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
flock as this man himself pleads both these grounds hold out their equality among themselves and inferrs a discharge of inequality This Informers likewayes would remarke that the Spirit of God here commands Presbyters to act the Bishopes thus indentifying the Bishop and Prisbyter but without Lording it over Gods heritage the prohibition not to Lord it is remarkably joyned with the command to Act the Bishop And referring their office to the flock he must confess the Apostle acknowledged no Bishops whose inspection was over Pastours themselves Thus we see hisanswer to the Argument against Prelacy from this Text is contrare unto the scope and sense of the Words yea and inconsistent with it self CHAP. X. The Informers answers to our Argument from Act. 20. and from Tit. 1 5 7. Philip. 1 1. Ephes. 4 11. For the identitie of Bishop Presbyter win nowed the insufficiencie and inconsistencie thereof together with his begging of the question discovered and these texts at some length improven against him THE Doubter in the nixt place objects That in the new Testament Bishop and Presbyter signifie one and the same office bearer that in Act. 20 the elders in the 17. v. are called Bishops in the 28. v. So in Tit. 1 5 7. And therefor Bishop and elder are the same in Scriptur and the word elder signifies no more then a Minister of a particular Congregation Heer he touches a parte but not the strength of our argument from these texts We argue not meerly from the Samenes of the Names but the identitie of all the essentiales of the office Duties and Qualifications of the office bearer expressed by these names when applyed to ane ordinarie office bearer Particularly f. om Act. 20. We draw forth these weapons 1. The Apostle speaking to the elders tells them that the holy ghost had made them Bishopes over the flock shewing that the Scriptur Bishop set up by the holy ghost is the Minister or elder who feeds and rules over the flock 2. The Apostle gives them not only the Name of Bishop but also the thing commanding these elders or Ministers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which takes in all the power of order and jurisdiction and whatever the Diocesian Bishop may pretend unto 3. Which is very remarbable he gives this Charge so these elders befor Timothy who was now present with the Apostle and after the first Epistle was written to him for it was writtin when Paul was at Macedonia and after this Paul haveing Timothy with him came to Miletum and gave the elders of Ephesus this charge Finallie This was Pauls last charge to them for they were never to see his face more So that we have here a pattern of the mould of the Gospel-Church in relation to Government as this great Apostle of the Gentiles left it and consequentlie as all the rest left it which is convinceingly apparent by comparing this with the parallel 1 Pet. 5. compared with 2 Pet. 1 14. Hence we exterminat the Diocefian Prelat thus 1. The Holy Ghosts Bishops were Ministers which he set up to feed and rule the flock immediatly These and these only the Apostle and the Apostolick Church knew therefore he dissownes the Prelat who pretends to be set over some hundreds of Pastoures and flocks and is bound to feed no flocke himself 2. These who watch over the flocks immediatly and only have all the Episcopal power both the key of doctrine and Government committed to them by the holy Ghost Therefore the Diocesian Prelat taking and arrogating to himself the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction and leaving Presbyters nothing but the Doctrinal key as his deputies while he himself preaches to no flock is ane Antiscriptural Sacrilegious robber 3. The elders or Pastoures of Ephesus got all Episcopal authority as to order and jurisdiction committed to them by Paul as the Holy ghosts Bishops the highest ordinarie officers of that Church in the presence of Timothie without the least hint of any interest that Timothie had in or over them as their Bishope or Overseer therein or the least hint of any direction anent their dutie to Timothie as in that Capacitie and this after he had gotten all his directions in the 1. Epistle written to him And therefore Timothie was never set up as a Diocesian Prelat over that Church as this Informer would perswade and the inspection which he is supposed to have in that Epistle was occasional transient and extraordinarie and by conseguence layes no ground for Prelacie Finallie Paules directions here were his last and farewel directions therefore this Church was to continue thus governed by these elders or Bishops in common and the Prelatists Plea that the Apostles set up Presbyters at first keeping the reyns of Government in their own hands till towardes the end of their life and then sett up Prelats over these Presbyters is here convict of falshood since neither Paul nor Peter the great Apostle of the Gentiles or the great Apostle of the Circumcision doe in the least hint any such Super-institution but both of them in their last directions to the Churches commit the wholl power both of order and jurisdiction to the Pastoures of the flocks in common as the only Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost From 1 Tim. 1 5 7. The great Argument is not only from the promiscuouse use of the Name Bishop Presbyter but from the forme and mould of the Apostles reasoning which inferres not onely the identitie of names but of the office also For the Apostle shewing Titus how the elders are to be qualified gives this reasone for a Bishop must he blameles This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or causal For expressing the knot and connexion of the Apostles argument or reason doth clearly Import that the office expressed by both these words is one and the same for there is neither sound matter or forme in such reasoning as this Presbiters must be so and so qualified because a Bishop of a Superior order and degree must be so qualified So that from hence it is evident that the elder is the Bishop vice versa and that no higher Bishopes were by the Apostles constitut in the Churches Here then as in the preceeding text we have not only Bishops and elders getting the same designation by the Holyghost who knew best the nature of the things themselves and how to express himself thereanent but likewayes the same qualifications work and office and so the office is supposed to be every way one and the same Now let us hear what he sayes to the argument He grants that the two words oftentimes doe point out one and the same officer but denyes that the officer meaned by these words is never understood above the degree of ane ordinarie Minister Or that the word Presbiter or elder signifies only the Minister of a single Congregation no more The insufficiencie and prevarication of which answer euidently appears
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
all that Synodall assembly or Church Surely not at all The Moderator may be a man as little concerned therein and possibly less then any of the meeting Or will the Kings Message or Charge to a parliament adressed to the speaker containing reproofes and commendationes of that great body and assembly fix the guilt or commendation principally upon the speaker or president He will not say it As for Timothy and Titus we have proved that they had no such power as he pretends and that their inspection was extraordinary and Evangelistick which cannot with any shew of reason be said of these Seven Angels As for Beza his acknowledgment of a more eminent Authority in government which these single persons had this man cannot with any shew of reason alledge Beza to understand thereby any other thing beyond the eminency of his Episcopus divinus which with Beza is the Pastour among whom jure divino he will not aâ—…mit so much as a perpetual president far less a Bishop for the perpetual president or Moderator is with Beza the Episcopus humanus which he distinginshes from the divine or scripture Bishop and the diocesian prelat pleaded for by this Informer who hath the Chief and sole power in ordination and jurisdiction is the Satanical Bishop In his Treatise de triplici Episcopatu So that Beza cannot Imput to these single persons any authority over their brethren or ascribe to them any other eminency then what the eminency of a Moderatorship will give If Beza doe not compare them with the Elders of the Inferior sort who rule only as some would readily admit who take these Churches to be Congregational As for Mede it is no great matter whither he take the Angels Collectivly or for Single persons if he Imput not to these Asian Angels ane Episcopal Authority which this Informer proves not in telling us Thaâ—… the Tuentie four Angels about the Thron doe with him represent the Bishops unless he can shew that he means his Diocesian Bishops for he may mean the Bishops indefinitely according to the genuine scripture acceptation He holds there are Seven Bishops of Asia here only written unto where are the Tuentie four Bishops if Mr Mede take them in his sense As for Mr. Brightman his exponeing ordinarly the Angel of a single person as the Informer alleadges Let us hear Brightman himself To the Angel c. The Epistles are intituled saith he one by one to the Pastours Becaus the safety of the Congregation depends upon the soundnes of the Pastours for there was not one Angel alone at Ephesus but many Neither yet any prince among these as is manifast by Paul who to Miletum sent for the Elders or Bishops of Ephesus adding that nothing is spoken of their obedience to any one Chief Bishop That a Prince hood came after the Apostles and was not yet borne save only that Diotrephes gave some shew of it hence he concluds thus therefore under the name of one Angel the Epistle is written to the whol order of Pastours c And by this account of Brightmans acceâ—…tation of the word Angel Let any judge of our Informers fidelity But now comes his last Argument for Episcopacy which surprises not only his Doubter but I believe Most if not all else who have seen it taken from Diotrephes his loveing to have the preeminence 3. Joh. 9. who he sayes ambitiously loved to be first and to have the Chief place and that this ambition only John speaks against he adds that ane office may be good and lawfull though ane ambitions seeking of it be sinfull That Beza renders it qui primatum ambit that our Inference of the unlawfulnes of the office he aimed at will not follow from his seeking of this chief place but rather that their was such ane office at this time in the Church and now void into which he meaned to put himself or had already done so out of ane ambitious desire to be great which was a sinful end that he looked after himself not the good of the Church Ans. 't is long since we had this answer and gloss from Romanists though not as ane argument Wee see popri and prelacy in despight of all conâ—…radiction will strick hands When Luk. 22. Touching our Lords forbidding a Dominion or primacy among his Disciples is objected to Bellarmin he resolves it just as this resolver viz. That the Lord rather institut and established a primacy in the Church then removed it And commanded his vicar to preside but not as the Heathen who seek themselves and their own glory and commodity de Pontif Ques 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Yee shall not rule as the Princes of the Gentiles saith he Imports that he admitts one to preside but not after that manner He presses the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a Prince or Captaine just as this man doth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or loving of preeminence to shew that such a Prince or primat was designed de Pontif. Lib 1. Ch. 9. Thus the Papists glosse generally the Text under debate Tilen in his Not. 67. answering him That if it were so then Christ rather inflamed then quenched their ambitious thoughts which they â—…hil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or loving preeminence intertained makes this sin of diotrephes the same with theires which the Lord reprehended viz. A sinful desire of ane unlawfull forbidden primacy Adding That the Lord said not he who by my appointment shall be Chiefâ—… but he who from his sinfull desire would be Chieff Bellarmin and the Papists fine notions and old exploded evasions we see stands these men in much stead And doe furnish usefull materials to dress up Prelatick pamphlets But what will this man say Will he indeed owne this popish Argument and answer upon Luk 22. Which the topick of his argument here will necessarly inferr Was their a lawfull primacy supposed among the Apostles the ambitious desire only forbidden Bellarmin presses that ane exorbitant dominion or tyrannicall only was forbidden since the Princes of the Gentiles are mentioned which this man also taks hold of which seems to put a restricton upon that prohibition but there is no such restriction in this place under debate So that he is cut off from Bellarmins evasion We heard before he admitted a lawfull Church Dominion as not discharged in Luk. 22. And here he admitts a lawfull primacy over this Church and in his pretended antiquity we will find him not to diâ—…owne a Chief patriarch if not directly to plead for him And then I see not why he may not take in the High Priest into his old Testament Argument in relation to a morall standing primacy in Church-Government and merite a coâ—…l in some Popish order â—…r it be long Now it is evident that the Apostle simply dissounes this lover of preeminence and censures him upon the account of the preeminence he desired And the Informer himself though as I observed before he
