as we have said reach the disowning of Conformists In the next place he tells us that to binde our selves to disowne Ministers depending upon Bishops is to binde our selves to sin I Answer whatever may be said of such an engadgement simpliciter and absolutly considered yet certainly to engadge our selves against the reintroduction of Prelacy into a pure Church reformed from it and against all dependers upon and promoters of that Interest in such a Church in the capacity of Church officers and eatenus as promoting and depending upon it is both a lawfull and necessary engadgment necessarly flowing from dependent upon the abjuration of prelacie it self That Ministers tho faulty may be heard will as we have oft demonstrate nothing help his conclusion Since he can not deny that their faultiness in some cases may barr their being heard as he supposes Presbyterian Ministers faults puts a Lawfull stop in the way of people's hearing them Then he tells us that he hath showen episcopacy to be a Lawfull government which none might Lawfully adjure for this we referr the Reader to what is answered on the first Dialogue where we have proven the contrary and that it is a government contrary to the word of God which therefore we were obliged to abjure Lastly he tells us that by this exposition of the 2. Article we were bound not to owne Ministers who were in office at the taking of the Covenant but to extirpat them since they depended upon Bishops as to their ordination still even after they had taken the Covenant unless they renounced their ordination received from Bishops and had been ordained a new by meer Presbyters which they thought themselves not bound to do by the Covenant or they were Ministers without a true ordination all that time and then all their Ministerial Acts were null since they proceeded from that ordination And yet he sayes we never serupled to hear such Ministers notwithstanding of this dependance upon Bishops in part if they disowne Bishops for the future Ans. What a silly knack is it which all this tatle is founded upon viz. Ministers who received ane ordination from Bishops or Bishops with Presbyters in a Church upon which they had usurped are still to be lookt upon as Ministers depending upon Bishops even after Prelacy is abolished and Presbyterian Government established in that Church So poor a notion that I am sure the least reflection may discover its vanity ordination being Gods ordinance and appointment and the Bishop qua Presbyter being vested with a power in it ordination by the Bishop with Presbyters tho maim'd in respect of the Bishop's arrogated power which is a corruption adhering to it cannot by any good consequence be said to depend in its esse or nature upon the Prelat and far less in operari or esse after that corruption is removed and abjured and Presbyterian Government set up Doth a souldier or Officers commission or Military power slow still from a Colonel after he is disbanded Nay this is too gross inadvertency Were Zuinglius Luther and other of our Reformers dependents upon the papacy or popish Prelats after their cleaving to and embracing the Reformation Do not all our divines distinguish the essentials of their ordination from these corruptions adhering to it and assert that they had a Ministry Lawfull for substance and an ordination to their Ministry tho coming to them through that impure channell This man Justifies the Pope's plea where is your Ministry saith he and the Romanists you have no Ministry but what you have from us do not our Divines tell them that the Ministry and ordination it self being Gods institution we have them from the Lord now restored and recovered from their corruptions and are not dependers upon them for our Ministry did all our Reformers Ministerial acts flow from the pope or papal ordination
as such Let our Informer take heed of this praemunire for this dangerous error which he hath fallen into will expose him to the severe censure of all protestant Churches 2ly Hence Ministers who were ordained by Prelats with Presbyters concurring were no more bound yea less bound to renounce their ordination simply then Zuinglius or Luther were obliged to renounce theirs especially since their ordination was in a protestant Church and under Prelats owning the protestant profession which our Informers charity will no doubt esteem a considerable difference and their not renouncing it simpliciter will no more make them still dependent upon the Prelates as to their Ministry when prelats are removed then Zuinglius and Luther were dependent upon the Pope as to their ordination and the acts flowing therefrom after their separation from the Church of Rome or infer that they did owe their baptism to the Pope or the ordination of the popish priest who baptized them and were concerned to be rebaptized So that the popish cause and interest is much obliged to our Informer if his pleadings for our prelacy wil hold good and it is no bad omen that both interests are thus embarqued together in this man and his fellows reasonings for them and must stand and fall together which fortifies our hope and confidence that as the first hath begun to fall so the other shall gradually decay wither and fall with it CHAP. IV. The Informers answer to the Doubters argument anent separation from a corrupt Church and the retorted charge of schisme upon Conformists examined OUr Doubt-Resolver will seem ingenuous in offering an answer to some chief objections against the owning of Conformists and therfore puts into the mouth of his personat Doubter some more arguments in such a mould as he supposes is for his best advantadge which I shal now consider and deal faithfully with him and his supposed Doubter in presenting these arguments which he hath disguised in their genuine strength and shall examine his answers which when weighed in the scripture ballances and according to the true state of this question will no doubt be found as empty and insignificant as any of the preceeding The Doubter hath another argument that we are warranted by the word to separat from a corrupt Church This objection he curtly and advantagiously propones making his Doubter suppose 1. a confessed separation in this practice from a Church to which we are bound to adhere which this new advocat has not as yet made good 2. That any corruptions generally or such as may denominate a Church in some measure corrupt will warrand a separation which is a principle we do not owne We acknowledge a Church may be joyned with Lawfully wherein there are great corruptions and this with Mr Durham and others on that subject But as to corruptions we say if the contraverted joyning be in that which is clear and necessary duty in the present circumstances there can be in this joyning no stain but in so far as a concurrence with that which is duty out of that complex case cannot be performed without a direct complyance with or stain of these corruptions then a proportioned separation is needfull in so far as suitable to that exigence and yet even in this case we assert that other duties in the fellowship with that same Church may be owned and that fellowship is not intirely to be broken off upon the preceeding ground in these things wherein there is no such hazard But now what sayes he to this argument 1. He tells us we are mistaken if we think the Bishops a corruption and that this will not be granted Ans. I hope I have made it evident that they are a corruption and therefore to be disowned The 2 answer is that its a mistake to think that for corruptions and even great corruptions a Church is to be separat from Then he tells us of the corrupted of the Church of Galatia that in the Church of Corinth an article of the creed was denyed that there were great faults in the Asian Churches Rev. 2. 3. and of the great corruptions that were in the Church of Israel as is evident in the books of the Kings and Prophets yet the people of God were not commanded to separat as long as the substance of the worship was not corrupted as it was by Ieroboams calves Ans. 1. What if Presbyterians shall borrow this argument from him and from these instances of not separating from a Church notwithstanding of great corruptions shall plead for all professors in Scotland their adhering to Presbyterian Ministers and this Presbyterian Church as having a worship not substantially corrupted whatever other personal faults or corruptions they may be lyable unto that yet they are a true Church as to the main and that therfore they ought to be joyned with as the Churches of Corinth and Galatia wherein there were great corruptions were still adhered to by professors What will he say in this case I know he will say that its ridiculous for such a party of Schismaticks to call our selves the Church of Scotland But what if we return this answer to him again that according to the Reformation and principles of our Church out of which Prelats were ejected vows against them universally taken on and Presbyterial government compleatly setled therein Its ridiculous to call a party of Prelats and their adherents the Church of Scotland or for them to usurp her name who have thus overturned her Reformation So that untill he make good the above mentioned hypothese or suppositions viz. that Conformists are the true organick Church of Scotland that this our practice is a separation properly such that its meerly because of Conformists personal faults that we withdraw that we are under prior obligations to adhere unto Curats with all their corruptions rather then our Presbyterian Ministry and Church which is both free of them and contending against them untill these and such like suppositions be made good his argument from the preceeding scripture Iostances as to joyning with a Church that hath corruptions is a meet petitio principii and will not help his cause in the least Which will be further evident if we consider in the 2d place that the case of these Churches and professors therein was far from ours in relation to corruptions For 1. The Doctrinal corruptions of Galatia as to the legal Ceremonies by the bad influence of judaizing teachers tho they were of a large yet the Informer will not prove they were either of such an universal spread and tincture or strengthned by such an universal acknowledgment as to make the state of that Church correspond with his hypothesis in this argument 2. That error in the Church of Corinth in relation to the resurrection appears not to have been owned by their teachers and Church officers far less publickly avowed and obstinatly and presumptuously maintaired by them or any considerable number of hearers which makes their case wide from
they would not have allowed and commanded the faithfull prophets and members of that Church to oppose them and cleave unto their respective duties and unto one another in the following thereof As for what he adds that there was then no command to separat from the worship while it was not substantially corrupted I wonder if he will charge a corruption of the worship it self or in the substance thereof upon the duties now owned and performed by Presbyterian Ministers and professors from whom he notwithstanding thinks its duty to separat so that untill he prove as I said Conformists their better claim to officiat as Ministers of this Church then Presbyterian Ministers this argument lights heavy on himself and the censures put upon Novatians and Donatists falls upon their dividing and destroying party The case of these Schismaticks being as far from ours as east from west were Novatians or Donatists first cast out by a violent backsliding party for not concurring in a course of backsliding in overturning a Churches sworn reformation and were they enjoyned commanded to owne the course of these backsliders I think the Donatists Novatians their violence against adherers to the union of the true Church is a fit emblem of the present practice of Conformists how can this Man say that there were then greater corruptions them now Can there be greater corruptions in government then a papacy of the highest degree as is their premacy and hierarchy can there be greater corruptions in practice then perjury and such grosse prophanity as Conformists are blotted with for the most part greater corruption in principles then Popish Arminian errors c. The Doubter objects that if we may not separat from a corrupt Church what mean these scripture commands enjoyning separation such as 2 Cor. 6. 14 15 16. 1 Cor. 5. 11 2 Thes 3. 6 Rev. 18. 3 We have already said that he deals deceitfully in making his Presbyterian Doubter assert that we may separat from a corrupt Church in every case but this we say that in whatever case and in how far soever we cannot joyn with a corrupt Church without the contagion and stain of its corruptions in so far and in that case a separation is necessary and falls within the compass of these scripture commands And that in this our case the demanded conformity as to Presbyterian Ministers and professors cannot be yeelded without the stain of prelatists their sin is above cleared So that he needs not tell us here that every corruption is not a sufficient ground of separation For we have heard our Informer acknowledge that a Church may be in that degree corrupted as will render a separation warrantable yea and necessary I could wish he had condescended upon that degree of corruption and showen us here the maximum quod sic minimum quod non as to the ground of this separation and how far these corruptions may strike at a Churches vitals and yet her life and essence as a Church subsist And here I would close in a litle with this Man and enquire that since a Churches corruptions will with him in some cases render a separation necessary upon what ground is it necessary and from what prior principle is this concluded sure it must be upon this ground left union with that Church blott the soul and make us share in her sin So that in this case we are not obliged to hold union and fellowship with her when it is infectious as is most clearly imported in that command 2 Cor. 6. and if separation be upon this ground allowed whether the corruption be lesser or greater eatenus or in so far we are obliged to separat for Majus minus non variant speciem rei Next I infer that a non-union to a corrupt party who cannot be called the Church or at lest whose being the Church is magnalis sub judice will be a fortiori warranted and upon lesser grounds then separation which supposes an anterior obligation of union and actuall union out of this case and abstracting from it But for these scriptures mentioned he sayes they will not prove our point and to that of 2 Cor 6. 14. he answers that our Lord is speaking of separating from ungodly fellowship with Idolaters not of withdrawing from christian assemblies But doth he not enjoyn that separation because of the hazard of Infection by their sin and why not also from christian assemblies where there is the same hazard of this Infection did he not acknowledge that the case of a Church or christian Assembly may be such as will render even a separation necessary Now if in this case the tender separater should plead this text and that corrupt Church or assembly of Christians give our Informers answer viz. that it pleads only for separating from fellowship with Idolaters not of withdrawing from christian Assemblies how will he extricat himself and reconcile this answer with his concession But for these texts 1 Cor. 5. 11. and 2 Thess. 3. 6. he sayes they are meant only of needless fellowship in privat converse with scandalous persons but allowes not to withdraw from the publick worship because of the presence of such scandalous ones as if this did pollute the worship though it may be the fault of Church guides not to keep them back Ans. The ground here is the same and acknowledged by him whatever be the withdrawing which is more immediately enjoyned viz. lest their fellowship prove contagious scandalous or in any measure sinfull so if fellowship with a Church in her Assemblies be thus infectious these scriptures do enjoyn a separation upon the same ground and by necessary consequence from what he hath acknowleged And therefore this answer is nothing to the purpose unless he will retract his concession that there may be corruptions in a Church and her assemblies which will render a separation necessary Next as for what he adds that ordinances are not polluted by the presence of scandalous ones It is not for him nor against us since he acknowledges there may be a Lawfull yea necessary separation from a Church her assemblies in worship tho not upon this ground of the ordinances their pollution by the presence of scandalous ones because of the reason which we have already heard and we do also upon other grounds then this of a pretended pollution of the ordinances by their scandals maintain our disowning Conformists in their worship to be a duty as we have heard even that they are forcing all to a sinfull complyance with them in a schismatick departing from the unity of this Church and perjurious overturning the work of reformation and will neither suffer Ministers nor professors to joyn with them in worship but with an express aknowledgement in the intent of our Laws and owning of this defection Sure we are commanded to withdraw from every Brother that walks disorderly which our Informer pleads as a sufficient ground to disowne Presbyterian Ministers
withdraw from them because of their supposed disorder and schism tho the ordinances in their hands are not polluted with their supposed guilt and from all fellowship with scandalous brethren which is contagious and may pollute us Now are not they walking disorderly cross to the doctrine discipline Reformation of this Church are they not consequently schismaticks are not their scandals infectious when they will suffer no Ministers to possess their charges or officiat either with or without them or people to enjoy ordinances among them without direct owning their defection and overturning our Reformation and a professed submission to their abjur'd prelacy as is clear in the acts enjoyning Ministers preaching and peoples hearing in conformity to prelacy and the supremacy For that of Rev. 18. he sayes that it enjoyneth a separation from Rome's corrupt doctrine and Idolatrous worship but warrands not a separation from a Church where no such corruption is I answer The ground of the command is the danger of Infection by Rome's sins as is expressed in the text which will consequently hold wherever this danger is whatever be the the particular sins from whence this danger flowes for as I said majus minus non variant speciem and we may add that other Known rule a quatenus ad omne valet sequela In whatever case an union is unwarrantable and infectious a proportioned separation is upon this ground enjoyned Nay if the conjunction have but mali speciem or be inductive to sin only the command of eshewing every appearance of evill will reach this withdrawing unless the conjunction be on other grounds an indispensible duty Now our Covenant obligations and our Reformation as itstood established being duely pondered it will be clear that Conformists are schismaticks and destroying Innovators and there is no prior obligation to joyn with them but rather to disowne them in this course Sure this man holds that fellowship with Presbyterian Ministers in their assemblies for worship is contagious and that people are obliged to leave and come out from them tho he dare not lay Idolatrous worship nor corrupt doctrine to their charge and so he must acknowledge that this and such like commands will warrand a separation upon the general ground here intimat abstracting from that special case of Romes Idolatrous worship and corrupt doctrine It s very sophistical reasoning from the denyall of the special ground and nature of Romes contagion from which christians are called to separat to deny a separation upon any other contagion to fall within the compass of that precept which is to reason from the denyall of the species to the denyal of the genus His Doubter in the next place retorts his charge of separation upon himself and alledges that we have better ground to charge Conformists with schism because of their departing from the government of this Church to which we are still adhering so that they have gone out from us not we from them We proved this charge already from the constitution and Reformation of this Church as it stood established and our universal vows of adherence therunto so that such as have overturned this work of Reformation not Presbyterian government only they are properly the first dividers and deserters But let us hear how he acquits himself of this charge 1. He sayes that their submission to prelacy is in obedience to the commands of superiors whom we are bound to obey in things not sinfull So that their obedience is duty and Presbyterians their non submission is disobedience to authority and Schisme from the Church But 1. His Doubter alleadging that Presbyterial Government is the Government of this Church and inferring thereupon that departing from it is Schism and that Prelatists have gone out from Presbyterians not they from them which is a very clear consequence and will clearly infer the departers to be Schismaticks upon any description of Schism which he can assigne And moreover this being the great ground upon which this man and his fellows do charge Presbyterians with Schism viz. That they are separat from the present Prelatick constitution since he offers no formal answer either to the antecedent or consequent of his Doubters argument what will the interposed command of Rulers signify to alter the Nature of Schism or to make that practice which is Hactenus upon Scripture grounds Schismatical to be no Schism This I must say is strange divinity but like enough to that of these men who make the Magistrate a Pope over the Church her ordinances and over sacred Oaths and vows 2. We have proved that their submission and obedience in this point is a high rebellion against God in disowning at mens arbitrary command the Government of his house appointed in his word and embracing an abjured Hierarchy contrary to it and against which all the nations were engadged So that our practice is obedience to God and a keeping of the union of Christs body and theirs is both perjury and Schism He tells us that he hath proved in the first conference Episcopacie to be the only Government left by Christ and practised by his Apostles So that our disowning it is Schism from the Scripture Church Government and that of the primitive Church as well as from them To this I only say that I hope we have made the prelacy he pleads for appear to be a stranger both to Scripture and antiquity Again he tells us that in this charge of Schism he means it not only or mainly in respect of Government but of separating from their Assemblies for Worship which is Schism tho the Government were wrong I answer 1. If he acknowledges that separating from the Government is Schism why answers he not our countercharge that their party did first separat from the Government of this Church and that therefore the Schism lyes first and principally at their door for that which he sayes of the Magistats command is as we have heard utterly insignificant to wipe of this charge 2. This charge of the first Schism on his part standing good for any thing he hath said that which he here adds of our being Schismaticks because of our separation from their Assemblies for Worship is like wise naught For upon this ground of his Doubter which he cannot disprove viz. That they have made the first breach and separation they are Hactenus Schismaticks and so are to be disown'd in their worship upon that very account and ground upon which he pleads fot disowning Presbyterians Assemblies for Worship tho he can lay nothing else to their charge or alleadge any substantial corruption of the worship And so the recocted crambe which he here presents to us again anent the Scribes and Pharisees Simeon and Anna their attending the Temple Worship Zacharias and Elizabeth Joseph and Mary their not separating there from c. Pleads as much for his Presbyterian Doubter in relation to the owning of our Presbyterian Assemblies for Worship and much more then for
gospel and an enemy unto it Jackson thinks with sevral others that Paul said I knew not that he was the high priest c. ironically it being very improbable that Paul knew not the high priest and suppose it were so he knew him to be a ruler as his own words discover so that it was no excuse to say he knew not the high priest because as a judge it was against the law to revile him Therfore saith Jackson upon Exod. 22. 28. though they understood Paul as excusing himself yet he spoke by way of derision as disdaining he should be accounted Gods high-priest who carryed so Which saith he is the more probable when it s considered how far he was from having any true right to that place and power to which he pretended when Christ had abolished the legal priest hood Calvine on that place of the Acts sayes It s not credible that Paul-gave him his wonted honour Cum abolita esset adventu Christi sacerdotij Majestas secuta turpis prophanatio Paulum quasi integra vigeret solito honore prosecutum fuisse qui tunc sub Pontificum titulo nullo jure dominabantur after the majesty of the priest hood was abolished by the coming of Christ and vile prophanity attending it that Paul as if the priesthood had been standing intire would have allowed the wonted honour to such who under the title of Priests were governing without any right or just title And having objected to himself that we must not contemn civill Magistrats in his answer he puts a difference betwixt civil Mahistrats and Church rulers Inter civiles Magistratus saith he ecclesiae praesules aliquid est discrimenus there is a difference betwixt civill Magistrats and Church officers tho the administration of civil Rulers be perverse and confused yet he tells us the Lord will have subjection remain intire Sed ubi spirituale regimen degenerat solâ—…untur piorum conscientiae ne injustae dominationi pareant c. spirituall government being degenerat the consciences oâ—… the faithfull are loosed from obedience to an unjusâ—… domination But our Informer will say that I thuâ—… set the authors of jus divinum minist anglic by the earâ—… with Calvin and Iackson as to the sense of this place I answer they do not peremptorly and positively assert that Paul acknowledged him as high priest buâ—… onely that many think he did 2. Hence the weight of their conclusion subjoyned viz. that corruptions cleaving to Gods ordinances null them not is not laid upon this solely nor positivly at all even as a partial but onely as a probable ground And the conclusion it self when admitted will never reach his designe as is above cleared Again admitting that Paul acknowledged his providential title or jus in re as to a civil office and administration at that time as it may well have its own weight in reference to the premised conclusion civil rule as such being Gods ordinance which is not made null by corruptions so upon the the difference of civil from sacred rule this concession will not legitimat or infer an acknowledgment of the spiritual part of his administration Thus we have seen how well our Informer hath acquit himself in his arguing from the English Presbyterians Let us next consider how he reasons from Mr Rutherfoord in that peice forecited if at least we may call that which he here offers a formal reasoning since he offers not as I said any argument from these citations but sure we will find that these passages will burn his fingers In that piece scil Due right of presb page 220. to 256. There are several passages which this man takes hold of as 1. He asserts that separation from a true Church where the orthodox word is preached and sacraments duely administrat is unlawfull and vindicats 2 Cor. 6. Ans. This in Mr Rutherfoords sense will plead more for the Presbyterian Ministry professors then for Conformists whom he will not say that Mr Rutherfoord will look upon as our Church in such a case as this since as we heard he holds that in case of such a breach as we have now the pure Church remains with the smaller stedfast number and that the backsliders from truth and purity tho the â—…reater number yet really are the Schismaticks And â—…n this sense we are to understand him when he sayes that this separation as to worship will not infer an absolut separation And his allowing non-union where there is not sufficient cause of separation in the case of purer to be joyned with and his admitting a partial separation because of a partial corruption of ordinances Peacable plea page 121. will much more plead for a total non-union in this our case and I dare appeal this Informer if Mr Rutherfoords words Peaceable plea page 122. doth not suite our case and express such a sense therof as we have explaind and if he would not have applyed that which follows unto our present prelatick party had he seen our Church in this posture and in her present circumstances viz. we separat not from a true Church or her Lawfull Pastors when we separat from hirelings and Idolshepherds who will not go before us and whether he would not have thought and called Conformists so Thus page 148. concl 6. he tells us we may separat from the worship when we separat not from the Church So that its evident that in Mr Rutherfoords sense we separat not from the Church of Scotland nor her worship while withdrawing from Curats in attending the Ministry of Christs faithfull ambassadours In the Next place this Informer presents to us these passages further in that peice mentioned viz. page 233. the personal faults of others are not sufficient ground for separation That the disciples thought not the society unclean for Judas sin though they knew one of them had a Devil Again page 250. It was not Lawfull to separat from the Pharisees preaching truth page 253. The Godly separated noâ—… from the Church when the altar of damascus was seâ—… up things dedicat to Idols as Lutheran images are called Idolatry 1 Cor 10. 34. Idolatry by participation and the cup of devils yet Paul commandâ—… not separation and the table of the Lord was there I answer this is already removed by what is said above as to any conclusion for his cause which thiâ—… loose disputer doth not so much as offer to draw ouâ—… upon these citations 1. Unless he prove the Conforming party to be the true Church of Scotland to which in this case we are obliged to adhere or 2. If we can prove that according to our Churches Reformation Presbyterian ministers and professors are the true organick Church of Scotland though the persecute smaller number which according to Mr Rutherfoord is very easy for he sayes that in case of defection truth as life recools to the smaller hidden part Due right page 253. In either case I say this will plead more appositly for adherence to
shall this world become if these mens faith-banishing principles be once admitted Thirdly to evince that our Prelats puppets and new pleaders are Babeâ—… true brood and builders thou mayest see how sweetly they joyn with the Papists in their glosses upon these Scirptures pleaded against them Whenc it is evident even to a demonstrative certainty that the cause of popry and prelacy are of ane inseparable affinity and stand or fall together If this mans glosses whereby he shifts off our Scripture Arguments striking at the Bishops mitre be once admitted the popes triple crown is equally shielded against the weapons of all Protestants Our learn'd Protestant divines in confuting the popish evasions do so manage their dispute as if they were directly pleading against this Informer in defending our Prelacy And who heares his glossings pleadings and answers would imagine that by some Metempsuchosis Bellarmine or Eccius were now acting the Informer to proselyt the Presbyterians to our Prelacy or a papacy rather Besides 't is clear he embarques with the Papists in his endeavour to bring in antiquity and the Churches practice as the infallible comment upon the Scripture in the Episcopall debate consequently in all debats in Theology Nay we must measure the Temple and the Altar mould our Arguments in this point of truth by Scripture standard but for the utter court of Antiquity wee leave it out for it s given to the Gentiles It s many soul principles and practices will not be gotten within the Holy Scripture verge This man in his Scripture pleadings is very sparing for a few pages measure will do it But for Antiquity ware he mets us out large and full to the great part of all the book and in this he deals honestly giving the courser stuff the larger yard In fine thou may see these men discovered beyond all their hiding pretences of love peace and unity their large spacious charity extended to the dimensions of a Metropolitans pallace hath fine entertaining rooms for Papists Quakers Arminians c. but the poor Presbyterians will scarce get such a room in it as Bishop Bonners colehouse wherein he lodged the martyrs they cry out one Presbyterian Ministers as refusing all Christian fellowship with them in worship but when shall we see them open their pulpits to our Ministers after they have banish'd them from their own flocks They viliâ—… all our differences unto meere punctilioes yet they contend about them tanquam pro aris focis and had rather all Presbyterians were harassed and persecuted even to a consuming desolation then one fringe of their Garments As Bishop Lighton call'd the points debated were cut off and let go They declame zealously in their pulpits and Pamphlets against sanguinary Principles How can these cruell men say they looke up to the God of love But now after they have drunk pretty largely for many years of Presbyterian blood and are gaping for more as fast as the bloody whore of Rome who in a great measure influences them these devout Burrio's can wipe their mouths and pretend they have peace offerings with them Mistery Babylon Mystery Prelacy What ane abysse of deceit is here In the third place thou may see that the cause wee contend for as it hath the first and pure Scripture Antiquity so the next ensuing Antiquity also and the patrociny of the purer ages and the auspiciously Harmonious consent of reformed Churches and divines So that our present Testimony is the same with that of the witnesses against the beast and our adversaries stand arranged under Antichrists banner in the whole series at least complex farrago of their principles A Diocesian Erastian Prelacy underprop't by blood and Perjury headed by a civill papacy embracing in its bosome all foul errours is a hideous Monster a bowing wall a tottering sence and lookes in face and feature so unlike to Christs bride held out and pourtrayed in Scripture and once gloriously shining in this land that no disciple of Christ no friend of the Bridegroom can mistake the one for the other So that our adversaries charge of novell heterodoxy is a new minted calumny a frighting buk bear and scar-cnow fit to fright children in knowledge to be the derision of the knowing and for nothing else Fourthly thou hast here set before thee a looking glasse representing our sin and punishment in these later dayes Wee have not suitably emproven a faithfull Ministry once our Churches crown and glory now that crown is falling apace how many stars hath the dragon cast from heaven to earth Wee have not not studied personall reformation while publick Nationall reformation was owned therefore the holy Jealous God hath given us up to an avowed disouning of that reformation Wee endeavoured not while Gods candle shin'd upon our tabernacle to get our case discovered and search'd our hearts sprinkled from an evill Conscience therefore most of us are given up to Conscience Wasting sins We have not drawn with joy from our wells of salvation while they were open and running in a plenty of powerfull pure ordinances now God hath suffered Philistines to stop these Wells and while wee endeavour to dig them again such are the counter endeavours of this man and his fellowes by their pleading and practices that they are called Ezek and Sitna strife and contention Wee are like to dig and strive long ere wee get the well called Rehoboth and faithfull Ambassadours of Christ shall find their old rooms again in the house of God Wee â—…ave not keept up a due impression of the 〈◊〉 â—…lidging force of our National solemne Covenants with God who of us have endeavoured to perform our vowes to God therein Therefore God hath given most of us up to a palpable disowning and shamelesse renunciation and abjuration of these great and sacred Oaths Wee hid our selves from discoveries of our practical breaches and many whorish departings from God pointed at by our faithfull Seers now he hath given us up to a legall avowed departing The accursed thing which was before secretly with us is now pleaded for disputed for by pretended Seers and wathmen even the remnanm have dealt treacherously with God therefore he hath given them up to treacherous dealers who have dealt very treacherously with them Wee were wearied of reformation wearied of God and said to our faithfull seers see not prophecy not right things but deceits get you out of the way cause the holy one of Israel to cease from before us Ourwhorish hearts lusted after a sinfull liberty and Egypts flesh-pots neither were wee throughly â—…ged from our old sins our iniquities of 〈◊〉 Therefore God hath answered us 〈◊〉 cording to the Idols of our heart anâ—… hath said to us after wee have set up ouâ—… Calves go to Bethel transgresse at Giâ—… gall c. He hath given us our desire and sent leannesse into our soul. Our noble Vine because so dreadfully degenerat is now whithered and wasted plukt up in fury planted in the wildernesse
