opposition to prelacy So the Confession of the French Church Credimus veram Ecclesiam c We believe that the true Church ought to be governed by that policy which Christ hath ordained viz that there be Pastours Presbyters or Elders and Deacons And again we believe that all true pastours wherever they be are endued with equal and the same power under one head and Bishop Christ Iesus which strikes our Diocesian and Erastian frame of government starke dead Which is seconded thus by the Belgick Confess Art 30. All Christs Ministers of the word of God have the same and equal power and authority as being all Ministers of that only universall head and Bishop Christ. To thesewe might adde many other Testimonies of reformed divines as Calvin Piscator Marlâ—…rat on 1. Tim 4. 14. Tit. 1. 3. Zanch. de Statu Pâ—…ccat and Legal in 4tum praecep Chemnitius Loc. Com. Part. 3. de Eccles. Cap. 4. Exam. Concil Trid. part 2. de Sacram. ordinis pag. 224 225. proving also that Election and vocation of Ministers belongs to the whole Church Antonius Sadael Resp. ad repetita Turriani Sophismata par 2. loâ—… 12. Beza de divers Ministrorum gradibus Iunius Controv. 5. l. c 3. N 3. Chamierus Panstratia Cathol Tom 2. de Occum Pontis Cap 6. A 3d. Great point of Presbyterian Government in opposition to prelacie is the peoples interest in the election and call of Ministers And for this there is as full a consent of divines and Churches both ancient and Modern Severall of the forementioned Confessions clears this the peoples election and call being taken in together with Presbyters ordination Cyprian Epist. 68. is full to this purpose Plebs ipsa maxime habet potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi quod ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere ut Sacerdos sub omnium oculis plebe presente deligatur dignus atque idoneus publicâ—… judicio ac Testimonio comprobetur That is The people themselves have Chiefly the power either of Electing worthy priests or refusing the unworthy which mater we see even of it self to descend from the divine authority that the priest be set apart under the eyes of all in the peoples presence and as worthy and qualified be approved by a publick judgment and Testimony So lib 1. Epist 4. is full for the Churches libertie and right in elections The 4t Council of Carthage Can. 22. Requires to the admission of every Clergy man civium assensum testimonium convenientiam The consent of the citzens their testimonie and agreement Socrat l. 4. c. 25. sayes that Ambrose was chosen Bishop of Millan by the uniform voice of the Church In the pretended Apostolick but truely old constitutions of Clement lib. 8. cap. 4. The Bishop who must be ordained is appointed in all things to be unblameable chosen by all the people unto whom let the people being assembled on the Lords day N. B. with the Presbytery and the Bishops there present give their consent And a Bishop askes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbytery the peopleâ—… if they desire such a man to be set over them The Helvetick confession told us that the right choosing of Ministers is by consent of the Church So the Belgick confession tells us that Ministers Elders and Deacons are to be advanced to their office by the lawfull election of the Church Greg. Nazian orat 31. commends Athanasius his calling as being after the Apostolical example 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the suffrage of all the people Blondel clears this from a large consent of antiquitie page 379. to 473. And this is cleared also by a large consent of protestant divines Luther de potest Papae Calvin on Act. 6 3. Beza confess Cap. 5. Art 35. Musculus in Loc. com Zanch. on 4t com Junius Animadvers on Bellarm Controv. 5. l. c. 7. Cartwright on Act. 14. v. 23. Wallaeus Bullinger Wittaker See Mr Gilesp Misc. quest pag 18 19. Our first book of Discipline appoints to the people their votes and suffrage in election of Ministers in the 4t head And the 2d book Cap 3. discharges any to intrude contrary to the will of the congregation or without the voice of the eldership A 4t Essential point of Presbyterian Government in opposition to Prelacie is in relation to the office of the ruleing elder as appointed by Christ. This we cleared from Scripture and there is as cleare a consent of antiquitie for it and of modern reformed Churches and divines exhibited by our writers For this Ignatius Epist ad Trallianos ad initium pag. 66. edit oxon An. 1644. is cited Likewise Baronius in his Annals Anno 103. in the Gesta purgationis Caeciliani Felicis Tertul. Apolog. Advers gentes Cap. 39. Origen ontra Celsum lib. 3. Cyprian Epist. 36. Optatus lib. 1. pag. 41. edit paris An. 1631. Ambrose comment on 1 Tim. 5 1. And for modern writers Whittaker contra Duraeum lib 9. Sect. 47. Thorndicks discourse of religious assemblies cap. 4. pag. 117. Rivet Cathol Orthodox Tract 2. quest 22 Sect. 4 Finally Presbyterian Government as it stands in opposition to the present Prelacie in its Erastian mould and maintaines a spirituall authoritie in the hands of Church officers distinct from and independent upon the civill powers of the world hath as full a consent of the learned As Erastianism was first hatched by Thomas Erastus Physician in Heidleberg about the year 1568. And much catched up and pleaded for by Arminians since so it hath been impugned by a full consent of reformed divines who have fully proved it to be contrary to the rules of Church Government set down in the Scripture both in the old and new Testament and utterly eversive of the Gospel Ministrie and Church The eminent divines who have written against it are Beza who encounters with Erastus himself upon this point Zachriasursin Wallaeus Helmichius Triglandus Dr Revius Dr Voetius Appollonius and many others Especially the famous and learned Mr Gillespy in that elaborat peice entituled Aarons rod blossoming wherein the consent of the ancient and modern Church as to this great point of truth is exhibit See 2. book 1 Cap. pâ—…g 167. Now from all that is said Whither Presbyterian Government hath not the patronage of the purest Scripture antiquity and a full consent of the after purer times and of reformed Churches and divines in all the forementioned points of its opposition to the Prelacie now established Both in holding 1. The identity of Bishop and Presbyter as to name and things 2. Presbyters right of ordination and Jurisdiction 3. The peoples interest in the Election and call o. Ministers 4. The ruleing Elders office 5. The Churches intrinsick power of Government I leave to the Impartiall to judge And consequently of the vanity of this new Dialoguist His pleading upon this point A Confutation Of the Second DIALOGUE Anent the Covenants Against EPISCOPACIE Wherein the Informers reasonings against the
civill offices of Ministers page 63 64. The Informers endeavours to bring in the Diocesian Bishop under that command of decency and order as lawfull though not commanded and necessary That the Bishop cannot he warranted on this ground but must as a supposed Church officer instruct his institution and mission from Scripture cleared from several Scripture grounds and the acknowledgment of some adversaries page 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73. Chap. 8. page 73. misprinted Chap. 9. The Informer undertakes to answer the Arguments of Presbyterians against Episcopacy his answers to our Arguments from Matth. 22 25 26. Wherin having misrepresented it he is notwithstanding forced to embrace the evasions of Papists falls in diverse inconsistencies and walks crosse to the sence of sound divines upon this Text Yea of some of the ancients which cleard at large page 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82. his answer to our Argument from 1 Pet. 5 3. Wherein he also offers violence to the text and joines issue with the Papists his evasions examined and this Text as also the preceding Improven against him page 84 85 86 87 88. Chap. 9. misprinted Chap. 10. page 88. The Informers Answers to our Argument from acts 20. and Titus 1 5 7. These Texts emproven against him and his answers fully examined page 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96. His answers to our Argument from Philip. 1 1. His absurd and inconsistent shifts discovered and confuted page 98 99 100 101 102. Arnoldus and Chamier do classe him with the Papists in his answers to this text he walks crosse to the Dutch and English Annotations and to Calvin page 103 104 105. His answers to our Argument from Ephes. 4 〈◊〉 Examined page 106 107 108. Chap. 10. misprinted Chap. 12. page 109. The Informer offers Scripture warrand for Bishops His Argument from the Government of the Church under the old Testament the subordination of the Priests and Levites The remoteness and absurdity of his consequence anent the lawfulnesse of the present diocesian Erastian Prelats office asit is deduced from this principle discovered several wayes page 110 111 112. That there is no image of our Prelacy in the Jewish Church Government cleared The Informer walks crosse to Iunius yea Bishop Bilson himself and in the series of his reasoning introduces a pope into the Christian Church page 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120. His Argument from the Apostles superiority to the 70 disciples examined He begs the question in supposing Prelats to succeed the Apostles immediately and Pastors the 70 Disciples and from a superiority among officers of different kindes groundlesly concludes a superiority among officers of the same kind No Image of our prelacy in the Apostles superiority over other Church officers page 121 122 123 124 125 126. Chap. 11. misprinted Chap. 10. page 127. The Informers great Argument for Prelacy from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus Their Episcopall office disproved from the office of Evangelist ascribed expresly to the one and by good consequence to the other from many circumstances of the sacred text and the judgment of interpreters page 128 129 misprinted 127 130 misprinted 128 131. misprinted 129. The Informers answers anent the strict and large sense of an Evangelist his reasons of deny 〈◊〉 to Timothy the Evangelistick office in a strict sense 〈◊〉 amined and found inconsistent with themselves aâ—… contrare to Scripture 132 misprinted 130 13â—… misprinted 131 134 misprinted 132 135 misprinted 133 136 misprinted 134 137 misprinted 135 138 misprinted 136 he denies the poweâ—… in ordination and Jurisdiction to be the proper work of an Evangelist How absurdly and inconsistently page 139 140 misprinted 137 138 his contradiction to Saravia discovered in severall points page 141 142 misprinted 139 140 143 misprinted 151 His answer to the Doubters Argument anent Timotheus his not being fixed at Ephesus but occasionally left there examined as also his answer to that Exception of the Doubter anent Pauls giving the Episcopal charge to the elders of Ephesus not to Timothy our Informer pityfully bruilied with this Text page 144 145 146 147 148 misprinted 142 143 144 145 146 he walks crosse to Bishop Hal Dounham and Hooker to Chrysostome Jerome Theodorus His grounds upon which he pleads for Timothy and Titus their Episcopal power particularly examined the first taken from Pauls giving direction to Timothy and Titus how to cary in ordination and Iurisdiction generally examined page 149 150 misprinted 146 147 his arguing from these directions particularly examined anent their not laying on of hands suddenly anent rebuke and censures page 151 152 misprinted 148 149 the Informers next Argument from the concernment of after ages in these rulers That neither this nor the adressing of these rulers to the Evangelists will affoord any help unto him cleared The London Ministers vindicat That Timothy and Titus power at Ephesus and Crete was not voided after some elders were ordained there a sandy foundation to support their Episcopacy The Informer is pityfully in the bryars in answering his Doubâ—…ers exception anent Timothies ordination by the laying on 〈◊〉 the hands of the Presbytery The practice of after ages a ground to support the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169. misprinted 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166. Chap. 12. misprinted Chap. 11. according to the misprinted Method which shall be followed hereafter except in some few pages page 167. The Informers pleadings for Prelacy from the seven Asian Angells discussed That the stile of prophetick writings and of this book do strongly conclude a collectivesense in the term Angel proved by several Arguments page 168 169 170. Whatever he can alledge is the Characteristick of this angel proved to be in Scripture apropriat to Ministers page 171. Many divines ancient and modern for the collective sense of the Word Angel yea some episcopal men themselves page 172 173. The admitting of the Angel to be one single person will nothing help the Informer page 173 174. His answer to the exception from Rev. 2 24. examined Ibid. His Argument from the pretended Testimonies of the ancients and the Catalogues of succeeding Bishops examined Page 175 176 177 178. The addressing of the Epistle to the Angel Will not help him as neither Doctor Reynolds nor Beza their taking the Angel for a single person Page 178 179 180 181 The Informers new Argument for prelacy taken for Diotrephes his love of preheminence wherein he embraces Bellarmines evasions and offers violence to this and parallel texts page 181 182 183 184 185 186 187. Chap 13. misprinted Chap. 12. page 187. The Informers appeal to Antiquity in the point of Episcopacy That Antiquity is not the Judge in this debate although he could instruct the matter of fact proved Page 188 189 190 191. The Scripture even by the Confession of the Fathers the only
do destroy that distinctione Mr Gillespie Eng Pop Cerem Ames Consc Lib 5. Cap. 11. Mr Durham on Scandal part 3. Chap 1 discover the futility of his doctrine on this head page 139 140 141 142 143 144. The Doubters Argument for presbyterian Ministers preaching in the manner contraverted taken from Christ and his Apostles preaching in the fields and houses The Informers general answer anent Christs not separating people from the Synagogue weighed and found frivolous page 145 146 147. Some special reasons wherefore our Lord did not separate the people from the Synagogue ibid. The special grounds of our Lords practice offred by him to enervat our Argument considered and Answered Such as his bringing in the doctrine of the Gospell as the Messiah his being head of the whole Church page 148 149 150 151. What actions of our Lord were mitable Rules hereanent allowed by sound divines applyed to the case and practice controverted That the law allowes the gospell to be preached purely and faithfully by some though granted to the Informer will help him nothing ibid. The Informers answers and exceptions to our argument from Acts 14 19. examined His answer from the Apostles extraordinary callfrilous as also from the tendency of the rulers prohibition to silence gospell page 152 153 154 155. His reasoning upon Solomons thrusting out Abiathar from the priesthood examined as also his citation of Bezaes letter to the Non-Conformists in England Page 156 157. Chap 6. page 159. The nature of Presbyterian Ministers relation to this Church and their call to officiate therein vindicat from the Informers simple cavils Mr Rutherfoord and Mr Durhames acknowledgement that a Minister isnotmade a Catholick Minister of the Catholick Church but by his ordination restricted to a flock will not help the Informer which is cleard in six points page 159 160 161 162 His Dilemma which he offers to us viz. that our call to preach is either ordinary or extraorninary answered retorted upon him His Cavills in relationall to the Acts of Councils condemning this encroachment as he calls it and the Doctors of Aberdeen their charging Presbyterian Ministers therewith repelled ibid. His charge anent our ordaining others to perpetuat our Schisme a manifest groundlesse calumny page 163 164. His passage cited out of Mr Baxters preface to the cure of Church divisions answered page 165 as also his 5 healing advices to his half-proselyted Doubter page 65 166 167 168 169 170. Mr Baxters rules in his cure of Church divisions which he after commends unto us shortly viewed their impertinency to his purpose discovered page 171 172 173. 174. his testimonies out of the jus divinum Ministerii anglicani and of Mr Rutherfoord in his due right of Presbytery anent unwarrantable separation in sufficient to bear the weight of his conclusion The difference between the case they speake to and our case cleared in 4. Considerations page 175 176 177. His citations from the first author particularly considered and their insufficiency to bear the weight of his conclusion discovered page 178 179 180 181 The citations of Mr Rutherford particularly examined in so faâ—… relating to his scope page 182 183 184 185 186 187. In his citations from both these authors and arguing therefrom he is found inconsistent with himself to walk upon groundlesse suppositions and lyable to a manifest retorsion ibid. The Informer drawes out no conclusion upon these citations save this general one at the close viz That real much lesse supposed corruptions in the Worship or administrators will not warrand separation The impertinency of this position to help him cleard ibid. He pleads for retractions and presents at the close a character of Schisme which is retorted against him page 187 188. Chap 7. misprinted Chap 6. page 189. Animadversions upon the Informers preface and title page prefixed to this Pamphlet He pretendes conscience a design of union in this undertaking how unsoundly discovered page 189 190. 191. His Testimonies out of Zanchy and Blondel to evince their approbation of Prelacy left by him untranslated though he pretends for the advantadge of the English reader to translate all other testimonies answered A Confutation Of the First DIALOGUE Upon the point Of EPISCOPACIE Wherein it is demonstrat that the Episcopacie now existent both in its Diocesian Erastian cutt is contrare to the Scripture to the first and purer Antiquitie the Doctrine and Confessions of Reformed Churches sound Divines And the Informers Reasonings for it from Scripture Antiquitie are weighed and found wanting CHAP. I. That the Prelat now established in this Church is both Diocesian and Erastian cleared The Informer is engaged to defend both A twofold State of the Question propounded accordingly Some Arguments from Scripture against the Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church-officer Such as 1. Perverting the Scriptural term Episcopus commune to all Pastors in appropriating it to a Prelat 2. Making it relate to Pastors which hath the flock for its immediat object 3. Invading nulling the Authority allowed unto Presbyters which is demonstrat at large 4. Impeaching Christs Kingly office as Head of his Church and the perfection of his Word in obtruding ane Officer upon the Church of a different moold from those described and allowed by him THE state of the first Question in the first Conference is whither the Episcopacie now established by Law in Scotland be warranted or condemned by the Word of God For clearing this it must be understood what that Prelacie is which is now existent and which this Author pretends is consonant to Scripture and Antiquitie As to matter of fact it is undenyable 1. That the Parliament 1662. did expresly raze Presbyterian government in all its preexistent Courts Judicatories and Privileges declaring it voide and expired 2. They did Redintegrat the Bishops to their Episcopal function presidencie in the Church power of ordination and censures and all Church discipline to be performed by them with advice only and of such of the Clergie only as they shall find they themselves being judges of knowne Loyaltie and prudence And they redintegrat them to all the pretended Privileges possessed be them in Anno 1637. What time their power was at the greatest height Since of themselves they framed the Book of Canons which doth establish their sole power and dominion over all Church Judicatories razing classical Presbyteries and Parochial Sessions and drew up the Liturgie and Book of Ordination without the least shaddow of advice from this Church Threatning even excommunication against the opposers of that course 3. It is also evident that all this Power and Authoritie of our Prelats is fountained in derived from and referable unto the Supremacie As is evident by the Act restoring Prelacie after the declaration of the Supremacie as his Majesties Commissioners in the exercise of his Ecclesiastick Government and in the administration of all their pretended spiritual Authoritie as accountable to him their Head and supreme Legislator in all
Church matters Hence it is evident that this Author is obliged if he would answer his undertaking in pleading for the present Prelacie not only to evince the warrantablenes of the Diocesian Bishop in all his pretended spiritual power over Church Judicatories But likewaves of the Erastianbishop deriving all his Authoritie from the Civil Magistrat Wee shall then befor wee come to examine his pleading upon this Head offer I. Some Arguments against our Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church-officer and shall shew his office to be contrare to Scripture 2. As ane Erastian Prelat deryving all his spiritual power from the Magistrat I. As a pretended Church officer the Diocesian Bishop is contrare to Scripture in many respects I. In narrowing and restricting the Scripture term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to ane office and officer distinct from and Superior to a Presbyter or Pastor For since the Spirit of God in Scripture appropriats this term to Presbyters and consequentlie the work and office therin imported Tit. 1 5 7. Act. 20 28. 1 Pet. 5 2. 3. Sure it must be ane anti-Scriptural and Sacrilegius robbing of Presbyters of their right and due designation to make this proper and peculiar to a Diocesian Bishop onlie as the Characteristick of his office Episcopal men themselves and this Author particularely doe acknowledge this term to be in Scripture applyed to Presbyters Let them then shew a reason why they have made it peculiar to a Prelat as distinct from Presbyters Or let them shew where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denots such ane officer as they have shappen out viz. A diocesian Prelat having sole power of ordination and jurisdiction over a wholl diocess with a negative voice and a sole decisive suffrage in the Church Judicatories thereof Should they appropriat the term Pastor or Minister to a diocesian Prelat onlie Who would not call this ane Anti-scriptural usurpation of the Presbyters due And why also shall it not be thought such ane usurpation when they appropriat the term Episcopus or Bishop to such a pretended distinct officer Since this term is as much given to Presbyters in Scripture as the terme of Pastor or Minister Judicious Calvin hath some remarkable passages to this purpose in his Comentaries On Tit 1 7. Having observed that Bishops and Presbyters are all one He calls the appropriating of the name Bishop to the Prelat a profane boldnes and ane abrogating of the holy Ghosts language Abrogato Spiritus Sansti sermone usus hominum arbitrio inductus praevaluit nomen officii quod Deus in commune omnibus dederat in unum transferri reliquis spoliatis injurium est absurdum Deinde sic pervertere Spiritus sancti linguam nimis profana audaciae est Act. 20 28. He collects the identitie of the name office of Bishop Presbiter from the elders being called Bishops And having observed the same on Philip. 1. And that after the name Bishop became peculiare to one He adds id tamen ex hominum consuetudine natum est Scripturae autoritate minime nititur Telling us that under this pretext of giving the name to one ane unlawful dominion was brought in But of this againe II. The office hereby designed doth alwayes relate to the Flock and hath them for its immediat object and Correlat as much as the word Pastor The Bishops of Ephesus were made by the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the flock of God whom they were to feed Whereas our supposed Diocesian Episcopus or Bishop His office and inscection relates immediatly to the wholl Pastores of his diocess who are alse much his flock and the object of his oversight care direction correction and censure as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or layetie Peter bids the Episcopountes feed the flock act the Bishops over them But our diocesian Prelat pretends to feed and rule the Pastores themselves The Scripture Bishop is Populi Pastor but the Diocesian Prelat is Pastor Pastorum Presbiter Presbiterorum And therfor is ane Antiscriptural Monster III. The Diocesian Prelat usurpes and takes from Presbiters that authoritie allowed them of God in his Word For both power of ordination and jurisdiction is soly and properlie in the Diocesian Prelat according to Episcopal men and likewise according to our Lawes As we saw above in the act anent Prelacy For according thereto the Prelat is a Superior ordinar Church officer above Presbyters he is sole as to ordination may doe it alone and assumes Presbiters onelie proforma Which no more lessens his Principalitie and Supereminencie in this pointe then a Prince in assumeing Counsellors saith Dounam Def. lib 5 Cap. 7. weakens his princely power and authoritie Presbyters exercise all their Acts of the power of order in a dependance upon him he only is the proper Pastor of the diocess as shall be afterward cleared Presbiters are but his substitutes and helpers They are likwayes Subject to him as their proper Sole judge and censurer by Ecclesiastick censures of suspension deposition excommunication the decisive power in Church judicatories is properlie his For the most unanimous Acts and conclusions of the diocesian Synod falls unders his cognisance to be ratified or Cassat at his pleasure He is the Sine quo non and hath a Negative voice in the judicatories the law allowing his Presbiters only to give him advice Nay and not that either unles he judge them of known layaltie and prudence Now in all these he usurps over Presbiters authoritie allowed them of God For I. Wee find the Scripture atributes the power of order jurisdiction equalie to all Presbiters who have both keys of doctrine discipline given them immediatlie by Christ. In that I. They are command 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5. 28. Act. 20. 2. which comprehends the authoritie and exercise of both the keys of doctrine and discipline 2. In all commands relating to the exercise of this power ther is not the least hint of ane equalitie among them which were very cross to the Lords Scope if the Diocesian Prelats Superioritie were allowed and appointed The Presbiters or Bishops of Ephesus and those of the Churches which Peter writs unto are commanded to feed and rule jointlie equallie and with the same authoritie but non of them in dependance upon and deryving a precarious authoritie from another in feeding and ruleing 3. In all the commands relating to peoples Subjection obedience to Church Rulers in the exercise of their power their is not the least hint of disparitie among these Rulers 1 Thess. 5 12. People are commanded to obey them that labour among them and are over them in the Lord and to esteem them highly And Hebr. 13 17. They are commanded to obey them who have the rule over them and watch for their Soules but nothing of a special degrie of obedience to this supposed highest supereminent watch man is heard of in these or any
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
be found in Scripture this Officer patched up thereof must either be unwarrantable or Christ the Churches head and lawgiver his Lawes and rules in point of Church Government and in relation to the duties gifts ordination and work of Church Officers are not full and perfect but mank and deficient as to such ane eminent Church Officer And where is then the perfection of his word and Testament to make not only the ordinarie Christian but even the mà n of God the Minister of God perfect and throughly furnished to every good work That non of all the formentioned particulars as to this Officer distinct from and superior to a Presbiter can be found in Scripture but are contrarie therunto I prove thus 1. The Scriptur mentions no name qualification work dutie or ordination of any or dinary Church Officer superior to presbiters and which are not likewayes appropriat to them who are called Rulers Governours Bishops and both ordination and Jurisdiction ar apropriat to them in a perfect paritie 1 Thess. 5 12. with 17. v. and 1 Tim. 5 17. Hebr. 13. v. 7 17. 1 Cor. 5 13. 1 Tim. 4 14. 3 Epist. Ioh. 9. v. 2. In all the Holy Ghost his purposed recitalls of ordinarie Church officers and purposed declaration of their gifts and duties ther is not the least hint of the premised ingredients of the office of this supposed Diocesian Bishop as thus distinct from and Superior to Presbiters 1 Cor. 12 28. Eph. 4 11 12. Rom. 12. 7 8. In these places wee have besyds the Apostles Prophets Evangelists whose Office as extraordinaire is ceased Pastores Elders Deacons But no hint of the Office name qualifications or Mission of ane ordinarie Church Officer Superior to the Pastor is either heire or in any Scripture else which notwithstanding is express as to the Office and qualifications even of the Deacon the lowest Officer Strange the server of Tables his Office and ordination clearlie set down in Scriptur And yet Altum silentium as to either name Office or ordination of the Diocesian Bishop If the argument of our divines be good from hence against the Pope because not mentioned in these Catalogues of Church Officers Ergo a pari It must hold good against the Prelat And as to that that the Prelat hath the Actus Signatus of a State Ruler how cross this is to Scripture we may after shew Sure since Christ set all these his Officers in the Church and commands them diligentlie to wait upon and attend their work and Ministery therein He never made or allowed them to bee State Rulers CHAP. II. Some more Arguments against the Diecesian Prelat That his office debases the Acts and exercise of the power of order cleared It maims and diversisies the Pastoral office by anti-scriptural now invented degrees thereof His office many wayes contrare to the very nature of the Gospel-Church-Government THe Diocesian Bishop his office is in this contrare to the Word of God V. In that it Debases the highest Acts and exercise of the power of order in a Gospel Ministery For all do grant preaching of the Word and the Administration of the Sacraments and Seals of the Covenant of grace to be such So that he who can do thes Acts hath the badge of the highest Ministerial Authority as ane ordinarie Church Officer these being among the most emnient Acts of the Apostles there office and Authoritie Go teach baptize c. They must have some to serve Tables that they may give themselves continually to the Ministery of the Word Timothy our prelatical mens Supposed-Bishop must preach the Word and be instant in season out of season reprove rebuke exhort with all long suffering and Doctrine 2 Tim. 4 1 2. The great Apostle of the Gentiles who had the care of all the Churches coming upon him and therin a great ruleing work Yet pronunces a woe upon himself if he preach not the Gospel 1 Cor. 9 28. And he tells us this was a speciall trust committed to him In this he admires the rich grace of God that he was putt into the Ministery and honoured to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ. Peter that great Apostle of the circumcision when by the Lord restored to his office and encouraged to its exercise by a Threefold renovation of his Mission is thryce enjoyned as the great badge of his love to his Master to feed his Lambes and Sheep Accordingly the Scripture Bishop must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apt to teach and he that teacheth by office scilicet must waite upon teaching and the wise and faithful Steward appointed by the Lord to give the children their meat in dew Season must be found So doeing when the Lord comes to reckon with him and not lay up this noble Talent in a Napkine To this the key of diseiplin is inferior and Subordinat as themean to its end the higher honour above ruleing only being allowed to the labourer in the word doctrine 1 Tim. 5 17. This being clear I say the office of the Diocesian Bishop debases and tramples upon these highe and noble Acts of a Pastor and consequently upon the premised Scriptures asserting the same and that in these wayes I. In that the quondam Presbyter only when made a Prelat leaves off The feeding of the flock and layes by the preaching talent the Church wher he did preach or officiat it may be shall never see or hear him againe but is ipso facto voyde to be possed by another nor by his now-office is he oblidged to preach or Minister the Sacraments any more at all these petty peeces of work being below his new Lordship Trew he may preach if he please and at the Church wher he reseeds but that is per accidens ex abundanti and out of courtesie but by his office Qua Prelat he is bound to preach no more to any frock nor is he in the least judged faultie or deficient in his Episcopal office if he be wholly silent Nay in England preaching Prelats have been highely upbraided and reproached by their fellowes and called preaching Cox Combes Wee all know what ane odd peece of work Mr Lightoun's preaching was esteemed by the generalitie of the Prelatick partie when he turned Prelat Now let any of commune Reason or ingenuity judge what ane office that must be which putts a Minister intrusted with the Lords great commission to preach the Gospel under pretence of advancement to a higher Sphere in the Ministery to lay by this work which is the noblest and highest of the Ministerial Authoritie wherin the Apostles themselves mainely laboured and gloried as the most noble meane of the conversion of Sonles and consequentlie of the glorie of Christ therin Nay to lay by this noble work under pretence of new burdene of Government Wheras the Apostles who had the wholl Churches to plant and Govern most enixely plyed this work still If this man become not a dumb dog and a sloathfull unprofiteable servant let
and Euangelists as the extraordinary New Testament Officers whose proper formal Office died with them and admits of no succession for thus they ordinarily defyne the Apostles that they were Christs immediatly called and extraornarily gifted universal Ambassadours sent out to lay every where the foundation of the Gospel Church and to plant the Gospel government therein Particularly Polanus in his Syntagma reckens up these as their extraordinary expired prerogatives to which we will find this Informer in parte give assent 1. Their immediat institution by Christ. 2. Their immediat mission to teach Paul had his from heaven 3. Their universal legation to found and plant Churches throw the world 2 Cor. 11 28. 4. It s visible badge viz. the conferring of the Spirit by the laying on of hands 5. Their extraordinary authority beyond any of their Successors as being set over the whole Church c. Hence all the ingredients of their formal Office as such must needs be expired And no Church Officer can be said to succeed them therein Their Call was immediat sure non can succeed them in that Their special or proper work was to plant Churches and the Gospel-government in them and set up their Officers of all which Churches they were Ministers in actu exercits sure no Church Officer could succeed them in this Their Qualifications as such Ambassadours were correspondent to this great work viz. their gifts of miracles gifts of tongues Prophesie infallibility in Doctrin Sure now can pretend to succeed them in this Nixt for the Euangelists their Office was equally extraordinary it consisting in a planetary motion from place to place to water where the Apostles planted to bring reports of the Churches state to the Apostles and commissions from the Apostles to them Their various motions pro re nata upon down even after these Epistles wherein they are supposed to have receaved their Episcopal charge were written to them and the Scriptures absolut silence as to their ever returning to these Churches againe besides the Apostle Pauls shewing expresly in these Epistles their occasional transient employment in this places and express recalling of them therefrom to the further prosecution of their extraordinary employment and in these very Epistles identifying the Office of the Bishop and Elder All these clear grounds I say do evidently demonstrat that the work and office of Timothy and Titus as Euangelists is expired and cannot be pretended unto by any ordinary Church Officer it being an appendix as it were of the Apostolick charge and supposing its exercise and existance and the Churches then infant state and condition Now to make these high and extraordinary functions ordinary and thus confound the two together must be a very gross usurpation 2. Hence it is manifest that the Episcopal function as above described in the quality and mould of the Diocesian Bishop will never be found in these extraordinary functions either formaliter or eminenter and consequently it must be a gross belying of the Spirit of God to pretend this in the assuming of this usurped Office First The Episcopal Office will not be found in that of the Apostles or Euangelists formaliter For these were universal unfixed Officers set over no particular Church or Diocess But were pro re nata to officiat to the whole Church as being the Apostles especially Officers thereof in actu exercito Nixt the Episcopal function is not included in these Offices eminenter or in the ordinary power whiâ—… the Apostles or Euangelists exercised or transmitte 〈◊〉 the Church And that for these Reasons 1. Neitâ—… the Apostles nor Euangelists in respect of their perpetâ—… ordinary Ministerial authority transmitted by them in 〈◊〉 Church did exercise Superiority Episcopal over other Ministers but as to the perpetual Pastoral Charge they held them their equals and in the ordinary power of government as wee saw above in the Apostles practise in ordination and Jurisdiction amongst Churches constitut and farr less can we suppose that the Euangelists were in such Churches to exercise any single or Episcopal preheminence in government For it were strange if Timothy who was ordained by a Presbytrye wherein Paul himself was present should notwithstanding usurpe preheminence over a Presbytery though inferior to ane Apostle And that whereas Presbyters did concurr pari passu with a whole Presbytery of Apostles in every peece of a judicial Act and decree yet that ane Euangelist inferior to any of the Apostles should take Episcopal preheminence over a Presbytery 2. The Apostles planted no such ordinary Officers in the Church as had that Episcopal Power therefore the Episcopal Power was not transmitted by them in the Church And by further consequence it is not included in their Office eminenter For it is evident that in the first plantation of the Churches they fixed Presbyters or Pastors as their immediat Successor's in the Ministerial power and likewise in their last farewel's into Churches they committed unto these Pastors the ordinary power of government without the least hint of a Super-institution of any officer of a higher order Act. 20 28 29. Compared with 25. 1 Pet. 5 2 3. with 2 Pet. 1 14 3. It was in respect of Paules ordinary Ministerial power and in that Capacitie that he had hands laid upon him by that Presbytety at Antioch and was sent out with other commissioners to that Synod at Jerusalem by them which looked like a humble submission pro tanto unto them and is far from the Episcopal preheminence since the Prelats dissoune all Subjection to the Prophes in greater or lesser assemblies 4. The Prelats authority is this he is upon the mater the only proper Pastor of the Diocess whose Episcopal inspection reaches Pastores and flocks both as is above cleared He is the fountaine from whom the power of order and Jurisdiction in the wholl Diocess is deryved and the exercise of both depends upon his Lordly disposal Now this is contrare both to the Apostles and Evangelists their ordinary and extraordinary power contrare to its very nature in universum their office being a declarative executive Ministerie onlie And Dominion or Lordship being discharged to all Apostles and all Church Officers whatsoever Hence in the 3d. place This Episcopal pretence aâ—…nt the derivation of their Lordly grandour from the Apostolick Office fastens a grosse charge of unfaithfulness upon them 1. In assuming a power in its nature distinct from what there Lord allowed and enjoyned them viz. a Lordly dominion not a ministerial Stewardshipe service only such a dominion as Princes of the gentiles exercise even to have the actus primus of a civil Lord-peer yea Chieff-peer or Parliament man 2. In debaseing and Straitening their Apostolick Inspection and carrying ane Office incompatible with it and thus unfaithfully tearing out a parte of their commission For in becoming Diocesian Bishops they should be fixed to particular diocesses and therin exercise ane ordinary fixed poever wheras their commission was to
Prelacy this order is confounded The chief Officers of this Church are the Magistrats Commissioners to Church and State whereas Church Officers are given by Christ as Mediatour to his Church as a Church 1 Cor. 12 Ver. 28. 3. The actings of civil and Ecclesiastick authority are thus confounded Spiritual church Rulers Act onely in Spiritual matters by Gods appointment and civil Rulers there immediat proper Acts are only in matters Civil But here Church Officers are Parliament Commissioners and civil Rulers in the high commission do excommunicat Againe in the 2. place This Erastian Prelacy confounds these two powers in their causes which are wholly diverse 1. The efficient cause is diverse God as Creator is Author of Magistracy Rom. 13. But Christ as Mediatour appoints Church Government Matt. 28 18. But here the Magistrat qua talis is a suprem Church Ruler And thus is supposed to have his power from Christ as Mediator and Head of his Church Which is ane opinion fully confuted by those who havewritten against Erastus particularly Mr Gillespie in the Aarons Rod. 2. They differ in the material cause the matter on which the two powers do act are diverse Ecclesiastick power doth act in the exercise of the Keys the administration of the Word and Sacraments having this for its proper Object and matter The civil power consists in the civil and secular Sword the one reaches the inward the othere the outward man But in this Erastian Prelacye the Sword and Keys are made one promiscuously used and put into the same hands 3. The two powers differ in their formal cause the civil power is put forth in political punishments the Ecclesiastick in spiritual censures But here the same power is the first Radix and Fountaine of Spirituall Censures and Civil punishments and gives them their formal essence and being as such Finalie The proper immediat end of Civil power is the Temporal External political peace of the commonwealth Rom. 13. 1 2. 3. But the proper end ofEcclesiastick power Is the Churches Spiriual good and edification as such Matth. 18. 15. 1 Cor. 5. 5. 2. Cor. 10. 8. and 13. 10. But here the Magistrat quatalis being the Churches head these ends are Confounded These and several such like arguments are made use of by our writers against Erastus which doe fully evince the unlawfulnes of this Erastian prelacie Whosoever shal peruse Apollonius His jus Majest Circ Sacr the jus Div regim Eccles the Aarons rod wallaeus against Vtenbog and such like will find this abundantly clear To shâ—…t up all with One word more Ther are these 3. horride absurdities in relation to Church government which the premised mould of this Erastian prelacie will necessarly inferr 1. That a man may be borne not only a Church member but a Chief Church Ruler Nay that a Heathen and a man that never professed the true religion but lives and dies ane ingraind enemie to it and so hath neither mater nor forme of Church membership may be a Chieff Church officer For his Majesties present authoritie herine acknowledged by our prelats and which is the Fountaine of their power is the proper Croune dignitie of all that ever shall possesse and wear it and so here is a monstrous Church officer who 1. hath no qualifications of any Church officer whom ever Christ appointed 2. A Church officer who is not Set in the Church which is the essential marke of all Church officers 1. Cor. 12 28. for that supposes he must be a Church member A 2d absurditie is this That Children and women who may have a lawfull lineal right to the Croun may be Church officers Yea the Fountaine of our prelats authority and of all their Underâ—…ings and the chieff governoure of this Church and thus they who are forbidden so much as to speak in the Church shall be Chieff Church Rulers and likewayes such as have not the use of Reason 1. Tim. 3 5. 1. Cor. 14. 34 35. A 3d. absurditie is That the Church government upon earth may be Monarchical and that One man may be her Supream head legislator And architectonick Monarch and Ruler for aquatenus ad omne valet consequentia Upon the same ground that the Suprem Civil Ruler is Chieff head and Ruler over the Church in his dominions the Church in all other places being a body of the same nature Should the Christian Church be contracted within his dominions he were her Supreme universall head And it were so if his Civil dominion should be extended over all the Churches By this same reason of his headship over One he may be head over all and exercise ane arbitrary at least a legislative power over all her ordinances and officers And if this will not Clearly set the popes Treeple Croun upon his head and disowne all that ever the protestant Churches have writen and acted against his blasphemous Supremacie let common discretion judge Ambrose Epist 33. ad valentinianum imperatorem Saith noli gravare imperator ut putes in ea quae divina sunt aliquod imperiale jus habere opliticorum tibi munerum jus concessum est non Sacrorum Grieve not O Emperour so as to think that you have any Imperial authority over these things which are divine the right or authority of politicall offices is committed unto thee but not of Sacred CHAP. VII The Informers deceitfull shifting and obscuring the true State of the Question anent Episcopacie and flinching from the point debatable discovered Severall wayes He declines a direct pleading for prelats civil offices Yet offers some arguments defence therof Wherin his prevarication and Contradiction to himself is made appear TO come now to examine what this new Dialogist hath produced in defence of the present prelacie established amongst us And to examine his answers to our plea against it We shall not stand upon the trifling debate about the personal good qualities of some that have been prelats with which Hee prefaces this Dialogue it being altogether extrinsick to the Question anent the lawfulnes of the office it self And would be no argument in our case against him as this man cannot but acknowledge else Hee must give up the cause upon his concession of the Unquestionable eminent pietie and integritie of many burning and Shining lights who have been the Lords Constant witnesses against prelacie That which is here mainely considerable Is his prevarication in Stating the Question anent prelacie viz. Whither the ancient Bishopes had a Superioritie over other Ministers wherin he utterly â—…ches away from the pointe debeatable 1. In making this the State of the Question what Bishopes were in the primitive Church wheras the true State of our Question is whither the prelat now existent in this Church be a Scripture Bishop and consonant therunto Or ane officer appointed by Christ in his house Yea or not And not whither there have been Bishops or such as we now have in the ancient Church The Question is not of the mater of
comming mediatly from God but immediatly from men by a determination of the generall divine principle and ane application therof to particulares which they illustrat by that passage where Paul sayes to the rest speak I not the Lord applying Gods generall command anent divorce to the Corinthians particular case There are likewise mediat accidental commands deduced from Gods generall Rule upon rare transient occasiones yet necessitating to such a determination So the abstaining from blood and thinges strangled was enjoyned Act. 15. to the gentiles and as necessarie upon the ground of Charitie when the use grew scandalus although the law hereanent was abrogat as being originallie Ceremoniall Hence we may Inferr that this Informer in denying the necessitie of what is commanded only under some generall head Cutts of from the Categorie of things necessarie all the duties in the decalogue which are subserviant to the duties expressly named and thus destroyes the Spirituality and extent of the law acknowledged by all divines yea Cuts off all necessarie Scripture consequences and duties founded therupon as Ministers preaching the gospell administring the Seales Infant baptism womens receaving the Sacrament the Christian Sabbath c. But to come neerer him in the Nixt place I suppose this man will not deny That there are many things sufficiently discharged and consequently unlawfull by Scripture rule because theyare not commanded either mediatly or immediatly and that all ordinances of worship Sacraments and the substantialls of government also doe require clear divine commands and institutions by the acknowledgement of all protestant divines So that the not commanding of any part or supposed ingredient therof is a sufficient discharge discovering the thing superadded to be sinfull Not that which seems good unto thee shalt thoudoe to the Lord thy God but what He hath commanded thou shalt add nothing thereunto nor diminish from it adde thou not to his words lest He reprove thee and thou be found a liar In vaine they doe worship me teaching for doctrines the commandements of men See deut 4. 2. prov 30. 6. rev 22. 18. deut 12. 32. Isay. 29 13. These Scriptures do clearly fortifie this principle Otherwayes if he deny this He will open a door to all popish superstition yea deny the very definition of it assigned by all sound divines in calling it ane opposite extrem in the excess to true religion adding to Gods worship beyonde what is commanded Our Lord reprehended the pharisees their washing of hands befor dinner a decent ceremonie in it self as simply unlawfull when they made it a point of Religion Because it was beyond the command That text Isay. 29 13. In vaine they worhsip me teaching for doctrinés the commandements of men is applyed in this case unto them Our answer to the Papists demand Where finde we their bastardSacraments and other Superstitiones discharged is That they are discharged as sinfull in Gods worship because not commanded Should they rejoyne with this man that this will prove them to be not simpy necessarie but not unlawfull upon the ground which He alleages let him conjectur what his answer would be and correct himself For the substantials of government He cannot but grant that they fall under the same consideration It being most certain and universally acknowleged that the Scripture layes down rules as to the excercise of both Keyes of Order and jurisdiction the officers and censures of the Church Nay himself asserts page 118. That the substantials of government and policie of the Church are utterly necessarie and unalterable Now it being thus the Question is whither the diocesian Bishop or Episcopal government be among those things which must either have a clear Scripture institution or warrand or else is to be rejected as sinfull and unlawfull That the diocesian Bishop is such I prove it thus the Bishop which He pleads for is supposed by him to be a Church officer distinct from and Superior to a Pastour or presbyter haveing a distinct worke ordination and qualifications Therfore say I Hee must either have clear warrand or institution in the word or Hee is unlawfull The consequence leans upon these clear Scripture grounds 1. This officer cannot but fall in among the substantials of government wherin the Scripture is full and perfect as himself acknowleges So as to make even the man of God perfect It is full in setting down all administrations relating so the Key of order as prayer and thanksgiveing 1. Tim. 2. 1 2. 1. Cor. 14. 14 15. Singing of Psalmes preaching of the word publick reading of it and Cathechiseing falls within the compasse of Christs commands and regulations Collos. 3. 16. 1. Cor. 14. 15 16. Ephes. 5. 19. 2. Cor. 3. 14. Matth. 28. 19 20. 2. Tim. 4. 2. Hebr. 6. 1 2. So doth the administration of Sacraments Baptisme and the Lords Supper Matth. 28. 18 19. 1. Cor. 11. 23. And as these administrations of the Key of Order so all the administrations relating to the Key of jurisdiction or discipline falls under Christs clear institutions Such as Ordination Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 4. 14. The dogmatick power as to Ministeriall judgeing of doctrine Act. 15. The critick power as to the publick rebuke and purging out of the Scandalous and receaving of the penitent Matth. 18. 15 16. 1. Thess. 5. 14. Compared with Matth. 16. 19. John 20. 21. So the diatactick power in relation to Ritualls and and alterable Circumstances is clearly asserted and rules laid downe anent its exercise 1 Cor. 14. And as the administrations ordinances and acts of Church government So the administratores officers yea and Courtes falls under clear Scripture warrands and institutiones Pastoures Doctores Elders Deacons their severall works the greater and lesser Church judicatories have their clear warrand 1. Tim. 4. 14. Matth. 18. 17. Act. 15. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. Now let this Informer shew me a reasone of this distinctnes If not to point out all the substantialls of government and if it be lawfull to add any new officers or administrations or ordinances to these expressly warranted He dare not say but is unlawfull therfore say I upon the same ground that hee shall acknowledge this to be unlawfull this eminent officer the Bishop or Arch-Bishop must either produce his warrand and institution among the forementioned Rules or he must be holden unlawfull 2. The Scripture coming this length in the forementioned condescendencie in point of Church government as to Ordinances Officers Lawes Censures Courtes c it must needs amount to determin Some species of government and presbitery and Episcopacie being of contrary moulds it must needs appointe and authorize the One and discharge the other For all Church offices and officers have a positive institution 1. Cor. 12. 28. God hath sett c. Ephes. 4. 11. God hath given c. Rom. 12. 6 7. The office not given is not a gift of grace And surely the command not to add to the word includes a command
For 1. He grants that these two words Bishop and elder signifies one and the same officer oftentimes supposeing that sometimes they express diverse officers but where can he shew us that the word Episcopus signifies one officer and Preshiter another when the Spirit of God is pointing out therby the Churches standing Officers and Ministers and not when either the one or the other is in a generall sense applyed to ane Apostle 2. The state of the Question is whither the scriptur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 designe a higher ordinary officer then a Presbyter And this Informer should have adverted that the drift of the argument from the texts mentioned is to prove the Apostles promiscuous use of these words in describing the office of the highest ordinary office bearers in the Church Moreover the Diocesian Episcopus is ane ordinary officer haveing the inspection over some handereds of flocks and the sole power of jurisdiction and ordination in the diocesse is by him held to be ane officer of Gods appointment by this designation of Bishop as the Characteristick of his office is distinguished from Pastoures or elders Now if presbyterians doe prove that wherever the word Bishop is used to point at ane ordinary standing officer in the Church it imports a pastor or presbyter no higher officer they sufficiently over throw the diocesian Episcopus or Bishop of his mould as having no scripture warrand And if he grant that in the forementioned Scriptures other passages where the word Bishop is used to point at a necessarie standing Church officer it signifieth no higher officer then ane elder or ordinarie Minister he grants enough against himself all that the presbiterians desire for there from it followes necessarly that their diocesian Episcopus or Bishop contradistinct from superior to the preaching presbyter is apochriphal antiscripturall Since the preaching presbyter Bishop are the same ordinarie highest officer in all the Holy Ghosts expressions theranent 3. Whereas he denyes that we con prove That the officer meaned by these words is never understood of any above the degree of ane ordinary minister Let him add this necessary limitation when the words are applyed to designe ane ordinary standing officer which he must admit if he speak to purpose and the proofe is very easy since the forementioned Texts and all the parallels where elder or Bishop is thus used doe evince it Again 4. Since this Informer with his followes have diversified the Bishop from the elder in the manner above exprest we challing him as the affirmer to shew in all the new Testament where the officer meaned by this Word Episcopus or Bishop when pointing at ane ordinary standing officer in the Church is to be understood of any above the degree of a Presbyter or Pastor of a congregation This lyes upon him to mak good else if Episcopuss denotte only a Presbyter sure the cause of the Diocesian Prelat is lost He fortifies his answer with two Reasons 1. We find the name elder given to the Apostles themselves 1 Pet 5 1. Iohn 2. 1. Epist. 3 1. And if Apostles be called elders why not also Bishops Ans 1. The pointe debeateable is whether the word Bishop and elder doe Import the same officer when applyed to a constant standing officer in the Church His Presbyterian doubter offers the forementioned Texts to prove this and he answers That one of these names are sometimes attribut to ane extraordinary officer whose formal office is ceased Now how impertinent this is to the pointe and Queston let any judge To prove that Episcopus or Bishop imports ane ordinary standing officer above a Presbyter and that the Word Bishop and Presbyter signify not the same ordinary officer because sometimes the Word elder may be applyed to ane Apostle is a consequence as we use so say a baculo ad angulum and known to no logik 2. We told him already that we prove enough against him when we prove that the Scripture-Episcopus or Bishop is never found to Import any ordinary officer above the Presbyter and that the Office Work Qualifications Duties of these officers as ordinary standing officers are one and the same 3. The Instance of the Apostles assumeing the name of elder doth in this further appear to be ane impertinent exception to the Argument adduced in that the office of ane Apostle is in Scripture both by a proper name work qualification call c. diversified and distinguished from that of ane ordinary elder so that though in a general sense the Apostles be called elders their Specifick difference from the ordinary elder is apparent But this Informer will never shew the least vestigies of the Diocesian Bishops distinction from the preaching elder or Presbyter in any of these respects And therefore his reason added here viz. The Bishop may be called ane elder as well as ane Apostle and yet be ane officer superior to him is a begging of the Question since he cannot shew that there is a higher ordinary officer then a Pastor or Presbyter appointed in the Word nor can he shew any designation qualification work or ordination of his Diocesian Bishop as distinguished from the Presbyter by the Prelatists And therefore the Apostles being called elders can no more ground a distinction betwixt the Bishop and the elder then betwixt the Pastor and the elder whom he acknowledges to be one and the same or betwixt the Minister and the elder I suppose one should alledge the Pastor to be a higher officer then the preaching elder and Presbyter notwithstanding that in Scripture their names and qualifications are one as of the Bishop and Presbyter and should ground his opinion on this Informers reason here viz. that though the two words are promiscuosly used often times of the same officer yet the officer meaned by one of these may be somtimes understood of one above the degree of ane ordinary Minister what will he say to his own reason pleading for this foolish distinction Would he not say that the Apostle and elder are elsewhere clearly distinguished on Scripture not the Pastour and the elder which answer he must here bestow upon himself Sure this man will not deny but that the various Church officers both ordinary and extraordinary have their proper formall office is deciphered and distinguished from other offices and officers As Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and particularly he will not deny that there is such ane ordinary Church officer as the Pastor or Presbyter distinguished by his proper designation from others notwithstanding that the Apostles took this name in a general sense So that from this it followes that if the Bishops proper designation work ordination qualifications as distinct from a Presbyter cannot be produced he must be alwayes understood in that sense viz. ane ordinary Pastour and no more And not as the Apostles when termed elders whose distinct Superior office and proportioned designation is
clearly extant in Scripture His 2d Reason and exception to the Argument is that with us the word elder signifies both the preaching and ruling elder and that he can upon as good and better ground say that it signifies the Bishop the Minister both being elders but of different dogrees Ans. 1. When he shall make as evident from Scripture the Diocesian Bishopes distinction from and Superiority unto the Pastor or Presbyter-Bishop or Minister of a congregation as we have shown the superiority of the preaching elder abovâ—…â—…he ruleing elder and the distinction of the one from the other then his parallel will pass current but till then it is a meer non-sequitur The Scripture clearly distinguishes as we have seen the elder that rules only and the elder that both laboures in the word and doctrine and rules also clearlydiversifying the offices and allowing honour to the one above the other Now let this or any thing like this be shown as to the Diocesian Bishop and Presbyter-Bishop where will this Informer point us to such a distinction of Bishops their office and honour as there is here of the elders Nay since in all directions as to peoples obedience to Pastors their is not the least intimation of his supposed different degrees of pastours we strongly con the contrare So that we inferr the distinction betwixt the preaching and ruleing elder from the Scriptures clear specifying of different offices Acts and degrees of honour accordingly among elders but the sucks out of his fingers the different degrees of Pastors and the distinction of the Bishop from the Presbyter without the least Scripture-warrand 2. He grossly belies our princples and the truth when he maks his Presbyterian doubter alledge That the word elder signifies no more but a Minister of a particular congregation which he forged to bring in and give some colour unto this his 2d Answer or reason But saltem mendacem opportet esse memorem A liar they say should have a good memory He be contradicts himself while suggesting in the objection that we hold that elder signifies no morethen a Pastour yet telling us for his answer that we hold the Word elder to signify sometimes the preaching sometimes the ruleing elder It is enough for our purpose that neither the word Bishop nor Presbyter doe signify any ordinary standing Church officer higher then a Pastor or Minister of the gospel labouring in the word doctrine whither indiscriminatim or in fixt particular congregations in the Apostolick â—…s we need not determin as to our defence here anâ—… untill he prove that either of the names doe signifie a higher ordinary officer which will be ad calendas Graecas the argument stands good against him We may here mind this Informer that hereafter he alledges that 2 Tim. 4. The Deaconta or Diaconship is in a general sense attribut to Timothy ane Evangelist yet he would reject it as ane absurd inference to conclude from this that there are different degries of deacons allowed or appointed in Scripture Which notwithstanding is his own consequence here and the strength of his answer to the premised Argument As for what he adds That Bishops were afterwards sometimes called Presbyters of their Churches thogh unquestionably Bishops in his sense in rembemberance of the indifferencie of the names in the times of the new Testament though they were ordinarly called Bishops We say it is certane that the first supposed Bishops named in the pretended Catalogues from the Apostles and Evangelists of which afterward were meer Presbyters and if they were called Presbyters in rememberance of the new Testament tymes the more guilty were they who afterward made the word Bishop contrare unto the new Testament times and language the Characteristick of ane office Superior to a Pastor or Presbyter and the rather in that whereas the word Presbyter or elder is severall times assumed by the Apostles in a general sense the word Episcopus or Bishop alwayes denots ane ordinary Pastor if we except that Episcopatus in Act 1. Which our translators on the Margin renders office or charge in a general sense so that when Prelats ambitious invention was upon the wheel it seems they should rather have appropriat to themselves the word Presbyter or elder a fit designation for Fathers of the Church as this man calls them The doubter nixt offers ane Argument against prelacie from Philip. 1. where the Apostle speaks of Bishops in the plural number in that Church who were only Ministers since there could not be many Bishops over Ministers in that â—…nChurch we shall take up here with this hint of argument only adding that by confession of Prelatists there was never in one city more then one Bishop even when the inhabitants were all professed Christians much more here where the generalitie of the inhabitants were Heathens and the Christians but a small remnant So that the Apostles saluting here the â—…ishops in the plurall number Bishops of that one Church of Philippi and contradistinguishing them from the Deacons whom he immediatly subjoyns to them he must needs be understood of the Pastoures and Presbyters as the highest ordinary officers of that Church To answer this Argument the Insormer hathgathered together several scrapes and some very odd and inconsistent notions 1. He tells us that Ambrose takes these Bishops not to be the Bishops at Philippi but certan Bishops present with Paul when he wrote in whose name he writs to the Philippians joyning them with himself But this gloss as it is cross to the current of expositores so to common sense Paul who only was the Spirit of Gods penman joyns here Timothie with himself in the inscription as in severall other Epistles and having taken to himself and Timothie the designation of Servants of Christ he doth nixt after this description of himself and Timothie according to his usual Methode describe these to whom he writes viz. to all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons viz there at Philippi not with Paul they being ranked among these to whom he writes who are contradistinguished from Paul and Timothy the directors of the Epistle and supposed to be with these saints at Philipp Otherwayes there is no sense in the Text to read it thus Paul and Timothius to the saints at Philippi with the Bishops with Paul Had the Apostle joyned them with himself as he doth Timothy in the inscription they would have been mentioned in that branch of the verse together with him and not cast after the adress and the description of these to whom he writes The Apostle in Gal. 1. After he hath described and asserted his Apostolick authoritie he nixt adds and all the brethren that are with me to the Churches of Galatia Thus he takes in many with himself in this inscription before he describe these to whom the Epistle is addressed And should not these supposed eminent Bishops have been after this manner joyned with