tradition which from the Apostles is preserved by Succession of Presbyters in the Churches They will alledge that they are more wise then the Apostles themselves or these Presbyters dare this man say that Irenaeus meaned that it was only a Succession of Bishops in these Churches who keep that Apostolick truth That Presbyters are successoures of Apostles properly and immediatly in the power of the keyes is evident by a full Testimony of ancient fathers â—…gnatius about whom our Informer makes a great bustle in several places of his Pamplet in the Epistle ad Trallianos calles the caetum Presbyterorum the Assembly of Presbyters Conâ—…unctionem Apostolerum Christi a meeting of Apostles of Christ. â—…rinaus lib 4. Cap. 43 holds Presbyteros in Ecclesia ab Apostolis successionem habere that Presbyters in the Church have there succession from the Apostles Cyprian lib. 4. epistol 9. asserts omnes praepositos vicaria ordinatione Apostolis succedere that all overseers so he calls Presbyters succeeds the Apostles by a vicarious ordination Ierome on 2. Chap. of mica cited by Cratian in decretis distinct 5. cap speaking of himself a Presbyter saith si in Apostolorum loco simus non solum sermonem eorum imitemur c. If we be in the Apostles place let us not onely imitat there doctrine but also their conversation Augustin serm 36. to the fratres in Eremo and these too Preâ—…byters call them sal terrae Apostolorum successores the salt of the earth and the Apostles successours 2. As it is certan that these Catalogue-drawers did not understand veri nominis epâ—…copos or diocesian Bishops properly suoh thogh speaking after the manner of their times they gave them all one name So it is equally certain that the Testimoyns out of which these Catalogues are patchâ—…d up are most inconsistent and contradictory to one another as the divines at the I le of Wight and many learned men have made appear and still the nearer the Apostles times the Catalogues are the more darke and various They make Peter Bishops of Rome a fable contradicted by many of the learned proved to be such but whither Clemens was first or Third and who or in that order next after Succeed them whither Linus or Anacletus is never yet cleared Some make Titus Bishop of Crete some Archbishop Some Bishop of Dalmatia Timothy and John are made by many Bishops at the same time Some say Policarp was first Bishop of Smyrna Some make him succeed one Bucolus some make Aristo first Some give Alexandria one Bishop some tuo at once See appendix to jus divin min. Evangel And wheras our Informer replyes that notwithstanding of this yet all agree that a Succession of Bishops was and that these different relations cannot impeach the certainty of the Succession it self no more then difference about the Succession of princes will invalidat the certainty of the History I answer if he could prove that they understood Bishops properly so called or his diocesians in all these Catalogues of Succession this evasion might have some Shew of truth but it is certain that they did not Patres cum Iacobum Episcopum vocant c. the Fathers saith Whittak de pontif quest 2. c. 15 se 2. When they call James Bishop or Peter take not the name of Bishop properly but they call them Bishops of these Churches wherein they stayed for some time and againe if spoken of a Bishop properly its absurd to say the Apostles were Bishopes fore he that is properly a Bishop cannot be ane Apostle Because the Bishop is set only over one Church but the Apostles were founders and overseers of many Churches After he tells us that non procul distat ab insania c. it differs little from madnes to say that Peter or any other Apostles were Bishopes And to this purpose he speaks afterwards at large Q 3. c 3. Sect 9. proveing this from the unfixed extraordinary nature of their message or mission who were to follow the Spirits conduct towards all places whither they were called Which argument reaches evangelists upon the same ground So that Whitaker will send our Informer to Bedlam if he mend not this information and revocke not this principle anent the Episcopacy of Apostles and Evangelists and the Succession of Bishops from them The learned Iunius also Contr 3. lib 1. cap. 23. not 3. mantaines ane aequivocall acceptation of the word Bishop in this matter so that his paralleel holds not as to a difference about the Succession of Kings when a Monarchy all aâ—…e Supposed such but here the difference and equivocation is as to the authority of these Succeeding Bishops When he shall read Scallig Animadvers 277. The Informer may possibly suspect Hegesippus his naration anent James yet jerom and Eusebius depend upon him Scalliger holds Clemens Romanus to be no better likwayes jerom Catol Scrip is a Counterfit not the true jerom since he mentions pope hilary who lived long after jerom was in his grave And wheras the Informer maks a great outcry of jerom that jerom begins at the Evangelist Mark in the Alexandrian Catalogue which our wâ—…itters leave out in their citations its easily answered that it needs not be putt in since the Author sayes A marko from or after him the Presbyters choosed out one whom they made president wherein it s evident that he speaks of this custom after Mark and excluding him who was ane Evangelist before and needed not be set up by the Presbiters And surely if the first Bishop was ane Evangelist the rest were very heterogenious to their first pattern Besides in that jerom sayes Presbitiri a marco unum ex se electum c. Hee clerly insinuats that it was the Presbyters thereafter no Mark that it for if by Marks Apointment these Bishops wereset up he could not attribute it to the Presbyters etion Should one say in Scotia a regimine presbit Anno. 62. Episcopi introducti Ergo ab isto regimine introducti were â—…t not a bad consequence Here I will offer to him the remarke of a learned author Repl to Dun 143. anent the Circle which he and his fellowes doe ryde in this argument Timothy and Titus c. had ane Episcopal authority why because their authority was not Evangelistick Why so because it was not to die with them why that Because it was ordinary and perpetually necessary And how is that proved Because if the Apostles being alive they behooved to instruct Timothy and Titus with Episcopal authority much more being dead this was necessary to the Churches But when it is inquired how this Episcopal authority is proved it is fairely assumed againe as if it were granted that the Apostles made them Bishops of Ephesus and Crete So the last medium is still that which is in Question Let him ponder also what Didocl p. 125. and 139 hath produced anent the confusion and contradictions in this Alexandrian Succession Tilen himself de pontif l. 1.
episcopus or Bishop is variously used by the ancients And that our present Lord-prelats can receave no Pratrociny from Bishops of the first ages wherein Presbyters governed by common Council and had a decisive sufferage in Government whereas the Prelats now are beyond what their predecessors had come unto even in Ieroms time For then except ordination the Bishop did nothing beyond what the Presbyter might doe whereas our present Prelats are sole both in ordination and Jurisdiction and assume a negative voice in Church Judicatories Yea a decisive suffrage in Parliament which he dare not say that any of these Bishops did ever pretend unto Well But if we shall say that Ierom speaks of the first introduction of Bishops into the Church then he tells us Ierom must understand it of the Apostles times What means he by the first introduction of Bishops Can he give the least shaddow of reason for it that Ierom speakes of any other introduction then that introduction of human custom which he distinguishes from the divine appointment of Presbyterian paritie But how proves he That Ierom maks Bishopes to have been introduced in the times of the Apostles yet I must tell him by the way that introduceing them in the times of the Apostles is one thing by the Apostles is anotherthing Diotrephes sought his primacy in Iohns time but was disowned by him therin So that if we can prove that what jerom cites for the parity of Bishops Presbyters jure divino will conclud the point these Bishops are in themselves in jeroms judgement condemned by the Apostles his 1. Reason is That jerom makes the thing which gave occasion to this Introducing of Bishops to be the peoples saying Iam of Paul and I of Apollo and this was the Schism spoken of I Cor. I. But this notion of Saravia and others he might have found long since answered Ieromes scop is evidently to prove that by Scripture warrand Bishop and Presbyter are all one wich he clears by many Scripture Testimonyes even to Iohns time and therefore he could not be so brutish as to make this Schism at Corinth the occasion of the Change so long before Johns Testimony yea before Paules farewell Sermon to the Elders of Ephesus from which he drawes another of his proofes But he speakes of a human Custom comeing in Paulatim postea peece and peece and by degres long after these times and but alludes unto that Division I Cor. I. Expressing it in the Apostles words not of their times for the Apostles never appointed this prelatik excrescent power of Bishops over Presbyters as a remedy of Schisme among all their prescriptions of the Cure of this evill Rom. 16. 7. I Cor. 3 3. 11 18. Moreover famous whietaker will tell him that this remedie is worse then the disease The mistery of iniquity was then working the Apostles therefore would not lay a step under Anti-Christs foot to get in to his Chair Besides these factions in religion were not at Corinth onlie Iunius de cler Cap. 15. not 16. will Informe him that jerom asserts not that it was said at Corinth I am of Paul c. But among the people c. malum non Corinthi solum c. It was a Publick evill Paul himself prescrybed no such remedy saith he unto the Corinthians and afterward Not. 17. Jerom saith after it was said among the people he saith not that this human Prostasia began at that tyme viz of the schism but after that time Compare it with Wittaker de pont Q. 1. c. 3. Sect 29. he saith not it was decreed by the Apostles that one Presbyter should be set over the rest this he sayes was by the Churches Castome not the Apostles decree Then he adds Ierom viz Let the Bishops know that it is rather by Custome then the divine appointment that they are set over Presbyters Had the Apostles changed the first order and set Bishops over Presbyters and forbidden the Churches to be governed by the Cammon Council of Presbyters truly that had been the Lords appointment because proceeding from the Apostles of Christ unless we will ascrib to Custom not to divine appointment what they decreed But the Apostles being alive there was nothing changed in that order for this Epistle was written when Paul was in Mac donia c. Let our Informer read this learned author who at large will cure his error in this poynt if it be not incurable Wheras he adds That Ieromâ—… comment upon Tit. I. Imports only his opinion anent the Community of names of Bishop and Presbyter not of their office at that time I beseech him what will this say to Ieromes scope which is to prove Presbyters superiority to Deacons for the deacons name was in a generall sense attribut both to Apostles and to the Evangelist Timothey as himself pleads Besides what signifies Ieroms in ferenc from all his Citations viz That Bishops had not their superiority over Presbiters by divine appointment If only a communitie of names was his proofe from these texts The Informers 2 Reason to prove that Ierom makes Bishops to be introduced in the times of the Apostles is That had the decree wich Ierome speaks of been after the Apostles it would have been extant in antiquity where and in what Council it took place but this is not found Ans Ierome by toto orbe decretum or prospiciente concilio cannot mean any formal Council either in the Apostles times or afterward But the meaning is that when through the world it was said among the people I am of Paul c. It was decreed among the people or in and among particular Churches through the whole word that is distrâ—…butively though all places of the world not representatively in any aecumenick Council of the whole world Decreed through the whole word is all one with Decreed by the whole world which is distributily to be taken Ieroms words convince this for the Councils decree representing the world would be all at once but Ierom sayes this Chance came not in Simul Semel but paulatim ly degrees And that the Prostasia came in by Custome which points at a graduall comeing in Besides the Apostles changing the first mould of government to prevent Scism will say they made themselves wiser then the Lord. His 3 Reason is That this will suppose the worlds universal defection from the Apostolick Government against which there is no footstep of a Testimony Ans. we We have seen as he cannot deny as great and more sudden changes of the divine institutions exemplified in Scripture and that ane universall defection hath been through the Christian world from both the Apostolick Doctrine and Government he will not deny and many Testimonies there might have been against this though they have not come to our hands He knowes how our divines answer such a Question of the Papists as to the beginnings of their Corruptions and their universall spread Moreover this mistery of Iniquity and