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
civill offices of Ministers page 63 64. The Informers endeavours to bring in the Diocesian Bishop under that command of decency and order as lawfull though not commanded and necessary That the Bishop cannot he warranted on this ground but must as a supposed Church officer instruct his institution and mission from Scripture cleared from several Scripture grounds and the acknowledgment of some adversaries page 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73. Chap. 8. page 73. misprinted Chap. 9. The Informer undertakes to answer the Arguments of Presbyterians against Episcopacy his answers to our Arguments from Matth. 22 25 26. Wherin having misrepresented it he is notwithstanding forced to embrace the evasions of Papists falls in diverse inconsistencies and walks crosse to the sence of sound divines upon this Text Yea of some of the ancients which cleard at large page 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82. his answer to our Argument from 1 Pet. 5 3. Wherein he also offers violence to the text and joines issue with the Papists his evasions examined and this Text as also the preceding Improven against him page 84 85 86 87 88. Chap. 9. misprinted Chap. 10. page 88. The Informers Answers to our Argument from acts 20. and Titus 1 5 7. These Texts emproven against him and his answers fully examined page 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96. His answers to our Argument from Philip. 1 1. His absurd and inconsistent shifts discovered and confuted page 98 99 100 101 102. Arnoldus and Chamier do classe him with the Papists in his answers to this text he walks crosse to the Dutch and English Annotations and to Calvin page 103 104 105. His answers to our Argument from Ephes. 4 〈◊〉 Examined page 106 107 108. Chap. 10. misprinted Chap. 12. page 109. The Informer offers Scripture warrand for Bishops His Argument from the Government of the Church under the old Testament the subordination of the Priests and Levites The remoteness and absurdity of his consequence anent the lawfulnesse of the present diocesian Erastian Prelats office asit is deduced from this principle discovered several wayes page 110 111 112. That there is no image of our Prelacy in the Jewish Church Government cleared The Informer walks crosse to Iunius yea Bishop Bilson himself and in the series of his reasoning introduces a pope into the Christian Church page 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120. His Argument from the Apostles superiority to the 70 disciples examined He begs the question in supposing Prelats to succeed the Apostles immediately and Pastors the 70 Disciples and from a superiority among officers of different kindes groundlesly concludes a superiority among officers of the same kind No Image of our prelacy in the Apostles superiority over other Church officers page 121 122 123 124 125 126. Chap. 11. misprinted Chap. 10. page 127. The Informers great Argument for Prelacy from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus Their Episcopall 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 judgment of interpreters page 128 129 misprinted 127 130 misprinted 128 131. misprinted 129. The Informers answers anent the strict and large sense of an Evangelist his reasons of deny 〈◊〉 to Timothy the Evangelistick office in a strict sense 〈◊〉 amined and found inconsistent with themselves aâ—… contrare to Scripture 132 misprinted 130 13â—… misprinted 131 134 misprinted 132 135 misprinted 133 136 misprinted 134 137 misprinted 135 138 misprinted 136 he denies the poweâ—… in ordination and Jurisdiction to be the proper work of an Evangelist How absurdly and inconsistently page 139 140 misprinted 137 138 his contradiction to Saravia discovered in severall points page 141 142 misprinted 139 140 143 misprinted 151 His answer to the Doubters Argument anent Timotheus his not being fixed at Ephesus but occasionally left there examined as also his answer to that Exception of the Doubter anent Pauls giving the Episcopal charge to the elders of Ephesus not to Timothy our Informer pityfully bruilied with this Text page 144 145 146 147 148 misprinted 142 143 144 145 146 he walks crosse to Bishop Hal Dounham and Hooker to Chrysostome Jerome Theodorus His grounds upon which he pleads for Timothy and Titus their Episcopal power particularly examined the first taken from Pauls giving direction to Timothy and Titus how to cary in ordination and Iurisdiction generally examined page 149 150 misprinted 146 147 his arguing from these directions particularly examined anent their not laying on of hands suddenly anent rebuke and censures page 151 152 misprinted 148 149 the Informers next Argument from the concernment of after ages in these rulers That neither this nor the adressing of these rulers to the Evangelists will affoord any help unto him cleared The London Ministers vindicat That Timothy and Titus power at Ephesus and Crete was not voided after some elders were ordained there a sandy foundation to support their Episcopacy The Informer is pityfully in the bryars in answering his Doubâ—…ers exception anent Timothies ordination by the laying on 〈◊〉 the hands of the Presbytery The practice of after ages a ground to support the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169. misprinted 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166. Chap. 12. misprinted Chap. 11. according to the misprinted Method which shall be followed hereafter except in some few pages page 167. The Informers pleadings for Prelacy from the seven Asian Angells discussed That the stile of prophetick writings and of this book do strongly conclude a collectivesense in the term Angel proved by several Arguments page 168 169 170. Whatever he can alledge is the Characteristick of this angel proved to be in Scripture apropriat to Ministers page 171. Many divines ancient and modern for the collective sense of the Word Angel yea some episcopal men themselves page 172 173. The admitting of the Angel to be one single person will nothing help the Informer page 173 174. His answer to the exception from Rev. 2 24. examined Ibid. His Argument from the pretended Testimonies of the ancients and the Catalogues of succeeding Bishops examined Page 175 176 177 178. The addressing of the Epistle to the Angel Will not help him as neither Doctor Reynolds nor Beza their taking the Angel for a single person Page 178 179 180 181 The Informers new Argument for prelacy taken for Diotrephes his love of preheminence wherein he embraces Bellarmines evasions and offers violence to this and parallel texts page 181 182 183 184 185 186 187. Chap 13. misprinted Chap. 12. page 187. The Informers appeal to Antiquity in the point of Episcopacy That Antiquity is not the Judge in this debate although he could instruct the matter of fact proved Page 188 189 190 191. The Scripture even by the Confession of the Fathers the only
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
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
is the Presbiteries forensicall Act in ordination of Timothie To what end must the Corinth Church Officers Meet together and authoritatively and joyntlie punish or censur the incestuous man Wher is that pleasing of the Apostles and elders as the foundation of the Synodical decree and letter together with it seemed good to the HolyGhost and to us And to us Mett with one accord Wher is I say this joynt decisive power of Church Judicatories thus clearly held out in the premised Scriptures if the Act and Ecclesiastick decision thereof be soly the Prelats sic â—…olo sie jubeo masked with advice of Presbyters of whose advice he may make what use he pleases and with a simple nego make their judgment and suffrage evanish into smoake 3. This power of the Prelats cuts of from Ministers one half of their authoritie and commission receaved in their ordination They are made therein as is clear in Scripture our adversaries grant it Rulers Governours Overseers Pastors Stewards in the Church Have both the Shepherds bagg staff the key of doctrine and the key of discipline intrusted to them By what warrand then must they give up all their power in government their decisive suffrage in Church Judicatories unto the domineering Prelat and as to spiritual power in Church Judicarories become meer Ciphers They watch and rule as they that must give account of all their administration to Christ. Peter exhorts the Elders suteablie to exercise their Episcopal Authority over the flock that they may get the Crown from the chief Shepherd Stewards of God especially must be faithful and imploy well all their Talents receaved from the great Master that they may get his approbation and reward as faithful Servants The Elders of Ephesus were obtested by Paul to take heed to themselves and to all the flock over which they were made Bishops by the Holy Ghost to feed and rule the Church which God hath purchased with his blood Now all thes exhortations directed to Ministers are to no purpose if they have no inherent immediat Rule essentially included in their office And to be exercised accordingly but must only preach as a Diocesian Prelats Deputes and be in the exercise of their ruling governing power absolutly subject to him and at his disposal Finally This usurped authoritie in the Prelat sets him above the reach of all censure by Church Indicatories So that though Ministers are absolutly and at his beck censurable by and subject to him both as to their doctrine conversation and discipline and every one of them thus censurable and jointly yet this hie Pop who judges All will be judged by none himself Either as to his Doctrine Life or Government Some have said of the Prince that though major singulis yet he is minor universis less then the whole body of the people though greater then every one aparte But the Prelat exercises a greater principalitie in Church Judicatories is therein major universis greater then the whole meeting so that thogh he can stop the Votes and Censures of the whole Synod yet they cannot either by suffrage or censure in the least put a check to him in any of His most wicked Acts or Antichristian Exorbitances Now how contrary this is to Scriptur any may judge The Prophets after their prophesying must be judged by the rest as to their doctrine 1 Cor. 14 29 Ergo a fortiori much more as to their conversation government are lyable to be judged and consequentlie censured if deserving it For he were a great Critick that would distinguish these so as those who have power to judge have no power to censure or pass sentence upon their judging And this is founded upon a general comprehensive ground viz. the Spirits of the Prophets that is the gifts and exercises of the Ministery in all Church Officers without exception are subject to the Prophets viz. to their disquisition and censure in any peece of their work or official Acts. Now unles our Prelats would deny themselves to be Prophets and Ministers or the Presbyters to be Prophets they must acknowledge this subjection to their censure enjoyned in the Scripture premised and consequently that their exeeming themselves from the same is an anti-scriptural usurpation I remember while a writting that proposing once this Argument to ane Episcopal Clergie man I enquired to what Church Judicatorie in Scotland was Mr Sharp subject as to either his life or doctrine He answered that he was subject to a general Counsell and this was very apposit and consequenter to their principles So that our Prelats at least the two Arch are in no fear but of a general Council if the Court froune not In our Act of Parliament touching the mould of our National Synod the Primat is the essential President sine quo non and so is sure enough from being censured there so are the rest of the Prelats as to all their Synods according to our Lawes But what think these exleges Episcopi or hie Court Prelats of such a humble Bishop as the Apostle Paul who had hands laid upon him and was authoritativelie sent out by that Presbitery of Prophets and teachers at Antioch Act. 13. together with Barnabas about ane eminent Gospel-Legation and was by the same Church and Presbytery sent together with Barnabas and certain other commissioners of the Churches to that Synod at Jerusalem Act. 15. Why did not Paul make use of his Negative voice and command them all silence in this debate How comes it that his hie Bishop subjects himself to the authoritative blessing and mission of some pettie Prophets and teachers Ane amazeing looking glass this is no doubt to our aspyreing Prelats 4. The holding of the Diocesian Prelat and obtruding him upon the Church as ane ordinary Church officer distinct from and superior to Presbiters doth many wayes Impeach Christs Kingly office as head and law giveâ—… of his Church whose faithfulnes above that of Moses who ordered according to the Patern shewed upon the Mount the least pine of the Tabernacle must needs reach the appointment of the officers offices qualifications work and gifts of these officers who are to officiat in his house as our Confession of Faith and Catechisim doe assert For according to our Prelatical Clergie and according to the Lawes the Prelat hath a distinct Work from that of a Presbiter viz. to govern a diocess he hath the Actus primus of a State ruler to sitt in Council or Parliament Nixt he hath a distinct solemne Consecration or inauguration to his Office And 3. Must needs be supposed to have likwise distinct qualifications and Gifts from those of a preaching Presbiter conferred by this solemne imposition of hands and blessing at his Consecration wherby he must be supposed to have a superior distinct mission and to be in all the forementioned particulars distinct from and superior to a Presbiter Now if non of all these points of his superioritie can
be found in Scripture this Officer patched up thereof must either be unwarrantable or Christ the Churches head and lawgiver his Lawes and rules in point of Church Government and in relation to the duties gifts ordination and work of Church Officers are not full and perfect but mank and deficient as to such ane eminent Church Officer And where is then the perfection of his word and Testament to make not only the ordinarie Christian but even the mà n of God the Minister of God perfect and throughly furnished to every good work That non of all the formentioned particulars as to this Officer distinct from and superior to a Presbiter can be found in Scripture but are contrarie therunto I prove thus 1. The Scriptur mentions no name qualification work dutie or ordination of any or dinary Church Officer superior to presbiters and which are not likewayes appropriat to them who are called Rulers Governours Bishops and both ordination and Jurisdiction ar apropriat to them in a perfect paritie 1 Thess. 5 12. with 17. v. and 1 Tim. 5 17. Hebr. 13. v. 7 17. 1 Cor. 5 13. 1 Tim. 4 14. 3 Epist. Ioh. 9. v. 2. In all the Holy Ghost his purposed recitalls of ordinarie Church officers and purposed declaration of their gifts and duties ther is not the least hint of the premised ingredients of the office of this supposed Diocesian Bishop as thus distinct from and Superior to Presbiters 1 Cor. 12 28. Eph. 4 11 12. Rom. 12. 7 8. In these places wee have besyds the Apostles Prophets Evangelists whose Office as extraordinaire is ceased Pastores Elders Deacons But no hint of the Office name qualifications or Mission of ane ordinarie Church Officer Superior to the Pastor is either heire or in any Scripture else which notwithstanding is express as to the Office and qualifications even of the Deacon the lowest Officer Strange the server of Tables his Office and ordination clearlie set down in Scriptur And yet Altum silentium as to either name Office or ordination of the Diocesian Bishop If the argument of our divines be good from hence against the Pope because not mentioned in these Catalogues of Church Officers Ergo a pari It must hold good against the Prelat And as to that that the Prelat hath the Actus Signatus of a State Ruler how cross this is to Scripture we may after shew Sure since Christ set all these his Officers in the Church and commands them diligentlie to wait upon and attend their work and Ministery therein He never made or allowed them to bee State Rulers CHAP. II. Some more Arguments against the Diecesian Prelat That his office debases the Acts and exercise of the power of order cleared It maims and diversisies the Pastoral office by anti-scriptural now invented degrees thereof His office many wayes contrare to the very nature of the Gospel-Church-Government THe Diocesian Bishop his office is in this contrare to the Word of God V. In that it Debases the highest Acts and exercise of the power of order in a Gospel Ministery For all do grant preaching of the Word and the Administration of the Sacraments and Seals of the Covenant of grace to be such So that he who can do thes Acts hath the badge of the highest Ministerial Authority as ane ordinarie Church Officer these being among the most emnient Acts of the Apostles there office and Authoritie Go teach baptize c. They must have some to serve Tables that they may give themselves continually to the Ministery of the Word Timothy our prelatical mens Supposed-Bishop must preach the Word and be instant in season out of season reprove rebuke exhort with all long suffering and Doctrine 2 Tim. 4 1 2. The great Apostle of the Gentiles who had the care of all the Churches coming upon him and therin a great ruleing work Yet pronunces a woe upon himself if he preach not the Gospel 1 Cor. 9 28. And he tells us this was a speciall trust committed to him In this he admires the rich grace of God that he was putt into the Ministery and honoured to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ. Peter that great Apostle of the circumcision when by the Lord restored to his office and encouraged to its exercise by a Threefold renovation of his Mission is thryce enjoyned as the great badge of his love to his Master to feed his Lambes and Sheep Accordingly the Scripture Bishop must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apt to teach and he that teacheth by office scilicet must waite upon teaching and the wise and faithful Steward appointed by the Lord to give the children their meat in dew Season must be found So doeing when the Lord comes to reckon with him and not lay up this noble Talent in a Napkine To this the key of diseiplin is inferior and Subordinat as themean to its end the higher honour above ruleing only being allowed to the labourer in the word doctrine 1 Tim. 5 17. This being clear I say the office of the Diocesian Bishop debases and tramples upon these highe and noble Acts of a Pastor and consequently upon the premised Scriptures asserting the same and that in these wayes I. In that the quondam Presbyter only when made a Prelat leaves off The feeding of the flock and layes by the preaching talent the Church wher he did preach or officiat it may be shall never see or hear him againe but is ipso facto voyde to be possed by another nor by his now-office is he oblidged to preach or Minister the Sacraments any more at all these petty peeces of work being below his new Lordship Trew he may preach if he please and at the Church wher he reseeds but that is per accidens ex abundanti and out of courtesie but by his office Qua Prelat he is bound to preach no more to any frock nor is he in the least judged faultie or deficient in his Episcopal office if he be wholly silent Nay in England preaching Prelats have been highely upbraided and reproached by their fellowes and called preaching Cox Combes Wee all know what ane odd peece of work Mr Lightoun's preaching was esteemed by the generalitie of the Prelatick partie when he turned Prelat Now let any of commune Reason or ingenuity judge what ane office that must be which putts a Minister intrusted with the Lords great commission to preach the Gospel under pretence of advancement to a higher Sphere in the Ministery to lay by this work which is the noblest and highest of the Ministerial Authoritie wherin the Apostles themselves mainely laboured and gloried as the most noble meane of the conversion of Sonles and consequentlie of the glorie of Christ therin Nay to lay by this noble work under pretence of new burdene of Government Wheras the Apostles who had the wholl Churches to plant and Govern most enixely plyed this work still If this man become not a dumb dog and a sloathfull unprofiteable servant let
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
exercise ane extraordinary unfixed ministery towards all the Churches planted and to be planted 3. In setting up up no such ordinare officers to succeed them in this so necessarie a work but committing the wholl governement to meer presbyters as is said 4. In ommiting in all their rules prescriptions anent Church government the offices and officers therof the least intimation of this officer and giving no rules for either the qualifications or ordination of any higher officer then a meer presbyter 5. In express dischargeing of Lordly dominion preheminence among ordinary Church officers Now if this be not a debasing of and hie reflection upon these eminent extraordinary Church officers both to make them carry ane office contrare and inferior unto and inconsistent with ther holy functions intrusted to them by the Lord and likewayes in their practice to contradict their doctrin in relation to Church government yea and in both their Doctrin and practice to contradict crosse the Lords great commission and instructions If this be not I say a horrid reflection upon their faithfullnes Let any judge CHAP. IV. The diocesian Prelats office taks away the peoples right to Call there Pastor This right proved from Scriptur and divine Reason It excludes the office of the Ruleing elder Some Cheiff exceptions of the prelatick party to that 1. Tim. 5. 17. Ansuered IN the 9â—… place The Episcopal government is in this contrare unto the word In that it cutts off Congtegations from all interest and right in Calling there Pastor For in this government the Ministers mission Call Ordination and Relation to such a people over whom he is to officiat flowes all from the Prelat The Congregationall eldership have not the Least interestin it Hence this power of calling Pastores was ranversed by our Parliament when prelacie was set up and the old popish Custome of patronages was restored The Prelat sends a man to the poor people as their Minister whom possibly they never sawe in the face Now this is contrare both to Scriptur and reason contrare to the practice of the apostolick Church For 1. Even the deacons were looked out and chosen by the people Act. 6. 3. That the Apostles might ordaine and lay their hands upon them and install them in their office with a publick blessing And if the people were to have so great ane Interest in choosing these men though even the Apostles who had infallible knouledge of qualifications were present to ordaine them that this trust of disburseing their Almes or charitie might be committed to non but upon their consent choyce Ergo a fortiori People have a far greater Interest as to their Consent and choyce of the man To whom they are to Intrust their Soules conduct unto another world which is of infinit more worth then all the Earthes treasures And while the are no such infalible discerners of fitt persons to officiat as the Apostles were If the Apostles would not set apart men for this meanest employment without the Peoples-Consent looking them out How absurd is it that the highest ordinary officer the Pastor should be sent to officiat in that eminent office with out ther knowledge or Consent 2 Wee find the chooseing and sending out of Church officers in this hie ministeriall employment To have been upon the peoples consent and choyce for Act. 14. The Elders or Ministers who were ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church by Church were thus ordained and sett apart to their office Compared with Tit. I. 5. Berause not to stand here upon the import of the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which imports a hand suffrage and consent of the people as shale be made good upon the Third Dialogue and the exceptions of this pamphleter upon that passage examined this is clear that this ordination was to be performed in the Church Ergo of necessity with the peoples Consent and choice And Nixt If the Apostles would not ordaine the Deacons but after this manner much lesse Ministers unto such a weighty employment since in ther faithfullnes the people are as is said infinitly more concerned Besydes the very Intimation and litte of the men out of whom a Successor to the Apostleshipe in the place of Judas was by God immediatly to be chosen was with the peoples Consent Therfor much more ought this to be in the ordination and admission of ane ordinary officer whose call is mediat and ordinarie 3. The Scripture doeth clearly hold forth a congregational Church juridical eldership representing that Church Which besyes many other reasons addâ—…cible and accordingly pleaded by our writâ—…ers is evident in this That as the Scripture makes mention of greater Churches such as that of Corinth Jerusalem c Who were certanly presbyterial because 〈◊〉 they are found thogh consisting of many officers and Rulers and of lesser Societies yet to be all poynted cut as one Church which must needs Import a Classicall or presbiterial unitie of these lesseSocieties So the Spirit of God doth alsoâ—…all these lesser Societies Churches in the plural Let the Woman beep Silence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Churches 1. Cor. 14. 34. Which must needs Import the Single Congregations of that one Church of Corinth And moreover through thes Churches Rulers Elders Gouvernours were sett and established 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church by Church that is throw all particular Churches Act. 14. 23. With Tit. I. 5. For if the Church is found to have had both ruleing and teaching Elders Rom. 12. 8. 1. Cor 12. 28. 1. Tim. 5. 17. And upon the other hand if these lesser Societies are called Churches It certanly followes that they had ane eldership rule in them If ane eldership and rulers be allowed to rule and represent the Congregation in matters Ecclesiasticall then by necessary consequence it followes that the Call of the Pastor and Chieff elder and his choice as most suteable to their condition must fall within the compasse ofther Spiritual authority Finally the denying of this unto Congregations the Episcopal arbitrarie obtruding of Ministers upon them without their call and consent is in two great points contrare unto divine Reason 1. Unto that spiritual and near relation which is betwixt a Minister and his flock which we will find this pamphleter after plead which is certainly marriage like and very straite And there being many peculiarduties which they owe unto him beside others Ministers all flowing from this relation particularly a special reverence obedience and subjection These must certanely suppose a voluntarie consent and call and cannot be bottomed upon the meer will and pleasure of another which cannot make up this relation 2 This denying of the peoples right to call their Pastor is contrare unto that Iudgment of discretion that spiritual discerning and trying of the Spirits which is allowed yea enjoyned to the people of God If in any thing a spiritual discerning must take place surely in
this especially to whom a people doe intrust their soules direction and guidance If in any thing a Christian must Act in Faith and not give up his perswasion to ane implicit conduct and thus become a servant of men sure it must be in a mater ofso great weight as this is If Christs sheep have this for their Character that they knowe the voice of the trew Shepherd from the voice of the hyreling and stranger from whom they will flie Joh. 10 4 5. Sure their knowlege and consent must interveen in order to their acceptance of and subjecton to their Shepherd If they must not belive every Spirit buttry the Spirits sure this caution and tryal must be especially allowed in this case that they admitt not a false Prophet instead of a trew So then the Episcopal Government is in this as in other pointes chargeable with antichristian and anti-scriptural tyrannie over Christs flockes 10. The Episcopal Government is in this contrare unto the Word of God viz. In denying and cutting off from his administration and the totall laying asyde of a singularely usefull Church officer appointed by Christ in his House viz the ruleing elder That Government which denies and layes aside any of the great Master of the vine yeard his servants and officers whom he hath authorized and appointed must needs be highly derogatorie to his glory and contrare to his word But such is Prelacie The Prelats are like that sloathfull wicked servant who smites and beats away there fellow-servants while they eat and drink with the drunken That Prelats disoun and exclude this officer is evident both from their principles and practise They all deny the divine warrand of this Church officer And where Prelacy is established he is excluded from Presbyteries and Synodes and upon the mater also from the congregation For they deny and exclude all decisive suffrage there and take away all Authority of congregational elderships as we seen Now that this ruleing elder distinct from both the preaching Presbyter and Deacon Is appointed by God our Divines have made good from severall Scriptur grounds Such as 1. From Rom. 12 6 7. Where among severall other Church officers which the Apostle doth enumerat there is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or he that ruleth Here is ane ordinary Ruler distinct from all other Rulers and Church officers the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Rule and authoritative power Againe he is ranked among ordinarie Officers and so must needs be ane ordinary standing officer yet stands distinguished from other ordinary officers haveing both a distinct name from all the rest likewayes a distinct worke as being diversified from the teacher the exhorter and the giver And moreover a peculiar direction as have likewise all the rest So that from the circumstances of this place the divine right of this officer is clearly demonstrate Nixt That passage is pertinently improven for this purpose 1 Cor. 12 28. Where we read of helps Governments under distinct paragraphes clearly pointing out ordinary Governing Church officers distinct from the elders that preach and the Deacon and all other Church Governoures whatsoever They cannot be Governoures in the General for what doth this among a particula enumeration of officers These are distinct from helps distinct from the teaching elder for he is already mentioned in this same vers So here is a Rule and Government distinct from all governoures either civil or ecclesiastick except this ruleing elder yet set by God in the Church under the new Testament But the third and most pregnant passage from which our divines doe demonstrat the divine right of this Church officer is that of the 1 Tim. 5 17. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially they who labour in the word and Doctrine Here is a ruleing Church officer distinct from the preaching elder For here is a general elders Nixt we have two distinct branches of these elders viz the ruleing elder and the elder that both rules and laboures in the word and Doctrine in the word as the Pastor In the Doctrine as the teacher Again they are diversified in two distinct participles and epithets ruling is made the marke and characterick of the one viz Ruling only And both Ruleing and teaching is made the marke of the other whereby they are distinguished in their nature and office But in the 3d. place the forementioned distinction eminently appears in the discretive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially which is set betwixt these two kynds of elders intimating that as there were some of these ruling elders who did labour in the word and Doctrin so there were others who did Rule and not labour in the Word Both were worthy of double honour but especially the labourer in the word over and above this ruling And to this purpose it is well observed that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially is allwayes in the new Testament made use of to distinguish one thing from another As when it is said Gal. 6 10. Let us doe good to all men but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expecially to these of the houshold of faith hereby distinguishing soom that were of the houshold of faith and some that were not In which sense it is also used Phil. 4 22. and 1 Tim. 5 8 This precept saith Pâ—…scator Anal in Locum he first illustrats by a distribution and comparison of things different and unlike for he distinguishes elders into those who were sett over Ecclesiastick Disciplin yet so asthey did not publickly teach those who did teach also Wherein he clearly gives sentence for us against the Prelatick partie in this point Wee may hence Collect that ther were two sortes of elders at that time saith Calvin on 1 Tim. 5 17. For all were not ordained to teach for the words doc manifestly hold forth that some had governed well and faithfully to whom notwithstanding the office of teaching was not committed And trewly from among the people their were grave and good men chosen and approved who did together with Pastores by commune Councell authority administer Church Government and were in some sort censors for correcting of manners which oustome Ambrose compleans to have worme out of use by the negligence or rather the pryde of teachers while they covet to rule alone The pregnancy of this Scripture tramples into the dust the pitiful evasiones of all the Prelatists in denying the divine right of this officer Some of which we shall here take notice of and the confutation of the same offered by our divines upon this point Some by Ruleing well will have living well to be understood But the Apostle is speaking of the office of ruling in a Church officer ruling over others not of ruling over a mans â—…eif in a privat capacitie Neither is the Churches Honorarium double honour double maintinance due to living well as here it is allowed to ruling well And this will say that the Minister that