and likewayes in the very manner of these designations and their circumstances when atribut to such inferiour officers doth state the distinction betwixt them and ane Apostle in his proper acception clearly holding out that they had neither name nor thing of the apostolick office properly so called but that Ministers are so improperly only called Bishops He will never prove But now what is his last shift It maybe saith he their were no Bishops settled as yet at Philippie so it may very well be But our Informer here supposes two things in Question which he will prove ad calendas graecas 1. That their were Bishops superiour in office degree to Presbyters appointedby the Apostles The first and second Answer tells us of Bishops he means diocesian Bishops either with Paul when he wrot to Philippi Or come from their diocesses forsooth and present accidentally there And haveing told us that the diocesian Bishops were among the rest of the Presbyters Bishops in his third answer His last shift is that they were not it may be yet sett up at Philippy But remark that as all these proteus like shifts and answers contradicts one another So they all lean upon this Egyptian reed that the Diocesian Bishop is ane officer divinely appointed and then existant Now how impertinent dealing this is let any judge We prove from this and many such like texts that the scripture Bishop is a meer presbyter they in all there answers doe coyne glosses of these Texts which doe suppose the Jus existence of the diocesian prelat which is the very quaesitum the thing in Question 2. He supposes that the Bishop over presbyters the Chimaera of his own braine though he was not settled at this tyme yet was to be Settled afterward at Philippi But how proves he that the Apostle was to setle after ward such a prelat there This is another of their shifts that the Apostles first sett up prebyters keeping still the government of the Churches in their oun hand till at last towards their end they sett up prelats committing the government to them But how doth he or they prove this after-institution of the diocesian Bishop we have already abundantly evinced the Contrary both that the presbyters were the highest ordinary officers established by the Apostles that without any such fancied reserve as this is the wholl power both of order jurisdiction was committed to them exercised by them supposed by the Apostles to continow so in their last farewelles to the Churches and therfor may conclude that the Bishops of Philippi were meer presbyters and that Paul acknowledged knew no other Arnold in his Lux in Tinebr on Act. 20. 17. He called the elders c. represents the Orthodox opinion thus Episcopos Presbyteros c. That Bishops and Presbyters are not names of diverse gifts in the Church but of one and the same office because they who are here called Presbyters verse 28. are called Bishops The Papists object saith he as this Informer that in these times the names were common but yet the office of Bishops and Presbyters diverse he answers 1. This is to affirme not to prove 2. When offices are distinct there also the names are diverse 3. there was one office both of Bishops and Presbyters viz. the office of teaching 4. Upon the Papists supposition there can and ought to be only one Bishop in one city but so it is that there were here many therefore Bishops signifie Presbyters Thus Arnold classes our Informer among the Papists in this point and represents our principles as the Orthodox principles of the Protestant Churches and so in several other passages as we may after shew Chamier de Oecum Pontif lib. 10. cap. 3. Haveing represented the Papists glosses upon Matth. 20 -25 the Kings of the Gentils c. the same with our Informers viz. That our Lord discharged only that sort of Tyrannical Domination haveing answered and confuted them as we heard Iunius and Whittaker did before and haveing prefixed to the 7. chap. this cirle An jure divino c. Whether the Bishop be greater than the Presbyter by divine right he represents the affirmative answer as Bellarmins together with his arguments and confuts them and haveing proved Presbyters power in ordination from their imposeing of hands upon Timothy he afterward confuts the Papists this Informers pretences for Prelacy from the Government of the jewish Church the Apostles Superiority to the seventy disciples and adducing Bellarmin's argument from this passage act 20 28. to prove that the Holy Ghost sett up Bishops he answers thus locus exactis alienus est c. that place of the acts is impertinently cited for from thence it is evident that Bishops and Presbyters are the same Witnes Ierom. and others for they whom Luke before called elders or Presbyters of the Church those Paul afterward affirmes to have been made Bishops by the Spirit and indeed for feeding and as the latine Interpreter for governing the Church So we see Chamier classeth also our Informer among the Papists in those his prelatick principles and glosses upon those Scriptures Calvin upon Tit. 1 7. Collects the identity of Bishop and Presbyter from the Apostle's calling them Bishops who were before called Presbyters and as we heard above reprehends upon this ground the distinction placed betwixt them as profane and anti-scriptural The same he inferrs upon Act. 20. where the Presbyters of Ephesus are called Bishops makeing our Informer's great topick anent the calling of such Ministers Bishops qui primas tenebant in singulis civitatibus or had a precedency in every city a corruption and sin of those times The Dutch annot on Act. 20 28. observe that those termed Bishops in this verse being called elders in the 17. verse it doth then appear that in the Holy Scripture there is no difference made betwixt elders and Bishops referring us to Phil. 1. 1. verse upon whch passage they assert the same thing and especially from the plurality of such Bishops in one and the same Church conclude this referring us to 1 Tim. 3. 1. verse and Tit. 1 chap. 5 7 v. upon which places they obserue that by Bishops and Elders one kinde of Ministry is signified viz. the labourers in the word and doctrine citeing 1 Tim. 5 17. 2 Pet. 5 1 2. and from the Apostles description of the Bishop in the 1 Tim. 3. they conclude that by Bishop we are to understand all teachers of the Church without difference referring again to the forementioned places The english annot expresse the same sense of these places under debate and upon Acts 11. 30 v. adduce both fathers and councells to prove this point The Nixt Scripture argument which the Doubter bings against prelacie and the Last too is taken from Ephes. 4. 11. where the Apostle reckons up Church officers makes no mention of Bishops Our argument from the Scripture enumeration of Church officers here and
in the parallels 1. Cor. 12 28. Rom. 12 6 7 8 Is this That the Holy Ghost therein describing purposly the various kindes of Church officers and speaking of the office of the pastour makes no distinction of a higher and lower pastour nor gives the least hint of either Name or thing of a diocesian prelat although both ordinary and extraordinary officers be enumerat even the ruleing elder and the deacone from which silence of the Scriptur as to this imaginarie Bishop we conclud him to be no plant of the heavenly fathers planting by the same reason that our divines conclude the pope to be such To this our Informer answers 1. That it is ill reasoning that because such ane officer is not in such a particular place or enumeration that therefor he is no where to be found in scripture for how prove we that the Apostle intended in that place a cempleat enumeration Ans he is guilty of a palpable forgerie here whillmaking his Doubter instance in this place only as if we held that there is here a full enumeration wheras he cannot but know that presbyterians in this argument against prelats as also protestants in opposition to the papacie doe together with this passage joyn the parallels 1. Cor. 12 28. Rom. 12 16. In which places collated there is found a compleat enumeration of all Church officers ordinary or extraordinary and adiscoverie of their duties and gifts who are ordinary officers even of the very Deacon Lykwayes we take in with these Texts the several descriptions of ordinary officers and particularly of the Bishop his gifts and duties found in any other places of the new Testamament And since this Informer cannot deny the Apostles or rather the Spirit of God his intention of a full enumeration in these places Collated Such a full Catalogue of Church-officers being therein found our argument from the Scriptures utter silence of the Diocesian prelat in all these places stands firme by his own Confession until he shall disprove this silence and prove the Contrary 2. Wee might tell him also that upon his own ground even the Silence of this Text as to the Prelat will prove our point for it being upon the one hand the Apostles scop to enumerat the most illustrous excellent gifts and offices given by Christ to the Church for her grouth and edification as his royal Mediatorie Donations upon his ascention into heaven and upon the other hand the Apostle descending as low in his enumeration as the Pastor and teacher whom this man holds to be officers inferiour to the Diocesian Prelat Certainely upon both these grounds he would have mentioned him in order to this scope had such ane officer been allowed or apappointed And as for this Text it is enough if we prove that the Apostle intended therein though not a compleat enumeration of all yet of the most excellent functions and officers given by Christ to his Church amongst which the Diocesian Bishops office hath the prime place in this mans Judgement How then I pray can he be here ommitted and ane inferior officer named His 2d Answer is That Bishops are comprehended under pastoures and teachers Bishops being such though of a Superior degree to ordinary Pastoures Ans. first that Scripture Bishops are comprehended under the pastor and teacher is certan but that the Diocesian should be so is Impossible and by him gratis dictum For. 1. he cannot shew that in these enumerations the Superior officer gets the designation of the inferior now he holds the Diocesian Prelat to be ane office and order Superiour to the Pastor Nixt this were no proper enumeration as he acknowledges there is here of distinct officers offices if they had not all there proper distinct names and designations And since Apostles Evangelists Pastors are proper designations of distinct officers and offices why ought not the Diocesian Bishop to have had his proper epithet and to have come in between the Evangelist and the Pastor for this was his proper Classe as the higher Church officer Againe This answer and shift is the same with that of the Papists to save the pope for they answer our divines Argument from this Text that he is included in the office of the Apostle But as we tell them that according to there account and Character of him he ought to have had a more peculiar designation So we may say to this Informer here Besides may not Patriarches and all the rabble of the popes locusts have this pretended for them that they are included in some of these officers Sure we may in Charity suppose that if a Papist were pleading thus This man would tell him that it were no defence to shape out officers of their own devising then alledge they are included in some of these scripture designations which answer suites his own case Since he cannot make it appear that the Diocesian Bishop is appointed in Scripture And we have proved his office to be contrary unto it Lastly Hetels us That if we will have here ane perfect enumeration of all Church officers we must comprehend ruleing elders and deacons in some of these words and why may not he doe so with Bishops Ans. 1. We need not in order to our scope nor argument from this text alledge either a full enumeration of all officers or goe about to includ elder and Deacon under some of these words It being enough if wee con shew that the most eminent Church officers given for the Churches edification are here enumerat that the enumeration comes the length of ane officer inferior to the Prelat in this mans esteemâ—… down from ane Apostle which renders our Argument from this Text impregnable 2. If we should include the elder and Deacon in one of these words we should but include therein inferiour officers of divine appointment in the designation of Superior which he will acknowledge to be no unusual thing in Scripture But his including the Diocesian Bishop is both the including of a forged anti Scriptural officer of his own deviseing and likewayes if he includ him under the Pastor and teacher ane including and comprehending of a Superiour officer under the designation of ane inferiour both which differences doe cutt the sinnewes of Reason and answer CHAP. XII The Informer offers Scripture warrand for Bishops His Argument from the Government of the Church under the old Testament and from the Apostles superioritie to the seventie disciples examined The first Argument concludes a lawful subordination of Church-offiers in general but reaches no help to the Diocesian Erastian Bishop The second beggs the question in supposing Prelats to succeed the Apostles immediately and Pastoures the seventy disciples and from a Superiority among officers of different kindes groundlesly concludes a superiority among officers of the same kind No Image of our Prelacy in the Iewish-Church-Government or in the Apostles superioritie above other Church-officers The Informer contradicts his fellowpleaders in this cause
4. Cap. 3. c. that is they are mistaken who judge either Timothy at Ephesus or Titus at crete to have exercised any impite or Dominion to dispose of things each at his own pleasure they were set over the people no word of their being set over Ministers to go before them in good and wholsome Counsells in relation to the placeing of Ministers not that they might doe as they pleased excluding others Since Paul himself neither imposed hands nor did excommunicat alone and since as I said above a wholl colledge or Presbytery of Apostles acted nothing pro imperio but in Churches constitut had elders going along with them in all that Sinodal procedour Act 15. Farrless would Timothy and Titus assume this episcopal preheminence who were inferiour to any of the Apostles therefore their power in this was not episcopall 2. That authoritie which was intrusted to the elders and Ministers in commone was not intrusted to any one officer such as Timothie But so it is that after the Church of Ephesus was exedified and compleated in its organick being and after Timothy had gotten his charge as to ordination and Jurisdiction in Ephesus Paul committed the wholl episcopal power to the elders as is said before Timothies face in his last farewell Act. 20. therefore he intrusted him with no episcopall preheminence in or over that Church when compleated in its organick being 3. They whose power stands so circumstantiat as to ordination and jurisdiction over these Churches that it excluds Episcopale preheminence properly and formally such their power in ordination and jurisdiction cannot be prelatical nor ground ane argument for prelacie but such is the power of Timothie and Titus For 1. As Diocesian Bishops they ought to have been determinatly and designedly set and fixed there as the officers of these Churches but the contrary appears in the text I befought the to abide at Ephesus and againe I left thee at Crete and to set in order things that are wanting which words point at ane occasional transient employment there not a fixed instalement 2. In these Epistles they are both Called back without the least intimation of their returneing 3. If their power was Episcopall and ordinary then in the apostles prescriptions and rules anent their Successours their power and authority ought to have been described and rules given touching the gifts Call ordination c. of the diocesian Bishop but the Apostle prescribes no rules for any officer higher then a Pastour supposes still that he is the highest ordinary officer in all his directions as to Church government 4. Add to this That Paul never calls Timothy or Titus Bishops though frequently making mention of them but Ministers Souldiers of Christ workmen the Churches messengers c. 1. Tim. 4. 6. 2. Tim. 2. 3. and 15. 2. Cor. 8. Supposing them his attendants in his Apostolick function Their accompanying Paul in his Travells is largely described by the divines at the I le of wight 1. Timothy is found at Berea with Paul Act. 17. 14. then at Athens 15. Thence Paul sends him to Thessalonica 1. Thess. 3. 1. Then havâ—…ig been at Macedonia with Paul he came to him to Corinth Act. 18. 5. Then he is with him at Ephesus and thence sent into Macedonia Act. 19. 22. Whither Paul went after him and was by him accompanied into Asia Act. 20. 4. He is with him at Troas 5. v. and at Miletum 17. v. where Paul gave the elders his last charge as the Bishopes of that Church And after this he is found either in journeys or absent from Ephesus Forafter he is found a prisoner with Paul at Rome being mentioned as his companion in these epistles written while Paul was at Rome as that to the philippians Philip. 1. to philemon 1. 1. and to the colloss 1. 2. and he is never found againe at Ephesus neer the end of the Apostles pilgrimage he is sent for to Rome So Titus is found at Ierusalem befor he came to Crete Gal. 1. 2. thence is sent for to Nicopolis Tit. 3. 12. then to Corinth then he is expected at Troas 2. Cor. 2. 12. and meets with Paul in Macedonia 2. Cor. 7. 6. whence he is sent againe to Corinth 2. Cor. 8. 6. after this neer the time of paules death is found at Rome from whence he went not to Crete but unto Dalmatia 2. Tim. 4. 10. And after this is not heard of in Scripture So that from their various journeys the order of them the time spent in them the nature of their employment which was to be the Apostles Copartners in their Apostolick function and negotiat the affaires of the Churches where the Apostles traveled and the Sciptures silence touching their being Beshops of any one Church These divines conclude that they could not be diocesian Bishops Others doe remarke severale other pregnant Circumstances in the sacred text specially relating to Timothy which doe evince him to be neither Bishop at all nor particularly at Ephesus in the prelatical sense As 1. That paul stirres him up to diligence upon this motive that thus he shall be agood minister of Christ not a Bishop of Christ 1. Tim. 4. 6. He was therefore a Minister Bishop but nothing else 2. That when Paul wrote this first epistle to him he was but newly entered into the ministery 1. Tim. 1. 3. with Act. 16. 1. 2. 3. c. And Paul will not have a Novice to be a Bishop 3. He is commandes to intreat elders as Fathers 4. To Honour them doubly that rule well therefore he was not to be a Father over these elders 5. That he had his gift by the laying one of the hands of the presbysery which could not be ane episcopall function 6. That Paul appointes him to reside there only untill his owne return from Macedonia to instruct the people for someshorte time until he came to him againe 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. 7. That assoone as Paul came from Macedonia to Ephesus he sent Timothie into Achaia himself staying at Ephesus and Asia for a season Act. 19. 22. to 40. v. and from thence he returned to Macedonia and through it unto Asia accompanied with Timothy and others after which we never read that he returned to Ephesus 8. That Timothie was sent to many churches to confirme and strengthen them as to Macedonia Act. 19. 22. To Thessalonica 1. Thess. 1. 2. 3. To philippi chap. 2. 19. 20. but never to Ephesus after his first departure 9. That though he is joyned with Paul in the Inscription of some Epistles Collos. 1. philip 1. and frequent mention is made of him in the epistles to severall Churches 1. Cor. 4. 17. Philip. 2. 19. 20. 1. Thess. 3. 2. 6. Hebr. 13. 23. Yet there is altum silentium of him in the Epistles to the Ephesians his own supposed diocess 10. That Paul laid hands upon the disciples who were ordained in that church after his supposed episcopacie That as Timothie was sent
to him but also the wholl Episcopal charge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed and rule as the Holy Ghosts Bishops set over the same which comprehends both ordination and jurisdiction But what sayes he to this Argument 1 It may be he was not â—…et settled Bishop as Gerard thinks But sure he had all the 〈◊〉 as Bishop which the first Epistle afoords him from which this man derives his Episcopacy and power in ordination and jurisdiction and if for all these â—…ur Informer will grant that he might have been not â—…s yet Bishop but ane Evangelist Then 1. he must acknowledge that all his pleading for his Episcopac in the nixt pages from the power he is supposed 〈◊〉 have in the first epistle is but a beating of the aire an impertinent since it might be Antecedaneous to hâ—… Episcopacie and by the Informers confession he migâ—… have had yet no more Episcopal relation to the Church then any who was never Bishop there Hencâ—… 2. Not being yet Bishop but ane Evangelist still aâ—… Gerard takes him in a traveling posture up and down with the Apostle as also Bishop Hall Downam and Hooker acknowledge him I wonder how this man wil sustean his denyal that he was ane Evangelist in the proper and strict sense such as his was Sure if this his supposition or may be will hold good timothies office as sucâ—… ane Evangelist was to cease in the Church as he expresseth it and Pauls bidding him doe the work of ane Evangelist sufficiently Unbishops him at least pro tunc which notwithstanding we heard him deny 2. He tell us that Irenaeus who lived not long after the Apostles thinks there were Asian Bishops mingled with the elders of Ephesus and with Timothie their Bishop to whom in common Paul made that exhortation comprehending the Bishops under the name of elders as Apostles were sometymes called Ans. We may be much in love with this scripture in the present debate since it forces adversaries upon such simple incoherent shifts First it may be he was not yet made Bishop then least that concession prove too gripping there must be other Bishops of Asia minglcd with these elders and Timothie of necessitie must be now Bishop or hardly well after and their own Bishop and the extraneous ones must be all shuffled up unde the name of elders and exhorted in common a he shifts the argument from Philip. 1. But thâ—… text it self sufficiently discovers the folly of this pooâ—… shift For 1. Paul called the elders from Ephesus anâ—… the elders of the Church there not imaginary elders or Bishops from other places 2. He sent for the elders of the Church in the singular number not of the Churches and so all he sent for had a particular relation to that Church for had there been elders of other Churches there It would have been expressed elders of the Churches If other elders or Bishops of Asia had been there they would have receaved the Scripture denomination of provincial Churches which are expressed in the plural So we read of Churches of Asia Revel 1 II. Churches of Iudea Gal. 1 22. Next This answer still supposes The existence of the diocesian Bishop over Presbyters at that time which is a poor begging of the question Wee prove from this and such like texts that the Bishops of Asia and Ephesus were meer Pastours who had in Common the Epicopal charge over the Church and that the Holy Ghost set up these and none else Infine This is but a meer shift in the Iudgment of Chrysostom Hierom Theodoret and the Current of Interpreters who take these elders for meer Presbyters and is contrare to the Syriack translation which reads it Presbyteros ecclesiae Ephesinae So the Concilium Aquisgravense But now comes his proofe of Timothie and Titus their Episcopacie from these Epistles His first Reason in general is That in these Epistles more fully then any where else in the new Testament Paul gives direction to Timothie and Titus how to carry in ordination and jurisdiction which Two comprehends the Episcopall office Ans. 1. With him there is a possibilitie or may be that forall these directions Timothy and Titus were evangelists still and not yet Bishops and so these directions might be given to them as extraordinary officers who according to him were to cease and consequently though comprehensive of the Episcopal office yet the office might cease with their persons as exercised in that manner and the power of ordination and jurisdiction be deryved to different recipients to be exercised in another maner viz by presbyters in common 2. By what consequence will he infer ane Episcopall authority and inspection from the Apostles prescribing rules to them anent ordination and jurisdiction May not all Ministers be herin directed as well as Timothy and Titus or will his giving directions to them in this poynt infer their sole and singular authority therein Surely not at all in Churches constitute and as for what they did in the frameing and constitution of Churches yet in fieri as to their organick being is not to the purpose 3. We did shew above that the prelats power and their way as to ordination and jurisdiction is in its very nature different from that which either Apostle or Evangilist exercised as being a dominion and arbitrary power yea including in it a civil dominion and derived from the civil Magistrat None of which can be said of any authority which Timothy and Titus are here supposed to have In a word as it is clear that the elders of Ephesus at Paul's last farewell were intrusted with the whole power of ordination and jurisdiction and as the Episcopi were commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed and rule with out any respect to Timothy which clearly demonstrats that he and consequenly Titus had no Episcopal power of ordination and jurisdiction over these Churches established in their persons by any prescriptions here delivered So it is as evident that the same prescriptions might be delivered to any Moderator of a Synod or vnto a transiently visiting Minister though even in relation to a province which being necessarly to be understod Salvo jure Ecclesiae would import no Episcopall or sole authority and thus the case is here But what were these directions importing this power He instances 1. In the qualifications which they must require in such as were to be ordained-not suddenly to lay on hands which respects ordination next the rules anent government how to rebuke offenders not to receave ane accusation but before two or three witnesses how to deal with heretikes c. Ans. 1. These Apostolik directions in point of Government are good excellent but how doth he prove that the adressing of these directions to Timothie will infer his Sole and single authority in all these so as to seclude Presbyters from their share therein And if he prove not this it will say nothing to evince ane Episcopal authority What if such directions
his argument is that one is named though many are spoken to and where many Presbyters are supposed to be as at Ephesus who threfore must needs be a Bishop but this ground will not hold good Because 1. This is no more then what is suitable unto the stile of this book which is by mistick visional representations to include many individuals as one singular So all the individuals of the Church both members and officers are represented by one candlestick and why not also all the Ministers by one angel which is a terme that of it self and in this place imports no jurisdiction properly but is immediatly referred to the qualities of Ministers above expressed 2. This is also suitable to the stile of this book as it is epistolar the addresse may be to one but it will give no Authority to that one over the rest no more then ane addresse from the King to a speaker of the Parliament will give to that person jurisdiction and authority over them Or then our Lords saying to Peter only expressly not to the rest of his fellow disciples I will give unto thee the keyes c. Will conclude that he was Prince or primat over the Apostles and that they had not equal authority with him in the use of the keyes Our Informer and his fellows here doe justifie the Papists pleading for the Pope 3. This is suitable unto Scripture prophetick writings and to this book as such to represent many individuals by one singular The four beasts and twentie four Elders are not four individuall persons or twentie four single Elders The singular names of Woman Beast Whoor Dragon signifie a collection of many individuales So the one Spirit of God is called the seven Spirits in the 1 Chap With reference to his manifold operations Dan. 8 20. One Ram signifies many Kings of the Medes and Persians He that will not hearken to the Priest Deutr. 17 12. That is the Priests in the plurall So the Priests lips should keep knowledge and the Law is to be sought at his mouth Mal. 2 7. That is the Priests Blessed is that servant whom his Lord c. that is those servants Particularly as to this term Angel It is said Psal. 34. That the Angel of the Lord encamps about the Godly that is many Angels 4. It is suitable to Scripture and to this book To represent ane indefinet number by a definit Thus all Judas Adversaries are represented by the four hoâ—…es Zachr 1 18. All the Godly and the ungodly are represented by the five wise and the five foolish Virgines Matth. 25. and in the 8. Chap of this book The Seven Angels standing befor God represent all the Angels Foâ—… in the 7 Chap Mention is made of all the Angels who doe thus stand So we are to understand with the same indefinitnes ofttimes the Septenary number as the Seven pillars which wisdom hewes out Prov. 2. The seven Pastours or shepherds Mic. 5. The Seven eyes Zachr 3. And in this very book the Seven condlesticks Lamps and vials Revel 4 5 15 5. As wee find the scripture and this same Apostle first naming a multitud and then contracting it into a singular as 2 Joh. 2. many deceavers are come into the world then this is a deceaver and ane Antichrist And sometimes the individual in one sentence turned into a multitud as 1. Tim. 2 15 Shee shall be saved that is the woman bearing Children if they abide in faith and Charity that is such women in General as Beza tells us all writers doe take it So it is as certain that this single Angel is turned into many in one and the same Epistle in this book and spoken to in the plural as when it is said Revel 2. 24. to you and to the rest in Thyatira and in Revel 2 10. we find John changing in one sentence the singular Angel into a multitude fear none of these things which thow shal suffer Behold the devil shal cast some of you into prison that yee may be tryed c. as in 2 â—…oh 2 He changes many into One Finaly Wee have proved that the Scripture allowes of no Angels standing-Standing-Church officers or Bishops above the Pastours or Presbyters who have in Scripture the whol Episcopall power given them So that whatever this Informer shall produce as the Characteristick of this Angel we find it applicable to Presbyters 1. Is it the work of this Angel to preach and baptize This Commission he will grant belongs to all Pastours 2. Is it the power of ordination The Scripture shewes us that this is Seated in a Presbytery 1. Tim. 4 14. with Act. 22 5. Luk. 22 66. Matth. 18 17. Or 3. Is it the ruling Governeing power Surely all Ministers are such Angels All that watch for the peoples soules have a joynt rule over them Hebr. 13. 17. And therefor none can challenge it solely to himself In the Church of Thessalonica the laboures in the word and doctrine joytlie and indiscriminatim fed joyntlie censured and admonished and were joyntly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Rulers to whom consequently the people were indiscriminatim or with out any difference of one of them from another to submitt themselves 1 Thess. 5. 12. There was therefore no sole Angel or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ruler but this Prostasia or ruleing power was in many So was it with the Church of Ephesus Act. 20. So with these elders or Bishops 1. Pet 5. And we offer to this or any mans serious thoughts whither it be suiteable to divine rules to cross so many clear Scriptures upon the ground of a metaphorial mistick expression and to expone them in that sense rather then to explaine the Metaphor and mistick expression by plaine Scriptures And whiâ—…her it be not more suiteable to understand the Angel of Ephesus of the Ministers to whom in a plaine Scripture the whole Government is found intrusted rather then to expound that plaine text Act. 20 by a Metaphor and contrary to that plain text to set up one Angel or Diocesian Bishop over that Church with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction But the Doubter objects what have been saying viz That the Angel is to be taken collectively and not for one single person but for all the Ministers To which in a peece of petulant folly he Answers That he hath oft wondered at this reply that it seems this Scripture pinches us sore when we flie to such a shift That Scultetus a learned Protestant affirms that the most learned interpreters understand the Angel thus and that without offering violence to the Text it cannot be otherwayes understood Ans. 1. We hope is evident from what is said that the most native scriptural acception is to take the Angel collectively To which we may adde that although the Lord Jesus the best interpreter of these Angels doth expound the Seven candlsticks to be the Seven Churches yet in expounding the Seven Starrs he losses the number of
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
such a president or primat as diotrephes affected to be distinct from the Divinely appointed Bishop And therefore whatever he might suppose to be creeping in at that tyme he must needs upon this ground interpret it to be a recesse from the divine appointment and in so far a Corruption As for what our Informer repeats here againe ad nauseam That Bishops were immediatly the Church before all the Apostles were gone and imediatly after which is a commentary upon Timothy and Titus and the Asian Angels and Diotrephes I answer I beleive indeed as to his last instance that there were Diotrephesies earely enugh and Beza's Episcopus humanus or fixed president but that there was either in the Apostles time or ane hundered years and more afterward I speak far within compass his Diocesian Prelat with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction in a Diocess he will assoone joyn the poles together as prove it by any faithful and authentick Testimony CHAP. XII The Informers appeal to antiquity in the point of Episcopacy That antiquity is at most testis facti but not judex veri may witness matter of fact but is no judge of what is right therein proved from the Testimony of Scripture and the fathers The Informer's reasoning on this head reduced to a formal Syllogisme and discussed That in the first purest age the Church was governd by Presbyters withtout Bishopes proved by Testimonys of the fathers particularly of Ierome His Testimony at Large vindicated from the exceptiones of the Informer OUr Informer hath by this time got out of the straites of his Scripture Arguments for prelacy and his pretended replyes to Scripture arguments against them Wherin we have seen how pittifully he lies been Bruillied in his endeavours to put the fairding of some Scripture Characters upon this Monster The Diocesian Prelat Now he wil lanch out in to the vast Ocean of Antiquity wherein he supposes and not altogother amisse that this Leviathan can swim much better And therefore he fills up the Third part of the pamplet with a tedious legend of human Testimonyes in relation to Bishops But in this his argueing from antiquity he playes the same petty Sophister as in his pretended Scripture proofes For he is still pleading for a versatil Chimaera of his own braine and dare not state the Question as to the Prelat now existent in his Diocesian and erastian mould like to whom if he will shew me but one Prelat among all his ragged Testimonies I will yeeld the Cause to him So that we are not concened in his Testimonies They being all Mute or Ambiguous as to our debate Wee shall therefore proceed to Consider the substantials of his Argument on this head and add some Chapters which will be found abundantly to cutt the sinneâ—…es of his reasoning from pretended Testimonies of the Fathers and vindicat our Cause even in point of Antiquity 〈◊〉 I Suppose this man if he will not renounce his protestant profession cannot but grant that it is not Antiquity as he call it or human Testimonies but the Scriptures of truth which most judge in this debate So that I hop I may suppose that he lookes upon his Antiquitity as ane accessorie appendix onely to his Scripture arguments and that the Scripture is not for him but against him I hope it is conuincingly apparent from that is said above we must to the law and the Testimony in this and all other points of faith Antiquity without the first Scripture antiquity deserves not the name Id adulterum quod posterius id verum quod pri nium said Tertullian That is adulterat which is Last and trere which is first I am the way the truth and the Life said Christ but not I am Custome And Cyprian tells us that Consuetudo sins veritate est vetusias erroris Antiquity without truth is but a mouldy error Our Lord himself rejected this argument it was said of old and apposes unto it but I say Well may we then oppose the Scripture sayings to our Informer's it was said of old and by our Lords warrand reject his pretences from Antiquity to warrand any thing which the word condemnes and for this we have good warrand of antiquity it self for the fathers universaly doe hold that onelie the Scriptures must judge in points of faith Sunt libri Dominici quorum authoritati utrique consentimus utrique credimus there being in them all things to be believed and practised utrique servimus ibi quaeramus ecclesiam ibi discutiamus causam nostram is great Augustins advice The books of the Lord are they to whose Authority we both consent which we both beleive To which we both submit There let us seek the Church There let us discusse our Cause Jerom on Chap. 23 of Matth. tells us quod de scripturis authoritatem non habet eaedem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur That which derives not its authority from Scripture the contemneing of it is as ready as the proof is offered and on the 1. Chap. of Hag Quae absque athoritate Testimoniis scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit Gladius Dei Such things as men of there own accord find out forge upon pretence of Apostolick tradition with out the authority and Testimonies of Scriptures the sword of God strikes throw the same Besides this discovers the plea from Antiquity to be very Impertiment in this debate Because the Question betwixt us is not defacto but de jure not what sort of Bishops have been as to matter of fact introduced into the Church of old or of late but by what warrand and right they have possessed their places We alledge and prove that the present Prelat now existent stands condemned by Christ the great lawgiver his rules in point of Church Government set down in his Testament Now to answer this Charge with humane Testimonies as to Custom or practise of the Church even granting that his Testimonies did prove the matter of fact viz That our present Prelat is exemplified in the ancient Bishops what is it but to oppose humane corruption to Gods ordinance The practise of men to Gods rule and mens Testimonies who are liars to the divine Oracles of the God of truth This man thinkes it a Herculean argument when he drawes his human Testimonies as to prelacy neer the Apostles time as if he had travelled to Hercules pillars and wonders how we can suppose that the Church could so soon alter the divine institutions But I pray how long was it after Gods Holy law was proclaimed from heaven by his own terrible voice that the wholl Church of Israel together with Aaron himself set up and worshiped the golden Calf contrary unto the very express letter of the Second command Now suppose that idolatry several hundered years afterward had pleaded this Antiquity or ancient Custome of the Church of Israel after frequently imitated and which had its plausible pretexts of intention to
worship God for the seasi was proclaimed to Iehova and to have a visible signe of his presence Wil the Informer say that this had been a good argument to warrand the breach of the Second command though this Practise was but fourty dayes younger then the promulgation if self So the case is here Though he could shew us human clear Testimonies nay more even Scripture Testimonies as to the factum that the diocesian yea and Erastian Prelat had been existent and set up in some Churches in the Apostles own time yet if we can from our Lord and his Apostles doctrine and practise prove this officer to be a plant not of a divine plantation and contrary to the divine institutiones He must needs grant that though esteemed golden it ought to be Nehushtan rejected and pluckt up by the roots The Papists who hold the Scriptures to be but a half-rule made up by traditions yet will not dare to own professedly at least any principle or practise condemned in the Word suppose he could bring thousands of Testimonies from ancient writers touching his Prelat he pleads for they are but hâ—…man Testimonies and therefore cannot beget a divine faith which is founded upon the word only Surge veritas ipsa Scripturas tuas inter retare quam câ—…nsuetudo non nooit nam si nosset non-esset saith Tertullian Arise o truth it self and expone they Scriptures which custome hath not known for had it known them it had not been The Informer's Testimonies may induce to believe that there were Bishops in the Church but whither the office which these Bishops are supposed to hold be of God yea or not this queston must be brought to a higher tribunall and Gods Oracles must determine therein before the Conscience can be satisfied as to the owning of such a Church officer And if God dissowne him I may be ane Athanasius contra orbem in withstanding him It being still certain that these human witnesses are testesfacti at most but not judices veri recti Attesters of matters of fact but not judges of what is right and equal therein Thus we have seen that though all our Informers pleading from antiquity were granted his cause profliga by Scripture weapons lyes grovelling in the dust wheras he alleadges Testimonies as to the existence of Prelats in the Christian Church neer the Apostles times or contemporary with them that Catalogues of a Succession of Prelats down from Apostles and Evangilists have been keept in Churches which he thinkes speakes convincingly for the Episcopacy of Timothie and Titus c. I Ans. Although this be the very Marrow and strength of all his argument from Antiquity yet when tryed it will be found many wayes defective and unsound For clearing whereof I shall offer some things both to the Major and assumtion of this argument which will be found quite to breake the force of al his pretences this way For thus the argument must run If Diocesian Bishops by the Testimonies of the ancient fathers did exist in the primitive times and Catalogues of them are drawn by these ancients from Apostles and Euangilists then I must believe these Bishops to be of divine institution but thus it is by the Testimony of the ancient fathers Ergo I must believe Diocesian Bishopes to be of divine institution Now this being the argument in its genuine strength this pitifull pleader offers not a jott in proofe of the major proposition whose connexion he cannot but know the we all deny All that he offers is in proofe of the assumption which is also denved will be found very maimed I. To the Major I say that it is of very dangerous consequence to make that which men call antiquity or ancient custome the infallible rule and commentary as to the nature and office of Church officers mentioned in Scriptur Because 1. If mens practise must be the key and comment in this case so as we must not contradict or counteract it then why may not also human practise and profession of succeding ages determine as to every Scripture truth and duty therein held out 2. This were to set up a higher rule and tribunal then the Scriptures and to make our faith to stand in mans wisdome not in Gods and to make the Scriptures of a privat interpretation as if the Prophecy had come by the will of man For if I must believe no otherwayes anent the Scriptures relating to the offices of Timothy and Titus then according to the practise of supposed Bishops their successores and that they held no other offices but such as these supposed successores are said to have had then the Custome and practise of fallible men becomes to me the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ratio a priori and the chief ground why I believe these Scriptures to have such a sense and no other and so I give men a dominion over my faith and my faith herein resolves ultimatly into a human practise and Testimony of fallible men which is a principle no protestant will allow Next as to the asumption of the argument I would demand of this informer how I must be infallibly assured anent this universal judgment and practise of the ancient Church and of this true succession and how he will instruct the universal harmonius judgement of all the ancient Fathers in this great point viz. That such prelates as we have now were the first recipients of the ordinary power of government from the Apostles and Evangelists as their only immediat ordinary successors The topick of our Informers argument doth suppose the certanty of this mater of fact But to clear this will be found a hard peece of work Because 1. It is certan that many of the ancients wrote nothing many of their writings are lost many writings going under their name are counterfit most especially to this debate It were possibly none of the hardest Tasks to discover some writings here cited to be meer countersites How shall I know that the Testimonies of those who have written are not contradicted in this point by such men of their times who either have not written or whose writings are perished 2. There are many things which the Ancients speak of as derived from the Apostles and have had ane universal consent as farr as the knowledge thereof hath come to us which are acknowledged to be contrary to the word of God and the Apostolick doctrine as the error anent the vision of God that the Saincts sie not his face till the last day the error of free will which until Augustin opposed it was universally receaved the Millenary error anent Christs personall reigne upon the Earth a Thousand years called by Lactantius the doctrine of the holy prophets and christian wisdome which christians follow Iustin Martyr holds them to be no christians that dissown this and this is owned as ane Apostolick tradition So childrens partaking of the Lords supper and the necessity of baptisme was by Augustin
Hieronimus Primum quo Ecclesiae communi presbyterorum concilio gubernabantur Secundum quo studia in religione facta sunt ac dictum est in populis ac non corinthisolum c nam quum primum illa corinthi dicerentur adhuc communi presbyterorum concilio ecclesiae gubernabantur ut patet ex icor 5. 2. cor 1. tertium demum quo unus de presbyteris electus caeteris fuit superpositus Atque haec singula tempora suam ut cum vulgo loquar latitudinem habuerunt Ierom distinguishes Three periods of time 1. When the Church was governed by the Common Council of presbyters The 2d Wherin there were divisions in religion and it was said among the people not at Corinth onely I am of Paul c for when these things were said at Corinth the Church saith he was as yet governed with the Common Council of presbyters as it appears 1. Cor. 5. and 2 Cor. 1. The 3d. and last wherin one chosen out from among the presbyters was set over the rest And every one of these times saith he that I may speak with the vulgar hade their own latitud here in this one judicious account of this learned author our Informer might have seen his error and the violence which he offers to jerome words for jerom drawes his proofes for the first period from many texts of Scripture from Phil. 1. Act 20. c when Paul took his last farewell of that Church never to see their faces more Yea he drawes his proofes from John the Surviver of all the Apostles for the identity of Bishops and Presbyters and in relation to the Churches being governed by their Common Councill And as to the choise of the constant president he addes quod autem postea unus electus that their was one afterward chosen to preside for the remedie of Schism c and to be Episcopus preses this period he fixes after Iohns time and so after all the Apostles 2. Wheras the Informâ—…r following Downam defens lib. 4. cap 3. Sect 10. alledges That the Presbyters in jeromes senc did in the beginning of the gospel govern the Churches Modo privato in a privat way in foro conscientiae feeding with the word and Sacrament the Apostles themselves by thâ—…r own presenc supplying the roume of Bishops and that thereafter Bishops were set up by them to prevent schism among Presbyters I answer He will assoone squize water from a flint as this meaneing out of jeroms words Fori jerom speaks of a frame of government yea a divine frame which postea and Paulatim afterward and by degrees came to be altered and changed but this privat government of Presbyters in foro interno was never changed 2. jerom in speaking of that government which was afterward changed and by degrees proves its divine right from many scriptures as a Dispâ—…sitio divina or a divine appointment Now I beseech him did the Apostles first practise a divine fâ—…ame of Government and then changed it into a human custome which is the Character that jerom puts upon the Episcopacy which afterward came in will any of common sense or discretion say so Far less so learned a man as Ierome was 3. If the Apostles themselves did supply the roum of Bishops before the change which Jerome speaks of then Ierome could not say of that period of time before the change that communi consilio Presbyterorum ecclesiae gubernabantur the Churches were governed by the common Council of Presbyters but according to this gloss of his words before the change the Government was episcopall But so it is that jerom sayes idem episcopus Presbyter the Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same by divine right and that before the change which came in by a human custome which he distinguishes from that dispositio divinâ—… or divine frame which first took place the Presbyters Governed theChurches by common Counsel according to divine appoiniment 4. If the Apostles upon their with drawing or the increase of Churches set up Prelats let the Informer shew me why and how Ierom could draw his proof for the identy of Bishopes and Presbyters from Act. 20. Where Paul was taking his last farewell of the Churches was he to supply the roume of a Bishop by his presence with them when never to see their faces more how could Ierome plead for the divine right of Presbyters Episcopal Scriptural GospelGovernment from Paules calling them Bishops at his last farewell and committing the whollGovernment to them if this had been his meaning Besides were not the Churches increased aâ—… this time why then were noâ—… Bishops set up since this man holds the increase of Churches to have grounded such a necessity of Prelacy Nay since Jerom drawes his proofes against the Prelats divine right from the 1 Pet. 5 And from John could he suppose that this was but the beginning while the Apostles had the power still in their own hand Againe our Informer would doe well to resolve this doubt how Jerom could call a Government which he asserts to be brought in by the Apostles according to Gods appointment a human custome opposite to the Lords appointment Or how could this answer Jeroms scope to prove Presbyters to be one with Bishops to say that the Apostles first governend them episcopally themselves and then set up Bishops over them And how will he make this corresâ—…ond with what Jerom sayes as to the originall of this change viz. the studia in religione or factions in Religion Will the Informer say which is his own argument afterward that the Apostles immediat episcopall Government had influenc upon this Schism Was not likwayes the Schism at Corinth from which this man drawes the change in Jeroms sense long before severall of Jeroms proofes from 1 Pet. 5 Act. 20 And from John for the divine warrand of this common Government of Presbyters And was this the change which Ierom speaks of as toto orbe decretum postea or a change afterward through the World Appage inneptias 3. As for what he adds That Ierom drawes the Alexandrian Episcopacy from Marke which he compleans that Mr. Durhame and Smectimmuus take no notice of Ans. Wee have showen already that it is not worth the noticeing in this matter and any notice can be taken of it makes rather against him then for him for if Marke was ane Evangelist in the strict sense as Ierom calls him he doeth as chamier answers Bellarmin in this point cut him of from the Series of Bishops properly so called The Informer must grant this or contradict what he said before of the inconsistency of these offices in a strict senc in on and the same person for he said nothing against this consequenc Timothie is called ane Evangilist in astrict sense ergo He could not be a Bishop Now I say Ierom calls Marke ane Evangilist for he tells us that a Marco evangelista from Marks the Evangilist the Presbyters at Alexandria set up one
in decretis caus 16. Quest. 1 cap. shewes that Ecclesia habet senatum Presbyterorum c That the Church hath a senat of Presbyters without whose counsel the Bishop can doe nothing 2. We heard that these Ancient Bishops were sett up by the Presbyters as their fixed Moderator and had all their Episcopall power from their free choice and election And that any prerogative which they had over Presbyters they ascribe it to Custom and to the Presbyters own choic consuetudini non dominicae dispositionis veritati to Custom not the truth of divine appointment as Ierome speakes Irenaeus who lived ann 180 lib 4. cap. 43 tells us that we must adher to those Presbyters qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis acceperunt Who have succession from the Apostles and together with the succession of Episcopacy have the gift of verity Ambrose in cap 4. Ephes. affirmes that non per omnia conveniunt c. the government in his time agreed not in al points with scripture he means it of any excrescent power which the Bishop then had above Presbyters And Augustine ascribes al his difference from Ierom who was a Presbyter unto Ecclesiae usus the Churches Custome and grantes that in this onely Episcopatus Presbyterio major est the Episcopacy is greater then the Presbyterat Tom. 2. operum Epist. 19. ad Hieron And Ierome holds in his Epistle to Evagrius Primatum hunc Episcoporum Alexandriae Primum caepisse c. That this primacy of Bishops began first at Alexandria and post-mortem Marcae Evangelistae after the death of mark the Evangelist And thus gives the lie to our Informer who would make us believe that it came from Markes personal practise and appointment while a live he tels us also that it was paulatim by â—…ent degrees that omnis sollicitudo ad unum delata The episcopall care was put upon on Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 15. calls it civitatis consuetudinem a custome whâ—…ch prevailed with other cites 't is remarkable that by Ephiphanius confession Haeres 87. non habuit Alexandrie duos episcopos ut aliae urbes Alexandria had not two Bishopes as other cities But the Informer wil not dare to say that our Prelats now have their power by Presbyters election as these ancient Bishopes 3. It is also clear that in these first times when the Episcopus praeses was set up and for some ages afterward not only the Presbyters but the people also had a great interest in their choice Cyprian epist. 68. speaking of the choice of Bishops sayes That plebâ—… maxime habet potestatem the people have mainely a power and that plebe presente that is in the peoples presence they were set up Which he sayes was a power they had descending upon them de divina auctoritate that is from the divine Authority And this had the approbation of ane African Synod consulted by the Churches of Spaine as to Election Athanas epist. ad Orthodox condemned the comeing in of a Bishop without the peoples consent as a breach not only of ane Ecclesiastick constitution but ane Apostolick precept See Smect page 26. proveing this at large that Bishops were elected by the people Cyprian lib. 1. Epist. 4. nomine Synodi africanae videmus de divina authoritate descendere ut sacer dos plebe presente sub omnium oculis deligatur c. That the Priest was chosen under the eyes of all the people being present and approved as fitt and worthy by a publick Testimony This he sayes we see descends from divine Authoritie ibid diligenter de traditione divina Apostolica traditione tenendum est quod apud nos fere per provincias universas tenetur ut episcopus deligatar plebi cui ordinatur presente c. That it was to to be held from the divine and apostolick tradition as almost through all provinces it was observed that that the Bishop was chosen in the peoples presence over whom he was ordained c. He testifies that thus Cornelius was chosen Bishop of Rome lib. 4 epist. 2. Grat. dist 62. Can nulla ratio fuit ut inter episcopos habeantur qui nec a clero sunt electi nec a plebibus sunt expetiti No reason permitts that they should be holden Bishops who are neither chosen by the clergy nor desired by the people So Ambrose was chosen by the citticens of Millan Flavianus by those of Antioch Chrisostom by the Constantinâ—…politans This Custome was so rooted that when Emperors afterward obtruded Bishops without the previus election of the clergie and people the most famous Bishops much stomached it Ubi ille Canon saith Athanasius Epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes ut a pallatio mittatur is qui futurus est Episcopus Where is that canon That he who is to be Bishop should be sent from the court Let our court prelats mark this And our curats answere this quere Now I hope our Informer will not alledge that the people have any the least Interest in the choise of our Prelats so that they are but novell none of the ancient Bishops in this point 4. Non of the first Bishops could ordaine alone This is beyond debate as to the first Episcopus preses But even in after times also when Bishops power was farther advanced they could not thus ordaine That their power of ordination was not singular appeares from the 4th Councel of Carthage Can. 22 which decrees that the Bishopes ordain not without the Clergy and Can. 3. they are not to impose handes without them The Presbyters in Cyprians time had the power bartisandi of baptizing manum imponendi or of laying on hands ordinandi that is of ordaining epist. 78. and in Egypt in absence of the Bishop they ordained alone see Smect p. 27. upon this ground Ambrose said that betwixt the Bishop and presbyter there is almost no difference Now have not our prelats power to ordaine alone and have they not de facto frequently done so so that upon this account also they are new minted Gentlemen 5. The power and Government of the ancient Bishops in Church judicatories was not sole and singular as that of our prelats nor did they invad or inhanse their decisive conclusive suffrage as they doe who are Princes in all the present Church meetinges which must only give them advice and not that unless this high priest judge them of known loyaltie and prudence and may doe with their advice what he pleases Wheras Cyprian Epist. 6. and 28 professes that he neither could nor would doe any thing without the Clergie And the 4â—… councill of carthage condemnes the Bishops decision unless fortified by the sentence of the Clergie Can. 23. where was the negative voice here see Ruffin hist. lib. 10. Cap. 9. Smectim proves from Canons of ancient Councills the Fathers That neither 1. In censuring presbyters Nor 2. In judgeing of the conversation or crimes of Church members Nor 3. In
after the doctrine was reformed Why lived they so long without a beloved hierarchy and which is yet more strange why Imployed they their pens and their paines so much for Presbyterian government and not rather for the hierarchy why were both Calvin and Beza so active in that which Iohn Knox did here in opposition to prelacy But stay hath not the Informer told us that Masone and Bishop Andrews doe assert That Calvin and Beza assumed ane Episcopall power at Geneva How comes Durel and Hooker then To suppose a compleat parity among the Ministers to havt begun and continued at Geneva for want of a Bishop foresooth He must grant that some of these accusers are ingrained liars and accusers of the brethren in this point So he must deliberat whither he will bestow this upon Mason and Bishop Andrews or Hooker and Durepl For what he adds of these that have written for Presbyterian government that they designed only to prove it lawfull it is a gross Calumny their designe is to prove it a divine frame of government appointed in the new Testament which I hope he will say is necessary as well as lawfull since Christ promises to the end his presence with those officers cloathed with his commission And him self holds that the end of that Government practised in the new Testament and its grounds are Moral and perpetual For Blondel his calling Episcopal preeminence an apostolical constitution which the Informer cites page 84. no such wordes being in the printed copy as he acknowledges who will be so foolishly credulous as to take it upon the Informer or Durells bare word that it was in the written on Unless we will admitt the Informer as the Papists doe by the Scriptures in their unwritten traditions to add his unprinted patchments to any author and thus to dispute pro libitu and make his weapons from testimonies of authors as once a certain Chiftain's sword is said to have done to wound and kill a great way before the point He distinguishes the Government he pleads for as divinitus institutus or of divine appointment from any other frame as humane only which will say that this divine institution must stand and all other frames of Government give place to it The same may be accomodat to that which he cites out of Beza pag 85. who looked upon the very Episcopus humanus as he calls him or the first proestos as the first rise of all the popish Hierarchie and mischeiffs That sentence of Beza de min. grad Cap. 21. pag. 343. stands Intirely thus imo Câ—…nctos sic id est Archiepiscopos Episcopos hodie appellâ—…tos modo sanctissimorum illorum Episcoporum meaning Timothy and Titus c whom Saravta termed Bishops Beza allowing the designation in a sound scripture sence exemplum imitentur tam misere deformatam domum Dei ad amussim ex verbi divini regula pro viribus inâ—…aurent ut Ecclesiae Christianae fidos pastores cur non agnoscamus observemus omni reverentia prosequamur Nedum ut quod falsissime impudentissime nonnulli nobis objiciuut euiquam uspiam Ecclesiae c. certainely there walking up to such rules and patterns as are here prescribed as the proviso's upon which Beza Proefesses to reverence and owne them would so sned off the Episcopal heteroclyt excrescencies of our diocesian Erastian Prelats and smooth them to the Scripture Episcopacy as quite to destroy their power and office pleaded for by this pamphleter As his acting so his writing for Presbyterian Government accordingly was not to prescribe his owne which Beza disclaimes but Gods example How will the Informer prove that Beza's denying his prescribing of their example of Church Government at Geneua meerly as such will infer his not commending a divine frame of Church Government This was not to prescribe his example simpliciter And how will he prove that Beza looked upon a Government which he held to be the egg from which Anti Christ sprung as Dei beneficentia or Gods beneficence He makes him a very gross ignoramus for what man of the meanest capacity would say so And if Beza held the first Episcopacie or proestos to be a recess from the divine institution he certainly condemned it in so far And the diocesian Prelat he holds to be Satanicall Therefore when he seems to condemne the desowning of all order of Bishops he must understand it of a condemning scripture order the beautiful subordination among Church officers or that divine order that is among them But here again I must needs take notice that in this passage of Beza in his dispute with Saravia the Informer hath sned off that which wounds his cause to death for the words following doe discover another ground of this distinction of Bishops from Presbyters viz Beza and Jeroms humane Custome then what the Informer would persuade For it followes immediatly neque hoc scelere tenentur qui de episcopalis muneris sive prostasias finibus regendis de discrimineinter ordinem gradum postulant ut ex verbo Dei decidatur Whence it is evident that he does not understand Bishops set over Presbyters to be Iure divino or speaks of them in this place As for the passages of Beza's letters to Bishop Whitegift and Grindal which the Informer after cites pag. â—…6 I say 1. That certainly Beza's principles so largely expressed from Scripture anent Church Government and the contrariety of the episcopus humanus or humane Bishop far more the Diocesian Satanical Bishop to the divine rule in his principles will necessarly infer that in this great mans Judgement none of these Prelats had qua tales or as such a lawfull spirituall authority from God 2. It is as certaine that all Beza's pleading and arguments strikes against the diocesian Prelat or Arch prelat as in that capacity and against this office and policy in it self abstracting from its union unto the pope so that he could own no authority that way committed to them of God 3. It followes that since he judged the episcopall hierarchy unlawfull he held the first parity unalterable since he pleades for it upon morall perpetuall Scripture grounds and institutions And by these his solid Scripture grounds when ex professo handling this point and theologically we are more to determine of his Judgement then by Missives Wherein the circumstances of time and severall exigences might engadge to some insinuations in point of a civill deference and respect But however that be we are to look unto intentio and natura operis in his writings or the native designe thereof rather then critically to scanne or straine every practical conformity or disconformity therunto And the Informers answer to what we offer anent the assertions of Bishop Mortoune Bilson Iewel who write for the parity of Bishop and Presbyters by divine right viz That they held the Episcopall office themselves charging them thus with a practical breach of their principles most make him retract this
calls ane evasion Anent the alteration of some things in the Apostolick Church As wee disowne Stillingfleet in making the frame of government which the Apostles established in the Church versatile various or alterable So we disowne this Informer in resolving it solely upon the Churches decision what Apostolick practises are imitable or morall and what not A dangerous popish principle and wherein he will be found inconsistent with himself But for the apostolick government by the Common Concell of Presbyters wee hold it morall and perpetual upon the same grounds of the Churches union and edification which himself doth plead As for the shifts and bad issues which he alleadges Presbyterian writters are driven unto Neither he nor any of his party can make it appear but his own pitifull shifts and of others of his way in pleading for this Hierarchy wee hope by this time are sufficiently apparent As for Durells offer To get Episcopacy ane approbation from all forraigne divines we lett it pass as a peice of prelatick pageantry fitt to fill pamphlets Ad pompam non ad pugnam quid tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu Durel and the Informer cannot stand befor their evidences who have made the Contrary appear For what he adds anent our Superintendents as haveing upon the matter ane Episcopal power I referr him to the defence of the Epistle of Philadelphus against Spotswoods Calumnies printed at the end of Didoclavius page 30 31. Where he will find the difference betuixt them and Prelats cleared and stated in 12. Particulars to his Conviction unless he hath resolved Ne si persuaseris persuaderis So that worthy Mr. Knox gave no patrocinie to prelacy in Countenancing the admission of Superintendents How he hath deryved his Prelacie from Scripture and through antiquitie to reformed times Churches in their confessions Let the impartial judge by what I have answered from the beginning As for the Authors of jus divinum Minist Anglic Their proof of the identitie of Bishop and Presbyter at length cleared from Fathers Schoolemen reformed divines even from Episcopall divines in England the Informer had done better not to mention that peice then to have made such a simple insipid returne Anent the Scoolmens notione whither Episcopacy be a different order from Presbytery or a different degree of the same order for though this were granted that the scoole-men tost such a question dare he say that the Ancient Fathers both greek and latine and late reformed divines cited in that learned peice in their clear and positive assertions of the parity of Bishop Presbyter jure divino intertained any such notion as this Againe had he been so ingenuus and true to the learned authores of that peice and unto himself â—…s he ought to have been he might have found cited therein a passage of Cassander in his book of Consulâ—… Artic. 14 Which breaks this his answer all in peices and because his squeemish eyes lookt asquint upon it I shall here sett it downe that it may appear what a great charge this is which he brings against these divines An Episcopaâ—…us inter ordines ecclesiasticos ponendus sit inter theologos canoniâ—…as non convenit convenit autem inter ownes in Apostolorum aetate inter episcopos presbyteros nullum discrimen fuisse sed post modum schismatis evitandi causa episcopum Presbyteris fuisse praepositum c That is Whither Episcopacy is to be placed among the Ecclesiastick orders It is not agreed between the Theologues Canonists but it is agreed among all that in the Apostles age there was no difference between Bishops Presbyters but afterward upon the ground of eviting Schisme the Bishop was set ever Presbyters c. Now whither these disputants did agree That alwayes from the Apostles time there were Bishops distinct from Presbyters as this Informer is not ashamed to affirme Let the greatest adversarie judge by this account of such ane impartiall witnes How could he say that these Fathers might be of this mind and likwayes these later divines that alwayes from the Apostles there were Bishops set over Presbyters What a selfcontradicting tenet is this for any rationall man to intertaine viz Bishops and Presbyters re nomine in name and thing the same in the Apostles times and in their doctrine and yet that Bishops were set over Presbyters by the Apostles and distinct from them in their times What will he make of all Ierome Scripture proofes through the Apostles times and writings anent this compleat parity of Bishops and Presbyters of the saying of Ambrose That Non per omnia conveniunt seripta Apostolorum ordinationi quae nunâ—… est in Ecclesia The writtings of the Apostles agreeâ—… not in every thing with the ordinance or appointment he means of government which is now in the Church What will he make of Bishop Iewel telling Harding in his defence against him That in calling it a haerefie to affirme Bishops and Presbyters to be one He reflects upon Ierome and other Fathers whom he cites against him yea upon the Apostle Paul and makes him also a Haeretick What will he make of that assertion of Beza Episcopus papam peperit The Bishop brought forth the Pope Of Whittaker That the setting up the Prelat yea the first proestos or president to prevent Schisme was a remedy worse then the disease Now if he will reconcile these sayings and assertions with their holding Bishops distinct from Presbyters to have been in and from the times of the Apostles he will prove a wonderfull Oedipus But our Informer hath not yet done with these Authors and hath another reflection upon them anent what they say page 64. That Eusebius and Iraeneus were deceaved themselves deceaved others he tells us 1. They are hard put to it when seeking to relieve themselves by discrediting these authores But this man is hard put to it if he deny that which is so Notoâ—…ly true made good by so many of the learned Were Iunius and Scalliger who are approved herein by Dr Reynolds hard put to it who demonstrats Eusebius gross errors mistakes 2. He sayes Though in some things Eusebius was mistaken most he be so in every point wherin he maks Bishops superior to Presbyters drawes their succession from the Apostles Ans. For the Catalogues of Bishops from the Apostles we spoke to it already and for Eusebius speaking alwayes in that straine the reverend authors of that peece with others doe tell the Informer that all that Eusebius sayes is that it is reported that his learned censurer Scalliger maks it appear that he read ancient histories parum attente not attentivly that he takes his measures in this point his relations upon trust from Clemens fabulus Hegesippus not extant 3. The Informer thinks it strange that they can suppose Irenaeus Iohns contemporarie and disciple to be deceaved as to Church government Answer Had he but looked upon the 4.
