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
governe them by ecclesiastick Discipline which he makes to be the Bishops office 2. Their sole power in ordination and Government here supposed by him did certainly presuppose the Christian Church in fieri whereof they were to be founders First They were as Christs immediat extraordinary Ambassadours to convert and bring in Churches then to plant officers the Gospel Government in them Now who will say but this power was necessary for the first planting of the Churches and so comes under the Character of these things which this man acknowledges to be expired Surely where no other officers were to concurre the Apostles of necessity behooved to ordaine solely and their Apostolick Inspection over them did necessarly depend upon and flow from their Apostolick extraordinary mission and infalibilitie So that this power in so fare as Episcopall like was indispensibly needful for the first founding of the Churches and consequently must be expired by his own confession the nature and exercise of this power supposeing and requiring their peculiar mission infallibilitie and gifts of tongues which are acknowledged by this man to be expired privileges necessary ry onely at that time Moreover the Apostles power in ordination and government did include extraordinary miraculous rodes and censurs a power in coerceing the rebellious thus Peter stroke Ananias and Sapphira dead for their lying which was a fearful Apostolick Censure put forth by his Apostolick authoritie at that time Paul stroke Elimas the sorcerer blind for withstanding the truth besides their power in ordination at that time included their miraculous conferring of the Spirit by the Imposition of hands 2 Tim. 1 6 Act. 19 1 2 6. Now all these Apostolick priviledges which this man must needs acknowledge upon his own ground to be expired and extraordinarie being necessarily included in essential unto the Apostolick power the nature and exercise thereof must be expired also Wee shall offer here to the Informer a distinction of the learned Iunius who in his answer to Bellarmins argument for the Apostles Episcopal singular power from that word Shall I come to you with a rod distinguishes the ordinary and extraordinary rod secundum illam c. de Concil lib. 2. Cap. 16. that is according to the commone ordinary rode Peter was a fellow Presbyter 1 Pet. 5. But according to the singular and extraordinary he stroke dead Ananias and Sapphira In respect of this commonrode saith he Paul saith 1 Cor 5. You being gathered together with my Spirit in the name of our Lord Jesus but as to this singular one he saith Shall I come to you with arode 1 Cor 4 21 this common rode he denyes to have him in the hand of any one man whither Apostle or other or that they had any sole or singular preheminence in Churches constitute And this cutts the winde pype of our Informers topick and argument here for the prelats power Which leads to a 3d. Answer 3 We proved already that the Apostles exercised no singular Episcopal preheminence in Churches constitut and what they did in churches not as yet constitut and infieri is not to the purpose by his own confession since it falles in among those things necessary for the first planting of the Churches which priviledges the acknowledges are gone That the Apostles exercised no such single preheminence in churches constitut is abundantly cleared in the 2. Argument against Episcopacie where we shewed that neither in ordination nor excommunication nor in Ministerial decision of controversies the Apostles assumed ane Episcopal power in Churches constitut but had the ordinary Church-officers Presbyterialy concurring with them Wee likwayes proved in the 8. Argument that the Episcopal power is neither formaliter nor eminenter contained in the Apostles authority but is inconsistent there with and contrary therunto there sole directive corrective power over the diocess as being the proper sole pastoures thereof their sole decisive suffrage and Lordly dominion over Church-judicatories besides their civil rule like that of the princes of the gentiles rendering our prelats power ex sua natura in universum different from the very nature of the Apostles authority and the authority of a Gospel Ministery altogether and consequently it could not be transmitted by the Apostles to the Church as any peece of the Gospel Church Government and by further consequence they are none of the Fathers or Children whom the true church or the Apostles brought forth but the Spritus brood of Satanical Antichristian pride As for what he addes of the Fathers making Bishops Successours to the Apostles Iunius will tell him De cler cap 14. Not. 15. That this is not to be understood of a Succession from Christs institutionquia nunquam instituit Christus ut Apostolis secundum gradum in ecclesia succederetur because Christ never appointed Successors to the Apostles in the Church according to degree And that the fathers understood it of a succession ex simili non ex pari a succession of similitude not of paritie and of a similitude secundum quid or imaginary according as Prelats were then moulded CHAP. X. The Informers great argument for Prelacy from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus Their Episcopal office disproved from the office of Evangelist ascribed expresly to the one and by good consequence to the other from many circumstances of the sacred text and the judgement of Interpreters The Informers pleadings from there power in ordination and jurisdiction supposed in the precepts addressed to them there anent from the necessity of this power the concernment of of after-ages therein c examined The unsoundenes and inconsistency of his arguing and answers upon this head several wayes discovered THe Informer presents unto us Nixt the pretended Episcopacy of Tymothy and Titus at Ephesus and crete and the Douhter alledging that Paul calls all the Miniters at Ephesus and crete Bishops He rejoynes That Tymoth and Titus were Bishops as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop was afterward taken that is had a power in ordination and Iurisdiction over and above inferiour Ministers This argument from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus as also the nixt taken from the supposed Episcopal power of the seven Asian Angels hath been so fully answered and baffled by many That it is a wonder how he hath the confidence to repone to us these oft sodden coleworts We gave already a hint in the St Aâ—…gument of the acknowledged extraordinary function of Tymothy and Titus which is abundantly cleared by many from their unfixed motion and officiating their occasional transient imployment in these places Paules actual revocation of them both there from the condition of these Churches as being but in fieri as to their organick settlement and constitution Particularly that their power in ordination and Jurisdiction was not episcopall I prove from these grounds 1. In Churches already constitut this Authority was not solely resident in Tymothy and Titus Falluntur qui putant saith Calvin Instit lib