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
Our writers have abundantly cleared the inconsequence of any argument drawn from that instance as to this point In that though the Civil and Ecclesiastick Sanhedrin were distinct originaly Yet the judiciall Civil law being given immediatly by God to the jewes as well as the Moral and Ceremonial the priests by consequence under that dispensation had a most necessary interest as to its interpretation decision in many cases for the law was to be sought at their mouth The difference of which condition of the jewish from that of the Christian Church Spread over the world and in Countreys where are different moulds of Civil government and lawes and which are not tyed to that judicial law doth cast the ballances and overthrow his argument As for that of deutr 17. Wee have seen how it holds out a Twofold Sanhedrin which had distinct members acts and objects In a word if his argument from this instance were good upon his supposition that priests were members in that Court it would prove that Christians could not have a lawful civil Supreme Judicatorie unles Ministers were constituent members thereof And that Ministers were essentially necessarly ex natura officii as these priests constituent members of civil Judicatories which is more then he dare assert and the absurdity thereof is above cleared His 2d Ground is drawn from the examples and instances of Eli the Priest who judged Israel fourty years and of Samuel the Prophet who though lent to the Lord from his birth yet went in circuit yearly judging the people But 1. The force of this reason leaning upon ane example meerly of Church officers under the old dispensation and the gratis supposed imitablenes thereof it is like the other argument very unsound and lax He will not dare to averr that every deduction a facto ad jus is sound All scripture examples are for our improvement but not for our imitation Even good and laudable Acts of the Saints are of this nature many of them Some were heroical as Elias bringing fire from heaven which the Lord discharged James and John to imitat Phinehas his Act he will say with his Master the surveyer was of this nature Some Acts did flow from ane extraordinarie emergent of Providence and a call flowing therefrom as Abrahams attempt to offer his Son Israels borrowing from the Egyptians and not paying Some Acts had their issue from a â—…ansient and occasional junctur procuring a necessity pro tunc as Pauls preaching gratis and working with his hands Some acts were to confirme a special extraordinary call So our Lords fourty dayes fast and that of Moses his tipe Now to conclud from the premised instances the lawfulness of these Acts viz Sacrificing Children borrowing and not paying the popish quadrantum c This Informer will grant to be very poor and childish Sophristrie yet such is his reasoning here 2. Divines doe tell us that these examples only are imitable whose ground and scope are of a moral nature which the persons did as saints or Christians such are all examples of morall standing duties enjoyned in the commands They tell us 3. That there are two Rules necessarly to be observed and which this Informer must of necessity grant as to a conclusion ab exemplo ad factum or a facto ad jus which cutts the sinnews of his argument here 1. No example which crosses a morall precept can ground a Rule for this would make the Rule crosse it self And to bring this neer the point in hand I will shew that this Informer fights against himself and must needs admitt this answer from the very mould of his argument For he thinks to imforce the Instance from Samuel his civill actings by telling us that he was lent to the Lord from his mothers womb Which will say according to his pleading That a man though singularly devoted to God in the sacred Ministry yet may deliberatly and of choice become a civil judge yea a supreme civil judge and then I would know how he will reconcile this with the great gospel precept 2 Tim. 2 4. Which himself pleads as discharging deliberat medling in civil affairs because the sacred Ministery is a warfare or a dedication of the Minister to the service of Christ And what will he say if one shall argue thus if a Minister though dedicat to the Lord from his mothers womb may notwithstanding become a civil judge then the Ministry its being a warrfare under Christ cannot hinder a mans medling by choice in civill affaires which notwithstanding he denyes So that either he must disown this Instance or his sense of that Gospell precept But of this againe 2. No examples of Acts done from ane extraordinary calling gifts are to be imitated by such as have neither the one nor the other Wee will find our Informer afterward grant this in relation to the Apostles that there are many things depending upon special emergents that are not imitable in them And if he should deny this Rule as he will contradict himself so he will not evite a great inconvenience from the fact of Phinehas from Ehud c. Incase some person of a boistrous heart and unruly hand should plead these instances to offer violence unto him Be side if this rule be not admitted he will brangle the boundarie and limits of different ordinary callings and relations by consequence which the God of order hath fixed The examples of Magistratical or Ministeriall duties obliges not privat persons to ane imitation The Apostolick Acts of working Miracles giving the Spirit by laying one of hands universal unfixed preaching he will grant are not imitable as neither the peculiar duties of Relations among privat persons doe obleige every one because these extraordinary gifts and callings are now gone And so say I of these examples of Eli and Samuel who are by all sound divines ranked among the judges whose call and office is acknowledged to have been extraordinary God keeping at that time the regal rights in his own hand befor he set up any fixt ordinary Rulers and Kings and creating calling extraordinarly his owne deputies in the Government sometimes out of one tribe and sometimes out of another whose authority died with themselves and admitted of no succession Wherefore Gideon told the people that God was their King and refused that office when offered and the peoples guilt in wearing of this holy immediat Government of God himself and desiring a King is aggravated from this That they had rejected God who was their King So that his argument from these extraordinary instances is wholly inconcludent it being from ane extraordinary to ane ordinary calling from ane extraordinary factum to ane ordinary jus which is consequence we will find himself afterward disown And if he straine these instances they will prove too much viz. That Ministers may be Kings or supreme civil judges which I believe he will not adventure to plead for since what ever thanks he
this dominion and powerfully to commend to them humility and low lines as the most excellent remedy therof And his argument runns a fortiori thus If I your Lord and Master be as on that serves and am such a pattern of selfdenial and humility among you much more ought you to studie humility and to guard against all usurped authority and dominion over on another who are fellow Disciples and servants So he reasoned Joh 13. If I your Lord master have washed your feet you viz much more as being equalls ought also to wash one anothers feet so that which he imagines doth mak Christs argument not sute well maksit the more forcible suite the better 2. He here contradicts himself while making the argument from Christs example v. 28. to suite the discharge of ambition only not of inequality the terms in which he impertinently states the difference and opposition as to what is discharged and not discharged for he grants there was to be no inequalitie among the Apostles and when he thus limites his general answer that all supeiroritie among Church men is not here discharged he grants that some superioritie viz among the Apostles themselves was discharged and consequently discharged upon this motive Christs own example How then I pray will he make this argument from Christs example who was in dominion and principality above the Twelve and their and all the Churches monarch and head suite his purpose of discharging Inequality Superioritie or primacie among the Apostles His reason he explaines thus further that taking Christ onely to speak against ambition or a sinful desire of superoritie which was Diotrephes fault the reason from his own example suites well who though above all yet was a pattern to all in humility Ans. 1. Wee have heard that Christs argument suites best in the sense we have propounded which is the sense of all sound divines 2. If it was only a sinful desire of a superioritie in it self lawful such as he sayes Diotrephes had how rationally we shall after see which our Lord dehorted from by his own example then all our divines have mist the marke in pleading from this text against the object of this desire not the sinful maner of desiring only and the Papists gloss holds good against them viz that Christs example will plead only against ambition 3. Our Informer yet againe falleth here into a twosold contradiction 1. He makes the Superiority the object of this ambitious desire to be in it self lawful and their fault only to lie in the ambitious or sinful desire yet in answer to the nixt obiection he grants that Christ discharged dominium civile despoticum Now he must either say that this was the object of their desire consequently that it was sinful in the object or else that our Lords discourse and exhortation was not to the purpose Againe this domineum civile despoticum is more then a meer superioritie But 2. the superioritie here discharged was among the Apostles themselves this was the object of their desire the ambitions question and debate was which of them should be greatest and highest above all the rest Now he grants that there was to be no superioritie far less principality among them How then can he say that Christ discharged only ane ambitious affectation of a superioritie in it self lawful such as Diotrephes had whom we will find him after assert to have endeavoured to put himself into a lawful pre-existent office Surely if there was to be no inequality among them their desire of inequality was most sinful in the object upon that very ground Againe he grants that Christ speaks to the Twelve and likwayes cannot deny but clearly insinuates a concession with the text that the Apostles were striveing about inequality which he acknowledges was unlawful in them yet in the second answer he will not have this discharged which how inconsistent it is let any judge Beside since Christ spoke this to the twelve among whom there was to be no inequality in respect of power as he sayes consequently discharged this since he is rebuking them for striving about a primacy the highest degree of inequality in respect of power how absurd nonsensical is his 2d answer which denies that Christ discharged inequality could Christ discharge them an inequality of the highest pitch and yet not discharge inequality Or could all inequality in respect of power be unlawful among them and yet not be discharged when our Lord discharged a primacy of power he will prove a strang critick if he distinguish these He tells us lastly here that humility imparity can well consist But can humility a forbidden imparity consist can humility in a Churchman Dominium civile and despoticum consist Both which he acknowledges were discharged to the Apostles here So he insinuats that their desired imparity was still lawful in it self since it may be possessed even humbly thus heaps up inconsistencies He objects to himself That Christ in denying to them the Dominion of the Princes of the gentiles discharged all superiority among Church men To which he answers That he onely discharges Dominium civile despoticum a princely Lordly power such as they exercise but the power of the Church is of another nature Ans. 1. Not to meedle with his makeing Dominium civile and despoticum adequat termes there being a Dominium politicum ordinately contradistinguished from despoticum which is also a Dominium civile He grants here that it was more then a simple desire of a lawful superiority which the Apostles were tainted with forgeting what he said immediatly before Nixt if Christ discharged this civil Lordly power to Churchmen he discharged them to be Parliaments Lords and to hold civil state offices contrare to what he pleades from the instances of the Priests Numb II. and from Eli Samuel and so he must grant the new Testament Church and its dispensation to be in this different from the old since he acknowledges that Church power was here allowed the Apostles and their successors and civill power discharged Thus our Informer must grant that Christ did here rid marches betwixt these things which he before confounded and their Erastian Prelacy confounds Again this is the very shift of Bellarmin to save the popes supremacie The Lord saith he In forbidding them to rule as the Princes of the Gentiles signified they were to rule but not after that manner viz. Ecclesiastically So he thinks it touches not the popes Ecclesiastick supremacy and the Informer in this stryks hands with him For if our Lord discharged only here that kind of Dominion as he sayes But allowed a Church power or dominion of another nature surely for anything that is here discharged ane Ecclesiastick pop or patriarch his mytrestands sure and is never touched by any prohibition which the Disciples here got against the sense and pleading of all Protestants Moreover will this Informer adventur to say that the popes
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
us the Image and lineaments of our present prelacie in the Jewish Church Government For 1. We cleared above that the Ecclesiastick Sanhedrin was distinct from the civil and that the priests had a distinct independent authority and ministery But the prelats derive all their spiritual authority from the Magistrat 2. He cannot shew that either the Highpriest or any inferiour priests had the sole decisive Suffrage in their ecclesiastick Courts or such a negative voice as the prelats exercise assumein their pretended Synods and presbyteries The learned Iunius will informe our Informer De Cler. Cap. 24 Not 13. That par consortium honoris potestatis fuit inter sacerdotes sed ordine impari qua familiarum qua temperis respectu Penes concessum sacerdotum ex lege fuit ordinaria jurisdictio ecclesiastica That is Among the priests there was a like participation of honour and power though in a different order partly in respect of families and partly in respect of times the ordinarie ecclesiastick jurisdiction belonged to the assemblie of the priests according to the Law Thus he Sure then it belonged not to the Highpriest alone farr less to any inferiour priests and therefore none of them all had our prelats negative voice in judicatories or a sole decisive Suffrage so that they were farr from our prelats principality as to directive and corrective power And therefore though we should grant that his argument will hold as to our being oblidged by the policie of the Jewes and to have the government of the Gospel Church this moulded yet our present hierarchie is so different from it that it will not help his cause in the least But the doubter objects that there ought not to be such a subordination under the new Testament To which he answers That the Old Testament-subordination being to maintaine order and unitie in the in the Church there is the same reason for it under the new and stronger because the Christian Church is of larger extent then the Iewish and the danger of schismes and the necessity of preventing them the greater And what better way for this then Gods way thus exemplary pointed out to us although the New Testament gave no other ground Gods own model being best for the Church I answ 1. He must plead for much more then a meer subordination of Officers if he speak to the point as is clear from that is said And his Doubter if he had dealt fairely should have objected that the New Testament Church ought not to have the same mould of government that the Jewish had and that there is a vast disparitie betwixt their prelatick Erastian Hierarchie and the Jewish Church-Government Both which grounds doe break the force of his argument But it is good that our Informer hath the doubters arguments and objections of his own moulding 2. Though he know reason of a subordination under the Old Testament he should have said of that particular mould of government which the Iewish Church had but his general one to maintaine order and union in Gods Church he should have said in that Church under that special dispensation yet we have showen him some Reasons of their particular policie which doe not reach us And shall onely resume to him that we have neither 1. Such a distinction of tribes Nor 2. A common Temple and common Ministry in one Temple for the universal or for any National Church as they Nor 3. Have we such types and shaddowes from which as upon the former grounds this mould of government did flow Nor 4. Such various sanctuarie offices and degrees and varieties of administrations requiring as Bishop Bilson hath told him such varietie and different degrees of Administratores the Word and Sacraments being concredited to all Ministers without distinction c. Besides hath not the Apostle in the forementioned passage Hebr. 7 12. Given this Informer a sufficient Reason why wee are not tyed to the same Policie viz because that the Priosthood is changed i. e. their particular frame of Church officers that therefore there is made a change of the Law that is of the legal ordinance both of worship Government 3. Darene say that Christs Church under the New Testament may have every mould of government which may be in it self or in respect of some circumstances commendable and subservient to these ends of order and union Where is Christs faithfulness as a Sone over his own house beyond that of Moses Where are all the New Testament prescriptions in point of government Officers Lawes Censures if the Church thereof like a Tabula rasa may have any government introduced into it which may be in its own time and place good and Ministers framed according to the Old Testament dispensation 4. How will our Informer extricat himself as to the Jewish High priest in maintaining this Answer to his doubter Was not his office a special mean of order and unitie in that Church and to prevent schisme s and divisions And is there not the same reason that the Christian Church should be thus kept from that evil by a supream Highpriest or bishop What better way for this then Gods owne way And what better pattern for modelling the New Testament-Church in point of her government then this pattern Surely the Pope will thank him for this I know he sets aside in contradiction to Saravia as I shall shew the Highpriest in his argument as a Type of Christ the man forsaw that this would cast his argument in to ane intire Popish mould but he is not so forseeing as to prevent his being snared by his own reason caught in the brieres of contradictions For 1. He dare not deny that this Officer was a singular Mean of their order and union Hence he must grant that his answer to the doubters objection is naught and that Gods way of preserving order and union in the New Testament Church is different from his way and the means of preverving it under the Old and that the Samenes of the end of Gods ordinances and institutiones under both dispensations will not plead for holding the same institutiones Was not order union and the edification of the Church the great end of all the Mosaical Ceremonies and Pedagogie Were not the Jewes for this great end of order and union to keep their solemne Feasts To go up to Jesusalem solemly and joynly three tymes in the year To have one common Temple one Altar c. And must therefore the Christian Church observe the same ordinances and institutions 2. How will he prove that the inferiour Priests were not Types of Christ as well as the Highpriest Dare he say that their praying for the people and their sacrificeing were not typical of Christs intercession and sacrifice as well as the praying and sacrificing of the High priest though not in the same degree of eminencie I grant that the Apostle Heb. 5. speaking of the authority and honour of Christs Priesthood presentes
the legal type thus Every Hiepriest taken from among men c. Yet if we shall consider that Hebr. 10. discoursing of the efficacie of Christs sacrifice in opposition to the legal he sayes in the 11 12. Ver. And every Priest simply not evrie High-priest standeth dayely ministering offering the Same sacrifices which can never take away sin but his man after he had offered one Sacrifice for sins c. It will be evident that the inferiour priests were also Types of Christ. So that he should either have taken in the High priest into his argument or excluded together with him the inferiour priestes upon the same ground For majus minus non variant speciem rei If he say that he is not speaking of their Sacrifices but of their Government which was not typical Answ. Why might he not then have taken in the High-priest upon this ground since these are as well distinguishable in him as in the inferiour Priests So that he might have been excluded from having any thing to do with the Type in pointe of his government as well as they And for his single eminencie it drew along with it those degrees of inferiour priests and Levits in his principles which are mentionedso that if the one must evanish as a Type in the same manner must the other 3. It will much puzele this Informer to prove that the Highe priest in respect of his government was a Type of Christ Sure he will find this denyed by his fellow brother in the cause Tilen in his Parenes Cap. 2 in summo Sacerdote ceu pontifice non typi solum sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratio conspicua In the highpriest the type is not only conspicuous but the reason of order for he bore not a type or resemblance of Christ in resspect of the Kingely and judiciary power which Christ hath who otherwayes should haue had the dignitie both according to the order of Aaron and the order of Melchisedeck that is both of a King and a priest Iunius a greater then he de Pontif. lib. 1. cap. 6. distinguishes these in the Highpriest in summo Sacerdote consideranda non solummodo ratio typi sed etiam ordinis politiae We must consider in the High priest not only the reason of the type but like wayes of order and policie c. then he addes the abovementioned reason So that in this argument and his way of pleading for prelacie upon the ground of the Jewish policies He will of necessity introduce a pope into the Christian Church Which will be convincingly clear If we shal in the 4t place consider that our Informer in this argument hauing set aside the High priest as onely typical tells us of another single Chief and High priest under him and tels us in answer to the premised objection that this method of the Jewish government with this Chief or high priest distinct from the typical priest is exemplarlie pointed out to Christians as Gods patterne for moddeling the gospel-Church government So that without all shaddow of evasion his argument pleads for a chief patriarch over the Christian Church as being a parte of the Jewish policie oblidging us and exemplarly commended to us for our imitation Moreover I would know what he would say If one should plead for retaining of all the judicial lawes of the Jewes upon his two grounds 1. As not being typical 2. As being Gods excellent means for order and union and commended exemplarly unto Christians to the same end what better patern for modelling our government and lawes then this patern Likewayes will he say that every peece of the Jewish antiquated pedagogie was properly typical And that we are bound to reteane as of a moral perpetual nature whatsoever thing in their policie was not such Surely there were many things depending upon the particular exigences and state of that people both as a Church under that old dispensation and as a Commonwealth regular in its civil Lawes immediatly by God which no found divines doe call Typical and yet doe hold that they oblidge no Church or state under the New Testament For a conclusion of this argument I shall tell this Informer that he grossly mistaks these Scripture expressions at least in the judgment of some learned anent the Chief Priests 2. King 19 2. c. When taking them to denot different ecclesiastick degrees among the priests in their spiritual function these chiefness to speak so or principality among the priests being meaned of a civil principality existent in that Tribe before the priesthood was therein established and that they were called Chief-priests or Elders of the priests did flow from this that this Trybe subject to the same Princes as at the first was afterward set apart for the priesthood for Aaron and his Soones were chosen to be priests Exod. 28. but the whole Tribe was not assumed unto the priesthood before Numb 1. Yet in the meane while the tribe of Levie Exod. 6. had the Heads of their families their Princes The Scripture then speaking of the tribe of Levie as a Tribe simply ascribes to it the same policie with the rest of the tribes Princes of the several families by the right of primogenitur Thus both priests and Levits had their chiefe men and presidents But as a Tribe separat to holy things it had its peculiar policie One was chief priest onely by Gods appointment at whose hand all the rest of the priests were 1 Chron. 24 24. And at the hands of the priests were the interior Levites in their several services David in distributing them in their several Temple offices did not set the Princes over them as such but onely having numbered them after the Heads of their families and by their lotts or Courses did assigne to them their service of the Temple upon Gods command by the mouth of Gad and Nathan the more to facilitat this Sacerdotal tribe their comeing unto and returneing from the Temple The Chief of the families then are not upon this ground Princes or Chief as to the Holy Ministerie for there was but one onely high priest all the rest as well the heads as the families themselves were at the hand of the highpriest in the Ministery of the House of the Lord 1 Chron. 24 19. Where the Chief or head in matters sacred had no more power then the wholl body So was it in the distribution of the Levits into their several classes by their Heads Chap. 23 27 that they might beat the hands of the Sons of Aaron in the Temple Ministery So that none of his citations doe amount to any proof of his fancied degrees and subordination among either the priests or Levits in their spiritual functions or any other waye then in their civil capacitie as a Tribe neither had the two high priests mentioned Luc. 3. The least warrand in Gods institution but this is acknowledged to be a corruption in their Government then creept in
4. Cap. 3. c. that is they are mistaken who judge either Timothy at Ephesus or Titus at crete to have exercised any impite or Dominion to dispose of things each at his own pleasure they were set over the people no word of their being set over Ministers to go before them in good and wholsome Counsells in relation to the placeing of Ministers not that they might doe as they pleased excluding others Since Paul himself neither imposed hands nor did excommunicat alone and since as I said above a wholl colledge or Presbytery of Apostles acted nothing pro imperio but in Churches constitut had elders going along with them in all that Sinodal procedour Act 15. Farrless would Timothy and Titus assume this episcopal preheminence who were inferiour to any of the Apostles therefore their power in this was not episcopall 2. That authoritie which was intrusted to the elders and Ministers in commone was not intrusted to any one officer such as Timothie But so it is that after the Church of Ephesus was exedified and compleated in its organick being and after Timothy had gotten his charge as to ordination and Jurisdiction in Ephesus Paul committed the wholl episcopal power to the elders as is said before Timothies face in his last farewell Act. 20. therefore he intrusted him with no episcopall preheminence in or over that Church when compleated in its organick being 3. They whose power stands so circumstantiat as to ordination and jurisdiction over these Churches that it excluds Episcopale preheminence properly and formally such their power in ordination and jurisdiction cannot be prelatical nor ground ane argument for prelacie but such is the power of Timothie and Titus For 1. As Diocesian Bishops they ought to have been determinatly and designedly set and fixed there as the officers of these Churches but the contrary appears in the text I befought the to abide at Ephesus and againe I left thee at Crete and to set in order things that are wanting which words point at ane occasional transient employment there not a fixed instalement 2. In these Epistles they are both Called back without the least intimation of their returneing 3. If their power was Episcopall and ordinary then in the apostles prescriptions and rules anent their Successours their power and authority ought to have been described and rules given touching the gifts Call ordination c. of the diocesian Bishop but the Apostle prescribes no rules for any officer higher then a Pastour supposes still that he is the highest ordinary officer in all his directions as to Church government 4. Add to this That Paul never calls Timothy or Titus Bishops though frequently making mention of them but Ministers Souldiers of Christ workmen the Churches messengers c. 1. Tim. 4. 6. 2. Tim. 2. 3. and 15. 2. Cor. 8. Supposing them his attendants in his Apostolick function Their accompanying Paul in his Travells is largely described by the divines at the I le of wight 1. Timothy is found at Berea with Paul Act. 17. 14. then at Athens 15. Thence Paul sends him to Thessalonica 1. Thess. 3. 1. Then havâ—…ig been at Macedonia with Paul he came to him to Corinth Act. 18. 5. Then he is with him at Ephesus and thence sent into Macedonia Act. 19. 22. Whither Paul went after him and was by him accompanied into Asia Act. 20. 4. He is with him at Troas 5. v. and at Miletum 17. v. where Paul gave the elders his last charge as the Bishopes of that Church And after this he is found either in journeys or absent from Ephesus Forafter he is found a prisoner with Paul at Rome being mentioned as his companion in these epistles written while Paul was at Rome as that to the philippians Philip. 1. to philemon 1. 1. and to the colloss 1. 2. and he is never found againe at Ephesus neer the end of the Apostles pilgrimage he is sent for to Rome So Titus is found at Ierusalem befor he came to Crete Gal. 1. 2. thence is sent for to Nicopolis Tit. 3. 12. then to Corinth then he is expected at Troas 2. Cor. 2. 12. and meets with Paul in Macedonia 2. Cor. 7. 6. whence he is sent againe to Corinth 2. Cor. 8. 6. after this neer the time of paules death is found at Rome from whence he went not to Crete but unto Dalmatia 2. Tim. 4. 10. And after this is not heard of in Scripture So that from their various journeys the order of them the time spent in them the nature of their employment which was to be the Apostles Copartners in their Apostolick function and negotiat the affaires of the Churches where the Apostles traveled and the Sciptures silence touching their being Beshops of any one Church These divines conclude that they could not be diocesian Bishops Others doe remarke severale other pregnant Circumstances in the sacred text specially relating to Timothy which doe evince him to be neither Bishop at all nor particularly at Ephesus in the prelatical sense As 1. That paul stirres him up to diligence upon this motive that thus he shall be agood minister of Christ not a Bishop of Christ 1. Tim. 4. 6. He was therefore a Minister Bishop but nothing else 2. That when Paul wrote this first epistle to him he was but newly entered into the ministery 1. Tim. 1. 3. with Act. 16. 1. 2. 3. c. And Paul will not have a Novice to be a Bishop 3. He is commandes to intreat elders as Fathers 4. To Honour them doubly that rule well therefore he was not to be a Father over these elders 5. That he had his gift by the laying one of the hands of the presbysery which could not be ane episcopall function 6. That Paul appointes him to reside there only untill his owne return from Macedonia to instruct the people for someshorte time until he came to him againe 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. 7. That assoone as Paul came from Macedonia to Ephesus he sent Timothie into Achaia himself staying at Ephesus and Asia for a season Act. 19. 22. to 40. v. and from thence he returned to Macedonia and through it unto Asia accompanied with Timothy and others after which we never read that he returned to Ephesus 8. That Timothie was sent to many churches to confirme and strengthen them as to Macedonia Act. 19. 22. To Thessalonica 1. Thess. 1. 2. 3. To philippi chap. 2. 19. 20. but never to Ephesus after his first departure 9. That though he is joyned with Paul in the Inscription of some Epistles Collos. 1. philip 1. and frequent mention is made of him in the epistles to severall Churches 1. Cor. 4. 17. Philip. 2. 19. 20. 1. Thess. 3. 2. 6. Hebr. 13. 23. Yet there is altum silentium of him in the Epistles to the Ephesians his own supposed diocess 10. That Paul laid hands upon the disciples who were ordained in that church after his supposed episcopacie That as Timothie was sent
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