Apostolick tradition it receaves the same answer with what is said as to his calling Apostles Bishops For with Ierome Apostolick tradition and Ecclesiastick Custom are all one as that instance clears anent the observation of lent which he calls Apostolica traditio or Apostolick tradition writing to Marcellus and yet writing against the Luciferians he calls it Ecclesiae consuetudo oâ—… a Custom of the Church therefore by Apostolick tradition he meaned not Apostolick appointment for this were ane implicantia in terminus a flat contradiction since he denyes this to these Bishops but only Ecclesiastick Custom upon which he sayes their office was founded The Informers 2d Answer o this exception is with Davenant That by truâ—…h of divine appointinent Ierom meaned Christs express command by Custom the Apostles practise begun by them and after continued For proveing this he adduces the Instance now given anent Ieroms making Apostolick tradition and Ecclesiastick Custome all one Hence he thus senses the words That Bishops were brought into the Church not by Christs express command but by a Custom introduced by the Apostles into the Church and continued in their Successors Ans. 1. This fine conceit maks Ierom reflect oddly upon the Apostles as if they taught one thing and practised another for Ierome proves from their writings that all along they make Bishops and Presbyters one Now if they in practice set up Bishops distinct from Presbyters what Harmony makes this 2. He thus maks him reflect upon Christs express command in relation to government as if it were altered and opon his government Apostolick in saying that it was the ground of schismes How will this man guard against this which he imputed to us before 3. What will Davenant or he make of these Three periods of time in Ieroms discourse observed by learned Iunius and others to clear his words 1. Presbyters and Bishops all one and governing by Common Council all the Apostles time 2. Scismes arising 3. Paulatim and postea in process of time and by degrees a new mould of government projected and immutata ratio the order changed as Ambrose saith to the same purpose Now this glosse of his words will make the Apostolick government and practise not only the rise of scismes but to be Changed for a change its sure Ierom speaks of from the first order of government appointed by the Apostles and making yet the Apostles practise in government to continue the answer contradicts it self as well as Ierome As for the instance adduced it cannot quadrat here in this place when Ierom opposes thâ—… consuetudo or Custom unto disposition of divine truth for the Apostles practise seconded by their Doctrin as the Informer holdeth that both will patroniz prelacy is most formaly a divine appointment and their giveing unto the Churches what they receaved of Lord in their commission and therefore cannot with any shew of Reason be apposed unto a divine appointment as Ierome opposes this Consuetudo or Custom In Fine How wil Davenant or he separat and distinguish that which Jerome cites Act. 20. for the parity of Bishop or Presbyter and to prove Presbyters their common joynt government viz That Paul gave the whol Episcopal Charge to these elders in his last farewell as the Holy Ghosts Bishops not noticing Timothy in the thing How will hee I say distinguish this from ane Apostolick practice and a practice to be continued So that here was in Ieroms sense a Presbyterian practice of this great Apostle a practice founding that Government and to be continued so But the Informer dismisses this discourse of Ierom with some remarkes The 1 is That he speaks at least of ane Apostolick right as in many other his writings in relation to prelacy Ans. wee have proved that Ieroms words in these Tuo places mentioned the clearest account of his judgement in this mater since he is disputing this point ex professo doe evince the contrary his 2. Remark is That suppose he makes Bishops laiter then the Apostles yet he maks them needful to prevent Schism Ans. Ierom onely Narrats rem Gestam or the mater of fact viz. The ground that moved to bring them in but gives not his approbation of it Besides the Informer would take home his own argument here and bewar of making Ierom reflect upon the Apostolick Government and contradict himself in approving of a government as a remedy of schism which he disputs against from Scripture His 3d. Note is That Ierom submitted to Episcopacy and that Mr. Durham sayes that Aerius was condemned for brangling this order to the hazard of union Ans. Ieroms keeping fellowship wiâ—…h the visible Church in his time tainted with this Corruption and which was but then are embrio of that grown Monster now among us is a poor argument to plead for the best and purest and in so far the most considerable part â—…f Minsters and professoâ—…s in this Church heir complying with a Scismatick backslyding parâ—…y introducing this Corruption after it hath been universaly cast out and vowed against and the same may be said of Aerius Neither contradict wee Ierom in this for he maks not prelacy necessary for keeping out shisme as we have alteady told him and we heard that learned Whittaker calls it a remedy worse then the Disease Before â—…e can mke either Ieroms practise heranent or Mr. Durhams assertion as to Aerius bear any conclusion against us he must prove that the prelatick party are the onely visible organick Church of Scotland else Ieroms practise will fortify more the Presbyterians plea against him for breaking down the wall of Gods house and seperating from the Presbyterian Government of this nationall Church But of this when we come to examine the third Dialogue CHAP. XIII The difference betwixt our present Prelacy and the Ancient Episcopacy stated and evinced in 12. Instances Hence all the Informers pleadings from Antiquity for our Prelats is found a beating of the Aire and impertinent ALthough this Informer would make the world believe that our Prelacy is nothing discrepant from that of the ancient Bishops yet there are many remarkable differences betwixt the one and the other which renders all his pretences from antiquity meer words and winde 1. In general its clear from a great consent of the learned that the Bishop who first came in after the Apostolick age was nothing but Episcopus preses or Moderator and had no power of ordination and Iurisdiction above Presbyters This Moderator fixedly set up durante vita during life And Indued with a higher honour upon this ground is Beza's Episcopus humanus or human Bishop whom he distinguishes from the divine Bishop of Gods appointment Ambrose in his time acknowledges on 1 Tim. 3. That Bishops and Presbyters had the same essentiall office and ordination Dr Reynolds in his conference with Hart proves that at first the Moderator or president among Ministers in their meetings is he whom the Ancients in after times called Bishop So he holds
that the Bishop at his first rise was only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator of the Presbytery Blondel at large mantains the same only he holds that the next in degree succeeded him when dead Hence Musculus after he hath from the texts alledged by Jerome proved that Bishop and Presbyter are all one adds That thereafter Ambition begetting strifes about precedencie one was set up to be Moderator in a fixed orb And least our Informer or any else alleadge that prelacy therefore is necessary to prevent Schisme This eminent light of the reformed Church adds but whither that device of man profited the Church or no the times after could better judge and that the effects issueing upon it dicovered that it was not the Spirit of God his remedy to take away Schisme but Satans project to destroy a faithfull Ministery The same saith Sadael viz that this difference betwixt Bishops and Ministers which was introduced to remedie Schisme opened a gap to ambition So Dr Whittaker haveing out of Jerome shewed That faction occasioned the change of the Ancient Apostolick parity among Ministers adds That many wise and godly men have judged the change and remedy more pernicious then the disease it self which though at first it did not appear yet experience after proved that it brought the Antichristian yoake upon the neck of the Church See the appendix to jus divin Minist Evangel In which Testimonies of these great men we may observe two things 1. That they admitt the first Bishops to have been nothing else but fixed Moderators 2 That even this much they doe condemne as a deviation from the first appointment and as that which gave a rise to the Antichristian Tyranny Now the difference and disproportion betwixt this fixed Moderator and our present diocesian erastian prelat is so plaine and obvious that nothing further needs be said to clear it Therefore his Argument from the Catalogues and those early first Bishops who tooke place in the Church is pitifully claudicant as to a conclusion of the ancient Churches approbation of our Prelats To clear it further its evident if we lay weight upon the Judgement of the ancient Bishopes themselves in point of Church Government that 1 They held not their consecration or ordination to be distinct from that of Presbyters Episcopi Presbyteri una eadem est ordinatio That the Bishop and Presbyter have one and the same ordination we heard is Ambrose assertion 2. No delegation of externall jurisdiction to Presbyters was acknowledged by the ancients As it is by our new hierachical pleaders The Prelatists hold that the Bishop is properly the Pastour of the whole diocess and that all the Ministers thereof have but a derived precarius Ministry under him so Dâ—…wn defens lib 2. c. 4. p. 67. Field of the Church 56. c. 27 Sarav de trip epis p 87. Spalaâ—… l. 2. c. 9 Num. 15. and yet Ambrose on 1 Tim. 5 And Chrisostom Hom. 17 on Matthew calleth Presbyters expresly Christi vicarios Christs vicars Cyprian lib. 4. Epist. 8. sayes Dominum sacerdâ—…tes in sua ecclesia c. That the Lord condescended to elect constitut to himself Priests in his Church 3. The Ancients held that the power of externall jurisdiction was common with Bishops and Presbyters Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians Calls the Presbyters senatum Dei Gods Court or Senat. Et non consiliarios solum sed assessores Episcopi not Councellours only as are our Curats and scarse that but the Bishops assessors Irenaeus lib. 4. Cap 44. Calls them Principes Princes or Chieff Augustin Serm 86. Calls the Brethren ineremo Patronos rectores terrae Patrones and Rectors of the Earth Chrisostom expressly shews on 1. Tim. 1 Hom 11. Ecclesijs praesidisse sicut Episcopi c That they presided over the Churches as the Bishops and receaved together with them the office of teaching and governing the Church The homily begines thus postquam de Episcopis dixit eosque formavit quidnam illos habere conveniat a quo item abstinere necesse sit dictans ommisso interim Presbyterorum ordine ad diaconos transiit Cur id quaeso quia scilicet inter Episcopum atque Presbyterum interest ferme nihil quippe Presbyteris Ecclesiae cura permissa est quae de Episcopis dixit â—…ea etiam Presbyteris congruunt that is after he hath spoken of Bishopes and formed them injoyning what thinges it becomes them to have and from what it is necessary they should abstain omitting the mean whil the order of Presbyters he passes over to deacones Why so I pray even because that betuixt a Bishope and Presbyter there is almost no difference Because unto Presbyters also the care of the Church is allowed and what he said before concerning Bishopes the same thinges also do agree to Presbyters I know he addes sola quippe ordinatione superiores illi sunt atque hoc tantum plus quam Presbyteri habere videntur That the Bishopes only in ordination are superiour to Presbyters according to the latin interpretation followed by Dounam and Bilson and by Bellarmin before them But the more learned interpreters have observed that the greeke will bear a farr other sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sola enim suffragatione horum ascenderunt atque hoc solo videntur Presbyteris injuriam facere that is that onely by the Presbyters suffrage they have ascended viz to this power and in this onely they seem to do injury to Presbyters The learned Iunius de cleric cap. 7. not 611. tels us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic Presbyterorum non Episcoporum quod si 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est ordinatio ergo Presbyterorum est ordinatio The hand suffrage is here the Presbyters but if it be meaned of ordination then ordination belonges to them And having proved this construction sence of the greeke from Suidas he shewes that Chrisost. places not the difference in ordination betuixt the Bishop and Presbyter but in this that the Bishopes ascendunt supra Presbyteros in gradum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doe ascend into there degree of Episcopacy above the Presbyters although because they stepp up by their suffrage they seem to wrong them when they assume any power to themselves who upon the ground of order not of power saith he are set over them by there owne suffrag He also tels Bellarm. de cleric ca. 15. not 29. That granting his sence of Chrysost. Wordes yet the Bishop ordained onely signo sermone declaring the sacred institution or inauguration of the person ordained but not ordinatione veritatis or by the true ordination which that signe represented Some add that if Chrisost. be thus understood in the sence of Bellarm. and his Episcopal sectators he did not rightly expound his text while distinguishing that which he acknowledges the Apostle makes one theâ—… same Ierome tels us of their common Government of the Churches together with the Bishops from whom Gratian