proposition of their appendix he might have seen this objection fully removed For therein they make good from many places of Irenaeus which were tedious here to transcribe that by Bishops he understood meer Presbyters and not Bishops distinct from Presbyters From which places of Irenaeus they collect 1. That he calls Presbyters Successors of the Apostles 2. That he calls them Bishops 3. That he holds the Apostolick doctrine to be derived by their succession 4. That what in one place he sayes of Bishops the same he sayes elswhere of Presbyters which sense and account of him they back with pregnant Testimonies of Dr. Reynolds Whittaker other learned protestant divines and lights in that Church And in proposition 7. anent the pretended Succession of Prelats from the Apostolick times they cleare it that these Successions are drawen from meer Presbyters viz the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Minister first ordained as among the Athenians their were 9. Archontes or Chief Rulers equall in Authority yet the Succession of Governours in Athens was derived from one of them who was the first Archoâ—… ut compendiosior ac minus impedita esset temporum enumeratio that the Calculation of times might not be hindered but be the more compendious 4. He sayes it is more likly that Ierom was deceaved If we understand him to speak of Bishops who were introduced after the Apostles times then Eusebius or Irenaeus who lived before Ans. That Eusebius was deceaved is not only alleadged but proven by the learned and Ierom proving so clearlie from Scripture the identity of Bishop and Presbyter both in name and thing doth convincing lie inferr that the Bishops set over Presbyters are discrepant from the scripture pattern That Irenaeus by Bishops understood these first Moderators is made good from his writings Next wheras these reverend authores pag. 114 115. say that Irenaeus by Bishops meaned Presbyters and page 65. That the Fathers spoke of Church officers of former times after the stile of their owne and that the Bishops in the Catalogues are onlie the first ordained Presbyters for the more expedit reckoning this man thinks these Answers inconsistent Because 1. they say that Eusebius Irenaeus were deceaved when they spoke of Bishops And Next that by Bishops Irenaeus meaned only Presbyters Ans. Had the Informer attended better the places he points at he would have keepd off this fantastick reflection For they shew that these first Proestotes or Moderators who were in themselves and upon the Mater meere Presbyters were by former times and writers presented under ane Episcopal notion and the power of Bishops then prevalent unto Eusebius and Irenaeus whom Eusebius especially too credulously following in his Character and accounts of them occasioned the deceaving of others and that he and Irenaeus speaking of them in that manner and stile in the Catalogues might deceave others by naming them so who were upon the mater meer Presbyters whom the succeeding writers following as they shew out of Iunius Contr. 2. Ch 5. not 18. and fancying to themselves such Bishops as then had obtained fell into these snares of tradition because they supposed that according to the Custome of their times there could be but one Bishop in a Church at the same time And to cleare it that the persons whom Irenaeus speaks of were upon the mater Presbyters in answer to that objection from Irenaeus lib 3. Cap 3. where Bishops are named as set up by the Apostles They answer that the word Bishop hath a various acceptation and that Irenaeus names Anicetus Higinus Pius Presbyters of the Church of Rome the words being then promiscuouslie used So that whatever impression Irenaeus might have of them according to the language and Custome of the time yet upon the matter they were Presbyters only and therefore they put the Episcopall partie to prove that those whom they named Bishops were veri nominis Episcopi or Hierarchicall Bishops They doe not speak so much of the Impression which Irenaeus or Eusebius had of them as of the true nature and State of these Church-officers whom according to the Custome of their times they call Bishops By Irenaeus his calling them sometimes Presbyters according to the promiscuous use of the names even handed down to him they prove that his expressing them under ane Episcopall notion then receaved or any such impression of them which he might entertaine was wrong since according to the scripture language the Bishop and Presbyter imports no other office then a Pastour What inconsistency will our Informer shew in this that Irenaeus and others were deceaved in representing the first Proestotes under ane Episcopall notion upon a Credulous report from their forefathers and yet that the persons whom they thus represented were upon the mater Presbyters As for what he adds p. 102 from Bucer de animarum cura anent a Proestos or the Election and ordination of one who went before the rest and had the Episcopal Ministerie in the Chief degree even in the times of the Apostles by the Testimony of Tertullian Cyprian Irenaeus Eusebius ancienter then Ierom Wee say that any who knowes Bucers judgment in Church government and are acquaint with his writings theranent will acknowledge that the Proestos is the utmost length he goes as to Episcopacy and a Proestos during life hath no doubt something of ane Episcopal Ministerie and is above his Brethren and we are to expone his summus gradus or Chief degree by the word praecipue or Chiefly that goes before Who will doubt but the constant fixed Proestos is in so farr set over the rest But here we must minde the Informer of Two things 1. That this Proestos chosen by the Presbytery is as we said farr short of the Diocesian Prelat who owns no Presbyters in his election hath ane arbitrary power over them 2. That it being thus defacto is farr from amounting to a proof of the jus and who will say that Bucer could take the Apostle James to be formalie Bishop of Ierusalem or chosen to be a fixed Moderator by Presbyters whose Apostolick office both Bucer and the Informer will acknowledge to have reached the whole world in relation to the watering planting of Churches Next if these words will plead for a Hierarchie even in the Apostles times and that Bucer took upon the Testimonie of Tertullian Irenaeus c the Apostle James and others for Hierarchicall Bishops surely he was oblidged to have taken notice of Ieroms proofs for the parity of Bishops Presbyters in the Apostles times which since he doth not it s most probable that he means to assert the factum only of exalting Presbyters to such a degree at that time but not the jus as is said else I see no consistencie in the words if he reckon the Apostle James in this account For he sayes Apostolorum temporibus unus ex Presbyteris electus That in the Apostles times one was chosen from among the Presbyters
Ans. The Informer hath left out wittily whither honestly or not let others judge in his translation of this sentence the inference which Ambrose Drawes from this identity of the office viz that they have both one ordination He maks the office one and the ordination one consequently and gives this reason why they have one ordination viz because every one of them is a priest or Minister uterque enim Sacerdos sath he Their ordination is terminat upon and relative unto one and the same office Now what greater length would he have Ambrose assertion come then this That there is no diffâ—…rent ordination of the Bishop and Presbyter and consequently no officiall differences doth he not plead for ane officiall specifick difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter Makes he not the Bishops succeed the Apostles and Evangelists in their officiall power and the Presbyters to come after the Seventy Disciples or meer ordinary Pastoures Are their not many essential differences which this mans principles the present practise fixes betwixt the Bishop Presbyter wherof we have spoken above How can Ambrose then assert that they have the same office and ordination Where is the Consecration Where is the Bishops sole power in ordination and jurisdiction Where is his negative voice among the Presbyters making them in all their officiall power certain deputs under him if their office be one and their ordination the same with his 2. As for the difference here assigned viz That the Bishop is the first priest and that every Presbyter is not a Bishop in Ambrose sense this will nothing help our Informer Becaus 1. This is fitly applicable to the Proestos then in use yea to the Moderator of a Synod who as such hath a sort of Prostasie while the Synod sits and every Minister is not Moderator though the Moderator be no more then a Minister in his officiall power nay this is applicable to the least accidentall difference Imaginable Every man is not white or black yet every such is a man Every Parliament man is not speaker though the speaker is a Parliament man only as to his authority Blondel his first ordained Minister who with him is the first Bishop or Proestos hath this properlie applicable unto him 2. He must be minded that Ambrose sayes when speaking of the Scriptur parity of Bishops and Presbyters non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolorum ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia That the writings of the Apostles did not in every point agree to the order which was then in the Church Now this preter scripturall or new order of government what is it but that anent the primus or first among the Presbyters so that this very primus or prostasie tho farr from the present Hierarchie of our Prelats as is said yet comes after the scripture appointment with Ambrose and is unlike to that paritie betwixt Bishop Presbyter which is therein held forth The Informer Next offers something in answer to Chrisostoms Testimony who asserts That almost there is no difference betwix a Bishop and Presbyter And his great Answer is That notwithstanding these Fathers acknowledge a difference and themselves were Bishops Ans. If the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter come to a ferme nihil or almost none Surely it decays and is ready to vanish away And what this difference is and wherein placed we have already heard and surely that prostasie in Chrysostoms time behoved to be very in considerable since it came to make upno greater difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter then a ferme nihil upon the borders of a non ens As for what he sayes of their being Bishops themselves I answer they are the more impartiall witnesses in this mater They tell us oft that Ierome was a Presbyter and therefore no friend to Bishops Now here is a Testimonie of eminent Bishops for this very truth which Ierom asserts and which this man would make us believe was condemned as a Heresie And surelie we are more tender of their reputation who interpret any Prostasie or Episcopacie which they held to be according to this their judgement anent Episcopacie and assert that what overplus of power they had or might possibly exercise beyond that of a Presbyter was by them lookt upon as founded on Ecclesiastick Custome or Ecclesiae usus As Augustin speaks but not to flow from a divine right Then this Informer and his fellowes who make them maintaine one thing and practise another yea and contradict themselves so grossly in maintaining as high a jus divinum as Apostolick doctrine and practise in relation to the Hierarchicall Bishop and yet assert a ferme nihil as to the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter But the Informer adds That they might think Bispop and Presbyter to differ Gradu not ordine in degree not in order which is still a debate in the Schools Ans. This assertion is so improbable that he dare but lisp it out and faintly asserts it with a might be But sure he must needs acknowledge this distinction of the Schooles to be much later then these Fathers and any graduall difference which they place betwixt Bishop and Presbyter it is clear that they found it upon Ecclesiastick Custome as we heard both Ierome Augustin and Ambrose assert But how long will this man involve himself in contradictions and these Fathers also Told he us not page 15. That Augustin upon Psal 45 16. affirms That the Bishops are properly the Successors of the Apostles unto their office And saith he not immediatly thereafter That Ambrose upon 1 Cor. 12 28. affirms of the Apostles first named in that Classe of Church officers that ipsi sunt Episcopi firmante illud Petro episcopatum ejus accipiat alter That the Apostles are the Bishops by Peters assertion let another take his Bisheprick Tells he us not likewise here that Augustin makes James the first Bishop of Ierusalem and Peter the first Bishop of Rome Tells he us not that they transmitted ane Episcopall power in that traine of Successors proved by Catalogues of Bishops Did we not hear him plead that the seventy Disciples placed in ane inferiour orb to the Twelve Apostles are properlie succceded by Presbyters that Matthias behoved to be ordained ane Apostle tho one of the Seventy disciples is his great argument to prove this Now I beseech him per omnes musas will he say that Apostles and Presbyters differ only ordine and not gradu in order not in degree or that these fathers doe hold this opinion how come their successors then to coalesce into one after such a manner as to differ only in a ferme nihil or almost nothing Saith not Ambrose Episcopi Presbyteri una est ordinatio the Bishop and Presbyter have the same ordination But the Informer will not adventure to say that the Apostle and Presbyter have one ordination For Matthias one of the Seventy must be solemnlie by God ordained ane Apostle And the Prelats must be
they and it is expreslie given them Act. 15. 23. To which we may add the Concil Aquisgravense sub Ludovico Pio Imperatore 1. Anno 816. Which approved it for sound divinity out of Scripture that Bishops and Presbyters are equal bringing the same texts that Aerius doth To these mentioned the learned Reynolds doth add the common judgement of Reformed Churches viz. Helvetia Savoy France Scotland Germanie Hungary Poland the Low Countries citing the harmonie of Confessions Yea their own Church of England Chap II. of the harmonie Therafter he learnedly refutes our Informer as to what he sayes anent Ieroms so often repeated a Marco Evangelista shewing both by the decree of the 4t Council of Carthage Cap 3. Anent Presbyters interest in ordination which saith he proves that the Bishops ordained not then alone in all places although Ierom sayes quid facit excepta ordinatione c and by Ieroms proving Bishops and Presbyters to be all one in scripture and even in the right of ordination 1. Tim. 4. 14. That Ierom could not mean Bishops in Alexandria to have had that Episcopall power since Mark about which the question is Where also he vindicats Calvin Jnstit 〈◊〉 4. c 4. Sect 2. cited by Bancroft as likwayes by our Dialogist here as consenting to the establishment of ane Episcopacie since Mark at Alexandria He saith That Calvin having showen that Ministers choose out one to preside to whom especially they gave the name of Bishop Shews that notwithstanding this Bishop was not above them in honour and dignitie that he should rule over them but was appointed only to ask the votes to direct and admonish and see that performed which was agreed upon by their common consent And having declared that Ierom shews this to have been in by the consent of men upon Tit. 1. He adds that the same Ierom other where shews how ancient ane order in the Church it was even from Marks time to Heraclius c In which words of Calvin saith the Doctor seeing that the order of the Church which he mentions hath evident relation to that before described and that in the describing of it he had said The Bishop was not so above the rest in honour that he had rule over them It followes that Mr. Calvin doth not so much as seem to confess upon Ieroms report that ever since Marks time Bishops have had a ruling superioritie over the Clergie A contradictorie Conclusion to that of our Informer The Doctor proceeds thus Wherfore to use no more proofe in a thing manifest which else might be easily proved more at large out of Ierom and Mr. Calvin both it is certain that neither of them doth affirme that Bishops so long time have had such a superioritie as Dr. Bancroft seems to father upon them To all this adde that Dr. Holland the Kings professor in Oxford at ane Act Iully 9. 1608. Concluded against Mr Lanes question an Episcopatus sit ordo distinctús a Presbyteratu eoque superior jure divino That is whither Episcopacie be a distinct order from the Presbyterat superiour thereunto by divine right That the affirmative was most false against the Scriptures Fathers the doctrin of the Church of England yea the very Schoolmen themselves Lombard Thomas Bonaventur A 2d Essentiall point of Presbyterian government in opposition to Prelacie is in the mater of ordination and jurisdiction viz that these are not in the hand of any single Prelat but that Presbyters have ane essentiall joynt interest therin And this also hath a large Consent and Testimonie of the learned both ancient and Modern For this the 4t Council of Carthage is adduced Can. 5. and the Councils of Constance and Basile anent Presbyters decisive suffrages in Council Cyprian Epist. 33. and 78. Council of Antioch Canâ—… 10. of Aneyra Can. 13. Ruffins hist. lib. 10. Cap. 9. Sozom l. 2. c. 23. and many such Smectim pag. 28 29 30 31. cites many Testimonies for this See Blondel Apol. Sect. 3. pag. 120. to 130. Prins un-Bish of Timothie and Titus from pag. 52. to 83. Where the full Consent of reformed divines is adduced such as Ioannes Luckawits in his confession of the Taborits against Rokenzana Cap 13. the Waldâ—…nses and Taborits apud Fox acts Monum p. 210. Illyric Catol testiumveritatis Tit. Waldenses 455. Melanchton Arg. Respons par 7. De Potest Episcopi Arg. 2. Hiperius on 1. Tim. 4. 14. Hemmingius ibid. Gerardus Loc. Theol. de Ministerio Ecclesiastico proves this at large Peizelius Arg. Resp. Par. 7. de Ordin Ministrorum in Arg. 1. Musculus Loc Com. de Ministerio verbi Mornâ—…y Lord of Pless de Eccles. Cap 11. Nay Canonists and Schoolmen themselves Summa angelica ordo Sect 13. and Innocentius there cited Filiuâ—…ius Iesuit de Casibus Consc. Par. 1. Tract 9. Alexander Alensis Sum. Theol. par 4. Quest. 9. M. 5. Artic. 1. Cajetan on 1. Tim. 4. 14. and many others Likwise it is made good that the Bishops swallowing up this power of Presbyters and reserving it only to himself comes from Popish Authority Leo primus Epist. â—…8 on complaints of unlawfull ordinations writing to the German and French Bishops reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops and among the rest Presbyterorum diaconorum consecratio the consecration of Presbyters and deacons Then adds quae omnia solis deberi summis pontificibus authoritate Canonum praecipitur That is All which things are commanded to be reserved to the cheife priests by the Authority of the Canons For this see also Rabanus Maurus de Instit. Clericorum l. 1. c. 6. And to this truth of Presbyters power in ordination the Confessions of reformed Churches gives a harmonious echo The latter confession of Helvetia Harmon of Confess Chap. 11. pag 232. asserts That the holy function of the Ministery is givinâ—… the laying on of the hands of Presbyters no word of Pre lats hands So the 18. Chap pag. 236. they are to be ordained by publick prayer and laying on of hands which power they say is the same and alike in all citing that passage Luke 10. he that will be great among yow let him be your servant So Act. 15. and Ierom on Tit. 1. therfor say they let no man forbid that we return to the old appointment of God so they call the Presbyterian way of ordination and rather receive it then the Custome devised by men So they call the Episcopall Method Thus the Confession of Bohem. Chap. 9. Harm Sect 11 pag. 246. 247. after setting down the qualifications of Ministers As to ordination they say that after prayer and fasting they are to be confirmed and approved of the Elders by the laying on of their hands So the Confess Sax Chap 12. Harm Conf par 2. affirme that it belongs to Ministers of the word to ordaine Ministers lawfullie elected and called Where we have asserted both the Presbyters power in ordination and the peoples interest in the Call of Pastors in
Presbyter l. 30. r. the same highest ordinary officer l. 37. r. preaching Presbyter So p. 94. l. 5 and 7. and 19. So p. 95 l. 5 9. p. 97. l. 5 r. preaching Presbyters or Pastors So l. ult and p. 99. l. 4 16 26. So p. 101 l. 14 and 18. l. 34. r. that the Pastoral office admitts of different orders p. 102 l. 28. r. preaching Presbyters So. p. 103 l. 6. 21 and 28. So also p. 104. l. 23. p. 111 l. 30 r. Such different orders of Church officers l. 34. r. different orders p. 120. l. 14. r. his fancied Ecclesiastick Officers specifically different p. 122 l. 8 r. of a Superiour order and function l. 11 r. of the same function l. 16 r. Several functions l. 18 r. different functions p. 124 l. 24. r. as appearing to the Informer Episcopal like p. 131. l. 13. r. thus or of the Scripture sense imbraced by our divines viz. for the Apostles extraordinary unfixt assistants in their Ministry So Calvin on the place Bucan loc 47. de Minist Muscuius loc de minist verb. pag. 362. c. and the latter part of his Answer seems to admitt this l 21. r. which the Informer will easily grant is not that strict proper sense of the Evangelist supposed either in his doubters objection or his answer p. 133. l. 31 32 33. r. Thus in the Scripture proper sense but those that preach the Gospel in that extraordinary way above exprest for as for those that wrote the Gospel the Informer will not say they are intended here and although such may be in part called Evangelists upon this ground as Marke Luk Sensu Augustiore as Bucan expresseth it ubi supra yet this is not acknowledged to be the proper and adequate â—…round of this office and denomination as contradistinguished in Scripture from Apostles two Apostles themselves Matthew and Iohn being such Evangelists p. 139 l. 33 34. r. So that he doth in these words clearly plead c. l. ult unto p. 140. l 6. after among them adde if we consider the intire Series of his reasoning not only from Christs primacy and Supremacy as exemplified in the Aposties whatever he doth inconsistently here adde as to the division of this princehood among them since thus the Apostle John was sole primate over the Church when the rest were gone but also from the morall standing Authority of the Jewish Pâ—…hood and such a single Supremacy of the High-Priest which he denyes to be typicall but of constant use in Government and his express asserting thâ—… equality of the same Ministry may admit of inequality consequently principality or primacy as he expresseth it in Government Thus he de divers grad â—…p 14. pag. 145. l. 16. r. Had in a prefect parity and in common so pag. 147. l 13. p. 148. l. 31. after elder adde takeing it in an authoritative juridical sense as competent to Church officers p 149. l. 13. after accuse adde taken generally and in its full latitude p. 152. l. 21. After properly adde and immediatly intrusted to them p. 157. l. 12. r. will the Informer deny that in his sense or of these divines these precepts 1 Tim. 6 13. and 1 Tim. 5. 21. Joyned with the promise mentioned will not reach and include every peice of the Apostolick and Evangelistick office respective p 158. l. 10. r. is not that which simply and absolutely in it self considered they hold to have the force of a rule p. 162. line 10. r. different offices and functions 25 r. before Ephesus Crete and other Churches were settled in their organick being and their ordinary and inferour elders p. 164. l. 13. r. is mentioned in such ane act of Solemn blessing thus circumstantiate both as to its subject and object as this p. 176. misprinted 149. r. From the first Scripture Bishops or preaching Presbyters p. 177. l. 30 31. r. That this Episcopal power over Presbyters though farre from the Diocesian Bishops power was not till the year 140. p. 190. l. 18. r. Aaron himself mediatly at least and upon the matter p. 194 l. 12. r. Hanmer p. 197. l 13. r and expound thy Scriptures which custome hath not known c. Disowning thus all customary or traditionall innovations p. 200. l. 27. r. from Mark the Presbyters l. 29. r. speaking of this custome he excludes him p. 201. l. 2 r. thus to the Presbyters election as their act simply but would have plainely asserted that it was by Mark 's appointment the simple observing of this practice or custome observing it by his appointment being quize distinct things beside that we shall after shew that Jerom never intended to assert any such thing p. 203. l. 16. r. The Church in this Nation p. 207. l. 7. r. Common counsell or in a joint parity and equality so l. 1â—… ibiâ—…m after 4 figure r. if in Jerom's sense the Apostles c p. 208. l. 3. r. preaching Presbyters From l. 11 to 17. r. thus can he make it appear that the Schisme in Corinth from which he drawes the change in Jeroms sense was anterior to his proofs from 1 Pet. 5. and Acts. 20. Much more his proof from John for the divine warrand of this intire parity and common joynt Government of Presbyters or that this Schisme was not attended with such absence of the Apostle as he supposes did influence this new Episcopall Government in Jeroms sense p. 209. l. 1. After the word nature adde besides that the passage it self will never prove either Marks practice or appointment in relation to this supposed Bishop as is said p. â—…11 l. 11. r. Upon the ground of this first evasion and glosse l. 20 r which in the two collated passages of Jerome 212 l. 5. r. that the Apostles in Jeroms sense did l 24. r. by common counsel or in a compleat parity thus also p. 214 l. 24 p. 213. l. 22 r. preaching Presbyters p. 216 l. 29 30 to 32 after Jerome speaks of r. thus So that this Schisme was bred while there was no Presbyterian parity to breed it He tells us that in Jeroms sense the Corinth Schisme gave a rise to this change while Paul was present in Spirit and Governing them Episcopally for he will not say that he let go his reighns of Government upon every personal absence and therefore it took its original according to his pleading from the Apostolick Episcopacie p. 220 from l. 33 to p. 221 r. he makes him reflect upon Christs immediate commands and institutions in point of Government whereof severals can be produced in the Evangelick History as if they were not only altered but stated in-opposition to the Apostles institutions and practice therein For Jerom doth thus clearly oppose to one another the Dispositio Divina and Ecclesiae usus or custome in this passage as two contrary and inconsistent things thus he also reflects upon Christs institutions as at first practised by the Apostles before this change p. 225. l. 17.
Rectius Instruendum Or A REVIEW and EXAMINATION Of the doctrine presented by one assuming the Name of ane Informer in three dialogues with a certain Doubter upon the controverted points of Episcopacy the Covenants against Episcopacy and Separation Wherein The unsoundnes and in many thinges the inconsistency of the Informers principles arguments and answers upon these points the violence which he hath offred unto the holy scripture and to diverse authors ancient and modern is demonstrat and made appear And that truth which is after godlines owned by the true protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland asserted and vindicated Prov 19. 27 Cease myson to hear the instruction that causeth to erre from the words of knowledge Printed in the Year 1684. THE PREFACE to the reader Christian reader THat which the wiseman long since offered to their consideration who observe the revolving course of providence is ther any thing wherof it may be said this is new hath its signal accomplishment in the renewed collisions of opinions and debeats The conflicts betwixt truth and error or not of yesterday but as early as the morning of time when he who is a liar from the beginning assaulted with a horrid calumny the truth and faithfulnes of God and having by a lie mad a breach in our first parents integrity by inducing them to believe it instilld his poison into our nature a love of darknes rather then light The eye of the understanding like natures bodily organ when its cristalin humor is vitiat cannot see and receive the impression of its object truth and duty in its lively colours and natâ—… simplicity and if sometimes the clear beames of truth force a passage for it self make some impression upon the perverse dark mind of man O how quickly is that litle Victory lost this begun signature obliterat by the rebellious will affections The carnal mind is not subject to the Law of God nor can be hence truth is detaind in unrightiousness convictions stiffled and the convincing spirit of God counteracted and grieved Hence all the renewed pleadings for discoveries of truth begets in most men by a wofull antiperistasis nothing but renewed contradiction spurnings against it While as the suns vigorus influence upon the vapors of this dull earth by its irradiations it attracts and condenses thick foggs dark clouds of peruerse disputings the more to obscure it self Yet a holy seed there is and hath been in all generations children of light and of the day whose work and honourable badge it is to contend and be valiant for the truth who under the conduct of Michael that great prince who stands up for his people truths sincere lovers and asserters have from the beginning warred this good warfare against that old apostat and his followers So that the warr which John saw in heaven betwixt Michael and the Dragon was not then only begun but a new battel and encounter of that old warr proclaimd in paradise betwixt the seed of the woman and the serpent All men are inrolled in one of these two armies imbarques in one of these interests according as they are regenerat or unregenerat as they have the seed of God in them or not discovries of truth have various effects accordingly either of more intense love or violent hatred as the sun shining upon the flowers dunghil draws equally forth a sweet stinking savour The erecting of this royal stand art of Zions King and lawgiver ingadges his faithfull witnesses to flow unto it and come under it and excits such who have but the spirit of that world in them to a counter-muster against it Who would not have thought that the longed for appearances of that Immanuel and desire of all nations that eternal word and wisdom of God in the flesh should have put an end to all rebellion of wretched sinners agaâ—… him but it never grew more then by his convincing discovries of himself Eternal truth and holines suffred contradiction of sinners against himself he oft silenced enemies reasonings not their malice and the most admirable actings of his effectionat condescending love to men the giving of himself to death for them was intertained with the most virulent and hellish eruptions of their wrath against him in murthring him The rulers opposed this great ruler of Israel the learned scribes and rabbies with all their literal knowledge of Moses and the Prophets could not yea would not see and acknowledge this great Prophet the covenanted people would not receive this great messenger of the Covenant and they who boasted to be Abrahams seed rejected this promised seed could not see him when among them but hated him whom Abraham saw a far off and rejoyced in the discovery Yet this wisdom of God was then and still is justified of all children of God and such as are of the truth will see its beauty throw all the mists of mens calumnies and contendings against it The angry cloud wherwith God hath now of a considerable time covered the daughter of Zion in our land challenges in this as much as in any thing else our mournfull observation simpathizing compassion that men have taken the boldnes with perverse disputings to infest her true sons and children to assault her precius ordinances and priviledges and with a barefac'd impudence to indeavour the removal of the ancient land marks which our fathers have set nay which the great God hath established Yea to cajoll us with poor sophistry into a carless disregard and abandoning of the magnalia Dei the great things of gods Law important truths and dueties as if they were meer trifles and indifferencies to cast the aspersions of supercilius scrupulositie upon true zeal for God of rebellion upon true loyalti and faithfulness to the King of saints of devisive humor upon sincer indeavours after the union and true order of the house of God is it not to put light for darknes and darknes for light bitter for weeâ—…t and sweet for bitter yea cruâ—… percilius mockrie Yet at this rate are we treated by our prelatick pamphleters The authority of the second great moral precept anent the receiving and maintaining of all gods ordinances the doct worsh. disc and governm of his house the weight and importance of the third anent the observation of most sacred solemn oathes and vowes to him for this great end weighes but light in these mens ballances but he whose hand holds the plummet and line judgeth otherwise their ballances are false not the ballances of the sanctuary Their new plagiary divinity depending in a great measure upon the camelion-rule of worldly wisdom and steering its course by the versatil rule of human lawes is calculat for any meridian but that of canaan immanuels land where all must go to his Law and testimony and is pronounced base mettal which is reprobat by that touchston where every pin of the tabernacle must have its samplar from the holy mount ere it get
shall this world become if these mens faith-banishing principles be once admitted Thirdly to evince that our Prelats puppets and new pleaders are Babeâ—… true brood and builders thou mayest see how sweetly they joyn with the Papists in their glosses upon these Scirptures pleaded against them Whenc it is evident even to a demonstrative certainty that the cause of popry and prelacy are of ane inseparable affinity and stand or fall together If this mans glosses whereby he shifts off our Scripture Arguments striking at the Bishops mitre be once admitted the popes triple crown is equally shielded against the weapons of all Protestants Our learn'd Protestant divines in confuting the popish evasions do so manage their dispute as if they were directly pleading against this Informer in defending our Prelacy And who heares his glossings pleadings and answers would imagine that by some Metempsuchosis Bellarmine or Eccius were now acting the Informer to proselyt the Presbyterians to our Prelacy or a papacy rather Besides 't is clear he embarques with the Papists in his endeavour to bring in antiquity and the Churches practice as the infallible comment upon the Scripture in the Episcopall debate consequently in all debats in Theology Nay we must measure the Temple and the Altar mould our Arguments in this point of truth by Scripture standard but for the utter court of Antiquity wee leave it out for it s given to the Gentiles It s many soul principles and practices will not be gotten within the Holy Scripture verge This man in his Scripture pleadings is very sparing for a few pages measure will do it But for Antiquity ware he mets us out large and full to the great part of all the book and in this he deals honestly giving the courser stuff the larger yard In fine thou may see these men discovered beyond all their hiding pretences of love peace and unity their large spacious charity extended to the dimensions of a Metropolitans pallace hath fine entertaining rooms for Papists Quakers Arminians c. but the poor Presbyterians will scarce get such a room in it as Bishop Bonners colehouse wherein he lodged the martyrs they cry out one Presbyterian Ministers as refusing all Christian fellowship with them in worship but when shall we see them open their pulpits to our Ministers after they have banish'd them from their own flocks They viliâ—… all our differences unto meere punctilioes yet they contend about them tanquam pro aris focis and had rather all Presbyterians were harassed and persecuted even to a consuming desolation then one fringe of their Garments As Bishop Lighton call'd the points debated were cut off and let go They declame zealously in their pulpits and Pamphlets against sanguinary Principles How can these cruell men say they looke up to the God of love But now after they have drunk pretty largely for many years of Presbyterian blood and are gaping for more as fast as the bloody whore of Rome who in a great measure influences them these devout Burrio's can wipe their mouths and pretend they have peace offerings with them Mistery Babylon Mystery Prelacy What ane abysse of deceit is here In the third place thou may see that the cause wee contend for as it hath the first and pure Scripture Antiquity so the next ensuing Antiquity also and the patrociny of the purer ages and the auspiciously Harmonious consent of reformed Churches and divines So that our present Testimony is the same with that of the witnesses against the beast and our adversaries stand arranged under Antichrists banner in the whole series at least complex farrago of their principles A Diocesian Erastian Prelacy underprop't by blood and Perjury headed by a civill papacy embracing in its bosome all foul errours is a hideous Monster a bowing wall a tottering sence and lookes in face and feature so unlike to Christs bride held out and pourtrayed in Scripture and once gloriously shining in this land that no disciple of Christ no friend of the Bridegroom can mistake the one for the other So that our adversaries charge of novell heterodoxy is a new minted calumny a frighting buk bear and scar-cnow fit to fright children in knowledge to be the derision of the knowing and for nothing else Fourthly thou hast here set before thee a looking glasse representing our sin and punishment in these later dayes Wee have not suitably emproven a faithfull Ministry once our Churches crown and glory now that crown is falling apace how many stars hath the dragon cast from heaven to earth Wee have not not studied personall reformation while publick Nationall reformation was owned therefore the holy Jealous God hath given us up to an avowed disouning of that reformation Wee endeavoured not while Gods candle shin'd upon our tabernacle to get our case discovered and search'd our hearts sprinkled from an evill Conscience therefore most of us are given up to Conscience Wasting sins We have not drawn with joy from our wells of salvation while they were open and running in a plenty of powerfull pure ordinances now God hath suffered Philistines to stop these Wells and while wee endeavour to dig them again such are the counter endeavours of this man and his fellowes by their pleading and practices that they are called Ezek and Sitna strife and contention Wee are like to dig and strive long ere wee get the well called Rehoboth and faithfull Ambassadours of Christ shall find their old rooms again in the house of God Wee â—…ave not keept up a due impression of the 〈◊〉 â—…lidging force of our National solemne Covenants with God who of us have endeavoured to perform our vowes to God therein Therefore God hath given most of us up to a palpable disowning and shamelesse renunciation and abjuration of these great and sacred Oaths Wee hid our selves from discoveries of our practical breaches and many whorish departings from God pointed at by our faithfull Seers now he hath given us up to a legall avowed departing The accursed thing which was before secretly with us is now pleaded for disputed for by pretended Seers and wathmen even the remnanm have dealt treacherously with God therefore he hath given them up to treacherous dealers who have dealt very treacherously with them Wee were wearied of reformation wearied of God and said to our faithfull seers see not prophecy not right things but deceits get you out of the way cause the holy one of Israel to cease from before us Ourwhorish hearts lusted after a sinfull liberty and Egypts flesh-pots neither were wee throughly â—…ged from our old sins our iniquities of 〈◊〉 Therefore God hath answered us 〈◊〉 cording to the Idols of our heart anâ—… hath said to us after wee have set up ouâ—… Calves go to Bethel transgresse at Giâ—… gall c. He hath given us our desire and sent leannesse into our soul. Our noble Vine because so dreadfully degenerat is now whithered and wasted plukt up in fury planted in the wildernesse
themselves into which wee hopâ—… will be aboundantly clear to the understanding peruser of what I have offered upon that head and the state of the question as It is exhibited how clear and full our confessions and principles are in asserting the due right of Magistracy as well as of a true Gospel Ministry and how harmoniously wee join to the confessions of all the Reformed Churches herein is sufficiently notour to the unbyassed and judicious and consequently that no precipitations or strayings from the scripture path upon these heads can be charged upon our cause and principles Great and manifold have been the assaults of Satan upon this poor Church and reproaches of that grand accuser of the brethren upon our Reformation and the faithful promoters thereof And the plowers have long plowed upon her back and enemyes of all sorts have many time afflicted her from her youth O that our provoked jealous God would shew us wherefore he contends and give both Ministers and People a heart-affecting sight and sense of the true grounds of this controversy and shew unto us our transgressions wherein wee have exceeded and provoked him thus to lengthen out our desolation that he would excite Ministers to make full proof of their ministry and open up to them an effectual door and engadge his people to a due and suitable subjection to their Ministry that this word might run swiftly and this sword of the Lord eut the cords of the wicked that wee were all excited to encompase his throne with strong crying and tears in order to the returning of the Ecclipsed departing glory that this great Shepherd Israel would shew himself the only wise of God and the only Potentate in dissappointing and crushing the crafty cruel stratagems and designes of Satan now acting both the roaring lyon and subtile old Serpent and of his grand Lieutenant Antichrist and his Artizans That this our Isle upon which the â—…ay-spring from on high did early shinâ—… and which did early wait for his Lawâ—… who is Zions great Lawgiver was recâ—… vered from Popish darknesse and froâ—… decayes after the times of Reformation may have a restoring healing visit and being made a maried land may be upon this ground a land of desires That Christs Tabernacle now fallen down may be rear'd up according to the pattern and planted among us untill his glotious appearance to accomplish his Churches warfare and to make up his jewells This is the Expectation of the prisoners of hope and in this expectation let us turn in to the strong hold even to his name which is a strong tower and go on in his strentgh keeping his good way which hath alwayes been strenth unto the upright Let us contend for the faith once delivered to the saints and be stedfast unmoveable alwayes abounding in the work of the Lord since he comes quickly who is our head and judge and his reward is with him so that neither our labour nor suffering shall be in vain in the Lord. The Contents FIRST PART Chap. 1. page 2. THat the prelat now established in this Church is both Diocesian and Erastian cleared By the present standing acts hereanent page 2 3. A twofold state of the question proponed accordingly Arguments from Scripture against the Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church officer such as 1. appropriating the term Episcopus common to all Pastors to a Prelat The absu diâ—…y of this discovered Calvines remarkeable Testimony on Titus 1 7. page 4. 2 making it relate to Pastors which hath the flock for its immediat object Cleared from 1 Pet. 5 3. Invading and nulling the Authority allowed to Presbyters The matter of fact cleared from the principles of Prelatists and the absurdity hereof from severall Scripture grounds page 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. 4. Impeaching Christs Kingly office as head of his Church and the perfection of his word in obtruding an officer on his Church of a different mould from those described and allowed by him cleared from the nature of the prelats office and some Scripture grounds page 13 14 15. Chap. 2. page 16. Some more Arguments against the Diocesian Prelat that his office debases the acts and exercise of the power of order cleared from the matter of fact and Severall Scripture grounds page 16 17 18. It maimes and diversifies the Pastorall office by Anti-Scripturall new invented degrees thereof cleared at large page 19 〈◊〉 His office many wayes contrare to thevery nature 〈◊〉 the gospell Church Government cleard also at largâ—… from the nature of the Prelats office and several Scripture grounds page 21 22 23 24. Cap. 3 page 25. The Diocesian Bishops office debases extraordinary offices in consounding them with ordinary cleared from the Scripture-account of these extraordinary offices and the nature of the Prelats office according to the principles and pleading of the Episcopall party Pag 25 26 27 28 29. 30. The derivation of the Prelats office from the Apostolical Authority and the power of Timothy and Titus loaded with absurdities ibid. Chap. 4. page 30. The Diocesian Prelats office takes away the peoples right to call their Pastor This right proved from Scripture and divine reason page 31 32 33. It excludes the office of the ruling elder proved from the practice of Prelatists as likewayes the preceeding charge the divine right of this office proved from several Scripture grounds especially 1 Tim. 5 17. And some chief exceptions of the prelatick party examined Page 34 35 36 37 38. Chap. 5. page 39. That the present Prelacy is grosse Erastianisme proved from the matter of fact some Arguments against it under that notion It excludes and denyes all Church Government in the hands of Church officers distinct from the civill contrary to the Churches priviledge both under the Old and New Testament which is demonstrat at large Page 41 42 43 44 Is in many points ane incroachment upon the liberties of the gospel Church and upon Christs mediatory Authority over the same which is cleared page 45 46. Chap. 6 page 47. Erastianisme denyes the compleat constitution of the Apostolick Church in point of Government Removes the Scripture land marks set to distinguish the civil and Ecclesiastick powers which is cleared in several points page 47 48 49 50. It is lyable to great absurdities ibid. Chap. 7. pag. 51. The Informers shifting and obscuring the true state of the question anent Episcopacy and flinching from the point debateable discovered several wayes page 52 53 He declines a direct pleading for the Prelats civill offices yet offers some arguments in defence thereof wherin his prevarication and contradiction to himself is made appear His pretended Scripture Arguments from the Instances of Eli and Samuel and the Priests concurrence in that Court 11 Numb to fortify the Prelats civil state offices ad examined page 54 55 56 57 58 59. He is contradicted by interpreters in this point Antiquity full and clear against him The grounds of the Assembly 1638 Sess. 25. Against the
our obligation to preserve the Government of the Church of Scotland page 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59. His fancied contradiction which he imputes to us as to the sense of the first and second article refuted The Informer stands in opposition to Mr Crofton The sense of the English Presbyterians as to the first Article not different from our own ibid. That the English Presbyterians did looke upon themselves as oblidged to reform according to our pattern which is the Scripture pattern proved at large from several passages of Mr Crofton page 60 61 62 63 64 65 The Informers allegeance that the first Article is ambiguous and that our Church and state being but a part of the imposers of the Oath their sense cannot determine its meaning vain and impertinent pag 65 66 67. Chap. 4. page 67. The grounds upon which the Informer undertakes to prove that the obligation of the Covenant ceaseth although its oblidging force for the time past were supposed examined He begs a supposition of the indifferency of prelacy how poorly and impertinently cleard page 68 69 70. His first ground taken from the command and authority of Rulers generally considered and found impertinent to support his conclusion though his supposition were granted page 71 72. His 2d ground touching the alteration of the matter sworn as also his third taken from the hinderance of a greater good by the performance resolving in his sense wholly upon the Magistrates command absurd when applyed to our case which is fully cleared page 73 74 75 76 77 78. His absurd and inconsistent reasoning about a greater command overruling the lesse and our obligation to obey the rulers as prior to that of the Covenant page 7. ibid. also page 79 80. His Argument taken from Num 30. examined at large he contradicts Casuists and the text hath manifold incosistencies in his reasoning while resolving all his rules into the Magistrates lawes the Informers rules pleaded against him and according to the mould of his ple ding doth cast dirt upon the Magistrate page 80 81 82 83 84 85 86. His impertinent repetitions some further absurdities wherewith his Explication of the second rule in reference to the Magistrate is lyable page 87 88. His Argument from Eccles. 8 20. weighed page 89 90. His limitations of the third rule anent the Oaths hindering a greatergood resolving still upon the command of the powers absurd and contradicted by Casuists and many wayes crosses his design and pleading cleared at large page 91 92 93 94 95 96. His reflection upon Ministers in leaving their charge examined as also his Arguments from the Rechabites page 97 98 99. Chap. 5 page 99. The Informers answer to our Argument for the Covenant obligation taken from the Oath to the Gibeonites His trifling way of moulding our Argument And in what sense wee plead this passage page 100 101. The Informers absurdity which he endeavours to fasten upon us in this Argument viz that an Oath can bind against a command of God impertinent to the point and such as the Informer himself stands oblidged to answer in maintaining the Authority of the sacred text page 102 103. he is contradicted by Jacksonand inconsistent with himself in this point Page 104 105 the violence which he offers to that passage Deut. 20 10 discovered and cleared from Interpreters and many circumstances of the sacred text and parallel Scriptures page 106 107 108 109 110. His grosse and foolish distinguishing in this transaction of Joshua the league and the peace discovered page ibid. as also his opposition to learned interpreters here He supposes but doth not prove a limitation in Gods command to cutt of the Canaanites His absurd supposition that Joshua brake his league with them when he know them to be such page 111 112. his instance anent Rahab to prove the limitation of Gods command to destroy the Canaanites considered and emproven against him As also his Argument from the 11 of Joshua 19 examined And Solomons imposing bond servants upon these nations pleads nothing for him page 113 114 115 116 117 118 119. The manyfold inconsistencies of his answers upon this point observed page 120 121 122 123 124. The impertinency of all he answersupâ—… this point though granted His answers to our Arguments from Zedekiahs Oath to the King of Babylon examined As also to the Argument taken from Psal. 15 4 Page 125 126 127 128. His reflection on the Assembly 1638. In declaring the nullity of the Oaths of the Intrants under Prelats groundlesse and impertinent to the point ibid. His argument offered by way of retorsion Comissaries though abjured in the Covenant are owned by us and why may not also Bishops without hazard of perjury largely scannd The vast difference betwixt the one and the other practice cleared in several points both in respect of the officers owned and of the manner of owning them page 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136. THIRD PART Chap. 1 pag. 2. THe question stated and cleared from our Churches state before and since the introduction of prelacy and the different condition of Presbyterian Ministers and Conformists page 2 3 4 5 6. The different grounds which the presbyterian and prelatick party and this man particularly plead upon for the peoples adherence exhibited Separation in many cases not Schism The many groundlesse suppositions that this charge of Schisme is founded upon exhibit and cleared page 7 8 9 10 11 12. The state of the question largely drawen forth upon a true account of the matter of fact and of our principles aâ—… Arguments offered to acquit this practice of the charge of Schisme such as 1 That the Presbyterian party are this true Church 2. That they are under no obligation to joyn to the prelatick interest 3. They have a ground of retorsion of all that is pleaded by the prelatick party on this point 4. The Covenant obligation engadges to the practice controverted which is cleared in severall particulars page 13 14 15 16 17. 5. It falls under Scripture obligations which is cleared in several particulars page 18 19 20 21. 6. That the Prelatick party will be found in their persecution the grand renters and dividers of this Church 7. This practice controverted hath nothing of the ingredients of a sinfull separation from this Church which is cleared in 7 particulars at large page 22 23 24 25 26 27 28. Finally this practice cannot be that Schisme abjured in the Covenant The Informers Argument hereanent emproven against him and that the disowning of presbyterian Ministers falls under the imputation of such a Schisme cleared page 27 28 29. Chap. 2 page 29. The Informers charge of internall Schisme upon non conformists his Elogies of Schism and Testimony of Cyprian considered and this charge retorted upon him page 30 31 32 33. His charge of condemning all Churches for a thousand years who have owne Bishops liturgies c. examined found groundlesse and impertinent to the point His Argument from Rom
14. Examined and retorted upon him His charge of Externall Schsme in separating in acts of Worship fortified by that passage Heb. 10 25 Examined page 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42. The doubters argument from 1 Cor. 12 v. 31. that wee ought to seeke the best most edifying gifts advantageously for himself but fraudulently proposd by the Informer Considerations to clear and enforce this Argument The Informers answers examined at large page 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 42 His Argument for adhering to Conformists taken from the reciprocall tye betwixt a Minister and people Ezek. 33 8. Heb. 13 17. Mal. 2 7. 1 Thess. 5 11 12. As also from Mr Durham on the revelation page 105 106. examined at large page 53 54 55 56 57 58 59. the premised texts improâ—…en against Conformists plea from this supposed tye and relation ibid. Chap. 3 page 58. The doubters argument from Curats not entering by a call from the people and that passage Acts 14 23. cleared and emproven page 59 60 61 62 63. The Informers first answer that several whom we refused to own entered by this call ibid. his exception upon the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 examined his first answer touching the use of the word to expresse the action of onesingle person proved from Acts 10 41. examined the use of the word cleared from parallels criticks and Interpreters page 64 65 66. His second Answer that Greek writers use this Word to signifie ordination without suffrages and that this was the action of Paul and Barnabas examined The granting that this was the action of Paul and Barnabas distinct from the Churches suffrage will not help the Informer Page 67 68 69. He walks crosse to interpreters in this answer page 70 71 72. His third answer that wee will thus give advantage to independants for popular election of Ministers examined wherein the difference betwixt the independents and us in this point is cleared from the Judgement and principles of Presbyterian writers page 73 74 75 76 77. His last answer is that if wee disown Conformists for want of this call we null the Ministry of the Christian world for above a thousand years upward and the Ministry of this Church to the year 1649. examined even the later Antiquity clear for this call by the testimony of Marcus Antonius de Dominis the Council of Paris anno 559 the examples of Eradius Ambrose c. Yea of Bishop Bilsone page 78 79 80 81. That patronages are abjured in the Covenant cleared against the Informer and his exception anâ—… our Churches perjury because of the use of patronages after the Covenant repelled In what sense the prelatick ordination is pleaded by us in disowning conformists of the term Curat The Informer honestly grants that it signifyes one who serves the cure though not the Minister of the place but the substitute of another page 82 83 84 85. His answer anent the charge of Perjury and reasoning anent the lawfulnesse of disowning Ministers because of Scandals who are not censured examined His reasoning found frivolous and retorted upon him page 86 87 88. his great argument from Math. 23. Anent the supposed command of hearing the Scribes and Pharisees examined Several circumstances of the sacred text offered to discover how very difficult it is to prove that there is a command of hearing them as Church officers The consequence from hearing of them though granted to the hearing of them denyed upon five grounds As also his reasoning from Simeon Anna Joseph and Mary their attending the Temple-Worship examined page 89 90 91 92 93. Mr Durham on Revel 3. pleads nothing for the Informer in this point page 94 95 96. His reasons to prove there is a command of hearing Matth. 23. as above described examined and repelled page â—…7 several answers of the Informer to our charge of intrusion and the queries that he propones thereupon as also his retorsion upon this charge examined and found vain and frivolous page 98 99 100 101 102. His answers to the doubters Argument anent the abjuration of Episcopall Ministers in the Covenant as dependent upon the hierarchy confuted His retorsion that wee were bound upon this ground to disown all the Ministers at the taking of the Covenant who had been ordained by Prelats unlesse they renounced their ordination ane empty knack reflecting on the reformed Churches justifying the popes plea against them page 103 104 105. Chap. 4 page 105 The Informers answer to the doubters Argument anent separation from a corrupt Church In what respects and how far this separation is owned His answer anent the not separating from the Churches of Corinth and Galatia and the asian Churches Rev. 2 3. Though tainted with most grosse corruptions c examined The discrepancy of our case from theirs in this point cleard in some particulars and our cause fortified from Scripture directions to these Churches page 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113. The impertinency of these instances to our case cleared from hence several wayes ibid. The Informers answer to these Scriptures 2 Cor. 6 14 15 16. 1 Cor. 5 11 2. Thess. 3 6. Rev. 1â—… 3. Examined and found contradictory to his concession anent a necessary separation from a corrupt Church when highly corrupted page 114 115 116 117. His answer to the retorted charge of Schisme upon Conformists for seperating from this Church examined and found naught He therein cuts the sinnewes of his arguing against us page 118 119 120. His answer and reasoning concerning lecturing examined God never appointed a dumb reading the Levites gave the sense of the Law c. the exceptions anent the disuse of our first Method of lecturing and the want of Circumcision and the passover for a considerable time in the Jewish Church help him not in this point page 121 122 123 124 125. Chap 5. page 126. The Informers answer and reasoning upon the point of scandal and offence in reference to the owning of Conformists considered The Informers groundlesse supposition anent the duty of hearing Conformists Our Orthodox sense of Rom 14. and 1 Cor. 8. in the point of Scandal cleard at large from the exposition of Chrysostome on the first text and Pareus on the second page 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133. The Informer upon supposition that a practice is lawfull and offence flowes from it holds that the command of the powers will loose the giver of offence from guilt and remove this liberty of the practice and the nature of offence how absurdly cleared in fyve points page 134 135 136 138. He is herein contradicted by Amesius The instances of the Brazen serpent and Gideons ephod improven against him ibid. His absurd glosse upon Acts 15 28 that the things before indifferent were made necessary by the meere determination of the Concil largely repelled Calvin classes him with the Papists herein His manifold inconsistencies observed and absurd exposition of scandalum acccptum and datum which
is the Presbiteries forensicall Act in ordination of Timothie To what end must the Corinth Church Officers Meet together and authoritatively and joyntlie punish or censur the incestuous man Wher is that pleasing of the Apostles and elders as the foundation of the Synodical decree and letter together with it seemed good to the HolyGhost and to us And to us Mett with one accord Wher is I say this joynt decisive power of Church Judicatories thus clearly held out in the premised Scriptures if the Act and Ecclesiastick decision thereof be soly the Prelats sic â—…olo sie jubeo masked with advice of Presbyters of whose advice he may make what use he pleases and with a simple nego make their judgment and suffrage evanish into smoake 3. This power of the Prelats cuts of from Ministers one half of their authoritie and commission receaved in their ordination They are made therein as is clear in Scripture our adversaries grant it Rulers Governours Overseers Pastors Stewards in the Church Have both the Shepherds bagg staff the key of doctrine and the key of discipline intrusted to them By what warrand then must they give up all their power in government their decisive suffrage in Church Judicatories unto the domineering Prelat and as to spiritual power in Church Judicarories become meer Ciphers They watch and rule as they that must give account of all their administration to Christ. Peter exhorts the Elders suteablie to exercise their Episcopal Authority over the flock that they may get the Crown from the chief Shepherd Stewards of God especially must be faithful and imploy well all their Talents receaved from the great Master that they may get his approbation and reward as faithful Servants The Elders of Ephesus were obtested by Paul to take heed to themselves and to all the flock over which they were made Bishops by the Holy Ghost to feed and rule the Church which God hath purchased with his blood Now all thes exhortations directed to Ministers are to no purpose if they have no inherent immediat Rule essentially included in their office And to be exercised accordingly but must only preach as a Diocesian Prelats Deputes and be in the exercise of their ruling governing power absolutly subject to him and at his disposal Finally This usurped authoritie in the Prelat sets him above the reach of all censure by Church Indicatories So that though Ministers are absolutly and at his beck censurable by and subject to him both as to their doctrine conversation and discipline and every one of them thus censurable and jointly yet this hie Pop who judges All will be judged by none himself Either as to his Doctrine Life or Government Some have said of the Prince that though major singulis yet he is minor universis less then the whole body of the people though greater then every one aparte But the Prelat exercises a greater principalitie in Church Judicatories is therein major universis greater then the whole meeting so that thogh he can stop the Votes and Censures of the whole Synod yet they cannot either by suffrage or censure in the least put a check to him in any of His most wicked Acts or Antichristian Exorbitances Now how contrary this is to Scriptur any may judge The Prophets after their prophesying must be judged by the rest as to their doctrine 1 Cor. 14 29 Ergo a fortiori much more as to their conversation government are lyable to be judged and consequentlie censured if deserving it For he were a great Critick that would distinguish these so as those who have power to judge have no power to censure or pass sentence upon their judging And this is founded upon a general comprehensive ground viz. the Spirits of the Prophets that is the gifts and exercises of the Ministery in all Church Officers without exception are subject to the Prophets viz. to their disquisition and censure in any peece of their work or official Acts. Now unles our Prelats would deny themselves to be Prophets and Ministers or the Presbyters to be Prophets they must acknowledge this subjection to their censure enjoyned in the Scripture premised and consequently that their exeeming themselves from the same is an anti-scriptural usurpation I remember while a writting that proposing once this Argument to ane Episcopal Clergie man I enquired to what Church Judicatorie in Scotland was Mr Sharp subject as to either his life or doctrine He answered that he was subject to a general Counsell and this was very apposit and consequenter to their principles So that our Prelats at least the two Arch are in no fear but of a general Council if the Court froune not In our Act of Parliament touching the mould of our National Synod the Primat is the essential President sine quo non and so is sure enough from being censured there so are the rest of the Prelats as to all their Synods according to our Lawes But what think these exleges Episcopi or hie Court Prelats of such a humble Bishop as the Apostle Paul who had hands laid upon him and was authoritativelie sent out by that Presbitery of Prophets and teachers at Antioch Act. 13. together with Barnabas about ane eminent Gospel-Legation and was by the same Church and Presbytery sent together with Barnabas and certain other commissioners of the Churches to that Synod at Jerusalem Act. 15. Why did not Paul make use of his Negative voice and command them all silence in this debate How comes it that his hie Bishop subjects himself to the authoritative blessing and mission of some pettie Prophets and teachers Ane amazeing looking glass this is no doubt to our aspyreing Prelats 4. The holding of the Diocesian Prelat and obtruding him upon the Church as ane ordinary Church officer distinct from and superior to Presbiters doth many wayes Impeach Christs Kingly office as head and law giveâ—… of his Church whose faithfulnes above that of Moses who ordered according to the Patern shewed upon the Mount the least pine of the Tabernacle must needs reach the appointment of the officers offices qualifications work and gifts of these officers who are to officiat in his house as our Confession of Faith and Catechisim doe assert For according to our Prelatical Clergie and according to the Lawes the Prelat hath a distinct Work from that of a Presbiter viz. to govern a diocess he hath the Actus primus of a State ruler to sitt in Council or Parliament Nixt he hath a distinct solemne Consecration or inauguration to his Office And 3. Must needs be supposed to have likwise distinct qualifications and Gifts from those of a preaching Presbiter conferred by this solemne imposition of hands and blessing at his Consecration wherby he must be supposed to have a superior distinct mission and to be in all the forementioned particulars distinct from and superior to a Presbiter Now if non of all these points of his superioritie can