gave his Disciples charge that they should not affect superiority one over another or princely power over Gods heritagâ—… and puts them to prove that the office of the Ministry may in ordination be divided or that there are more orders of the Ministry then one which our Informer still begs a supposition of viz. Bishop or Presbyter or more officers in the Church then Elders and Deacons appointed by Christ or his Apostles by their apostolick authority That the Presbyter in whom are required the same qualifications to whom is to be yeelded the same obedience subjection andrespect who recives the same ordination and is charged with the same duty and invested with the same power of feeding and governing the Church of God with the Bishop and none other is an order distinct from and subject to the Bishop to be ruled by him and not to exercise his office but by the Bishops licence and that the Presbyter must swear obedience to the Bishop as his ordinary Which are the grand postulata and topicks of all this mans reasoning in point of prelacy The autitheses of which tenets we see Mr Crofton most evidently maintaines as the sense of the Covenant in point of episcopacy he further describes pag 80. and 81. the prelacy covenanted against and anent which he challengeth these Masters proof of a jus divinum to be such wherein one Minister or Bishop doth stand charged with all the congregatious and pastors of a Countie or many Counties making one diâ—…cess who is by office bound to a pastoral correction and government of them that these Bishops may be subject to one Metropolitan Church and Archbishop to whom they shall swear obedience adding that if the Word of God conclude such superiority over the Church in one Kingdom it will conclude a Catholick superiority over the universall Church and advance the Pope as warrantably above the Archbishops as the Archbishops are above the Bishops and the Bishops above the Presbyters these not being differences of kind but degree Adding further that no more is pleaded for Prelats divine or Apostolick right in the Church of England but what is pleaded by Bellarmine the Council of Trent for she Papacie Now from what is said I darre referre it is this Informer himself whither Mr Crofton doth not clearly disowne all the essentialls of our present prelacy and hold it to be abjured in the Covenant the office of our present Bishops and Arch-Bishops being incontravertibly such as he here describes And whither Mr Crofton holds not our prelacy arch-prelacy and metropolitan primacy to stand upon the same basis with the papacy and to be equally with it excentrick to the Scriptures and that he esteems consequently the Bishops and Arch-Bishops which I hope he will not deny to be abjurd in the Covenant to depend as such upon the Pope as a part of his hierarchy Next pag. 81 he sayes that it is not the first sort of episcopall government formerly described wherein all Ministers are invested with equal power and auhority or dignity are all of the same order and governe by common counsel but the specificall prelacy last described which presumes it self to be a Hierarchie So that with Mr Crofton our present prelacie falls within the denomination of the Hierarchy abjured in the solemne league and of the Popes wicked Hierarchie abjured in the nationall Covenant for he tells us in the preceeding page that none can deny that a quantenus ad omne c. He tells them moreover in that same pag. that had he lived in the Churches of Ephesus Antioch Phillippi Creet or the seven Churches of Asia invested with the same ministeriall authority which he then enjoyned he might have stood up a Peer to any Bishops therein so that he esteemed no Bishop there but Presbyters Besides pag. 82. he cites severall writers to prove that the authority and distinction of Episcopall and Archiepiscopall chaires metropolitan primacies owe their institution to the Church of Rome or politick constitutions of Princes He tells us pag. 84. out of Cartwright and Whittaker that the Church in respect of Christ its head not his vicar or superiority of single prelats is a monarchy in respect of the ancients and pastors that governe in common all the Presbytrie with like authority among themselves not a superiority over them it is an Aristocracie and in respect the people are not excluded but have their interest it is a Democracy The inserted parentheses are Mr Croftons and let any judge whither he assert not with these authors a Presbyterian frame of government opposit to diocesian Bishops and Arch-Bishops In his Analepsis in answer to Dr Gauden pag. 2. he charges him as before the Oxford men with an uncertain proposall of the object and the ratio formalis of the Covenant obligation as to prelacy under the general terme of Episcopacie therein also lasâ—…ing our Informer for the same laxness and ambiguity telling them that by good demonstration Bishop and Presbyter have been asserted to be synonimous titles of Church officers and are found to have been so used in the primitive times of the Church and of the Fathers adding that the government of the Church by its Ministers in their severall assemblies with a Moderator Ordinis causa to dispose and regulat what belongs to order is the primitive episcopacie which he grants to the Doctor that the Covenant will not strike against then pag. 3. and 4. he describes the Episcopacy which the Covenant strikes against And pag. 5. summeth it up thus that the Covenant cannot be accomplisht by the removal of Prelats pride c. Whilst the Preeminence prerogative Paternal power and juridicall authority assumed by them as distinct from and above all other Ministers of the gospel as the only immediat successors of the Apostles So our Informer makes them c. are continued What will this Oedipus answer to Croftons assertion Have not our Prelats this preeminence above Presbyters as a distinct order from them and have they not a juridicall authority over them by our law and practise and his pleading too doth not Mr Crofton in terminis assert that the Covenant obligation can never be satisfied untill such be removed are they no more in Church judicatores but Moderators and Chairemen set up Ordinis causa to order the actions of the meeting doth not our law give them a negative voice in the meeting and alloweth Presbyters only to give them advice if their Lordships do judge them prudent and loyall Again wheras the Dr pag. 18. did conclude that the Hierarchy being dead must rise in another qualitie Mr Crofton tells him pag. 6. That if it arise according to the Covenant it must be in the establishment of Congregational Classical Provincial and National Assemblies or Synods of Church officers Communi consilio Presbyterorum this phrase of Jerome he frequentlie useth to debate and determine the affaires of the Church and Exercise all acts of discipline and Ecclesiastick power
such like precepts And no wonder for thes simple Gospel times knew no Bishops who watched not over Soules and laboured in the word and doctrine When the Apostle Peter commands Christians to obey civil Rulers He distinguishs the King as Supeream and Governours sent by him that a Chief subjection may be yeelded to the one and a subordinat to the other But nothing of this is heard of in enjoining peoples subjection to Ministers Ane honour must be allowed by Timothey by the people of God consequentlie to elders that rule weil yea and a double honor but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especialy to those that labour in the Word and Doctrine The Apostle in stating a distinction in the degries of honour allowed to elders and in this different character of the one from the other diversifies elders higher lower Now by the same reason upon which Divines doe rationaly build this conclusion it must be granted that the enjoyning obedience to all Pastores promiscuusly and without any Note of distinction will inferr their equal office and authoritie And by the same reason that the Apostle added this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or especialy in this place he should have added in these or some such comands relating to the peoples obedience a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or especialy to distinguish the Diocesian Prelat from other Pastores and expressed it thus esteem them all highly obey them be subject to them that teach and watch over you All your Pastors but especially the Supereminent Pastor or Bishop who hath the cheifinspection and from whom all the rest derive their authoritie Likwayes in enjoining the pastoral duties he should have been especially