these in 1 Tim. 3 1. And anent ordination by the hands of the Presbytery surely those are Presbyterial not Episcopal directions and doe palpably exclude Timothyâ—…s standing Episcopacy So that he did not well to raise this Ghost Next ane Apostolical example for the good of the Church is not that which they hold to have the force of a rule as the Informer belies them but ane example in things necessary for the good of the Church And as this so the next citation out of that book burnes his fingers For the authores having cited 2. Tim. 2 2 In order to their scope of pleading for ordination as a perpetuall standing ordinance Timothy being in that place enjoyned to commit those things which he had heard from Paul to faithfull men who shall be able to teach oâ—…hers They infer 1. A necessity of setting apart some to be teachers in Christs Church 2. The qualifications of such viz they must be faithfull men and able to teach 3. That Timothy is enjoyned to committ what he had heard to faithful men which they understand of ordination of ministers that there might be a perpetuall succession of teachers And comparing it with the former citation it appears that they hold these precepts to import the deryvation of the ordinary power of teaching and Government to ordinary Ministers And when the Anti-Ministeriall party object that these are but examples which doe not amount to make up a rule they give this answer that Apostolick examples in things necessary for the Church and which have a perpetuall reason and equity in them have the force of a rule now this example is anent the committing of ane ordinary power of ordination and jurisdiction to faithfull Ministers and teachers which quit justles out the prelatical power For since they hold Timothy's singular way in this as ane Evangelist was to cease which they must needs doe upon the forementioned ground the Presbyterial and the singular power being inconsistent in the same subject they must needs place this Evangelistick power among these examples which doe not obleidge and it is ordination it self and its continuance in this manner by ordinary teachers which they expresly plead for as the Apostolick example which hath a perpetual reason and equity and the force of a rule not Timothies singular power herin which they hold to be expired So that the Informers assumption viz That Timothies Evangelistick Inspection by the Apostles apointment over this Church as also that of Titus is such ane exemple as hath a perpetuall reason and equity in it He might have found to be rejected by these divines had he read that peece attentivly as no way following from yea contrare unto their assertion and it is still left at hâ—…s door to prove and make good His Last Reason to prove the Episcopacy of Timothy and Tâ—…us is taken from Testimonies That Polycrates and Eusebius affirme Timothy to have been Bishop of Ephesus That Leontius Bish os Magnesià in the generall Council of Calcedem Act 11. points out a Series of Tuentie Seven Bishops in Ephesus from Timothy c Ans Since the scriptures doe clearly hold out his extraordinary Evangilistâ—…k function and there is nothing therein which can in the least infer his having ane ordinary episcopall power The Informers pleading upon this head being found frivolous and leaning upon that known fallacy viz to argue from The singularity of ane extraordinary officer to the Singularity of ane ordinary perpetuall officer in Church government which will as well set up upon the ground of the Apostles universall inspection patriarchs or popes as prelats Surely the improper styles and designations which the Ancients put upon Timothy or Titus who spoke in the language of their owne times is a very insignificant proof to Counter ballance Scripture light in this mater Tertullians saying cited by park l 2. C 7. is here remarkable Si constat id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio id ab initio quod ab Apostolis c that is truest which is first that is first which is from the beginning that is from the beginning which is from the Apostles Their opinions who call them Bishops are for most part borrowed from Eusebius of whose hallucinations Scaliger gives large prooses and yet all that he sayes is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is reported and this report he had from a fabulus Clemens The ancients likewayes call the Apostles themselves Bishops peter of Rome James of Jerusalem Yea Theodoret Calls Timothy and Titus Apostles of Asia and crete which the Informer will not justifie Yea some call them Motropolitanes Arch Bishops patriarchs and this because saith Walo Messalinus they did these Acts which afterward by human Custome were appropriat to Bishops which saith he they did as Evangelists as one of them is expressly called As for jerom it is certain that he both mantaines and proves the Bishop and elder to be one in Scripture when disputing that point in his Commentar upon Titus and therefore when at any time he gives these evangelists such appellations he doth it allusively and improperly according to the degenerat custome of his time As for the Catalogues of Bishops from Scriptur times they are found to terminat upon Apostles or Evangelists as that of Ierusalem comes up to Iames the Apostle that of Antioch to peter So that of Rome to peter and Paul that of Alexandria unto mark c Now they were not ordinary officers nor succeeded in eundum gradum And besid there are ecclesiastick customes traced up by some to the Apostolick tymes which not with standing are acknowledged not to be of divine oppointment Some first Bishops were but primi presbiteri as we shall after shew How lost they the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction which their first founders had in so short a time This sole power in ordination and jurisdiction which our prelats now acclaime and this man pleads for will not be found till Three hundred years after Christ if at all then The gross mistak of many ancients in their constituting of Bishops appears in this instance That many fathers affirm peter to have been Bishop of Rome and to have continued Bishop there for many years Yet Marsilius patavinus pars 2. c 16. Carolus Molinaeus Scen Consult franc contr abusus c Paparum proves by scripture and reason that peter was never at Rome In a word the ancients call them â—…shops as likwayes Apostles such not properly saith Bucer de Gub Eccles p. 432. So fox Act mon p. 11465 but in a large or general appellation because they first preached the gospel to these Churches and to this end To prove a perpetuall succession of sound preachers and sound doctrine in those particular Churches from the Apostles tyme to their own nameing the eminentest Ministers for parts and gifts the Bishops of these Churches which Method scope of Catalogues appears by Irenaeus Tertullian cited by
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
his argument is that one is named though many are spoken to and where many Presbyters are supposed to be as at Ephesus who threfore must needs be a Bishop but this ground will not hold good Because 1. This is no more then what is suitable unto the stile of this book which is by mistick visional representations to include many individuals as one singular So all the individuals of the Church both members and officers are represented by one candlestick and why not also all the Ministers by one angel which is a terme that of it self and in this place imports no jurisdiction properly but is immediatly referred to the qualities of Ministers above expressed 2. This is also suitable to the stile of this book as it is epistolar the addresse may be to one but it will give no Authority to that one over the rest no more then ane addresse from the King to a speaker of the Parliament will give to that person jurisdiction and authority over them Or then our Lords saying to Peter only expressly not to the rest of his fellow disciples I will give unto thee the keyes c. Will conclude that he was Prince or primat over the Apostles and that they had not equal authority with him in the use of the keyes Our Informer and his fellows here doe justifie the Papists pleading for the Pope 3. This is suitable unto Scripture prophetick writings and to this book as such to represent many individuals by one singular The four beasts and twentie four Elders are not four individuall persons or twentie four single Elders The singular names of Woman Beast Whoor Dragon signifie a collection of many individuales So the one Spirit of God is called the seven Spirits in the 1 Chap With reference to his manifold operations Dan. 8 20. One Ram signifies many Kings of the Medes and Persians He that will not hearken to the Priest Deutr. 17 12. That is the Priests in the plurall So the Priests lips should keep knowledge and the Law is to be sought at his mouth Mal. 2 7. That is the Priests Blessed is that servant whom his Lord c. that is those servants Particularly as to this term Angel It is said Psal. 34. That the Angel of the Lord encamps about the Godly that is many Angels 4. It is suitable to Scripture and to this book To represent ane indefinet number by a definit Thus all Judas Adversaries are represented by the four hoâ—…es Zachr 1 18. All the Godly and the ungodly are represented by the five wise and the five foolish Virgines Matth. 25. and in the 8. Chap of this book The Seven Angels standing befor God represent all the Angels Foâ—… in the 7 Chap Mention is made of all the Angels who doe thus stand So we are to understand with the same indefinitnes ofttimes the Septenary number as the Seven pillars which wisdom hewes out Prov. 2. The seven Pastours or shepherds Mic. 5. The Seven eyes Zachr 3. And in this very book the Seven condlesticks Lamps and vials Revel 4 5 15 5. As wee find the scripture and this same Apostle first naming a multitud and then contracting it into a singular as 2 Joh. 2. many deceavers are come into the world then this is a deceaver and ane Antichrist And sometimes the individual in one sentence turned into a multitud as 1. Tim. 2 15 Shee shall be saved that is the woman bearing Children if they abide in faith and Charity that is such women in General as Beza tells us all writers doe take it So it is as certain that this single Angel is turned into many in one and the same Epistle in this book and spoken to in the plural as when it is said Revel 2. 24. to you and to the rest in Thyatira and in Revel 2 10. we find John changing in one sentence the singular Angel into a multitude fear none of these things which thow shal suffer Behold the devil shal cast some of you into prison that yee may be tryed c. as in 2 â—…oh 2 He changes many into One Finaly Wee have proved that the Scripture allowes of no Angels standing-Standing-Church officers or Bishops above the Pastours or Presbyters who have in Scripture the whol Episcopall power given them So that whatever this Informer shall produce as the Characteristick of this Angel we find it applicable to Presbyters 1. Is it the work of this Angel to preach and baptize This Commission he will grant belongs to all Pastours 2. Is it the power of ordination The Scripture shewes us that this is Seated in a Presbytery 1. Tim. 4 14. with Act. 22 5. Luk. 22 66. Matth. 18 17. Or 3. Is it the ruling Governeing power Surely all Ministers are such Angels All that watch for the peoples soules have a joynt rule over them Hebr. 13. 17. And therefor none can challenge it solely to himself In the Church of Thessalonica the laboures in the word and doctrine joytlie and indiscriminatim fed joyntlie censured and admonished and were joyntly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Rulers to whom consequently the people were indiscriminatim or with out any difference of one of them from another to submitt themselves 1 Thess. 5. 12. There was therefore no sole Angel or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ruler but this Prostasia or ruleing power was in many So was it with the Church of Ephesus Act. 20. So with these elders or Bishops 1. Pet 5. And we offer to this or any mans serious thoughts whither it be suiteable to divine rules to cross so many clear Scriptures upon the ground of a metaphorial mistick expression and to expone them in that sense rather then to explaine the Metaphor and mistick expression by plaine Scriptures And whiâ—…her it be not more suiteable to understand the Angel of Ephesus of the Ministers to whom in a plaine Scripture the whole Government is found intrusted rather then to expound that plaine text Act. 20 by a Metaphor and contrary to that plain text to set up one Angel or Diocesian Bishop over that Church with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction But the Doubter objects what have been saying viz That the Angel is to be taken collectively and not for one single person but for all the Ministers To which in a peece of petulant folly he Answers That he hath oft wondered at this reply that it seems this Scripture pinches us sore when we flie to such a shift That Scultetus a learned Protestant affirms that the most learned interpreters understand the Angel thus and that without offering violence to the Text it cannot be otherwayes understood Ans. 1. We hope is evident from what is said that the most native scriptural acception is to take the Angel collectively To which we may adde that although the Lord Jesus the best interpreter of these Angels doth expound the Seven candlsticks to be the Seven Churches yet in expounding the Seven Starrs he losses the number of
by the ancients But if he had offered us Testimonys speaking of sole power of these Bishops in ordination and Iurisdiction leaving nothing to Presbyters but the key of doctrine of Bishops with a negative voice in judicatories haveing sole Dominion over a diocess the only proper Pastoures thereof and Prelats of Erastus his Cutt Then I should confess there were early such Bishops as he pleads for and we should acknowledge their power to be a commentary upon the Scriptures he pleads from But with this proviso that he could quiparat them with their first progenitours and shew us these priviledges in the scripture-Escutciones of their founders But till then I thinke our conviction must be suspended That Presbyters have the key of Doctrine he will not deny That they have the power of ordination and jurisdiction and that key likewayes entrusted to them hath been proved from Scripture 1. Tim. 4. 14. Luk. 22. 66. Act. 20 28. 1. Pet. 5 2 1. Cor 5. 5. Now let him say did these first succeeding Bishops in their supposed diocesses alwayes take this power in ordination and jurisdiction from the first Scripture Bishops and stood invested therwith in after tymes How then comes jerom to say That even in his time elders were subject to the Bishop only by Custome not by Dispensation from the Lord. In his Coment on Tit and on Isa. 3. That they had even in his time a caetus presbiterorum a meeting or Court of Presbyters and ane Apostolick senat How comes a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbytery to be mentioned Councancyr Can. 18. How comes Ambrose a father of the Church upon Ephes. 4. to assert That after the Church was enlarged Cepit alio ordine Gubernari It began to be governed after another maner then at first and that non per omnia conveniunt c. That the Government then in the Church was not every way suitable to the Apostles appointment me thinkes these assertions might convince the Informer of the folly of this argument But 2. What if some of these first successours be found but meer Constant moderators What is then become of his Series of a Succession of Diocesian Bishops from Timothy and Titus and the Asian Angels saith not jerom ad Evagrium Alexandriae Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu Collocatum Episcopum nominabant c That the Bishop at Alexandria was only a Presbyter Chosen to preside c. Ambrose sayes that this distinction betaixt Bishop and Presbyter cam in by Counsâ—…l Cubi prius therefor he holds it was not derived from divine 〈◊〉 and therein gives the lie to our Informer for that he sayes was different from their present custome Augustin Epist 10. sayes with jerom that by Custome of the Church Episcopatus was Major presbyterio the Episcopacy was greater then the presbyterat How comes â—…irmilianus apud Cypr. ep 78. to assert that the presbyters possident ordinandi potestatem posseses the power of ordination and these presbyters he calls praepositi the presidents or rulers Ierom sayes quid facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus quod nonfacit presbiter what does the Bishop except ordination which the presbyter doth not yet even in this presbyters then concurred with them and shared in that power Saith not Chrisost upon 1. Tim inter Episcopum et presbyterum interest ferme nihil-between the Bishop and presbyter there is almost no difference As for his lines of Succession they will say nothing untill he prove these Bishops to be Episcopos principes Prince-or Lord Bishops and nor Episcopos presides or Moderator Bishops which will be a hard task since he must answer Blondel who largely proves that before the year 140 there was not a Bishop over presbyters even the Constant president far from the power of the present diocesâ—…an Policarp himself his supposed Bishop of Smyrna makes but Two orders of Ministery Bishops and 〈◊〉 in his Epistle to the Philippians Dr. Reynolds in his conference with Hart proves that the first Bishop who came in after the Apostles was nothing but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moderator of the presbytery In a word as many learned men doe prove the discrepancy of the ancients among themselves and their variety of names and speech in relation to these first supposed Bishops and that several authores are Spurius and counterfit who are Brought in to give Testimony in this point So it is certain that this man and his fellowes in pleading thus for Timothies Episcopacy doe put the blott of dread full Apostacy upon him in making him fall as the Angel of Ephesus is charged from his first love so that if they will not runn on this inconvenience and stage this eminent Saint for such ane Apostat contrary to the Scripture account of him they must wholly quit this plea. As for what he adds of Several writers acknowledging the Angel a Single person we have shown how vaine a reason this is to prove his point But the Doubter objects to some purpose that Beza and others might take the Angel to be but Moderator To this he answers that the Angel must needs be a Bishop because he is cheifely commended or discomended as haveing a cheif hand in what was right or amiss in these Churches That the power found in Timothy and Titus proves it was so with these Angels That Beza sayes these Angels power was more eminent then the rest of their fellowes Ans. 1. As for Beza its true he expones the Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the president but adds Sed hinc statui episcopalis ille gradus c that is But that Episcopal degree which was after ward by human invention brought into the Church of God nether certainly can nor ought to be hence concluded nay not so much as the office of a perpetual president should be of necessity as the thence ariseing oligarchical tyrranny let our Informer marke this whose head is the Antichristian beast now at length with the most certan ruine not of the Church only but of the world also maks manifest And this also is all which Dr. Reynolds acknowledges Now I think he will find no advantage nor credit here to his Diocesian Bishop since Beza maks him but a human invention yea and the poysonous egg out of which Antichrist was hatched 2 As for his Reason That this Angel is chefly reproved or commended as haveing the Chief hand in what was right or amisse He must prove before this Reason wil pass current that one single person is Chiefly reproved or commended and likewayes that his having the commendation or reproofe adressed to him will evince a Chief authority or Chief hand as he calls it in government Wee told him that in Beza's and Dr. Reynolds judgment the Angel is only the preses Morâ—…derator receaving the Epistle or address Now will ane Epistle containing commendations or reproofes of a Synod and addressed to the Moderator make him Chief as to what is commended or taxed in
worship God for the seasi was proclaimed to Iehova and to have a visible signe of his presence Wil the Informer say that this had been a good argument to warrand the breach of the Second command though this Practise was but fourty dayes younger then the promulgation if self So the case is here Though he could shew us human clear Testimonies nay more even Scripture Testimonies as to the factum that the diocesian yea and Erastian Prelat had been existent and set up in some Churches in the Apostles own time yet if we can from our Lord and his Apostles doctrine and practise prove this officer to be a plant not of a divine plantation and contrary to the divine institutiones He must needs grant that though esteemed golden it ought to be Nehushtan rejected and pluckt up by the roots The Papists who hold the Scriptures to be but a half-rule made up by traditions yet will not dare to own professedly at least any principle or practise condemned in the Word suppose he could bring thousands of Testimonies from ancient writers touching his Prelat he pleads for they are but hâ—…man Testimonies and therefore cannot beget a divine faith which is founded upon the word only Surge veritas ipsa Scripturas tuas inter retare quam câ—…nsuetudo non nooit nam si nosset non-esset saith Tertullian Arise o truth it self and expone they Scriptures which custome hath not known for had it known them it had not been The Informer's Testimonies may induce to believe that there were Bishops in the Church but whither the office which these Bishops are supposed to hold be of God yea or not this queston must be brought to a higher tribunall and Gods Oracles must determine therein before the Conscience can be satisfied as to the owning of such a Church officer And if God dissowne him I may be ane Athanasius contra orbem in withstanding him It being still certain that these human witnesses are testesfacti at most but not judices veri recti Attesters of matters of fact but not judges of what is right and equal therein Thus we have seen that though all our Informers pleading from antiquity were granted his cause profliga by Scripture weapons lyes grovelling in the dust wheras he alleadges Testimonies as to the existence of Prelats in the Christian Church neer the Apostles times or contemporary with them that Catalogues of a Succession of Prelats down from Apostles and Evangilists have been keept in Churches which he thinkes speakes convincingly for the Episcopacy of Timothie and Titus c. I Ans. Although this be the very Marrow and strength of all his argument from Antiquity yet when tryed it will be found many wayes defective and unsound For clearing whereof I shall offer some things both to the Major and assumtion of this argument which will be found quite to breake the force of al his pretences this way For thus the argument must run If Diocesian Bishops by the Testimonies of the ancient fathers did exist in the primitive times and Catalogues of them are drawn by these ancients from Apostles and Euangilists then I must believe these Bishops to be of divine institution but thus it is by the Testimony of the ancient fathers Ergo I must believe Diocesian Bishopes to be of divine institution Now this being the argument in its genuine strength this pitifull pleader offers not a jott in proofe of the major proposition whose connexion he cannot but know the we all deny All that he offers is in proofe of the assumption which is also denved will be found very maimed I. To the Major I say that it is of very dangerous consequence to make that which men call antiquity or ancient custome the infallible rule and commentary as to the nature and office of Church officers mentioned in Scriptur Because 1. If mens practise must be the key and comment in this case so as we must not contradict or counteract it then why may not also human practise and profession of succeding ages determine as to every Scripture truth and duty therein held out 2. This were to set up a higher rule and tribunal then the Scriptures and to make our faith to stand in mans wisdome not in Gods and to make the Scriptures of a privat interpretation as if the Prophecy had come by the will of man For if I must believe no otherwayes anent the Scriptures relating to the offices of Timothy and Titus then according to the practise of supposed Bishops their successores and that they held no other offices but such as these supposed successores are said to have had then the Custome and practise of fallible men becomes to me the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ratio a priori and the chief ground why I believe these Scriptures to have such a sense and no other and so I give men a dominion over my faith and my faith herein resolves ultimatly into a human practise and Testimony of fallible men which is a principle no protestant will allow Next as to the asumption of the argument I would demand of this informer how I must be infallibly assured anent this universal judgment and practise of the ancient Church and of this true succession and how he will instruct the universal harmonius judgement of all the ancient Fathers in this great point viz. That such prelates as we have now were the first recipients of the ordinary power of government from the Apostles and Evangelists as their only immediat ordinary successors The topick of our Informers argument doth suppose the certanty of this mater of fact But to clear this will be found a hard peece of work Because 1. It is certan that many of the ancients wrote nothing many of their writings are lost many writings going under their name are counterfit most especially to this debate It were possibly none of the hardest Tasks to discover some writings here cited to be meer countersites How shall I know that the Testimonies of those who have written are not contradicted in this point by such men of their times who either have not written or whose writings are perished 2. There are many things which the Ancients speak of as derived from the Apostles and have had ane universal consent as farr as the knowledge thereof hath come to us which are acknowledged to be contrary to the word of God and the Apostolick doctrine as the error anent the vision of God that the Saincts sie not his face till the last day the error of free will which until Augustin opposed it was universally receaved the Millenary error anent Christs personall reigne upon the Earth a Thousand years called by Lactantius the doctrine of the holy prophets and christian wisdome which christians follow Iustin Martyr holds them to be no christians that dissown this and this is owned as ane Apostolick tradition So childrens partaking of the Lords supper and the necessity of baptisme was by Augustin
c 24. not 1. acknowledges that De Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primordijs nihil ex Scriptura imâ—…ne ex patribus quidem qui ante Synodum nicenum floruerunt quicquam certi demonstrari potest That nothing certanly can be made appear concerning the beginings of the Church of Alexandria from Scriptur no not from the Fathers who florished before the council of Nice Baronius Anno. 44. 11 42. saith cum Apostolorum nomine tam facta quam scripta reperiantur esse suppositia c. Since there are suppositious both words and Acts under the Apostles name since what is related by true writers remaines not incorrupt it may make one dispair to reach that is true and cerâ—…in So much is the great popish historian forced to confess The Informer should likewise have done well to have put into the mouth of his doubter Joseph Scalliger his grave difficulty about the succession of the Bishops of the Church of Jerusalem Related by Didocl Cap 4 p. 123. Wherin he proves Eusebius relation to be contrary to our Lords prophecy anent the destruction of Jerusalem and to Josephus his History To this I add that he will find many learned men doe hold that the first successors after the Apostles in these supposed Catalogues were meer Presbyters who according as they were more eminent in the Churches and consequently their memories referved therein whose Natales as Iunius speaks that is their dayes of banishment martyrdome or death were keept in the Churches records accordingly they were cull'd out by the Fathers to fill up these Catalogues though they were contemporary those they named Bishops in conformity to their own times For this I recomend Franciscus Iunius his learned discourse to this purpose Cont. 3 l. 2 c. 5. not 18 errori causam prebuit c the cause of the error he means in those contradictory confused Catalogues of Bishops was that there were many Bishops or Presbyters at once appoyinted by be Apostles in the Churches c. It s then evident which is the Collection of Diocl. upon what is premised 1. That the Ancientes without examination having from their progenitors receaved many fabulous stories delivered to the posterity such thinges as can neither be reconciled to Scripture nor with themselves 2. That they might fill up their Tables of Bishops and conforme the first ages to their own they culld out the most famous Minister for zeal piety c and put them into their Catalogués 3. Whom they thus put in they called them Bishopes in conformity to their own times though they were meer Presbyters For as we saw upon Phil. 1. himself acknowledges that the Fathers used the names indifferently So by this time wee suppose it is convinceingly evident that ouâ—… Informers great argument from his Testimonies is lost There is a great consent of the learned in this that for the first purest age the Church was governed by Presbyters without Bishopsblondel Apol Sect 3 p 3 14. 3 5 p. 308 378. Shewes the consent of the learned heerin For this Church of Scotland we have the Testimony of Ioanes Major de Cest. Scot l. 2. of Fordon Scoto-chronicon lib. 3. Shap. 8. likwise of Blond Sect. 3. All shewing that this nation haveing imbraced the Christian faith Anno. 79. till the year 430. When the pope sent Palladius as our first Bishop was governed only by Presbyters with out Bishopes so that we had our union to the see of Rome together with Prelacy Clemens of the first century in his Epistle to the Philippians maks but two orders of Ministery Bishops and deacons these only he sayes the Apostle set up to propogat the ordinances to believers And this to be a remedy to end all contests about Episcopacy page 57. c. The same we heard of policarp in his Epistle to the Philippianes we heard of Augustins Testimony Epist. 19. to Jerom. Dr. Reynolds in his Epist. to Sr Francis Knolls cites Chrysostom Ierom Ambrose Augustin Theodoret and many others ancient and modern to prove that in Scripture Bishop and Presbyter are all one Jeroms Testimony upon Titus is famous for this point who assertes and proves at large from Philip. 1. Act. 20. Hebr. 13 17. 1 Pet. 5. That by Gods appointment and in first Apostolick times afterward the government was by Presbyters communi concilio Presbyterorum by the common councel of Presbyters that by divine appointment Bishops Presbyters are one that the difference betwixt them had no better ground then contudo or Custom That divisions by Satans instinct occasioned the difference afterward made betwixt Bishop and Presbyter That their equality was not his privat Judgement but a Scripture truth The same he hath in his Epistle to Evagrius But now let us hear what ouâ—… Informer hath Scraped together from his masters Saravia Dounam Tilen c. To infringe this Testimony 1. He â—…ayes That Ierom speaks onely of the first gospel times when mentioning the identity of Bishop and Presbyter when the Apostles did by their own presence industry Supply the rowme of Bishops but as they began to fail by death or their bussines called them elswhere and upon the Churches inlargement the Schisme that arose upon the Presbyters equality Bishops were set up over Presbyters This he proves because jerom sayes that from Mark the Evangelist The Presbyters choosed out one and called him Bishop even to the Bishops heraclius and Dionisius but Mark died before Peter and Paul Then he compleans of Smectimmuus as dealling defectively in leaving out this in their Citation And of Mr. Durham on the Revel paâ—… 225. and thatMr Durham takes no notice of jeroms similitud in speaking of this Election of Presbyters in relation to their Bishop viz As the army doth choose the Emperor Thus far we have our Informers first great defence Which brings to minde a remarkable saying of Marcus Anton. De Dom. De repub Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 3. Numb 46. Sunt qui Hieronimum in rectam sententiam vel invitum velint trahere ille tamen dum consuetudini Sole ecclaesiasticae ecclaesiaeque humano decreto tribuit quod ab Apostolis jure divino est factitatum aliquantum certe deflexit neque in hoc aut excusari potest aut in alium contrarium sensum trahi verba ejus neque aliam Sententiam neque defensionen neque excusationem admittentia sunt haec in Epist. ad Titum c Some would he saith draw jerom to a contrary minde against his will but whil he doth ascribe only to Ecclesiastick Custome and the Churches human deccree what was done by divine right he went out of the way and in this he cannot be excused nor can his words admitt of any other sense or meaneing So much was this mans ingenuity beyond that of our Informer But to the point I Ans. 1. Wee have nothing here but the old Song which hath been answered by many Iunius decler c. 15. Not. 16. tells him That tria distinguit tempora