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-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
exercise ane extraordinary unfixed ministery towards all the Churches planted and to be planted 3. In setting up up no such ordinare officers to succeed them in this so necessarie a work but committing the wholl governement to meer presbyters as is said 4. In ommiting in all their rules prescriptions anent Church government the offices and officers therof the least intimation of this officer and giving no rules for either the qualifications or ordination of any higher officer then a meer presbyter 5. In express dischargeing of Lordly dominion preheminence among ordinary Church officers Now if this be not a debasing of and hie reflection upon these eminent extraordinary Church officers both to make them carry ane office contrare and inferior unto and inconsistent with ther holy functions intrusted to them by the Lord and likewayes in their practice to contradict their doctrin in relation to Church government yea and in both their Doctrin and practice to contradict crosse the Lords great commission and instructions If this be not I say a horrid reflection upon their faithfullnes Let any judge CHAP. IV. The diocesian Prelats office taks away the peoples right to Call there Pastor This right proved from Scriptur and divine Reason It excludes the office of the Ruleing elder Some Cheiff exceptions of the prelatick party to that 1. Tim. 5. 17. Ansuered IN the 9â—… place The Episcopal government is in this contrare unto the word In that it cutts off Congtegations from all interest and right in Calling there Pastor For in this government the Ministers mission Call Ordination and Relation to such a people over whom he is to officiat flowes all from the Prelat The Congregationall eldership have not the Least interestin it Hence this power of calling Pastores was ranversed by our Parliament when prelacie was set up and the old popish Custome of patronages was restored The Prelat sends a man to the poor people as their Minister whom possibly they never sawe in the face Now this is contrare both to Scriptur and reason contrare to the practice of the apostolick Church For 1. Even the deacons were looked out and chosen by the people Act. 6. 3. That the Apostles might ordaine and lay their hands upon them and install them in their office with a publick blessing And if the people were to have so great ane Interest in choosing these men though even the Apostles who had infallible knouledge of qualifications were present to ordaine them that this trust of disburseing their Almes or charitie might be committed to non but upon their consent choyce Ergo a fortiori People have a far greater Interest as to their Consent and choyce of the man To whom they are to Intrust their Soules conduct unto another world which is of infinit more worth then all the Earthes treasures And while the are no such infalible discerners of fitt persons to officiat as the Apostles were If the Apostles would not set apart men for this meanest employment without the Peoples-Consent looking them out How absurd is it that the highest ordinary officer the Pastor should be sent to officiat in that eminent office with out ther knowledge or Consent 2 Wee find the chooseing and sending out of Church officers in this hie ministeriall employment To have been upon the peoples consent and choyce for Act. 14. The Elders or Ministers who were ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church by Church were thus ordained and sett apart to their office Compared with Tit. I. 5. Berause not to stand here upon the import of the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which imports a hand suffrage and consent of the people as shale be made good upon the Third Dialogue and the exceptions of this pamphleter upon that passage examined this is clear that this ordination was to be performed in the Church Ergo of necessity with the peoples Consent and choice And Nixt If the Apostles would not ordaine the Deacons but after this manner much lesse Ministers unto such a weighty employment since in ther faithfullnes the people are as is said infinitly more concerned Besydes the very Intimation and litte of the men out of whom a Successor to the Apostleshipe in the place of Judas was by God immediatly to be chosen was with the peoples Consent Therfor much more ought this to be in the ordination and admission of ane ordinary officer whose call is mediat and ordinarie 3. The Scripture doeth clearly hold forth a congregational Church juridical eldership representing that Church Which besyes many other reasons addâ—…cible and accordingly pleaded by our writâ—…ers is evident in this That as the Scripture makes mention of greater Churches such as that of Corinth Jerusalem c Who were certanly presbyterial because 〈◊〉 they are found thogh consisting of many officers and Rulers and of lesser Societies yet to be all poynted cut as one Church which must needs Import a Classicall or presbiterial unitie of these lesseSocieties So the Spirit of God doth alsoâ—…all these lesser Societies Churches in the plural Let the Woman beep Silence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Churches 1. Cor. 14. 34. Which must needs Import the Single Congregations of that one Church of Corinth And moreover through thes Churches Rulers Elders Gouvernours were sett and established 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church by Church that is throw all particular Churches Act. 14. 23. With Tit. I. 5. For if the Church is found to have had both ruleing and teaching Elders Rom. 12. 8. 1. Cor 12. 28. 1. Tim. 5. 17. And upon the other hand if these lesser Societies are called Churches It certanly followes that they had ane eldership rule in them If ane eldership and rulers be allowed to rule and represent the Congregation in matters Ecclesiasticall then by necessary consequence it followes that the Call of the Pastor and Chieff elder and his choice as most suteable to their condition must fall within the compasse ofther Spiritual authority Finally the denying of this unto Congregations the Episcopal arbitrarie obtruding of Ministers upon them without their call and consent is in two great points contrare unto divine Reason 1. Unto that spiritual and near relation which is betwixt a Minister and his flock which we will find this pamphleter after plead which is certainly marriage like and very straite And there being many peculiarduties which they owe unto him beside others Ministers all flowing from this relation particularly a special reverence obedience and subjection These must certanely suppose a voluntarie consent and call and cannot be bottomed upon the meer will and pleasure of another which cannot make up this relation 2 This denying of the peoples right to call their Pastor is contrare unto that Iudgment of discretion that spiritual discerning and trying of the Spirits which is allowed yea enjoyned to the people of God If in any thing a spiritual discerning must take place surely in
this especially to whom a people doe intrust their soules direction and guidance If in any thing a Christian must Act in Faith and not give up his perswasion to ane implicit conduct and thus become a servant of men sure it must be in a mater ofso great weight as this is If Christs sheep have this for their Character that they knowe the voice of the trew Shepherd from the voice of the hyreling and stranger from whom they will flie Joh. 10 4 5. Sure their knowlege and consent must interveen in order to their acceptance of and subjecton to their Shepherd If they must not belive every Spirit buttry the Spirits sure this caution and tryal must be especially allowed in this case that they admitt not a false Prophet instead of a trew So then the Episcopal Government is in this as in other pointes chargeable with antichristian and anti-scriptural tyrannie over Christs flockes 10. The Episcopal Government is in this contrare unto the Word of God viz. In denying and cutting off from his administration and the totall laying asyde of a singularely usefull Church officer appointed by Christ in his House viz the ruleing elder That Government which denies and layes aside any of the great Master of the vine yeard his servants and officers whom he hath authorized and appointed must needs be highly derogatorie to his glory and contrare to his word But such is Prelacie The Prelats are like that sloathfull wicked servant who smites and beats away there fellow-servants while they eat and drink with the drunken That Prelats disoun and exclude this officer is evident both from their principles and practise They all deny the divine warrand of this Church officer And where Prelacy is established he is excluded from Presbyteries and Synodes and upon the mater also from the congregation For they deny and exclude all decisive suffrage there and take away all Authority of congregational elderships as we seen Now that this ruleing elder distinct from both the preaching Presbyter and Deacon Is appointed by God our Divines have made good from severall Scriptur grounds Such as 1. From Rom. 12 6 7. Where among severall other Church officers which the Apostle doth enumerat there is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or he that ruleth Here is ane ordinary Ruler distinct from all other Rulers and Church officers the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Rule and authoritative power Againe he is ranked among ordinarie Officers and so must needs be ane ordinary standing officer yet stands distinguished from other ordinary officers haveing both a distinct name from all the rest likewayes a distinct worke as being diversified from the teacher the exhorter and the giver And moreover a peculiar direction as have likewise all the rest So that from the circumstances of this place the divine right of this officer is clearly demonstrate Nixt That passage is pertinently improven for this purpose 1 Cor. 12 28. Where we read of helps Governments under distinct paragraphes clearly pointing out ordinary Governing Church officers distinct from the elders that preach and the Deacon and all other Church Governoures whatsoever They cannot be Governoures in the General for what doth this among a particula enumeration of officers These are distinct from helps distinct from the teaching elder for he is already mentioned in this same vers So here is a Rule and Government distinct from all governoures either civil or ecclesiastick except this ruleing elder yet set by God in the Church under the new Testament But the third and most pregnant passage from which our divines doe demonstrat the divine right of this Church officer is that of the 1 Tim. 5 17. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially they who labour in the word and Doctrine Here is a ruleing Church officer distinct from the preaching elder For here is a general elders Nixt we have two distinct branches of these elders viz the ruleing elder and the elder that both rules and laboures in the word and Doctrine in the word as the Pastor In the Doctrine as the teacher Again they are diversified in two distinct participles and epithets ruling is made the marke and characterick of the one viz Ruling only And both Ruleing and teaching is made the marke of the other whereby they are distinguished in their nature and office But in the 3d. place the forementioned distinction eminently appears in the discretive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially which is set betwixt these two kynds of elders intimating that as there were some of these ruling elders who did labour in the word and Doctrin so there were others who did Rule and not labour in the Word Both were worthy of double honour but especially the labourer in the word over and above this ruling And to this purpose it is well observed that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially is allwayes in the new Testament made use of to distinguish one thing from another As when it is said Gal. 6 10. Let us doe good to all men but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expecially to these of the houshold of faith hereby distinguishing soom that were of the houshold of faith and some that were not In which sense it is also used Phil. 4 22. and 1 Tim. 5 8 This precept saith Pâ—…scator Anal in Locum he first illustrats by a distribution and comparison of things different and unlike for he distinguishes elders into those who were sett over Ecclesiastick Disciplin yet so asthey did not publickly teach those who did teach also Wherein he clearly gives sentence for us against the Prelatick partie in this point Wee may hence Collect that ther were two sortes of elders at that time saith Calvin on 1 Tim. 5 17. For all were not ordained to teach for the words doc manifestly hold forth that some had governed well and faithfully to whom notwithstanding the office of teaching was not committed And trewly from among the people their were grave and good men chosen and approved who did together with Pastores by commune Councell authority administer Church Government and were in some sort censors for correcting of manners which oustome Ambrose compleans to have worme out of use by the negligence or rather the pryde of teachers while they covet to rule alone The pregnancy of this Scripture tramples into the dust the pitiful evasiones of all the Prelatists in denying the divine right of this officer Some of which we shall here take notice of and the confutation of the same offered by our divines upon this point Some by Ruleing well will have living well to be understood But the Apostle is speaking of the office of ruling in a Church officer ruling over others not of ruling over a mans â—…eif in a privat capacitie Neither is the Churches Honorarium double honour double maintinance due to living well as here it is allowed to ruling well And this will say that the Minister that
Authority to such as he pleases and the Bishops are nothing else but his Majesties Commisioners in the exercise of that Ecclesiastick Power which is originally in himself Now that this Erastian Prelacie or Church Government is a stranger to the Scripture is many wayes evident 1. This Erastian Prelacie Denyes all Church Government in the hands of Church officers distinct from civil Magistrace which is ane error fully confuted and largely bafled by all who have written against Erastus and his followers and is contrare many wayes to Scripture I. To that distinction betwixt the Ecclesiastick and civil Sanbedrin under the Old Testameet asserted and cleared by many Scripture Arguments by our divines paraicularly Mr Gillespie in the Aarons rode I. From the institution of that Court of elders supposed in Exod. 24. Who were not those elders chosen for the government of the Commonwealth Numb 11. For this was done at Sinai shortly after they came out of Egypt But on the 20 day Of the 2d Moneth in the 2d Year they tooke their journey from Sinai to the â—…dernes of Paran Numbr 10. 11 12. And there pitched when the Seventie elders were chosen to relieve Moses They were not the judges chosen by advyce of Iethro for he came not to Moses till the end of the first year or the begining of the Second after they came out of Egypt Nor could they be judges who judged befor he came for he observed that the burdine lay upon Moses alone So they must needs have been Ecclesiastick Rulers under the presidencie of Aarone and Hur. vers 14. Who were called up as the representatives of the Church of Israel after the Judicial lawes were given Chap. 22. 23. In this 24. Chapter there is a transition to the Ceremonial lawes concerning the worship of God and the Structur of the Tabernacle Deutr. 17. 8 9 10. All grant there a Supream Court of judges therfor also the text must be granted to hold forth a Supreme Ecclesiastick Court For it caryes the authority sentence of the priests as hie as the authority sentence of the judges that in adisjunctive way as Two distinct powers each binding respective in their oun proper Sphere 3. From these judges officers 1. Chr. 23. 4 26 29. Supposed set to their work when the Levits were divyded to there Charge who were not tyed to service attendances in the Temple but to judge give sentence concerning the law its meaning and this saith the text over Israel coming to them from any of the cities of the land 4. From Jehoshaphats reformation 2. Chron. 19. 8 10 11. Who restoring the government of the Church did sett in Ierusalem levits priests Chieff of the Fathers of Israel for the judgment of the Lord for controversies Here is 1. A Court of priests Levits with power of Suffrage thus consisting of Ecclesiastick membres 2. In Ecclesiastick matters Maters of the Lord distinct from Maters of the King 3. For ane Ecclesiastick end viz. to warne that they trespasse not not only against one another but against the Lord. 4. All causes of their Brethren that dwelt in the Cities were to come to them unto Jerusalem 5. They have Ane Ecclesiastick Moderator or president Amariah the chieff priest over them in all Maters of the Lord â—…istinct as is said from Maters of the King These many such Arguments are made use of by him others To clear this poynt of the Two distinct Sanhedrins which fully overthrowes this Erastian Confusion of these two powers governments 2. This fountaining of all Church power in the civil and denying of Church government in the hands of Church officers distinct from the Civil government is Cross to that distinction of the Gospel Church her government from that of the Civil power wich is clearly held out in the new Testament Wherin it is evident 1. That the visible Church is Christ the Mediator his visible kingdome as Mediator And so its Officers Lawes Censures falls with in the compasse of his Mediatorie appointment and inspection Matth. 16. 19. 28. 29. Joh. 18. 36. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11 12. 2. That the gospel Church was Compleated in her being essence both as to Rulers Ruled Members officers and in rules directions for the exercise of her government accordingly when no Magistrat was so much as a member of her 3 That in all the precepts anent the exercise of this power it is enjoyned to the Church to these Church officers as such with the same freedome independancy upon the Civil power as at the first without the least restriction limitation in case of the Magistrats becoming Christian All the grounds made use of in pressing the exercise of this power being moral perpetual respecting the Church her condition as a Church whither the Magistrat be friend or enemie In the 2d Place This Erastian prelatick mould of government brings in many grosse encroachments upon the liberties of the gospell Church As 1. Denying her liberty to exercise her power Key of Censure without the Magistrat Contrare to all the New Testament instances of the exercise therof with out him 2. Introduceing a dominion arbitrary power upon all her government Contrare to her liberty the very nature of her government which is a Ministerial Stewardship not a dominion for thus the Church is the proper object of the Magistrats dominion that being the Nature of his power Rom. 13. And the present prelatick Church ounes the Supreme Civil governoure as her Chieff Church officerer 3. Giving to the Magistrat qua talis for this power in Church matters is by Prelats and their adherents aknowledged to be a perpetual Croun-right the proper Sole decisive suffrage in all causes falling under Ecclesiastick cognisance for Prelatists onely meet to advise him in there Suprem Court or national Synod according to the forementioned Act. Now this Cutts off all Church judicatories ther decisive suffrage as Church judicatories which as is cleared above they did fully at first exercise of themselves without the Magistrat 4. This mould will make the Civil Magistrat the proper immediat subject of the Keys and Impartes all Church government to One who as such is not so much as a Church member and impowers him to give out this supposed fountaine power to no Church members or to here enemies at his pleasure As his Majesty gives to persons Civil the power of excomunication Yea it gives him a power by his oun proper clicite acts to dispense all her external government as the law terms it which if we look upon it as including all externall ordinances contradistinct from the internal government of the inward man the Church invisible will necessarely import include the exercise of both the Keys all the external dogmaticke diatactick Critick authority power intrusted to the Church representative Which is a meer
Civil papacie the grossest of usurpations which the Church can be exposed unto as shall be afterward touched Finally This will inferr that Children Heathens yea women may be chieff Church officers and heads of the Church too since they may possesse the Crown of these Kingdoms to which this Headship and Supremacy is annexed But of this also againe 3. This Erastian government is a gross encroachment upon Christs prerogative over his Church And that in these wayes 1. In assumeing a power over the Church which is proper to Christ only I mean a Magisterial architectonick power That this is assumed by this Erastian mould of government is evident He who can dispose of government and governoures of the Church arbitrarly and dispose of all Church meetings and Church maters as he pleases and thinks fitt Hath certanly this power but that this Magisterial architectonick power and dominion over the Church is Christs Sole prerogative is abundantly clear by manifold plaine positive Scripture assertions To Christ is all power given in Heaven and Earth Matth. 28. 18. And he as Mediator is given to be head over all things to the Church Ephes. 1. 21 22. To hâ—…m is all judgement over her committed John 5. 22. Hee it is also who possesses these high tittles to be the Governoure over his Church by way of eminencie Matth. 2. 6. That great shepherd of the sheep Hebr. 13. 20. the shepherd and Bishop of Soules 1. Pet. 2. 25. Hee is that one Master over all Church officers who are but Brethren Matth. 23. 8 10. To us there is but One Lord Iesus 1. Cor. 8. 6. Hee it is to whom onely the imperiall acts of power are ascribed as the giving of lawes to his Church the gospel precepts are his law Gal. 6. 2. Hee it is who gave commandments to his Apostles Act. 1. 2. there is but one law giver who can save and destroy Jam. 4. 12. The Lord is our judge the Lord is our lawgiver or Statute maker the Lord is our King I say 33 22. He it is who Constitutes her ordinances preaching of the word Matth. 10. 7. 1. Cor. 1. 17. administration of the Sacraments as of baptisme John 1. 33. the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 11. 20. dispensing of Censures Matth. 16. 29. Hee it is who appointes his Officers Prophets Pastores Teachers Ephes. 4. 11 12. 1. Cor. 12 28. In his name onely all ordinances are dispensed Not in the name of Magistrats or of any Mortall The Apostles spake and taught in the name of Jesus Act. 4. 17 18. In his name we are to Ask Joh. 14. 13 14. In his name onely Ministers are to preach and baptize Matth. 28. 18 19. 2. Cor. 5. 20. In his name onely they are to Censure to deliver to Satan 1 Cor. 5. 4. In his name only Church assemblies are to be gathered which seems the Smallest Act. Matth. 18 20. See jus divinum Regim Eccles Appollon Revius c. 2. This Erastian government incroaches upon Christs prerogatives In taking and using the Keys against Christs donation and authoritie Christ is the only Lord giver of both the Keys and all their power But in this Usurped power the Kevs are 1. Divyded against his prescription who gave both the Keys of Doctrine and Discipline joyntly to the proper recipients theâ—…of viz. Church officers Matth. 16. 19. This Erastian government â—…ches away One Key viz. of government from such to whom Christ the great Master of the House hath Intrusted both Christ in this donation of the Keys making no mention of the Civil Rulers but only of Church Officers then appointed who were distinct from the Magistrat Hence 2. The Key of disciplin is taken and used against his mynde by these to whom he hath not Intrusted it which is a great encroachement upon his authoritie In the 3d. place this Erastian government encroaches upon Christs authoritie over his Church In superadding Ane officer to theseChurch officers institut and appointed by him For in all the Scripture rolls of Christs Church officers the Civil Rulers are not found Eph. 4. 10 11. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 6. 7 8. 4. This encroachment appeares in making Church officers as such imediatly subject to the Magistrat in all their Spirituall administration which is a hie Censure of the Primitive exercise of this power independantly as we shal shew 5 In exeeming him from all Spiritual subjection unto and censure by Church Rulers For where â—…pray shal we find the Magistrat excepted and the hiâ—…herCivil powers if within the Church from Christs lawes and rules anent subjection to Church censures and to his Spiritual office bearers intrusted therewith CHAP. VI. Erastianism denyes the compleat constitution of the Apostolick Church in point of Government Removes the Scriptur Land-markes set to distinguish the Civil and Ecclesiastick Powers which is cleared in several points It is lyable to great absurdities IN the 4th place This Erastian Government presumes to impeach the primitive Apostolick Church her compleat constitution and faithfulness of Administration in relation to Government and makes here to have had but a defective maimed constitution and authority thereanent while the exercise of the civil power in her was wanting Which charges a gross deficiency upon Christs prescriptions in relation to her Lawes and Officers Which are found in Scripture very full and suited to her state and condition in all times until all the Elect be made up and here warfare is accomplished and consequently it impeaches Christs saithfulness and authority as Mediatour whose proper work this holy constitution is 5. This Erastian Prelacy takes away all the Scripture Landmarks and Limits which are fixed therien by God to distinguish the Civil and Ecclesiastick Powers and Governments and makes them every way the same in all things wherein Scripture and Reason do distinguish them both as to their Nature and Acts and likewayes as to their Causes 1. As to their Nature this Erastian Government doth confound them 1. In that it makes the Church and Commonwealth the Political and Ecclesiastical Societies one and the same which are formally distinct It being a visible profession that make a Church member and outward habitation and subjection to the civil power that makes a Subject Which may be where there is no profession and consequently no Church-membership For in this mould the Kings Government Civil is Church Government for it is his Government as King in which capacity this Ecclesiastick Supremacy is his prerogative and his Ecclesiastick Government is also Civil Government for it is his Government as the Supream Civil Magistrat And thus the Church respected by his government is the Common-wealth vice versa 2. This confounds the Officers of Church and State which the Scriptur doth aboundantly distinguish For as is said The Church had all her Officers of Christs appointment when no Magistrat was a Member thereof and on the other hand Common-wealths had all their civil Rulers before they became Churches But in this Erastian
fact but of the right yea and the divine right of the present prelats in relation to their power 2. In stating the difference betwixt the Bishop he pleads for and the Pastor Hee Smoothes it over in this general whither there have been such Bishopes as have had a Superioritie over ordinarie Ministers but doth not explaine what that Superioritie is which he pleads for whither of order or jurisdiction or both whither specificall or graduall Whither a Superiority of meer presidencie or of principality The Episcopus preses and princeps sharing in this general name Dolus latet in generalibus Since there have been various Superiorities de facto He should have particularized that Superiority which He undertaks to defend 3. His Doubter suggesting that they were not Lord Bishopes He must needs make him referr to 1. Pet. 5. 3. Discharging to Lord it over Gods heritage But how poor is his evasion from and solution of this difficultie in starting this notion whither there have been De facto Bishops with a Superioritie over Presbiters Or Bishops who had Civill dignities in ancient times The pinch of this debate lying in this whither the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or Lorship discharged in that Scripture will not stryke against such a Superiority or dominion whither in Ecclesiastick or Civil rule as our prelats now assume and not what sort of Superiority in Ecclesiastick or Civill government prelats have formerly had The present prelat existent in Scotland having such a dominion over Church Judicatories and likwayes in Civils as is above exprest and derving all his power from the Magistrat in Ecclesiastick as well as in Civil rule He should have Stated his Question thus distinctly and then fenced for his great Diana But the man probably found this a taske which be durst not undertake which appears immediatly after in his declining the debate anent the Bishopes Civil rule telling us That he will make it none of his worke to debate with us their acting in Civil affairs Sometimes But 1. Since he undertaks the patrocinie and defence of Episcopacie now established among us And in his preface professes it his designe to prove it lawfull and therby to take off one of our arguments for withdrawing from Conformists And it being likewayes Certaine that the present prelats are Civil rulers He must either undertake this debate or acknowledge them unlawfull pro tanto at least And that he proves but a maimed pleader for their present office and falls short of a great part of his designe in this pamphlet 2. He pitifully Snakes away from this debate also in minâ—…hing their State-medling thus viz. Their acting in Civil affaires Sometimes which may be said of any man or Minister His rare transient occasional accidentall or privat actings and even in domestick affairs But cannot this man distinguish betuixt this and a Stated official acting 〈◊〉 constituent and constant members of Civill judicatories as prelats are according to our lawes and that even ex natura officij as they are prelats Sure he cannot distinguish the Mountaine from the Molchill that cannot see a difference betuixt these Either this Informer must account the prelats present State actings lawful or not If He account them lawfull then He falls under a Three fold premunire in this point 1. In deâ—…lyning the defence of one of the prelats Unquestionable legal privileges disouned by presbyterians and by him esteemed lawfull notwithstanding of his undertakeing to plead for them 2. In Undertaking only tos plead for their acting Sometimes which as I said i far from the point and matter of fact which he must defend 3. In confessing at the foot of the page That Church men should not needlesslie or of Choice intangle themselves in these incumberances wherin he palpablie contradicts himself as to his Scope For doe not our prelats of most free choice and deliberatly assume State Imployments Or are their shoulders burdened against their will with these State honoures Besydes He cites 2. Tim. 2. 4. In acknowledging this intanglement in wordly affaires to be unlawfull in Church men The text sayes no man that warreth entangleth himself in affaires of this life Now if this text discharge universally and absolutly a Ministers intanglement in wordly affaires How comes he to foist in his limitation of needlesly or of Choice where is this limitation in the text If all intanglements or in cumberances as such be unlawfull as is here expressly asserted as being inconsistant with the nature and importance of the Ministers Spirituall function which requires the greatest abstractednes from all worldly things and the mans constant waiting upon and giving himself wholly unto the things of God Then surely whither he intangle himself by choice or not it is still ane intanglement and consequently sinful his acting deliberatly is butane agravation Againe since He maks ane intanglement Of choice to be a needles intanglement and consequently sinful He must needs acknowledge that such is the present prelatick medling which as is said He cannot deny to be most deliberat and of choice But nixt If He account our prelats State-actings unlawfull Then 1. Why doth He not interminis acknowledge so much and not lisp it half out 2. Why doth He alleadge something from Scripture precedents to prove it warrantable But Let us hear his Scripture arguments wherby He would prove this State acting lawfull His first Reason is That the jewish Sanhedrin made up of the Sevinty elders Moses assistants in Civill government did consist partly of priests where 1. Wee see He overstraines his point and overstretches himself in his pretended proofe for the These he undertaks to prove is That Church men may act in State matters though not of Choice and so that it be Sometimes only which he cannot but distinguish from a Constant official medling if he speak sense And to prove this He brings ane instance of priests under the old Testament-dispensation their being constituent members of a civil court Now how doe these quadrat Were not these priests to act deliberatly and of Choice If this prove any thing at all it will prove that Ministers as being such members may deliberatly and of choyce involve themselves in Civill affairs which this man holds to be discharged 2. Tim. 2. 4. And so this Reason because proving too much and beyond his assertion proves just nothing 2. As we cleared above the difference betuixt the Civil and Ecclesiastick Sanhedrin and that those Sevinty mentioned in the 11. Numbr who were chosen for the government of the Commonwealth are distinct from those mentioned Exod. 24. Who were Ecclesiastick and not Civil officers So it is more then this Informer hath offered proof of that there were priests in that Civil Court since as is said the Two Sanhedrins Civil and Ecclesiastick did consist of distinct members and there was not one Sanhedrin only as this man seems to suppose But 3. Though the concurrence of some preists in that Civill Court were granted
may merite for this from the Pope yet Royalists will allow him none If in a matter so plain and evident it were needfull to adduc testimonies of writers and commentators as this informer doth to no purpose how harmonious would their consent appear unto this truth The English Annot in their preface upon the book of judges will tell him that the judges were not ordinary Magistrats but extraordinarly called of God in times of great extremity c. And in their preface on the first book of Samuel they shew that it containes rhe History of the two last judges Eli and Samuel and of Saul the first King of Israel And upon that place Chap. 7 15 16. Anent Samuels judging of Israel notwithstanding of his being lent to the Lord from his birth 1 Chap. 28. They will Inform this informer thatas thiswas the jurisdictionof a judge whichGod called him unto all the time of saul so he was quo bound by his Mothers vow Chap. 1. Whereby he was devoted to the service of the sanctuary to continue his residence there both because God had forsaken it for the sins of the Priests and also because the Lord himselfhad taken him off from that levitical service and called him to another imployment namely to be a holy Prophet and a judge over his people which places he could not discharge if he had been confined to a settled place The du ch Annot in the argument of the book of judges describe them to be such persons not who administred the ordinary function of judges among the people as the Word is other where taken but whom God now and then as the state of Israel required sometimes out of on tribe sometimes out of another extraordinarly raised called and with his Spirit of wisdome and couradge endewed c. In the argument of the first book of Samuel they shew that therin is described the Government of Samuel as judge over Israel c So that until our Informer shall instruct the Prelats extraordinary call from God and also their extraordinary enduements for civil Government these instances of Eli and Samuel will not in the Judgment of these divines afford them the least shaddow of warrand for there civil offices So this man may be ashamed that he ever mentioned such an argument Finally That Hee is in the breers of a contradiction here is as is hinted evident in that to prove that Church men should not ofChoice medle inCivil affaires he gives this reason for no man that warreth intangleth himself with the affaires of this life 2. Tim. 2. 4. Now if this for or illative here signifie any thing and be not nonsense this He must be supposed to hold that this text forbids Church men all deliberat medling in Civil affaires But will He dare to say that Samuel and Eli their judging of Israel was not deliberat and of Choice Ergo It was sinfull by this rule Yet he pleads for its imitablenes as lawfull though a deliberat involving themselves in Civil government yea a Supreme rule and thus holds it not cross to this gospell precept So that to escape this Scylla or Charybdis He hath no imaginable refuge but one viz. To assert with us their extraordinarie Calling for what they did and that singular old Testament-dispensation under which they stood But then He must quit his plea for prelats civil Imployments from this Instance and confesse it to be inconcludent But for the new Testament times he tells us How much Bishops were employed in Civill affairs when Emperours became Christian as Smectymnuus confesses But 1. Since he pretends Scripture Instances under the old Testament his new Testament Instance is very apochryphal and heterogeneus therunto being of Bishops medling three or four hundered years after the Canon of the Scripture was closed Humano Capiti cervicem pingere equinam But his new Testament precept 2. Tim. 2. 4. Chased away the Instance of Bishops medling in civill affaires Three or four Hundred years forward Nixt I would know whither our Informer holds these Bishops medling in Secular affairs to be lawfull or unlawfull Iflawfull and consisting with their Calling which He would seem to insinuat in telling us that Saravia defends at large even simply and absolutly Church mens medling in state affaires Why then doth he tell us in the nixt page That the fathers compleaned of this as aburden Sure they were very froward to fret under a peece of lawfull imployment If it was unlawfull or a deliberat sinfull intanglement why obtruds he it upon us as a regular precedent And what will Smectymnuus acknowledgment of the factum import to infert His or Our acknowledgment of the jus He tells us likwayes That ancient Councells upon the ground mentioned 2. Tim. 2. 4. of a Ministers sinfull intanglement discharged them to follow Militarie imployments or to take ferms c. Hence I inferr then these Councels held that deliberat medling in state affaires â—…or worldly incumberances is inconsistent with a Ministers calling and a sinfull intanglement discharged in that text for since they discharged Militarie employments and ferms upon this ground they doe consequently discharge all such Intanglement For a quatenus ad omne c. This he cannot but grant And from hence I infer two things against him 1. He setts these Councils by the eares with his Scriptur instances For since they condemne these formentioned civil employments upon that ground 2 Tim. 2 4. As a sinful intanglement in a Church officer 3 he must either say that they condemned these old-Testament Instances of the Priests of Samuel and Eli as sinful Or else acknowledge that they held them with us to be extraordinary and no regular precedents 2. It will hence follow that these Councils doe condemne Saravia who he tells us doth at some length defind Church mens acting in State assaires And Saravia condemnes and disputs against these Councils and then it will be a pussing problem to him to which of them he will adhere in this contest since he holds with these councels upon that ground 2 Tim. 2 v. 4. the unlawfulness of Ministers deliberat involving themselves in civil affaires it seems be quites there great Advocat Saravia and all his pleading upon this point For he tells us of no limitation in Saravia his pleading for Ministers meddling in State affaires As for what followes in this page he obscures and shifts the point here inquestion in saying That it is hard to call it simply unlawful and in every case to medle in these things We know there is a lawful Concional medling also in way of Ministerial advice unto the Magistrat in order to the satisfaction of his conscience the Ministerial direction whereof is the Pastours work at whose mouth Gods mynd must be sought and likewayes by way of ministerial testimonie against what is sinful in state Rulers which is all that our principles do own as to Ministers interposing in state affaires in our late times but
he that cannot distinguish this from accnstant official medling as a civil Iudge and constituent Member in civil Indicatories is very blinde And as stupid that man were who could not distinguish this from the privat domestick care mentioned 1 Tim. 5 8. Which is a part of that Eiconomie founded uonp the Law of nature and competent to a Minister as a Master of the Family who is to govern and rule his house under that notion Yet we must here tell him that Gods allowing the Minister his honorarium or maintenance is for this very end that he may not by any overstretch of the domestick case be taken off from his holy imployment Here we shall offer to this Informers grave judgment the Reasons of the Assembly 1638. Sess 25. against the civil Offices of Ministers 1. Christs notable example Luk. 12 14. Refusing to deal in a civil cause Ministers are his Ambassadours sent by him as he was by the Father Joh. 20 21. Joh. 8. He would not sentence that woman who deserved death 2. Civil Rule is discharged to Apostles Matth. 20 v. 25 26. not only Supreme which is competent to Princes but subordinat also Citing that passage of Bernard to Eugenius Lib 2. Apostolis interdicitur dominatus ergo tu tihi usurpare aude aut dominans Apostolatum aut Apostolicus dominatum Dominion is discharged to Apostles Go thou therefore and dare to usurp to thy self whither the Apostleship if holding a civil dominion or being Apostolick a civil dominion Where theyrefute the ordinary Episcopal Popish evasion as to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. That Ministers having given up their names to this holy warfare they ought not to be involved in things of this life as the law denyes this to souldiers C. d. Lib 2. T it 13 So the Apostolick law 2 Tim. 2 04. This work tobe heavier then that any man can be sufficient for it alone 2 Cor. 2 16. Hence Ministers are called watchmen labourers souldiers fishers c. 4. The Apostles for all their extraordinarie gifts were not fit for serving tables and preaching the word both Act 6. although these were both ecclesiastick functiones therefore farr lesse can any Minister now assume both ecclesiastick and civil offices Gregorie the 1. cited by Gratianin Decreto dist 89 Cap. Singula proves that two ecclesiastick offices are not to be committed to one from that place of the Apostle Rom. 12 6 7. As it is unbeseeming that in mans bodie one member should Act the part of another The 6th of the Canons called Apostolick appoints that the Bishop or Presbyter assuming civil places be deposed which will make fearfull Massâ—…cre among our Prelats that day the Parliament rides so Can. 81 and 83. Cyprian lib 1 Epist. 9. sayes that long before It was appointed in a Councel of Bishopes that none appoint in his Testament one of the Clergie a Tutor or Curator Quando singuli divino sacerdotio honorati non nisi altari sacrificiis precibus orationi vacare debent Since every one honoured with the divine priesthood ought not to attend but to the Altar and Sacrifices to prayer and preaching for it s written no man that warrs c. Clemens the 1. whom many make Bishop of Rome and out of whose writings the defect of ecclesiastick history after the Actes of the Apostles they affirme must be made up in the Epistle to James the brother of the Lord whom they make a Bishop hath these words neque judicem aut cognitorem secularium negotiorum te ordinare vult Christus ne praefocatus presentibus hominum curis non possis verbo Dei vacare secundum veritatis regulam secernere bonos a malis impietatis tibi crimen est neglectis verbi Dei studiis sollicitudines suscipere seculares That is neither will Christ ordaine thee a judge and arbiter of civill affaires lest being involved in the present cares of men thou be not able to attend the word of God and according to the rule of verity to separat the good from the evill It blotts thee with the Crime of impietie to take up secular cares neglecting the Studjes of the word of God Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais cited by lipsius in politicis said that it is unlawfull to joyne the Civill power with the priesthood-nam hoc esset miscere non miscenda hoc est Sacris civiliaconfuâ—…dere For this were to mix together things which cannot be mixed that is to confound Civill maters with Sacred See severall others cited by the assembly and recorded in the Historiamotuum pag. 283 284. Where there is ane Answer to the objection drawen from Augustins practise and from that of 1. Cor. 6. 4. The informer comes nixt page 5. to his defence of the Episcopall office it self But still goes on in the mist of confused generalls never condescending upon the nature power and extent of the diocesian Bishopes office as it is now established by law However let us remember that our present prelat is according to our law Ane ordinary Church officer assuming the government of some Hundereds of Congregations as monopolized in him and conveyed according to his pleasur unto the Ministers therof Having sole power in ordination and jurisdiction and a negative voice in Church judicatories whose proper worke is Ruleing only not feeding by doctrine This is the Bishop which all his pleading must be commensurat unto else He but beats the Air. 1. The Doubter alleages The unlawfullnes of the Episcopall office for want of ane expresse warrand for it in the word To which He answers By granting that this will prove it to be not simply necessare but not unlawfall since it may be lawfull and expedient as falling under some generall as the command of decencie and order will warr and a Moderator and Clerke although this be no where commanded That many learned men have thought prelacie lawfull though not commanded nor warranted by any particular Scripture precedent nor yet prohibited but left to Christian prudence at it is found expedient and conduceing to the good of the Church To which I answer 1. He grosly mistaks the Import of these relatives a command and the necessitie of a thing flowing therefrom when restricting it to ane expresse warrand or command there being many things necessarie necessitate precepti which have no expresse warrand or command Divines doe tell us that Scripture commands are either immediat or mediat the immediat are either explicit or in expresse terms enjoyning a thing as honour thy father and thy mother or implicit holding out either that which is comprehended in the command as suetable midses leading to the dueties enjoyned or deduced by consequence from what is expressed As Ministers preaching is deduced by consequence from the command thereanent which the Apostles gotâ—… the Circumstances of the command pointing out this to be a perpetuall duetie of Church officers Againe 2. There are divine commands which are mediat
not to add new spirituall officers who must have a new work c. And the Bishops authority must either be comprehended among the rules anent these officers enumerat and the exercise of their power or he is anâ—… apocriphal officer and unlawfull Or he must say we may add new officers and offices and institutions in poynt of government to these contained in Scripture and so our divines argument against the pope from the Scriptures silence anent him in its enumeration of officers is naught 3. Christ exercising ane external visible kingdom over his Church visible and all Church officers and their administrations being in his name and authoritis as is above cleared every Church officers mission and warrand must be found in his word other wâ—…yes he runs unsent and cannot expect his blessing all that come be for him and anticipat his call are theeves and robbers 4. All Christs officers and their gifts are Christs royall and mediatorie donations to his Church and by him peculiarly set and authorized therein Ephes. 4. 〈◊〉 7 8. c 1. Cor. 12. 28. He as the great Master of the house gives all his Stewards their Keys their Orders Now how Christ the king and head of his Church his donation his commission his giving his Keyes Should be instructed other wayes then by his clear warrands and institutiones in his word and Testament I would gladly learne of this Informer Is there any officer of State any subordinat Magistrat allowed in a kingdome which hath not the clear warrand of the lawes Surely not and so the case is here Finallie The ground and reasone which he builds this shifting evasion upon viz. That many things are not otherwayes commanded then under some generall as that all things be done decently or to edification instancing in the moderator and Clerk of a meeting of Ministers is very poor For since the authority which God gave Paul was to edification all ordinances which have the most clear institution must be thus qualified and to this end that which is not Otherwayes commanded then under this generall must needs be the alterable circumstances only commone to Civill and Sacred actions and such as supposes the thing it self cloathed with these circumstances to be that which is to be done and by consequence falling Hactenus under the Compasse of a command or institution for it is these only which are left to the regulation of Christian prudence according to the generall rules of the word But as we have above cleared such ane eminent Church officer as the Bishop is supposed to be or any Church officer can be no such circumstance but is such a substantiall point of government as requires a clear and positive warrand or else must be holden unlawfull and this he must acknowledge or contradict himself for He dare not say but that Church officers are other wayes commanded then under this generall and himself alledges the prelats divine institution so He can be none of these things which hath only this generall warrand Besides I would know if He will say that this officer the prelat must be sett up and Act with decencie and order surely He will not deny this If then the prelat himself is but a peece of decentie and order as being only commanded under that notion and a species under that generall then he sayes that order and decencie must be managed cloathed with order and decencie which will be very hard to reconceale to sense or He must say that the prelat must act with disorder and confusion or to evit these rockes that the prelat must be warranted under another notion then that of a circumstance of meer order and so must have a particular warrand His instance of the Moderator and Clerk is very foolish the Clerk not being necessarly a Church officer and the Moderator no distinct Church officer from the rest of the members and so is utterly Impertinent to this pointe and question anent a Church officer distinct from and Superior to a presbiter whither he ought to have a particular Scripture warrand Besides that the same divine warrand that a judiciall procedor by disquisition votes and suffrage hath and is exemplified in that Synod Act. 15. this being the necessary frame of judicatories as such and consequently of all Church judicatories the moderator hath the same foundation of his office but He will never let us see a shaddow of this for the prelat Now to shew what good Harmonie this Informer keeps in this point with some chieff men of his way others also let us hear what they hold Institutum Apostolorum de regimine Ecclesiastico ea gubernationis ratio quae aetate Apostolorum fuit c. The Apostles appointment as to Church government and that way and method of government which was in their time is perpetuall and can no more be changed then the priesthood of Aaron could saith Saravia con tra bezam Whitaker controv 4. Quest 1. Cap. 9. Tells us That the Church must not be governed-vt humano ingenio arriserit as pleases mens fancie sed ut Christo Ecclesiae domino so lique principi placet But as it pleases Christ her only head and Lord. Hence he concludes that the forms which He hath institut must be held fast as the best Matth. Sutliv de Pontif Roman lib. 1 Cap. 1. Answering Bellarmins argument from Civil to Ecclesiastick Monarchie tells him that-sicut unus Ecclesiae summus princeps c As thereis one chieff Prince of the Church so there is one true essential forme therof differing from the various moulds of commone wealthes that as she hath but one head so but one frame of policie which those who resyle from Christi leges transgrediuntur-they transgress the lawes of Christ and blotts her true government Field of the Church lib 5. Cap 45. Argues thus against the popes temporal power that among men non hath power of chaingeing any thing but he alone to whom in an eminent degree it belongs and from whom it is originally derived but to govern the Church as such is not eminently in the Magistrat It is a Bad omen cespitare in limine our informer we see in his first answer to his doupter is so anhappie as therin to justle with soom chieff champions of his cause CHAP. IX The Informer undertakes to answer the Arguments of Presbyterians against Episcopacy His answers to our Argumets from Matth. 20 25 26. and Petr. 5 3. Examined at large The genuine strength and nerves of our reasoning upon these Texts which he dare not medle with His answers found inconsistent with themselves the same with Papists answers for the papacie and contrare to the sense of sound divines THe doubter in the nixt place alleages Prelacy to the forbidden and therefore unlawful bringing for proof Matth. 20 25 26 27 28. And the Argument from this text he makes his poor doubter slenderly and curtly to represent thus That Christ forbids any of his
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
primacy or ecclesiastick Monarchy even as abstracted from his civill Dominion is not here discharged And if it be as all our divines assert it is then our Lord understood another sort of abuse of power then invadeing a Dominium civile even all despotick or Lordly power whither civill or pretended ecclesiastick in Church officers Besids if he discharged Lordly power he discharged that which Peter discharged 1 Pet. 5. Even to Lord over Gods heritage What will he dare to say that it is only a civill Lordship which is there discharged not rather ane ecclesiastick dominion Which bath Gods heritage or Church for its object And if so then the Prelats Dominion is expresly stricken against since as we have above cleared his power is a meer despotick Lordship or rule For to be the proper object fountaine of all ecclesiástick authority in the Diocess to have sole power in ordination jurisdiction the sole decisive suffrage in Judicatories is either a despotick Dominion and Lordship or it is nothing and if the Churches power is of another nature then this civill Dominion as this man tells us of what nature is it Only of another nature because it touches spiritual objects Then for any thing that is here forbidden a papall ecclesiastick monarchy is never touched Or is it of another nature because in it self Steward-like and Ministerial not despotick or Princely like that of the Magistrat which is the sense of all sound divines and must be his too if he speak sense then who sees not that the power of the Prince-or Lord-Prelat is most formally discharged It being evidently of this nature Yet againe it is in this apparent that he shiftes and shuffles the question and its terms here anent the power of the Prelat and the power discharged in this text For in saying in the beginning of his Answer that Christ discharges that kind Dominion of onely which civil Princes exercise he must needes be supposed to contradistingush from this ane ecclesiastick Dominion which is allowed yet when he speaks of this he alters the terms telling us that the Churches power is of another nature he should have said the Churches reserved Dominion if he had spoken consequently as that other kind of Dominion which he allowes and by the consequence of his discourse holds that the Text will allow In a word that all sort of Dominion whither pretended ecclesiastick or civil is here discharged to Church officers and consequently his offering violence to the Text is apparent from the context two wayes 1. In that the strife among the Apoles flowing from this desire of unlawful greatnes and which drew forth this exhortation and prohibition under debate was not about a civill despotick rule properly or onely but anent a Lordship chief rule in the Church and in matters ecclesiastick under Christ as their head So that though the Lord exemplified the greatnes which he discharged them in that of earthly princes there being no other then existent and apparent yet it was not this primarily but ane ecclesiastick Lordship or dominion which he strycks against Since he is directing them both negatively and positively anent the nature And exercise of their spiritual and ecclesiastick Authority and Rule 2. The positive parte of his injunction touching a Ministerial service or humble Ministery excludes all sort of dominion in what ever sense it can be taken and not a civill dominion onely Our Informer tells us nixt That sundrie interpreters interpret Christs words as discharging only Tyranny such as earthly Princes exercise And in this he Informers us right Onely he should have been so ingenuus as to tell us that they are interpreters beyond our line that is popish interpreters for this is directly Bellarmins shift to which since he stands here upon the same ground with him I shall return learned Whittakers interpretation and answer which hitherto I believe hath passed current with all sound Protestants Christ sets before them the example of the Kings of the Gentiles not to the end they may flie ambition on'y as this man shifts it but to let them understand that they have nothing to doe with a kingly rule For saith he though the words translated exercise dominion or authority which Matthew maks use of doeth sometimes signifie immoderat dominion yet Luke Omitts the preposition in both these Words But so it is that the simple verb is attribut to these who obtaine power and dominion not to these who insolently and tyrannically overerule for all those who among the gentiles obtained principality did not reigne tyrannically or unjustly nay the Clemency of many such and their justice is praised Thus he de pontif Quest 1. To which I may add that our Lord speakes of such Princes as were called Benefactoers or gracious Lords a very unsuiteable designation for Tyrannes How easie is it from the Informer reasoning here and with his net to fish out a papacy That which the Apostles here desired was in it self lawful and the fault was onely in the ambitious desire as it was with diotrephes who desired a lawful preexistent office This he clearly asserts I subsum But that which they desired and were striving about was a primacie or papacie Ergo that office is lawfull in it self The pope will thank our Informer for this The nixt text objected by the doubter is that pregnant passage 1 Pet. 5 3. Be not Lords over Gods heritage And from this he maks him mutter out this slender argument is not superiority among Church men there clearly forbidden Still we see our Informer keeps him under the covert of his own groundless supposition that we doe from this and such like texts Impugne Superiority among Church men as he terms it whereas wee allow as he cannot but know with all sound divines and scripture it self superiour and inferiour degrees among Church officers And he cannot shew that any Presbyterian did ever draw forth from this text such ane insignificant notion as this against Prelacy But hee behoved to make the knot easy since himself must loose it Our Argument from this text is this That the Apostle here injoyneing Ministers their duty both negativil and positively he first dehorts from evills they are lyable unto such as heart reluctancy at their laborius employment covetusness and usurpation or Lordship and Dominion whither over their fellowes which Dietrephes affected or over the people by taking ane arbitrarie masterly imperious way with them or a way of force and rigoure as these reptehended Ezek. 34 4. He nixt positively exhortes them to lead or rule in a holy exemplarie Shepherd-like Method expressing the word of grace in their practise Now I say from this genuine sense and scope of the place wee argue against Prelacie thus 1. The Apostle exhorts these elders or Ministers as their fellow-elder supposeing them his immediat Successors in the highest Spheere of ane ordinarie Ministery for he supposes them to have non higher over them now when he
was shortly to put off his Tabernacle 2. He enjoyns them to feed and take the oversight or exercise Episcopal authoritie over the flock as Paul did likewayes the Presbyters or elders of Ephesus in his last farewel Act. 20. a scrybing a compleat Episcopal authoritie to them both as to jurisdiction and ordination 3. Yet he discharges any of them to Lord it over Gods heritage commending instead thereof ane exemplarie humble service or ministery Hence wee inferr against the Diocesian Prelat 1 That there is no higher officer then a Presbyter left by the Apostles as their ordinary Successor since the Apostle as their follow Presbiter exhorts themas the highest ordinary officers and therfor the Prelat pretending to be ane higher ordinary officer is Apocriphal 2. All Episcopali authority is in Presbyters both as to ordination and Jurisdiction and they have both name and thing of a Scripture Bishop and therefore the Prelat arrogating this name solely to himself all the Episcopal power of ordinationand Jurisdiction as his solely and denying it to Presbyters is ane Anti-scripturall Monster Since these Presbyters had this in a compleat parity 3. Non of these Elders must exercise a masterly power and dominion over the flocks therefore the Lord Prelats imperious Lordly power is palpably condemned which he exercises over both Pastores and flocks Now this being our argument from this text let any man judge of this Informer ingenuity while representing it in such a disguise that he may seem able to grapple with it Whereas we shall find that his answers to his Argument presented thus in its genuine strength are like the conflict betwixt the giant and pigmee But what sayes he to the Argument as in his own mould 1. He answers That superiority among Churchmen is not discharged By Churchmen if he understand in General Church officers though the terme be some what odd we shall easily Admitt that this Text discharges not superior and inferior degrees among them but this will nothing help his cause as is evident If he mean superiority among preaching Presbyters or Elders we have proved it to be here discharged since the Apostle attributes episcopal Authority to these elders in common and discharges Lordly preheminenc in any of them Well what is it that our Informer will admitt to be here discharged domineering and Tyranny saith he which may be the fault of ane ordinary Minister towards his flocke This is the old popish song made new again to which I repon two things 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is parallel with that of Matth. 20. and Luk. 22. Where peter learned the prohibition and as is said imports indeed Dominion but no Tyrannical domineering it being made use of by the seventy interpreters to express Dominion unquestionably lawful 2. The positive parte of the precept refutes this gloss he sayes not Not Tyrannically domineering but using Dominion moderatly which ought to have been the other alternative branch if this mans gloss were true and the Apostle had allowed a lawfull Lordshipe but He adds for the other branch in expressing what is injoyned being examples to the slock Injoyneing thus to feed by example and a humble Ministery And this is opposit to all Dominion and Lordship whatsoever and doth not discriminat only one Dominion from another which is also apparent in the alternative branche and positive precept of the above mentioned paralel texts Besides we might here tell him That the Episcopal preheminence being so many wayes cross to the Scripture rules in pointe of Government may be truely called a most TyrannicalDomineereing But the reasons of his gloss follows He tells us That this domineering and Tyranny may be the fault of ane ordinary Minister towards his flock and that the Apostle is not here speaking of Church mens carriage towards one another or of their equality or inequality among themselves but of their behaviour towards the people who are called the flock or Gods heritage Ans. This is a strange reason and very hard to comprehend only Tyrannical domineereing must be understood because it relates only to the flock Can there not be a Tyrannical domineering over the Clergy also And because the Apostle forbids to Lord it over the flock therefore he forbids not Dominion over the Clergy The quit contrare conclusion will better follow If the Apostle forbids them to Lord it over the flocks who were subject to them as their spiritual guides therefore a fortiori he much more forbids them to Lord it over their fellow Presbyters who were their equalls in this Spiritual trust and Authority over the flocks And if it be unlawful to play the Domineering Prelat over one poor flock it must be much more unlawfull to Act this Tyranny over some Hundreds of both pastores and flocks So that Ministers or if he will Churchmens carriage towards one another must be here clearly pointed out by a very necessary consequence from the less to the greater and the equality of Ministers in their spiritual Government and Rule by he same topick strongly inferred from this place It strange that the Apostle should discharge to Lord it over the flocks and yer allow a Lordship over both Clergy and flocks But another wonder is how he comes to excludMinisters from that tittle of Gods heritage which his party from whom our Informer here proves a separatist do often make peculiar unto Church Rulers one would thinke that they should have a special Interest and share in that which grounds this denomination Are they not the Lords purchase as well as the people Act. 20. Nay they are in a singular manner such and Christs glorie Are they not such as he will never cast off and alienat Psal. 94 14. They are the starrs which Christ holds in his right hand nay as being singularly dedicat to him they are singularly his as the Levits had the Lord for their Inheritance in a speciall way So they were singularly his set aparte for him beyond all the rest of the tribes And are not Ministers taken from among the people for his Priests and Levits And called therefore men of God stewards of God Ministers Servants Ambassadoures of Christ because of their singular relation to him And as this is a strong disswasive from Lording over the people that they are Gods heritage who therefore most not be the servants of meâ—… So upon the ground of Ministers speciall interest in this denomination the Apostles argument as to them is the more forcible Againe since he so expresly forbids any of these Pastoures to Lord it over Gods Heritage enjoyning them a humble exemplary Ministery and far less to exercise a Lordly Rule over one another he establishes by clear consequence as I hinted ane equality among them in their pastoral official power and authority Withall the Apostle speaking to them indefinitely in this precept without the least exception and reserve as to any one of them and making their episcopal inspection relate to the