noticed who had the cheif hand and authoritie therin which is a Topick improven by this informer but nothing of this is seen in Scripture as shall be after more fully cleared 4. Wee find accordinglie A practical Equalitie among Pastores or Bishops in the exercise of this governing power abundantlie held out and exemplified in Scripture The judging and censuring of the incestuous man is by the Apostle enjoyned to the Church Officers or Ministers of Corinth joyntlie 1 Cor. 5. Chap. compared with 2 Cor. 2. Chap. The Apostle all along supposeth ane inherent authority in these Ministers to put forth this grand juridical Forensical Act â—…ydes them for so long neglecting it and shewes its object viz. This person under the formalis ratio of wicked or scandalus Again he shews its nature to be Ajudging or puting from among them and delivering to Satan upon this judging previous thereunto He also shews that this authoritie touches all Church Members not them that are without whom God judgeth but those that are within Now as hee supposes I say ane authority of this Nature and extent inherent in these Church officers so he speaks to them indefinitly and universally all along which were very cross to his Scope If he had set up or allovved the Diocesian Prelat whose sole prerogative this were And the inflicted Censur he calls with the samine indefinitnes A punishment inflicted by many who accordingly are commanded with the same indefinitnes or universality of expression To receave absolve him upon his repentance The exercise of the binding and â—…owsing power being in the representative juridicall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church to whom scandales must be delated and to whom the promise of ratification of her juricall Acts in Heaven is made Matth. 18 17. Besids we find the exercise of ordination in a Presbitry 1 Tim. 4 14. And that even in relation to ane Evangelist Timothy The Presbitry here must be a juridicall Senat and meeting for the Office can lay on no hands And ordination is ane hie authoritative juridicall Act. Pauls presence and laying on of hands together with them confirmes their authoritie as being cumulative thereto not privative therof even as his countenanceing of or concurring with our Adversaries pretended Diocesian Prelat let us suppose it in his Act of ordination would not infringe his pretended right herein Ergo. By their own Confession and by paritie of reason it cannot infringe or Impeach this power which is attributed to the Presbitery Had the Apostle in stead of Presbyterie put in Prâ—…at and expressed it thus By the laying on of the hands of A Bishop or Diecesian-Bishop I suppose our Adversaries would have thought the Episcopal power of ordination invincibly demonstrat ther from notwithstanding of Pauls saying 2 Tim 1 6. By the laying on of my hands viz together with the Bishop Pauls extraordinare Apostolicall imposition of hands being no white derogatorie unto the supposed Episcopal ordinarie power now verte tabulas the Apostle sayes by the laying on of the handes of the Presbitry Ergo the ordinary and equal power of Pastores and its equal exercise in ordination is herin convincingly made out Nixt The Prelats monopolizing thus in himself the decisive suffrage of Judicatories is cross many wayes to Scripture For I Its a stepping up in a peice of Diotrephese-lik or rather papal-pride above the Apostles themselves who in Churches constitut did alwayes take alongst with them the advice consent and authoritative concurrence of ordinary Ministers and Elders in Government As is evinced in the premised Scriptures wherin it is convinceingly clear that Paul though ane Apostle of all the Churches indewed with extraordinarie unconfined inspection over the same and Pastor thereof in actu exercito having extraordinary Miracolous-gifts being the Master Builder and Spiritual Father who by the Gospel had begotten both Pastores and flocks of many Churches Yet would neither excommunicat the incestuous Corinthian alone but put it upon the Church Officers as their duty to doe it by a judicial decisive joynt suffrage Nor yet did he exclud the presbyters in ordaining even ane Evangilist but took in their judicial and presbyterial concurrence And in Act. 15. In that meeting or Counsel at Jerusalem where was a wholl Colledge or Presbitery of Apostles and mett about ane Act or decision of a high Nature wherein was put forth both Adegmatick critick diatactick authority or power in relation to the clearing of that great pointe of truth anent the abrogation of the Mosaicall ceremonies and censuring the opposers of Paul and Barnabas herin who had disturbed the Churches and belied the Apostles Doctrine And accordingly in order to the restoring and establishing truth and order in these disturbed Churches The ordinary Ministers or elders concurr with the Apostles in every step viz In the conferrence disquisition the authoritative decision the drawing forth of the sentence and decree the sending out of the decreeing and censuring Epistle the imposeing of the decrie upon the Churches to observe and keep the same c. 2. This cutts the throate of that juridical forensical joynt decision of Church Judicatories which the Scriptur doth so clearly hold forth Where is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the censureing juridiall court drawing sorth a joynt decision or censure Wher
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
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
gratis asserted and worse proved Learned Calvin upon the place tells us That his Deaconship was a temporal and transient function then expired because otherwayes it had no been free to him to leave Jerusalem and go to cesaria And that he is not here proposed as a voluntar deserter of his office but as one who had a more excellent office intrusted to him Which two grounds will put faire to prove that he was not a deacon still Then he adds Evangilistae meo judiciointer Apostolos doctores medii erant munus enim obibant Apostolis proximum ut passim Evangelium praedicarent nec praeficerentur certae Stationi That is Evangelists were sett in the middle betwixt Apostles and Doctours had ane office nixt to that of the Apostles and Doctours had ane office nixt to that of the Apostles that they might every where preach the gospell and were not fixed to any Station He gives this reason of his description of the Evangelist Because Ephes. 4. the Apostle describing the order of the Church doth in such manner substitut them to Apostles as he shews that they had a more inlarged office of teaching intrusted to them then to Pastours whose worke was tyed to certain places Hence he concludes that Philips deaconship at Jerusalem was onely temporall And for some time there exercised by him and that he was afterby the Church assumed to be ane Evangelist In which words wee see 1. He doth upon weightie grounds prove him to have been no Deacon at that time wherein he is called ane Evangelist 2. That he was ane Evangilist in the strict and proper sense as it is taken Eph. 4. 