gave his Disciples charge that they should not affect superiority one over another or princely power over Gods heritagâ—… and puts them to prove that the office of the Ministry may in ordination be divided or that there are more orders of the Ministry then one which our Informer still begs a supposition of viz. Bishop or Presbyter or more officers in the Church then Elders and Deacons appointed by Christ or his Apostles by their apostolick authority That the Presbyter in whom are required the same qualifications to whom is to be yeelded the same obedience subjection andrespect who recives the same ordination and is charged with the same duty and invested with the same power of feeding and governing the Church of God with the Bishop and none other is an order distinct from and subject to the Bishop to be ruled by him and not to exercise his office but by the Bishops licence and that the Presbyter must swear obedience to the Bishop as his ordinary Which are the grand postulata and topicks of all this mans reasoning in point of prelacy The autitheses of which tenets we see Mr Crofton most evidently maintaines as the sense of the Covenant in point of episcopacy he further describes pag 80. and 81. the prelacy covenanted against and anent which he challengeth these Masters proof of a jus divinum to be such wherein one Minister or Bishop doth stand charged with all the congregatious and pastors of a Countie or many Counties making one diâ—…cess who is by office bound to a pastoral correction and government of them that these Bishops may be subject to one Metropolitan Church and Archbishop to whom they shall swear obedience adding that if the Word of God conclude such superiority over the Church in one Kingdom it will conclude a Catholick superiority over the universall Church and advance the Pope as warrantably above the Archbishops as the Archbishops are above the Bishops and the Bishops above the Presbyters these not being differences of kind but degree Adding further that no more is pleaded for Prelats divine or Apostolick right in the Church of England but what is pleaded by Bellarmine the Council of Trent for she Papacie Now from what is said I darre referre it is this Informer himself whither Mr Crofton doth not clearly disowne all the essentialls of our present prelacy and hold it to be abjured in the Covenant the office of our present Bishops and Arch-Bishops being incontravertibly such as he here describes And whither Mr Crofton holds not our prelacy arch-prelacy and metropolitan primacy to stand upon the same basis with the papacy and to be equally with it excentrick to the Scriptures and that he esteems consequently the Bishops and Arch-Bishops which I hope he will not deny to be abjurd in the Covenant to depend as such upon the Pope as a part of his hierarchy Next pag. 81 he sayes that it is not the first sort of episcopall government formerly described wherein all Ministers are invested with equal power and auhority or dignity are all of the same order and governe by common counsel but the specificall prelacy last described which presumes it self to be a Hierarchie So that with Mr Crofton our present prelacie falls within the denomination of the Hierarchy abjured in the solemne league and of the Popes wicked Hierarchie abjured in the nationall Covenant for he tells us in the preceeding page that none can deny that a quantenus ad omne c. He tells them moreover in that same pag. that had he lived in the Churches of Ephesus Antioch Phillippi Creet or the seven Churches of Asia invested with the same ministeriall authority which he then enjoyned he might have stood up a Peer to any Bishops therein so that he esteemed no Bishop there but Presbyters Besides pag. 82. he cites severall writers to prove that the authority and distinction of Episcopall and Archiepiscopall chaires metropolitan primacies owe their institution to the Church of Rome or politick constitutions of Princes He tells us pag. 84. out of Cartwright and Whittaker that the Church in respect of Christ its head not his vicar or superiority of single prelats is a monarchy in respect of the ancients and pastors that governe in common all the Presbytrie with like authority among themselves not a superiority over them it is an Aristocracie and in respect the people are not excluded but have their interest it is a Democracy The inserted parentheses are Mr Croftons and let any judge whither he assert not with these authors a Presbyterian frame of government opposit to diocesian Bishops and Arch-Bishops In his Analepsis in answer to Dr Gauden pag. 2. he charges him as before the Oxford men with an uncertain proposall of the object and the ratio formalis of the Covenant obligation as to prelacy under the general terme of Episcopacie therein also lasâ—…ing our Informer for the same laxness and ambiguity telling them that by good demonstration Bishop and Presbyter have been asserted to be synonimous titles of Church officers and are found to have been so used in the primitive times of the Church and of the Fathers adding that the government of the Church by its Ministers in their severall assemblies with a Moderator Ordinis causa to dispose and regulat what belongs to order is the primitive episcopacie which he grants to the Doctor that the Covenant will not strike against then pag. 3. and 4. he describes the Episcopacy which the Covenant strikes against And pag. 5. summeth it up thus that the Covenant cannot be accomplisht by the removal of Prelats pride c. Whilst the Preeminence prerogative Paternal power and juridicall authority assumed by them as distinct from and above all other Ministers of the gospel as the only immediat successors of the Apostles So our Informer makes them c. are continued What will this Oedipus answer to Croftons assertion Have not our Prelats this preeminence above Presbyters as a distinct order from them and have they not a juridicall authority over them by our law and practise and his pleading too doth not Mr Crofton in terminis assert that the Covenant obligation can never be satisfied untill such be removed are they no more in Church judicatores but Moderators and Chairemen set up Ordinis causa to order the actions of the meeting doth not our law give them a negative voice in the meeting and alloweth Presbyters only to give them advice if their Lordships do judge them prudent and loyall Again wheras the Dr pag. 18. did conclude that the Hierarchy being dead must rise in another qualitie Mr Crofton tells him pag. 6. That if it arise according to the Covenant it must be in the establishment of Congregational Classical Provincial and National Assemblies or Synods of Church officers Communi consilio Presbyterorum this phrase of Jerome he frequentlie useth to debate and determine the affaires of the Church and Exercise all acts of discipline and Ecclesiastick power
such like precepts And no wonder for thes simple Gospel times knew no Bishops who watched not over Soules and laboured in the word and doctrine When the Apostle Peter commands Christians to obey civil Rulers He distinguishs the King as Supeream and Governours sent by him that a Chief subjection may be yeelded to the one and a subordinat to the other But nothing of this is heard of in enjoining peoples subjection to Ministers Ane honour must be allowed by Timothey by the people of God consequentlie to elders that rule weil yea and a double honor but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especialy to those that labour in the Word and Doctrine The Apostle in stating a distinction in the degries of honour allowed to elders and in this different character of the one from the other diversifies elders higher lower Now by the same reason upon which Divines doe rationaly build this conclusion it must be granted that the enjoyning obedience to all Pastores promiscuusly and without any Note of distinction will inferr their equal office and authoritie And by the same reason that the Apostle added this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or especialy in this place he should have added in these or some such comands relating to the peoples obedience a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or especialy to distinguish the Diocesian Prelat from other Pastores and expressed it thus esteem them all highly obey them be subject to them that teach and watch over you All your Pastors but especially the Supereminent Pastor or Bishop who hath the cheifinspection and from whom all the rest derive their authoritie Likwayes in enjoining the pastoral duties he should have been especially noticed who had the cheif hand and authoritie therin which is a Topick improven by this informer but nothing of this is seen in Scripture as shall be after more fully cleared 4. Wee find accordinglie A practical Equalitie among Pastores or Bishops in the exercise of this governing power abundantlie held out and exemplified in Scripture The judging and censuring of the incestuous man is by the Apostle enjoyned to the Church Officers or Ministers of Corinth joyntlie 1 Cor. 5. Chap. compared with 2 Cor. 2. Chap. The Apostle all along supposeth ane inherent authority in these Ministers to put forth this grand juridical Forensical Act â—…ydes them for so long neglecting it and shewes its object viz. This person under the formalis ratio of wicked or scandalus Again he shews its nature to be Ajudging or puting from among them and delivering to Satan upon this judging previous thereunto He also shews that this authoritie touches all Church Members not them that are without whom God judgeth but those that are within Now as hee supposes I say ane authority of this Nature and extent inherent in these Church officers so he speaks to them indefinitly and universally all along which were very cross to his Scope If he had set up or allovved the Diocesian Prelat whose sole prerogative this were And the inflicted Censur he calls with the samine indefinitnes A punishment inflicted by many who accordingly are commanded with the same indefinitnes or universality of expression To receave absolve him upon his repentance The exercise of the binding and â—…owsing power being in the representative juridicall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church to whom scandales must be delated and to whom the promise of ratification of her juricall Acts in Heaven is made Matth. 18 17. Besids we find the exercise of ordination in a Presbitry 1 Tim. 4 14. And that even in relation to ane Evangelist Timothy The Presbitry here must be a juridicall Senat and meeting for the Office can lay on no hands And ordination is ane hie authoritative juridicall Act. Pauls presence and laying on of hands together with them confirmes their authoritie as being cumulative thereto not privative therof even as his countenanceing of or concurring with our Adversaries pretended Diocesian Prelat let us suppose it in his Act of ordination would not infringe his pretended right herein Ergo. By their own Confession and by paritie of reason it cannot infringe or Impeach this power which is attributed to the Presbitery Had the Apostle in stead of Presbyterie put in Prâ—…at and expressed it thus By the laying on of the hands of A Bishop or Diecesian-Bishop I suppose our Adversaries would have thought the Episcopal power of ordination invincibly demonstrat ther from notwithstanding of Pauls saying 2 Tim 1 6. By the laying on of my hands viz together with the Bishop Pauls extraordinare Apostolicall imposition of hands being no white derogatorie unto the supposed Episcopal ordinarie power now verte tabulas the Apostle sayes by the laying on of the handes of the Presbitry Ergo the ordinary and equal power of Pastores and its equal exercise in ordination is herin convincingly made out Nixt The Prelats monopolizing thus in himself the decisive suffrage of Judicatories is cross many wayes to Scripture For I Its a stepping up in a peice of Diotrephese-lik or rather papal-pride above the Apostles themselves who in Churches constitut did alwayes take alongst with them the advice consent and authoritative concurrence of ordinary Ministers and Elders in Government As is evinced in the premised Scriptures wherin it is convinceingly clear that Paul though ane Apostle of all the Churches indewed with extraordinarie unconfined inspection over the same and Pastor thereof in actu exercito having extraordinary Miracolous-gifts being the Master Builder and Spiritual Father who by the Gospel had begotten both Pastores and flocks of many Churches Yet would neither excommunicat the incestuous Corinthian alone but put it upon the Church Officers as their duty to doe it by a judicial decisive joynt suffrage Nor yet did he exclud the presbyters in ordaining even ane Evangilist but took in their judicial and presbyterial concurrence And in Act. 15. In that meeting or Counsel at Jerusalem where was a wholl Colledge or Presbitery of Apostles and mett about ane Act or decision of a high Nature wherein was put forth both Adegmatick critick diatactick authority or power in relation to the clearing of that great pointe of truth anent the abrogation of the Mosaicall ceremonies and censuring the opposers of Paul and Barnabas herin who had disturbed the Churches and belied the Apostles Doctrine And accordingly in order to the restoring and establishing truth and order in these disturbed Churches The ordinary Ministers or elders concurr with the Apostles in every step viz In the conferrence disquisition the authoritative decision the drawing forth of the sentence and decree the sending out of the decreeing and censuring Epistle the imposeing of the decrie upon the Churches to observe and keep the same c. 2. This cutts the throate of that juridical forensical joynt decision of Church Judicatories which the Scriptur doth so clearly hold forth Where is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the censureing juridiall court drawing sorth a joynt decision or censure Wher