the legal type thus Every Hiepriest taken from among men c. Yet if we shall consider that Hebr. 10. discoursing of the efficacie of Christs sacrifice in opposition to the legal he sayes in the 11 12. Ver. And every Priest simply not evrie High-priest standeth dayely ministering offering the Same sacrifices which can never take away sin but his man after he had offered one Sacrifice for sins c. It will be evident that the inferiour priests were also Types of Christ. So that he should either have taken in the High priest into his argument or excluded together with him the inferiour priestes upon the same ground For majus minus non variant speciem rei If he say that he is not speaking of their Sacrifices but of their Government which was not typical Answ. Why might he not then have taken in the High-priest upon this ground since these are as well distinguishable in him as in the inferiour Priests So that he might have been excluded from having any thing to do with the Type in pointe of his government as well as they And for his single eminencie it drew along with it those degrees of inferiour priests and Levits in his principles which are mentionedso that if the one must evanish as a Type in the same manner must the other 3. It will much puzele this Informer to prove that the Highe priest in respect of his government was a Type of Christ Sure he will find this denyed by his fellow brother in the cause Tilen in his Parenes Cap. 2 in summo Sacerdote ceu pontifice non typi solum sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratio conspicua In the highpriest the type is not only conspicuous but the reason of order for he bore not a type or resemblance of Christ in resspect of the Kingely and judiciary power which Christ hath who otherwayes should haue had the dignitie both according to the order of Aaron and the order of Melchisedeck that is both of a King and a priest Iunius a greater then he de Pontif. lib. 1. cap. 6. distinguishes these in the Highpriest in summo Sacerdote consideranda non solummodo ratio typi sed etiam ordinis politiae We must consider in the High priest not only the reason of the type but like wayes of order and policie c. then he addes the abovementioned reason So that in this argument and his way of pleading for prelacie upon the ground of the Jewish policies He will of necessity introduce a pope into the Christian Church Which will be convincingly clear If we shal in the 4t place consider that our Informer in this argument hauing set aside the High priest as onely typical tells us of another single Chief and High priest under him and tels us in answer to the premised objection that this method of the Jewish government with this Chief or high priest distinct from the typical priest is exemplarlie pointed out to Christians as Gods patterne for moddeling the gospel-Church government So that without all shaddow of evasion his argument pleads for a chief patriarch over the Christian Church as being a parte of the Jewish policie oblidging us and exemplarly commended to us for our imitation Moreover I would know what he would say If one should plead for retaining of all the judicial lawes of the Jewes upon his two grounds 1. As not being typical 2. As being Gods excellent means for order and union and commended exemplarly unto Christians to the same end what better patern for modelling our government and lawes then this patern Likewayes will he say that every peece of the Jewish antiquated pedagogie was properly typical And that we are bound to reteane as of a moral perpetual nature whatsoever thing in their policie was not such Surely there were many things depending upon the particular exigences and state of that people both as a Church under that old dispensation and as a Commonwealth regular in its civil Lawes immediatly by God which no found divines doe call Typical and yet doe hold that they oblidge no Church or state under the New Testament For a conclusion of this argument I shall tell this Informer that he grossly mistaks these Scripture expressions at least in the judgment of some learned anent the Chief Priests 2. King 19 2. c. When taking them to denot different ecclesiastick degrees among the priests in their spiritual function these chiefness to speak so or principality among the priests being meaned of a civil principality existent in that Tribe before the priesthood was therein established and that they were called Chief-priests or Elders of the priests did flow from this that this Trybe subject to the same Princes as at the first was afterward set apart for the priesthood for Aaron and his Soones were chosen to be priests Exod. 28. but the whole Tribe was not assumed unto the priesthood before Numb 1. Yet in the meane while the tribe of Levie Exod. 6. had the Heads of their families their Princes The Scripture then speaking of the tribe of Levie as a Tribe simply ascribes to it the same policie with the rest of the tribes Princes of the several families by the right of primogenitur Thus both priests and Levits had their chiefe men and presidents But as a Tribe separat to holy things it had its peculiar policie One was chief priest onely by Gods appointment at whose hand all the rest of the priests were 1 Chron. 24 24. And at the hands of the priests were the interior Levites in their several services David in distributing them in their several Temple offices did not set the Princes over them as such but onely having numbered them after the Heads of their families and by their lotts or Courses did assigne to them their service of the Temple upon Gods command by the mouth of Gad and Nathan the more to facilitat this Sacerdotal tribe their comeing unto and returneing from the Temple The Chief of the families then are not upon this ground Princes or Chief as to the Holy Ministerie for there was but one onely high priest all the rest as well the heads as the families themselves were at the hand of the highpriest in the Ministery of the House of the Lord 1 Chron. 24 19. Where the Chief or head in matters sacred had no more power then the wholl body So was it in the distribution of the Levits into their several classes by their Heads Chap. 23 27 that they might beat the hands of the Sons of Aaron in the Temple Ministery So that none of his citations doe amount to any proof of his fancied degrees and subordination among either the priests or Levits in their spiritual functions or any other waye then in their civil capacitie as a Tribe neither had the two high priests mentioned Luc. 3. The least warrand in Gods institution but this is acknowledged to be a corruption in their Government then creept in
the deacons Phil 1. were meer Presbyters he is forced to acknowledge and so condemnes our Informers shifts about Extraneus Bishops accidently there or with the Apostle himself or that the Diocesian is included in the word Bishop in epistola ad Philippenses salutem dicit Episcopis diaconis unde quemadmodum intelligitur Philippensium ecclesiam habuisse Presbyteros diacâ—…nos c. de Grad Cap 8. In the Epistle to the Philippians Paul salutes the Bishops and deacones hence as we are given to understand that the Church of the Philippians had Presbyters and Deacons c. Again the Informer layes aside the Highpreist as a type of Christ when he pleads for prelacie from the Jewish Church-government But in this Saravia gives him the lie for t He holds the inferiour priests to have been in there administration types of Christ as well as the high priest And 2. That the Government whether of the inferiour or high priests is not abolished as typical de honor praes prysb deb cap 10 de Divers grad Miniser cap 14. Besides the Informer holds that that place 2 Tim. 2 4. Commandes Churchmen to be as Abstract as possible from publik civil imployments and not intangle themselves therein But Saravia adstricts the affairs of this life spoken of in that Scripture unto the endeavours which belonges to the nourishment and mantainance of this life and holds that it doth not at all speak of nor discharge Churchmens holding of publick state imployments under Princes He minces not the matter as this man Vitae negotia saith he sunt ea quibus quae ad hujus vitae victum pertinent comparantur non quae sunt principis aut civitatis publica And de â—…on praesul Presbit deb he praefixes this title unto Cap 26. As that which he undertakes to prove Idem Homo tanquam episcopus curam ecclesiae Domino Iesu fidem ac obsequium regi tanquam ipsius beneficiarius reddere potest That the same man may perform his duety to Christ as a Bishop and attend the Church and also render faith and obedience to the King as his vassal c. The doubter nixt excepts to better purpose That they could not be Bishops because they were not settled at these places especially Timothy had he been Bishop at Ephesus he had been fixed to his charge but he was left only there upon occasional imployment and for a season 1 Tim. 1 3. To this he answers 1. That they were rare and singular persons usefull for the Apostle at that time and therefore it is no wonder that they were called from their particular charge when the Churches good required it Philip. 2 19 20 2 Cor. 8 23. As with us a Minister may be called from his charge for a season when the good of the Church else where requires it To which I rejoyne 1. This answer supposes the thing in Question viz That Timothie and Titus were once fixed as Bishops in these Churches But the ground of the exception is That because their occasionall transient Imployment in these places is so clear expresse therefor they were never fixed to these Churches as their particular charge but had it for their charge to water all the Churches which the Apostles planted and attend their planetarie motion from Church to Church So that they cannot be in their worke and duty paralleled to a Pastours transient Imployment from his particular charge for the Churches greater good whose fixed charge is supposed But we have proved that Timothie and Titus their ordinarie Imployment was this transient and unfixed Ministery which is clearly holden out in scriptur both befor and after their officiating in these Churches 2 It is also cleared above that as the scripture is utterly silent of their return to these Churches againe after Pauls recaling them from the same and after their transient Imployment therein So we have made it likewayes appear that they did officiat thereafter in many other Churches performing to them the same duties of Evangelists as in Ephesus and crete And that in Ephesus elders were called Bishops and had the whole Episcopal charge before Timothie committed to them in paules last farewell In a word it can never be made good that any who were fixed to particular charges did so travell up and down as these Evangilists are proved to have done Againe he tâ—…lls us That Gerard thinks they were first Evangelists then made Bishops by Paul at Ephesus and Crete Ans. If he think so too he must quite all his plea for their Episcopacie from these Epistles for Paul calls Timothy to doe the worke of ane Evangelist here and Titus worke was the same And he must understand this in the strict sense if he offet Gerards exception to any purpose which according to him secludes power in ordination and jurisdiction So that a worke and office being enjoyned Timothy in this Epistle which hath nothing to doe with ordination and iurisdiction he was not yet made a Bishop and if not yet it will be hard to find out his commission and patent afterward in scripture since he was in perpetual evangilistick Imployments and sure if Paul ever designed him Bishop over Ephesus he would not have called the elders of Ephesus Bishopes befor Timothy in his last farewell We heard Saravia plead that Paul intitles not Timothy an Evangelist non compellat nomine Evangelistae how did he not see that that Paul numquam compellat nomine episcopi never puts upon Timothy or Titus the title or name of a Bishope neither in the inscriptiones of the Epistles writen to them nor in any place of these Epistles or else where in scripture nor injoynes any of them to do the work of Bishop As he injoynes one of them expresly to do the work of ane Evangelist And since the Apostle disertis verbis in 〈◊〉 these elders of Ephesus Bishops and to use Saravia's phrase compellat nomine Episcoporum and that with the signal emphasis of being made Bishops by the Holy Ghost his reason from epiâ—…hets and compellations will the more strongely evinc them to be such 2. This is a great degrading of ane Evangelist and derogatorie to his high function to make him a Bishop The Councel of Chaldecon judges it sacrilegious to degrade a Bishop to a Presbyter such must he acknowledge this degrading to be and therefore that being once Evangelists of necessity they behoved to continue so Next the Doubter objects what we have been saying that Paul gave to the elders of Ephesus the Charge not to Timothy which he would not have done had he been Bishop since it is probable he was present at this time for v. 4. He was in Pauls companie Here he gingerly nibbles at this Argument least it prick him omitting these pregnant circumstances of the context 1. That this was Pauls last and farewell exhortation 2. That he not only gives these elders the Charge over that Church before Timothy and not
were adressed to a Moderator would that infer his Authoritie over the Synod Nay since a Presbytry laid on hand 's upon Timothy himself Since the Presbyters of this Church of Ephesus had the Episcopal power in Common committed to them as the Holy Ghosts Bishops Since the Corinth-Presbytery did excommunicat the incestuous we may clearly infer that these directions though immediatly addressed to Timothy yet belonged to Presbyters of that and Other Churches as well as him 2. Supposing that this adress will give him a speciall Interest herein yet how will the Informer prove that it respects Timothy any other way and in any other Capacity then of ane Euangelist which he sayes it might be he yet was and not a Bishop He dissallowes not of Gerards opinion who sayes that he was not yet made Bishop Now if these Rules were to be observed by him and this his supposed singular Authority exercised as ane Evangelist whose office was to cease It will plead nothing for the Episcopal power Surely upon our supposition that he was a fellow-helper and assistant of Paul in his Apostolik function and had a transient occasional Imployment here as is clearely held out in the Text these rules are very suitable unto him in that capacity Besids these Directions are for instruction of every man of God or Minister in point of Church-Government 2. Tim. 3 16. 1 Tim. 4. 6 But doth not give them Episopal power Or will he say that every man hath the formal office or place in the nature whereof he is instructed The dedication of a book to a man anent rules of kingly Government will not make the man or suppose him either King or Governour In the 3d. place As to these Directions themselves particularly as to Timothies direction as to laying on of hands 't is Answered that laying on of hands in ordination is found in Scripture a Presbyterial Acte competent to meer Presbyters which as I said they exercised upon Timothy himself though Paul was present 1 Tim 4 14. 2 Tim. 1. 5. And therefor Timothy could have no single or Episcopal authority therein in Churches Constitute So that the precept directs Presbyters as well as him in that point Nay this addressed direction mainly respected them as the proper subject of this power and the Presbytery received their lesson here not to lay on hands suddenly rather then Timothy Nixt As for his Authority and directions anent rebuking and Censures I answ That neither can this be Timothy's sole prerogative for either it is meaned of a Privat rebuke and this every Christian hath authority in Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour and not suffer sin upon him Levit. 19 17. Prov. 9 8. Or of a ministerial rebuke and this is competent to every Minister of the word Isa. 58 1. 2 Tim. 41 2. Tiâ—… 1 13. 2 Sam. 12 8. And besides Institutions and reproofs of Church officers will not prove a fixed Episcopal power Prophets rebuked but had no jurisdiction over Priests nor Paul over Peter though he reproved him As for that which he particularly mentions about receiving ane accusation against ane Elder It is answered That this also belongs to the official juridical power of Elders since Ruling Government attribute to them in Scripture doth necessarily import ane authority to receive accusations and correct delinquents by reproofs and censures Matth. 8 16. 17. There is ane accusation to be delated ecclesiae to the Church or the juridical Court not to one Prelat as is above cleared and therefore the direction anent the receiving of the accusation respects them who were to judge upon it and not the Prelat Compare this with 1 Cor. 5 4 5. The Presbyters must meet together to rebuke the Incestuous there and they that are Spiritual must restore the delinquent Gal. 6 1. The Church officers or Ministers of Thessalonica must note and admonish authoritatively the disobedient Brother 2 Thess. 3 14 15. To which I may add that as upon the one hand Timothy is forbidden to rebuke ane elder and positively enjoyned doubly to honour them when faithful So the receiving ane accusation is no more then that which every privat Christian and Minister is capable of even against the superiour whither in state or age in relation to admonition Counsel or Comfort accordingly Levit. 19 17. Gal. 6 1 2 Joh. 10 11. None in whatever capacity are exeemed from this precept not to receive accusations lightly Hence the 4th Council of Carthage cited by Blond Apol. Sect. 4 enacted That no Bishop should hear ane accusation without the Clergie and that without their assent the sentence should be voyd where was the negative voyce here Whittaker thus answers the Popish pleading upon this text and our Informers too controv 4. Quest. 1. Cap. 2. That Timothy is commanded not rashly to receive ane accusation proves not that he had dominion over Elders which according to the Apostles minde is to bring a crime to the Church to bring the guilty into judgement openly to reprove which not only superiors may doe but also equals and inferiors In the Roman Republick the Kings did not only judge the people but also the Senators and patricii and certainly it seems not that Timothy had such a â—…sistory and Court as was afterward appointed to Bishops in the Church what this authority was may be understood by that which followes those that sin rebuke before all which equals also may doe Thus bishops heretofore if any elder or Bishop had ane ill report referred it to the eeclesiastick Senat or Synod and condemned him if he seemed worthy by a publick judgement that is did either suspend excommunicat or remove him the Bishop condemneing nocent elders or deacons not by his authority alone but with the judgment of the Church and clergie in case of appeals even to the Metropolitan he could doe nothing without the Synod what they did was ratified The same is the answer of Bucer de vt usu Sacr. Minister Willet Sinops Papis Contr. 5 Ques 3 part 3 In the appeudix Eucer de Gub. pag. 300. to 398. The Informer tells us in the next place that these directions concern after ages and are of ordinary use and therefore they cannot be extraordinary officers in these Acts that in calling Timothy and Titus extraordinary officers in these Acts we lead the way to their errour who call ordination and jurisdiction extraordinary Answ. As we have proved that none of these directions will infer in Timothy ane Episcopal Power properly such but that any power he had above Presbyters was by his special Evangelistick Legation so the concernment of after ages in these directions and their being of constant use is a pitiful argument to prove the continuanc of the power in that manner Are not all the old Testament precepts anent the antiquated ceremonies all the acts directions given to extraordinary officers both under the Old and New Testament of perpetual
use in after ages But are they therefore to be imitated and retained What will he say to the Papists pleading for the anoinâ—… of the sick upon the Apostle James his precept let the elders anoint the sicke with oile and pary this is ane Act enjoyned to ordinary officers viz to elders and joyned with with prayer a constant standing dutie and he will not say that this Apostolick precept is to be ex punged as useles What must we therefore retean anointing would he not in this case distinguish betwixt that which is a constant dutie and a temporarie concomitant and appendix Acted not the Apostles extraordinarely in their very preaching both as to its extent its confirmation by miracles their gifts of tongues and are not the Acts of preaching and baptizing of constant use in the Church Must not this Informer grant that these Apostolick Acts of preaaching and baptizing are perpetual though the mould and maner is extraordinary and gone in so far as their extraordinary Apostolick power interposed therein Thus the Acts of ordination and jurisdiction are moral but the modusrei is extraordinary in so farr as their Evangelistik authority and special legation interposed therein He must either acquiesc in this and acknowledge this his argueing Sophistick and pueril or he will contradict what he said before anent the Apostles extraordinary Priviledges which are gone with them viz infaillibilitie their immediat call sending to all nations and what else was necessary for the first founding of the Church Now is not that which was thus necessary of perpetual use Are we not built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Are not the ordinances and Ministery receaved from them of perpetuall use And their most extraordinary Acts if we mean it of improvement Nay did not the new-Testament Church receave the Law of God and ordinances from the Jewes Must we therefore Judaize 2. How will he prove that the asserting that any officer hath ane extraordinary authority conversant about such ane Act will give ground to say that the Act it self is extraordinary or the ordinance touched by that Act expyred Will his asserting that the Apostles exercised ane extraordinary authority which is now ceased in their preaching unfixedly by ane immediat call and confirming their doctrine with miracles and strange tongues give ground to conclude that the ordinances of preaching and baptizing are expired also I trow he will not grant this How then will our asserting that Timothy and Titus put forth ane extraordinary Evangelistick authority in ordination and jurisdiction infer that the Acts of ordination and jurisdiction or these ordinances themselves are expired can he not distinguish betwixt the power it self and the different subject and manner of its exercise ordinary or extraordinary can he not see in Scripture ane extraordinary power derived and cut out in a succession of different and ordinary channels and diverslie exercised Sayes he not that the Apostles had ane extraordinary power of both ordination and jurisdiction and both the keyes But I trow he asserts that there are different recipients who bring down ane ordinary power by succession Some Prelats forsooth have the key of Governmant others viz Presbyters have preaching for their work but no rule properly And sayes he not that the extensive authority in which the Apostles exercised their Ministry is gone and a limited ordinary Ministry derived from them If the extraordinary Mission of twelve Apostles hath derived from it a Ministery and ecclesiastick authority spread throw all Church-officers in the world who succeed them not into the same office let this Informer shew me why may not Timothies Evangelistick extraordinary power in ordination and jurisdiction be deryved by and seatted in a Presbytery though the Evangelistick Office is extraordinary and as such not succeeded unto The service and worke of teaching and governing to continue in all times doth not render the Apostolick mission or commission ordinarie nor infer their being succeded in idem officium eundem gradum the ordinary power being institut and settled in the hands of ordinary officers by a new warrand and commission according to the Scripture rules of ordination The office of Moses was not rendered ordinary because many works of Government exercised by him were recommitted to the Elders of Israel and so the case is here The Evangelists extraordinary office and commission necessary as that of the Apostles for the first founding of the Churches and watering and building them up in their organick being for settling all their ordinary officers is changed into the Presbytery their ordinary Collegiat power of ordination jurisdiction which we find was in the Apostolick Churches exercised and even in this of Ephesus His 2d Reason to prove them Bishops is Because their commission at Ephesus Crete was nâ—…t voyded upon the first settling of Ministers in those places therefore their office was to be constant since if meerly as Evangelists they were to settle a Church there then they were to give place to the Presbytery when some Ministers were ordained but they did not so â—…itus needed not ordain Elders in every city if some few ordained might ordain the rest Ans. 1. This is a poor argument and hath no twist of a connexion their commission at these places was not voyded upon the first settleing of Ministers ergo they were not extraordinary officers but had a standing Episcopacie there which is a meer rope of sand The Apostles office and commission was not voyded over all Churches when settled Ergo they had no extraordinary inspection office or commission towards all these Churches What consequence is here So may it be said of these Vicarious Apostles their commission to these or other Churches could not be voided or expired though they were never so much settled but they were prore nata to visite and water all the Churches and bring Apostolick instructions to them and reports from them anent their case We have proved that Timothie and Titus exercised their extraordinary office and commission towards many other Churches after their return from these of Ephesus Crete so that their commission towards these or other Churches could be no more voided whil the Apostles Imployed them therin then their office Besid this Informer should advert that Timothy is left To charge some that they teach no other doctrine which was a commission beyond the meer settling of Ministers and supposing some already settled 2. Will he say that Timothy and Titus were ordinary standing officers or Bishops over these severall Churches where they might reside some time and have Imployment therin even after they had officers of their own did they not visite and water many other Churches were they therefore their Bishops if so he must quickly transport them to be Bishops of other Churches after they were Bishops here exalt them to metropolitan's as some of the ancients make them 3. Their Evangelistik inspection direction and assistence even after
some ordinary officers were settled could no more prejudge the ordinary power and authority of these officers then the Apostles extraordinary inspection and infallible universal directive power could prejudge the Churches ordinary authority in ordination and jurisdiction The Apostles power which could not be voyded nor expyre whil they were alive being Cumulative unto but not privative of the Churches ordinary power so it is here I would ask our Informer was Pauls apostolick commission to Crete and Ephesus voyded after Bishops were set up there Nay he will not say it But did this Null the Episcopall power of Timothy and Titus over these Churches I trow not Well no more could Timothys extraordinary inspection make voyd the ordinary power of presbyters 4. We told him already that how long soever Timothy and Titus were resident there they were to doe nothing pro imperio and were not to lord it over the presbyters 5. Although elders once ordained have power to ordaine others yet the bene esse did call for the Inspection and direction of such highely gifted and extraordinary officers herein as these were And Moreover in that Infant-state of the Church Apostolick precepts and rules in reference to Church government and the exercise of both the keyes were to be delivered by these extraordinary officers consequently might call for protract their continuanc therein even after ordinary officers were ordained Infine He cannot deny but that the Apostle recalled both Timothy and Titus from these places to the further prosecution of their employment in other Churches and that their transient imployment therein is held out after their return from Ephesus and Cret as likwayes their occasionall employment in both these places which will in so farr voyd their commission in relation to them as clearly to refuâ—… the supposed episcopal ordinary charge which he alledges they exercised Next from the Authores of jus divinum Minist evangel concluding against the peoples power of ordination upon Timothy and Titus being left at these places to ordaine elders The Informer inferrs against them thus why was Timothy or Titus left to ordaine elders after some were ordained by Paul If Ministers so ordained could ordaine the rest and after some were ardained by Timothy and Titus they were left still upon that imployment I answer his inference touches not these Reverend authors in the least The ordaineing of elders in relation to the beue esse even after some elders were there and the furder directing and compleating of these Churches in their members and officers did require ane Evangelistick inspection though the ordinarie power of ordaineing remained with the ordinary elders and Church officers as the scripture doth clearly hold out Paul haveing after committed to the elders of this Church of Ephesus the whol power of government But the scripture gives not the least hint of the peoples power to ordaine but attributs this still to Church officers as proper to them So that this Inference stands good in the generall though some were converted to Christianity there yet they could not ordaine officers but Church officers were sent upon that Imployment ergo Church officers must ordaine and not the people but the speciall inference will not hold ergo Biohops must only ordaine for the reasons already given no more then from Paules ordaining the first elders it will follow ergo Paul or ane Apostle only must ordaine which is a Consequence our Informer dare not admitt else he will contradict himself It is a good consequence Paul a Church officer preached and baptized ergo none but Church officers must preach and baptize but ergo none but ane Apostle must preach and baptize is bad logick So his inference is neither logicall nor theological His 3d. Reason to prove Timothy a Bishop is taken from Pauls solemne Charge 1. Tim. 6. 13. to keep what he had commanded him till the appearing of Iesus Christ. That presbyterians particularly jus divinum Minist pag. 74. hold these Directions to be for all ages of the Church making them paralleel with Matth. 28. 20. anent Christs promised presence to the end and 1 Tim. 5. 7 21. Anent Pauls Charge to observe these things Whence he concludes that they were to have successors in their office and were not extraordinary officers since these divines say page 160. That Apostolick examples in things necessary for the good of the Church and which cary a perpetuall equiry and reason in them have the force of a rule and the Apostles setting Timothy and Titus over these Churches is ane example Apostolick for the good of the Church and hath a perpetuall reason and equitie in it Ans. 1. Wee have made it appear that no directions given to Timothy will amount to demonstrat any episcopall dominion over this Church and that he had no sole or arbitrary power either in ordination or jurisdiction consequently that the charge of keeping that which was commanded him will Import inferr no keeping of ane Episcopall charge 2. Wee have also shewed what a bad consequence it is to argue from the perpetual use of precepts or directions given to extraordinary officers in relation to extraordinary acts towards the Churches imitating of these acts and retaineing these expired functions which is palpably a non-sequitur as this man can not deny else he will swallow horrid absurdities Every thing which is for our constant use and Improvement is not likwayes for our Imitation Againe 3. I would ask this Informer if the Command 1. Tim. 6. 13. joyned with the promise Matth. 28. 20. Will not reach and include every peece of the Apostolik and evangelistik office Sure he cannot deny this and yet he acknowledges there were severall peeces of their work temporary and expyred Will he dare to say that what the apostle commanded Timothy in this Epistle was confined within Ephesus or reached him only as oversieing that Church and not in relation to his Evangilistick office throw all the Churches and that the promise Matth. 28. did not reach the most extraordinary Apostolick Acts So that himself must distinguish unless he be inconsistent with himself betwixt what is moral and extraordinary in this command and charge and accordingly reached by the promise 4. His citation from the Ius divin Minist c Cuts the throate of his cause for argueing thus against privat persons intrudeing into the ministry That the scripture layes down rules for calling men to that office they instance in the qualifications of the person Citeing 1. Tim. 3. 2 3. anent the properties of the scripture Bishop or presbyter Then they add That the Scripture directs as to the maner of his calling viz who are to ordaine how hee is to be ordained citeing 1. Tim. 4. 14. viz that the presbytery is to ordaine and ordaine by the laying on of hands adding that these directions are for all ages and citeing â—…1 Tim. 6 13 14. Now if these perpetuall directions for all ages be touching no other Bishops but
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
argument as signifing any thing against us Since the retortion thereof is so manifest and therefore nothing he hath said will impeach Calvine and Beza's impugning of Episcopacy whose impugnations of it will stand to all generations Moreover in this citation of that epist. to Bishop Grindal the Informer hath sued off the half of the sentence viz quod tu igitur coram istam quorundam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tamdiu pertulisti reverende vir ineo sane insigne patientiae ac lenitatis Christianae specimen dedisti quo majori c. and neer the close of the same letter Beza faithfully adviseth as the fittest remedy for removing offences ut in legitimo caetu ex uno Dei verbo abolitis semel papisticae tyrannidis vestigiis ea constituatur administrandae Ecclesiae ratio non quae huic vel illi adlubescat non quae veteri aut recenti consuetudine sed quae firmo verbi Dei fundamento superstructae piorum Conscientiis fatisfaciat in eternum perseveret that is that in a lawfull A ssembly from the Word of God onely all the footsteps of popish Tyranny being once abolished that Method of Church Government be established not which shall please this or that person not which is founded upon new or old Custom or the wisdom of the flesh but which being built upon the sure foundation of the word of God may satisfie the consciences of the godly and endure for ever Which rule and mould of Bishops would no doubt cashier and raze to the foundation the diocesian Erastian prelate whom he pleades for yea all the Prelates in Brittain For what he adds p. 87. It may be easily and without prejudice to our cause granted that God by his providence had made him a Iudge The Informer will not owne such ane Atheisticall principle as to deny that the Bishops civil government in England or pretended Ecclesiastick is not the object of divine providence or be so brutish as to conclude Gods approbation of usurping Tyrannes from his permissive providence in reference to their tyranny or usurpation else he will for ever destroy his loyalty and fealty either to the King or his Lordbishop That passage of Calvins letter to Cardinal Sadolet after citedby him p. 88. though admitted is a poor proof that he held Church Government to be alterable Certainly Calvin held the scripture parity to be the most ancient Government Vetustissimae Ecclesiae or of the most ancient Church for such no doubt he held the Apostolick Church to be Beside wee must tell him that this passage upon search is not found and as it is here expressed is very insignificant since by Vetus Ecclesia he may understand the Church after the Apostles time which early began to Corrupt the Government As for Salmasius his retracting his opinion as to Church Government it will no more Impeach the truth it self which he asserts then any other mans defection will weaken the sound Doctrine which he once held Would the Informer take this argument from the Papists if they should plead from the retractiones of protestants and from their writing for popery that the protestant Doctrine were not sound would he not say that their first practise or writings for truth will stand good and witnesse against them in their defection Though it may be a question whither that retraction be reall or not which Durel mentions and the Informer out of him p. 89. Especially this being another of our Informers mute citations which he keeps as he doth the state of the questions in these Dialogues under the Clouds pointing us to no page in that Answer of Salmasius to Milton We will not here stand to shew how that Salmasius eyes were blinded with Court-gifts and pensions having receaved no small summe from King Charles the second for his encouragement to that worke and several learned divines who best knew him think his literature more Considerable then his divinity was solid As for that place of Salmasius in his Walo Mess. c. 4. p. 253. cited page 90. the Intire sentence is Epistolae illae viz quae Ignatii dicuntur natae suppositae videntur circa initium aut medium secundi saeculi quo tempore primus singularis Episcopatus supra Presbyteratum Introductus fuit Whatever time this was it appears by what followes that place in Salmasius that about this time Church power began exceedingly to be Corrupted and Bishops exalted almost to ane equality with Christ and men began to plead a jus divinum for them for Ignatius In Epistola ad Trallenses asserts Episcopum venerandum esse sicut Christum quemadmodum Apostoli praeceperunt that the Bishops must be had in veneration as Christ as the Apostles have commanded and he cites the Apostles words but such as do no where occurr in our Bibles And certanly if there be no more truth in that relation anent his retraction mentioned by that author then their is soliditie in that ground of it which he alledges it is not worth the noticing For the confusions in England cannot with any shew of Reason be charged upon Presbyteriall Government which was never yet settled there And this Informer dare not deny the blest effects of truth and unity godlines which it hath had in this land as is acknowledged by Churches abroad and particularly in that passage of the Syntagma confessionum which he cites in the last dialogue If Blondel in callng Episcopacy most ancient doth except the more ancient Apostolick times which he pleads as exemplifying Presbyterian parity he gives it but the spurious after-birth of humane antiquity The same we say as to his passage cited out of Moulin p. 90. and if something of the humane proestos were granted to have creeped in ere Iohn went oft the stage will that commend it any more then that mistery of Iniquity and love of preeminence which the Scripture assures us was in Paules time and his Surely by no meanes Besides we must here again tell our Informer that this Citation out of Moulen is among the rest of his Mutes since he hath neither noted booke nor page But now from our opinion of the unalterablenes of Presbyterian government and our acknowledgment of the bringing in of a Proestos so early the Informer will involve us he sayes in one of Two great absurdities Parturiunt montes What are these the 1. is That that generation who lived shortly after Iohn was altogether ignorant of Christ and his Apostles minde anent Presbyterian parity else they would not have adventured to change the government But this absurdity is easily discussed for it lights equally upon the Instance already given of Israells defection in worshipping the golden Calf fourtie dayes sooner then 40. years or more after the holy patterne of doctrine shewed them upon the mount How often doe we find suddener changes in scripture of the divine Institutions How quickly after Ioshua and the elders did all Israell depart from Gods way and ordinances How quickly
did they relapse after deliverances both in the times of the Kings and of the judges yea and after solemne vowes of Reformation How quickly after Hezekias death did they turne aside How quickly after Josiahs death How quickly after Solomons death did Rehoboam forsake the law of God and all Israell with him I think these scripture instances of as universal far greater defections then this was anent the proestos might have made this man ashamed to bring this as ane absurditie Now what will he say to his own Question here I it possible is it probable that Gods Israell could be ignorant of his minde and adventure so quickly to change his ordinances Heard not all the Churche of Israel Gods voice from mount Sinai Had not these departers afterward known or seen his eminent seers heard his word and seen his works Could they be altogether ignorant of his minde who thus suddenly departed from him How could they then adventure to make such a change Alace What a poor querist is this I think indeed He and his party have given the Instance in our generation that such a sudden defectione is both possible and probable Was ever a nation more solemnlie and universallie ingaged unto God and had seen more of his greatnes power and glorie then wee did in the late worke of reformation How long is it since Scotland not onely knew and imbraced Presbyterian Government but also solemnlie vowed to mantaine it But he knowes how universally this work and cause of God is now rejected his Covenant abjured and disowned And the Informer himself who for what I know might have seen our first beautifull house is pleading for this perjurius change of Gods ordinances and lawes and breaking his everlasting Covenant Read he never the 106. Psal. 7. vers They provocked him at the sea even the red sea and vers 11. The waters covered their enemies and there was not one of them left Then believed they his words they sang his praise they soon frogat his works they waited not fr his counsell The Informer bluntly supposes ane impossibility of a peoples crossing light in apostazing changes and that all that generation most needs give a formall consent to this change of government in order to its introduction both which are groundless suppositions and they render this horne of his Dilemma very pointlesse Besides this change as we said before was but small at the first onelie a fixed Moderator and far from his Prelacy which even in Ieroms time was but come the length of taking from Presbyters ordination or rather the rituall part of it And the change had plausible pretexts of order and union as every innovation hath its own pretences besides that this change was not all at once but by degrees Wee must also here tell him that the same very suggestion is his 3d. Reason to prove Ieroms bringing in Bishops in the Apostles time and so a nauseating repitition But if we decline this absurdity the next he thinks is worse viz That that generation went over the belly of light in changing the Government and conspired against Christ and his Apostles Government and none are found testifying against it Answer 1. This absurdity doth like wayes fall upon the former Scripture instances of greater and more sudden and as universal defections of the Church of Israel What will he say to these questions in relation thereunto Were all ignorant Did all sin against light and adventure presumptuously to change the divine ordinances And as for a Testimony against these evills the Informer himself and his party for all their clamoures against us falls under ane obligation to answer this in relation to many corruptions and erroures which as early creept into the Church as Prelacy Wherof we gave Instances already and no Testimonies are recorded against them He seems to have forgot or to be ignorant of our divines answer to this argument of Papists calling for our producing of Testimonies against such and such evills or dating their first rise viz. That there might be tho we have not known them and that it is bad arguing from the defect of the History or the darknes of the first original of such a corruption to deny the plaine mater of fact and the corruption itself to be such How many Thousand eminent persons and acts of these times which we told him the learned doe acknowledge to be very dark as to matter of fact have never come to our knowledge And since we have often told him from Ierom that this change was lent and by considerable degrees and intervalles of time and Method of its procedor some might be overtaken with weaknes others puffed up with ambition and upon this ground the one might endeavour the other give way to this change especially its first degrees being small in respect of what followed Knowes not this man that the evill one sowes his tares while men sleep And this hierarchie being as in its nature so in its rise a Mystery Mystery of Iniquity Mystery Babylon Yea and a Mystery which was working long before this change even in Pauls time upon all these grounds his absurdity evanishes and reflects a greater absurdity upon himself who would have us shut our eyes against Scripture light upon such pretences as these rather embrace 2 corruption contrary unto it then acknowledge that the Church did erre We know very well what a wicket this notion hath opened for obtruding and retaining popish innovations and these men are fast warping in to that Method As for that which he adds of Blondel p. 94 who asserts that the Presbyters made him proestos or fixed Moderator who was first ordained Wee told him already that this fixed president tho a deviation from the Scripture rule yet is farre from the diocesian Prelats sole power in ordination and Jurisdiction So that his confidence some will be apt to say impudence is strange in calling this a power episcopall now existent since notwithstanding all its after growth it was not in Ieromes time come the length of our present Hierachical power of Prelats by many dayes journey Neither is it probable that Blondel could suppose this to be allowed of John which he holds to be crosse to the divine pattern As for Blond Apol pag 25. the Informer hath been mistaken in this citation no such words being found in that place But in page 52. after that he hath abundantly proven this thesis initio Presbyter Episcopus synonyma fuerunt that in the beginning Bishop and Presbyter were one and the same he begins the next sect thus Ubicumque Primum nascente Chistianismo Presbyterorum aggregari Collegium caepit Antiquissimum rectius Antiquissimo inter Collegas Primatus Contigit ut concessus totius Caput fratrumque tandem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jure quodam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fieret Which onely a mounts to thus much that first a moderator among ministers being established grew by peecmeal to a
of Prelacy in Scotland and for Englands reserving I have told him that what ever glosses any may put upon that 2d article yet if the generall clauses and expressions mentioned will exclude all kinde of prelacie their glosses will not comport with the simplicity and genuin sense of the oath and therfor are not to be admitted Since if it can be made good from the scripture that all kinde of prelacy is unlawfull dissonant to the divine rule and repugnant to the power of godliness the oath doth most clearly strike against it Mr Crofton pag. 110. in answer to the Author whom he calls Dr Featly's ghost objecting that in the Covenant the Church of Scotland is set before the Church of England tells him that it is in relation to different acts the Reformed Religion of Scotland to be preserved of England to be Reformed that it is no Solecism to put the factum before the fieri to sweare the preservation of good acquired before ane endeavour to obtain the same or better to prefix the pattern to that which is to be therunto conformed He adds that his Antagonist hath little reason to grudge that Scotland should be propounded as a pattern of Reformation to England since Beda reports that this nation did as first communicat the science of divine knowledge without grudge or envy unto the people of England citing his Eccles. hist. gent. Ang. lib. 5. cap. 23. Hence he infers that it is no folecisin to propound us as a pattern of Reformation who had first obtained it and from whom Christianity it selfe was ar first transmitted to them Here let out Informer informe himself first that in the sense of the English Presbyterians the preserving of our establisht Reformation is that article wherin our obligation to Presbyterian government is properly included and that the article of Reformation yet in fieri relates properly to England 2. That they state a distinction betwixt preserving and reforming as distinct acts the one relating to our Reformation in Scotland already obtaind the other to that in England yet in fieri wherin they check this mans blunt measuring our obligation against prelacie first and principally by the second article and his denying our obligation to preserve Pretbyterian government containd in the first and his blunt confounding the obligation of the two articles to give some shadduw of his fancyed contradiction which he would fasten upon us viz. That we are bound against all Episcopacie in the first article and yet the second can admit of some For as we have before answered so Mr Crofton tells him here again that the acts and objects are different The preserving of the Reformation government and discipline of this Church which we see he holds to be Ptesbyterian government according to our two books of discipline and opposit to diocesan prelacie as such is a different act and object from these of extirpating Prelacie out of the Church of England And thirdly that with Mr Crofton and the English Presbyterians it is no such paradox as this man afterwards endeavours to perswade us that the Covenant obligeth them to Reforme England according to our pattern which we see they hold to be the Scripture pattern For Mr Crofton tells his Adversary that our factum was to be their Fieri and our acquired good in point of government the measure of their good to be obtaind and that the good they were to obtain according to the Covenant was the same with ours and tells him in terminis and expresly that our pattern is in the first article prefixed to which they are to be conformed From what we have said out of Mr Crofton touching his sense of the Covenant and the sense of the English Presbyterians who adhere thereunto it is evident that it strikes against all prelacy including the priority and power of diocesan Bishops and Arch-Bishops That prelacy disputed against by Gerson Bucer in his dissertations de Gub. eccl Didoclavius in his Altare Damascenum Cartwrights Exceptions Paul Baines his Diocesans tryall Smectymnuus Mr Pryn in his publick and positive challenge for thâ—… unbishopâ—…g of Timothy and Titus cited by Crofton pag. 83. as unanswerable pieces Yea all Bishops whose office and authority is such as Mr Crofton to use his own expression might not stand up a Peer to them in officiall power tho a simple Presbyter so that our Informer is quite out in telling us that in their sense the Covenant is reconcilable to our prelacy and strikes only against that of England Again Mr Crofton in the Analepsis pag. 129. answering the charge of Ambiguity put upon that clause of the best reformed Churches tells the Masters of Oxford that the sense is in endeavouring the reformation of England the word of God shall be our rule and the best reformed Churches our pattern Wherein he clearly asserts with us that the obligation of the Covenant reaches the extirpation of whatever Prelacie is found contrary to the Word of God But so it is that the Apostolick Churches as we shall finde Mr Crofton here assert owned no Bishops but such as he might stand up a Peer unto so that the Scripture rule and by consequence the Covenant according thereunto strikes against and cuts of all Prelacy of Diocesian Bish of whatever Goverment doth admitt of any Church officers above Presbyters And in his sense they are oblidged to reduce Englands prelacy or hierarchy to a compleat presbyterian parity The Scripture makes with Mr Crofton the Bishop and presbyter meerly Synonima So that no prelacy wherein a distinction is admitted can consist with the Covenant in his judgment nor can any glossings of men prejudge this rule and the obligation resulting from this clause to extirpate Prelacy foot and branch Our Informer might have seen this his notion further refuted by the Author of that peice intituled The case of the accommodation examined pag. 39. 40. who shews that in so farre as England had attained we might close with them in a particular Oath for extirpating an evill discovered and yet for a further advance rest upon the more general tyes so surely cautioned till God should give further light so that the engadgement of both parties expresly only to extirpat that species did no way hinder the setting up of Presbyterian Government and rejecting of all prelacy to be Covenanted unto under the General provisions That it was aggreeable to truth and righteousness for us to concurre with that Church convinced of evills but not so enlightened as to remedies in Covenanting against the evills in particular and also to endeavour a reformation according to the Word of God and by vertue of this general oblidgement become bound to make a more exact search anent the lawfullnes or unlawfullness of things not so fully clear in the time of entering into the Oath and after the discovery to reject what seemed tolerable So that no hesitation among them doth hinder England and Scotlands respective obligations to extirpate all episcopacy as contrary
to that doctine which is according to godliness What inconsistency will the Informer shew us in this that one nation vow adherence to its owne establishment in point of reformation and Church Government and likewise vow assistance of another nation in the removal of a corruption therein tho the removall will not amount to such a compleatness of reformation at first as will be every way like unto this establishment both nations being notwithstanding oblidged respective under generall clauses to make this reformation compleat The Informer next tells us that it is doubted by the learned whither in the first Article there be any obligation to maintain presbyterian Government His first reason is because there is no express mention of presbyterian Government therin but only of our reformed religion in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government Ans. this reason of the Seasonable case which he hath borrowed is very insignificant Our Church after long wrestling being recovered from corruptions both in Doctrine and Worship which Prelates had introduced and her Discipline and Government according to the Scripture pattern set up in Presbyteries synods and Assemblies and all the priviledges of these her courts authorized and establisht both by civill and ecclesiastick constitutions and laws will any doubt but the sceptick who will dispute that snow is not white that the discipline then reformed and establisht is in that oath sworn to be maintained He may al 's well alledge that it is not the doctrine and worship then established which we Covenant to preserve as to doubt of the government since this reformation then established takes in all the three together and in the same sense Besides his Master the Seasonable Casuist grants that there was then in Scotland no such officers as are enumerate in the 2d article but an establisht reformed government was then existent Now dare any of these new absolvers or resolvers say that it was not Presbyterian government or that this was not the sense of the imposers of that oath His 2d reason is that Independents took that Covenant and had a hand in wording that article that it might not import any particular forme of government That the words import no one forme of government but with this proviso as reformed The Seasonable case said this already to which the Apologist returned answer That the government of this Church at that time being Presbyteriall as he acknowledged there could be no other government understood then what was then existent established and reformed That to say Indendepents understood it of their government will no more reflect upon the Covenant then upon the Scripture it self which Independents do alledge will plead for their government Next I would ask this man why may not the same insignificant quirk be also objected as to the doctrine and worship viz. that only the doctrine and worship with this proviso as reformed but not the then established doctrine and worship is understood in that article and so sectaries may lurk under this generall also Thus he may alledge that no engadgement or oath in relation to his Majesties authority will binde except his name and Sirname be in it because some may entertaine a chimera of their own under his Majesties general titles Alas what ridiculous conceits are these The Doubter next objects that the English parliament who together with our Scots Commissioners imposed that oath did by the reformed government understand Presbytrie which was then settled here and that therefore we are to understand the oath in their sense who imposed it whatever Independents think He answers by denying that the English parliament understood the 1. article of Presbyterian government for then they would have thought themselves bound to reforme England according to our pattern but on the contraire in anno 1647 they toid our Commissioners that they could never finde Presbytrie necessary by any divine right and charged them with Superciliousness in judging that there is no other lawfull Church government but what they call so and with misinterpreting the article anent Church government This the Seasonable case also said before him and this hungry casuist catches up his cibum praemansum but could not see the answer returned to this in the Apology To this I say first that the Parliament of England tendered not that oath to us nor is their sense therof principally to be eyed by us as in his mould of the objection and answer he seems to suppose The parliaments of both Kingdomes imposed the oath upon their own subjects framed by the consent of both according to their own condition and exigence so that we are to look mainly to the procedour and sense of our Church and state for a discovery of the genuin sense and meaning of that oath Now it is most evident that the designe of our Church and state in framing and imposing of this oath was to establish and preserve our Church government then in being which he who denyes to have been Presbyterian in its compleat formes and courts he may deny any thing 2. We told him alreadie that whatever defection or liberty of glossing any might be guilty of yet the words and clauses of the Covenant as to that 1. article are clear and abundantly significant and will admit of no evasion And in relation to the total extirpation of prelacie out of that Church where it was existent the 2d Article is as clear and convincing And therefore whither they lookt upon themselves as oblidged to follow our pattern yea or not we have proved that they stood oblidged both by that particular enumeration in the 2 Article and also in the more generall clauses mentioned to extirpate Prelacie root and branch This man will make a meer Proteus of oaths if their sense and obligation must vary turne ambulatory or ambiguous according as men do shift or turne aside We told him of Dr Sandersons rule anent the import of the words of an oath in their genuin sense in reference to its obligation whatever liberty men may take to glosse or interpret which is the judgement of all sound Casuists 3. Dare he say that ever the parliament of England denyed that de facto Presbyterian government was compleatly established in the Church of Scotland or will he make them so irrationall as to deny this necessary consequence that therefore the 1. Article of the Covenant doth clearly oblidge this Church to its preservation as the reformed Government then existent and if his consequence cannot but be admitted surely whither they looked on themselves as oblidged to follow our pattern yea or not they held no sense of this article contrary to our own sense nor denyed our obligation to maintain our established Presbyterian Government And besides they never denyed their obligation to reforme the Church of England according to the Scripture pattern and that of the best reformed Churches in conformity to that pattern And that the Church of Scotland and other Churches where Presbyterian Government was existent were
he adds that it is irrationall to say we are bound to it in the sense of the Church and State of Scotland because they were but a part of the Imposers and the least Part. Ans. I told him already that in relation to the engadgers in Scotland they were the proper imposers the authority of the respective rulers of both nations in relation to their own subjects being first and immediately to be lookt unto and their sense scope therein to be mainly eyed and each Nation being properly and immediatly judges as to their own national end in this stipulation Thinks this man that the then representatives of Church and State did eye any other end as to Scotland then the preservation of the reformation in Doctrine Discipline Worship and Government as at that time therein establisht Moreover the sense and scope of the article it self being convincingly inclusive of Presbyterian Government it can admit of no other glosse without manifest distortion and frustration of the imposers designe therein Next he tells us that suppose Presbytery were meant in the 1 Article yet the 2d will admitt some episcopacie What poor stuffe is this Suppose the Article of extirpation relating only to England and Ireland would comport with some episcopacie which the Informer hath not yet proved what hath that to do with Scotland Or how can that enervate our engadgement to preserve the reformation as then establisht in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government Because in relation to the extirpating of Englands Prelacy after the reformation in Scotland is compleated and sworn to we are to bear with the English Church in some remaines of Prelacy till God give further light must we therfor be oblidged or allowed according to the sense and scope of this Oath to corrupt or raze the Fabrick of that establisht reformation and bring in again prelacy into that Church out of which it had been totally eradicate Nay this is too dull inadvertancie As for what he adds that Presbytery is not inconsistent with any kinde of prelacie I answer that the presbytery establisht and sworn to be maintained in Scotland is and Beza is so farre from disowning this that as we heard he exhorteth John Knox to keep that Church and house of God clean of prelacy as he loved the simplicity of the Gospel CHAP. IV. The grounds upon which the Informer undertakes to prove that the obligation of the Covenant ceaseth although its oblidging force for the time past were supposed examined at large As also his reasoning upon Numb 30. Wherein his begging of the question his contradicting of Dr Sanderson and other Casuists and manifold inconsistencies are made appear OUR Informer having spent his Master pieces and the cheife products of his invention or rather of those who have gone before him upon this difficult task of reconciling the Covenant to Prelacy doth next as a liberall bold disputer undertake to loose the Covenant even upon supposall of its pre-existent obligation against it And therefore making his Doubter tell him that he bears off the acknowledgement of anyobligation against episcopacie either in the national or solemne league lest he fall under the charge of perjurie In answer to this he will suppose that episcopacy is abjured in both Covenants and yet undertake to defend that they arenot perjured who now submit to prelacie The Doubter thinks this strange Doctrine and so do I. Because to swear against episcopacie and yet acknowledge it is to do contrary to their Oath To this doubt he returns a large resolution but still follows up the Seasonable case closs for fear of miscarrying And first he begins with a threefold partition either prelacy saith he is an unalterable necessary Government of divine or Apostolick warrand or it is sinfull and contrary to the Apostolick Government or thirdly of a middle nature neither commanded nor forbidden but left to Christian prudence as found expedient to be used or not Here I must stope him a little and minde the reader that we did upon the first Dialogue disprove this indifferent Proteus-Prelacie as a monster to Scripture since the Scripture condescending so far as to its institution of officers ordinances Lawes censures and as we heard himself acknowledge setting down all substantialls of Church Government prelacie must of necessity be either consonant or dissonant therunto and by consequence necessary or finfull commanded or forbidden So that he is to be limited to the first two and any supposal anent the indifferencie of presacy is but his petitio prnicipii and the gratification of his adversary for further clearing of this question now proceed we If it be the Apostolick Government derived from their times to all ages of the Church he hopes we will grant that no Oath oblidges against it This I willingly grant to him but what then Why we must not cry out perjurie till what he hath offered on this head be solidly answered Let this bargaine stand I hope I have made his Scripturae pretences appear to be vaine and proven the contrariety of that prelacie now established both to the Scripture and pure antiquity and till he hath answered what is offered upon this point we may impute perjury to him by his own acknowledgment What next what if it be sinfull Then he sayes we need not plead the Covenant obligation No may we not plead the Covenant obligation against Schisme heresie and profanness May not the Oath of alledgance be pleaded against treason because before this Oath treason is a sin Said he not already that the Baptismall vow is a superadded obligation though the matter it self doth binde did not the Oath and Covenant Neh. 8. containe an abjuration of many sins against which the people stood before preoblidged But he adds its true a supervenient Oath makes the obligation the stronger Right why then may not we plead that which makes it stronger Especially against this man and his fellows who have such a mighty faculty of resolving and absolving all S Peters fetters Sure they had need of Double nets who would catch a Proteus Then he tell us That the ablest champions for Presbytrie dar not assert episcopacie to be unlawfull What champions are these that prove it to be contrary to Scripture and yet dar not assert it to be unlawfull Sure they are very faint disputants We heard that Beza whom our Informer will sure call a champion for Presbytery called episcopacy diaâ—…olicall and the egg out of which Antichrist was hatched Was not that near the march of calling it unlawfull But how will he now absolve us Why it must be indifferent neither lawfull nor unlawful and then the question is with him if we could by our own Oath make it absolutely and in every case unlawfull so that we can never after submit unto it He adds that we are mistaken if we think that an Oath against a thing indifferent will in every case bind Here I shall only tell him that since all his resolving skill