3. That Evangelists are officers above ordinarie teachers or pastours and in this distinct from them in the judgement of this great divine that they were fixed to no certan charge as they but as being nixt Apostles had ane indefinit unfixed Ministery all which is cross to this mans blunt confused discourse of this mater and cutts the sinews of Timothy's supposed Episcopacy Lastlie Where he affirms that ordination and jurisdiction were no proper worke of ane Evangelist but preaching and spreading the Gospell 1. I urge him thus if preaching and spreading the gospel was the characteristick of the Evangelist He must mean it in a more extensive way then ordinary Pastours if he speak sense then sure he cannot deny but that Timothy thus preached and spread the gospel as the Apostles Coajutor in many Churches as is cleared above Whence it followes by his own Confession 1. That Timothy's office was extraordinary and is ceased for he affirmes that the office of ane Evangelist whom he calls extraordinary was to cease in the Church 2. That he had no Episcopall authority in ordination and jurisdiction He being ane Evangelist in a sense beyond any ordinary preacher and upon the other hand ordination and jurisdiction by his confession not being his proper worke who is ane Evangilist So that Pauls calling him ane Evangelist must lay him by from being a Prelat and consequently all the Informers pleading from his supposed power in ordination and jurisdiction in the 1. Epistle written to him is frivolous and vaine For in his sense he could not Act both the worke of evangelist and Prelat these being according to his pleading inconsistent But nixt the wonder is how this man comes to divide preaching and spreading of the gospell from the power of ordination jurisdiction since he cannot but acknowledge that the Apostles did both these and affirms that their office was episcopal as we heard above And after he will tell us that Catalogues of Bishops are drawen from the Apostles and by Ierom from marke the Evangelist who was Bishop of Alexandria Then it seems this power in ordination wherein with him the Chief part of my Lord Bishops office lyes was very well consistent with both the Apostles and Evangelists their unfixed inlarged preaching and spreading of the gospell The Apostles unfixed preaching spreading of the gospell sure he will not deny nor can he deny to marke the Evangelists office in the strictest sense he can imagine so that both are with him compatible Thus we see in withstanding the truth hee is still in the briers of Contradictiones The Doubter excepts aganist his reason That philip might be both a deacon and Evangilist To which he answers That by the same Reason Timothie and Titus might be both Bishops and Evangelists I answer 1. We have showen already That philip ceased to be a deacon at Jerusalem when he became ane Evangelist 2. Supposing he were yet the Informers answer and parallel is naught For 1. Philipes becoming ane Evangelist was ane advancement to a higher office holding still ane inferiour which is eminenter included in it as he will grant but making ane Evangelist a Bishop is a degrading of a high extraordinary superiour officer to ane ordinary inferiour 2. As ane Evangilist properly so called his work was to preach and spread the gospel unfixedly as a Bishop his work he will say was ordination and jurisdiction which Two we heard him affirme to be incompatible Besides in separating the power of ordination and jurisdiction from the Evangelistick office he is contradicted by Saravia who in many places mantaines the contrary degrad cap. 1. and Cap. 16. and cap. 23 And here I shall shew our Informer how he hath run cross to his great Master in his glosses upon several of these Texts under debate that it may appear what babellike builders our prelates Advocates are Upon that passage Matth. 20 I finde he is a little more ingenuous then this is Disciple and plainely speakes out what he but mutters exam tract de episc tripl quest 1. pag 70. after he hath repeated that Text with its parallel in Luke he adds Ex his verbis quaero num cuiquam sano videri possit D. Iesum sustulisse aut prohibuisse primatum aut principatum non potius docuisse quid eum deceat qui in Ecclesia primus princeps futurus erat c that is From these Wordes I demand whither any that is sound can judge that the Lord Iesus did take away primaci and principality and did not rather teach what becomes him who was to be first and Prince in the Church and thereafter he tells us that Christ by his own example did shew what sort of primaci it is that the allowes in his Church so that he doth in downright express terms plead for a supreme patriarch or pope representing Christs pritcipality over the Church what harmony this keeps with the judgment of protestant divines upon that passage any may judge The Informers holdes That there was to be no inequality of power among the 12 Apostles although he is not consistent with himself in this as is already observed but Saravia runs so far cross to him in this assertion that he mantaines a primaci of power among them That the Bishops saluted with
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
tradition which from the Apostles is preserved by Succession of Presbyters in the Churches They will alledge that they are more wise then the Apostles themselves or these Presbyters dare this man say that Irenaeus meaned that it was only a Succession of Bishops in these Churches who keep that Apostolick truth That Presbyters are successoures of Apostles properly and immediatly in the power of the keyes is evident by a full Testimony of ancient fathers â—…gnatius about whom our Informer makes a great bustle in several places of his Pamplet in the Epistle ad Trallianos calles the caetum Presbyterorum the Assembly of Presbyters Conâ—…unctionem Apostolerum Christi a meeting of Apostles of Christ. â—…rinaus lib 4. Cap. 43 holds Presbyteros in Ecclesia ab Apostolis successionem habere that Presbyters in the Church have there succession from the Apostles Cyprian lib. 4. epistol 9. asserts omnes praepositos vicaria ordinatione Apostolis succedere that all overseers so he calls Presbyters succeeds the Apostles by a vicarious ordination Ierome on 2. Chap. of mica cited by Cratian in decretis distinct 5. cap speaking of himself a Presbyter saith si in Apostolorum loco simus non solum sermonem eorum imitemur c. If we be in the Apostles place let us not onely imitat there doctrine but also their conversation Augustin serm 36. to the fratres in Eremo and these too Preâ—…byters call them sal terrae Apostolorum successores the salt of the earth and the Apostles successours 2. As it is certan that these Catalogue-drawers did not understand veri nominis epâ—…copos or diocesian Bishops properly suoh thogh speaking after the manner of their times they gave them all one name So it is equally certain that the Testimoyns out of which these Catalogues are patchâ—…d up are most inconsistent and contradictory to one another as the divines at the I le of Wight and many learned men have made appear and still the nearer the Apostles times the Catalogues are the more darke and various They make Peter Bishops of Rome a fable contradicted by many of the learned proved to be such but whither Clemens was first or Third and who or in that order next after Succeed them whither Linus or Anacletus is never yet cleared Some make Titus Bishop of Crete some Archbishop Some Bishop of Dalmatia Timothy and John are made by many Bishops at the same time Some say Policarp was first Bishop of Smyrna Some make him succeed one Bucolus some make Aristo first Some give Alexandria one Bishop some tuo at once See appendix to jus divin min. Evangel And wheras our Informer replyes that notwithstanding of this yet all agree that a Succession of Bishops was and that these different relations cannot impeach the certainty of the Succession it self no more then difference about the Succession of princes will invalidat the certainty of the History I answer if he could prove that they understood Bishops properly so called or his diocesians in all these Catalogues of Succession this evasion might have some Shew of truth but it is certain that they did not Patres cum Iacobum Episcopum vocant c. the Fathers saith Whittak de pontif quest 2. c. 15 se 2. When they call James Bishop or Peter take not the name of Bishop properly but they call them Bishops of these Churches wherein they stayed for some time and againe if spoken of a Bishop properly its absurd to say the Apostles were Bishopes fore he that is properly a Bishop cannot be ane Apostle Because the