any judge 2. The Diocesian Prelat debases and tramples upon this noble work in that be makes it in all the Pastores of the Dioces to depend upon his Lordly disposal and the authoritie thereof to be deryved from him as the sole proper Pastor of all the Diocess whose deputs the preachers are in this work although himself is obleiged to feed no flock 3 He maks these high and noble Acts of the power of order preaching and administration of Sacraments a lower and subordinat work and office to the work and office of ruleing only which is his Characteristick whereby he holds himself Superior to all the preachers of the Diocess whereas the Scriptur doeth as we heard appropriat the highest honour to the labourer in the word and doctrine as the nobler employment and office above the Ruler only 6. In this the Diocesian Prelats office is contrare unto and reprobat by the Scriptur in that by Apocriphal Antiscriptural new invented Degrees and orders It diversities and cutts asunder what God hes made one and the same I mean the Pastoral Office and by consequence other offices mentioned in Scripture as that of Prophets Evangelists Deacons non of which offices admites of Subordinat Spheeres and degrees but all the persons that are Intrusted with these offices are of the same degree and authority therin by the Word of God No Evangelist Prophet or Apostle is found of a Superior office or order to other Apostles Evangelists c. Whence comes this diversity then in the Pastoral office that one Pastor must have a Lordly Dominion over some hundreds of his fellowes If it be said that the Episcopal office succeeds that of the Apostles or Evangelists besides that wee shall disprove this afterward and shew that these offices taken formaliter as superior to that of the Pastor are expyred as sound Divines doe almost universally grant I answer that most if not all Prelatists ancient and modern doe hold the Diocesian Prelat to be no officer Specifially distinct from the Presbyter or Pastor but only gradually distinct as being a Pastor with a more amply extended authority for order of Government Mr Burnet in his pretended vindication of the present Prelacie 4t Conference pag. 310 311. tells us that he is not clear anent the notion as he calls it of the distinct offices of Bishop and Presbyter and akonowledges the Presbyter to be of the hiest office in the Church telling us that the Prelat is but a different degree in the same office Although in this he and the rest doe speak most inconsequently the forementioned ingredients of the Prelatical function being such as doe certanly amount to make up a new species of ane office such as a different work consecration or ordination the actus primus of a State Ruler different qualifications by consequence above and beyond these of a Presbyter The diversitie of these distinguishes the Scripture offices of Apostles Evangelists c. which Paul setts in several Classes as first and second 1 Cor. 12 28. Mr Burnet his reason is the same with that of others herine viz the Pastors authority to administer the word Sacraments which are the highest acts of the power of order He tells us that since the Sacramental actions are the highest of sacred performances he cannot but acknowlege that such as are impowered for them must be of the hiest office in the Church now I say since they will needs have the Diocesian Bishop to be only a different degree of the Presbyterat or Pastoral office they cannot with any shaddow of reason make him Successor to the Evangelists or Apostles in their formal office which they will not dare to affirm to be only a different degree of the Presbyterat or Pastores office and will affirme it to have been specifically distinct from the same The Ancients and Schoolemen held that the Pastor in his ordination receaved the same Power of Government that the Prelat hath but that the Prelat is the primus Presbyter who hath the raines of all the exercise in his hand But how cross is this to Scripture that any Church officer hath a power and authoriritie which he cannot exercise To whomsoever God hath given the power he hath certainlie commanded the exercise of it and particularly Pastores or Presbyters are as we have heard enixely commanded to exercise all their Pastoral authority and power as they shall answer to their great Master Besyds if the Pastoral office or its official power of order and jurisdiction may be warrantably thus divided and cutt out in Shreeds and parcells and divyded among different recipients then it were lawful to divyde preaching and administration of the Sacraments so as one Presbyter notwithstanding of his authority and mission in relation to both word and Sacraments receaved in his ordination might have preaching only allowed to him but no administration of Sacraments Another might be allowed to administer Sacraments but not to preach One Presbyter upon the pretence of order or union pretences are never wanting to humane inventions might be sett a part and authorised to Baptise all the Children in a wholl Province doing nothing else of the Pastoral Office And this power by the same authority might be taken from all the Pastoures of the Province Sure all would acknowledge this to be a most wicked divyding and diversifieing what God the conjoyned And such is this Prelatical divyding of the Pastoral charge in relation to order and jurisdiction or the keys of Doctrine Government the power wherof the Pastor receaves intirely in his ordination as well as the Authority of administrating Sacraments 7. In this the Diocesian Bishop is contrare to Scripture In that his Office is in many respects cross to the very nature of the Gospel-Church Government and is ane Office which the man that exercises cannot but in so farr cease to be a Gospel Church-ruler Which I prove thus 1. Since all authority in the Diocess as to either the Word or Disciplin is deryved from the Bishop as its proper fountaine and subject this power of the Bishop is properlie and of its own nature not a Gospel Ministery But a dominion and principalitie discharged to Church Officers of what ever sorte whose authority is not a despotick nomothetick or architectonick power but a Ministerial Stewardship only Matth. 20 v 25 26. 2 Cor. 1 24. 1 Cor. 4 D. 1 Pet. 5 2 3. 3 Epist. John 9. The work of all Church Officers is called a Ministery Pastours Doctores yea Apostles Evangelists were appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the worke of the Ministery Ephes. 4 12. 2 Cor. 4 v. 5. Paul calls himself a fellow servant with Epaphras Collos. 17. with Tichicus Collos. 4 7. And calls Ministers his fellow-souldiers and fellow-labores Philip. 4. 3 -2 25-Rom 16 3 -2 The Bishops power inverts Christs rule as to the gradation in point of censures and appealls which is from one one to more from the lesser number to the greater from
disciples to he greater then another This passage with its parallel Luk. 22 25. Is much scanned betwixt the Papists and us in relation to the popes Dominion and as it striks clearly against Prelacy so Papists and Prelats doe as clearly joyne issue in their answers In both passages it is apparent that upon occasion of a sinfull and ambitious emulation à mong the Disciples which of them should be greatest our Lord did sharpely reprehend them dischargeing them expresly the Lordly grandour of Earthly Rulers or Princes and to exercise Lordsnipe or Dominion over one another commending instead thereof and in opposition thereto a humble Ministerial service and spiritual diligence in their spiritual stewardship or Ministery pressing both from his own exemplary humility in his converse with them Now our Argument against Prelacy is very strong from this text and hath these Nerves 1. The Lord most expresly discharges Superiority and inferiority among officers of the same kinde Non are greater then another in their office no Apostle above another but a compleat parity in their official power is here holden out ergo by necessary consequence he commands a parity among Pastoures and discharges superior and inferior degrees among them 2. Whatever priority of order among officers of different kindes be allowed yet he discharges Dominion or principalitie in any of them all masterly power such as is allowed in civil Government there being but one Master or Lord over the Church and all Ministers being Brethren This is clear in that he mentions the civil Lordshipe of Rulers who are called benefactors in exemplyfiing what he discharges them and likewayes in opposition therunto commends a humble Ministerial service not a sort of warrantable Dominion as that parallel 1 Pet. 5 3. Makes it evident So that he gives two deadly blowes here to the Diocesian Lord Prelat 1. In that he makes himself a higher order and degree of the Pastorall office whereas the Lord discharges this among officers of the same kinde 2. In Lording it over his brethren other Pastoures both in a pretended spiritual capacitie arrogating to himself a sole power in ordination and jurisdiction and a masterly power and principality over Church judicatories as is cleared above and likewayes in his assumeing the Earthly Lordship place and grandoure of civil Magistrates which is here expresly discharged This being premised let us hear what this new Advocat sayes to this Text. 1. He tels us that It is a great mistake to think that all superiority among Church men is here forbidden which he fortifies 1. With this Reason that the twelve though equall among themselves yet were superior to the seventy Disciples who were also sent to preach this He proves because Matthias who was chosen to succeed Judas in the Apostleship was one of them Ans. 1. It is here convincingly apparent that this man shiftes but dare not grapple with this Scripture and the argument drawn from it while he shuffles in this glosse and mistake which is his own not oures viz that all superioritie is here discharged among Church men as our inference or medium ágainst prelacie from this text as is evident from what is said We grant with all sound divines that among Church men or Church officers there are superior and inferior degrees First Apostles secondarly Prophets c. But we say that hereby superiority among these of the same degree is forbidden and likwayes principalitie and lordship in any of them of whatever order or degree over another So that we are not concerned to enquire whither the Apostles were Superior to the seventy Disciples or whither they were sent to preach and not rather as some doe judge intrusted with a transient mission to prepare our Lords access to those places whither he was to come with out any formall Ministeral mission above ordinarie Disciples Only I must say his proofe of this Superiority of the Twelve above the Seventie is very odd viz. Matthias was chosen ane Apostle though one of the Sevintie Now to give Scripture light and proofe of this topick both branches of this assertion must be proved from Scripture not only that Matthias was chosen in Judas roome but also and mainely that he was one of the Seventie wherof the Scripture is utterly silent and instead of Scripture proof of this wee must take Clemens and Dorotheus their Said so which maks up a heterogenious proofe like the feet and toes made of iron and clay 2. He tells us That ambition and not inequality is here discharged This ane old shift of Bellarm and the Papists we say that both ambition the root and principle of this desire and the thing it self which was the object of this ambitious desire viz. Dominion Principality and Lordship one over another is here forbidden Subordinata non pugnant 't is strang sottishnes in this man to imagin that ambition the inward principle of this unlawful primacie or inequalitie should be forbidden onely and not the inequalitie or primacie it self the outward act and accomplishment of this ambition Bellarm answer to our divines argument against the popes Supremacie from the text is that dominion is no here discharged but rather supposed and that it is only such ane ambitious lust of overruling as is among the Kings of the Gentiles that is forbidden Whittaker de Pontif Cap 1. Answers him that this dominion it self not the ambitious affectation only is discharged Bernard writing to Eugenius expounding this passage that of 1. Pet. 5. Understands them both as striking against dominion and enjoyning a Ministeriall care in opposition therunto Dominion saith hee is discharged and Ministery is enjoyned So at length he concludes after severall things to this purpose Thus Bernard clearly teaches saith Whittak de Pontif Quest 1. that humilitie is not required in dominion as our Informer distinguishes with Bellarm but dominion it self is discharged But Bellarmin admitts to play the Lords if they be modest and humble in their dominion Christus de re ipsa c. saith Iunius de pontif lib 1. Christ said of the thing it self they exercise dominion but he spake not of the maner they exercise dominion after this or that maner they exercise dominion saith he but not so yee that is yee shall not exercise dominion it is a plaine denyal of the thing proposed So we see his shift here as to prelacie is the same with that of the Papists in defending the papacie But his Reason of this his glosse must be considered viz. Because otherwayes our Lords argument taken from his own example v. 28. Would not suite his purpose since he was in power and authoritie above the Twelve Ans. Not to stay here to tell him that this defence and gloss will equally serve the popes turne and bear the blow of this text off his head in Correspondance with Bellarmins Notion above touched Our Lords scope in proposeing his own example is to antidot their inward pride the root of their desire of