flows not from the wife her donation nor the parents from the Children So that a parallel argument can hardly be drawen from the Power of husbands and parents supposed in this text in relation to Oaths and vows of the Children and wife to that of the Magistrat in relation to his subjects 2ly in the beginning of that Chap. the Lords way of Laying down this great Sanction touching vows seems to exclude the Magistrat from this absolving Power For after the propounding of the Law touching the keeping of voluntary Oaths and vows viz. that the person vowing shall not break nor profane his Word as the Hebrew signifies but do according to all that Proceeds out of his mouth 1. The Case of the wife and the Daughter not foris-familiat is Gods great and only exception exprest in the Text from his own rule and Law touching the strick observation of voluntarie Lawfull vows So that the rule and Law seems to reach all other Cases as to free vows except only this 2ly in the Beginning of the Chap. we find that Moses spoke this to the Rulers and heads of the tribes but the text is silent as to his applying of this exception anent the father and husbands Power in absolving vows unto these heads Rulers which should have been especially intimat to them Hence it may be probaby Concluded that the Rule and Law touching the observation of vows stands fast in all other Cases except these here expresly excluded by the Great Lawgiver So that ere his argument can reach us he most give in Sufficient proof that the Magistrat stands vested with this Power and falls within the Compass of this exception in relation to his subjects Not to detain him here in tasking him to prove that this Judicial statute as others of the like nature doth belong unto the Christian Chùrch But in the second place Granting that the Magistrat is here meant it will never speak home to his Point but much against him for 1. the dominion of the Superiour being the ground of this discharge wherin the husband and Parent have Power if the matter of our vow be found such as is excepted from the Magistrats dominion the Informer must grant that this text will not reach our Case And supposing the matter antecedaneously unto the vow to fall under divine Commands this is evident beyond exception But because he beggs our concession that it was before indifferent I adde if it be within the Limits of our reserved Libertie as free subjects or of our Christian Libertie it s still on both grounds beyond the reach of his dominion and consequently excluded from this exception and the vow must stand and oblidge according to the Grand precept here set down so that a hundred discharges of the Magistrat will never touch it We heard him acknowledge that by discipline of this Church in the nationall Covenant the substantialls of Government is understood and that consequently it binds therunto So he must acknowledge that our solemn Covenant will inviolably bind to this divine Frame of Government no earthlie power can loose therfrom no more then from Scripture institutions And Doctor Featlie acknowledgeth that people may Covenant without their Superiours to fulfill Gods Law Now give us all Scripture Church officers and their Rules of Government Prelacie shall be quickly gone So that upon his concession that the national or solemn league do reach the substantialls of Government or what is necessary for the ends of Government set down in Scripture it will amount to that which we plead for and he must grant it falls not under the Magistrats Dominion and that his argument from this text is lost 2dly this dissent which looses the vow must be both ane open dissent and also presentlie in the verie day he heares of it Qui sero se noluisse significat putandus est aliquando voluisse That is he that declares a late dissent may be presumed sometimes to have given his consent saith Dr Sand. de jur prom This he cannot say as to our King 3ly It most be constant the dissent suspending but not loosing the obligation The oblidging vertue being naturall and inseparable to the vow as Dr Sand. tells us de jur prom pag. 3. Sect. 10. when ever the consent comes the obligation returns Now have not our King and Rulers consented unto and ratefied all our vows both in the nationall and solemn league and Covenant 4ly This consent of the superiour once given can never he retracted by a dissent again Whither it be before or after he can never make it void as the Text doth clearlie hold out See Sand. 16. Prel 7. Sect. 6. Now have not both the nationall and solemn League the Consent vows of all our superiours ratifying the same So that this text every way pleads for the obligation therof for this their consent once given they can never revoke far less their Oath and vows but the vows of the inferiours are thereby rendered for ever valid as Casuists in setting down these rules doe grant so Aquinas Filucius Tract 25 cap. 9. Azor. Moral inst lib. 11. cap. 10. Sanches lib. 3. Cap. 9. Amesius cas lib. 4. cap. 22. Quest. 11. Sand. Juram Prom. Prel 4. Sect. 16. But the Doubter objecting this consent and ratification of our superiours which therefore they cannot make void He answers that by comparing the 12. and 15. verses it appears that after the husband hath by silence confirm'd his wifes vow yet he hath a power of voiding it again and she is exonered of her vow and bound to obey her husbands Commands Ans. Although this were granted as the Text stands in clear contradiction to it that the husband might null the vow after he hath confirmed it by a silence or tacit confirmation yet it will not follow that his nulling power will hold after he hath given not onlie a formall consent positive but also solemnlie vowed and bound his soule to the Lord in the same vow which is most evidentlie our case Have we not the solemn vows subscriptions and Oaths of both King and Rulers concurring with the vows of the subjects in this case How then shall they loose their own vows 2ly this wilde gloss is expresly cross to Dr Sanderson and other Casuists their sense of this case and text as we heard who hold that if once the superiour hath either tacitly or expressly precedaniously or subsequently consented he can never by his dissent again either discharge from the Oath or so much as suspend the obligation of it Dr. Sand. saith 16. Prel 7. Sect. 6. it s a true rule quod semel placuit amplius displicere non debet what once in this case hath pleas'd the superiour ought never to displease Gods Word declaring it established for ever If he hath consented saith the Dr either before or after be can never afterwards take away its obligation 3. He makes the text contradict it self for ver 7. upon
Ecclesiastical officers who are there abjured Nay doth not Timorcus tell us that in England the Commissaries exercise a power in Church discipline by a delegation from the Bishop And doth not Bishop Lighton deny this to be competent to our Commissaries here For in that passage of the letter now cited he sayes we have nothing but the name of Commissaries he means in respect of these in England who exercise ecclesiastical discipline under the Bishops Didoclavius pag. 458. Cites Cowellus in Interprete about the office of the Bishops Commissary in England speaking thus Commissarij vox Titulus est Ecclesiasticae Iurisdictionis saltem quousque commissio permittit in partibus Diocesios a primaria Civitate tam Longe dissitis ut Cancellarius subditos ad principale consistorium Episcopi citare non potest c. That is that Commissary in England is a title of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction so faras his commssion will allow in places which are so far remote from the cheif city of the diocess that the Chancellour without great molestation cannot cite them to the Bishops cheif court Didoclavius tells us ubi supra that according to the Statutes of England the Chancellour is the Bishops principal officiall the Commissary the Bishops foraneous officiall To conclude 1. The Bishops power as to Civills and their deputation of this their power to Chancellours is a most gross usurpation Contrary to the Scripture which forbids the Minister to entangle himself with things of this life Our Lord himself would not so much as be an arbiter in a civil Cause Paul speaking of the ministerial duties saith who is sufficient for these things The Apostles must Give themselves continually to the Word Cartwright against the Rhemists upon 2. of Tim. 2. 4. Proves that pure antiquitie Knew nothing of prelats thus medling citing Jerome super Sophon cap. 1. who expounds that place against Ministers medling in Secular affaires And Cyprian who applies this place against one who took upon him to be executor of a Testament Lib. 1. Epist. 9. concil Carthag 4. Cap. 20. Apostol can Can. 6. Seculares Curas non Suscipite Likewise Ambrose who affirmes that Worldly Government is the weakning of the priest Lib. 5. Epist. 33. Smectimnuus pag. 32. Sect. 10. cites concil Hispall 2. Cyprian Epist. 28. against this deputation of prelats power to Chancellours Commissaries c. and Brings in Bishop Dounham aknowledging Defens Lib. 1. that in Ambrose time and a good while after which was about the year 400. till presbyters were wholly neglected the Bishops had no ordinaries vicars Chancellours Commissaries that were not Clergie men But this restriction they affirme to be a meer blind and Challeng him to shew any such under-officers of Bishops in those times So that they hold this to be one main point of difference betwixt their Bishops and the primitive Bishops 2dly in England not only hath the Commissary a Civil administration under the Bishop but hath Likewise power of Spiritual censures and a great part of the Bishops ecclesiastical administration committed unto him both over Ministers and others such as suspension deposition excommunication See Didoclav pag. 464 465. de officialibus Cartwright 2. repl part 2. pag. 69. who shews that the prelats not only exercise Tyrrany themselves over the Church but bring it under subjection to their very Servants yea their Servants Servants such as Chancellours Commissaries c. 3ly it is clear that since the reformation we never had in Scotland such Commissaries but our Law and practice since that time and since Popish Prelacies were dissolved hath much reduced them to the state Quality of other civil officers whose administration of its own nature depends upon superiour civil officers For this we have as I said Bishop Lightons own Confession that we have but the name of Commissaries here who have nothing to do with Church discipline Only their civil power is invaded again by the Prelats 4ly B Lighton and this Informer do both plead that its only the officers enumerat in the 2d Article of the Covenant and the Commissaries as then moulded Existent in the Church of England that this Oath oblidges against And so according to their Principles and pleading our Commissary here so vastly discrepant from theirs falls not within the compass of the Covenant abjuration Hence finally the owning of the Commissary in his Lawfull civil administrations can be no acknowledgement either 1. of the English Commissaries Power which he hath not Nor 2dly of the Prelats usurpation upon this civil office no more then the simple using of our civil Laws and the ordinary civil courts during Cromwells usurpation was a homologating the wickedness therof which this man will not dare to assert An usurper may be in titulo and such submission and improvement of the civâ—…l power invaded by him as doth acknowledge the providentiall Title and his being possessed of the power de facto and having as they use to say jus in re or actual providential possession therof If there be no active concurrance towards his Establishment is as to civills free of any guilt of the usurpation and will import no acknowledgement of the usurper his Pretended jus Which is the Judgement of all sound divines and Casuists But the case is far different as to our Informers deriving his deputed Ecclesiastical Ministery or spiritual authority from the Bishop because 1. the Prelats office it self is a gross usurpation contrary to the Scripture so is not the Commissaries office 2dly the Pelats usurped possession of unlawfull power over the Church which is Christs Kingdom cannot give him so much as a providentiall Title and therfore all acknowledgement therof is unlawfull Thirdly his submission to prelacy as now it stands Circumstantiat is an acknowledgement both of the possession and jus which this man will not deny and this is far dictinct from an act which doth but indirectly acknowledge the usurpers possession So that his Conformity is ane express acknowledgement and owning of a gross encroachment upon Christs Kingdom his Church which is toto Coelo different from acknowledging a possession de facto of and a Providential title unto a part of the civil administration of the Kingdoms of the world which are mutable And as for a testimony against this usurpation I suppose that had the people of God disowned these civil courts upon this ground of the Covenant obligation his party for the preceeding reasons had signally cried out against it as an AnaBaptistical rejecting of Lawfull civil Government more then he doth upon this Pretence alledge a homologating of Prelacie in this acknowledgement But however we say that the people of God their notour and standing testimony against Prelacie it self as now Established doth sufficiently reach this among other its usurpations although this piece of civil Government be eatenus or in its own nature and as such owned as formerly But now our Informer charges us with another breach of Covenant upon the ground
thus as our late consession is disownd in relation to several doctrinal points of Christian libertie moralitie of the Sabath free election c so likewise in relation to its principles as to Church Gobernment and Christs appointing Officers lawes and censures as head of his Church his not giving the keys to the civill Magistrat c. Wherein our prelatick party are come so great a length that the late theses from St Andrews an 81 daines that Assembly of Divines whose confession is authorirized by the generall Assembly of this Church with no other name then that of a conventicle 8ly Our Churches case is now worse then when prelacy was introduced by King James The Limitations of Erastianism by the Act of Parliament An. 1592. in relation to her priviledges concerning heads of religion heresy excommunication and censures clear this Next Church-Judicatories were not discontinued but sat upon their old ground and Prelats were restored by Parliament to their civil dignities only Hence 9ly It s clear that this pure Presbyterian Church hath been meerly passive as to all these innovations lately introduced her true representatives or lawfull Assemblies never having consented to this course of conformity as appears by the Assembly 38. Their act anent these meetings at Linlithgow 1606 at Glasgow 1610. at Aberdeen 1616. At St Andrews 1617. at Perth 1618. Which consented to Prelacie All which meetings they demonstrat to be contrary in their frame and constitution to the priviledges of this Church And at prelacies late erection Presbyterian Judicatories and Synods were preparing a Iudicial Testimonie before they were raisd So that the voice of our lawful Assemblies is still heard in opposition to this course since Prelacies erection we have never had so much as a shadow of ane Assembly c. For the 3d point viz. the different grounds which the Presbyterian and prelatick party and this man particularly do plead upon for the peoples adherence take it shortly thus the prelatists do plead first that they are Ministers and in that relation to this Church 2lv That corruptions in administrators will not according to our own principles warrand separation from ordinances 3ly they plead order and union which they allege is broken by peoples withdrawing These are the cheif topicks they insist on On the other hand Presbyterian Ministers plead for disowning them according to the forementioned state of the question first from this that the body of Presbyterian Ministers professours adhering to our Churches reformation principles and priviledges are the pure genuine Church of Scotland tho now fled into a wilderness whose voice we are called to hear as her true Chiidren 2ly that this course of conformity is a meer intrusion on this Church and invasion of Christs Kingdome prerogatives and ordinances subjecting the lawes officers and censures of his Church unto men exauctorating putting in officers without his warrand that Prelats and their deputes consequently have no right to officiat as Ministers in this Chuich Since both the one and the other are arrand intruders upon the same and promoters of this Schismatick destroying course of defection 3ly that our Churches divine right and claim to her priviledges stands fast notwithstanding the present encroachments and invasions thereof and her Childrens obligation of adherence to the same accordingly 4ly That hence it followes because of the nature and tendency of this course of defection that all are obliged to keep themselves free from the least accession to it and therefore to disown Curats both as maintaining principles contrary to the principles and doctrine of this Church and as standing in a stated opposition to her likewise as the obiects of her censure if she were in capacity to draw her sword That the people of God have both corrupt doctrine to lay to their charge beside the corruption Worship and also their going out from the fellowship of this Church and leading the people away from our vowed reformation c. In the 4th place to come to clear ths great point on whose fide the separation stands let us premise these things 1. Every separation is not sinfull even from a Church which hath the essentialls yea and more then the essentialls a man may go from one Church to another without hazard of separation But further in these cases separation is not schism I. It if be from those tho Never so many who are drawing back and in so far as drawing back from whatever peice of duty and integrity is attaind For this is still tobe held fast according to many scripture comands as we shall shew So Elias when Gods Covenant was forsaken was as another Athanasius I and I only am left in point of tenacious integrity 2ly if we separat in that which a Nationall Church hath commanded us as her members to disown by her standing acts and authority while those from whom we separat own that corruption 4. If Ministers their supposed separation be ane officiating as they can have access after a National Churches reformation is overturnd and they persecute from their watchtowers by these overturners For in this case the persecuters separat from them and chase them away 4. There is a Lawfull forbearance of union and complyance with noto ious backsliders in that which is of it self sinfull or inductive to it which is far from separation strictly taken The commands of abstaining from every appearance of evill and hating the garment spotted with the flesh do clearly include this 5. Many things will warrand separation from such a particular Minister or congregation which will not warrand separation from the Church National nor infer it by Mr Durhams acknowledgment on scandal pag. 129. For if scandals become excessive he allowes to depart to another congregation 6. There is a commanded withdrawing from persons and societies even in worship the precepts to avoid them that cause divisions and offences contrary to the received Doctrine Rom. 16. 17. to come out from among the unclean be separat 2 Cor. 6. 17 to cease from instruction that causes to erre from ehe words of knowledge Prev 19. 27. to save our selves from the untoward generation Act. 2. 40 will clearly import this by consequence 2dly This charge of sinfull separation which they put on Gods people supposes many thigs which must be proved as first that the Prelats and their adherents are the only true organick Church of Scotland which is denyed her frame and constitution being such as it said surely the Ministers and professours adhering to her reformation must be the true Church of Scotland tho the lesser number as they should have been if this prelatiok defection had been intirely popish These souldiers who keep the Genâ—…rals orders are the true army not the deserters of the same Either the Church in this Nation as lately reformd constitute and to whose constitution many Conformists vowed adherence was not the true organick protestant Church of Scotland or this partie whose constitution
Principles Doctrine practice are point blank contrary therunto is not 2. It supposed that there is no lawfull use of ordinances among Presbyterian Ministers as persons who have no Lawfull call to officiat in this case Hence this man pleads for disowning them universally and absolutely but we affirm they are Ministers standing in that relation to this Church and under the obligation of Christs comand to officiat which Conformists have not yet disproved 4. He supposes that every thing which may be expedient as to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and order of a Church when enjoyning her full peacable constitution will equally oblidge in her broken and persecute condition when a prevailing backsliding party is in her bosome Now scripture and reasen will disprove this circumstances of order must give place to important duties in extreme necessity as this is the scattered officers of the Church of Jerusalem went every where preaching the gospel Act. 8 so did Ministers in the beginning of the Reformation 4. It is supposed that our change is only as to government and such only as was in King Iames time both which we have showen to be false 5. He takes for granted that their personal faults who are conformists and a supposed pullution of the worship therby is our ground of non-union and that our granting them to have the essence of a Ministeriall call and that their scandals will not pollute the worship will infer the hearing of them in this our case which is also false For even upon this supposition we are not bound to owne them no more then ane ingraind Schismatick obtruded forcibly by a party of the congregation upon the rest of the people might be ownd on this ground 6 This man begs the question in supposing that the constitution and frame of the Prelacy now establish't is the same with that of the ancient Church for he often tels us that we would have separat from the ancient Church upon the same grounds for which we disown Conformists Whereas we have shewed the difference of our prelacy from theirs in many points That our prelats both as Diocesian Erastian are wholly discrepant from the ancient Bishops 7. He takes it for granted that Ministers who disown this course of backsliding their relation to their flocks is cut off in the present posture of our Church and that the Prelats and their substituts the Curats are the onely proper representative Church of Scotland who accordingly have onely the lawfull power and exercise of the keyes as to either admission or censure of Ministers A principle alwayes disowned by our Church See Protesters no subverters pag. 96. Rutherfoords due right of Presbyt pag. 430. 431. Altare Damasc. pag. 23. 8. He supposes that its unlawfull in this our case to officiat renâ—…tente Magistratâ—… that this very violence and the present Lawes will render Ministers officiating unwarrantable pag. 205. which is a great mistake for the Magistrat cannot loose from the pastoral relation which he gave not ejusdem est constituere destituere Aâ—…esmedull cap. 30. thes 14. And hence the Ministers relation to the Church Nationall stands tho he restrain the exercise thereof in any one place and consequent ly the tyes and commands to officiat so that disobeying the Magistrats command not to officiat is no disobedience to his lawful authority Nay Apollonius thinks that the divine relation of a Minister to this Church tho banisht from his native country doth stand Ius Majestatis circasacra part 1. pag. 331. 9. He still supposes that what will not exse or of it self plead for disowning the hearing of the gospel or of a Minister simpliciter will plead nothing in this our case for disowning Conformists The mans weakness personal faults not lecturing c. are not of themselves sufficient to cut us off from hearing absolutely But tho this be granted we have the pure genuine Church of Scotland and her faithful Ministry to adhere unto and over and above these grounds mentiond conformists schismatick practice and corrupt Doctrine to lay to their charge which will make this ground in our case very weighty and preponderating and this the Informer himself must grant for he will not say that such like pretences or arguments in our case were valid as to the owning of Nonconformists and desâ—…rting of Curats Moreover he will grant that Presbyterian Ministers might Lawfully be heard if Conformists were not standing in their way Now so the case is in relation to Presbyterian Ministers pleading for that none of these things which he mentions were valid to infer peoples disowning of Conformists were there no other Ministers in Scotland and if this Church had universally both Ministers and people faln into this couâ—…se of backsliding will be readily granted But without any advantage to his cause as is evident To these many discoveries of his begging the question in this debate our plea and arguments will be clearer if we add a short view of our suppositions in this case and question Such as 1. our principle of the unlawfulness of prelacie 2. The binding force of our covenants 3. Our Churches divine tight to her Reformation and priviledges once establisht 4. that this is a case both of defection and persecution 5. of competition betwixt Ministers professours contending for our Reformation and a party of backsliders overturning it 6. The tendency of this course of Prelatick defection to raze our Reformation and that if not prevented it will end in propery 7. That Presbyterian Ministers relation to this Church and their obligation to duty founded upon that relation is not extinguished but subsists notwithstanding of the present violence and persecution which they with their weeping mother are exposed unto Having premised these things from what is said we may draw forth at length the great state of the question thus whether when the Reformation of a National Church in Doctrine worship discipline and government is by a backsliding party overturnd and a course-carryed on to raze it God having left a considerable body of Ministers professours who stand in opposition to that course and are in their capacities testifying against it are these Ministers and professors who preach and hear in opposition to that course or the complying Ministry and hearers the scismaticks This being clearly the state of this question we shall offer these arguments to fortifie our principle of disowning conformists in this our case and denying a subjection to them as the Ministers of this Church and adherence to Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry and acquit this principle and practise from the Informers charge of sinfull separation 1. Whoever of the two partiss adhere unto the true genuine Church owning her constitutions authoritie and priviledges its certain the contrary party must be the schismaticks here it must be seen who are the first departers who have first broken the hedge who have first disownd and opposed the Covenants the Government the sound and
pure doctrine of this Church in complyance with persecuters surely they and they only are the schismaticks Had not this invasion been made upon our Church and her priviledges what would have been her Judgement of the present principles and practices of Conformists in any of her Lawfull courts would they not have been judged censurable as the worst of Schismaticks Now what is the difference here except that this party makes the greater number but will this take away the charge of schism suppose a party of notorious schismaticks should cry ouâ—… upon such as withdraw from them as schismaticks were not this a ridiculous charge and Just so is that of Conformists in this case 2. Every schism supposes ane obligation of adherence to that Church from which the separation is made Now then let him prove ministers obligation to joyn into this Prelatick course without which they will not admit them to officiat and disprove our prior obligations to opposeit or else Ministers obligation to preach and peoples consequently to hear in opposition to this course of defection will stand good on the old grounds and all the scripture comands founded on Pastours of this Church their Ministerial relation to set the trumpet to their mouth and give a Ministerial testimony against this defection and peoples obligation to hear and take warning will press and plead for that which he calls schism and a sinfull separation 3. Hence Presbyterian Ministers and professors are in this their practise never toched by all his arguments and defences but these are weapons in their hands against him and the conforming party 1. Whereas he pleads the essence of the ministeriall call which conformists lay claim unto Presbyterian Ministers answer that Nonconforming Ministers have this that they are Ministers of this Church and have a better right to officiat as her true pastours then Prelatists And if this will not plead for hearing Non-conformists why shall this argument be thought valide for hearing Curats is not the same way from Athens to Thebes and from Thebes to Athens if his concession touching the essence of their Ministerial call will not with him infer hearing Non-conformists because of their supposed schism Ergo a fortiori it will not infer the hearing of Curats who really are such 2. he pleads that corruptions and failings in administrators or even some corruptions in ordinances will not infer disowning of Ministers Why then pleads he for disowning Presbyterian Ministers and ordinances adminis red by them to whom this is so clarly applicable 3ly he pleads union But let him say what was the order and union of this Church before these innovations was it ane union under Prelacie Erastianism and persurious breach of Covenant was not our Churches Reformation in doctrine worship discipline and Goverment a beautiful order and union Now who broke this supppose we should Plead union against his withdrawing Presbyterian professours from Presbyterian Ministers will he owne this pleading or not rather disowne it because he thinks our union is schismatical well so we hold and do prove the prelatick union to be therefore untill he disprove our charge against his party this pleading is null 4. Divines do tell us particularly Timorcus chap. 7. page 32. that a sinfull separation which falls within the compass of schism is from the communion of a Church as walking according to the divine rule otherwise if the Churches deviation specially be great there is no fear of any guilt by schism in departing from it and hence infers that unless absolvers can instruct that prelacy is juris divini disowning and abjuring it cannot be schismatical Moreover this man himself grants that schism in its ordinary acceptation is taken for a causless separating and that where communion with a Church cannot be held without sin in that case separation is necessary Now then if we can prove that our non union is not causless and that communion cannot be held with Conformists in our case and circumstances without sin we are not Schismaticks by his oun confession To clear then this great point of the sinfulness of owning them in their demanded conformity we offer these considerations 1. Owning them and subjecting our selves to their Ministry as the Pastours of this Church hath a palpable breach of Covenant in it as the case now stands for all along we must suppose its binding force and that there is a considerable body of Ministers professours contending for it and that the question is to which of the parties contending we are bound to adhere and that according to our principles anent its binding force and the unlawfulness of Prelacie which this man cannot disprove The owning of them in the manner above expressed is a breach of Covenant many wayes specially as this man pleads for it with a totall disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their Ministry In this case it is a resiling from what we have attain'd in point of reformation contrary to the first article wherein we are bound to maintain purity of worship and Doctrine as then establisht Now their preaching is for the most part consisting of corrupt doctrine contrary to our Reformation And their prayers have severall petitions with which we cannot joyn such as for prospering Prelats and their courses Not to speak of the abrogating the lecture repeating of the creed at baptism singing a set forme of conclusion or what innovations in worship are introduced Again this is a concurience with promoters of this course of backsliding and a suffering our selves to be withdrawen from our union engadged unto and a denyall of suteable assistance to faithfull Ministers contending for the Covenant against backsliders all which are contrary to the other articles thereof This will be specially clear if it be further considered That 1. The body of presbyterian Ministers being ejected if disown'd in the manner and extent pleaded for by this Informer the presbyterian interest and our Reformation according to the Covenant will be extinct sold and betrayed 2. Hearing Curats and peoples subjecting themselves to their Ministry as the Pastours of this Church is by the Rulers required as a direct badge and Test of owning Erastianism and prelacie in opposition to the Covenant work of Reformation So that its a case of confession now to adhere to a faithfull Ministry contending for it 3. Ther 's no other way to exoner our consciences before God and the World and Declare our nonconformitie to this course of backsliding but by this practice there is no getting of wrongs redrest or corruptions in the Ministry removed Thus the Apology pag. 272. 4. We are in the Covenant engadged against Indifferency in this great work of Reformation and is not this the way to fall into it more and more 5. We engadge that we shall endeavour that this work of Reformation shall remain inviolable to posterity But what memory shall the posterity have of this work if prelats and curats be thus submitted unto 6. We engadge
at the door and in the way and order of this Church That they are violently thrusting out and persecuring her faithfull Pastours that they perjuriously renounce a call from the people and ordination by the Presbyterie All which grounds he must either grant will supersede our obligation to owne conformists hic nunc according to our principles or quite his plea and pleading as to the disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry 8. He pleads in the close of the preceeding Dialogue that the covenant abjures Sel isme Now let us stand to this Decision the Informer will not be dissatisfyed if I shall borrow one of his topicks and shoot ane arrow from his own bow I would offer then to him this syllogisme That Schism which he pleads against is a Schism abjured in the Covenant but disowning Conformists in their present state circumstances refusing to be subject to them as the Ministers of this Church is not a schism abjur'd in the Covenant Ergo c. The assumption I prove thus If the disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their present state and circumstances and withdrawing from them in the exercise of their Ministerial function and their Ministerial testimony against prelacy and for the Covenant be that schism which is abjurd therin then a refusing to be subject to Curats against whom they are testifying as the Covenant breakers and upholders of prelacy ad not owning them as the Ministers of this Church cannot be that scism Unless he will mak this scism such a Janus as will cast a maligne condemning aspect upon both the contending parties and bring adherers unto either of the two under this imputation But so it is that disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry is condemned in the Covenant as schism this we have already made appear it being a disowning of that establisht order and union of this Church which therin we do swear to maintain and a schismatical withdrawing from her faithfull Ambassadours and others contending for the ends of the Covenant to adhere unto whom and keep up an union wiâ—…h them herein the Covenant layes upon us an express obligation putting the imputation of schismatick division and detestable indifferency upon the contrary practice Ergo upon the whole it follows evidently that the owning of Conformists which he pleads for in this Dialogue viz. subjection unto and receiving ordinances from them as the Ministers of this Church and denying this to Presbyterian Ministers is abjurd in the Covenant as Schismatical CHAP. II. The Informers charge of internal and external Schisme put upon Non-conformists â—…f impeaching the Churches constitution and her practice in point of Worship for more than a 1000 Years examind His argument from Rom. 14. Heb. 10. 25. answered and retorted upon him His answer to the argument taken from the command of seeking the best gifts considered As also his argument from ancient canons from the Act of the Assembly 1647. from the reciprocal tye betwixt a Minister and his flock to fortify his charge of Schism repell'd HAving thus cleard our question and plea fortified our practice with these arguments We come now to examine the grounds on which this new Casuist imputes sinfull separation to us therein We acknowledge the evil of Schism upon these Texts mentioned by him which might have caused sad reflectings on himself and his party who are guilty of divisions and offences contrary to our received ordinances and the doctrine of this Church And so are lashed by that Scripture Rom. 16. 17. And who would have have us saying I am of this or that Rabbi or Prelat contrary to 1 Cor. 1 12. It 's they who have disownd a spirituall pure unity with this pure Church and are seeking a perjurious union in departing from God contrary to that precept Ephes. 4 3. And are so far from esteeming others in Lowliness of mind better then themselves as we are enjoynd Phil 2. 2. That their Rabbies trample on all Ministers and their underlings do most insolently persecute and despise faithfull Pastours for adhering to the Reformation authority and union of this Church against their innovations Schism is no doubt an evill which hath much infested the Church and our Church and the Scripture sufficiently discovering the evill thereof we need not Cyprian nor Jeroms elogies anent unity to persuaed it Only where he insinuats from that saying of Cyprian which he mentions Who asserts from 1 Cor. 13. that who are slain in their Schism their inexpiable sin is not purged by their blood and that they are not Martyrs that such is the case of the suffering people of God at this time we may discern the cruell venome and sting of this mans malice for all the sobriety which he pretends unto I shall only tell him that as its more then he will be ever able to prove that the Lords remnant are guilty of this sin and are assembling out of the Church when attending the Ministry of Christs faithfull Ambassadours in this Church so he and his fellows setting these murderers upon them in this duty will if they repent not be exposed to that vengeance which the cry of their souls under the altar who have been slain for this their Testimony doth plead for He would also do well to resolve this doubt upon Cyprians Testimony viz. Whether Cyprian did ever hold or if himself will dare to assert that the blood and sufferings of the best of martyrs did expiat their guilt As for Jeroms assertion that Schism and Heresy or some degree of it go together I think it is fitly applicable to himself and fellow Conformists who since their departing from the unity of this Church and her sworn Reformation have not only to justify their course vented gross errours in point of Oaths and otherwise but are now as every one sees posting fast to Rome in denying many and great points of our Protestant profession We accord to Augustines saying that separatists as such receive no life from the body the unquestionable godliness fellowship with the Father and the Son to which many Presbyterians are admitted and wherein they shine compared with the abominable prophanity of the whole of those almost that owne Curats will by this rule declare who are the Schismaticks and separatists from Christs body The comment of the Thorn which rents the liliâ—… Cant. 2. 2. Is very suteable to him and those of his way who have now of a long time rent the Lords faithfull flock wounded our Church and taken away her vail esteeming themselves Christians of the first magnitude so he esteems his most reverend Arch-Bishops and reverend under-fathers What pitifull preambles are these The Doubter alleadges that every separation is not schism This as we heard he acknowledges and that when communion with a Church cannot be held without sin separation is necessary wherein he yeelds all that we plead since we have proved that in this our case joyning to
their way and party is in many respects sinfull and since he Instances the protestants plea for separating from Rome on this ground knowes he not that the Papists tell us such stories anent union with the Church and that suffering without the Church is no Christian suffering to Iustifie their bloody persecutions which very well sutes his case And no doubt the protestants answer viz. That we are in Christs Church because owning his truth tho separat from their synâ—…gogue and that notwithstanding this pretence the blood of protestant Martyrs is in their skirts doth sute the case of Presbyterians in relation to their persecuters But the great charge followes viz. That we are guilty of as groundless and unreasonable separation as we shall read of in any age of the Church Bona verba How is this made good first saith he in casting off Christian love which is heart Schism 2. He chargeth with external Schism in separating in acts of Worship Now what if we recriminat in both these and retort this double charge upon himself Have they not disownd the Worship of Presbyterian ministers Professours and charged all to separat from them meerly for non-complyance with their perjured Prelats 2. Have they not for many years glutted themselves with their blood I may say sweemd in it upon the same very ground of forbearance as to prelatick complyance and endeavour by multiplyed lawes and Acts to root them out of the very nation Good Sir Pull this beam out of your own eye that you may see a litle clearer in this point But as to the first he sayes that we make difference in Iudgement as to lesser matters Church Government a ground of difference in affection as if they were no Christians who are not of our persuasion in these things putting thus lesser points into our creed and un unchurching and unsancting all who are not of our persuasion therin Ans. As to the first general charge I know none more guilty then themselves who are contending with fire and sword tanquam pro aris focis for these their lesser points and with unheard of rage seeking the ruine of all who dare not comply in Judgement and practice with them therein 2. I thinke Christian affection to their souls is best seen in opposing and testifying against their soul-destroying sins Thou shalt by any means rebuke thy neighbour and not suffer sin upon him is an old standing rule Levit. 19 17. And if they be even hated in so far as owning pernicious wayes it s no more then what David avowes Psal 139 21 22. do not I hate them that hate thee I hate them with a perfect hatred I account them my enemies I hate the work of them that turn aside it shall not cleave unto me 3. As we have not so learn'd Christ to call every thing lesser or small poâ—…nts which his latitudinarian party have the confidence to term thus so we know no point of truth reveald and commended to us in the word as the object of our faith and matter of our practice which should be keept out of our creed lest our saith become much shorter then the Scripture pattern And we acknowledge not the new patchment of mens Lawes which this man and his fellow-Conformists have annext to their creed and which can pro arbitrio make or unmake these his lesser points But he sayes that we unchurch and condemn all Churches in all ages who have ownd Bishops Liturgies festivals and othâ—…r ceremonies And if we make the removal of these things necessary to a Church there hath not been a a Church for above a 1000 yeares together Ans. To make the last part of this argument not to contradict the first he should have said that there has not been a Church without these things mentioned these 1600 years but the man seeing his first flight or Rodomontade too fierce he did well to clap his wings closser Upon a review of this page I find our Informer in this charge playes but the pityfull Camelion and versipellis for finding that this assertion of his that Christians of all ages since Christs time and in all places have own'd Bishops Liturgies Festival dayes and other ceremonies would have drawn upon him the heavy burthen and task of a proofe he lightens himself of this burthen by a prudent almost which in this point is very significant But his confining the liturgies Festivals and other ceremonies within the compass of the last thousand years sullied with all popish abominations appearing too simple inadvertency within the compass of two or three lines he secures it with a much above But lest this prove too broad reckoning he instances the second or third century from whence he sayes we beginne our reckoning as to Bishops festivals liturgies and other ceremonies But 1. why mends he the matter so inadvertently as to run in such a wide uncertainty as the the length of 200 yeares in that calculation which he imputes to us 2. I challenge him to shew what presbyterian writter did ever commence the original of liturgies and festivals with his blind c. of other ceremonies which will travell who knowes whither and include who knowes what from the third far less the second century I affirm that its more then he or any for him can prove that the Church hath had Bishops liturgies and festivals since Christ. Our writters have abundantly proved the contrary and we challenge him to shew either his Diocesan Bishops liturgies or festivals and the c. of his ceremonies in the first Apostolick Church or in these two ages mentioned by him That there were not diocesan Bishops then or long after we have already proved and far less Erastian Prelats For holy dayes let him shew by divine appointment any other then the Christian Sabath in the Apostolick Church if he can or in the first succeeding ages As for the feast of Esther it is acknowledged to have come in by custome after the Apostolick times For liturgies we assert that the Apostolick Church and age knew no such thing as set impos'd liturgies and formes other then Christs prescriptions as to baptism the Lords supper and that they pray'd as was suteable to the present action and circumstances of time place and persons If he betake him to the liturgies which are ascribed to Peter James Mathew Andrew Clement Mark Dionisius Areopagite and other Disciples protestant writers will stigmatize him for embracing that which they have abundantly proved to be counterfit That liturgies had no place for a long time in the Church is proved by clear testimonies Tertullian Apol. cap. 30. shews that in their publick Assemblies christians did pray sine monitore quia de pectore that is without a prescription because from their heart And in his treatise de Oratione sayes that there are somethings to be asked according to the occasions of every man that the Lords prayer being laid as a fundation its lawfull to build on that
foundation and basis of that tye but begs the question in the application thereof to his case I suppose a Presbyterian Minister should plead this to warrand his officiating among his people in opposition to the Curat incumbent that the people are bound to owne him as their Minister because of this reciprocal â—…ye That the Scripture obligations mentioned by the Informer lyes on him to be faithfull and diligent which while he is endeavouring according to his duty founded on his relation to his people the people are therefore bound to attend on his Ministrie to esteem him love him receive the Law from him and and not to discountenance nor discourage him by withdrawing to another Now let this man shew what he will answer to this pleading and his argument will quickly evanish before his own answer If he say that the tye is loosed let him instruct what that is which has in this case loosed it Sure neither the Magistrates violence nor Prelatick censures according to our Principles and the Doctrine of sound divines when this case is truely stated And if this divine tye stand what will he say Will it not 1. follow according to him that a Minister may be under a standing tye to his people and they to their Minister and yet the people for all this may not be obliged to hear him but another hie nunc and that warrantably without hazard of disobedience to these Scriptures and then he hath with his own hand cut the throat of his bare generall argument from the reciprocal tye Sure in some cases the tye may stand and yet the actuall reciprocal exercise or obligation to the exercise of duties may be hic nunc warrantably suspended in very many supposable cases as of Physicall impediments in the people and Minister hostile invasion Pestilence Imprisonment c. 2. If the tye or relation do stand and likewise all things which do immediatly dispose to the exercise of duty then the Prelatical incumbent is in this case an intruder and not to be own'd For I suppose he will not say that a Presbyterian Minister might lawfully officiat in his own Parish after the Curat is setled there for this would quite cross the scope of his Argument Now the Question betwixt the two competitors is which of them hath the prior lawfull and standing tye will he dare to deny that Presbyterian ministers had this and since he cannot shew how it is loosed nor prove it to be loosed this argument will militat not for him but against him Next as for what he cites out of Mr Durham on Revel pag. 105 106. anent this tye It is still extra oleas and nothing correspondent to his purpose untill he instruct that which is the basis and foundation of this Relation in the case of Conformists which he neither doth nor offers to do Mr Durham speaks of a special delegation from Christ of his speciall warrand and appointment to such a man to treat with such a flock Now sure this most be instructed from his Word and Testament as to Curats before he can from this make any shew of Argument For Presbyterian ministers do upon better ground lay claim to this special appointment in relation to their flocks upon which conformists have intruded yet this man thinks these ministers are not to be owned And since this deputation and appointment is with Mr Durham the foundation of the duty betwixt minister and people it must be cleard from the word in the case of Conformists before this passage of Mr Durham will afford any patrociny to his cause Then he tells us Thaâ—… Mr Durham holds that this obligation is not founded on meer voluntary consent Well let him mark this and then he must acknowledge that it s not meerly the Curats gaping consent for the fleece and filthy Lucre nor the peoples blind consent that will make them Ministers of these Congregations where they officiat What is it then that founds this relation The Scipture-commands saith Mr Durham 1 Thes. 5. 12. Know them that labour among you and are over you in the Lord. Heb 13. 14. Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls as they that most give account c. But will this man deny that Mr Durham speaks upon the supposition of the Minister his having the Ministerial call and mission according to the rule of the Word to ground his pleading these Scripture commands and his special commission to such a people And that he look't upon the Presbyteries mission and ordination and the peoples call together with due qualifications and the visible evidences of Christs call in the person thus admitted as the foundation of this special relation to such a flock according to the Scripture pattern and the order and Government of this Church then established I durst pose his conscience upon the truth of this and whether Mr Durham did ever dream of a speciall relation to a flock in this Church resulting from a Prelates mission in a Method of perjury in opposition to our Covenant and sworn reformation without the mission and ordination of a Presbytry or the peoples call and in a way of intrusion upon the charges of faithfull Ministers violently thrust out by persecuting Prelats the men thus obtruded being for most part such as have nothing that may ground a reasonable or charitable construction of them that they are sent of God but palpable evidences of the contrary While in the mean time the faithfull Ministers are willing to cleave to their flocks and the flocks to them If he say that all the Ministers he pleads for are not such I Answer he makes no limitation of this Argument but pleads the foremention'd Scriptures and Mr Durham's Testimony universally and tells us in the next page that Mr Durham binds the people fast to the Ministers of their own congregations by this discourse he means to the Ministry of all the Conformists As for that passage of Mr Durham's Testimony after cited by him anent the Sympathy betwixt Ministers and flocks and the reckoning that will be made in relation to mutuall duties We think it pleads very strongly for that Sympathy that ought now to be betwixt Presbyterian Ministers and their flocks which Conformists have usurped upon and the mutuall performing of duty to each other upon all hazards in opposition to the Curats intrusion And if Paul aggreaged particularly the Gentiles slighting and grieving him by his particular delegation to them which was even as to the Apostle himself by the imposition of the hâ—…ds of the Presbytry Act. 13. 13. Presbyterian Ministers delegation to their flocks which was in this manner must needs stand and may be much better pleaded upon this ground then that of Curats Who are sent to flocks by Prelats as their own underlings and have nothing like Pauls delegation in their mission So that Mr Durhams arguments and the Scriptures cited by him are
Reformation whereof these points mentioned are one main piece rather then such as have turn'd aside to this course of perjurious defection Sure our obligations mentioned do every way include Presbyterian Ministers exclude Conformists Presbyterian Ministers are maintaining the peoples right and liberty to call their pastour Conformists are selling away this peice of her reformation liberty and thus crossing the scripture-pattern the first are adhering to this Churches vowes and people are obliged to owne these Ministers that are pursuing the ends the other are casting them away c. Again 3. all the motives mentioned in the premised act of parliament and in our Churches publick acts in opposition to patronages and prelatick usurpations in a Ministers entry are still binding and in force according to our principles as the Informer will not for very shame deny and he must admit this supposition since in this point he professeth to argue against us upon our own principles and so what did then engadge to restore this peice of our Churches libertie and Reformation the same doth now bind to adhere therunto and consequently to owne the Ministers that contend for this Reformation rather then the backsliders and deserters thereof 4. This man dare not assert that the granting conformists to have the essence of a Ministerial call will in every case infer the conclusion of hearing them or that the granting a Minister to have this is the only adequat ground which will in all circumstantiat cases make hearing necessary For 1. What if he be violently obtruded by a part of the congregation upon the previously call'd Minister his labours to whom the people stand oblig'd to adhere Again 2. What if he be promoting a Schismatick course setting up an altar against an altar as some of these men tell us in their Pamphlets will a people cross their principles as to his having the essence of a Ministeriall call if they refuse to follow him in that Schismatick course Nay he will not say it 3. What will our Informer answer to Presbyterian Ministers plea for peoples adherence to them upon their lawful call mission and entry to their charges will this infer a necessity of the people's owning them and deserting conformists If it will not as he must here say or yeeld the cause then he must confess that acknowledgment of the essence of Curats call will not absulutely plead for hearing them untill before the Scripture barr and by the constitutions and reformation of this Church they can prove their claim to be better then that of Presbyterian Ministers to officiat as her true Pastours which will be ad Kalendas Graecas whatever he can pretend here as to disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their administrations notwithstanding of their having a lawfull call and pastoral relation to this Church will be easily retorted upon himself and abundantly counterballanced by that which in the case of conformists may be pleaded to supersede and stop the peoples owning of them in this circumstantiat posture of our Church So that the state of the question here being this whether Ministers ordained by Bishops and presented by Patrons or those who are ordained by the Presbytry and called by the people have best right to officiat in this Church as her Pastours according to the Scripture rule her reformation and principles and to be own'd or disownd by the people accordingly The decision will be very easy and favourable to Presbyterian Ministers and exclusive of all his fraternity And whatever he doth here alledge anent Pâ—…esbyterian Ministers schism intrusion or disorder will be easily retorted upon himself reputando rem in universum ab initio Or tracing matters to their true originals But now what sayes our Informer to this argument of his Doubter as he slenderly propones it to make it foordable 1. He tells us that sundry whom we refuse to hear entred by the peoples call But tho it were granted that such might be heard who are but a few how will this plead for all the rest and loose his Doubters argument as to them 2. we told him that it s not the want of the peoples call simply and abstractedly from the circumstances of our case that we ground upon in disowning them no more then it is Presbyterian Ministers want of an Episcopal ordination which he pleads simply as the ground of disowning them But our ground is their standing all of them in a direct stated opposition to the Reformation union and order of this Church and driving on an interest and design tending to overturn it and by consequence being lyable to her highest censures and likewise their persecuting and opposing faithful Ministers contending for her Reformation 3. All those who he alledges entered by the peoples call havng by their conformity to this Prelacy and Erastianism disowned their first entry in this manner and obtained presentation from Patrons and collation from prelats according to their new acts and orders are now of the same stamp with the rest as to their principles and carriage and consequently the peoples disowning them upon the fore-mentioned grounds in this our case falls under the same obligations with their disowning others and the rather because their apostacy is an aggravation of their guilt But now what sayes our Informer to this text Acts. 14. 23. which is brought by his Doubter to prove the peoples right in the election of Pastours He grants that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is borrowed from the custom used in some of the ancient Greek states where the people signifyed their election of Magistrats by the stretching forth of their hands because the word so signifies Well what then hath he to quarrell at in this argument for the peoples right in the call of Ministers from this text 1. He tells us that Doctor Hamond and other Criticks shew that the word is oftenused by writters to express the action of one single person as it s taken by Luke Acts 10. 41. Speaking of Gods chusing or appointing So that the word is not necessarly to be understâ—…od of the action of many chsiung by snffrages Ans. That the Greek Word in its ordinary and constant acceptation doth import and is made use of to signify a chusing by suffrages and lifting up or extending the hands Presbyterian Writers have proven from a full consent of Criticks Interpreters and the best Greeck authors The Syriack version shewes that the word is not to be understood of the Apostles ordination of Elders but of the Churches election of Elders in rendering the text thus Moreover they made to themselves that is the disciples mentioned in the former verse made to themselves for such as were made were not Elders or Ministers to Paul Barnabas but to the multitude of the disciples in every Church while they were fasting with them praying commending them c. Which election could not be but after the Grecian form by the Churches lifting up or stretching out of
hands thus Mr Gillesp. Misc. quest page 9. Who also cleares this from Criticks and Interpreters asserting this sense of the word He shews that where Iulius Pollux hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 2. cap. 4. Gualther and Wolf Sâ—…berus render it manuum extensio and that Budaeus interprets the word plebiscitum suffragium H. Stephanus manum porrigo Because he saith they did in giving votes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thence the word came to be used for scisco decerno â—…reo Iustin. Martyr Quest. Resp. ad orthod Resp. ad quest 14. distinguishes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as of a different signification Arrias Montanus in his lexicon doth interpret this word manum elevare eligere creare Magistratum per suffragia Again 2. The manner of election among the grecians clears this metaphore signification of the word Demosth. Cicero and others make this appear they had a phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnium suffragijs obtinet and another phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no man gives a contrary vote The approving votes in chusing Grecian Magistrats in the theatre was by holding up or stretching forth of hands See page 10. 11. 12. Where this is learndly and at large made good 3. This is also made good from the ordinary method wherin the scriptures do express the setting apart of Church officers to their sacred functions which is by the Churches election and consent see 1 Cor. 16. 3. 2 Cor. 8. 19. 1 Tim. 3. 7. Acts 1. 23 26. and 13. 3. and 15. 22. And since the holy ghost doth here intend by Luke to express the manner of the establishment of Elders it is utteâ—…ly improbable that the churches suffrage should be here omitted 4. Protestant writers draw the Churches suffrage in election of Ministers from this word Magd. Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 6. Zanch. in 4. precept So Beza Bullinger decad 5. Serm. 4. Iunius contrav 5. lib. cap. 7. Gerard. Tom. 6. pag. 95. Danaeus 1 Tim. 5. Wallaeus in his treatise quibusnam competit vocatio pastorum Cartwright against the Rhemists objecting with our Informer That in scripture this word signifies imposition of hands answereth That its absurd to imagine that the holy Ghost by Luke speaking with the tongues of men and to their understanding should use a word in that signification in which it was never used before his time in any writter holy or profane For how could he be understood saith he if using the note and name he had fled from the signification whereto they used it therefore unless he purposed to write what none could understand or read it must needs be that as he wrote so he meant election by voices Then he proves this from Oecumenius the greek scholiast from the Greek Jgnatius and tells us there were proper words to signify the laying on of hands had the holy ghost intended this and that its absurd to thinke that Luke who straitneth himself to keep the words of the seventie Interpreters when he could have uttered things in better terms then they did should here forsake the phrase wherewith they noted the laying on of hands being most proper and natural to signify the same Next As for what he objects from Acts 10. 41. had he been sincere or diligent in this debate he might have found that the above mentioned learned Presbyterian writer with others doth here tell him first that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used there is not the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but is as it were a preventing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a prior designation 2. That its atribute to God metaphoricâ—… or improperly shewing that in the council of God the Apostles were in a manner elected by voices in the trinity which he clears by that parallel Gen. 1. Let us make man Adding that this hinders no more the proper signification of the word when applyed to men then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ascribed to God can prove that there 's no change in men when they repent because there is none in God The Informers 2d answer is That Greek wri ters do ordinarly use this word to signify ordaining a person to a charge without voices and suffrages And that here it s so to be understood he proves from this that Paul and Barnabas are said to do this work exprest by this Greek word and not the people That we will not say that Paul and Barnabas elected Ministers to these Churches which were to yeeld the question That therefore our translation reads it they that is Paul and â—…arnabas ordained them elders c. they pray'd and commended them to the Lord So that it was not the action of the people but of Paul and Barnabas Ans. All this is nothing but his petio principii and what is answered already 1. That this word signifies ordinarly the ordaining of a Person to a charge without votes and suffrages is most false and contrary to the sense of the word in Greek authors contrary to the Scripture acceptation of the word to sound divines as we have heard And to this may be here added which is also the observation of the above mentioned learn'd writters that we find extraordinary Officers in the Apostles times not put into their functions without the Churches consent hence we may conclude that far less ought there to be an intrusion of ordinary Ministers without their consent Paul Silas were chosen of the whole Church to their extraordinary delegation Acts. 15. 22. Pauls company were chosen by the Church 2 Cor. 18. 19. The Commissioners of Corinth were approved by the Church 1 Cor 16. 3. Matthias an Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simul suffragiis electus est as Arrias Montanus turn's it was together chosen by suffrages viz. of the 120 Disciples 2. How prove's he that Paul and and Barnabas did this work exprest by this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we told him that the Syriack version understands it of the Disciples Mr Gillespy lococitato proves that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here to be rendred ipsis not illis shewing that Pasor in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 renders Acts 14. 23. quumque ipsis per suffragia creassent presbyteros so saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he proves because the Greeks use the one word sometimes for the other as he clears from Scripture parallels So he thus senseth the verse and context the Churches of Lystra Iconium and Antioch after chusing of Elders who were also solemnly set apart with prayer and fasting were willing to let Paul and Barnabas go from them to the planting and watering of other Churches and commended them to God to open to them an effectuâ—…ll door Eph. 6 18 19. or for their saftie and preservation Luk. 23. 46. Again what inconsistency with our sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will it be if all that is mentioned in the 23. verse