Bishop is set only over one Church but the Apostles were founders and overseers of many Churches After he tells us that non procul distat ab insania c. it differs little from madnes to say that Peter or any other Apostles were Bishopes And to this purpose he speaks afterwards at large Q 3. c 3. Sect 9. proveing this from the unfixed extraordinary nature of their message or mission who were to follow the Spirits conduct towards all places whither they were called Which argument reaches evangelists upon the same ground So that Whitaker will send our Informer to Bedlam if he mend not this information and revocke not this principle anent the Episcopacy of Apostles and Evangelists and the Succession of Bishops from them The learned Iunius also Contr 3. lib 1. cap. 23. not 3. mantaines ane aequivocall acceptation of the word Bishop in this matter so that his paralleel holds not as to a difference about the Succession of Kings when a Monarchy all aâ—…e Supposed such but here the difference and equivocation is as to the authority of these Succeeding Bishops When he shall read Scallig Animadvers 277. The Informer may possibly suspect Hegesippus his naration anent James yet jerom and Eusebius depend upon him Scalliger holds Clemens Romanus to be no better likwayes jerom Catol Scrip is a Counterfit not the true jerom since he mentions pope hilary who lived long after jerom was in his grave And wheras the Informer maks a great outcry of jerom that jerom begins at the Evangelist Mark in the Alexandrian Catalogue which our wâ—…itters leave out in their citations its easily answered that it needs not be putt in since the Author sayes A marko from or after him the Presbyters choosed out one whom they made president wherein it s evident that he speaks of this custom after Mark and excluding him who was ane Evangelist before and needed not be set up by the Presbiters And surely if the first Bishop was ane Evangelist the rest were very heterogenious to their first pattern Besides in that jerom sayes Presbitiri a marco unum ex se electum c. Hee clerly insinuats that it was the Presbyters thereafter no Mark that it for if by Marks Apointment these Bishops wereset up he could not attribute it to the Presbyters etion Should one say in Scotia a regimine presbit Anno. 62. Episcopi introducti Ergo ab isto regimine introducti were â—…t not a bad consequence Here I will offer to him the remarke of a learned author Repl to Dun 143. anent the Circle which he and his fellowes doe ryde in this argument Timothy and Titus c. had ane Episcopal authority why because their authority was not Evangelistick Why so because it was not to die with them why that Because it was ordinary and perpetually necessary And how is that proved Because if the Apostles being alive they behooved to instruct Timothy and Titus with Episcopal authority much more being dead this was necessary to the Churches But when it is inquired how this Episcopal authority is proved it is fairely assumed againe as if it were granted that the Apostles made them Bishops of Ephesus and Crete So the last medium is still that which is in Question Let him ponder also what Didocl p. 125. and 139 hath produced anent the confusion and contradictions in this Alexandrian Succession Tilen himself de pontif l. 1.
Now surely the Apostle James was not of the Presbyters meerly or chosen from among them But to undeceave our Informer as to Bucers judgment in this point and to fortify the answer adduced I shall present unto him that which Bucer asserts De Gub Eccles p 432. viz That the Fathers call these first Proestotes or Moderators yea even the Apostles themselves Bishops N. B. in a large generall appellation Becaus they first preached the gospell to those Churches and that to prove a succession of the true doctrine they named the most eminent Ministers the Bishops to shew that there was in these Churches a Constant tract from the Apostles both of sound doctrine faithfull teachers thereof Eminent I say for gifts and zeale or suffering for the gospell N. B. not in any Episcopall authoritie except what was in that prostasie often mentioned Now whither Bucer was for ane Episcopacy in the highest degree even in the Apostles time and the Episcopacy of Iames Let any judge And whither or not this Informer hath acquitt prelacie of being both a groundlesse and godlesse usurpation in Gods Church as his now prosyleted Doubter sayes he was taught to call it the appeal is likwayes made to the judicious and impartiall to judge from what is offered from the begining hereanent CHAP. XV. Mr Durhams citations of the Fathers for evincing the identity of Angel Bishop and Presbyter vindicat from the exceptions of this Informer Mr Durhame in his excellent commentary upon the revelation pag. 223. having gone throw the Epistles and embraced the sylleptick sense and acceptation of the word Angel presents in a digression several weighty and unanswerable arguments both from these Epistles and parallel texts to prove the identity of angel Bishop and Presbyter Which this Informer passes over sicco pede finding them no doubt pills of too hard a digestion for his stomack But Mr. Durham adding to his scriptureproofes of this important truth Several clear testimonys of most eminent Ancient fathers asserting the very same thing then Seria res agitur with our Informer and he bestirrs himself amain to take these weapons out of Mr Durhams hand offering several exceptions against his testimonys which in vindication of the memory of so great a Seer from this pampleters imputations and for the more full confirmation of this truth we shal now examine and repell Mr Durhame sayes That not only Ierome but likewise others of the Ancients such as Augustin Ambrose Chrysostom were of Aerius minde hereanent To this he answers That Mr Durhame brings this as Medina's assertion as he is cited by Bellarmin But knowes he not that Medina is cited for this by many others as Dr Reynolds particularly And likewise why would he not examine these Ancients cited by Medina and examine what truth is in his citations if he intended to repell this Testimony Well but what sayes our Informer to these Testimonies offered by Mr Durhame He answers 1. That though these fathers be of Ieroms minde iâ—…is nâ—… great prejudice that will hence ensue to Bishops as he hatâ—… already cleared Ans. We have made it appear thaâ—… Ierome makes the first Bishops meere fixed Moderators and likewise ane humane invention or custom discrepant from ihe first divine Bishops who are proved by him to be in Scripture the same with Presbyters And iâ—… this be no prejudice to his Diocesian Prelat with sole power of ordination and Iurisdiction let any judge 2. The Informer wonders how Mr Durhame coulâ—… cite Augustiâ—… as of Aerius minde since Augustine hold him to be erroneous upon this ground Haeres 53. Aâ—…s Why doth he not answer to that passage of Augustiâ—… cited by Mr. Durhame as he pretends to answer to somâ—… of the rest of these fathers What sayes he to Augustinâ—… words are they not his Or doe they not clearly assert the identity of Bishop Presbyter To say that Augustin accounted Aerius a heretick for this while he offers not to remove Augustins cleare assertion of the same thing is but to sett him by the ears with himself not to answer his Testimony Next as for Augustin's accounting Aerius a heretick for this he should know that the learned doe Consent that Augustin in this followes Epiphanius who first imputed heresie to Aerius and made but very simple-insipid answers to Aerius arguments for his opinion And moreover that Augustin relates his opinion anent the parity of Bishop and Presbyter or rather his denying that their ought to be ane Ecclesiastick constitution anent their difference as that which Epiphanius put among the roll of heresies himself not positively determining that this was a heresie For as is consented unto by the learned and particularly by Dr. Reinolds in his letter to Sir Francis Knolls touching Dr. Bancrofts Sermon about the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter Augustin aknowledges himself ignorant how farr the definition of heresie doth extend He enumerats the heresies which he found noted by other writers but applyes not the definition of heresie to every one of them Far lesse could he doe so in this point which was his own judgement as the passage cited by Mr. Durham doth evince That Ierom and Augustin were of Aerius minde as to Bishops is the judgment of very many sane cum Aerio sensit Hieronimus saith Whittak Contr. 