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
among other corruptions and since he drawes his first instance of the Levits subordination from Exod 6. before that tribe was set apart at all to the Holy Ministery that passage at least and as I said in the judgment of some its parallels also aftermentioned by him doe speak of the Civil Government and subordi nation of the Levites in that capacitie and that any of their Chief rulers are by the Greeks termed Episcopus is a very poor argument to conclude their Ecclesiastick rule it being notourly known that the best Greek Authores put his designation upon Civil Governoures This subordination among the Levites in Exod. 6 15. is unquestionably civil upon the ground assigned And numb 3. It is evident that the heads and princes of Families are numbered And accordingly the heads and Chief of the families 1 Chron. 24. and in Neh 11 14. He that is set over the priests is the son of one of the great men Haggedolim or eminent in paris and place as many take it 1 Chron. 24 4. before the division and order is set down it s said there were more Chief men found of the sones of Eleazar then of the sones of â—…thamar c. all which doth much plead forthis assertion but we need not be peremptor in pressing this since the weight of our answer lies not upon it Our Informer comes nixt to his New Testament proofes for Bishops and produces first the superiority of the twelve Apostles above the seventy Disciples Where 1. Wee see He is still in the clouds of a general superiority which is farr from the Prince-like Arbitrary and Erastian superioritie of the Diocesian Prelat now existent and whom he undertakes to plead for which this Informer Had he intended to have informed right should have condescended upon Had the Apostles such a superioritie over the seventy Disciples Were they subject to the Apostles as their Rectors and judges Did the Apostles as our Prelats assume a Sole Decisive conclusive suffrage and a negative voice over Church Judicatories notwithstanding of their extraordinary and high prerogatives Did we not see the contrary exemplified in that meeting of Apostles with ordinary Ministers Act. 15 Had the seventy onely a derived precarius Ministry under the twelve Apostles as their Vicars Substitutes in their Ministration Had they no Interest in the Church-Government but upon the Apostles meer pleasure As Curats are now in all these respects subject to their Prelats Had not the seventy their mission their institution immediatly from Christ as well as the Apostles themselves Were they not consequently to exercise their Ministery upon this ground without such a servil dependance upon the twelve as Prelats doe arrogat to themselves ane arbitrary principality over Ministers Were the twelve to rule only and to committ the preaching worke to the seventy as their deputes as our Prelats now doe Or were they not rather to help forward the great harvest and the work of the Ministery together with the Apostles themselves So that this Informer will never find the least shaddow of ane Episcopall superiority here But 2. Granting that the Apostles were officers in asuperiour degree to the seventy which is the utmost Conclusion which he can draw from Scripture how will this infer a superiority among officers of the same degree We grant the Apostles were superior to Evangelists they againe to Pastoures Ergo one Pastour may be a diocesian Prelat over hunderds of other Pastours is a consequence known to no logick Christ appointed both extraordinary and ordinarie officers in their severall degrees as Apostles Evangelists Pastours Ergo he appointed different degrees of Pastours hath no connexion imaginable 3. Tht basis of his argument lyes in this that the Prelats are immediat successours of the Apostles in their degree of superiority to the seventy Disciples and Pastours come after the seventy in their supposed subjection and are not the Apostles immediat successours in the ordinary Ministery but this as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the quesitum or question must be proved not begged and supposed by him We did already evince the contrary viz That the Pastour to whom is committed the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments and both the keys immediatly from the Apostles are the highest ordinary officers and the Apostles immediat successorus as to both order and Jurisdictione But the doubter and I object furder that the Apostles superioritie over the seventie was extraordinary personall temporarie and to cease with themselves In answer to this He grants that in some things their priviledges were extraordinary and to cease with themselves such as their immediat cas ling their sending to all nations their infallibility gifts of tongues or whatever was necessary for the first founding of the obristian Châ—…rch but in other things wherein they were superior to other Ministers their power was not extraordinary and temporarie but still to be continued such as ordination of Ministers and governeing them by ecclesiastick authority in which power the Bishops succeeds them who are the children in stead of the Fathers as Augustin applies that of Psal. 45 v. 19. Ans. 1. Then it seems that with him the Episcopal office properly succeeds to that of the Apostles and is a continuation of their power in ordination and jurisdiction over Pastours which contradicts his second answer to our Argument from Ephes. 4 viz that Bishops in that place may be comprehended under the the office of Pastours teachers For here he makes their office the same with that of the Apostles as importing ane authority in ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors and teachers and so he should have said rather that it is comprehended under the Apostolick office 2. He yet againe contradicts himself in this answer whill granting that whatsoever was necessary for the first planting of the Christian Church is a priviledge ceased with the Apostles and yet making their power of ordination of Ministers and in governing them to be still necessary he must understand it as performed and done by them since therein he imagins the pattern of episcopall power to ly For other wayes the Presbyterians doe hold and prove that ordination by the Presbytery and Government by Presbyters collegiatly is still continued and necessarie This he will not allow and so must understand it of the manner wherein the Apostles performed this at first Now I say their Apostolick power in ordination and Government as exercised by them at first was necessarie for the first founding of the Church For 1. Their power of ordination was of equal limits and extent with their mission to all nations Goe disciple all nations I hope he will grant was extraordinary as being necessary for the first founding of the churches Ergo say I. so was their power in ordination and Government of Ministers since it was of a like nature and of the same extent for to what ever nations they were sent together a Church therein there they were to ordaine Ministers
gratis asserted and worse proved Learned Calvin upon the place tells us That his Deaconship was a temporal and transient function then expired because otherwayes it had no been free to him to leave Jerusalem and go to cesaria And that he is not here proposed as a voluntar deserter of his office but as one who had a more excellent office intrusted to him Which two grounds will put faire to prove that he was not a deacon still Then he adds Evangilistae meo judiciointer Apostolos doctores medii erant munus enim obibant Apostolis proximum ut passim Evangelium praedicarent nec praeficerentur certae Stationi That is Evangelists were sett in the middle betwixt Apostles and Doctours had ane office nixt to that of the Apostles and Doctours had ane office nixt to that of the Apostles that they might every where preach the gospell and were not fixed to any Station He gives this reason of his description of the Evangelist Because Ephes. 4. the Apostle describing the order of the Church doth in such manner substitut them to Apostles as he shews that they had a more inlarged office of teaching intrusted to them then to Pastours whose worke was tyed to certain places Hence he concludes that Philips deaconship at Jerusalem was onely temporall And for some time there exercised by him and that he was afterby the Church assumed to be ane Evangelist In which words wee see 1. He doth upon weightie grounds prove him to have been no Deacon at that time wherein he is called ane Evangelist 2. That he was ane Evangilist in the strict and proper sense as it is taken Eph. 4. 3. That Evangelists are officers above ordinarie teachers or pastours and in this distinct from them in the judgement of this great divine that they were fixed to no certan charge as they but as being nixt Apostles had ane indefinit unfixed Ministery all which is cross to this mans blunt confused discourse of this mater and cutts the sinews of Timothy's supposed Episcopacy Lastlie Where he affirms that ordination and jurisdiction were no proper worke of ane Evangelist but preaching and spreading the Gospell 1. I urge him thus if preaching and spreading the gospel was the characteristick of the Evangelist He must mean it in a more extensive way then ordinary Pastours if he speak sense then sure he cannot deny but that Timothy thus preached and spread the gospel as the Apostles Coajutor in many Churches as is cleared above Whence it followes by his own Confession 1. That Timothy's office was extraordinary and is ceased for he affirmes that the office of ane Evangelist whom he calls extraordinary was to cease in the Church 2. That he had no Episcopall authority in ordination and jurisdiction He being ane Evangelist in a sense beyond any ordinary preacher and upon the other hand ordination and jurisdiction by his confession not being his proper worke who is ane Evangilist So that Pauls calling him ane Evangelist must lay him by from being a Prelat and consequently all the Informers pleading from his supposed power in ordination and jurisdiction in the 1. Epistle written to him is frivolous and vaine For in his sense he could not Act both the worke of evangelist and Prelat these being according to his pleading inconsistent But nixt the wonder is how this man comes to divide preaching and spreading of the gospell from the power of ordination jurisdiction since he cannot but acknowledge that the Apostles did both these and affirms that their office was episcopal as we heard above And after he will tell us that Catalogues of Bishops are drawen from the Apostles and by Ierom from marke the Evangelist who was Bishop of Alexandria Then it seems this power in ordination wherein with him the Chief part of my Lord Bishops office lyes was very well consistent with both the Apostles and Evangelists their unfixed inlarged preaching and spreading of the gospell The Apostles unfixed preaching spreading of the gospell sure he will not deny nor can he deny to marke the Evangelists office in the strictest sense he can imagine so that both are with him compatible Thus we see in withstanding the truth hee is still in the briers of Contradictiones The Doubter excepts aganist his reason That philip might be both a deacon and Evangilist To which he answers That by the same Reason Timothie and Titus might be both Bishops and Evangelists I answer 1. We have showen already That philip ceased to be a deacon at Jerusalem when he became ane Evangelist 2. Supposing he were yet the Informers answer and parallel is naught For 1. Philipes becoming ane Evangelist was ane advancement to a higher office holding still ane inferiour which is eminenter included in it as he will grant but making ane Evangelist a Bishop is a degrading of a high extraordinary superiour officer to ane ordinary inferiour 2. As ane Evangilist properly so called his work was to preach and spread the gospel unfixedly as a Bishop his work he will say was ordination and jurisdiction which Two we heard him affirme to be incompatible Besides in separating the power of ordination and jurisdiction from the Evangelistick office he is contradicted by Saravia who in many places mantaines the contrary degrad cap. 1. and Cap. 16. and cap. 23 And here I shall shew our Informer how he hath run cross to his great Master in his glosses upon several of these Texts under debate that it may appear what babellike builders our prelates Advocates are Upon that passage Matth. 20 I finde he is a little more ingenuous then this is Disciple and plainely speakes out what he but mutters exam tract de episc tripl quest 1. pag 70. after he hath repeated that Text with its parallel in Luke he adds Ex his verbis quaero num cuiquam sano videri possit D. Iesum sustulisse aut prohibuisse primatum aut principatum non potius docuisse quid eum deceat qui in Ecclesia primus princeps futurus erat c that is From these Wordes I demand whither any that is sound can judge that the Lord Iesus did take away primaci and principality and did not rather teach what becomes him who was to be first and Prince in the Church and thereafter he tells us that Christ by his own example did shew what sort of primaci it is that the allowes in his Church so that he doth in downright express terms plead for a supreme patriarch or pope representing Christs pritcipality over the Church what harmony this keeps with the judgment of protestant divines upon that passage any may judge The Informers holdes That there was to be no inequality of power among the 12 Apostles although he is not consistent with himself in this as is already observed but Saravia runs so far cross to him in this assertion that he mantaines a primaci of power among them That the Bishops saluted with