about his ministry and the duty intrusted to him c. Balsamon expoundes this part of the Canon and summes it up thus Decernit itaque praesens Canon ut si quis Episcopus vel Presbyter ad docendum pertinentem manuum impositionem acceperit suum munus non implea segregetur The present Canon discerns that if any Bishop or Presbyter hath received imposition of hands relating to teaching and fulfilles not his office that he be set aside c. Where its evident that he makes the Bishops ordination or imposition of hands relative unto the great duety and office of preaching the gospel aswel as that of the Presbyter and accordingly expoundes the Canon The XXXIX canon intrusts the Bishop with the Charg of the peoples soules in correspondence with the preceeding In the forecited cap XII Photii we are referred to the Syn. Carthag can CXXIII Syn. VI. can XIX LXIIII. See also Syn. Sexta in trullo can XIX quod opportet eos qui prasunt Ecclesiis in omnibus quidem diebus sed praecipue dominicis docere pietatis rectae rationis eloquia ex divina scriptura colligentes intelligentias c That all such as are set over Churches on all dayes but especialy on the Lords dayes most teach the oracles of piety and pure religion drawing instructions from the divine scriptures c Balsamon begins his commentary upon the canon thus Episcopi Ecclesiarum doctores constituuntur propterea dicit canon cis omnino necesse esse eum cui praesunt populam semper docere multo magis in diebus dominicis c That is The Bishops are constitut teachers of the Churches and therefor the canon sayes unto them that its absolutely necessary alwayes to teach that people over whom they are set and much more on the lordes dayes wherin all are almost present in Churches and artificers ceases from ther work c. So that our non-preaching or seldom preaching prelates who by a new consecration forsooth superadded unto their Presbyterial ordination to preach the gospel get a bill of ease from this great duety to act state games except when their Lordships please to step into the pulpit to supererogat stands arraighned stigmatized and deposed by the ancient Canones as unworthy of any office in the house of god Vide can Apost conc general partic Sanct. Patr. Photii nomocan cum Balsam comment pag. mihi 39 116 117 121 207. Unto this account and censure of antiquity and of the ancient canons past upon our non-preaching prelates I wil here subjoyn a remarkable passage of a learled divine whose praise is in all the Churches Whittaker de Eccles. contr 2. cap. 3. being about to prove that the Church of rome is no true Church of Christ. Presents this for his first argument Pontifex Romanus non est verus Episcopus Ergo Ecclesia Romana non est vera Ecclesia Nam Ecclesia non potestesse sine episcopo The Pope of Rome is no true Bishop therefore the Church of Rome is no true Church because the Church cannot be without a Bishop But least this last assertion cheer up our Informer and his fellowes he addes disputo ex eorum placitis That he disputs upon his popish adversaries principles and thus classeth them among the popish party in this point But how proves he the pope to be no true Bishop propter praecipuum munus episcopi saith he quod in illo desideratur because of the Chief office of a Bishop whcih is wanting in him And what is that olim episcopi Romani diligenter docebant ecclesiam nulli facti sunt episcopi nisi qui in hoc munere fideles erant Olim hoc ad se pertinere praecipuum suum munus esse putabant ut populum sibi commissum docerent atque instituerent adeo ut monstri simile esset per Annos post Christum plusquam sexcentos episcopum aliquem in ecclesia esse qui aut nollet aut non posset populum docere that is of old the Bishops of Rome diligently taught the Church and none were made Bishopes who were not faithfull in this office of old they lookt upon this as the Chief duety incumbent upon them to teach and instruct the people committed to them so that fore more then six hundred Yeares after Christ it would have been lookt upon as a monster if any such Bishop were in the Church who either was not willing or able to teach the people He addes That all the Apostolick Bishopes were such And that the Apostle requires it in a Bishop that he be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apt to teach 1 Tim. 3 2. hoc est saith he non ejusmodi qui curet â—…antum det operam ut alii doceant hanc authoritatem docendi aliis tribuat sed qui ipse sufficiat alios docere Not such a one who is diligent onely to provid others to teach and gives this authority to others But who is himself sufficient to teach others This he proves because the Apostle is in that place shewing how the Bishop most be indued and gifted befor he be chosen and that therfore by being apt to teach we most understand a personal care and ability and not a deputed care quis enim hoc praestare non posset saith he who is he who may not perform this This he further cleares from 2. tim 2. 2. where the Apostle injoyns Timothy to commit what he had heard of him to faithfull men qui essent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 themselves able to teach others Reprehending Turrian and with him our Episcopal men in interpreting that first passadge of a deputed care as to teaching And shewes that the old interpreter translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a doctor or teacher And a doctor saith he is such a one as can teach himself Thereafter he cites Oecumenius and Chrysostom thus expounding the premised scripture and even soom of the popish scoolmen as Aquinas upon this text who cals this the proper work and duety of a Prelat And shewes us that Aquinas pertinently applyes to this purpose that passage Jer. 3. 15. I wil give Pastors according to my own heart who shal feed yow with knowledge and understanding And that Cajetan and Catharinus do thus expound this text In all which we see with how full a consent of ancient and modern Churches and divines our non-preaching or seldom preaching Prelates are condemned and how fully our scripture-argument against them upon this head is fortified and confirmed 12. As in other points of difference so the ancient Bishopes were as farr from our Prelats fastuus pompe and sumptuus grandeur which they assume Ammianus Marcellinus lib. 27. de habitu vitae beatorum episcoporum tells us of their tenuitas edendi potandique parcissime indumentorum vilitas c. Their spare eating and drinking their meanenes of apparrel their lovely countenance as that which commendes them to God and his true worshippers Paulus Samosatenus his fastuus pompe
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
argument as signifing any thing against us Since the retortion thereof is so manifest and therefore nothing he hath said will impeach Calvine and Beza's impugning of Episcopacy whose impugnations of it will stand to all generations Moreover in this citation of that epist. to Bishop Grindal the Informer hath sued off the half of the sentence viz quod tu igitur coram istam quorundam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tamdiu pertulisti reverende vir ineo sane insigne patientiae ac lenitatis Christianae specimen dedisti quo majori c. and neer the close of the same letter Beza faithfully adviseth as the fittest remedy for removing offences ut in legitimo caetu ex uno Dei verbo abolitis semel papisticae tyrannidis vestigiis ea constituatur administrandae Ecclesiae ratio non quae huic vel illi adlubescat non quae veteri aut recenti consuetudine sed quae firmo verbi Dei fundamento superstructae piorum Conscientiis fatisfaciat in eternum perseveret that is that in a lawfull A ssembly from the Word of God onely all the footsteps of popish Tyranny being once abolished that Method of Church Government be established not which shall please this or that person not which is founded upon new or old Custom or the wisdom of the flesh but which being built upon the sure foundation of the word of God may satisfie the consciences of the godly and endure for ever Which rule and mould of Bishops would no doubt cashier and raze to the foundation the diocesian Erastian prelate whom he pleades for yea all the Prelates in Brittain For what he adds p. 87. It may be easily and without prejudice to our cause granted that God by his providence had made him a Iudge The Informer will not owne such ane Atheisticall principle as to deny that the Bishops civil government in England or pretended Ecclesiastick is not the object of divine providence or be so brutish as to conclude Gods approbation of usurping Tyrannes from his permissive providence in reference to their tyranny or usurpation else he will for ever destroy his loyalty and fealty either to the King or his Lordbishop That passage of Calvins letter to Cardinal Sadolet after citedby him p. 88. though admitted is a poor proof that he held Church Government to be alterable Certainly Calvin held the scripture parity to be the most ancient Government Vetustissimae Ecclesiae or of the most ancient Church for such no doubt he held the Apostolick Church to be Beside wee must tell him that this passage upon search is not found and as it is here expressed is very insignificant since by Vetus Ecclesia he may understand the Church after the Apostles time which early began to Corrupt the Government As for Salmasius his retracting his opinion as to Church Government it will no more Impeach the truth it self which he asserts then any other mans defection will weaken the sound Doctrine which he once held Would the Informer take this argument from the Papists if they should plead from the retractiones of protestants and from their writing for popery that the protestant Doctrine were not sound would he not say that their first practise or writings for truth will stand good and witnesse against them in their defection Though it may be a question whither that retraction be reall or not which Durel mentions and the Informer out of him p. 89. Especially this being another of our Informers mute citations which he keeps as he doth the state of the questions in these Dialogues under the Clouds pointing us to no page in that Answer of Salmasius to Milton We will not here stand to shew how that Salmasius eyes were blinded with Court-gifts and pensions having receaved no small summe from King Charles the second for his encouragement to that worke and several learned divines who best knew him think his literature more Considerable then his divinity was solid As for that place of Salmasius in his Walo Mess. c. 4. p. 253. cited page 90. the Intire sentence is Epistolae illae viz quae Ignatii dicuntur natae suppositae videntur circa initium aut medium secundi saeculi quo tempore primus singularis Episcopatus supra Presbyteratum Introductus fuit Whatever time this was it appears by what followes that place in Salmasius that about this time Church power began exceedingly to be Corrupted and Bishops exalted almost to ane equality with Christ and men began to plead a jus divinum for them for Ignatius In Epistola ad Trallenses asserts Episcopum venerandum esse sicut Christum quemadmodum Apostoli praeceperunt that the Bishops must be had in veneration as Christ as the Apostles have commanded and he cites the Apostles words but such as do no where occurr in our Bibles And certanly if there be no more truth in that relation anent his retraction mentioned by that author then their is soliditie in that ground of it which he alledges it is not worth the noticing For the confusions in England cannot with any shew of Reason be charged upon Presbyteriall Government which was never yet settled there And this Informer dare not deny the blest effects of truth and unity godlines which it hath had in this land as is acknowledged by Churches abroad and particularly in that passage of the Syntagma confessionum which he cites in the last dialogue If Blondel in callng Episcopacy most ancient doth except the more ancient Apostolick times which he pleads as exemplifying Presbyterian parity he gives it but the spurious after-birth of humane antiquity The same we say as to his passage cited out of Moulin p. 90. and if something of the humane proestos were granted to have creeped in ere Iohn went oft the stage will that commend it any more then that mistery of Iniquity and love of preeminence which the Scripture assures us was in Paules time and his Surely by no meanes Besides we must here again tell our Informer that this Citation out of Moulen is among the rest of his Mutes since he hath neither noted booke nor page But now from our opinion of the unalterablenes of Presbyterian government and our acknowledgment of the bringing in of a Proestos so early the Informer will involve us he sayes in one of Two great absurdities Parturiunt montes What are these the 1. is That that generation who lived shortly after Iohn was altogether ignorant of Christ and his Apostles minde anent Presbyterian parity else they would not have adventured to change the government But this absurdity is easily discussed for it lights equally upon the Instance already given of Israells defection in worshipping the golden Calf fourtie dayes sooner then 40. years or more after the holy patterne of doctrine shewed them upon the mount How often doe we find suddener changes in scripture of the divine Institutions How quickly after Ioshua and the elders did all Israell depart from Gods way and ordinances How quickly
did they relapse after deliverances both in the times of the Kings and of the judges yea and after solemne vowes of Reformation How quickly after Hezekias death did they turne aside How quickly after Josiahs death How quickly after Solomons death did Rehoboam forsake the law of God and all Israell with him I think these scripture instances of as universal far greater defections then this was anent the proestos might have made this man ashamed to bring this as ane absurditie Now what will he say to his own Question here I it possible is it probable that Gods Israell could be ignorant of his minde and adventure so quickly to change his ordinances Heard not all the Churche of Israel Gods voice from mount Sinai Had not these departers afterward known or seen his eminent seers heard his word and seen his works Could they be altogether ignorant of his minde who thus suddenly departed from him How could they then adventure to make such a change Alace What a poor querist is this I think indeed He and his party have given the Instance in our generation that such a sudden defectione is both possible and probable Was ever a nation more solemnlie and universallie ingaged unto God and had seen more of his greatnes power and glorie then wee did in the late worke of reformation How long is it since Scotland not onely knew and imbraced Presbyterian Government but also solemnlie vowed to mantaine it But he knowes how universally this work and cause of God is now rejected his Covenant abjured and disowned And the Informer himself who for what I know might have seen our first beautifull house is pleading for this perjurius change of Gods ordinances and lawes and breaking his everlasting Covenant Read he never the 106. Psal. 7. vers They provocked him at the sea even the red sea and vers 11. The waters covered their enemies and there was not one of them left Then believed they his words they sang his praise they soon frogat his works they waited not fr his counsell The Informer bluntly supposes ane impossibility of a peoples crossing light in apostazing changes and that all that generation most needs give a formall consent to this change of government in order to its introduction both which are groundless suppositions and they render this horne of his Dilemma very pointlesse Besides this change as we said before was but small at the first onelie a fixed Moderator and far from his Prelacy which even in Ieroms time was but come the length of taking from Presbyters ordination or rather the rituall part of it And the change had plausible pretexts of order and union as every innovation hath its own pretences besides that this change was not all at once but by degrees Wee must also here tell him that the same very suggestion is his 3d. Reason to prove Ieroms bringing in Bishops in the Apostles time and so a nauseating repitition But if we decline this absurdity the next he thinks is worse viz That that generation went over the belly of light in changing the Government and conspired against Christ and his Apostles Government and none are found testifying against it Answer 1. This absurdity doth like wayes fall upon the former Scripture instances of greater and more sudden and as universal defections of the Church of Israel What will he say to these questions in relation thereunto Were all ignorant Did all sin against light and adventure presumptuously to change the divine ordinances And as for a Testimony against these evills the Informer himself and his party for all their clamoures against us falls under ane obligation to answer this in relation to many corruptions and erroures which as early creept into the Church as Prelacy Wherof we gave Instances already and no Testimonies are recorded against them He seems to have forgot or to be ignorant of our divines answer to this argument of Papists calling for our producing of Testimonies against such and such evills or dating their first rise viz. That there might be tho we have not known them and that it is bad arguing from the defect of the History or the darknes of the first original of such a corruption to deny the plaine mater of fact and the corruption itself to be such How many Thousand eminent persons and acts of these times which we told him the learned doe acknowledge to be very dark as to matter of fact have never come to our knowledge And since we have often told him from Ierom that this change was lent and by considerable degrees and intervalles of time and Method of its procedor some might be overtaken with weaknes others puffed up with ambition and upon this ground the one might endeavour the other give way to this change especially its first degrees being small in respect of what followed Knowes not this man that the evill one sowes his tares while men sleep And this hierarchie being as in its nature so in its rise a Mystery Mystery of Iniquity Mystery Babylon Yea and a Mystery which was working long before this change even in Pauls time upon all these grounds his absurdity evanishes and reflects a greater absurdity upon himself who would have us shut our eyes against Scripture light upon such pretences as these rather embrace 2 corruption contrary unto it then acknowledge that the Church did erre We know very well what a wicket this notion hath opened for obtruding and retaining popish innovations and these men are fast warping in to that Method As for that which he adds of Blondel p. 94 who asserts that the Presbyters made him proestos or fixed Moderator who was first ordained Wee told him already that this fixed president tho a deviation from the Scripture rule yet is farre from the diocesian Prelats sole power in ordination and Jurisdiction So that his confidence some will be apt to say impudence is strange in calling this a power episcopall now existent since notwithstanding all its after growth it was not in Ieromes time come the length of our present Hierachical power of Prelats by many dayes journey Neither is it probable that Blondel could suppose this to be allowed of John which he holds to be crosse to the divine pattern As for Blond Apol pag 25. the Informer hath been mistaken in this citation no such words being found in that place But in page 52. after that he hath abundantly proven this thesis initio Presbyter Episcopus synonyma fuerunt that in the beginning Bishop and Presbyter were one and the same he begins the next sect thus Ubicumque Primum nascente Chistianismo Presbyterorum aggregari Collegium caepit Antiquissimum rectius Antiquissimo inter Collegas Primatus Contigit ut concessus totius Caput fratrumque tandem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jure quodam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fieret Which onely a mounts to thus much that first a moderator among ministers being established grew by peecmeal to a
proposition of their appendix he might have seen this objection fully removed For therein they make good from many places of Irenaeus which were tedious here to transcribe that by Bishops he understood meer Presbyters and not Bishops distinct from Presbyters From which places of Irenaeus they collect 1. That he calls Presbyters Successors of the Apostles 2. That he calls them Bishops 3. That he holds the Apostolick doctrine to be derived by their succession 4. That what in one place he sayes of Bishops the same he sayes elswhere of Presbyters which sense and account of him they back with pregnant Testimonies of Dr. Reynolds Whittaker other learned protestant divines and lights in that Church And in proposition 7. anent the pretended Succession of Prelats from the Apostolick times they cleare it that these Successions are drawen from meer Presbyters viz the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Minister first ordained as among the Athenians their were 9. Archontes or Chief Rulers equall in Authority yet the Succession of Governours in Athens was derived from one of them who was the first Archoâ—… ut compendiosior ac minus impedita esset temporum enumeratio that the Calculation of times might not be hindered but be the more compendious 4. He sayes it is more likly that Ierom was deceaved If we understand him to speak of Bishops who were introduced after the Apostles times then Eusebius or Irenaeus who lived before Ans. That Eusebius was deceaved is not only alleadged but proven by the learned and Ierom proving so clearlie from Scripture the identity of Bishop and Presbyter both in name and thing doth convincing lie inferr that the Bishops set over Presbyters are discrepant from the scripture pattern That Irenaeus by Bishops understood these first Moderators is made good from his writings Next wheras these reverend authores pag. 114 115. say that Irenaeus by Bishops meaned Presbyters and page 65. That the Fathers spoke of Church officers of former times after the stile of their owne and that the Bishops in the Catalogues are onlie the first ordained Presbyters for the more expedit reckoning this man thinks these Answers inconsistent Because 1. they say that Eusebius Irenaeus were deceaved when they spoke of Bishops And Next that by Bishops Irenaeus meaned only Presbyters Ans. Had the Informer attended better the places he points at he would have keepd off this fantastick reflection For they shew that these first Proestotes or Moderators who were in themselves and upon the Mater meere Presbyters were by former times and writers presented under ane Episcopal notion and the power of Bishops then prevalent unto Eusebius and Irenaeus whom Eusebius especially too credulously following in his Character and accounts of them occasioned the deceaving of others and that he and Irenaeus speaking of them in that manner and stile in the Catalogues might deceave others by naming them so who were upon the mater meer Presbyters whom the succeeding writers following as they shew out of Iunius Contr. 2. Ch 5. not 18. and fancying to themselves such Bishops as then had obtained fell into these snares of tradition because they supposed that according to the Custome of their times there could be but one Bishop in a Church at the same time And to cleare it that the persons whom Irenaeus speaks of were upon the mater Presbyters in answer to that objection from Irenaeus lib 3. Cap 3. where Bishops are named as set up by the Apostles They answer that the word Bishop hath a various acceptation and that Irenaeus names Anicetus Higinus Pius Presbyters of the Church of Rome the words being then promiscuouslie used So that whatever impression Irenaeus might have of them according to the language and Custome of the time yet upon the matter they were Presbyters only and therefore they put the Episcopall partie to prove that those whom they named Bishops were veri nominis Episcopi or Hierarchicall Bishops They doe not speak so much of the Impression which Irenaeus or Eusebius had of them as of the true nature and State of these Church-officers whom according to the Custome of their times they call Bishops By Irenaeus his calling them sometimes Presbyters according to the promiscuous use of the names even handed down to him they prove that his expressing them under ane Episcopall notion then receaved or any such impression of them which he might entertaine was wrong since according to the scripture language the Bishop and Presbyter imports no other office then a Pastour What inconsistency will our Informer shew in this that Irenaeus and others were deceaved in representing the first Proestotes under ane Episcopall notion upon a Credulous report from their forefathers and yet that the persons whom they thus represented were upon the mater Presbyters As for what he adds p. 102 from Bucer de animarum cura anent a Proestos or the Election and ordination of one who went before the rest and had the Episcopal Ministerie in the Chief degree even in the times of the Apostles by the Testimony of Tertullian Cyprian Irenaeus Eusebius ancienter then Ierom Wee say that any who knowes Bucers judgment in Church government and are acquaint with his writings theranent will acknowledge that the Proestos is the utmost length he goes as to Episcopacy and a Proestos during life hath no doubt something of ane Episcopal Ministerie and is above his Brethren and we are to expone his summus gradus or Chief degree by the word praecipue or Chiefly that goes before Who will doubt but the constant fixed Proestos is in so farr set over the rest But here we must minde the Informer of Two things 1. That this Proestos chosen by the Presbytery is as we said farr short of the Diocesian Prelat who owns no Presbyters in his election hath ane arbitrary power over them 2. That it being thus defacto is farr from amounting to a proof of the jus and who will say that Bucer could take the Apostle James to be formalie Bishop of Ierusalem or chosen to be a fixed Moderator by Presbyters whose Apostolick office both Bucer and the Informer will acknowledge to have reached the whole world in relation to the watering planting of Churches Next if these words will plead for a Hierarchie even in the Apostles times and that Bucer took upon the Testimonie of Tertullian Irenaeus c the Apostle James and others for Hierarchicall Bishops surely he was oblidged to have taken notice of Ieroms proofs for the parity of Bishops Presbyters in the Apostles times which since he doth not it s most probable that he means to assert the factum only of exalting Presbyters to such a degree at that time but not the jus as is said else I see no consistencie in the words if he reckon the Apostle James in this account For he sayes Apostolorum temporibus unus ex Presbyteris electus That in the Apostles times one was chosen from among the Presbyters
Ans. The Informer hath left out wittily whither honestly or not let others judge in his translation of this sentence the inference which Ambrose Drawes from this identity of the office viz that they have both one ordination He maks the office one and the ordination one consequently and gives this reason why they have one ordination viz because every one of them is a priest or Minister uterque enim Sacerdos sath he Their ordination is terminat upon and relative unto one and the same office Now what greater length would he have Ambrose assertion come then this That there is no diffâ—…rent ordination of the Bishop and Presbyter and consequently no officiall differences doth he not plead for ane officiall specifick difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter Makes he not the Bishops succeed the Apostles and Evangelists in their officiall power and the Presbyters to come after the Seventy Disciples or meer ordinary Pastoures Are their not many essential differences which this mans principles the present practise fixes betwixt the Bishop Presbyter wherof we have spoken above How can Ambrose then assert that they have the same office and ordination Where is the Consecration Where is the Bishops sole power in ordination and jurisdiction Where is his negative voice among the Presbyters making them in all their officiall power certain deputs under him if their office be one and their ordination the same with his 2. As for the difference here assigned viz That the Bishop is the first priest and that every Presbyter is not a Bishop in Ambrose sense this will nothing help our Informer Becaus 1. This is fitly applicable to the Proestos then in use yea to the Moderator of a Synod who as such hath a sort of Prostasie while the Synod sits and every Minister is not Moderator though the Moderator be no more then a Minister in his officiall power nay this is applicable to the least accidentall difference Imaginable Every man is not white or black yet every such is a man Every Parliament man is not speaker though the speaker is a Parliament man only as to his authority Blondel his first ordained Minister who with him is the first Bishop or Proestos hath this properlie applicable unto him 2. He must be minded that Ambrose sayes when speaking of the Scriptur parity of Bishops and Presbyters non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolorum ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia That the writings of the Apostles did not in every point agree to the order which was then in the Church Now this preter scripturall or new order of government what is it but that anent the primus or first among the Presbyters so that this very primus or prostasie tho farr from the present Hierarchie of our Prelats as is said yet comes after the scripture appointment with Ambrose and is unlike to that paritie betwixt Bishop Presbyter which is therein held forth The Informer Next offers something in answer to Chrisostoms Testimony who asserts That almost there is no difference betwix a Bishop and Presbyter And his great Answer is That notwithstanding these Fathers acknowledge a difference and themselves were Bishops Ans. If the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter come to a ferme nihil or almost none Surely it decays and is ready to vanish away And what this difference is and wherein placed we have already heard and surely that prostasie in Chrysostoms time behoved to be very in considerable since it came to make upno greater difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter then a ferme nihil upon the borders of a non ens As for what he sayes of their being Bishops themselves I answer they are the more impartiall witnesses in this mater They tell us oft that Ierome was a Presbyter and therefore no friend to Bishops Now here is a Testimonie of eminent Bishops for this very truth which Ierom asserts and which this man would make us believe was condemned as a Heresie And surelie we are more tender of their reputation who interpret any Prostasie or Episcopacie which they held to be according to this their judgement anent Episcopacie and assert that what overplus of power they had or might possibly exercise beyond that of a Presbyter was by them lookt upon as founded on Ecclesiastick Custome or Ecclesiae usus As Augustin speaks but not to flow from a divine right Then this Informer and his fellowes who make them maintaine one thing and practise another yea and contradict themselves so grossly in maintaining as high a jus divinum as Apostolick doctrine and practise in relation to the Hierarchicall Bishop and yet assert a ferme nihil as to the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter But the Informer adds That they might think Bispop and Presbyter to differ Gradu not ordine in degree not in order which is still a debate in the Schools Ans. This assertion is so improbable that he dare but lisp it out and faintly asserts it with a might be But sure he must needs acknowledge this distinction of the Schooles to be much later then these Fathers and any graduall difference which they place betwixt Bishop and Presbyter it is clear that they found it upon Ecclesiastick Custome as we heard both Ierome Augustin and Ambrose assert But how long will this man involve himself in contradictions and these Fathers also Told he us not page 15. That Augustin upon Psal 45 16. affirms That the Bishops are properly the Successors of the Apostles unto their office And saith he not immediatly thereafter That Ambrose upon 1 Cor. 12 28. affirms of the Apostles first named in that Classe of Church officers that ipsi sunt Episcopi firmante illud Petro episcopatum ejus accipiat alter That the Apostles are the Bishops by Peters assertion let another take his Bisheprick Tells he us not likewise here that Augustin makes James the first Bishop of Ierusalem and Peter the first Bishop of Rome Tells he us not that they transmitted ane Episcopall power in that traine of Successors proved by Catalogues of Bishops Did we not hear him plead that the seventy Disciples placed in ane inferiour orb to the Twelve Apostles are properlie succceded by Presbyters that Matthias behoved to be ordained ane Apostle tho one of the Seventy disciples is his great argument to prove this Now I beseech him per omnes musas will he say that Apostles and Presbyters differ only ordine and not gradu in order not in degree or that these fathers doe hold this opinion how come their successors then to coalesce into one after such a manner as to differ only in a ferme nihil or almost nothing Saith not Ambrose Episcopi Presbyteri una est ordinatio the Bishop and Presbyter have the same ordination But the Informer will not adventure to say that the Apostle and Presbyter have one ordination For Matthias one of the Seventy must be solemnlie by God ordained ane Apostle And the Prelats must be
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