4. Q. 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 30. Ierom truely was of Aerius minde on which ground we need care the less that Aerius is so oft objected to us by blockish men See how rude Whittaker is again to our Informer Saravia himself de Grad cap. 23. acknowledges that Ierom dissented from Epiphanius in this Dr. Reynolds in that Epistle to Knolls about Bancrofts Sermon asserting with the Informer That Aerius was for his opinion condemned of heresie by the whole Church proves from Ierom and other writters who were contemporarie with Epiphanius or flourished after him That Augustin Presents that assertion anent the identite of Bishop and Presbyter aâ—… hereticall only as he found it related by Epiphanius wheras himself knew not how farr the name of heresie was to be extended as he testefys in his preface concerning heresies But that Augustin himself was of the judgement that by divine right there is no difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter he proves from his words Epist. 19. he cites also Iewell against Harding the jesuit asserting likwise with the Informer that Aerius was condemned for his opinion as a heretick who proves that Jerome Augustin Ambrose were of the same minde Thus wee see Augustin made in this point consistent with Ierome also with himself whom this man makes to speake contradictions so as he may come faire off 3. He answers That Ambrose and Chrysostoms Testimony will not come Mr. Durhams length Becaus Though Ambrose or one Hilary sayes that Episcopi Presbyteri una est ordinatio that they are both priests yet the Bishop is the first So that every Priest is not a Bishop for the Bishop is the first priest
emboldned to judge without ground and the person hindred to act in faith or induced to act against it c. So that to assert that the Magistrats command can invalidat these grounds and principles and render the action not sandaâ—…ous which is such otherwise is to give him a Dominion over the conscience and subject it immediatly and absolutly to his Laws which is a principle disowned by all Protestants Moreover the Informer himself defines the offence of the weak brother in things indifferent an emboldning him to sin contrary to his conscience or to judge that we sin when we sin not citing 1 Cor. 8. Rom. 14. Now if the action be upon this ground principle necessarily sinfull in its present circumstances how I pray can the Magistrats command render it not only Lawfull but necessary as he is bold to assert Can the Magistrat by his Law embolden a mans conscience to sin and yet neither the Magistrat sin himself nor the man sin in obeying him Amesius a better Casuist then he will tell him de Consc. lib. 5. cap. 11. Quest. 6. R. 6. that nulla authoritas humana vel tollere potest scandali rationem ab eo quod alias esset scandalum vel peccati rationem a scandalo dato That is no humane authority can take away the nature of scandal from that which otherwise were a scandal or the nature and cause of sin from scandal given And his ground is very considerable which doth confirme what I have now said Nullus enim homo saith he potest vel charitati conscientiis nostris imperare vel periculum scandali dati praestare That is for no man can put imperious commands either upon charity or our consciences or exeem from the hazard of scandal given But now to fortify this raw ignorant assertion as to scandal our Informer brings Act. 15. 28. these necessary things from which words of the councils sentence he drawes ane argument thus that though of themselves they were not necessary but somtimes indifferent yet by the Authority of the council they were made necessary for the good of the Church so he sayes obedience to authority preponderats the not giving offence as the greater duty of the two as divines and Casuists shew and in this case the man who thus obeyes gives no offence but doth duty and if any take it its causeless on his part and occasioned through the brothers weakness so that its scandalum acceptum non datum groundlesly taken but not given and when the Apostle forbids to use our liberty to the offence of the weak he speaks to those who were not determined by Authority Ans. What poor ignorant and incoherent reasoning is this 1. It s a strange sottish or rather popish Assertion that the necessary things Acts. 15. 28. were made so by the councils authority For the text is most express that the Apostles enjoyned this upon weighty scripture-grounds and what seemed good to the holy ghost speaking in the word as well as to them so that the holy ghosts grounds and commands touching the maintaining of love and union in the Church and the great rule of edification and not stumbling the weak Iews were the great and standing Scripture principles upon which this decree was grounded Now to shew how our Informer takes the papists here by the hand in this glosse let us hear Calvine upon the place praeter haec necessaria Hujus vocis praetextu superbe triumphant Papistae quasi hominibus liceat ferre leges quae necessitatem conscientiis imponant quia quod deccrnunt Apostoli necessario servandum esse pronuntiant i. e. the Papists triumph proudly upon pretext of â—…his this place as if men might make Laws imposing a necessity upon Consciences because what the Apostles decree they affirme must be necessarly kept Then he adds atqui expedita c. But the Answer is easy to such a foolish cavil so he censures our New Casuist and his fellowes in this point for this necessity was no longer vigent then there was hazard of dissolving union so to speak properly it was an accidental or extrinsick necessity which had place not in the thing it self but in guarding of offence which saith he is evident in the speedy laying aside of this decree Then he tells us that when the contention ceased Paul shewes that nothing is unclean and again establishes this liberty Rom. 14 14. And commands to eat freely what ever is sold. Adding that the papists in vain do snatch an occasion to bind consciences from this word and to conclude the Churches power to statute any thing beside the word of God Telling us further that from the word of God the Council drew this ground of exercising charity in matters indifferent Then saith he in summa the summ is if charity be the bond of perfection and the end of the Law if Gods command be that the faithfull study mutual unity and concord and that every one please his nighbour to edification none is so rude who may not perceive that what the Apostles here commanded is containd in the word of God And at the close he tells us Apostolâ—…s ex verbi Dei sinibus minime egredi That the Apostles would not step beyond the limits of the word of God But 2. This mans Babylonish tongue still wounds himself as well as the truth for 1. he acknowlegeth that what the Apostles here decreed was for the Good of the Church which if he understand any thing he must needs take it according to the grounds laid down in this disquisition specially that which the Apostle James proposes immediatly before his and the rest of ths Apostlee decision vers 21. viz. that Moses had in every city them that teach him being read every Sabath day So that it was needfull at that time upon the grounds of charity union and aedification to beat with the weak Jews in abstaining from these things discharged by Gods Law till the ceremonies were honourably buryed Hence it followes clearly that this abstinence was made necessary upon these weighty grounds at this time and not by the authority of the council only Neither was the matter enjoynd of a thing indifferent made necessary by their determination but upon these grounds and for the great end of the Churches good which he mentions this abstinence was at this time and in this case necessary And by the Apostles declared to be so upon divine warrand for what else will he make of that expression It seemed good to the Holy ghost Again Paul and the other Apostles had no power but to edification nor any dominion over the faith of Gods people and so acted nothing here pro arbitrio or imperio So that their sentence was only a declarator of Gods mindeanent that which was antecedaneously to their decree hic nnnc a necessary duty although we deny not that the Apostles decision was to have its own weight in determining the Churches obedience 2. He brings