other of mediat and ordinary by men the one pointing at ordination and appointing of the Apostles to their office in a general sense the other of the special or specifical mould of the call and election of Ministers 4. That this right and interest of the people in Ministers call as it is founded upon the ancient practice and unrepealed priviledge of Gods Church under the old Testament so it hath besides this and such like instances and exemplary recommendations of the new-testament a constant moral warrand of the peoples knowledge anent the case and behaviour of their spiritual guides His 3d answer to this text is That if we understand it of a hand suffrage we lose by it Why so because we give advantadge to the Independents for popular election of Ministers wherea we give this power not to all the people but to the session And he tells us that therefore understanding Presbyterians have forborn to pressthis text Ans. 1. We have proven that a congregational Eldership is Iuris divini that by consequence this election strictly taken must be their priviledge See 9 Argument against Prelacy on the 1. Dialogue Who these understanding Presbyterians are who do not understand this place as warranding the people's interest in the election call of Ministers the Informer hath not given us an account since his Doubter is none of them and if he mean the Authors of jus divinum Ministerii Evangelici he will finde that they do clearly assert this truth propos 1. so as it do not exclude the due right of Ministers herein See pag. 127. and 129. And the Assembly of divines in their directory for ordination of Ministers 4. Branch do require the people's consent and approbation as necessarily antecedaneous to the ordination Besides could the Informer be ignorant that there are several other weighty Scripture grounds arguments pleaded by our writters to fortify this right of the people why did he not then put these also into the mouth of his Doubter and give us an account of his own and his Episcopal Masters ' skill in dissolving them Moreover tho it were granted that all here did concurr in this suffrage where no Eldership was yet constitute as Mr Gillespy Judgeth probable miscell pag. 14. it will nothing infringe the power of the Eldership in Churches constitute there being a vast difference betwixt the modus rei in Churches constitute and these in fieri or that are to be constitute Again 2. We told him that the word imports a judicial suffrage by extending of hands and that in commitiis among courts senats and representatives of the people as in the Roman senate in which the Consuls presided And that among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Magistrat created by suffrages in the courts solemnly held for that purpose That the Roman senate did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Chrysostome saith which Doctor Potter expones made their Gods by suffrage Charity mistaken page 145. Again supposing Elderships here existent this phrase may be well referr'd to the people as importing their consent and approbation reserving still to the Eldership their Juridical suffrage and decisive vote in election Mr Gillespy ubi supra clears this shewing that in Athens it selfe the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they did but like well the persons nominated as when a Thesaurer offered some to be surety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom the people shall approve This he proves from Demosth. advers Timocr from which oration he makes it good that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Assembly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the court of Iudges are plainly distinguished so far that they might not be both upon one day and that tho the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet not they but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or judges did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordain or appoint a Magistrat In a word we give in this mater the Ministers call the suffrage and election to the Eldership I mean in a Church constitute and the consent which is distinct from the decisive voice as the learned acknowledge Gamachaeus in primam 2dae ouâ—… of Thomas quest 15 shewes this to the whole people and the formal authoritative mission and imposition of hands making the man a Minister and giving him the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who had it not before to the Presbytery according to the Scripture pattern which is toto coelo different from the Independents principles in this point If any object that the giving the suffrage and election of Ministers to the Eldership excluding the people makes the breach greater betwixt the Independents and us then needs it being sufficient to clear us from their principles that we allow not either to the Eldership or congregation the formal authoritative mission and imposition of hands And that our arguments upon this head seems to give to the people not onely consent but suffrage in election I shall desire first that Mr Gillespies answer be considered Miscell page 24. to an objection about our homologating with Independents in this point Who sayes that in this point of election we do not homologate with them who give to the collective body of the Church women and children under age onely excepted the power of decisive vote or suffrage in elections we give the vote onely to the Eldership or Church representative so that they carry along with them the consent of the major or better part of the congregation So that he makes the attributing of this decisive voice suffrage in elections unto the people to be down right Independency the march stone of their difference from us He tells us afterward that the consent and knowledge belongs to the whole Church without which Ministers may not be intruded the counsel and deliberation which is distinct from this consent to the ablest wisest of the congregation especially the Magistrates But he distinguishes from both these the decisive vote in Court or judicatory the formal consistorial determination in the case of election and this he sayes belongs onely unto and consists in the votes of the Eldership And that the Independents contrarily give the conference and deliberation to the Eldership as we use to do in Comittees but the decision to the whole Congregation Adding further that such as have written against Independents do thus state the difference betwixt them and us in this point viz. not whether matters of great importance and publick concernment ought to be determined with the peoples free consent for this we grant but whether the cause must be brought to the body of the Congregation to give their voices therin together with the officers of the Church citing Laget in his defence of Church-government chap. 1. and Mr Herle Prolocutor of the Assembly of Divines in that piece intituled the Independency on scriptures of the Independency of Churches page 3. where he sets down this forementioned consent to the Minister who is to
be chosen as that which we allow to the members of the congregation in common Adding further that Independents place the whole essence of a calling in election accounting ordination to be but a solemnizing of it wheras we place the potestative mission not in the Churches election but lawfull ordination So that in the judgement of these Divines the reserving to the Presbytry the formal authoritative mission is the not the sole point of difference betwixt the Independents and us nor can a man be cleard from Independent principles in their judgement who extends the decisive juridicalâ—… vote in election beyond the Eldership and gives this decisive suffrage strictly taken to the people Besides the absurd and dangerous consequences following upon this opinion allowing the formal juridical elective suffrage to the people are evident such as 1. That this goes in some respect beyond Independents opinion as to the peoples power in elective suffrage who though they give it to the collective body yet â—…with a restriction excluding women children and persons under age not to every individual 2. That this will inferr that every point of government and every cause relating immediatly to the congregation must be brought to the multitude or body of the people to give their voices therin together with the officers of the Church for upon the same ground that the elective suffrages belong to them so must every piece of government Now Mr Laget ubi supra expresly states this as the Independents principle and as that wherin they differ from us 3. This cuts off all right and power of a juridical eldership which is by our writters asserted and made good from the scriptures and makes all their authoritative decisive suffrages in this and other points of government in reference to the congregation an invasion of the peoples right and unlawfull usurpation of their power for if this formall decisive suffrage belong to all the collective body jure divino how can they give it away 4. This will by consequence bring the collective body to have their formal decisive juridical suffrage in superiour Church-judicatories Presbytries and synods in every point wherin the congregational eldership and session have an immediat interest Again since consent and knowledge is allowed by our writters to the whole congregation and deliberation and counsel to some eminent members the elderships elective suffrage which in their judgement is necessarly connected with this cannot be said to impeach the due right of the collective body of the congregation in this point unless as I said we step over the march-stone and bring in the whole collective body of the congregation to have a decisive suffrage in government In a word the scripture arguments and other grounds here hinted which do clearly conclude the people and congregations right as to a call in general will not infer that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belonges to every one of the people or the whole collective body so far as to import a formal decisive suffrage for it being the due right of the peoples representatives the Eldership in whose choise and election the people have a great Interest and to which they give a formal consent the congregation doth in and by them give their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or suffrage and what is proper to some part of this organick body the Church may be well said to be the due right and action of the whole in a general sense each part concurring suo modo A man is said to see though the eye onely be the proper organe of sight because the eye subsists in and with the body and cannot act without or separated from it So the people in a general sense and mediatly elect by the eldership the whole collective body concurring in what is proper to them herein We heard from MrGillespy ubi supra that among the Greeks the people in consenting to a choise of governours were said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that although upon the supposal of the divine right of a juridical eldership representing the congregation which right is abundantly proved from scripture the formal Cousistorial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by juridical suffrage belongs to them yet the whole collective body their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the manner formerly explained stands good His last answer is that if we think the peoples election sâ—… necessary that none can be a Minister without it then we null the ministry of the whole Christian world for above 1000 years upward and the Ministry of this Câ—…rch ever till the year 1649. For untill then patronages were not taken away Ans We have proved that the People's right in the call and election of Pastours is the pure Scripture pattern continued in the Church of God for diverse ages which is enough to prove that as it ought to be endeavoured after and established by Churches who would imitat this pattern of the Lords tabernacle shewed upon the mounâ—… So where it is obtained it ought to be held fast against any contraire innovations That the people's interest in the election and call of Ministers and teachers had place from the Apostles even unto his own time in a good measure may be proven besides what we have said already to clear this by a very unsuspect witness Marcus Antonius de dominis de Repub. Eccles lib. 1. cap. 22. Num. 10. he saith in electione ministrorum etiam Apostolorum tempore ipsorum instituto plebem totam multitudinem magnam habuisse partem And lib. 3. cap. 3. Num. 12. Iam vero post concilium Nicenum in electionibus eundem prorsus veterem morem perpetuo Ecclesiam ad nostra pene tempora servasse ut a clero populâ—… fieret ex patribus ac rebus gestis conciliis juribus ex Romanorum Pontificum attestationibus decretis jam sumo comprobandum That is that after the Council of Nice the same ancient custome was own'd to his times by the Church as to the peoples interest in this election and call of Ministers he undertakes to prove from the Fathers from history and Councils and Laws and the very decrees of Popes In the Council of Paris Anno 559. There was such a decree Quia in aliquibus crivitatibus consuetudo prisca negligitur c. Because the ancient Custome and decrees of the Canons are neglected in some cities they appoint the decrees of the Canons to be keept and the ancient Custom ut nullus civibus invitis ordinetur Episcopus nisi quem populi clericorum electio pleniâ—…ima quaesierit voluntate c. That none be ordained a Bishop without the will of the citizens but such onely whom the people and Clergy shall chuse with full consent That the people had a right to require call and elect their Pastour in the ancient Church Didoclav proves from the Example of Eradius Ambrose Flavianus Nectarius c. From pag. 3â—…6 to 331. shewing that Cyprian saith of Rabbinus that he was chosen Bishop
de universae fraternitatis suffragio lib. 1. Ep. 2. By the chose of the whole Brethren From the Epistle of the Council of Nice to those of Alexandria Lybia c. which is extant with Theodoret Hist. lib. 1. cap. 9. Where he shews that those who succeed in the room of the dead Prelat must upon these terms succeed si digni viderentur populus eligeret if they appear worthy and the people shall chuse That Chrysostom succeeded to Nectarius postquam in hoc Clerus populus suffragia sua contulissent after he was called and chosen by the Clergy and people Sozom. lib. 3. c. 8. That Evagrius was chosen suffragiis or by votes and suffrages Socrates lib. 6 cap. 13. That Augustine called again and again for the people's consent as to his successour Hic mihi vâ—…stra assentatione opus est Fâ—… 11. To which may be added a very impartial witness Bishop Bilson Perpetual Government Chap. 15. page 434. Where he shewes that the people had their right in chusing their Pastours Onely to prevent mistake upon these passages we would take notice that this suffrage here atribute generally and indiscriminatim to the people and clergy must be understood pro uniuscujusque modulo and according to every ones capacity for the reasons above rendred Since both Ministers right in ordination and also the right of a juridicall eldership in churches constitute in reference to the election of Ministers hath as we have shown a clear foundation in Scripture and antiquity But of this enough 2. We have also proven that we are not concerned nor in the least constrained by our principles and practice in this case to null a Church or Ministry where this call is wanting it being enough for us that the want of it is a corruption rendring a Ministry not so pure as it ought to be and that our case being a case of competition betwixt Ministers holding fast this piece of our Covenanted Reformation and a party of Schismatick Innovators opposing and rejecting it and turning back to the vomit of this and other corruptions after they have been seen cast out and vowed against We are upon the grounds of our Reformation and vows sufficiently warranted to leave these innovators and adhere to the faithfull Ministry 3. As we did shew that the granting of Curats their having the essence of a ministerial call will not infer our hearing and owning them in every case and especially in ours which himself must grant unless he fall in a palpable contradiction so it s more then he can prove that this Church of Scotland from its first beginning till 1649 had pratronages Which being founded on the Common law and several ages posterior to the pure Church in this Nation planted as we heard without Prelats by some of Johns Disciples how absurd is it to assert that it had Patronages from the beginning Finally whatever tollerance of these corruptions before they be removed may be pleaded for yet such as have embraced them now yea as a badge of owning this deformation of our once glorious Church are certainly to be disowned by all who would hold fast their integrity For what he adds anent our owning Presbyterian Ministers adhering to our Reformation tho they have been presented by Patrons It 's both impertinent to the point and already answered For it s not this simpliciter or only which we ground upon in this practice as is often said but the principles state practice and design of Conformists in this complex case Beside who sees not the difference betwixt a Minister owning the principles of our Reformation and disowning this with other corruptions although the times necessity did constrain to make use of patronages in their first entry when our Church was as yet groaning under this bondage and such as owne this corruption both in judgment and practice after it is rejected and the Church delivered from it yea and owne it as an express badge of Conformity to abjured Prelacy Sure they are very blind who see not the difference betwixt these The Doubter alleadges that patronages are abjured in the Covenant and the Informer desires to see in in what place But if he will open his eyes and but read either our National or solemn league he will easily see this for patronages being a popishcorruption contrary to the Word of God as we have proved it 's abjured among the rites or Customs brought into this Church without or against the word And likewise in being condemned in the 2. book of discipline to which we vow adherence as unto the discipline of this Church it must be in that respect also abjured And as contrary to sound doctrine the power of godliness and Government of this Church exprest in the 2. book of Discipline it is abjured in the solemn League wherein we likewise vow adherence to that discipline But saith he Since patronages were in use aster the Covenant why was not this breach discerned and was this Church perjured all that time Ans. The forecited act of Parliament shewes that this corruption had been long by this Church groan'd under and long before that time declared and testified against both in the 2. book of discipline and by assemblies thereafter and if the interposing of the civill Magistrat being necessary to remove this the Church still untill that time groan'd under this burden where can he fixe his challenge The next argument of his Doubter for not hearing Curats is that they are ordained by Bishops To which he answers 1. That all whom we refuse to hear were not ordained by Bishops He means those who were ordained by the Presbytery and have conformed Ans. 1. We have already told him that it is not the Episcopal ordination simply and abstractedly from our case which is our ground of not owning them but the Episcopal ordination of perjured intruders breaking our union and reformation and ejecting our faithfull Pastours and testified against by our presbyterian protestant Church which they have thus intruded upon 2. We have told him that the concession of their lawfull ordination for substance will no more plead for our owning them in this complex case then their concession of the lawfull ordination of Presbyterian ministers will infer an obligation upon Conformists to owne them which is a consequence that they all deny And that they must grant that owning of the episcopal ordination in this complex case is different from a simple owning of it in relation to hearing Even as Presbyterian ministers are acknowledged by conformists to have a lawfull ordination for substance whom notwithstanding they will not suffer the people to hear 3. Those who were so ordained and have conformed having as I said eatenus or in so far renounc'd their Presbyterial ordination and adhering to the prelatical as the more perfect this their disowning of our reformation especially aggreged by their perjury and apostacy puts them in the same yea a worse condition as to our hearing
them then those that are meerly ordained by the prelats 3. He tells us That on this ground we would not adhere to these whom Timothy and Titus ordained nor would we have heard a minister for many ages of the Church Then he tells us of Jeroms quid facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus and that ministers have now a hand in ordaining Conformists That on this ground we would not have heard the members of the Assembly 1638. who were thus ordained and some now though non-conformists who were ordained before the year 1638 by Bishops the valitidity of which ordination is vindicat by â—…us dicinum minist Angâ—…ie Ans. We have already proven that Episcopal ordination is not in the lest warranted by the Authority of Timothy and Titus supposed in these Epistles but rather a Presbyterial ordination which is the pattern shewed upon the mount 2. We have also proven that his prelatick ordination whereof the Prelat hath he sole and proper power according to this constitution is a stranger in the first purer ages and even in Jerom's time 3. We have also proven that the granting of the essentialls of their ministerial call who are ordained by Bishops will plead nothing for owning Curats who are both scandalous and perjured intruders and have nothing for the most part which may in the least ground a charitable construction that they were ever called of God and are standing in opposition to a faithful ministry by them excluded and persecute from their watcthowers none of which can be said of the instances which he mentions As for that concurrence which he pretends Conformists have with the Bishops in ordination of ministers it is according to our Law meerly precarious and pro forma And therefore utterly insufficient to found his conclusion The Doubter objects that tho some of them were ordained by the Presbytery yet they are now turn'd the Bishops Curats He might have added and turned court or Erastian-Curats since the all of our present Conformists authority is derived from the court and subordinat to the supremacy as is evident in the act of restitution and other subsequents acts In answer to this he alleadges weakness of Iudgement strength of passion in the objecter but really shews both in himself by telling us that we may fear Christs threatning he that despises you despises me since he hath not yet made it appear that the men he pleads for have a relaion to this Church as her true Pastours according to the principles and tenor of our Reformation Then he tells us that Curat signifies a cure of souls But the True Non-conformist told his fellow Dialogist that this term owes its invention to mens vanity loathing the lowly Scripture style of Minister and is in effect nothing but the issue of the corrution of the Churches humility and that what they pretend herein while destroying in stead of feeding is like to stand in Judgement against them at the great day For his next interpretation of Curat viz. he that serves the cure tho not the Minister of the place but the substitute of another We owe him thanks for one egg is not liker another then they are to such vicarious substitutes But he will not have them called the Bishops Curats as if he were Pastour of the diocess and they deputed under him and Bishop he saith hath such thoughts of ministers What their thoughts are is best seen by their deeds We have proved that according to this frame of prelacy the Bishop is properly the sole Pastour of the Diocess In the 7. Argument against Prelacy The Doubters next objection is that they are perjured persons and therefore not to be heard He answers 1. That many of them never took the Covenant and therefore are not perjured which is already removed when we did prove from Deut. 29. that it oblidges even those who did not personally swear It s remarkable that Deut. 5. 2 3. God is said to have made a Covenant with his people in Horeb even with us saith Moses and all of us alive here this day They were dead who engadged at Horeb and many there present were not then born So Neh. 9. 38. all entered into Covenant but some only did seal it Sure the intention and relation of the Covenanters and the matter of the Oath it self will make it thus extensive Next he sayes Ministers that took it and comply with prelacy are not perjured for the reasons which be gave in the last conference Which reasons I have there answered and proved that there is nothing in our case which may in the least limit or invalidat its obligation and upon the grounds which are offered to evince the standing obligation of that Oath I do affirme that they are perjured 3. He tells us That scandalous faults tho deserving censure yet while it is not inflicted and the person not convict his Ministry ought to be waited upon as Iudas who came cloathed with Christs commission to preach so long as he was not convict yet was to be heard Ans. 1. He grants that scandalous faults specially of an high nature and if the man be impenitent do deserve deposition Now their faults are both scandalous and of a high nature such as prophanity perjury and apostacy in all which they are most impenitent and avow the same and as for their being convict and censured which he requireth as needfull for disowning them I answer they stand upon the matter convict by clear scripture grounds and by the standing acts and Iudicial decision of this Church in her supreme judicatories and assemblies which have condemned and made censurable with deposition their present principles and practices in opposition to her vows and government Again there is a great difference betwixt what ought to be people's carriage toward scandalous Ministers when a redress by Lawfull Church Judicatories may be had to which people may have recourse and what the duty of a people is in that case wherin a prevailing backsliding party and a persecuting Magistrat owne such Ministers so that the true Church can have no access for censuring and removing them In this last case supposing their scandals to be of a high nature this inevitable necessity of the Churches incapacity for present may supply the defect of a formal censure in the judgment of some and ground a disowning of them as if they were already cast out especially if their entry be by perjurious intrusion and their profanity and scandals therafter notour to all Now how applicable this is to Conformists needs not my paines to subsume We might also here tell him that there are scandals which are officiall rendring the man coram Deo no officer and that in case of their becoming very atrocius Mr Durham will allow to depart to more pure ordinances On scandal page 129. Although we will not take upon us to determine how in what cases during the Churches incapacity discomposed state a Ministers atrocious scandals after his entry and
more justly because of Conformists present case plead for disowning them as is said and cleard above After this he cites Mr Durham on Revel 3. inferring from what is said of the Angel of Sardis and Laodicea that a minister as to his case unsound may be owned and esteem'd as such But how impertinent this is to our purpose any may see for their scandalous carriage in their walk is much more then unsoundness as to their case which notwithstanding we acknowledge will not of it self and primo instanti warrand separation from ordinances in every case But we have cleared that we have much more to lay to the charge of Conformists then either inward unsoundness or outward scandalls simply considered even their corrupt Doctrine their intrusion their stated opposition to this Church her principles union and Reformation As to what Mr Durham adds and our Informer cites in relation to the ordinances their not suffering derogation in whatsoever hands they be anent a due ministerial respect to the Pharisees tho their rottenness was discovered by our Lord that Judas was to be received as an Ambassadour with other Apostles that God makes usefull Instruments sometimes and that edification doth not necessarly depend upon the holiness of the Instrument Act. 3. 12. Matth. 7. 23. It s utterly remote from our purpose as is clear from what is said for neither can he prove that this practice is a separation properly such nor doth that case of an Improvement of the pharisees teaching during that time of the legall dispensation now shortly to be abolisht meet our purpose nor the case of Judas hid abominations correspond with that of avowed perjury and apostacy from the vows and Reformation of our Church Nor is there here a supposed prior obligation of adherence to conformists ministry preponderating any objection as to their scandalls What can this man say if we shall plead these reasons of Mr Durham for adhering to Presbyterian ministers viz. that ordinances ought not to be despised in whatever hands they be that even the pharisees and Judas himself might be heard and therefore much more Presbyterian ministers of this Church that God can make even graceless men Instruments of good that the efficacy of means depends not on the holyness of the instrument Now will he admit a conclusion of owning Presbyterian Ministers from these principles nay he thinks that maters stand so with them because of their supposed Schism and disorder that for as applicable as these things are to them yet they ought not to be heard And so by his own confession and pleading this will conclude nothing for him untill his above mentioned groundless suppositions be made good Now let me retort of our Informers angry Querie here how can they Justifie withdrawing people from Presbyterian Ministers since not so bad as the scribes and Pharisees if they have either knowledge or moderation He must then of necessity grant if he will not contradict himself that all these grounds will not plead for hearing in some cases that the London Ministers assertion anent the validity of the Episcopal ordination for substance repeated here again ad nauseam falls utterly short of proving his conclusion Those Ministers do assert that the Presbyterian ordination is the more pure and conform to the scripture pattern what will he then say to this conclusion that upon this ground and especially because Conformists themselves owne the validity of Presbyterian Ministers ordination they are inconsequent to themselves as well as going cross to scripture and sound reason in disowning the ministry of the Presbyterian ministers of this Church and withdrawing people from hearing them Let him pull out this beam from his own eye and his answer shall easily serve for us The Doubter alledges that in Math. 23. We are not bidden hear the scribes and Pharisees and that the words will not bear that He answers that he forbids not to hear as we forbid to hear Conformists Ans. 1. We have seen that there is more may be alledged from the Scripture as to a prohibition to be their ordinary and constant hearers at least which he pleads for as to Conformists then he can alledge as to a command of hearing 2. That the tollerance or allowance of a hearing of them during that shortly to be abolisht legall dispensation is far from coming up to his conclusion of owning curats in this our case 〈◊〉 He answers that Mr Durham speaks of a ministerial respect due to these Pharisees and that without hearing this ministerial respect is Lame Ans. Mr Durhams reason anent a Ministerial respect is in relation to the Improvement of their teaching tho granted in the greatest latitude he can imagine will not inferr his conclusion of owning Curats in this case as is already cleared Admitting that a due Ministerial respect will infer hearing in Mr Durhams sense and instance yet in our case which I told him Mr Durhams assertion will not speak unto acknowledgment of a man to be a Minister and capable of a Ministerial respect in so far will not bear this conclusion else the Informer hath in a clap devoured and eaten in again all this Dialogue in pleading against this Ministerial respect in hearing Presbyterian Ministers whose Ministerial authority he acknowledges 2ly He answers that our Lord enjoyns obedience to that which they bid do and that as sitting in Moses chair and how could that be except the people heard them teach from Moses chair he that bids obey a Ministers injunctions from the word of God consequently bids hear him deliver his doctrine from the word Ans. We told him that for any thing that he or any of his fellow pleaders have yet offered from this text these Pharisees might be civil national doctors and interpreters of Moses Iudiciall Law and of 〈◊〉 municipal Law from his civil chair who was King in Iesurun which will no more infer a hearing them teach and preach as Church officers then our obedience to the King Council parliament and Session will infer that conclusion 2. His parallels as to the command of obeying a Ministers doctrine from the word its inferring an injunction of hearing him deliver these doctrines from the word is in this case and question pityfull sophistry and begging of the question in supposing that these anent whom this injunction was given were Ecclesiastick Ministers which he hath not yet proved 2. That teaching from Moses chair is in this case equivalent to Ministerial gospel teaching and preaching from the word of God which he has not proved either since as I said Gods word contained the Jews municipal Law which civil Judges might in that capacity deliver and interpret in relation to external righteousness betwixt man and man in things of this life Finally granting they were to be heard teach and expone which he hath not yet made good from the text it will nothing help his cause for the reasons often given so that the separation which he improves this place
against being his groundless supposition alledged but not proven by him and by us disproved by what is said above and likewise the application of this hearing the Pharisees to our hearing Curats being his bare petitio principii his assertion after subjoyned viz. that this passage will stand against us to our conviction as against the seperatists in Queen Elizabeths time is but a piece of his ignorant arrogant confidence there being a vast difference betwixt our case and that of those separatists at that time as shall hereafter appear And beside Presbyterian Ministers of this Church have much more to say from this text for their people's adhering to them then prelatists can plead The Doubter next alleadges that many Episcopall men have entered upon honest mens Labours and therefore ought to be disowned as intruders He answers 1. That all are not such that some Conformists have keepâ—… their places they bad before the change others have entered in to the labours of those that are dead and transported elswhere Ans. Our Informer doth miserably pinch and narrow a sinfull intrusion by this description which himself must acknowledge For should a Presbyterian Minister step into his own Church upon the death or transportation of one of the Curats who will question that this man will call it an intrusion according to his principles anent the prelatick Church and so he must acknowledge that notwithstanding what he here pleads the Curats entry is intrusion according to our principles beside that the Ministery of those who have conformed and were Presbyterially ordained being an express owning of the principles practices and design of this prelatick schismatick destroying party and by their acceptance of collation and presentation and concurring in the Prelats pretended Judicatories a ministry compleatly of the prelatick mould its reductive if not formaliter an intrusion or partaking with the general intrusion and usurpation upon the pure reformed Ministry and Church of Scotland even as a state officer or Magistrat his taking his office from Invaders while an army is in the fields against them doth fully and fitly denominate him an Invader in the exercise thereof tho it be materially the same office and imployment which he had before Or as an inferior officer in an army taking his office and a new commission from an usurping General and other usurping superior officers who are dissolving and betraying the true army expelling the true General and officers contrary to their first commission doth partake in that usurpation Considering the Church of Scotland as it stood establisht in doctrine discipline worship and government and her National and solemn vows surely this course of Conformity is a most gross intrusion upon her without so much as a shadow of consent and so is all partaking therein by consequence which no Conformist can acquit himself of and therefore according to the tenor and principles of our Reformation cannot be lookt upon as any of our true Church her Sons and Ministers But here our Informer poseth us with some great queries forsooth 1. Whether Conformists were active in utting Presbyterian ministers or came in before they were out and their places declared vacant Ans. Whoever is active or passive in outting them one thing is sure they are violently thrust out contrary to the word of God and the rules order and Reformation of this Church So that come in who will they are Intruders 1. Because they have come in upon a charge to which faithfull Ministers of this Church have Christs Keyes and commission 2. Because come in and obtruded by those who are ingrained usurpers thieves and Robbers I mean perfidious Prelats often abjured and cast out of this Church with detestation and not in the order of this Church Nor by her door A poor man is by a number of Robbers dispossest of his house they put in a seeming neutral to keep house for them the poor owner seeks his possession complaines of this usurpation O saith the new tennant and Robbers depute I am no Intruder I have a good right I put you not out but found your house empty Now let the Informer use a litle honest application and answer his weightie Querie 2. He asks why will those dispossest ministers suffer the people to starve because they have slept out of their charges Ans. The people are starved poysoned too by those that come in these Ministers are concerned upon their faith to the great shepherd to endeavour what they can to save his lambes from the wolves and give faithfull Ministerial warning of their flocks hazard Next he tells us though a minister be transported against his will yet the people should submit to his successor True when for the Churches greater good he is transported to another watchtower by her faithfull guides and true Church Judicatories but not when the true pastour is chased away by usurping perjured Prelats and an intruding hireling brought in as their vicar It s this mans perted self to use his own phrase here that blurrs his eyes to draw a similitudinar argument from such an absimilar instance One thing he did well to add as a proviso viz the successors coming in upon an orderly or fair call And doth this man think that Conformists have this orderly call according to the Reformation and doctrine of this Church Nay is he not disputing against this call and so if this be a necessary condition of a Ministers Lawfull succession the Informer is in the briers of a palpable inconsistency near of kin to a contradiction As for what he adds of the necessity of a Ministry and making the best of what we cannot help in our superiours we say that were the Rulers using their power for giving one Lawfull pastour for another and in the method of this Church and according to the scripture pattern by Lawfull Church Indicatories these reasons would say something but when they have overturned the Reformation of a Church and contrary to that Churches vows and their own are obtruding abjured prelats and a number of profane hyrelings as their deputes to exclude and ruine a faithfull Ministry his reasons in this case are naught and speak nothing to the point As for what he adds afterward of Ministers in the year 1648 ejected for asserting their duty to the King and their submitting while others were put into their charges I Answer he will never while he breaths be able to prove that they were deposed for asserting their duty to the King and not rather for promoting an ungodly course tending to the Kings ruine and the ruine of our Reformation and for other pieces of their scandalous miscarriages by the true Lawfull Judicatories of this Church So that upon both grounds the flocks were concerned to submit to such faithfull pastours as were set over them in the way and method of this Church and according to the scripture pattern His last answer to this argument of his Doubter anent Conformists Intrusion is that Presbyterian
Ministers intrusion is from parish to parish over the Labours of all the Ministers of Scotland whereas Conformists intrusion if it be so is but over one parish Ans. We told him before that Presbyterian Ministers notwithstanding the prelats violence and usurpation are Ministers of this Church of Scotland continuing still in that relation to her So that the present presecution and violence as well as backsliding of the Prelatick schismaticks and Innovators warrands their more enlarged officiating by the same grounds upon which the presecute officers of the Church of Jerusalem went every where preâ—…ching the gospel and on the same ground that Ministers enlarged officiating in the time of our Reformation was warranted to which this case of defection is parallel and correspondent So that their ministerial obligation and the many scripture commands as to diligence in their testimony Being by the present state of our Church extended to their officiating in this manner their Ministry is no Intrusion but the Lawfull exercise of their office received from the great shephered nor is it upon the flocks who are under a tye and relation to the present Incumbents as their pastours but toward poor starved flocks committed to wolves who destroy but feed not and the Curats pretended Ministry being neither of Christ nor for him is still an usurpation though over the smallest flock so that his Instance of the pyrats word to Alexander and citation of the Apostle's caveat Rom 2. 21. is extra oleâ—… and reaches himself a rebounding stroke For who I pray have usurped the name and authority of this Church and endeavoured to have it compleatly moulded in their way and to extirpat all faithfull Ministers and professors within the Nation is it not 14 usurping Prelats and their underlings this is a robbery indeed and with a witness Now follows another argument of his Doubter that Episcopal Ministers are abjured as depending upon the hierarchy and therefore cannot be heard without breach of the Oath In what respects the owning of Conformists especially as that practice is now circumstantiat is a breach of Covenant we have cleard above and need not again repeat it He answers 1. That Ministers are not mentioned in that article But if they depend upon that Ecclesiastical hierarchy as Church Officers why are they not mentioned Next it s enough for our purpose that the owning of their Ministry as depending upon prelats is in this our case abjured 2. He tellsus that dependance on that hierarchy doth suppose and is to be understood of a hierarchy made up of all the officers enumerate in that Article as the English Presbyterians sense it which hierarchy we have not in Scotland This conceit I have already confuted and proved that beside this Article we are by the first bound to preserve the establisht Reformation and Government of this Church and to adhere to all that enter into this Oath in the pursuing of its ends and not to suffer our selves to be withdrawen from this Reformation and our union therein by terrour or persuasion is an obligation lying upon us in the 6. Article which doth abundantly as we have said reach the disowning of Conformists In the next place he tells us that to binde our selves to disowne Ministers depending upon Bishops is to binde our selves to sin I Answer whatever may be said of such an engadgement simpliciter and absolutly considered yet certainly to engadge our selves against the reintroduction of Prelacy into a pure Church reformed from it and against all dependers upon and promoters of that Interest in such a Church in the capacity of Church officers and eatenus as promoting and depending upon it is both a lawfull and necessary engadgment necessarly flowing from dependent upon the abjuration of prelacie it self That Ministers tho faulty may be heard will as we have oft demonstrate nothing help his conclusion Since he can not deny that their faultiness in some cases may barr their being heard as he supposes Presbyterian Ministers faults puts a Lawfull stop in the way of people's hearing them Then he tells us that he hath showen episcopacy to be a Lawfull government which none might Lawfully adjure for this we referr the Reader to what is answered on the first Dialogue where we have proven the contrary and that it is a government contrary to the word of God which therefore we were obliged to abjure Lastly he tells us that by this exposition of the 2. Article we were bound not to owne Ministers who were in office at the taking of the Covenant but to extirpat them since they depended upon Bishops as to their ordination still even after they had taken the Covenant unless they renounced their ordination received from Bishops and had been ordained a new by meer Presbyters which they thought themselves not bound to do by the Covenant or they were Ministers without a true ordination all that time and then all their Ministerial Acts were null since they proceeded from that ordination And yet he sayes we never serupled to hear such Ministers notwithstanding of this dependance upon Bishops in part if they disowne Bishops for the future Ans. What a silly knack is it which all this tatle is founded upon viz. Ministers who received ane ordination from Bishops or Bishops with Presbyters in a Church upon which they had usurped are still to be lookt upon as Ministers depending upon Bishops even after Prelacy is abolished and Presbyterian Government established in that Church So poor a notion that I am sure the least reflection may discover its vanity ordination being Gods ordinance and appointment and the Bishop qua Presbyter being vested with a power in it ordination by the Bishop with Presbyters tho maim'd in respect of the Bishop's arrogated power which is a corruption adhering to it cannot by any good consequence be said to depend in its esse or nature upon the Prelat and far less in operari or esse after that corruption is removed and abjured and Presbyterian Government set up Doth a souldier or Officers commission or Military power slow still from a Colonel after he is disbanded Nay this is too gross inadvertency Were Zuinglius Luther and other of our Reformers dependents upon the papacy or popish Prelats after their cleaving to and embracing the Reformation Do not all our divines distinguish the essentials of their ordination from these corruptions adhering to it and assert that they had a Ministry Lawfull for substance and an ordination to their Ministry tho coming to them through that impure channell This man Justifies the Pope's plea where is your Ministry saith he and the Romanists you have no Ministry but what you have from us do not our Divines tell them that the Ministry and ordination it self being Gods institution we have them from the Lord now restored and recovered from their corruptions and are not dependers upon them for our Ministry did all our Reformers Ministerial acts flow from the pope or papal ordination
as such Let our Informer take heed of this praemunire for this dangerous error which he hath fallen into will expose him to the severe censure of all protestant Churches 2ly Hence Ministers who were ordained by Prelats with Presbyters concurring were no more bound yea less bound to renounce their ordination simply then Zuinglius or Luther were obliged to renounce theirs especially since their ordination was in a protestant Church and under Prelats owning the protestant profession which our Informers charity will no doubt esteem a considerable difference and their not renouncing it simpliciter will no more make them still dependent upon the Prelates as to their Ministry when prelats are removed then Zuinglius and Luther were dependent upon the Pope as to their ordination and the acts flowing therefrom after their separation from the Church of Rome or infer that they did owe their baptism to the Pope or the ordination of the popish priest who baptized them and were concerned to be rebaptized So that the popish cause and interest is much obliged to our Informer if his pleadings for our prelacy wil hold good and it is no bad omen that both interests are thus embarqued together in this man and his fellows reasonings for them and must stand and fall together which fortifies our hope and confidence that as the first hath begun to fall so the other shall gradually decay wither and fall with it CHAP. IV. The Informers answer to the Doubters argument anent separation from a corrupt Church and the retorted charge of schisme upon Conformists examined OUr Doubt-Resolver will seem ingenuous in offering an answer to some chief objections against the owning of Conformists and therfore puts into the mouth of his personat Doubter some more arguments in such a mould as he supposes is for his best advantadge which I shal now consider and deal faithfully with him and his supposed Doubter in presenting these arguments which he hath disguised in their genuine strength and shall examine his answers which when weighed in the scripture ballances and according to the true state of this question will no doubt be found as empty and insignificant as any of the preceeding The Doubter hath another argument that we are warranted by the word to separat from a corrupt Church This objection he curtly and advantagiously propones making his Doubter suppose 1. a confessed separation in this practice from a Church to which we are bound to adhere which this new advocat has not as yet made good 2. That any corruptions generally or such as may denominate a Church in some measure corrupt will warrand a separation which is a principle we do not owne We acknowledge a Church may be joyned with Lawfully wherein there are great corruptions and this with Mr Durham and others on that subject But as to corruptions we say if the contraverted joyning be in that which is clear and necessary duty in the present circumstances there can be in this joyning no stain but in so far as a concurrence with that which is duty out of that complex case cannot be performed without a direct complyance with or stain of these corruptions then a proportioned separation is needfull in so far as suitable to that exigence and yet even in this case we assert that other duties in the fellowship with that same Church may be owned and that fellowship is not intirely to be broken off upon the preceeding ground in these things wherein there is no such hazard But now what sayes he to this argument 1. He tells us we are mistaken if we think the Bishops a corruption and that this will not be granted Ans. I hope I have made it evident that they are a corruption and therefore to be disowned The 2 answer is that its a mistake to think that for corruptions and even great corruptions a Church is to be separat from Then he tells us of the corrupted of the Church of Galatia that in the Church of Corinth an article of the creed was denyed that there were great faults in the Asian Churches Rev. 2. 3. and of the great corruptions that were in the Church of Israel as is evident in the books of the Kings and Prophets yet the people of God were not commanded to separat as long as the substance of the worship was not corrupted as it was by Ieroboams calves Ans. 1. What if Presbyterians shall borrow this argument from him and from these instances of not separating from a Church notwithstanding of great corruptions shall plead for all professors in Scotland their adhering to Presbyterian Ministers and this Presbyterian Church as having a worship not substantially corrupted whatever other personal faults or corruptions they may be lyable unto that yet they are a true Church as to the main and that therfore they ought to be joyned with as the Churches of Corinth and Galatia wherein there were great corruptions were still adhered to by professors What will he say in this case I know he will say that its ridiculous for such a party of Schismaticks to call our selves the Church of Scotland But what if we return this answer to him again that according to the Reformation and principles of our Church out of which Prelats were ejected vows against them universally taken on and Presbyterial government compleatly setled therein Its ridiculous to call a party of Prelats and their adherents the Church of Scotland or for them to usurp her name who have thus overturned her Reformation So that untill he make good the above mentioned hypothese or suppositions viz. that Conformists are the true organick Church of Scotland that this our practice is a separation properly such that its meerly because of Conformists personal faults that we withdraw that we are under prior obligations to adhere unto Curats with all their corruptions rather then our Presbyterian Ministry and Church which is both free of them and contending against them untill these and such like suppositions be made good his argument from the preceeding scripture Iostances as to joyning with a Church that hath corruptions is a meet petitio principii and will not help his cause in the least Which will be further evident if we consider in the 2d place that the case of these Churches and professors therein was far from ours in relation to corruptions For 1. The Doctrinal corruptions of Galatia as to the legal Ceremonies by the bad influence of judaizing teachers tho they were of a large yet the Informer will not prove they were either of such an universal spread and tincture or strengthned by such an universal acknowledgment as to make the state of that Church correspond with his hypothesis in this argument 2. That error in the Church of Corinth in relation to the resurrection appears not to have been owned by their teachers and Church officers far less publickly avowed and obstinatly and presumptuously maintaired by them or any considerable number of hearers which makes their case wide from
they would not have allowed and commanded the faithfull prophets and members of that Church to oppose them and cleave unto their respective duties and unto one another in the following thereof As for what he adds that there was then no command to separat from the worship while it was not substantially corrupted I wonder if he will charge a corruption of the worship it self or in the substance thereof upon the duties now owned and performed by Presbyterian Ministers and professors from whom he notwithstanding thinks its duty to separat so that untill he prove as I said Conformists their better claim to officiat as Ministers of this Church then Presbyterian Ministers this argument lights heavy on himself and the censures put upon Novatians and Donatists falls upon their dividing and destroying party The case of these Schismaticks being as far from ours as east from west were Novatians or Donatists first cast out by a violent backsliding party for not concurring in a course of backsliding in overturning a Churches sworn reformation and were they enjoyned commanded to owne the course of these backsliders I think the Donatists Novatians their violence against adherers to the union of the true Church is a fit emblem of the present practice of Conformists how can this Man say that there were then greater corruptions them now Can there be greater corruptions in government then a papacy of the highest degree as is their premacy and hierarchy can there be greater corruptions in practice then perjury and such grosse prophanity as Conformists are blotted with for the most part greater corruption in principles then Popish Arminian errors c. The Doubter objects that if we may not separat from a corrupt Church what mean these scripture commands enjoyning separation such as 2 Cor. 6. 14 15 16. 1 Cor. 5. 11 2 Thes 3. 6 Rev. 18. 3 We have already said that he deals deceitfully in making his Presbyterian Doubter assert that we may separat from a corrupt Church in every case but this we say that in whatever case and in how far soever we cannot joyn with a corrupt Church without the contagion and stain of its corruptions in so far and in that case a separation is necessary and falls within the compass of these scripture commands And that in this our case the demanded conformity as to Presbyterian Ministers and professors cannot be yeelded without the stain of prelatists their sin is above cleared So that he needs not tell us here that every corruption is not a sufficient ground of separation For we have heard our Informer acknowledge that a Church may be in that degree corrupted as will render a separation warrantable yea and necessary I could wish he had condescended upon that degree of corruption and showen us here the maximum quod sic minimum quod non as to the ground of this separation and how far these corruptions may strike at a Churches vitals and yet her life and essence as a Church subsist And here I would close in a litle with this Man and enquire that since a Churches corruptions will with him in some cases render a separation necessary upon what ground is it necessary and from what prior principle is this concluded sure it must be upon this ground left union with that Church blott the soul and make us share in her sin So that in this case we are not obliged to hold union and fellowship with her when it is infectious as is most clearly imported in that command 2 Cor. 6. and if separation be upon this ground allowed whether the corruption be lesser or greater eatenus or in so far we are obliged to separat for Majus minus non variant speciem rei Next I infer that a non-union to a corrupt party who cannot be called the Church or at lest whose being the Church is magnalis sub judice will be a fortiori warranted and upon lesser grounds then separation which supposes an anterior obligation of union and actuall union out of this case and abstracting from it But for these scriptures mentioned he sayes they will not prove our point and to that of 2 Cor 6. 14. he answers that our Lord is speaking of separating from ungodly fellowship with Idolaters not of withdrawing from christian assemblies But doth he not enjoyn that separation because of the hazard of Infection by their sin and why not also from christian assemblies where there is the same hazard of this Infection did he not acknowledge that the case of a Church or christian Assembly may be such as will render even a separation necessary Now if in this case the tender separater should plead this text and that corrupt Church or assembly of Christians give our Informers answer viz. that it pleads only for separating from fellowship with Idolaters not of withdrawing from christian Assemblies how will he extricat himself and reconcile this answer with his concession But for these texts 1 Cor. 5. 11. and 2 Thess. 3. 6. he sayes they are meant only of needless fellowship in privat converse with scandalous persons but allowes not to withdraw from the publick worship because of the presence of such scandalous ones as if this did pollute the worship though it may be the fault of Church guides not to keep them back Ans. The ground here is the same and acknowledged by him whatever be the withdrawing which is more immediately enjoyned viz. lest their fellowship prove contagious scandalous or in any measure sinfull so if fellowship with a Church in her Assemblies be thus infectious these scriptures do enjoyn a separation upon the same ground and by necessary consequence from what he hath acknowleged And therefore this answer is nothing to the purpose unless he will retract his concession that there may be corruptions in a Church and her assemblies which will render a separation necessary Next as for what he adds that ordinances are not polluted by the presence of scandalous ones It is not for him nor against us since he acknowledges there may be a Lawfull yea necessary separation from a Church her assemblies in worship tho not upon this ground of the ordinances their pollution by the presence of scandalous ones because of the reason which we have already heard and we do also upon other grounds then this of a pretended pollution of the ordinances by their scandals maintain our disowning Conformists in their worship to be a duty as we have heard even that they are forcing all to a sinfull complyance with them in a schismatick departing from the unity of this Church and perjurious overturning the work of reformation and will neither suffer Ministers nor professors to joyn with them in worship but with an express aknowledgement in the intent of our Laws and owning of this defection Sure we are commanded to withdraw from every Brother that walks disorderly which our Informer pleads as a sufficient ground to disowne Presbyterian Ministers
withdraw from them because of their supposed disorder and schism tho the ordinances in their hands are not polluted with their supposed guilt and from all fellowship with scandalous brethren which is contagious and may pollute us Now are not they walking disorderly cross to the doctrine discipline Reformation of this Church are they not consequently schismaticks are not their scandals infectious when they will suffer no Ministers to possess their charges or officiat either with or without them or people to enjoy ordinances among them without direct owning their defection and overturning our Reformation and a professed submission to their abjur'd prelacy as is clear in the acts enjoyning Ministers preaching and peoples hearing in conformity to prelacy and the supremacy For that of Rev. 18. he sayes that it enjoyneth a separation from Rome's corrupt doctrine and Idolatrous worship but warrands not a separation from a Church where no such corruption is I answer The ground of the command is the danger of Infection by Rome's sins as is expressed in the text which will consequently hold wherever this danger is whatever be the the particular sins from whence this danger flowes for as I said majus minus non variant speciem and we may add that other Known rule a quatenus ad omne valet sequela In whatever case an union is unwarrantable and infectious a proportioned separation is upon this ground enjoyned Nay if the conjunction have but mali speciem or be inductive to sin only the command of eshewing every appearance of evill will reach this withdrawing unless the conjunction be on other grounds an indispensible duty Now our Covenant obligations and our Reformation as itstood established being duely pondered it will be clear that Conformists are schismaticks and destroying Innovators and there is no prior obligation to joyn with them but rather to disowne them in this course Sure this man holds that fellowship with Presbyterian Ministers in their assemblies for worship is contagious and that people are obliged to leave and come out from them tho he dare not lay Idolatrous worship nor corrupt doctrine to their charge and so he must acknowledge that this and such like commands will warrand a separation upon the general ground here intimat abstracting from that special case of Romes Idolatrous worship and corrupt doctrine It s very sophistical reasoning from the denyall of the special ground and nature of Romes contagion from which christians are called to separat to deny a separation upon any other contagion to fall within the compass of that precept which is to reason from the denyall of the species to the denyal of the genus His Doubter in the next place retorts his charge of separation upon himself and alledges that we have better ground to charge Conformists with schism because of their departing from the government of this Church to which we are still adhering so that they have gone out from us not we from them We proved this charge already from the constitution and Reformation of this Church as it stood established and our universal vows of adherence therunto so that such as have overturned this work of Reformation not Presbyterian government only they are properly the first dividers and deserters But let us hear how he acquits himself of this charge 1. He sayes that their submission to prelacy is in obedience to the commands of superiors whom we are bound to obey in things not sinfull So that their obedience is duty and Presbyterians their non submission is disobedience to authority and Schisme from the Church But 1. His Doubter alleadging that Presbyterial Government is the Government of this Church and inferring thereupon that departing from it is Schism and that Prelatists have gone out from Presbyterians not they from them which is a very clear consequence and will clearly infer the departers to be Schismaticks upon any description of Schism which he can assigne And moreover this being the great ground upon which this man and his fellows do charge Presbyterians with Schism viz. That they are separat from the present Prelatick constitution since he offers no formal answer either to the antecedent or consequent of his Doubters argument what will the interposed command of Rulers signify to alter the Nature of Schism or to make that practice which is Hactenus upon Scripture grounds Schismatical to be no Schism This I must say is strange divinity but like enough to that of these men who make the Magistrate a Pope over the Church her ordinances and over sacred Oaths and vows 2. We have proved that their submission and obedience in this point is a high rebellion against God in disowning at mens arbitrary command the Government of his house appointed in his word and embracing an abjured Hierarchy contrary to it and against which all the nations were engadged So that our practice is obedience to God and a keeping of the union of Christs body and theirs is both perjury and Schism He tells us that he hath proved in the first conference Episcopacie to be the only Government left by Christ and practised by his Apostles So that our disowning it is Schism from the Scripture Church Government and that of the primitive Church as well as from them To this I only say that I hope we have made the prelacy he pleads for appear to be a stranger both to Scripture and antiquity Again he tells us that in this charge of Schism he means it not only or mainly in respect of Government but of separating from their Assemblies for Worship which is Schism tho the Government were wrong I answer 1. If he acknowledges that separating from the Government is Schism why answers he not our countercharge that their party did first separat from the Government of this Church and that therefore the Schism lyes first and principally at their door for that which he sayes of the Magistats command is as we have heard utterly insignificant to wipe of this charge 2. This charge of the first Schism on his part standing good for any thing he hath said that which he here adds of our being Schismaticks because of our separation from their Assemblies for Worship is like wise naught For upon this ground of his Doubter which he cannot disprove viz. That they have made the first breach and separation they are Hactenus Schismaticks and so are to be disown'd in their worship upon that very account and ground upon which he pleads fot disowning Presbyterians Assemblies for Worship tho he can lay nothing else to their charge or alleadge any substantial corruption of the worship And so the recocted crambe which he here presents to us again anent the Scribes and Pharisees Simeon and Anna their attending the Temple Worship Zacharias and Elizabeth Joseph and Mary their not separating there from c. Pleads as much for his Presbyterian Doubter in relation to the owning of our Presbyterian Assemblies for Worship and much more then for