declare their own sense saith he which possibly was not right but how could they oblidge others to their sense who had taken it before the first imposers having given them no such power The Apollogist here told him that this assembly put no sense of their own upon any who took it either before or after but as the representatives of this Church gave a judiciall interpretation of it and by authentick evidences made it appear that this was the sense of the imposers and of the Church of Scotland when it was taken and that such as sware it before with an explicatory addition to forbear the approbation of prelacie untill the assembly should try whither it was abjured in that oath did consequently commit this unto and were accordingly depending upon the assembly to declare the meaning therof besides that the judicial interpretation of this nationall Church her oath did of right belong unto this her supreme judicatory as is said Here the Doubter objects that those who took the Covenant after it was thus sensed by the assembly have abjured Episcopacy To this he answeres that the assembly did intend to put no other sense upon it then the sense of the words and of the first imposers Very true but what then the first imposers having no such meaning sayth he as to abjure Episcopacie the assemblies ground failes and their posterior meaning could not bind against the first meaning This last is easily granted but the great pinch lyes in this how proves he that the first Imposers never meaned it against Episcopacie This he sayes is already shewed but where we must waite it seems for a new pamphlet to get an account of this great proofe The Doubter next alleadeth to purpose that we engadge our selves in that Covenant to adhere to this Church in doctrine faith religion and discipline and to continue in the doctrine and disciplin thereof which is Presbyterian discipline To this he answers That by discipline cannot he meant Presbyterian government Why so because saith he at the first imposing of the Covenant there was no such government in Scotland nor for a confiderable time after Ans. we have made it appear that Episcopacie was judicially declared unlawfull and that both the books of discipline were received which overthrow prelacie and asserts Presbyterian discipline before ever that Covenant was taken and that at the very time of taking it the old mould of prelacies were dissolved and Presbyteries erected both by the King and assembly But how proves our Informer that there was no such government in Scotland at that time because saith he the King for all Ministers essayes to introduce Presbytery yet owned Episcopacy But how proves he this that at the imposing of the Covenant he owned episcopacy did he not owne the assemblies power and the power of Synods presented he not to that assembly 1581 a plot of Presbytries and his letter enjoyning their erection to dissolve prelacies together with the subscribed Covenant how did this own episcopacy let Royalists take notice what an ingrained dissembler this man makes King James in saying that he still owned episcopacy when so palpably disowning it to the sense of all reasonable men And if king James came all this length as to the introducing of Presbytrie surely Ministers essayes with him for this end were very effectuall Besides it s a poor argument to prove that this protestant organick Church was not at that time owning Presbyterian government or exercising it and by consequence that the Discipline as then existent sworne to be mantained in that oath is not Presbyterian to say that king James owned episcopacie Nay in granting these essayes of Ministers for Presbytry he grants that Presbyterian government was owned For sute I am what was their sense and endeavours as to Presbyterian government from the beginning the same were the sense and endeavours of the body of this protestant Church But his 2d answer to the premised objection of his Doubter is ushered in with a thereforâ—… what next therefor the government meant in it must be Episcopacie if any particular mode of government be understood This is well stept out a piece beyond his Master the Seasonable case who hardly comes this length The man that will let us Episcopacie in this Church at that time as the Government imbracd by her must have odd prospectives and of a like quality with these of our Informer which have descryed Diocesian Bishops in Scripture We heard that the Seasonable case grants that Ministers then lookt on themselves as oblidged against episcopacie both by the nationall Covenant and by the word of God pray Sir be tender of these Ministers reputation were they so principled and still owning episcopacie too this is strange yea and owning it and promising to defend it in this Covenant Besides how will he reconcil our Churches labouring now against Bishops acknowledged by him pag. 118. with her practising Episcopacy which he asserts pag. 118. But his answer hath a proviso if any particular mode of government was understood But why will this latetudinarian Informer cast the mist of a hesitating if upon a clear and plaine truth strange Speaks not the Covenant of an existent frame of Government embraced by this Church What! Were they embracing a Proteus was it an existent individuum vagum or materia prima some Embryon that had received yet no forme But how proves he that Prelacie was sworne unto in that Oath Because saith he the Year after the King ratified the agreement at Leith in favours of Episcopacie This we heard before and did shew what an insignificant reason it is from King James practice a year after to inferre what is the sense and intendment of this Oath and the takers of it A topick and reason which none who are solid and rational will admitt Yet the Informer still beats upon this Anvill Besides the Apollogist tells him pag. 15. that this treaty at Leith anno 1571 was opposed and censured by the Nationall Assembly the very next year So that this national Church in her suprem judicatory gave no consent unto but opposed that treaty and whatever recesses from her Presbyterial Government were therin begun But this mans sqeemish eyes stil overlooks what he cannot answer Now remark our Informers profound and subtill reasoning in this point King James did not abjure episcopacy in the Nationall Covenant why so Because the next Year he acted for Episcopacie And when we allege that the Government to which that Covenant oblidgeth was Presbyterian Government which was then existent he tells us that the Government then existent was episcopall And when he is put to the proofe of this paradox against such clear evidences he just recurrs again and tells us for his proof that King James then acted for episcopacie fine circular reasoning this is and the Informer shall thus never want a Medium knows exactly to answer the solidest argument against-him with turning according to the Souldiers dialect asye
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
such was and is the sense and acknowledgement of the reformed Churches themselves as from their confessions we have made appear For confirming this further because the Informer hath told us frequently of MrCrofton let us heare how he will bespeak him in this point In that piece intituled The fastening of S Peters Fetters pag. 40. He tells the Oxford men of the Church of Scotlands Philadelphian purity in delivering in writting and excercising in practice that sincere manner of Government whereby men are made partakers of salvation acknowledged by Mr Brightman on Apocalyps 3. and the Apology to the Doctors of Oxford and of Beza's epistle 79 to Mr Knox exhorting him to hold fast that pure Discipline which he had brought into Scotland together with the Doctrine And pag. 41. he cites the corpus confess pag. 6. Where the collector layes down this as the ground of that Churches purity of doctrine and 54 years unity without Schisme that the Discipline of Christ and his Apostles as it is prescribed in the word of God was by litle and litle received and according to that Discipline the Government of the Church disposed so near as might be which he prayes may be perpetually kept by the King Rulers of the church These English Non-conformists Beza the Author of the syntagma in Croftons sense and himself together with them thus clearly avouching Presbyterian government which Mr Knox introduced to have been the government of this Church since the reformation and which King Iames also owned For after he hath told us in the same page of Arundel Hutton and Matthews three English Arch-Bishops their approving the order of the Church of Scotland he tells the same Oxford men of the joy which King James profest in the assembly 1590 that he was born to be a King of the sincerest Church in the world Again pag 39. he makes mention of this Churches two books of discipline as the great badge and Test of her government and in answere to the Oxford mens exception against that article of the Covenant which binds to preserve the discipline and government of the Church of Scotland viz. that they were not concerned in and had litle knowledge of that government he tells them that he wonders how an university conversing in all books could profess they had no knowledge of these books So that in Mr Crostons sense and in the sense of the Presbyterian covenanters in England the government engadged unto in that article is that platforme of Presbyterian government contained in these 2 books of discipline which adversaries themselves do grant to comprehend an intire frame of Presbyterian government Again pag. 141. he gathers from the tenor of the Kings coronation oath at Scone that the royall assent was given unto Presbyterian government in pursuance of the obligation of the solemne league and Covenant and that in his Majesties most publick capacity as King of great Britain France and Ireland for himself and Successors and asserting clearly the equity of the obligation he asks the learned in law whither the royall assent by such expressions publickly made knowne as here it was unto acts and ordinances of parliament in his other dominions to be past here anent be not sufficient to make an act of parliament a perfect and compleat law by the equity of the statute 33. Hen. 3. 21. c. So that Mr Crofton clearly asserts our obligation to Presbyterian government to be contained in the Covenant and to reach all his Majesties dominions For he tells us in the preceeding page that to all such as apprehend the constitution of England to be Merum imperium wherein the King hath supremam Majestatem it is evident that his Majesties ratifying the Covenant thus hath rendred it nationall Again Timorcus pag. 70. asserts that the parliament who imposed the Covenant anno 1648. sent propositions to the King wherein was demanded the utter abolishing of episcopacie Which is point blanck cross to the character of that piece obtruded by the Informer and doth evidently demonstrat compared with these passages of Mr Crofton that the whole body of Presbyterian covenanters in England both imposers and takers parliament and people understood that article of Presbyterian government The Doubter here poorly grants that England and Scotland did not understand that article in the same sense but alledgeth that since our Church understood it of Presbytry we are bound to it in that sense Upon this he assumes That it will not follow that we are bound to it in the sense of our Church and state but rather that in relation to government it is with out sense since the imposers themselves were not aggreed as to its meaning Ans. we have already made it good both from the sense and scope of the national Covenant the judicial interpretation and application of it to our former prelacie expresâ—…ie the nations universall taking it so and the authorizing thereof both by King and parliament as well as by the recommendation of the assembly from the total extirpation of prelacy and setting up Presbyterian government in all its courts in consequence hereof that that article of the solemne league which relates to the preservation of the then existent Reformation in doctrine worship discipline and government cannot without extreme impudence be distorted to any other sense then a preservation of the Presbyterian government then existent Especially the league being framed and entered into by us for our further security in relation to what we had attained And this being the article framed by the Church and state of Scotland at that time and this being also their scope and designe discovered in their treaties with England when that Covenant was entered into I dare appeal this mans conscience upon it whither ever any demurre here anent or any other sense of this article was offered by the English when the nations first entered into this oath or whither the imposers thereof in Scotland would have engaged in that league with the English upon any other termes then these and in this their sense of that 1. article Thinks the Informer that if any such thing had been muttered in the first transaction of this business that the English did not look upon the Presbyterian government as the reformed government of this Church that the Scots nation would have transacted with whem in this league Nay when as Timorcus tells us it was debated branch by branch phrase by phrase in the convention house in the parliament in the assembly of divines was there ever such a notion as this of our Informer started that by the reformed government of the Church of Scotland Presbyterian government was not to be understood in a word dare he deny that the godly conscientious Ministers and people of England did in the sense of this oath and even in imitation of the Scottish or rather the Scripture patterne plead for and had begun to set up Presbyterian government and are closs to their principles to this day But
he adds that it is irrationall to say we are bound to it in the sense of the Church and State of Scotland because they were but a part of the Imposers and the least Part. Ans. I told him already that in relation to the engadgers in Scotland they were the proper imposers the authority of the respective rulers of both nations in relation to their own subjects being first and immediately to be lookt unto and their sense scope therein to be mainly eyed and each Nation being properly and immediatly judges as to their own national end in this stipulation Thinks this man that the then representatives of Church and State did eye any other end as to Scotland then the preservation of the reformation in Doctrine Discipline Worship and Government as at that time therein establisht Moreover the sense and scope of the article it self being convincingly inclusive of Presbyterian Government it can admit of no other glosse without manifest distortion and frustration of the imposers designe therein Next he tells us that suppose Presbytery were meant in the 1 Article yet the 2d will admitt some episcopacie What poor stuffe is this Suppose the Article of extirpation relating only to England and Ireland would comport with some episcopacie which the Informer hath not yet proved what hath that to do with Scotland Or how can that enervate our engadgement to preserve the reformation as then establisht in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government Because in relation to the extirpating of Englands Prelacy after the reformation in Scotland is compleated and sworn to we are to bear with the English Church in some remaines of Prelacy till God give further light must we therfor be oblidged or allowed according to the sense and scope of this Oath to corrupt or raze the Fabrick of that establisht reformation and bring in again prelacy into that Church out of which it had been totally eradicate Nay this is too dull inadvertancie As for what he adds that Presbytery is not inconsistent with any kinde of prelacie I answer that the presbytery establisht and sworn to be maintained in Scotland is and Beza is so farre from disowning this that as we heard he exhorteth John Knox to keep that Church and house of God clean of prelacy as he loved the simplicity of the Gospel CHAP. IV. The grounds upon which the Informer undertakes to prove that the obligation of the Covenant ceaseth although its oblidging force for the time past were supposed examined at large As also his reasoning upon Numb 30. Wherein his begging of the question his contradicting of Dr Sanderson and other Casuists and manifold inconsistencies are made appear OUR Informer having spent his Master pieces and the cheife products of his invention or rather of those who have gone before him upon this difficult task of reconciling the Covenant to Prelacy doth next as a liberall bold disputer undertake to loose the Covenant even upon supposall of its pre-existent obligation against it And therefore making his Doubter tell him that he bears off the acknowledgement of anyobligation against episcopacie either in the national or solemne league lest he fall under the charge of perjurie In answer to this he will suppose that episcopacy is abjured in both Covenants and yet undertake to defend that they arenot perjured who now submit to prelacie The Doubter thinks this strange Doctrine and so do I. Because to swear against episcopacie and yet acknowledge it is to do contrary to their Oath To this doubt he returns a large resolution but still follows up the Seasonable case closs for fear of miscarrying And first he begins with a threefold partition either prelacy saith he is an unalterable necessary Government of divine or Apostolick warrand or it is sinfull and contrary to the Apostolick Government or thirdly of a middle nature neither commanded nor forbidden but left to Christian prudence as found expedient to be used or not Here I must stope him a little and minde the reader that we did upon the first Dialogue disprove this indifferent Proteus-Prelacie as a monster to Scripture since the Scripture condescending so far as to its institution of officers ordinances Lawes censures and as we heard himself acknowledge setting down all substantialls of Church Government prelacie must of necessity be either consonant or dissonant therunto and by consequence necessary or finfull commanded or forbidden So that he is to be limited to the first two and any supposal anent the indifferencie of presacy is but his petitio prnicipii and the gratification of his adversary for further clearing of this question now proceed we If it be the Apostolick Government derived from their times to all ages of the Church he hopes we will grant that no Oath oblidges against it This I willingly grant to him but what then Why we must not cry out perjurie till what he hath offered on this head be solidly answered Let this bargaine stand I hope I have made his Scripturae pretences appear to be vaine and proven the contrariety of that prelacie now established both to the Scripture and pure antiquity and till he hath answered what is offered upon this point we may impute perjury to him by his own acknowledgment What next what if it be sinfull Then he sayes we need not plead the Covenant obligation No may we not plead the Covenant obligation against Schisme heresie and profanness May not the Oath of alledgance be pleaded against treason because before this Oath treason is a sin Said he not already that the Baptismall vow is a superadded obligation though the matter it self doth binde did not the Oath and Covenant Neh. 8. containe an abjuration of many sins against which the people stood before preoblidged But he adds its true a supervenient Oath makes the obligation the stronger Right why then may not we plead that which makes it stronger Especially against this man and his fellows who have such a mighty faculty of resolving and absolving all S Peters fetters Sure they had need of Double nets who would catch a Proteus Then he tell us That the ablest champions for Presbytrie dar not assert episcopacie to be unlawfull What champions are these that prove it to be contrary to Scripture and yet dar not assert it to be unlawfull Sure they are very faint disputants We heard that Beza whom our Informer will sure call a champion for Presbytery called episcopacy diaâ—…olicall and the egg out of which Antichrist was hatched Was not that near the march of calling it unlawfull But how will he now absolve us Why it must be indifferent neither lawfull nor unlawful and then the question is with him if we could by our own Oath make it absolutely and in every case unlawfull so that we can never after submit unto it He adds that we are mistaken if we think that an Oath against a thing indifferent will in every case bind Here I shall only tell him that since all his resolving skill
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
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
Principles Doctrine practice are point blank contrary therunto is not 2. It supposed that there is no lawfull use of ordinances among Presbyterian Ministers as persons who have no Lawfull call to officiat in this case Hence this man pleads for disowning them universally and absolutely but we affirm they are Ministers standing in that relation to this Church and under the obligation of Christs comand to officiat which Conformists have not yet disproved 4. He supposes that every thing which may be expedient as to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and order of a Church when enjoyning her full peacable constitution will equally oblidge in her broken and persecute condition when a prevailing backsliding party is in her bosome Now scripture and reasen will disprove this circumstances of order must give place to important duties in extreme necessity as this is the scattered officers of the Church of Jerusalem went every where preaching the gospel Act. 8 so did Ministers in the beginning of the Reformation 4. It is supposed that our change is only as to government and such only as was in King Iames time both which we have showen to be false 5. He takes for granted that their personal faults who are conformists and a supposed pullution of the worship therby is our ground of non-union and that our granting them to have the essence of a Ministeriall call and that their scandals will not pollute the worship will infer the hearing of them in this our case which is also false For even upon this supposition we are not bound to owne them no more then ane ingraind Schismatick obtruded forcibly by a party of the congregation upon the rest of the people might be ownd on this ground 6 This man begs the question in supposing that the constitution and frame of the Prelacy now establish't is the same with that of the ancient Church for he often tels us that we would have separat from the ancient Church upon the same grounds for which we disown Conformists Whereas we have shewed the difference of our prelacy from theirs in many points That our prelats both as Diocesian Erastian are wholly discrepant from the ancient Bishops 7. He takes it for granted that Ministers who disown this course of backsliding their relation to their flocks is cut off in the present posture of our Church and that the Prelats and their substituts the Curats are the onely proper representative Church of Scotland who accordingly have onely the lawfull power and exercise of the keyes as to either admission or censure of Ministers A principle alwayes disowned by our Church See Protesters no subverters pag. 96. Rutherfoords due right of Presbyt pag. 430. 431. Altare Damasc. pag. 23. 8. He supposes that its unlawfull in this our case to officiat renâ—…tente Magistratâ—… that this very violence and the present Lawes will render Ministers officiating unwarrantable pag. 205. which is a great mistake for the Magistrat cannot loose from the pastoral relation which he gave not ejusdem est constituere destituere Aâ—…esmedull cap. 30. thes 14. And hence the Ministers relation to the Church Nationall stands tho he restrain the exercise thereof in any one place and consequent ly the tyes and commands to officiat so that disobeying the Magistrats command not to officiat is no disobedience to his lawful authority Nay Apollonius thinks that the divine relation of a Minister to this Church tho banisht from his native country doth stand Ius Majestatis circasacra part 1. pag. 331. 9. He still supposes that what will not exse or of it self plead for disowning the hearing of the gospel or of a Minister simpliciter will plead nothing in this our case for disowning Conformists The mans weakness personal faults not lecturing c. are not of themselves sufficient to cut us off from hearing absolutely But tho this be granted we have the pure genuine Church of Scotland and her faithful Ministry to adhere unto and over and above these grounds mentiond conformists schismatick practice and corrupt Doctrine to lay to their charge which will make this ground in our case very weighty and preponderating and this the Informer himself must grant for he will not say that such like pretences or arguments in our case were valid as to the owning of Nonconformists and desâ—…rting of Curats Moreover he will grant that Presbyterian Ministers might Lawfully be heard if Conformists were not standing in their way Now so the case is in relation to Presbyterian Ministers pleading for that none of these things which he mentions were valid to infer peoples disowning of Conformists were there no other Ministers in Scotland and if this Church had universally both Ministers and people faln into this couâ—…se of backsliding will be readily granted But without any advantage to his cause as is evident To these many discoveries of his begging the question in this debate our plea and arguments will be clearer if we add a short view of our suppositions in this case and question Such as 1. our principle of the unlawfulness of prelacie 2. The binding force of our covenants 3. Our Churches divine tight to her Reformation and priviledges once establisht 4. that this is a case both of defection and persecution 5. of competition betwixt Ministers professours contending for our Reformation and a party of backsliders overturning it 6. The tendency of this course of Prelatick defection to raze our Reformation and that if not prevented it will end in propery 7. That Presbyterian Ministers relation to this Church and their obligation to duty founded upon that relation is not extinguished but subsists notwithstanding of the present violence and persecution which they with their weeping mother are exposed unto Having premised these things from what is said we may draw forth at length the great state of the question thus whether when the Reformation of a National Church in Doctrine worship discipline and government is by a backsliding party overturnd and a course-carryed on to raze it God having left a considerable body of Ministers professours who stand in opposition to that course and are in their capacities testifying against it are these Ministers and professors who preach and hear in opposition to that course or the complying Ministry and hearers the scismaticks This being clearly the state of this question we shall offer these arguments to fortifie our principle of disowning conformists in this our case and denying a subjection to them as the Ministers of this Church and adherence to Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry and acquit this principle and practise from the Informers charge of sinfull separation 1. Whoever of the two partiss adhere unto the true genuine Church owning her constitutions authoritie and priviledges its certain the contrary party must be the schismaticks here it must be seen who are the first departers who have first broken the hedge who have first disownd and opposed the Covenants the Government the sound and
pure doctrine of this Church in complyance with persecuters surely they and they only are the schismaticks Had not this invasion been made upon our Church and her priviledges what would have been her Judgement of the present principles and practices of Conformists in any of her Lawfull courts would they not have been judged censurable as the worst of Schismaticks Now what is the difference here except that this party makes the greater number but will this take away the charge of schism suppose a party of notorious schismaticks should cry ouâ—… upon such as withdraw from them as schismaticks were not this a ridiculous charge and Just so is that of Conformists in this case 2. Every schism supposes ane obligation of adherence to that Church from which the separation is made Now then let him prove ministers obligation to joyn into this Prelatick course without which they will not admit them to officiat and disprove our prior obligations to opposeit or else Ministers obligation to preach and peoples consequently to hear in opposition to this course of defection will stand good on the old grounds and all the scripture comands founded on Pastours of this Church their Ministerial relation to set the trumpet to their mouth and give a Ministerial testimony against this defection and peoples obligation to hear and take warning will press and plead for that which he calls schism and a sinfull separation 3. Hence Presbyterian Ministers and professors are in this their practise never toched by all his arguments and defences but these are weapons in their hands against him and the conforming party 1. Whereas he pleads the essence of the ministeriall call which conformists lay claim unto Presbyterian Ministers answer that Nonconforming Ministers have this that they are Ministers of this Church and have a better right to officiat as her true pastours then Prelatists And if this will not plead for hearing Non-conformists why shall this argument be thought valide for hearing Curats is not the same way from Athens to Thebes and from Thebes to Athens if his concession touching the essence of their Ministerial call will not with him infer hearing Non-conformists because of their supposed schism Ergo a fortiori it will not infer the hearing of Curats who really are such 2. he pleads that corruptions and failings in administrators or even some corruptions in ordinances will not infer disowning of Ministers Why then pleads he for disowning Presbyterian Ministers and ordinances adminis red by them to whom this is so clarly applicable 3ly he pleads union But let him say what was the order and union of this Church before these innovations was it ane union under Prelacie Erastianism and persurious breach of Covenant was not our Churches Reformation in doctrine worship discipline and Goverment a beautiful order and union Now who broke this supppose we should Plead union against his withdrawing Presbyterian professours from Presbyterian Ministers will he owne this pleading or not rather disowne it because he thinks our union is schismatical well so we hold and do prove the prelatick union to be therefore untill he disprove our charge against his party this pleading is null 4. Divines do tell us particularly Timorcus chap. 7. page 32. that a sinfull separation which falls within the compass of schism is from the communion of a Church as walking according to the divine rule otherwise if the Churches deviation specially be great there is no fear of any guilt by schism in departing from it and hence infers that unless absolvers can instruct that prelacy is juris divini disowning and abjuring it cannot be schismatical Moreover this man himself grants that schism in its ordinary acceptation is taken for a causless separating and that where communion with a Church cannot be held without sin in that case separation is necessary Now then if we can prove that our non union is not causless and that communion cannot be held with Conformists in our case and circumstances without sin we are not Schismaticks by his oun confession To clear then this great point of the sinfulness of owning them in their demanded conformity we offer these considerations 1. Owning them and subjecting our selves to their Ministry as the Pastours of this Church hath a palpable breach of Covenant in it as the case now stands for all along we must suppose its binding force and that there is a considerable body of Ministers professours contending for it and that the question is to which of the parties contending we are bound to adhere and that according to our principles anent its binding force and the unlawfulness of Prelacie which this man cannot disprove The owning of them in the manner above expressed is a breach of Covenant many wayes specially as this man pleads for it with a totall disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their Ministry In this case it is a resiling from what we have attain'd in point of reformation contrary to the first article wherein we are bound to maintain purity of worship and Doctrine as then establisht Now their preaching is for the most part consisting of corrupt doctrine contrary to our Reformation And their prayers have severall petitions with which we cannot joyn such as for prospering Prelats and their courses Not to speak of the abrogating the lecture repeating of the creed at baptism singing a set forme of conclusion or what innovations in worship are introduced Again this is a concurience with promoters of this course of backsliding and a suffering our selves to be withdrawen from our union engadged unto and a denyall of suteable assistance to faithfull Ministers contending for the Covenant against backsliders all which are contrary to the other articles thereof This will be specially clear if it be further considered That 1. The body of presbyterian Ministers being ejected if disown'd in the manner and extent pleaded for by this Informer the presbyterian interest and our Reformation according to the Covenant will be extinct sold and betrayed 2. Hearing Curats and peoples subjecting themselves to their Ministry as the Pastours of this Church is by the Rulers required as a direct badge and Test of owning Erastianism and prelacie in opposition to the Covenant work of Reformation So that its a case of confession now to adhere to a faithfull Ministry contending for it 3. Ther 's no other way to exoner our consciences before God and the World and Declare our nonconformitie to this course of backsliding but by this practice there is no getting of wrongs redrest or corruptions in the Ministry removed Thus the Apology pag. 272. 4. We are in the Covenant engadged against Indifferency in this great work of Reformation and is not this the way to fall into it more and more 5. We engadge that we shall endeavour that this work of Reformation shall remain inviolable to posterity But what memory shall the posterity have of this work if prelats and curats be thus submitted unto 6. We engadge
at the door and in the way and order of this Church That they are violently thrusting out and persecuring her faithfull Pastours that they perjuriously renounce a call from the people and ordination by the Presbyterie All which grounds he must either grant will supersede our obligation to owne conformists hic nunc according to our principles or quite his plea and pleading as to the disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry 8. He pleads in the close of the preceeding Dialogue that the covenant abjures Sel isme Now let us stand to this Decision the Informer will not be dissatisfyed if I shall borrow one of his topicks and shoot ane arrow from his own bow I would offer then to him this syllogisme That Schism which he pleads against is a Schism abjured in the Covenant but disowning Conformists in their present state circumstances refusing to be subject to them as the Ministers of this Church is not a schism abjur'd in the Covenant Ergo c. The assumption I prove thus If the disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their present state and circumstances and withdrawing from them in the exercise of their Ministerial function and their Ministerial testimony against prelacy and for the Covenant be that schism which is abjurd therin then a refusing to be subject to Curats against whom they are testifying as the Covenant breakers and upholders of prelacy ad not owning them as the Ministers of this Church cannot be that scism Unless he will mak this scism such a Janus as will cast a maligne condemning aspect upon both the contending parties and bring adherers unto either of the two under this imputation But so it is that disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry is condemned in the Covenant as schism this we have already made appear it being a disowning of that establisht order and union of this Church which therin we do swear to maintain and a schismatical withdrawing from her faithfull Ambassadours and others contending for the ends of the Covenant to adhere unto whom and keep up an union wiâ—…h them herein the Covenant layes upon us an express obligation putting the imputation of schismatick division and detestable indifferency upon the contrary practice Ergo upon the whole it follows evidently that the owning of Conformists which he pleads for in this Dialogue viz. subjection unto and receiving ordinances from them as the Ministers of this Church and denying this to Presbyterian Ministers is abjurd in the Covenant as Schismatical CHAP. II. The Informers charge of internal and external Schisme put upon Non-conformists â—…f impeaching the Churches constitution and her practice in point of Worship for more than a 1000 Years examind His argument from Rom. 14. Heb. 10. 25. answered and retorted upon him His answer to the argument taken from the command of seeking the best gifts considered As also his argument from ancient canons from the Act of the Assembly 1647. from the reciprocal tye betwixt a Minister and his flock to fortify his charge of Schism repell'd HAving thus cleard our question and plea fortified our practice with these arguments We come now to examine the grounds on which this new Casuist imputes sinfull separation to us therein We acknowledge the evil of Schism upon these Texts mentioned by him which might have caused sad reflectings on himself and his party who are guilty of divisions and offences contrary to our received ordinances and the doctrine of this Church And so are lashed by that Scripture Rom. 16. 17. And who would have have us saying I am of this or that Rabbi or Prelat contrary to 1 Cor. 1 12. It 's they who have disownd a spirituall pure unity with this pure Church and are seeking a perjurious union in departing from God contrary to that precept Ephes. 4 3. And are so far from esteeming others in Lowliness of mind better then themselves as we are enjoynd Phil 2. 2. That their Rabbies trample on all Ministers and their underlings do most insolently persecute and despise faithfull Pastours for adhering to the Reformation authority and union of this Church against their innovations Schism is no doubt an evill which hath much infested the Church and our Church and the Scripture sufficiently discovering the evill thereof we need not Cyprian nor Jeroms elogies anent unity to persuaed it Only where he insinuats from that saying of Cyprian which he mentions Who asserts from 1 Cor. 13. that who are slain in their Schism their inexpiable sin is not purged by their blood and that they are not Martyrs that such is the case of the suffering people of God at this time we may discern the cruell venome and sting of this mans malice for all the sobriety which he pretends unto I shall only tell him that as its more then he will be ever able to prove that the Lords remnant are guilty of this sin and are assembling out of the Church when attending the Ministry of Christs faithfull Ambassadours in this Church so he and his fellows setting these murderers upon them in this duty will if they repent not be exposed to that vengeance which the cry of their souls under the altar who have been slain for this their Testimony doth plead for He would also do well to resolve this doubt upon Cyprians Testimony viz. Whether Cyprian did ever hold or if himself will dare to assert that the blood and sufferings of the best of martyrs did expiat their guilt As for Jeroms assertion that Schism and Heresy or some degree of it go together I think it is fitly applicable to himself and fellow Conformists who since their departing from the unity of this Church and her sworn Reformation have not only to justify their course vented gross errours in point of Oaths and otherwise but are now as every one sees posting fast to Rome in denying many and great points of our Protestant profession We accord to Augustines saying that separatists as such receive no life from the body the unquestionable godliness fellowship with the Father and the Son to which many Presbyterians are admitted and wherein they shine compared with the abominable prophanity of the whole of those almost that owne Curats will by this rule declare who are the Schismaticks and separatists from Christs body The comment of the Thorn which rents the liliâ—… Cant. 2. 2. Is very suteable to him and those of his way who have now of a long time rent the Lords faithfull flock wounded our Church and taken away her vail esteeming themselves Christians of the first magnitude so he esteems his most reverend Arch-Bishops and reverend under-fathers What pitifull preambles are these The Doubter alleadges that every separation is not schism This as we heard he acknowledges and that when communion with a Church cannot be held without sin separation is necessary wherein he yeelds all that we plead since we have proved that in this our case joyning to