call from Christ to preach in his name and so were not to be discharged by any power on earth Ans. 1. That the Apostles answer suites our case will be apparent when it s considered that our answer and Apology which we offer to our adversaries who do now accuse and persecute us upon this ground is one with theirs their grounds in their answer compared with the context are that they are Christs Ministers and witnesses employed about the great gospel message cloathed with his authority and under the obligation of Christs commands lying upon them Now will not this quadrat with our case as to the substance of this answer dare he say that the Magistrats Laws can exauctorat a Minister of the gospel or take away that ministerial authority which he received from Christ might not thus the ministry be put out of the world Dare he deny that he is a minister still notwithstanding of the Laws restraint and standing under a ministerial Relation to the Church as the Apostles were and under commands and obligations consequently in order to the exercise of the ministry can the Rulers meer prohibition loose either ministers their relation pastoral or the obligations flowing therefrom 2. Altho the call of the Apostles was immediat and extraordinary yet this will not prove that their answer will not suite the ordinary and mediat call in such a case as theirs when a minister is under a legal prohibition to preach for first we do not find that the Apostles did plead their extraordinary or immediat call mainly or only if at all in this case but their ministerial gospel call and message quatalis the authority of the one and the weight and importance of the other in relation to all Ministers are constant moral grounds bearing the conclusion of the same duty and apology as to them since the substance of this Apostolick apology lyes in this that they were Christs Ministers cloathed with his commission to preach the gospel which any faithfull Minister may plead in such a case 2. Tho their call was immediat and extraordinary upon which ground they were singularly out of the reach of the Rulers restraint as to their ministry yet they were so likewise as Christs messengers and ministers simply in a general sense for majus 〈◊〉 minus c. 3. As the Apostles had their power immediatly from Christ and not from the Rulers which is the great ground why they could not be Lawfully prohibit to preach and would not submit their ministerial authority its acts and exercise to the Rulers disposal especially the gospel-message being of so great importance so there is derived from them a ministerial authority in the Church independent in its nature and exercise upon the magistrat as theirs was tho the Apostles as I said had singular prerogatives beyond ordinary ministers and in that respect were singularly beyond the reach of their restaint Now this authority was exercised by the Church renitente Magistratu for several generations upon the same ground of this independent spiritual power and the weight of the gospel-message which the Apostles did here plead The Informer answers aly that this prohibition tended to the absolute supressing of the gospel and there was then no other way for propagating it through the world but by their preaching but now tho some be silenced others are allowed to preach Ans. 1. This piece of the apology for not obeying the Rulers mandat is of his bold putting in but nothing of it is in the text viz. that there were no others to preach the gospel but they Their Apology as I said is drawn from their authority and message simply 2 I ask him could any one of the Apostles have submitted to this prohibition upon an insinuation or assurance that the Magistrat would not hinder others to promote the gospel if they could not then he must grant that this anwer is naught that the Apostles refused because the prohibition tended to suppress the gospel For the gospel was preacht and propagat though one of them was a little after taken oft the stage if he say that any one or more of the Apostles would have submitted to the prohibition upon thir terms then 1. He contradicts his first answer that their extraordinary immediat call could not be discharged by any power on earth and 2. He charges them with unfaithfulness to Christ in laying up his talents and laying by his work upon mens command not to preach Sure Christs command and commission tyed all his Apostles conjunctly and severally Paul said too to me if I preach not the gospel and one Apostles diligence could not loose the obligation of the other and excuse his negligence 3. We have proved that there is no warrand from God for Rulers their immediat arbitrary discharging Christs Ambassadours to officiat and consequently faithfull Ministers are not obliged to obeye And upon the same ground that one apostle could not warrantably suffer the Magistrat to impose a silence upon him be cause others were permitted to preach It s unlawfull for ordinary Ministers to be silent because others are preaching and much more when those who are preaching are declaring themselves unfaithfull and destroying but not feeding So that our Informer doth but mock God if not blaspheme while blessing him that authority is opposit to our disorders not to the gospel The Doubter next asks him if the King and Laws can silence a Minister that he shall not preach the gospel He should have added by his own proper elicite acts as King or Magistrat or formally and immediatly But this man must still shrewd himself in the mist and clouds of deceitful generals and mould our arguments in his own disguise that his simple evasions may appear answers Well what sayes he to this doubt His answer is I ommit his insignificant reflection that Solomon thrust out Abiathar from the priesthood 1 Kings 2. 27. which was a restraining his priestly power as to its actual exercise to which he was bound to submit so a King may discharge a Minister to exercise his Ministry within his dominions which he must not counteract suppose he think the King and law wrongs him especially when others do preach tho he be silent Ans. This reason and instance is a baculo ad angulum Solomon punisht Abiathar civilly for a capital treasonable crime which deserved death telling him as the text saith that he was a man of death or one who deserved capital punishment according to the nature of the hebrew phrase which sentence of death Solomon upon the grounds mentioned in that passage did change into a sentence of banishment and by this civil punishment did consequenter put him from the exercise of his priestly office which he could not in that case perform Ergo he formally and immediatly deposed him and the civil magistrat may so immediatly and formally depose ministers this is a consequence utterly unknown to all rules of Logick or solid divinity The Instance