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
is not one with himself in it acknowledges that the Lord discharged all inequality and especially a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or primat among the Apoles and therefore why his scoler John censured not likewayes a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or primacy affecting Minister seeking the same principality over his Brethren or fellow Ministers which our Lord discharged among the Disciples will puzell him to shew the disparity Surely when our Lord said It shall not be so among you and when he discharged a protos or Chief among the Disciples recomending to the desirer of this to be their servant over whom this was affected he spoke to them as Ministers and in that capacitie and therefore discharges this among all Ministers For aquatenus ad omne I wonder if this man will say that if any of the Seventy Disciples had affected to be a protos over the rest our Lord would not have given them the same injunction Or if he will say that they did not hold themselves concerned in the same rule and the prohibition which the Disciples here got Surely he cannot deny this and therfore it is Certan that John discharhes the very protos or prostacy self for what reason will it he invent wherefor a preeminence or primacy should be disgarged to the Apostles and allowed among the Seventy who he thinks represents the Pastours or any Inferiour order of Church officers Besides what was it which Peter discharged to these Bishops 1 Pet. 5. Was it not a preeminence or masterly primacy and to be a protos learned he not this prohibition of his Lord and will it not be a Critical distinction to distinguish lordship from preeminence Now the first we find universally discharged to Pastours even over the flockâ—… as this man acknowledges and therefore why this preeminence is not likwise in it self and simply stricken against will be Impossible to shew the disparity I must presume that the Apostle understood the sence of this prohibition of his Lord much better then our Informer and we see he applyes to inferiour Pastours and Bishops that which was discharged to himself and the rest of his fellow disciples And as I said befor if none of these scripture-Bishops were to lord it over the flock farr less over their fellowes So that to be a protos or Chief over them was inhibit as by the lord befor so by the Apostle here and consequently this lover of preeminence is simply condemned The Inglish Annot make the two places of Peter John parallel the same evill to be discharged in both So doe the dutch annot expressing that which diotrephes sought in the Apostle Peters terms of lording it over his brethren Now I hope he will not say that when Peter discharges Ministers to be lords over Gods Heritage he discharged only ane ambitious affectation and Supposed a laâ—…ll Lordship over the flockâ—… abstracting from this ambitious affectation Surely then this Prohibition of the Apostle Iohn where Diotrephes is supposed to be practising what is by Peter discharged can admit of no such evasion either unless he would make these Apostles to interfer together in this matter for it were strange clashing of weapones and contradiction of the tongues and pens of these Apostles if Peter should discharge all Lording even over the flocks in any Pastour and yet Iohn should allow unto a Pastour a preeminence and primacy both over the flocks and his fellow Ministers and labourers with him in the Lords vineyeard Infine If to be a primat or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a lawfull office to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or lover of it which is all that the word will Import could deserve no censure The Informer knowes who said He that desires the office of a Bishop desires a good work but our Lord who spoke this by the pen of Paul said also himself immediatly to the Apostles by the Apostle Iohn in this place he that desires to be a protos or Chief must quite that desire Hence these are different objects of desire to be a scripture Bishop and a protos or primat To affect the office of a scriptur Bishop and a primacy are Antipods so that it was not a lawfull nor consequently praeexistent office in the Church allowed by Iohn which this man desired and therefore he is simply condemned by the Apostle both as to the desire it self and the object of it Hee who thus affects to be first deserves to be called least in the Kingdome of God and who thus exalt themselves shall be abased To all which I might add that diotrephes Imperious lordly carriage in casting out and censureing and not admitting into this Church such as the Apostle appointed to be therein receaved is a lively effigies of anâ—… Episcopal primacy or preeminence and of that arbitrary prelacy that sole power in ordination and censures which this Informer pleads for Against which disorderlines of this early primat the Apostles threatning of his holy censure is a thunder-clapp which may terrifie all who carry this usurped office and may make his Supposed Angels or Prelats for this their aspyreing fear the stroake and punishment of those Angels who keeped not their first estate but left their own habitation I shall dimiss the Informers last argument with one remarke further which is this if the affecting to be a protos or Chief tainted the Apostles themselves while the Christian Church was in its first Infancy if in Pauls time the mistery of Iniquity and of propry was working the monstrous embrio of a papacy and consequently of a Prelacy If peter found it needfull to disscharge Covetousnes and lordship to ministers If the holy Apostle John was contradicted and counteracted by ane aspiring primat Surely we need not wonder at that universal Change of the Apostolick Holy humble Church Disciplin and parity among Ministers which overspread the Christian Church not long therafter And to our prelatists ordinary question When began the Change of preshyterian parity among Ministes Wee may answer That the bitter â—…ootes of a Primacy or prelacy were sprouting in the Apostles times and therefore it is no strange thing that this destroying weed grew up so quickly thereafter the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or evill one did quickly sow his Cocle among the wheat and blew up this fire of ambition primacy pride and his own proper sin till it came to the flam first of a human proftasie then of a Hierarchy and unto the Culmen or tope of a chief universal primacy at last For that which he adds of Blondel his granting That diotrephes sought to be first Presbyter such a president as had authority over the rest Surely none who haâ—…e read Blondel can but acknowledge that he distinguishes all along the Presbyters set over others from the Episcopus divine jure institutus So in his 1 2 3. and 4t Arguments page 190 191 192 193 c. So that he maks the very constant fixed president much more
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
affectation of primacy began in the Apostles owne time and therefore we need not wonder that it spread shortly thereafter Ierome tells us that this change was Paulatim by degrees and upon specious pretences of order and union and therefore it is no wonder that this monster in its nature and dreadfull effects was not seen at first His 4t Reason is That Ierom makes this change to have been for remedy of Schism and it is absurd to say that the Government of the Apostles was lyable to this evil But this inconvenience is salved if we say that the Apostles for preventing Schisme which parity breeds set up Bishops over Presbyters Ans. 1. To begin at his last part he eschews not this inconvenienc himself for he makes the Apostles to have Governed the first Curches Episcopaly keeping the Episcopall reyns of Government stil in their owne hand in Ieroms sense till their absene and Schism procured that change which Ierom speaks of So that with him the root of Schism was sown in that Church which they Governed Episcopally the Presbyters with him ab initio yea first or last not haveing a power of ordination and jurisdiction and he maks jerome to reflect upon the Apostles as if they had bettered Christs appointment as to Government I pray him how grew up the Corinth Scism while Paul acted the Bishop over that Church as he and the rest of hisparty doe plead The men of his way say that the Apostles keept the reyns of Government in their own hand until they were about to die before wich time there were schimes in their Churches Did not the Apostles foresee this and if the Apostolick Episcapacy was by lyable to schismes much more that of their substituts 2. It is too gross ane Inferenc to say that Because Ierome holdes that for preventing schismes which were at that time the Government was changed therefore Ierome charges it upon the Apostles Government he may as well say that a mans asserting Corruptions to be in the Church will infer his imputing them to the ordinances Was there nor discord among the disciples under Christs own immediat Government but did that reflect upon his Holy Government that this recorded Did not Paul and Barnabas divid part asunder but did Luke in relating this Charge it upon the holy Apostolick Government 3. The absurd reflexion upon the Apostles Government which he speaks of lyes upon his party and these who first brought in and now after its evil effects are discovered uphold this hierarchy which is so crosse to the Apostolick parity Ierom sayes they brought in this imparity for remedy of schisme but leaves the charge of reflecting upon the Apostolick government upon the Authores of this innovation and upon its promoters still it mustly His 5t Reason is That Ierom in his writtings derives Episcopacy as high as from the Apostles making Iames Bishop of Ierusalem Titus of Crete Mark of Alexandria and Bishops Presbyters and Deacons to be that which Aaron and the levites were in the old Testament Then he adds that if we make him contradict himself it must be with advantage to Bishops Ans. Wee have heard already that it is past doubt with many godly learned that the Fathers used the terme Bishop in a various and general sense and spoke of the Apostles and of extraordinary officers after the mode and custome of their own times wherein these offices and designations were prevalent It is this Informer who puts a contradiction upon Ierome while he maks him assert Episcopacy to be set up by the Apostles upon occasion of the Corinth Schism in contradiction to his Scriptur proofes of the parity of Bishop and Presbyter from the Apostles doctrine and brings him in here as asserting the Apostles to have been formaly Bishops from the begining Wheras our answer hath none of these inconveniences and tho it were granted that it is the true Ierome who asserts this of the Apostlés which we put this Informer to prove yet we accommodat this with his other doctrine by what is said of the aequivocall sense of the word Aaron and the Levits authority might in Ieroms judgement be as to Church government in general derived in the nâ—…w Testament and also as to a distinction of Church officers therein But if he should alledge that Ierom assimilats here the one government and the other he will mak him plead for a gospell Aaron and pope In a word Ieroms judgement as to the divine right of Presbyterian parity being so clear and by him founded upon the Apostles writings ought to preponderat any other general or ambiguous expressions anent Bishops and as a rule to expound the same in the sense most suitable unto this his judgement especialy since the Fathers usage of speech as to Bishops is thus general and ambiguous as is said But the Doubter objects to purpose That Ierom letts the Bishops know that they have their power more by Custom then by divine right To this the Informer repones his recocted crambe againe viz Ierom speaks of the power which Bishops in his time were invested with beyond the first Bishops And that Ierom in that same Epistle expones Consuetudo or Custom by Apostolical tradition That if we understand him of Consuetudo or custom after the Apostles this will fastten upon him a contradiction That he sayes of the first Bishops who governed by commoune Council with the Presbyters that they differed onely from them in ordination but of these in his owne time ad unum omnis cura delata the wole charge was put upon one Ans. As for this conceit of Ieromes distinguishing here onely Bishops of his own time from these of the Apostles time we have confuted it already and shown its absurdity and that it is most crosse to Ieroms scope and words who proves a compleat parity among Ministers and ane identity of Bishop and Presbyter in Name and thing all alongst the Apostles times and writings even to Iohn the surviver of all the Apostles So that it is most absurd to fancy him to speak of Bishops in the Apostles timet The Informer offers but a gross distortion of his words for he sayes of the Bishop who differed only in ordination from Presbyters quid facit what doth the Bishop except ordination c in the present time but of these who have all the Care he sayes Paulatim ad unum cura delata the wholl care was put upon one in the preterit time pointing out these who came in upon that schism which with the Informer was in the Apostles time The objection tells him that Ierom applyes the Bishops mould whom this man calls first Bishops to his owne time when he sayes what doth the Bishop except ordination c And haveing proved Bishopes and Presbyters to be all one he sayes Sciant that is let the present Bishops know that they have their power more by Custom then divine appointment 2. As for Ieroms expounding Consuetudo or Custome by