so far from tying congregations to conformists as this man alleages that they tye them to their own faithfull Presbyterian pastours and by consequence to disowne prelats and their intruding hirelings as none of the lawfull Pastours of this Church I might here add that the account of the Pastours duty and the ground of the people's subjection and obedience exhibit to us in these scriptures which he mentions doth sufficiently exclude their party from any claim therunto What do they hear Gods word and warn the people from him who are generally so ignorant of his word walking contrary to it themselves and hardning others in rebellion against him are they watching for souls as they that must give account who are loving to sleep and slumber and dare not say most of them that ever they enquird at any soul how it is betwixt God and them do their lips keep knowledge who have departed out of the way and caused many stumble at the Law are they labouring and admonishing as to sin and duty who are ringleaders in a course of defection Sure if the duties of subjection reverence and obedience suppose such characters of Ministers and such qualifications as are here exprest people are hereby abundantly discharged from such subjection and obedience as to Conformists who are so palpably destitute of these qualifications So that the Informer falls utterly short of his intended advantage by this citation of Mr Durham and the scriptures therin mentioned do wound his cause tâ—… death and cut the sinews of his reasoning This man is so unhappy as to fall still by the rebound of his own arguments and the scripture-weapons which in pleading for this cause will never be found the weapons of his warfare wounds him every time he handles them which as it hath before so it shall presently appear further in some more of his arguments and answers upon this point which we now present CHAP. III. The Doubters argument from Curats not entring by a call from the people and that passage Acts 14. 23. cleared and improven The Informers exceptions upon the terme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fully examined and the peoples right in the call of Pastours cleared therfrom His reasonings about Patronages and the prelatick ordination and peoples disowning of Scandalous Ministers not censured As also his great argument from Math. 23. 1. and the owning of the Temple-worship scanned and retorted upon him Mr Durham in this point pleads nothing for the Informer His answers and reasonings anent the charge of Introsion examined Our Informer upon this point of separation which he holds to be his fort-royal in the present differences having plyed his Doubter with offensive weapons will needs shew his skill and just dealing in acting the defendant for some time But I doubt that his defensive armour and answers shall be found as thin and penetrable in this debate as his impugning weapons are bluntand pointless Well this fair disputant will hear some of our arguments against the owning of Conformists but be sure they must be of his own mould and digesting for these can best suit the design of that pretty piece of pageantry which he is acting in this pamphlet The first argument which his Doubter offers is their not entring by a call from the people as all Ministers should citing Act. 14. 23. but by a presentation from the patron In answer to this he spends some discourse upon that text which we shall examine But to clear this point the more fully I will premise three things 1. That the people have a divine right to call their pastouâ—… we proved before in the 9th argument against Episcopacy and from other scripture-grounds beside this although it be a weighty ground also unto this we refer the reader 2. That upon supposal of this divine rule and pattern of a Ministers Lawfull call it doth clearly follow that the patronages are a corruption rendring the Ministers call in this respect maimed and not so consonant to scripture as it ought to be 3. Though it be granted that a Minister presented by the Patron and not called by the people hath the essence of the Ministerial office and might in some cases be owned as a Minister yet this will plead nothing for the owning of Curats as the case is now circumstantiat Because 1. It s certain that according to the principles and reformation of this Church as establisht before these innovations a Ministers entry by imposition of the hands of the Presbytery without the usurping Prelate and by the call of the people without the Patron is the more pure and scriptural way of entry into the Ministry and moreover the only way of entry own'd and authorized by her supreme Indicatories and by consequence its most suitable to Presbyterian principles when there is a competition betwixt the one and the other and Ministers thus Lawfully called are violently ejected by men reestablishing prelacy and patronages formerly cast out and vowed against that people do adhere to their faithfull pastours rather then these Innovators and intruders which will be convincingly clear if it be also considered particularly that as prelacy allits corruptions usurpations now existent and introduced were fully removed and abjured by this Church so laick patronages in speciall were upon most weighty grounds removed by the parliament 1649. in correspondence to our Churches declarator as appears in the Narrative of their 39. act viz. The sense of the obligation lying upon them both by the National and solemn league covenant by many deliverances and mercies from God by the latesolemn engadgement to duties to preserve the doctrine and to maintain and vindicat the liberties of the Church of Scotland to advance the work of Reformation and considering that patronages persentations of Kirkes is an evill and bondage under which the Lords people Ministers of this land have long groan'd That it hath no warrand in Gods word but is founded only on the Canon Law that it is a popish custom brought into this Church in time of ignorance superstition that its contrary to the 2d book of discipline wherein upon solid grounds it s reckon'd among abuses that are desired to be reformed and Contrary to several acts of general assemblies prejudicial to the liberty of the people and planting of Churches to the free call and entry of Ministers to their charge c. This act the parliament 1662 did ranverse among other pieces of our Reformation Ordaining all Ministers that entered since 49. to have no right to the benefice till they obtain a presentation from the Lawfull Patron and collation from the Bishop Now upon supposal of the Covenant obligation and our engadgement therein to separat from any corruption contrary to our Reformation to give a testimony to that work to with-draw from backsliders is there any doubt but that people are oblidged upon these grounds to adhere to that body of faithful Ministers who are standing to our principles and sworn
Reformation whereof these points mentioned are one main piece rather then such as have turn'd aside to this course of perjurious defection Sure our obligations mentioned do every way include Presbyterian Ministers exclude Conformists Presbyterian Ministers are maintaining the peoples right and liberty to call their pastour Conformists are selling away this peice of her reformation liberty and thus crossing the scripture-pattern the first are adhering to this Churches vowes and people are obliged to owne these Ministers that are pursuing the ends the other are casting them away c. Again 3. all the motives mentioned in the premised act of parliament and in our Churches publick acts in opposition to patronages and prelatick usurpations in a Ministers entry are still binding and in force according to our principles as the Informer will not for very shame deny and he must admit this supposition since in this point he professeth to argue against us upon our own principles and so what did then engadge to restore this peice of our Churches libertie and Reformation the same doth now bind to adhere therunto and consequently to owne the Ministers that contend for this Reformation rather then the backsliders and deserters thereof 4. This man dare not assert that the granting conformists to have the essence of a Ministerial call will in every case infer the conclusion of hearing them or that the granting a Minister to have this is the only adequat ground which will in all circumstantiat cases make hearing necessary For 1. What if he be violently obtruded by a part of the congregation upon the previously call'd Minister his labours to whom the people stand oblig'd to adhere Again 2. What if he be promoting a Schismatick course setting up an altar against an altar as some of these men tell us in their Pamphlets will a people cross their principles as to his having the essence of a Ministeriall call if they refuse to follow him in that Schismatick course Nay he will not say it 3. What will our Informer answer to Presbyterian Ministers plea for peoples adherence to them upon their lawful call mission and entry to their charges will this infer a necessity of the people's owning them and deserting conformists If it will not as he must here say or yeeld the cause then he must confess that acknowledgment of the essence of Curats call will not absulutely plead for hearing them untill before the Scripture barr and by the constitutions and reformation of this Church they can prove their claim to be better then that of Presbyterian Ministers to officiat as her true Pastours which will be ad Kalendas Graecas whatever he can pretend here as to disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their administrations notwithstanding of their having a lawfull call and pastoral relation to this Church will be easily retorted upon himself and abundantly counterballanced by that which in the case of conformists may be pleaded to supersede and stop the peoples owning of them in this circumstantiat posture of our Church So that the state of the question here being this whether Ministers ordained by Bishops and presented by Patrons or those who are ordained by the Presbytry and called by the people have best right to officiat in this Church as her Pastours according to the Scripture rule her reformation and principles and to be own'd or disownd by the people accordingly The decision will be very easy and favourable to Presbyterian Ministers and exclusive of all his fraternity And whatever he doth here alledge anent Pâ—…esbyterian Ministers schism intrusion or disorder will be easily retorted upon himself reputando rem in universum ab initio Or tracing matters to their true originals But now what sayes our Informer to this argument of his Doubter as he slenderly propones it to make it foordable 1. He tells us that sundry whom we refuse to hear entred by the peoples call But tho it were granted that such might be heard who are but a few how will this plead for all the rest and loose his Doubters argument as to them 2. we told him that it s not the want of the peoples call simply and abstractedly from the circumstances of our case that we ground upon in disowning them no more then it is Presbyterian Ministers want of an Episcopal ordination which he pleads simply as the ground of disowning them But our ground is their standing all of them in a direct stated opposition to the Reformation union and order of this Church and driving on an interest and design tending to overturn it and by consequence being lyable to her highest censures and likewise their persecuting and opposing faithful Ministers contending for her Reformation 3. All those who he alledges entered by the peoples call havng by their conformity to this Prelacy and Erastianism disowned their first entry in this manner and obtained presentation from Patrons and collation from prelats according to their new acts and orders are now of the same stamp with the rest as to their principles and carriage and consequently the peoples disowning them upon the fore-mentioned grounds in this our case falls under the same obligations with their disowning others and the rather because their apostacy is an aggravation of their guilt But now what sayes our Informer to this text Acts. 14. 23. which is brought by his Doubter to prove the peoples right in the election of Pastours He grants that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is borrowed from the custom used in some of the ancient Greek states where the people signifyed their election of Magistrats by the stretching forth of their hands because the word so signifies Well what then hath he to quarrell at in this argument for the peoples right in the call of Ministers from this text 1. He tells us that Doctor Hamond and other Criticks shew that the word is oftenused by writters to express the action of one single person as it s taken by Luke Acts 10. 41. Speaking of Gods chusing or appointing So that the word is not necessarly to be understâ—…od of the action of many chsiung by snffrages Ans. That the Greek Word in its ordinary and constant acceptation doth import and is made use of to signify a chusing by suffrages and lifting up or extending the hands Presbyterian Writers have proven from a full consent of Criticks Interpreters and the best Greeck authors The Syriack version shewes that the word is not to be understood of the Apostles ordination of Elders but of the Churches election of Elders in rendering the text thus Moreover they made to themselves that is the disciples mentioned in the former verse made to themselves for such as were made were not Elders or Ministers to Paul Barnabas but to the multitude of the disciples in every Church while they were fasting with them praying commending them c. Which election could not be but after the Grecian form by the Churches lifting up or stretching out of
against being his groundless supposition alledged but not proven by him and by us disproved by what is said above and likewise the application of this hearing the Pharisees to our hearing Curats being his bare petitio principii his assertion after subjoyned viz. that this passage will stand against us to our conviction as against the seperatists in Queen Elizabeths time is but a piece of his ignorant arrogant confidence there being a vast difference betwixt our case and that of those separatists at that time as shall hereafter appear And beside Presbyterian Ministers of this Church have much more to say from this text for their people's adhering to them then prelatists can plead The Doubter next alleadges that many Episcopall men have entered upon honest mens Labours and therefore ought to be disowned as intruders He answers 1. That all are not such that some Conformists have keepâ—… their places they bad before the change others have entered in to the labours of those that are dead and transported elswhere Ans. Our Informer doth miserably pinch and narrow a sinfull intrusion by this description which himself must acknowledge For should a Presbyterian Minister step into his own Church upon the death or transportation of one of the Curats who will question that this man will call it an intrusion according to his principles anent the prelatick Church and so he must acknowledge that notwithstanding what he here pleads the Curats entry is intrusion according to our principles beside that the Ministery of those who have conformed and were Presbyterially ordained being an express owning of the principles practices and design of this prelatick schismatick destroying party and by their acceptance of collation and presentation and concurring in the Prelats pretended Judicatories a ministry compleatly of the prelatick mould its reductive if not formaliter an intrusion or partaking with the general intrusion and usurpation upon the pure reformed Ministry and Church of Scotland even as a state officer or Magistrat his taking his office from Invaders while an army is in the fields against them doth fully and fitly denominate him an Invader in the exercise thereof tho it be materially the same office and imployment which he had before Or as an inferior officer in an army taking his office and a new commission from an usurping General and other usurping superior officers who are dissolving and betraying the true army expelling the true General and officers contrary to their first commission doth partake in that usurpation Considering the Church of Scotland as it stood establisht in doctrine discipline worship and government and her National and solemn vows surely this course of Conformity is a most gross intrusion upon her without so much as a shadow of consent and so is all partaking therein by consequence which no Conformist can acquit himself of and therefore according to the tenor and principles of our Reformation cannot be lookt upon as any of our true Church her Sons and Ministers But here our Informer poseth us with some great queries forsooth 1. Whether Conformists were active in utting Presbyterian ministers or came in before they were out and their places declared vacant Ans. Whoever is active or passive in outting them one thing is sure they are violently thrust out contrary to the word of God and the rules order and Reformation of this Church So that come in who will they are Intruders 1. Because they have come in upon a charge to which faithfull Ministers of this Church have Christs Keyes and commission 2. Because come in and obtruded by those who are ingrained usurpers thieves and Robbers I mean perfidious Prelats often abjured and cast out of this Church with detestation and not in the order of this Church Nor by her door A poor man is by a number of Robbers dispossest of his house they put in a seeming neutral to keep house for them the poor owner seeks his possession complaines of this usurpation O saith the new tennant and Robbers depute I am no Intruder I have a good right I put you not out but found your house empty Now let the Informer use a litle honest application and answer his weightie Querie 2. He asks why will those dispossest ministers suffer the people to starve because they have slept out of their charges Ans. The people are starved poysoned too by those that come in these Ministers are concerned upon their faith to the great shepherd to endeavour what they can to save his lambes from the wolves and give faithfull Ministerial warning of their flocks hazard Next he tells us though a minister be transported against his will yet the people should submit to his successor True when for the Churches greater good he is transported to another watchtower by her faithfull guides and true Church Judicatories but not when the true pastour is chased away by usurping perjured Prelats and an intruding hireling brought in as their vicar It s this mans perted self to use his own phrase here that blurrs his eyes to draw a similitudinar argument from such an absimilar instance One thing he did well to add as a proviso viz the successors coming in upon an orderly or fair call And doth this man think that Conformists have this orderly call according to the Reformation and doctrine of this Church Nay is he not disputing against this call and so if this be a necessary condition of a Ministers Lawfull succession the Informer is in the briers of a palpable inconsistency near of kin to a contradiction As for what he adds of the necessity of a Ministry and making the best of what we cannot help in our superiours we say that were the Rulers using their power for giving one Lawfull pastour for another and in the method of this Church and according to the scripture pattern by Lawfull Church Indicatories these reasons would say something but when they have overturned the Reformation of a Church and contrary to that Churches vows and their own are obtruding abjured prelats and a number of profane hyrelings as their deputes to exclude and ruine a faithfull Ministry his reasons in this case are naught and speak nothing to the point As for what he adds afterward of Ministers in the year 1648 ejected for asserting their duty to the King and their submitting while others were put into their charges I Answer he will never while he breaths be able to prove that they were deposed for asserting their duty to the King and not rather for promoting an ungodly course tending to the Kings ruine and the ruine of our Reformation and for other pieces of their scandalous miscarriages by the true Lawfull Judicatories of this Church So that upon both grounds the flocks were concerned to submit to such faithfull pastours as were set over them in the way and method of this Church and according to the scripture pattern His last answer to this argument of his Doubter anent Conformists Intrusion is that Presbyterian
ours wherein so many preachers who call themselves Pastours of this Church many others obstinatly and avowedly maintain our abjured corruptions the Church of Corinth was in capacity to censure any handfull that owned this error to purge out this leaven but so is not our Church in this case as to the mantainers of Prelacy and its other corruptions so that there is here no remedy but for the sound part to keep themselves pure from their contagious and destroying course The account of both these Churches in the point of corruptions which is exhibit by Pareus in his Comment â—…n the 1 Cor. is considerable to this purpose upon the 12. verse of the 15. chap. he tells us that the Apostle accuseth not them all but some only freeing the rest of this crime Neque enim accusat omnes sed quosdam inter eos Reliquos igitur a culpa liâ—…erat Neque enim paucorum culp omnibus est imputanda Therafter he shewes that some do judge that this was Hymenâ—…us and Philetus others some of the Jewishs Saduces or Heathen Philosophers who had instilled this poyson about the resurrection And a little after answering Bellarmines cavill that because of these Churches their corruption in doctrine therefore pure doctrine is not the marke of a Church as the Churches of Corinth and Galatia were without the faith of the resurrection and sound faith as to justification He answeres by denying this assertion Neque enim saith he tota Ecclesia Corinthiorum negabat resurrectionis fidem sed aliqui tantum quos redarguebant alij Idem de Galatarum Ecclesia sentiendum qui nec omnes nec tam 〈◊〉 errabant in fundamento nutabant saltem utrum fides Christi ad salutem sufficeret dicit enim ibidem ut Corinthijs modicum fermenti fermentat totam massâ—…m Ergo fermentum non erat omnium sed aliquorum tantum a quibus tamen omnibus imminebat periculum quod Apostolus tentat ab eis avertere That is this whole Church of Corinth denyed not the resurrection but some only who were opposed by others the same we must judge of the Church of Galatia who did neither all nor so hainonsly err in the foundation but by the persuasion of false Apostles were hesitating whether the faith of Christ was sufficient to salvation or if the circumcision was also needfull for he sayes in that same place as also to the Corinthians a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump Therefore this leaven was not of them all but of some only by whom notwithstanding all were in hazard which the Apostle endeavours to prevent The Dutch annot upon the same place How say some among you c. observe that this error was not common of the whóle Church but of some only whose names are not exprest as 2 Tim. 2. 17. that by shaming them he might not fright them from conversion And upon Gal. 5. 9. they shew that this little leaven spoken of may be either understood of the false doctrine it self or the men who promoted this doctrine who although they were few yet did much hurt and therefore were to be eshewed Now how disproportioned for extent and infection these corruptions were unto these of our Church about which our debate is is obvious to the meanest reflection and consequently the Lameness of our Informers similitudinary argument from the one to the other Which will be yet further evident if we consider That 3. He cannot make appear that in any of these Churches there was a formal legal Iudicial enacting authorizing and commanding of these corruptions and endeavours used to exclude and root out all who would not submit to them by Barbarous violence and persecution particularly faithfull Ministers for testifying against the same Nor can he prove that adherence to these erroneous corrupters in their Worship was appointed and enjoyned as an express Test and badge of owning their errours and renouncing the truth and all the sound party adhering thereto which is so casting a difference that it quite invalidats these Instances as to any argument against our practice for this destroying backsliding Innovating party of this Church have laid down courses either to engadge to a formal owning of their corruptions especially the faithful Ministry of this land or else to exterminat and root them out all sound professours together with their Testimony In a word whatever concurence in duty these corruptions he mentions may be consistent with it is certain that the sound professors were called to keep themselves free of the contagion thereof by all means and the Church was to use all endeavours to purge out and rid her self of these corruptions and corrupters too if obstinat Paul wished they were cut off who troubled the Churches of Galatia that is censur'd and laid aside as rotten members who were in hazard to grangrene the whole body The Officers of the Church of Corinth are commanded to purge out the old leaven since a litle would quickly leavent the whole lump And the Apostle reprehends them for not casting out the Incestuous man enjoynes the sound professors in that Church to come out from among the unclean and be separat as they exspect to be received of God And our Lord reprehends the Church of Pergamus for not casting out them that held the Doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolaitans and the Church of Thyatira for suffering Jezabel to seduce and infect with scandalous errors and practices the Lords servants Now the scope of these precepts will say that when the case is so circumstantiat that the Church and sound part can have no access for removing and censuring destroying corrupters especially while by violence endeavouring after they have departed from a pure Church her sworn Reformation and constitution to force all to a concurrence with them or exterminat the impolluted remnant that this sound Church I say are to keep themselves free of their contagion to follow their duty in opposition to them and mutually to strengthen one another therein which is enough to Justifie our practice in this case In like manner the many commands of the Prophets to abstain from the pollutions of the time and threatnings for accession thereto will by proportion infer this our practice mentioned and that when a case is such that no concurrence can be had with Innovators in their worship without the stain of their sin and when they are persecuting all that will not concur with them a non-union and forbearance is most necessary Had any corrupting treacherous Prophets or others of the Church of Israel in concurrence with persecuting Rulers enacted universal complyance with some gross corruptions and ejected all the faithfull non complying teachers priests or prophets admitting none to officiat except these corruptions had been formally acknowledged Let any say what would have been the faithfull prophets decision in this case and whether upon the same ground on which they so oft dehort from the least complyance with any sin
him Since he dare not say that they are more corrupted then the Church of the Iews was at that time and so we may echo back his alas how will you justify this separation of yours with an enquiry how he and his party will justify their separation from the true Ministry of the Church of Scotland What if a party of corrupt Priests and Levites had risen up and pursued a course of defection tending to raze and ruine all Gods ordinances casting out all such Priests and Levites as would not concurr with them and had appointed an acknowledgment of and concurrence with their wicked defection to be the only condition upon which they will admit either priests or people to share in the ordinances In the mean time a great body of Priests and people adhering to Gods ordinances and contending against them had been keeping their possession of the temple Worship as long as they could I dare refer to our Informer to give judgment in this case and shew what Simeon and Anna Joseph and Mary would have done and to which of the parties they would have adhered And let our cause be judged by this His Doubter in the next place objects that Conformists lecture not therefore may not be heard Here he but trifles to insinuat that this is solely lookt upon by us as a ground of not owning them But in so far as in this our case it s a piece of their apostacy from our establisht reformed Worrhip and an expresse badge of conformity to prelacy and in both these respects flat perjury and breach of Covenant we look upon it as having its own influence with other grounds to warrand a non-union to them while standing in a stated opposition to faitfull Ministers mantaining this with other pieces of our Reformation To this objection our Informer answers 1. That some Conformists lectured and yeâ—… were separat from And so might all of them be upon the forementioned grounds thus disowned and separat from Altho they had keept a form of this but I beleeve they are for signs and wonders among them who keep the lecture or owne it at all Next he tells us of the ancient reading of the Scripture in the Jewish Church and of Moses and the prophets in the Synagogues Acts 13. 15 27. and 15. 21. and likewise in the Christian Church But what then who denies this why they have he tells us the Scriptures publickly read in their Churches But I trow the reading is the better of expounding and he might have found that the Levites Neh. 8. 8. read the Law of God distinctly and gave the sense and caused the people understand the reading And he dare not say that the ancient publick reading of Scriptures among the Jews was by Gods appointment a dumb reading without exposition Why gave God prophets and teachers unto his Church if not for this end and faith comes mainly by hearing the Word preach't Why then grew his reverend Fathers and their conforming Sons so angry with this Churches laudable practise of giving the sense together with the reading comprobat by that ancient Practise of the Jewish Church which he pretends since otherwise the Text read ane 100. times is still like a kernell under a hard shell Nay but he sayes if we separat upon this ground we would have separat from the Church in all ages Sure not from that Church where the law was expon'd and its sense given as well as read beside that our non-union to our prelatick Innovators or withdrawing too if he please hath this as an appendix with other grounds that Conformists in withholding our former lecture or expository reading from the people and substituting a bare reading in its place discover themselves to be teachers who are keeping close and not opening the seals of Gods book are afraid that their hearers should learn too fast In the 3d place he tells us a tedious storie anent the disuse of our first authorized method of Lecturing which was at first only to read one chapter in the old testament and another of the New with brief explication of occuring difficulties but that thereafter we held with one chapter then with a part of one and raised observations making it a short sermon so that its all one to separat for this as to separat for shorter sermons which are caeteris paribus thought better then a long Then he tells us further to cloak this their laziness that variety of purposes are hardly retained and procures a wearying and that one thing puts out another c. But what fruitless talke is all this If our Churches appointment was of this nature at first to open up difficulties upon the reading did she therefore intend to cut off the exercise of that gift anent practical observations which is found in experience so eminently edifying as himself acknowledges in the next page and the method of preaching abroad to which method we are beholden for some excellent commentaries upon the Scripture which would probably have been by this time Intire through the whole bible according to the design and mould projected by the Reverend brethren and Ministers of this Church If our Prelats lazy reading tribe had not invaded the pulpits of the Lords faithfull labourers Again suppose there was as to this method some deviation from the first appointment yet since our Church gave a tacit approbation universally used it his censure is too critical saucy beside to plead from the variation in the practice to a total disuse is dull reasoning and whatever the lecture was at first this is certain that this universal practice and eminently edifying piece of publick duty owned by our Church was presently disused and discharged by prelats and its disuse became one of the badges of conformity and a part of their mark upon their creatures and therefore eatenus in all reason it ought to have its own weight with other grounds as to disowning them in their present state and circumstances The experience of all the true seekers of God can disprove sufficiently what he adds of a tedious nauseating as the issue of variety of purposes variety rather taking off then begetting tediousness whence the Scripture is composed for this end of such a sweet variety of purposes and methods His story of Pembo's defiring to hear one word or sentence at once and no more till after a long time is calculat well to patronize a reading or non-preaching Ministry but the many scripture precepts given to christians anent growth in Knowledge and leaving the first principles and not to be alwayes children in understanding and likewise the scripture precepts straitly charging and enjoyning Ministers to be instant in season and out of season preaching exhorting with all long suffering and doctrine sufficiently discovers the â—…diculous tendency of this story 4. He tells us that suppose it were a fault every fault will not warrand separation We say not that every fault nay nor this simply considered