him Since he dare not say that they are more corrupted then the Church of the Iews was at that time and so we may echo back his alas how will you justify this separation of yours with an enquiry how he and his party will justify their separation from the true Ministry of the Church of Scotland What if a party of corrupt Priests and Levites had risen up and pursued a course of defection tending to raze and ruine all Gods ordinances casting out all such Priests and Levites as would not concurr with them and had appointed an acknowledgment of and concurrence with their wicked defection to be the only condition upon which they will admit either priests or people to share in the ordinances In the mean time a great body of Priests and people adhering to Gods ordinances and contending against them had been keeping their possession of the temple Worship as long as they could I dare refer to our Informer to give judgment in this case and shew what Simeon and Anna Joseph and Mary would have done and to which of the parties they would have adhered And let our cause be judged by this His Doubter in the next place objects that Conformists lecture not therefore may not be heard Here he but trifles to insinuat that this is solely lookt upon by us as a ground of not owning them But in so far as in this our case it s a piece of their apostacy from our establisht reformed Worrhip and an expresse badge of conformity to prelacy and in both these respects flat perjury and breach of Covenant we look upon it as having its own influence with other grounds to warrand a non-union to them while standing in a stated opposition to faitfull Ministers mantaining this with other pieces of our Reformation To this objection our Informer answers 1. That some Conformists lectured and yeâ—… were separat from And so might all of them be upon the forementioned grounds thus disowned and separat from Altho they had keept a form of this but I beleeve they are for signs and wonders among them who keep the lecture or owne it at all Next he tells us of the ancient reading of the Scripture in the Jewish Church and of Moses and the prophets in the Synagogues Acts 13. 15 27. and 15. 21. and likewise in the Christian Church But what then who denies this why they have he tells us the Scriptures publickly read in their Churches But I trow the reading is the better of expounding and he might have found that the Levites Neh. 8. 8. read the Law of God distinctly and gave the sense and caused the people understand the reading And he dare not say that the ancient publick reading of Scriptures among the Jews was by Gods appointment a dumb reading without exposition Why gave God prophets and teachers unto his Church if not for this end and faith comes mainly by hearing the Word preach't Why then grew his reverend Fathers and their conforming Sons so angry with this Churches laudable practise of giving the sense together with the reading comprobat by that ancient Practise of the Jewish Church which he pretends since otherwise the Text read ane 100. times is still like a kernell under a hard shell Nay but he sayes if we separat upon this ground we would have separat from the Church in all ages Sure not from that Church where the law was expon'd and its sense given as well as read beside that our non-union to our prelatick Innovators or withdrawing too if he please hath this as an appendix with other grounds that Conformists in withholding our former lecture or expository reading from the people and substituting a bare reading in its place discover themselves to be teachers who are keeping close and not opening the seals of Gods book are afraid that their hearers should learn too fast In the 3d place he tells us a tedious storie anent the disuse of our first authorized method of Lecturing which was at first only to read one chapter in the old testament and another of the New with brief explication of occuring difficulties but that thereafter we held with one chapter then with a part of one and raised observations making it a short sermon so that its all one to separat for this as to separat for shorter sermons which are caeteris paribus thought better then a long Then he tells us further to cloak this their laziness that variety of purposes are hardly retained and procures a wearying and that one thing puts out another c. But what fruitless talke is all this If our Churches appointment was of this nature at first to open up difficulties upon the reading did she therefore intend to cut off the exercise of that gift anent practical observations which is found in experience so eminently edifying as himself acknowledges in the next page and the method of preaching abroad to which method we are beholden for some excellent commentaries upon the Scripture which would probably have been by this time Intire through the whole bible according to the design and mould projected by the Reverend brethren and Ministers of this Church If our Prelats lazy reading tribe had not invaded the pulpits of the Lords faithfull labourers Again suppose there was as to this method some deviation from the first appointment yet since our Church gave a tacit approbation universally used it his censure is too critical saucy beside to plead from the variation in the practice to a total disuse is dull reasoning and whatever the lecture was at first this is certain that this universal practice and eminently edifying piece of publick duty owned by our Church was presently disused and discharged by prelats and its disuse became one of the badges of conformity and a part of their mark upon their creatures and therefore eatenus in all reason it ought to have its own weight with other grounds as to disowning them in their present state and circumstances The experience of all the true seekers of God can disprove sufficiently what he adds of a tedious nauseating as the issue of variety of purposes variety rather taking off then begetting tediousness whence the Scripture is composed for this end of such a sweet variety of purposes and methods His story of Pembo's defiring to hear one word or sentence at once and no more till after a long time is calculat well to patronize a reading or non-preaching Ministry but the many scripture precepts given to christians anent growth in Knowledge and leaving the first principles and not to be alwayes children in understanding and likewise the scripture precepts straitly charging and enjoyning Ministers to be instant in season and out of season preaching exhorting with all long suffering and doctrine sufficiently discovers the â—…diculous tendency of this story 4. He tells us that suppose it were a fault every fault will not warrand separation We say not that every fault nay nor this simply considered
this passage to prove that obedience to authority will preponderat the not giving of offence But so it is that the great ground of the Apostles decicision here is the guarding against the offence of the weak Iews and obedience to this sentence was in not giving offence and upon this very ground Christians were to abstain from these meats whereas he foolishly distinguishes in this point betwixt obedience to authority and not giving offence as distinct duties and makes the first to over-rule the second in plain contradiction to the text which makes the not giving offence to be the great duty and the foundation of this obedience 3. This charge will be the more conspicuos and the Informers inconsistent prevarications in this point if we consider these things in the point of offence 1. That every offence through weakness is not sinless upon the offenders part The Informâ—…r himself doth with the Apostle assert this who in the very preceeding page from 1 Cor. 8 10. Rom. 14. tells us that the Apostle will not have that which 〈◊〉 indifferentâ—… or lawful in it self used to the offence of tâ—…e weak or imboldening of their conscience to Sin 〈◊〉 That upon this ground it follows that the Scandalâ—… acceptum or offence taken as contra distinguishâ—…d by our divines from Scandalum datum or offenâ—…e given is badly and to narrowly described from â—…e groundless taking thereof as if upon this account it were faultless upon the offenders part it being certaine that neither the lawfullness of the thing out of which offence arises the good intention of the doer nor mens commands nor the weakness yea or wiâ—…kkedness of the takers of offence will free the giver thereof from guilt unless the action be in its present state and circumstances a necessary duty for thus the distinction could have no place and there were no Scandalum datum at all there being no ground to take offence upon the takers part and takeing this phrase in the Scripture acceptation as there can be no reason of a sinfull action properly Nay though the effect should not follow the giver is still guilty as Peter was in giveing offence to our Lord though that action could produce no sinfull effect in him for he said to him thow art ane offence unto me So that it is beyond debate with all sound divines and casuists that any dictum or sactum action or word upon which the formentioned effects may follow if it be not hic nunc necessary is a scandalum datum 3. That accordingly all sound divines treating on this subject in describeing a passiâ—…e scandal in opposition to that which is given do not draw their measures or description meerly from the weakness or othere bade disposition of the taker of offence but from the state and condition of the action it self out of which offence ariseth which if not necessary in its present â—…tate and circumstances they hold the scandall to be is well active as passive Thus Mr Gilespie Engl â—…op cerem Thus Ames de Consc lib. 5. cap 1. 〈◊〉 quest 3 Resp. 1 2. tells us that in omni scandalo â—…ecesse est ut sit aliquod peccatum in every scandal of neâ—…essity there is some guilt because it hath a tenâ—…encie to the spiritual hurt and detrimeâ—… of our bour And describing passive scandal which is without sin upon the givers part he sayes that this falls out cum factum unius est alteri occasio peccandi praeter intentionem facientis conditionem facti that is when the fact of one is the occasion of anothers sinning beside the intention of the doer and the condition of the deed it self He draws not his description from the intention of the doer only but from the condition of the deed it self which if tending to the spiritual hurt of our neighbour is still an active scandal and no authority of men can alter its natur or remove its guilt as we heard him before assert Mr Durham on scandal part 1 chap 1. describeth scandal that is taken only or passive offence that it is such when no occasion is given but when a man doeth that which is not only lawful but necessary exemplifieing this by the Pharisees carping at Christs actions Matth. 15 12. and by that of Prov. 4. 19. where the wicked are said to stumble at they know not what Thus clearly asserting that the lawfulness of the practice will not wholly lay the guilt on him that takes offence unlesse it be also necessary 4. The Informer cannot deny that this necessity of the action must be evinced from clear Scripture commands and cannot be rationally inferred either from the assertion of the practiser or the commands of the Magistrat simply or any supposed Ecclesiastick canon since this would evert the Apostles reasoning on this head So that he is obleidged to evince the necessity of this practice controverted from other grounds then he hath mentioned or this charge stands good against him esspecially since as we have said the Apostles injunction which he mentions as to the free use of meats was a greater authoritative determination then any which he now alledges to render the practice necessary And if a practice lawful in it self and corroborated by ane Apostolick precept enjoyning it could not be lawful in the case of offence farre lesse can the constitutions he mentions make this practice lawful in such a case So that our Argument a Scandalo stands good against him upon this point in answer to which he hath brought nothing but what is contrary to Scripture casuists yea and himself The charge which he after exhibites against us of erecting separat meetings in the houses and fields and of our being Schismaticks if ever the Christian Church had any we let pass among the rest of this mans petulant assertions the grounds whereof we have examined and confuted The people of God in obedience to Christs faithfull Ambassadours by Prelats perjurious violence thrust from their watchtowers assembling to hear the great Shepherds voice erect no seperat meetings but keep the assemblies of this Church driven by them to a wilderness whereof if the Lord open not his and the rest of his tribe their eyes they will bear the sin and punishment for ever The Doubter object next Christs preaching in privat houses and fields and peoples hearing therein inferring that so likewise may we This argument our Informer according to his usual candor disguises we say not that in a setled peaceable state of the Church Ministers may preach and people hear in this manner but upon supposal of this Churches disturbed persecute condition by a party of prevailing backsliders Ministers preaching and peoples hearing is warrantable upon the formentioned grounds both Ministers upon whom our Prelats hands have been very heavy of a long time yea I may say their litle finger thicker then their predecessours loins sters and people being in this broken destroyd state of our Church chased harassed and denyed
every thing But our meetings he sayes are in despite of the Law and we add disobedience to our schism Ans. 1. We shall easily acknowledge that all Christs actions are not imitable such as those of divine power as working of Miracles and the actions of divine prerogative as the taking of the ass without the owners liberty the actings of his special Mediatory prerogative such as the enditing of the scriptures giving of his spirit laying down his life instituting Church officers Col. 3. 16. Joh. 10. 15. Mat. 28. 18 19. These are not imitable nor yet such actions as were meerly occasional depending upon circumstances of time and place as the unleavened bread the time and such like circumstances of his supper But we say there are actions imitable as 1. in general Christs exercise of graces which have constant and moral grounds and are commended to Christians for their imitation every christians life as such ought to be an imitation of him the precious mirrour of grace Mat. 11. 29. Learn of me for I am meek c. Eph. 5. 2. Walk in love as Christ also hath loved us Joh. 13. 15. I have given you an example that ye should doe as I have done The christian must walk as he walked 1. Joh. 2. 6. 2. In particular Actions on Moral grounds flowing from the relations wherein Christ stood do oblige and are examplary unto those that are under such relations viz. Christs subjection and obedience to his parents and paying tribute to cesar do exemplify children and subjects their duty as in that capacity so his Ministerial acts and faithfull diligence therein do exemplify Ministers duty Now the question is as to this manner of Christs preaching in this case that is not in the ordinary and authorized assemblies of that Church but in the fields and in houses whether the grounds of it will not sometimes recur and oblige ordinary Ministers for it s ratio exempli we are to look unto rather then the meer circumstances of the Individual act as Chamier tells us Tom. 3. lib. 17. de Jejunijs And for evincing this in our case our Informers own answer is sufficient if we shall but suppose which neither our Informer nor any of his fellows have ever been able to disprove that Presbyterian Ministers are under a relation to this Church as her true Pastors and under the obligation of our Lords commands to officiat accordingly His grounds are the necessity of the work and the bitter persecution of Christs enemies both which grounds are still vigent in relation to Presbyterian Ministers as is said For what he adds of Christs acting this as head of his Church and not limit in the exercise of his Ministry as ordinary Ministers none of which is an universal postor It is very insignificant here For 1. every piece of Christs Ministry his very teaching and teaching in the temple was as messenger of the Covenant who was to come unto that temple and in the capacity of head of his Church yet are examplary for Ministers duties according to their measure 2. He dare not say that our Lords preaching after the manner instanced in the objection of his Doubter or his preaching while fleeing from persecutors was meerly founded upon this ground and did flow from no other cause and principle but this viz. that he was not limited in the way and exercise of his Ministry for he hath already assigned other Reasons of this viz. the necessity of the work and his persecution simply considered so that if he should assert this his 2. answer would contradict his first and besides he will not deny but that such as were not heads of the Church and who were in an ordinary peacefull state thereof limited in the exercise of their Ministry did preach after this manner for the officers of the Church of Jerusalem Acts. 8. in that scattering and persecution went every where preaching the gospel So did our first Reformers not to stand upon that moral precept given to the Apostles who were not heads of the Church viz. when they persecut you in one city flee to another and the Informer will not say that they were not to carry the gospel-message with them in this flight Now that which those who were not heads of the Church but Ministers yea and ordinary Ministers have done the parallel of and warrantably surely that Christ did not upon any extraordinary ground now expired But such is this way of preaching Ergo c In a word as its easily granted that ordinary Ministers are fixt and limit to their charges in a setled state of the Church so he dare not deny that a Churches disturbed persecute condition will warrand their unfixt officiating upon the grounds already given and he should know that others then the Pope were universal pastours and even in actu exercito of the whole Church viz. the Apostles as himself acknowledged nor can he deny that ordinary Ministers are in actu promo related to the whole Church as her Ministers given to her by Christ and set in her As for what he adds of our meetings that they are against the Law he knowes that all the Jews appointed that any who owned Christ should be excommunicat From the violence and persecution of which Law himself infers our Lords officiating in the manner contraverted and he can easily make the application to our case and answer himself The Doubter thinks it hard to be hindred by the Law from hearing the word of God and other parts of worship or that Ministers be hindered to preach iâ—… being better to obey God then men He answers 1. that the Law allowes and commands us to hear the word preachâ—… in our own congregations in purity and defends it which is a great mercy and that its better to worship God purely with the Laws allowance then in a way contrary to it Ans. 1. Granting that the Law did allow some to preach faithfully what saith this for their robbing so many thousands of the Lords people of the Ministry of some hundreds of faithfull Ministers will a piece of the Rulers duty in one point excuse their sin in twenty others and loose the people from their obligation to duty towards Christs Ambassadours This is new divinity 2. The law allowes none to preach in the manner he pleads for but with a blotâ—… of perjury in taking on the Prelats mark and complying with a perjurious course of defection and allowes none to deliver their message faithfully in relation to either the sins or duties of the time which is far from allowing to preach in purity and in this case we must rather adhere to Christs faithfull shepherds upon his command tho cross to mens Law then follow blind unfaithfull guides in obedience thereunto and this upon that same ground of Acts 4. 19. which he mentions But he sayes that answer of the Apostles will no way quadrat with our case why so 1. Because the Apostles had an immediat extraordinary
slippery fingered Gentlemen he and his fellows are as to the retaining and holding of divine institutions and that they can easily expose them to sale for obtaining easefull serenity and other worldly designs Or how proves he that its the government of our Church which they have introduced or that they are the Church or that we are in this practice separating from our Church Hath not Christ a mystical body in Scotland without prelats or finally how proves he that there is alike ground for Joyning to prelacy introduced by an Apostat party after it is cast out and abjured by all as there is for Joyning in fellowship with a Church continuing Long under that corruption and not purged and reformed from it The Joyning with them in their worship being demanded as a badge of our consent to prelacy it self and all the corruptions attending the same 3. He pleads for charity and that we say not Conformists are graceless because of this difference he tells us that for all Corinths corruptions the Apostle spends a whole chapter upon Love and that such as have least truth have least charity that the weak christians who understood not their liberty Rom. 14. in being loosed from the ceremonial Law had least charity as they had least truth and so papists to protestants Ans. This charge lyes most directly home to himself and those of his way Let more then 20. years Law practice in relation to the ruine of a faithfull remnant of Ministers and professors who adhere to the reformation and government of this Church and their vows for promoting the same discover what hath been the charity of our Prelatical party Beside whatever be our thoughts as to their state with God and without judging their eternal condition it s no breach of charity to know such as are seducers from Gods way to beware of sin and the ensnarings of such seducers for which we have so many scripture commands as we have heard and the Judgment of discretion in relation to evils which we are to eshew is not that uncharitable judging in matters Lawfull and Indifferent which is condemned Rom. 14. 3 4. for else we could not act in faith And the same Corinthians whom Paul exhorted so much to Love he enjoyned also to come out from among the ungodly 2 Cor. 6. and to flee the contagion of their sin 4. He advises to consider the danger of divisions Gal. 5. 15. Mark 3. 24. since the enemy mocks religion upon this ground and while each fights with another all are overcome which he illustrats with the story of Scilurus his sheaf of arrowes Ans. Divisions indeed among Gods people are sad and have had sad effects but union must be in truth and duty and cemented with these bonds since it is the unity of the spirit which we must seek Eph. 4. 3. and therefore not in a way of defection and Rebellion against God and in breaking his Covenant which is nothing else but a combination against him It is in the Lord that we must be of the same mind Phil. 4 2. and Christ who prayed so enixly for his disciples union Joh. 17. 21. prayed also for their sanctification in and by the truth 17. ver and that they might be kept from the evill of the world 15. ver And the Apostle Paul who is so great a pleader for Love and union would not give place by subjection to deceitfull workers no not for an hour Gal. 2. 5. The best way to mantain union preserve the Gospel which their dividing innovating course of backsliding hath exposed to so much prevalency and reproach of Papists is to keep our garments free of their defilements to put away that accur sed thing which hath made us so weak before enemies 5. He advises his Doubter to acquaint himself with the writings of the old Non-conformists in England such as Cartwright Bradshaw Ball c. Who testify against the Brownists for their separation from that Church for which he sayes much more might have been alledged then for ours Ans. We acknowledge that these worthy men have done well upon this subject and that separation which they wrote against But our case anent a Church purely reformed from corruptions of doctrine worship discipline and Government and under universal oaths of adherence to that reformation infested encroached upon and invaded by a party of Schismatick overturners of her reformation standing in opposition to a faithful Ministry and professors adhering to them is so vastly discrepant from their case anent keeping up fellowship with a Church universally tainted with corruptions from which she had never been purged that by no imaginable grounds can a consequence be drawen from the one to the other And any consequence relating to us or application of the pleadings of these Divines against the Brownists will properly strike against his dividing party who have gone out from the fellowship of this pure Church to which they were Joyned and did vow adherence to her constitution and reformation yet notwithstansting by them thus miserably rent and destroyed for many years As for these Rules of Mr Baxter in his Cure of Church divisions which this Informer doth afterward commend unto us we are not much concerned in their explication or application since they do not in the least-strike against what we maintain therefore we shall briefly run over them For the first here mentioned anent not making communion with a Church stricker then Christ hath made it when we disowne dividers and Schismaticks renting and destroying a pure Church and introducing abjured innovations we do not narrow these terms of communion which Christ hath given For he hath commanded us to withdraw from such as cause divisions and offences contrary to our received ordinances and not to have fellowship with the unfruitfull works of darkness to turn away from Covenant-breakers And it s their dividing party who fall under the censure of this rule who make complyance with abjured prelacy the terms of their communion and so cruelly persecute all who will not conform to their course of backsliding There is no doubt equal danger on the other extreme in making the terms of our communion laxer then Christ hath appointed For the 2 rule which he mentions anent a due impression of the evill of division and discord and the reasons and necessity of union I think indeed had this Informer and his party kept up a Scripture impression of this they had not for the punctilio's of their trifling Conformity so miserably rent this poor Church and overturn'd her Reformation For the 3. anent not engadging too far in a divided sect it reaches Conformists another blow who have so far engadged for Prelats and their Interest that for many years it hath been the great work of our Laws by the instigation of them and their Rabbies to root out all Ministers and professors of this Church who do not conform and owne this course of backsliding Dare this petulant Informer call
of Presbyterians may be admited to judge Ans. How he hath fastned this charge of Schismatick principles and practices upon Presbyterian Ministers and Professors I leave it to the Impartiall to Judge from what is here replyed And how far any thing which he hath affered either from Scripture or the principles of Presbyterians is from reaching the conclusion which he aims at in these trifling Dialogues which all who are conscientious are we hope shy this rejoynder and a respect to truth and dutie sufficiently antidoted against and the learned as well as conscientious may wonder at such prodigiously bold ignorance 4. He wonders that so many of good note and not of the comons only are drinking in the principles of Brounists which have been zealously disputed against by old nonconformists Ans. How hâ—… hath made good this charge I refer it to the persusall of what is here replyed and how far the pleadings of these Non-conformists whom he mentions are from helping his cause I must here add that its astoninishing to find this man pretending a principle of conscience for this undertaking when his conscience could not but tell him that both upon the poynt of Episcopacie the Covenants and separation also he might have found all and more then he hath said fully answered and that he pitifully snakes away from our arguments dar not propose them in there genuin strength Nay he doth not so much as offer fairly to state the question in any of these three great points which he pretends to inform us about but confusedly shuffles them up for his own advantadge And upon the point of the Covenant obligation he poorly followes the arguments of the Seasonable case and some hints from the Surveyer without so much as offring any return unto what the Apologist hath long since repelyd unto them If this was conscientious dealing let any Judge and yet he is not ashamed to tell the world that because Episcopacie and the covenants are by people made the great grounds of separating therefore he premised his two dialogues concerning Episcopacie and the Covenants to shew what a sandy ground they are for separation if prelacie be found at least Lawfull and the Covenants in evry case not obligatorie whereas he hath offered nothing either to prove prelacie lawful or the Covenant not obligatorie but what is by severall of the godly learned abundantly answered and fully bafled sevrall of which viz. the Apollogist and jus divinum Ministery Anglican he seems to have had before him in writeing these Dialogues and yet nather doth he touch the answers of the Apologist to his arguments anent the Covenant nor dar he scan the pungent arguments of the London Ministers against prelacie and likwise there answers to sevrall things which he has offered for it and particularly there learned Appendix in the poynt of Antiquitie which cuts the sinnews of all his tedious legend of testimonies he durst not medle with Beside It wold seem he hath seen Smectymnus upon this subject whose learned confutation of the Episcopall plea as well from scripture as antiquity he passes over sicco pede And as for Erastian prelacie he offers not a jot indefence of it though his conscience could tell him that this is one main poynt of our plea against him So that suppose Episcopacie were in its self found Lawfull as he sayes yet if Erastian Episcopacie be found unlawfull his cause and pleading is lame and lost After this he would amuse his reader with a testimonie of Zanchie and another of Blondell which parts the hoofs of his page first as for Zanchie he cites a passage of his Obser in suam ipsius confessionem cap. 25. aphor 10. 11. wherein he saves first his faith is simply built upon the word of God Next In some measure upon the commun consent of the antient Catholick Church and that he beleeves what has been defyned by holy fathers gathered together in the name of the Lord citra ullam Scripturae contradictionem that these things are from the Spirit of though not of the same authoritie with Scripture then he adds that nothing is more certain from counsells Histories and writeings of the Fathers then these orders of Ministers of which he has been speaking to have been received into the Church with her intire consent and what is he to condemn what the whole Church has aproved I answer beside that he should have set doun these gradus Ministrorum which Zanchius speaks of that his reader might have known what these degrees were or whither they were prelatick degrees or not which no doubt he would have done had he not found that this would have marred his intent for which cause he doth not so much as offer to English any part of this or of the ensuing testimony we say first that any who knowes Zanchies learning and what the voice of the first and pure antiquity is and how far from giving a testimony to the present Diocesian much less the Erastian prelat of whom none can without extrem impudence assert that Zanchie is speaking will esteem this perswasion that the prelacy now existant with us hath the universall consent of all histories councills and fathers to be as far from the thoughts of Zanchie as its necessary to prove his poynt 2. Zanchise ayes his faith simply and mainly leans upon the word of God and so whatever the word is found to condemn as we have proved it doth the present prelacie in many respects Zanchie will make no bones to condemn it likwise own it who will The next passage he cites is of Blondell Apoll. pag. 193. who asserts that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belongs absolutly to the government of the Church and it s anext 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the maner order of its government which the Church alwayes thought permitted to her arbitrement Nather must we think every thing unlawful which humane custom of professors hath brought into the use of divine things That in such things christian prudence must act its part that no Church must be drawen into ane example that from the generall precept 〈◊〉 Cor. 14 40 the Church hath full power to follow what is more decent and commodious Ans. 1. We have before cleard that with Blondell their diocesian Prelat stands absolutly condemned in scripture and in his principles is diametrally opposit to the divine Scripture Bishop which evidently concludes his condemning the present Episcopacie with sole power of ordination and Jurisdiction much more the Erastian prelat altering fundamentally the government it self which he dar not say that Blondell ever dreamed of So that though we should grant because of this testimonie that Blondell will befound to admitt a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and constant Moderator which Its well knowen is the outmost length he goes and that the Churches example and practice here anent may be variable it falls utterly short of reaching the lest patrociny to his cause 2. he cites 1 Cor 14. 40.
he makes c p 57 l 14 r which even as to the Apostle himself was solemnly sealed confirmed and commended to the gentile Church p. 73 l. 10 r. extending hands and that not only among the people but also in commitiis c. p. 75 l. 27 r. independents and us in this point of a ministerial call p. 76 l. 8 r. that this electiv suffrage strictly taken or juâ—…dicially may be pleaded for as belonging to them p. 77 l. 8 9 c. r thus and as that which is proper to some part of this organick body the Church may in a General sense be said to be the due right of the Church it self in like manner I may this call and election be said to be the right of the wholl congregation as including the body of the people and the eldership the juridical decisive suffrage belonging to the eldership and the Consentient to the rest of the people as is said p. 18 l 9 r. they are abjured p. 90 l 17 18 r. againe 't is obedience that is enjoyned which is more General and extensive then hearing them as Ecclesiastick officers and will not necessarily include it l. 20 21 r. sitting in Moses chaire who was King in Jesurum appears distinct from sitting in Aarons Priestly chaire p. 91 l. 10 11. r. hence the concession that they were to be heard will not bear a conclusion of hearing Curats in this our case For 1. here adde what is under the second head then proceed thus next say they were to be heard as Ecclesiastick teachers the cases are very different c. then proceed to 1 3 4 5. head p. 97 l. 9 r. teach and expone in the sense and extent he pleads for which he hath not c. p. 103. l. 29. 3. depending as to their ordination p. 104. l. 24 r. did the ministerial acts of our Reformers now mentioned flow c. p. 105 l. 6. r. did owe the validitie of their Baptisme c. p. 115. l. 27. after defection adde and deeper staine of more and more practical acknowledgements thereof as to the designe and endeavours of the Law-makers p. 118 l. 2. r. Since in this his first reply taken from their obedience to the rulers he touches neither the Antececedent nor consequent c. l. 30 31 c. r. thus Since he acknowledges separation from the Government to be Schisme Sure our counter charge stands good against him that the first Separation lies at his Door it being made good that Presbyterian Government is both the Scripture Church Government and also the reformed established Government of this Church this retorted charge neither he nor any of his party are able to disprove For c. p. 119. l. 30. r. absolute unavoidable condition p. 128 l. 33 r. that are very necessary but allures him rather by love and tender forbearance p. 119 l. 6. r. Sed licentia quod temeritatis superbiae stultitiae in margine arrogantiae majoris videbatur p. 130 l. 18 r. but I say not sayth he the I dolothyt c. p. 131. l. 10 r. thus at that tyme this came to pass through their weakness c. p. 133 l. 10. r. that in these things he will rather cede from his liberty or intermit its exercise then offend c. p. 141. l. 33 r. no more indifferent but duty p. 142 l. 15 r. takeing this phrase in a moral sense and in the Scripture acceptation p 150 l. 16 17 after Ministry adde and did necessarily suppose the same p 155. l. penult r. Ergo. by his Magistratical Power he did properly and immediatly silence and depose him and the civil Magistrate may thus immediatly and formally by his Magistratical Power restraine the exercise of the ministrie p. â—…57 l. 2. r. that he can by his Magistratical Power and by elicit acts immediatly restrain ministerial duties or that the Magistrate hath ane immediate Power over the exercise of the Ministerial office to discharge it at his pleasure p. 164 l. 14 r. 1 one anent whom an inquiry might be stated Praef. p. 24. l. 24. r. contention and hatred p. 26. l. 6. r. come to Bethel p. 35. l. 16. r. after the firsâ—… anent view which I had of it Several such might possibly beyet gleanâ—… up if some passages of Authors seem toâ—… generaly cited or not translated ad verbum the notoriety of the places themselves may excuse the first and the condition of Readers to whom this is mainly addressed may plead for the second The Pages here quoted are numbred according the printed Method but the true Method exhibit in the Index will direct the Reader aright
such was and is the sense and acknowledgement of the reformed Churches themselves as from their confessions we have made appear For confirming this further because the Informer hath told us frequently of MrCrofton let us heare how he will bespeak him in this point In that piece intituled The fastening of S Peters Fetters pag. 40. He tells the Oxford men of the Church of Scotlands Philadelphian purity in delivering in writting and excercising in practice that sincere manner of Government whereby men are made partakers of salvation acknowledged by Mr Brightman on Apocalyps 3. and the Apology to the Doctors of Oxford and of Beza's epistle 79 to Mr Knox exhorting him to hold fast that pure Discipline which he had brought into Scotland together with the Doctrine And pag. 41. he cites the corpus confess pag. 6. Where the collector layes down this as the ground of that Churches purity of doctrine and 54 years unity without Schisme that the Discipline of Christ and his Apostles as it is prescribed in the word of God was by litle and litle received and according to that Discipline the Government of the Church disposed so near as might be which he prayes may be perpetually kept by the King Rulers of the church These English Non-conformists Beza the Author of the syntagma in Croftons sense and himself together with them thus clearly avouching Presbyterian government which Mr Knox introduced to have been the government of this Church since the reformation and which King Iames also owned For after he hath told us in the same page of Arundel Hutton and Matthews three English Arch-Bishops their approving the order of the Church of Scotland he tells the same Oxford men of the joy which King James profest in the assembly 1590 that he was born to be a King of the sincerest Church in the world Again pag 39. he makes mention of this Churches two books of discipline as the great badge and Test of her government and in answere to the Oxford mens exception against that article of the Covenant which binds to preserve the discipline and government of the Church of Scotland viz. that they were not concerned in and had litle knowledge of that government he tells them that he wonders how an university conversing in all books could profess they had no knowledge of these books So that in Mr Crostons sense and in the sense of the Presbyterian covenanters in England the government engadged unto in that article is that platforme of Presbyterian government contained in these 2 books of discipline which adversaries themselves do grant to comprehend an intire frame of Presbyterian government Again pag. 141. he gathers from the tenor of the Kings coronation oath at Scone that the royall assent was given unto Presbyterian government in pursuance of the obligation of the solemne league and Covenant and that in his Majesties most publick capacity as King of great Britain France and Ireland for himself and Successors and asserting clearly the equity of the obligation he asks the learned in law whither the royall assent by such expressions publickly made knowne as here it was unto acts and ordinances of parliament in his other dominions to be past here anent be not sufficient to make an act of parliament a perfect and compleat law by the equity of the statute 33. Hen. 3. 21. c. So that Mr Crofton clearly asserts our obligation to Presbyterian government to be contained in the Covenant and to reach all his Majesties dominions For he tells us in the preceeding page that to all such as apprehend the constitution of England to be Merum imperium wherein the King hath supremam Majestatem it is evident that his Majesties ratifying the Covenant thus hath rendred it nationall Again Timorcus pag. 70. asserts that the parliament who imposed the Covenant anno 1648. sent propositions to the King wherein was demanded the utter abolishing of episcopacie Which is point blanck cross to the character of that piece obtruded by the Informer and doth evidently demonstrat compared with these passages of Mr Crofton that the whole body of Presbyterian covenanters in England both imposers and takers parliament and people understood that article of Presbyterian government The Doubter here poorly grants that England and Scotland did not understand that article in the same sense but alledgeth that since our Church understood it of Presbytry we are bound to it in that sense Upon this he assumes That it will not follow that we are bound to it in the sense of our Church and state but rather that in relation to government it is with out sense since the imposers themselves were not aggreed as to its meaning Ans. we have already made it good both from the sense and scope of the national Covenant the judicial interpretation and application of it to our former prelacie expresâ—…ie the nations universall taking it so and the authorizing thereof both by King and parliament as well as by the recommendation of the assembly from the total extirpation of prelacy and setting up Presbyterian government in all its courts in consequence hereof that that article of the solemne league which relates to the preservation of the then existent Reformation in doctrine worship discipline and government cannot without extreme impudence be distorted to any other sense then a preservation of the Presbyterian government then existent Especially the league being framed and entered into by us for our further security in relation to what we had attained And this being the article framed by the Church and state of Scotland at that time and this being also their scope and designe discovered in their treaties with England when that Covenant was entered into I dare appeal this mans conscience upon it whither ever any demurre here anent or any other sense of this article was offered by the English when the nations first entered into this oath or whither the imposers thereof in Scotland would have engaged in that league with the English upon any other termes then these and in this their sense of that 1. article Thinks the Informer that if any such thing had been muttered in the first transaction of this business that the English did not look upon the Presbyterian government as the reformed government of this Church that the Scots nation would have transacted with whem in this league Nay when as Timorcus tells us it was debated branch by branch phrase by phrase in the convention house in the parliament in the assembly of divines was there ever such a notion as this of our Informer started that by the reformed government of the Church of Scotland Presbyterian government was not to be understood in a word dare he deny that the godly conscientious Ministers and people of England did in the sense of this oath and even in imitation of the Scottish or rather the Scripture patterne plead for and had begun to set up Presbyterian government and are closs to their principles to this day But
so far from tying congregations to conformists as this man alleages that they tye them to their own faithfull Presbyterian pastours and by consequence to disowne prelats and their intruding hirelings as none of the lawfull Pastours of this Church I might here add that the account of the Pastours duty and the ground of the people's subjection and obedience exhibit to us in these scriptures which he mentions doth sufficiently exclude their party from any claim therunto What do they hear Gods word and warn the people from him who are generally so ignorant of his word walking contrary to it themselves and hardning others in rebellion against him are they watching for souls as they that must give account who are loving to sleep and slumber and dare not say most of them that ever they enquird at any soul how it is betwixt God and them do their lips keep knowledge who have departed out of the way and caused many stumble at the Law are they labouring and admonishing as to sin and duty who are ringleaders in a course of defection Sure if the duties of subjection reverence and obedience suppose such characters of Ministers and such qualifications as are here exprest people are hereby abundantly discharged from such subjection and obedience as to Conformists who are so palpably destitute of these qualifications So that the Informer falls utterly short of his intended advantage by this citation of Mr Durham and the scriptures therin mentioned do wound his cause tâ—… death and cut the sinews of his reasoning This man is so unhappy as to fall still by the rebound of his own arguments and the scripture-weapons which in pleading for this cause will never be found the weapons of his warfare wounds him every time he handles them which as it hath before so it shall presently appear further in some more of his arguments and answers upon this point which we now present CHAP. III. The Doubters argument from Curats not entring by a call from the people and that passage Acts 14. 23. cleared and improven The Informers exceptions upon the terme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fully examined and the peoples right in the call of Pastours cleared therfrom His reasonings about Patronages and the prelatick ordination and peoples disowning of Scandalous Ministers not censured As also his great argument from Math. 23. 1. and the owning of the Temple-worship scanned and retorted upon him Mr Durham in this point pleads nothing for the Informer His answers and reasonings anent the charge of Introsion examined Our Informer upon this point of separation which he holds to be his fort-royal in the present differences having plyed his Doubter with offensive weapons will needs shew his skill and just dealing in acting the defendant for some time But I doubt that his defensive armour and answers shall be found as thin and penetrable in this debate as his impugning weapons are bluntand pointless Well this fair disputant will hear some of our arguments against the owning of Conformists but be sure they must be of his own mould and digesting for these can best suit the design of that pretty piece of pageantry which he is acting in this pamphlet The first argument which his Doubter offers is their not entring by a call from the people as all Ministers should citing Act. 14. 23. but by a presentation from the patron In answer to this he spends some discourse upon that text which we shall examine But to clear this point the more fully I will premise three things 1. That the people have a divine right to call their pastouâ—… we proved before in the 9th argument against Episcopacy and from other scripture-grounds beside this although it be a weighty ground also unto this we refer the reader 2. That upon supposal of this divine rule and pattern of a Ministers Lawfull call it doth clearly follow that the patronages are a corruption rendring the Ministers call in this respect maimed and not so consonant to scripture as it ought to be 3. Though it be granted that a Minister presented by the Patron and not called by the people hath the essence of the Ministerial office and might in some cases be owned as a Minister yet this will plead nothing for the owning of Curats as the case is now circumstantiat Because 1. It s certain that according to the principles and reformation of this Church as establisht before these innovations a Ministers entry by imposition of the hands of the Presbytery without the usurping Prelate and by the call of the people without the Patron is the more pure and scriptural way of entry into the Ministry and moreover the only way of entry own'd and authorized by her supreme Indicatories and by consequence its most suitable to Presbyterian principles when there is a competition betwixt the one and the other and Ministers thus Lawfully called are violently ejected by men reestablishing prelacy and patronages formerly cast out and vowed against that people do adhere to their faithfull pastours rather then these Innovators and intruders which will be convincingly clear if it be also considered particularly that as prelacy allits corruptions usurpations now existent and introduced were fully removed and abjured by this Church so laick patronages in speciall were upon most weighty grounds removed by the parliament 1649. in correspondence to our Churches declarator as appears in the Narrative of their 39. act viz. The sense of the obligation lying upon them both by the National and solemn league covenant by many deliverances and mercies from God by the latesolemn engadgement to duties to preserve the doctrine and to maintain and vindicat the liberties of the Church of Scotland to advance the work of Reformation and considering that patronages persentations of Kirkes is an evill and bondage under which the Lords people Ministers of this land have long groan'd That it hath no warrand in Gods word but is founded only on the Canon Law that it is a popish custom brought into this Church in time of ignorance superstition that its contrary to the 2d book of discipline wherein upon solid grounds it s reckon'd among abuses that are desired to be reformed and Contrary to several acts of general assemblies prejudicial to the liberty of the people and planting of Churches to the free call and entry of Ministers to their charge c. This act the parliament 1662 did ranverse among other pieces of our Reformation Ordaining all Ministers that entered since 49. to have no right to the benefice till they obtain a presentation from the Lawfull Patron and collation from the Bishop Now upon supposal of the Covenant obligation and our engadgement therein to separat from any corruption contrary to our Reformation to give a testimony to that work to with-draw from backsliders is there any doubt but that people are oblidged upon these grounds to adhere to that body of faithful Ministers who are standing to our principles and sworn
Watchtowers and posts by a number of Schismatick Innovators who are dissolving her union and impeaching her Authority In this extraordinary case Ministers more enlarged and unfixt officiating is no breach of this Rule Because 1. In this case the Parochial constitution is impossible to be held and God calls not to impossibilities and yet his call to preach the Gospel stands and binds and by consequence to preach to others then the Ministers parish The common rule will plead for this viz. necessitas non habet legem which this Informer himself doth hold will in some cases warrand the laying by of that which otherwise were a duty he knows what his inference is from Davids eating of the shew bread to keep from starving and Paul and those with him their casting their goods into the sea to preserve from perishing So that of necessity he must admit this rule and answer upon his own ground 2. The reasons which did warrand our first Reformers officiating in this manner a practice which he dare not say that the authors mentioned or any reformed divines do condemn will warrand this our practice in this persecute state of our Church it being clear that the case of Reformation is parallel to that of a Churches defection and persecution in relation to this practice contraverted as we cleard from Acts 8. 3. The same great end of the Churches greater good and edificaton which warrands fixing of Ministers to their posts in a Churches setled peacefull state will warrand their officiating more largely and at other posts when put from their own in her disturbed persecute and destroyed coondition by a prevalent Schismatick backsliding party The faithfull watchmen seing the city betrayed by a party of professed defendents who are letting in the enemy do their duty to the city best in resisting them and running to help 4. If faithfull Ministers their necessary keeping their posts and the unlawfulness of exercising their Ministry any where else were in this case asserted then it would follow that a Minister standing in that relation to a disturbed and destroyed Church and all his gifts and graces were useless in that case which notwithstanding are given for the good of the Church but this is absurd Shall not the weeping Church be taken by the hand by her true Sons when she is wounded and her vail taken away by smiting watchmen 5. By our Principles the Prelatick party are Schismaticks who have already broke and overturned our Churches order and Reformation Now this Informer will not deny that in such a case the Church may send forth her Ministers to officiat among such backsliders and Schismaticks for their healing and recovery he knowes upon what ground Mr Lightoun not long since sent out some of his brethren to preach in the West of Scotland Beside Mr Gillespie will tell him Miscell page 23. That a Schismatick Church hath no just right to the liberty of a sound Church as to the calling or setling of Ministers So that in our principles no Conformists are duely or lawfully called and settled 6. Our divines do grant that in extraordinary cases even the want of ordination it self will not hinder to officiat Ministerially but that there may be a necessity which will sustain and comport with the want of it Mr Gillespy Misc. ch 4. page 63. tells us that in extraordinary cases when ordination cannotbe had and when there are none who have commission authority from God to ordain then and there an inward call from God stirring up and â—…ing with the people's good will and consent whom God makes willing can make a Minister authorized to ministerial acts That at the first plantation of Churches ordination may be wanting without making void the Ministry because ordination cannot be had And if necessity will plead this in relation to ordination it self Ergo a fortiori this necessity of our Churches destroyed perturbed condition may much more comport with ordained Ministers their more enlarged officiating for the help and recovery of a perishing remnant by Wolves in sheeps cloathing Next this Informer going on in his nauseating repetitions charges intrusion upon our Ministers and enquires what warrand they have to preach and administer Sacraments to those of another Ministers charge being neither called nor desired by these Minsters I answer they have Gods call to preach the Gospel as Minsters of this Church and as this call would warrand their officiating in other parishes upon the lawfull Ministers desire or invitation in a settled serene state of our Church so in this her ruined and destroyed condition the same call abundantly warrands their helping of these congregations and such poor Macedonians who desire their help while under destroying Schismaticks who have no lawfull call to be their Mininisters from God or this Church But here our Informer assaults us with a dilemma either Presbyterian Ministers call is ordinary or extraordinary Ordinary they have none since they are not invited by the Ministers of the congregations to whom they preach extraordinary they will not pretend unto I Answer by a counterdilemma and retort his argument thus either the pretended Ministers of these congregations have an ordinary or extraordinary call to officiat therein ordinary they have none according to the Doctrine Reformation and principles of this Church being neither called by the people nor ordained by the Presbyteries of this Church if we speak of the generality who are ordained and obtruded by the Prelats upon these congregations where they officiat and for those who were otherwise ordained and have conformed we have told him that by accepting presentation from Patrons and collation from Prelats they have renounced their Presbyterian call and ordination and the call of this Church consequently and thus do fall under the same consideration with the rest and for the exraordinary call neither the one nor the other will pretend unto it And when he answers this dilemma and by the Scripture-rules and the Principles and reformation of this Church which the Informer hath not disproved yea admits us to suppose in this question justifies the Curats call to of â—…iciat in these congregations over which they assume an authority we shall produce ours as to this practice which he condemns Beside what answer will he give to such a dilemma in the mouth of Schismatick congregations offered unto such Ministers as the Church sends from their own congregations to officiat among them And whatever his answer be it will suite our case Then he tells us of acts of councils condemning this encroachment as he calls it But when he shall exhibit a case parallel to ours which these acts speak unto we shall consider it For what he adds of the Aberdeen Doctors their charging the Presbyterian Ministers who preacht in their congregations with a practice repugnant to the Scripture and Canons of ancient Councils he should have done well to have produced these Scriptures which the Doctors alleaged And for ancient Canons I think all
things in their case considered it would be a hard task to produce these Canons stricking against that practice as it stood circumstantiat considering their Schismatick withstanding the Reformation of this Church their Arminian principles and defending popish ceremonies which errors they had openly vented and obstinatly maintaind His next charge of ordaining others to perpetuat our schism is a manifest calumny this true organick Church is by this practice only propagating a lawfull pure Ministry in opposition to their destroying Schismatick course the blessed fruits whereof and its seals upon the hearts of the people of God have been conspicuous and we hope yet further will And no less gross is that calumny which follows anent our great mixt communions and admission of ignorant vitious persons unto them who he sayes by our way cannot be kept back there being none admitted at any seasons of this nature which have been very rare but upon sufficient testimonies from faithfull Ministers or elderships But is he not ashamed to object this to us whereof his party is so notoriously guilty who are knowen to admit yea call promiscuously to fill their empty tables which tender souls dare not approach unto both gross ignorants and notoriously profane to the shame and scandal of Religion and the contempt of that holy ordinance our persuading people not to owne Conformists as the Ministers of this Church we hope doth now appear better grounded then all this Informers persuasives to the contrary And that we have been in any measure succesfull in this speaks out Gods purpose not to leave wholly our married land For that which he cites out of Baxters preface to the Cure of Church divisions anent the odiousness of Sacrifices presented to God without love and reconciliation to brethren and of making a peoples communion in worship the badge and means of uncharitablness and divisions we thâ—…nk reconciliation and unionin the Lord needfull to acceptable worship but an association with scandalous Schismaticks and backsliders in their wickedness we think is no less dangerous and obstructive to reall fellowship with God in duty especially since God presses our coming out from among such and our being separat from the contagion of their sin with this motive that he will receive us And as there is a holy brotherhood which we must associat with in order to communion with God so there is a congregation of evill doers which we must hate Yea we have Davids precedency as is before observed to hate them with perfect hatred and count them our enemies But who can sufficiently admire these mens talk of unity and love who having first broken and divided this poor Church have been these so many years persecuting to the death yea sweeming in the blood of the faithfull Ministers and professors therof because hey durst not joyn to their way and conform to their supposed trifles and indifferencies Surely prelacy being the grand Idol of Jealousy provoking God against us and the fire which hath kindled all our combustions and hath opened the veins of the Lords servants and people to bleed for many years occasioned such horrid dispersion and unheard of oppression 〈◊〉 the Lords Church and people in our Land with what fâ—…ces can these upholders of this course look up to the God of Love and peace and how can they lift up sucâ—… bloody wrathfull hands to him But now his poor half proselyted Doubter confesses that there is much truth in what he has heard from this sound Informer forsooth And takes leave with a profest resolution to reflect upon what he has heard from him Whereupon he dismisses him with some of his healing advices prefacing with an admonition to seek illumination from God But had this man been serious in seeking this from God he had not vented in these trilling Dialogues such weak notions and reproaches against Gods truth and people But since his Doubter returns him no answer therunto I shall make up his want and shortly offer my thoughts upon them His first advice is not to be too confident of our own opinion as undoubtedly right but consider what he hath said in his three conferences Ans. If it be truth which we hold sure we most hold it by faith in a pure conscience and not be wavering and â—…ossed children We acknowledge not the Cartesian principle and the popish doubting way as found divinity and a confidence of truth is far from a self confidence As for what is offered in his three dialogues I hope it is sufficiently antidoted by what is said above so that it needs not in the least demurr our persuasion 2. He will not have us think the matters of difference to be the substantialls of Relegion since persons of both persuasions may keep love and fellowship without renting the Church and neglecting ordinances because greater differences have been and communion not broken thereby Ans. If these matters contraverted be not substantialls why then have they made such a substantiall bloody contest for them â—…anquam pro aris focis for so many years and if communion must not be broken in a Church upon this account why have they rent and overturned our Church and persecute away so many godly Ministers and professors for these things denying all fellowship with them in their worship for adhering to their principles and disowning this course of conformity had prelatists suffered Presbyterian Ministers and professors to stand as they were in this Church to enjoy their principles and to follow their respective duties according to their stations faithfull Ministers to preach and Gods people to enjoy the fruits of their Ministry he might with some colour have pretended to this desire of union and fellowship but since prelatists have cast them out and do so cruelly persecute them for adhering to their principles and owning these duties this pretence is nothing but deceitfull hypocrisy He adds that the difference is but a matter of government and if we separat for this we would have separat from all Churches since christianity began and if Christ held no comunion with a Church where prelacy was he hath then seldom had a Church and hath been for many years a head without members Ans. This is nothing but a renewed repetition of groundless assertions for how proves he that our plea is a matter of government only surely their course strikes at the whole of our Reformation as hath been cleared Again how proves he that we would have separat upon this ground from the Church for so long a time tho it were granted that our plea were only a matter of government since he hath not yet produced instances of such a prelacy as we have in any Church Besides since the Informer pleads for prelacy upon pretended Apostolical precepts and practices and yet doth here vilify it unto a meer punctilio and makes it such a sorry business as persons may come and go upon it at their pleasure we may easily discover what nimble Sophisters and