call from Christ to preach in his name and so were not to be discharged by any power on earth Ans. 1. That the Apostles answer suites our case will be apparent when it s considered that our answer and Apology which we offer to our adversaries who do now accuse and persecute us upon this ground is one with theirs their grounds in their answer compared with the context are that they are Christs Ministers and witnesses employed about the great gospel message cloathed with his authority and under the obligation of Christs commands lying upon them Now will not this quadrat with our case as to the substance of this answer dare he say that the Magistrats Laws can exauctorat a Minister of the gospel or take away that ministerial authority which he received from Christ might not thus the ministry be put out of the world Dare he deny that he is a minister still notwithstanding of the Laws restraint and standing under a ministerial Relation to the Church as the Apostles were and under commands and obligations consequently in order to the exercise of the ministry can the Rulers meer prohibition loose either ministers their relation pastoral or the obligations flowing therefrom 2. Altho the call of the Apostles was immediat and extraordinary yet this will not prove that their answer will not suite the ordinary and mediat call in such a case as theirs when a minister is under a legal prohibition to preach for first we do not find that the Apostles did plead their extraordinary or immediat call mainly or only if at all in this case but their ministerial gospel call and message quatalis the authority of the one and the weight and importance of the other in relation to all Ministers are constant moral grounds bearing the conclusion of the same duty and apology as to them since the substance of this Apostolick apology lyes in this that they were Christs Ministers cloathed with his commission to preach the gospel which any faithfull Minister may plead in such a case 2. Tho their call was immediat and extraordinary upon which ground they were singularly out of the reach of the Rulers restraint as to their ministry yet they were so likewise as Christs messengers and ministers simply in a general sense for majus 〈◊〉 minus c. 3. As the Apostles had their power immediatly from Christ and not from the Rulers which is the great ground why they could not be Lawfully prohibit to preach and would not submit their ministerial authority its acts and exercise to the Rulers disposal especially the gospel-message being of so great importance so there is derived from them a ministerial authority in the Church independent in its nature and exercise upon the magistrat as theirs was tho the Apostles as I said had singular prerogatives beyond ordinary ministers and in that respect were singularly beyond the reach of their restaint Now this authority was exercised by the Church renitente Magistratu for several generations upon the same ground of this independent spiritual power and the weight of the gospel-message which the Apostles did here plead The Informer answers aly that this prohibition tended to the absolute supressing of the gospel and there was then no other way for propagating it through the world but by their preaching but now tho some be silenced others are allowed to preach Ans. 1. This piece of the apology for not obeying the Rulers mandat is of his bold putting in but nothing of it is in the text viz. that there were no others to preach the gospel but they Their Apology as I said is drawn from their authority and message simply 2 I ask him could any one of the Apostles have submitted to this prohibition upon an insinuation or assurance that the Magistrat would not hinder others to promote the gospel if they could not then he must grant that this anwer is naught that the Apostles refused because the prohibition tended to suppress the gospel For the gospel was preacht and propagat though one of them was a little after taken oft the stage if he say that any one or more of the Apostles would have submitted to the prohibition upon thir terms then 1. He contradicts his first answer that their extraordinary immediat call could not be discharged by any power on earth and 2. He charges them with unfaithfulness to Christ in laying up his talents and laying by his work upon mens command not to preach Sure Christs command and commission tyed all his Apostles conjunctly and severally Paul said too to me if I preach not the gospel and one Apostles diligence could not loose the obligation of the other and excuse his negligence 3. We have proved that there is no warrand from God for Rulers their immediat arbitrary discharging Christs Ambassadours to officiat and consequently faithfull Ministers are not obliged to obeye And upon the same ground that one apostle could not warrantably suffer the Magistrat to impose a silence upon him be cause others were permitted to preach It s unlawfull for ordinary Ministers to be silent because others are preaching and much more when those who are preaching are declaring themselves unfaithfull and destroying but not feeding So that our Informer doth but mock God if not blaspheme while blessing him that authority is opposit to our disorders not to the gospel The Doubter next asks him if the King and Laws can silence a Minister that he shall not preach the gospel He should have added by his own proper elicite acts as King or Magistrat or formally and immediatly But this man must still shrewd himself in the mist and clouds of deceitful generals and mould our arguments in his own disguise that his simple evasions may appear answers Well what sayes he to this doubt His answer is I ommit his insignificant reflection that Solomon thrust out Abiathar from the priesthood 1 Kings 2. 27. which was a restraining his priestly power as to its actual exercise to which he was bound to submit so a King may discharge a Minister to exercise his Ministry within his dominions which he must not counteract suppose he think the King and law wrongs him especially when others do preach tho he be silent Ans. This reason and instance is a baculo ad angulum Solomon punisht Abiathar civilly for a capital treasonable crime which deserved death telling him as the text saith that he was a man of death or one who deserved capital punishment according to the nature of the hebrew phrase which sentence of death Solomon upon the grounds mentioned in that passage did change into a sentence of banishment and by this civil punishment did consequenter put him from the exercise of his priestly office which he could not in that case perform Ergo he formally and immediatly deposed him and the civil magistrat may so immediatly and formally depose ministers this is a consequence utterly unknown to all rules of Logick or solid divinity The Instance
solemnlie consecrat by their fellowes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to their new episcopall order In a word we heard from Cassander that the Canonists and Theologues who dispute this Question doe both accord that as to a jus divinum or divine right there is no difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter either in order or degree And so though it were granted which yet the Informer himself dare not positively assert that the Fathers tossed this question it will nothing help him nor prejudge Mr Durhams quotation which speaks of a jus divinum As for what he adds That the Fathers cited by Medina might hold the same notion Let him hear how Bellarmin no friend to Presbyterian Government represents his assertion de Cler. Cap 15. Michael Medina lib. 1. De sacrorum hominum origine eminentia Cap. 5. Affirmat sanctum Hieronimum idem omnino cum Aerianis sensisse neque solum Hieronimum in ea haeresi fuisse sed etiam Ambrosium Sedulium Primasium Chrysostomum Theodoretum Oecumenium Theophylactum atque ita inquit Medina isti viri alioqui Sanctissimi Sacrarum Scripturarum consultissimi quorum tamen sententiam prius in Aerio deinde in Waldensibus postremo in Joanne Wickleffo damnavit ecclesia That is Michael Medina in the first book concerning the originall and eminencie of sacred men 5. Chap. Affirms that St Jerome was every way of the same judgment with the Aerians And that not only Jerome was in that Heresie But also Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostom Theodoret Oecomenius and Theophylact And thus saith Medina these men otherwayes most godly and most expert in the holie Scrptures whose judgment notwithstanding the Church condemned first in Aerius Next in the Waldeneses And lastly in Iohn Wickleff Let our Informer note here 1. That it is beyond debate with Bellarmin that with Medina at least all these Fathers were Aerians 2. That his holy Catholick Church of Rome is the grand condemner of this Heresie 3. That this is one of the Heresies of the old Waldenses these famous witnesses against Antichrist And of John Wickleff and such like eminent reformers Afterward he adds That in Jerome and these Greek Fathers that opinion was of old dissembled out of reverence to them But contrarily in the Hereticks alwayes condemned So we see the Presbyterian Principles are with him one of the Heresies of Protestants Peter Swav in the History of the Council of Trent pag. 664. edit Francfort relates That when the Authoritie of Ierom and Augustin was brought to prove episcopacie to be but ane Ecclesiastick constitution Michael Medina answered That it was no wonder that Jerom Augustin and others of the Fathers fell into that heresie not having throughly searched the matter that he maintained pro virili this to be their opinion Finallie to make these Fathers one with themselves whom this man enforceth in his next passages cited page 71 72. Anent the derivation of Episcopacie from the Apostles and higher to speak palpable contradictions we must say with Whittaker that they call the Apostles so because they did that upon the matter which Bishops then did And because their power quadam similitudine or by a certain similitude or likenesse as Junius expresseth it was like to that of these extraordinarie Church officers whom notwithstanding they could not succeed in the same office nor could these Fathers think so upon the grounds formerly mentioned Tilen in his Specul Antichr ortum aperiens Aphoris 88. Tells us that episcopos Presbyteros re nomine eosdem fuisse non Hieronimus solum in 1. Tim. 3. Sed etiam scriptura perspicue docet Tit. 1. Act. 20. Phil. 1. Proinde humani instituti sive positivi ut vocant juris est illa sub diversis nominibus munerum distinctio That Bishops and Presbyters were the same in name and thing or office Not only Jerome on 1. Tim. 3. But the Scripture also doth evidently teach Tit. 1. Act. 20. Phil. 1. And therefore that distinction of the offices under diverse names is of human institution as they call it or of positive right A fitt looking-glasse this had no doubt been to the same Tilen when he wrote his paraenesis and changed his note And likwise it is a fitt looking glasse for this Informer CHAP. XVI The harmonius consent of ancient Fathers Modern divines and confessions of Reformed Churches for Presbyterian Government in all its essentiall points of difference from Prelacie is exhibit IT is clear that Presbyterian Government the pure ancient and genuine Government of this Church in every essentiall ingredient of it as it stands in opposition to prelacie is approved by such a consent of antiquity and modern diuines that it would take up almost as much roome as this Informers pamphlet to reckon up their names That we may present them in 〈◊〉 compendious view take it thus 1. That jure divino there is no difference betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter hath a very large consent of antiquitie collected by many of the learned whose testimonies we may see in Bishop Jewel against Hardin edit Ann. 1570. p. 243. And Reynolds in the forementioned Epistle at large cited Petries Hist. part 3. p 469 470 471. Where there is exhibit a full consent both of the Greek and Latin Fathers for this point of truth The Doctor in his conference with Hart holds That the president chosen out at first to moderat is be whom afterwards the Fathers called Bishop and that the name Bishop common to all Ministers was by them thus appropriat to this president Next for modern writers the same Dr Reynolds tells us in the formentioned Epistle that those who have laboured about the reforming of the Church these 500 Years have taught that all Pastours be they intituled Bishops or Priests have equall authoritie and power by Gods word Citing the Waldenses in Aen. Silv. hift of Bohem. Chap. 35. Pich Hierarch Ecclesiast lib. 2. Cap 10. Marsil Patavin Defens pacis part 2. Cap. 15. Wickleff in Thom. Waldens Doct. Fil. Tom. 1. lib 2. Cap 60. and Tom 2. cap 7. And his Schollers Husse and the Hussits Aeneas Silvius Loccit Luther Advers falso nomin Scot Epise adversus Papat Rom. Calv. in Epist. ad Phil. Tit. 1. Erentius Apolog. Confess Wittenberg Cap. 21 Bulinger Decad. 5. Serm 3. Musculus Loc. Com Tit de Ministerio Verbi Then he adds Jewel Pilkington Dr. Humphrey in Campian Duraeum Jesuit Part. 2. Raâ—… 3. Whittak ad rationes Campian 6. Confut Durae lik 6. Mr Bradfoord Lambert Fox Act. Mon. Fulk Ansr. to the Rhemeflits To these may be added Cartwright against the Rhemists Bishop Bilson himself against Seminartes lib. 1. p 318. Bishop Morton in his Catholick Apologie Part. 1. Cap. 33. Erasmus upon 1 Tim. 4. To which add that in the Oâ—…cumenick Counâ—…les of Constance Basile it was concluded that Presbyters should have decisive suffrage in Councils as well as Bishops because that by the Law of God Bishops were not greater then