emboldned to judge without ground and the person hindred to act in faith or induced to act against it c. So that to assert that the Magistrats command can invalidat these grounds and principles and render the action not sandaâ—…ous which is such otherwise is to give him a Dominion over the conscience and subject it immediatly and absolutly to his Laws which is a principle disowned by all Protestants Moreover the Informer himself defines the offence of the weak brother in things indifferent an emboldning him to sin contrary to his conscience or to judge that we sin when we sin not citing 1 Cor. 8. Rom. 14. Now if the action be upon this ground principle necessarily sinfull in its present circumstances how I pray can the Magistrats command render it not only Lawfull but necessary as he is bold to assert Can the Magistrat by his Law embolden a mans conscience to sin and yet neither the Magistrat sin himself nor the man sin in obeying him Amesius a better Casuist then he will tell him de Consc. lib. 5. cap. 11. Quest. 6. R. 6. that nulla authoritas humana vel tollere potest scandali rationem ab eo quod alias esset scandalum vel peccati rationem a scandalo dato That is no humane authority can take away the nature of scandal from that which otherwise were a scandal or the nature and cause of sin from scandal given And his ground is very considerable which doth confirme what I have now said Nullus enim homo saith he potest vel charitati conscientiis nostris imperare vel periculum scandali dati praestare That is for no man can put imperious commands either upon charity or our consciences or exeem from the hazard of scandal given But now to fortify this raw ignorant assertion as to scandal our Informer brings Act. 15. 28. these necessary things from which words of the councils sentence he drawes ane argument thus that though of themselves they were not necessary but somtimes indifferent yet by the Authority of the council they were made necessary for the good of the Church so he sayes obedience to authority preponderats the not giving offence as the greater duty of the two as divines and Casuists shew and in this case the man who thus obeyes gives no offence but doth duty and if any take it its causeless on his part and occasioned through the brothers weakness so that its scandalum acceptum non datum groundlesly taken but not given and when the Apostle forbids to use our liberty to the offence of the weak he speaks to those who were not determined by Authority Ans. What poor ignorant and incoherent reasoning is this 1. It s a strange sottish or rather popish Assertion that the necessary things Acts. 15. 28. were made so by the councils authority For the text is most express that the Apostles enjoyned this upon weighty scripture-grounds and what seemed good to the holy ghost speaking in the word as well as to them so that the holy ghosts grounds and commands touching the maintaining of love and union in the Church and the great rule of edification and not stumbling the weak Iews were the great and standing Scripture principles upon which this decree was grounded Now to shew how our Informer takes the papists here by the hand in this glosse let us hear Calvine upon the place praeter haec necessaria Hujus vocis praetextu superbe triumphant Papistae quasi hominibus liceat ferre leges quae necessitatem conscientiis imponant quia quod deccrnunt Apostoli necessario servandum esse pronuntiant i. e. the Papists triumph proudly upon pretext of â—…his this place as if men might make Laws imposing a necessity upon Consciences because what the Apostles decree they affirme must be necessarly kept Then he adds atqui expedita c. But the Answer is easy to such a foolish cavil so he censures our New Casuist and his fellowes in this point for this necessity was no longer vigent then there was hazard of dissolving union so to speak properly it was an accidental or extrinsick necessity which had place not in the thing it self but in guarding of offence which saith he is evident in the speedy laying aside of this decree Then he tells us that when the contention ceased Paul shewes that nothing is unclean and again establishes this liberty Rom. 14 14. And commands to eat freely what ever is sold. Adding that the papists in vain do snatch an occasion to bind consciences from this word and to conclude the Churches power to statute any thing beside the word of God Telling us further that from the word of God the Council drew this ground of exercising charity in matters indifferent Then saith he in summa the summ is if charity be the bond of perfection and the end of the Law if Gods command be that the faithfull study mutual unity and concord and that every one please his nighbour to edification none is so rude who may not perceive that what the Apostles here commanded is containd in the word of God And at the close he tells us Apostolâ—…s ex verbi Dei sinibus minime egredi That the Apostles would not step beyond the limits of the word of God But 2. This mans Babylonish tongue still wounds himself as well as the truth for 1. he acknowlegeth that what the Apostles here decreed was for the Good of the Church which if he understand any thing he must needs take it according to the grounds laid down in this disquisition specially that which the Apostle James proposes immediatly before his and the rest of ths Apostlee decision vers 21. viz. that Moses had in every city them that teach him being read every Sabath day So that it was needfull at that time upon the grounds of charity union and aedification to beat with the weak Jews in abstaining from these things discharged by Gods Law till the ceremonies were honourably buryed Hence it followes clearly that this abstinence was made necessary upon these weighty grounds at this time and not by the authority of the council only Neither was the matter enjoynd of a thing indifferent made necessary by their determination but upon these grounds and for the great end of the Churches good which he mentions this abstinence was at this time and in this case necessary And by the Apostles declared to be so upon divine warrand for what else will he make of that expression It seemed good to the Holy ghost Again Paul and the other Apostles had no power but to edification nor any dominion over the faith of Gods people and so acted nothing here pro arbitrio or imperio So that their sentence was only a declarator of Gods mindeanent that which was antecedaneously to their decree hic nnnc a necessary duty although we deny not that the Apostles decision was to have its own weight in determining the Churches obedience 2. He brings
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
Watchtowers and posts by a number of Schismatick Innovators who are dissolving her union and impeaching her Authority In this extraordinary case Ministers more enlarged and unfixt officiating is no breach of this Rule Because 1. In this case the Parochial constitution is impossible to be held and God calls not to impossibilities and yet his call to preach the Gospel stands and binds and by consequence to preach to others then the Ministers parish The common rule will plead for this viz. necessitas non habet legem which this Informer himself doth hold will in some cases warrand the laying by of that which otherwise were a duty he knows what his inference is from Davids eating of the shew bread to keep from starving and Paul and those with him their casting their goods into the sea to preserve from perishing So that of necessity he must admit this rule and answer upon his own ground 2. The reasons which did warrand our first Reformers officiating in this manner a practice which he dare not say that the authors mentioned or any reformed divines do condemn will warrand this our practice in this persecute state of our Church it being clear that the case of Reformation is parallel to that of a Churches defection and persecution in relation to this practice contraverted as we cleard from Acts 8. 3. The same great end of the Churches greater good and edificaton which warrands fixing of Ministers to their posts in a Churches setled peacefull state will warrand their officiating more largely and at other posts when put from their own in her disturbed persecute and destroyed coondition by a prevalent Schismatick backsliding party The faithfull watchmen seing the city betrayed by a party of professed defendents who are letting in the enemy do their duty to the city best in resisting them and running to help 4. If faithfull Ministers their necessary keeping their posts and the unlawfulness of exercising their Ministry any where else were in this case asserted then it would follow that a Minister standing in that relation to a disturbed and destroyed Church and all his gifts and graces were useless in that case which notwithstanding are given for the good of the Church but this is absurd Shall not the weeping Church be taken by the hand by her true Sons when she is wounded and her vail taken away by smiting watchmen 5. By our Principles the Prelatick party are Schismaticks who have already broke and overturned our Churches order and Reformation Now this Informer will not deny that in such a case the Church may send forth her Ministers to officiat among such backsliders and Schismaticks for their healing and recovery he knowes upon what ground Mr Lightoun not long since sent out some of his brethren to preach in the West of Scotland Beside Mr Gillespie will tell him Miscell page 23. That a Schismatick Church hath no just right to the liberty of a sound Church as to the calling or setling of Ministers So that in our principles no Conformists are duely or lawfully called and settled 6. Our divines do grant that in extraordinary cases even the want of ordination it self will not hinder to officiat Ministerially but that there may be a necessity which will sustain and comport with the want of it Mr Gillespy Misc. ch 4. page 63. tells us that in extraordinary cases when ordination cannotbe had and when there are none who have commission authority from God to ordain then and there an inward call from God stirring up and â—…ing with the people's good will and consent whom God makes willing can make a Minister authorized to ministerial acts That at the first plantation of Churches ordination may be wanting without making void the Ministry because ordination cannot be had And if necessity will plead this in relation to ordination it self Ergo a fortiori this necessity of our Churches destroyed perturbed condition may much more comport with ordained Ministers their more enlarged officiating for the help and recovery of a perishing remnant by Wolves in sheeps cloathing Next this Informer going on in his nauseating repetitions charges intrusion upon our Ministers and enquires what warrand they have to preach and administer Sacraments to those of another Ministers charge being neither called nor desired by these Minsters I answer they have Gods call to preach the Gospel as Minsters of this Church and as this call would warrand their officiating in other parishes upon the lawfull Ministers desire or invitation in a settled serene state of our Church so in this her ruined and destroyed condition the same call abundantly warrands their helping of these congregations and such poor Macedonians who desire their help while under destroying Schismaticks who have no lawfull call to be their Mininisters from God or this Church But here our Informer assaults us with a dilemma either Presbyterian Ministers call is ordinary or extraordinary Ordinary they have none since they are not invited by the Ministers of the congregations to whom they preach extraordinary they will not pretend unto I Answer by a counterdilemma and retort his argument thus either the pretended Ministers of these congregations have an ordinary or extraordinary call to officiat therein ordinary they have none according to the Doctrine Reformation and principles of this Church being neither called by the people nor ordained by the Presbyteries of this Church if we speak of the generality who are ordained and obtruded by the Prelats upon these congregations where they officiat and for those who were otherwise ordained and have conformed we have told him that by accepting presentation from Patrons and collation from Prelats they have renounced their Presbyterian call and ordination and the call of this Church consequently and thus do fall under the same consideration with the rest and for the exraordinary call neither the one nor the other will pretend unto it And when he answers this dilemma and by the Scripture-rules and the Principles and reformation of this Church which the Informer hath not disproved yea admits us to suppose in this question justifies the Curats call to of â—…iciat in these congregations over which they assume an authority we shall produce ours as to this practice which he condemns Beside what answer will he give to such a dilemma in the mouth of Schismatick congregations offered unto such Ministers as the Church sends from their own congregations to officiat among them And whatever his answer be it will suite our case Then he tells us of acts of councils condemning this encroachment as he calls it But when he shall exhibit a case parallel to ours which these acts speak unto we shall consider it For what he adds of the Aberdeen Doctors their charging the Presbyterian Ministers who preacht in their congregations with a practice repugnant to the Scripture and Canons of ancient Councils he should have done well to have produced these Scriptures which the Doctors alleaged And for ancient Canons I think all
of Presbyterians may be admited to judge Ans. How he hath fastned this charge of Schismatick principles and practices upon Presbyterian Ministers and Professors I leave it to the Impartiall to Judge from what is here replyed And how far any thing which he hath affered either from Scripture or the principles of Presbyterians is from reaching the conclusion which he aims at in these trifling Dialogues which all who are conscientious are we hope shy this rejoynder and a respect to truth and dutie sufficiently antidoted against and the learned as well as conscientious may wonder at such prodigiously bold ignorance 4. He wonders that so many of good note and not of the comons only are drinking in the principles of Brounists which have been zealously disputed against by old nonconformists Ans. How hâ—… hath made good this charge I refer it to the persusall of what is here replyed and how far the pleadings of these Non-conformists whom he mentions are from helping his cause I must here add that its astoninishing to find this man pretending a principle of conscience for this undertaking when his conscience could not but tell him that both upon the poynt of Episcopacie the Covenants and separation also he might have found all and more then he hath said fully answered and that he pitifully snakes away from our arguments dar not propose them in there genuin strength Nay he doth not so much as offer fairly to state the question in any of these three great points which he pretends to inform us about but confusedly shuffles them up for his own advantadge And upon the point of the Covenant obligation he poorly followes the arguments of the Seasonable case and some hints from the Surveyer without so much as offring any return unto what the Apologist hath long since repelyd unto them If this was conscientious dealing let any Judge and yet he is not ashamed to tell the world that because Episcopacie and the covenants are by people made the great grounds of separating therefore he premised his two dialogues concerning Episcopacie and the Covenants to shew what a sandy ground they are for separation if prelacie be found at least Lawfull and the Covenants in evry case not obligatorie whereas he hath offered nothing either to prove prelacie lawful or the Covenant not obligatorie but what is by severall of the godly learned abundantly answered and fully bafled sevrall of which viz. the Apollogist and jus divinum Ministery Anglican he seems to have had before him in writeing these Dialogues and yet nather doth he touch the answers of the Apologist to his arguments anent the Covenant nor dar he scan the pungent arguments of the London Ministers against prelacie and likwise there answers to sevrall things which he has offered for it and particularly there learned Appendix in the poynt of Antiquitie which cuts the sinnews of all his tedious legend of testimonies he durst not medle with Beside It wold seem he hath seen Smectymnus upon this subject whose learned confutation of the Episcopall plea as well from scripture as antiquity he passes over sicco pede And as for Erastian prelacie he offers not a jot indefence of it though his conscience could tell him that this is one main poynt of our plea against him So that suppose Episcopacie were in its self found Lawfull as he sayes yet if Erastian Episcopacie be found unlawfull his cause and pleading is lame and lost After this he would amuse his reader with a testimonie of Zanchie and another of Blondell which parts the hoofs of his page first as for Zanchie he cites a passage of his Obser in suam ipsius confessionem cap. 25. aphor 10. 11. wherein he saves first his faith is simply built upon the word of God Next In some measure upon the commun consent of the antient Catholick Church and that he beleeves what has been defyned by holy fathers gathered together in the name of the Lord citra ullam Scripturae contradictionem that these things are from the Spirit of though not of the same authoritie with Scripture then he adds that nothing is more certain from counsells Histories and writeings of the Fathers then these orders of Ministers of which he has been speaking to have been received into the Church with her intire consent and what is he to condemn what the whole Church has aproved I answer beside that he should have set doun these gradus Ministrorum which Zanchius speaks of that his reader might have known what these degrees were or whither they were prelatick degrees or not which no doubt he would have done had he not found that this would have marred his intent for which cause he doth not so much as offer to English any part of this or of the ensuing testimony we say first that any who knowes Zanchies learning and what the voice of the first and pure antiquity is and how far from giving a testimony to the present Diocesian much less the Erastian prelat of whom none can without extrem impudence assert that Zanchie is speaking will esteem this perswasion that the prelacy now existant with us hath the universall consent of all histories councills and fathers to be as far from the thoughts of Zanchie as its necessary to prove his poynt 2. Zanchise ayes his faith simply and mainly leans upon the word of God and so whatever the word is found to condemn as we have proved it doth the present prelacie in many respects Zanchie will make no bones to condemn it likwise own it who will The next passage he cites is of Blondell Apoll. pag. 193. who asserts that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belongs absolutly to the government of the Church and it s anext 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the maner order of its government which the Church alwayes thought permitted to her arbitrement Nather must we think every thing unlawful which humane custom of professors hath brought into the use of divine things That in such things christian prudence must act its part that no Church must be drawen into ane example that from the generall precept 〈◊〉 Cor. 14 40 the Church hath full power to follow what is more decent and commodious Ans. 1. We have before cleard that with Blondell their diocesian Prelat stands absolutly condemned in scripture and in his principles is diametrally opposit to the divine Scripture Bishop which evidently concludes his condemning the present Episcopacie with sole power of ordination and Jurisdiction much more the Erastian prelat altering fundamentally the government it self which he dar not say that Blondell ever dreamed of So that though we should grant because of this testimonie that Blondell will befound to admitt a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and constant Moderator which Its well knowen is the outmost length he goes and that the Churches example and practice here anent may be variable it falls utterly short of reaching the lest patrociny to his cause 2. he cites 1 Cor 14. 40.
anent alterable circumstances of order and decency about which the Churches exercise of Christian prudence is convérsant so that he must understand what he pleads for to be of that nature but we have shewed upon the first Dialogue how far its contrary to Scripture reason to include a diocesian Bishop or Arch bishop within the compass of decencie and order there commanded since decencie and order points only at circumstances of actions already commanded and circumstances commun to civil and sacred things And this according to the generall rules of the word so that none can think Blondell so sottish as to take in among these the Diocesian or Erastian Bishop and Arch-Bishop 3. Since the profest scope of Blondells learned Appology is to plead for sententia Hieronomi which is that in Apostolick times communi concilio presbyterorum Ecelesiae gubernabantur surely whatever Blondell may admitt as to the Churches libertie in relation to a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the admission of the diocesian prelate with sole power of ordination and Jurisdiction which this man pleads for and much more the Erastian prelate would evert both his hypothesis and scope Again he dare not deny that with Blondell the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Ministeriall scripturall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyterat so that what he calls the modus rei cannot in its self and consequently in Blondells meaning be supposed such a modus rei as destroyes the thing it self the subject which it affects as certainly by the Diocesian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much more the Erastian doth the very substantialls of Presbyters divine power which this learned author is in that piece pleading for And in a word I dare pose this Informer whither Blondell would not have thought a national Churches liberty in this point of Custome or alterable circumstances of decencie and order even tho we should grant that he puts Episcopacy among these is tyed up and restrained by sacred solemn Oaths and vowes universally taken on against the same so that his cause is never a whit bettered by these blind Testimonies which as is said he he durst not translate as he professeth to doe in the rest of his citations for the advantage of the unlearned The assertion after subjovned by him viz. that the unlawfulness of Episcopacie was questioned by none of the ancients except Aerius and rarely by any of the modern except some of our British divines that antient and modern divines think that prelacie was the primitive Government left by the Apostles we have proved to be a manifest untruth Specially when applyed to the prelacy existant with us and that it is the consentient judgment of the far greatest part both of ancient and modern that there is no difference jure divino betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter And that our Prelats now in Scotland are as far different from the antient Bishops as east from West so that no patrocinie can be drawen from the one to the other That Blondell professes to vindicat Jerom from that which he calls Aerianism who will believe taking Aerius opinion to be for the premised Identitie of Bishop and Presbyter since we have made it appear by Testimonies of the learned that both Greek and Latine Fathers held this same opinion with Aerius How he hath proved Episcopacie to be the Government which hath best warrand in the word and hath continued without interruption for many years we refer it to the reader to judge by what is above replyed wherein we have made it appear that as his pretended Scripture proofs for prelacy and his answers to our Arguments against it are most frivolous so none of his pretended Testimonies from antiquitie doe reach his conclusion nor any shadow of a patrocinie for our present Prelat now established whom we have fully disproved from Scripture both in his diocesian and Erastian mould What poor shaddowes for proofs doth this man grasp at Blondell thought the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lawful and its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to belong to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and good order Ergo he pleaded for the Diocesian Bishop with sole power of ordination and Jurisdiction and a Bishop deriving all his power from the civil Magistrat as immediatly subject unto him which is a very antilogical proof and a meer rop of sand Lastly he mainly commends to his reader this Dialogue anent separation wherein he sayes all the reasons brought for it are propounded and answered without passion which doth but alienat the minds Ans. How poorly this man hath answered the true grounds of disowning conformists or rather past them over and how pityfully he all along begs the question in supposing what he hath to prove we hope is made sufficiently appear to the Judicious and impartiall As for passion its true there is less of this in his Pamphlet then in some other of this stamp which his fellowes have flung out among the people yet he hath his signal flashes of it in Iustifying Dr Burnets parallel of nonconformists with Scribes and Pharisees and in calling them as great and causeless Schismaticks as ever the Church had in any age nay in his grosse malitious reflecting upon the sufferings of poor Innocents in this land telling us under the covert of Cyprians words that their in expiable sin of discord is not purged by their sufferings that forsaking Christs Church they cannot be martyres nor reign with him which with what a tincture of malice it presents its self let any judge His conferences he sayes do bring water to quenchour flames but they bring rather fewel to the fire and wood and hay to uphold Babell The Rabbies whom he pleads for have kindled our flames and the best way to quench them Is to put these incendiaries to the door Next he cites the preface of the Syntag. Confess edit Genev. wherin the Church of Scotland is commended for her unity as well as purity of Doctrine and then he cryes out O how have we lost our good name and the staff of bonds is broken in the midst of us but he should have been so ingenuous as to have told us that we are in the preface of that Syntagma commended for our reformed Presbyterian discipline as the great bond and cement of our unity and the guard of our pure doctrine and who have broken this bond and sacred hedge I need not tell him and what hath been the distress confusion and desolation of our Church since it was broken every one now sees so that he might lament the loss of our good name upon this ground and especially of our Integrity where he a true son and watchmen of this Church The consequences of our sad divisions through the violence and Schismatick intrusion of abjured perjured Prelats and their underlings have indeed hazarded the standing of Christs Kingdome among us according to that of Mark 3. 24. And the biting devouring wolves the Prelats for whom he pleads have hazarded
r. no such delegation p. 231. l. 17. r. the present prince-like power of our Prelates as Diocesian B. farre less their Erastian usurpations p. 237 l. 8 9 c. r. the ancient Bishops were not all sett over whole provinces but city by city for the most part yea several cities had more who certainly were not Bishops in that sense wherein we heard Theodoret and Oecomenâ—…us denyes a multiplicity of Bishops in one city which also proves a great variety in the Moold and denomination of Bishops spoken of by the fathers p. 238. l. 23 r. sett aside separat and suspended So p. 239 l. 2 p. 247 l. 11 r. a preaching Presbyter or Pastor l. 35 r. Sect. Iâ—… p. 250. l. 9. must begin thus Besides what can he inferre from Calvin's assertion of the precedency of one at that tyme had not Paul c. p. 251 the Parenthesis l. 5 6 7. r. thus no lesse foolishly then maliciously here improven by Durel no friend to his principles p. 252 the penult line must be contiguous with the preceeding and run thus besids that this treatise intituled c. p. 258 l. 15 and l. 19 of pag. 259 are to be joyned as contiguous p. 261. l. 17. after Government adde and received and submitted to our Churches pure constitution in point of doctrine and worship p. 262 l. 25 r. which as early crept into the Church as the prelacy he pleads for yea much more early p. 263 l. 33 34 35 r thus nor hath the Informer proved that this Proestos cast in the moold of the present Episcopacie which he pleads for was allowed of Blondel since he holds it to be cross to the divine pattern and from Scripture disputes against it p. 238 l. 21 r. from the tymes of the Apostles and appointed by them p. 262 from l. 22 to l. 29 r. thus presented under an Episcopal notion to Eusebius and the Power of Bishops which then had obtained whom he too credulously following in his Character and accounts of them and as Irenaeus also doth calling them Bishops in the Catalogues might deceive others in nameing them so p. 263 from l. 9 to 11 read what ever impression of them Irenaeus might be supposed to have upon the ground of his expressions of them or might thereby beget in others because of the language and custome of their time yet c. from l. 14 to 16 r. the nature and state of these Church-officers whom termeing Bishops they were supposed to be such as had then obtained l. 18 to 25. r. thus in that Irenaeus calls them Presbyters according to the promiscuous use of the names Bishop and Presbyter in his tyme they prove that these expressions of them which seem to savour of an Episcopal notion or what impression he might have or others take from him was a mistake since according to the Scripture language c. l. 26 to 32 r. that what impression Irenaeus might possibly have of the first moderators or what Episcopal notion Eusebius might present them under upon his credulous reports taken up upon trust as he sayes himself from his forefathers were a mistake and this because the persones whom they thus represented and of whom they meaned and speake were upon thematter meer Presbyters p. 264 l. 21 r. next if the Informer will strain these words to plead for his hierarchie even in the Apostles tyme and will affirme that Bucer c. l. 25 r. he must needs grant that Bucer was obleidged to take notice c. l. 30 r. els there will be no consistencie in the words if Bucer reckon c. p. 271 l. 5 6 r. but as the Informer will finde it hard to prove thisdistinction of the schools to be as ancient as these fathers so though it were granted that it was it is certain that what gradual difference they admitt betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter they found it c. p. 281 l. 3 r. collected by one under the name of Clemens 2d Part. p. 5 l. r r haveing no tincture of Prelacie but intirely Presbyterial in its mold members according to the then degrees and State of our Reformation p. 23 l. 7. after Seasonable case r. and himself in objecting the same afterward p. 69. p 29 l. 8 r. in their nature and originally flowes from the Pope p. 64 l. 30 after Government adde whatever defection or liberty of glossing any of them might fall into or plead for p. 76 l. penult read prael 3 parag 9. p. 78 l. 3 r. of all Oaths of this nature p. 82 l. 3 4 5 r. Not to detain the Informer in tasking him to prove that this Statute as not being judicial but moral doth belong unto the Christian Church l. 28 29 r. this divine frame of Presbyterian Government which both as to its courts and officers comprehends the substantials of Government p. 83 l. 15 r. prael 3 parag 9 10 l. 23 r. prael 7 Parag. 6 p. 92 l. 27 r. but such cannot be the Infâ—…rmers meaning in this place nor will his moold of arguing admitt thereof p. 98 l. 14r a matter not only of it self indifferent but a domestick and private concerne l. 22. after gratis dicta r. Besides upon the supposal that the matter of both Oaths is alike or equal and that the matter of the Covenant is indifferent the parallel will not hold as to a dispensation with the matter of the one and the other p. 101 l. 11 after obligation adde for whither we conclude the lawfulness of the matter of this Oath from its conform 〈◊〉 to the divine positive Law or from the overuling of this positive precept in this case by a Superiour moral command all is one as to our defence and argument for the Covenant from this text p. 115 l. 18 r. The Informer hath not reconc led this either with the command or with the promise c. p. 117. l. 15 6 7 r. Sure in his opinion their offer of a league if strangers admitted a demurr and if Canaanites their offering to admitt of terms of peace might have stopt this question even though inhabitants of Canaan c. l. 11 r. So their first offer was a ground of peace if strangers l. 13 r. especially these continued demurrs and renewed interrogatures recorded in this contexture are considerable if we consider what is observed by learned interpreters from v. 8. that they sought peace c. l. 17 and when r. for when Par. 3. p. 35 l 32 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 45 l. 28 r. Presbyterian Government and the establisht Reformation of this Church p. 47 l. 28 r. the work of the Reformation then establisht p. 50 l. 3. for pamphlet r. Dialogue p. 54 l. ult r. and such things as upon our and the Scripture grounds which the Informer cannot disprove do immediatly in a moral sense dispose c p 56 l 33 r besides that as to the maine of this Character they are all such as we have cleared
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