Presbyterian Ministers and their Assemblies Next Mr Rutherfoords scope is to prove that personal faults corrupt not the worship which wee deny not but as we have above cleared this falls utterly short of reaching his conclusion as to the owning of Curats untill he first prove his forementioned suppositions wherein he begs the question and this principle or assertion of Mr Rutherfoord will plead more strongly for not disowning Presbyterian Ministers untill this Informer prove his suppositions and disprove ours in this debate In a word the impertinency of all his citations here appears in this that there is no reason whereby he can ward of this argument its reaching adherence to Presbyterian Ministers and inferring a conclusion of owning them but it will either first be retorted upon himself or secondly the universality of the argument and the conclusion deduced there from so limited as utterly to irritat his design since he must acknowledge that there may be a Lawfull separation from a Ministry and ordinances altho not polluted by personal scandals And therefore this principle in every case will not infer a separation to be unlawfull far less a non union and he must acknowledge that to argue the unlawfulness of a separation or non-union in every case or meerly from this ground that there is no pollution of ordinances by the personal faults of Worshipers or administrators thereof is a gross petitio principii ignoratio elenchi and which his case supposeth many things which are to be proved as 1. That Conformists are this Church 2. That this practice of disowning them as now circumstantiat is properly a sinfull separation 3. That Prelatists have the best right to officiat as Ministers in this Church 4. That we have no other reasons for a non-union but this pretended pollution of ordinances and that we stand obliged upon this supposition that the ordinances are not thus polluted to joyn to them rather then Presbyterian Ministers And since this principle will prove them all to be Schismaticks who disowne Presbyterian Ministers in preaching the Gospel it will follow therefrom that our Informer is in this pamphlet pleading for Schism or else he must so limit this position as thereby his conclusion against us shall be utterly cut off as is said Fourthly he presents unto us that passage page 254. where he shews That the godly in England tho separating from Bishops and Ceremonies did not separat from that Church and approves their doing so and in keeping communion therwith in unquestionable duties the contrary whereof he charges upon these separatists against whom he reasoneth telling us ibidem that if a Church be incorrigible in a wicked conversation and yet retain the true faith it s to be presumed that God hath some there to be saved that Christ himself is where his ordinances are and some union with him the head that though a privat scandalous brother ought to be cast off yet not an Orthodox Chuch Ans. 1. The Presbyterians have all this to plead for pleoples adherence to them untill this Informer prove that the prelatick party are our nationall organick Church which will be ad Kalendas Graecas 2. Mr Rutherfoord all along states his question as to separation from a Church so and so polluted Ergo he spaks not of a Schismatick destroying Innovating party or a separation from them rather then a sound Church contending against them which would quite invert his scope and arguing and the ground and hypothesis thereof For I pose this man what if a party of acknowledged Innovators cast out the true Ministry and should plead this passage of Mr Rutherfoords for their schism and the peoples adherence to them sure he would charge them with begging the question as we do Consormists in this point and would acknowledge that Mr Rutherfoord pleads nothing for them Fiftly Mr Rutherfoord sayes ib idem We may separat from the Lords supper where the bread is ador'd and from baptism where the sign of the cross is yet we are not to separat from the Church Ans. We may hence collect that in Mr Rutherfoords principles 1. We are to separat from all contagious Worship tho not absolutly corrupt 2. That this is no separation from the Church while there is a purer Church Ministry to be joyned with and to which we were joynd 3. That a fortiori a non-union unto and disowning of a backsliding party who are not our Church is warrantable because of their contagious corruptions especially when as is said the opposition of that party to the true Church is so virulent Mr Rutherfoord tells us there that we separat not from the Church when we profess to hear the word and allow the truth of Doctrine and do not Presbyterian professors owne the true Doctrine of our Reformed Church while hearing and and adhering unto her faithfull Pastors Beside Mr Rutherfoord tells us that there may be cause of non-union where there is not sufficient cause of separation as Paul separat not from the Jews till they blasphemed yet saith he there was no cause why people should joyn to that Church before that time since they had the cleaner to joyn with viz. That of the Apostles Ergo in case of a true Reformed Church her being divided and rent by a backsliding destroying party opposing her Authority union and purity introducing Innovations into her contrary to her Reformation and vows and casting out her faithfull Ministry who dare not comply with their wicked course a non-union to them and adherence rather to that faithfull Ministry contending against them is no sinfull separation from the Church nor a separation at all by Mr Rutherfoords doctrine Sure the Presbyterian party are in our principles the cleanest Church to whom therefore Mr Rutherfoords allows to adhere page 253. But here the Informer presents us another passage in that same place to repell what is said viz. that he asserts there is no just cause to leave a less clean Church if true and to go to a purer though one who is a member of no Church may joyn to that which he conceives purest Ans. This makes as little for him as any of the rest for 1. He is still speaking of a Church thus intirely less pure in comparison of a more pure But blessed be God their prelatick impurity has not infected all our Church their being 1000 of Ministers professors who adhere to the truth This man will not say that this will plead for a peoples adherence to a party of Schismatick backsliders Intruding upon a pure Church Introducing Innovations into her and ejecting her faithfull Ministry as Conformists are now doing which will be yet more convincingly clear if we consider 2. that Mr Rutherfoord layes much weight upon this that a man is already a member of that Church which is less pure but we cannot be said to be hactenus members of and on this ground under a prior obligation of adherence unto a party of Innovators and
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.
any judge 2. The Diocesian Prelat debases and tramples upon this noble work in that be makes it in all the Pastores of the Dioces to depend upon his Lordly disposal and the authoritie thereof to be deryved from him as the sole proper Pastor of all the Diocess whose deputs the preachers are in this work although himself is obleiged to feed no flock 3 He maks these high and noble Acts of the power of order preaching and administration of Sacraments a lower and subordinat work and office to the work and office of ruleing only which is his Characteristick whereby he holds himself Superior to all the preachers of the Diocess whereas the Scriptur doeth as we heard appropriat the highest honour to the labourer in the word and doctrine as the nobler employment and office above the Ruler only 6. In this the Diocesian Prelats office is contrare unto and reprobat by the Scriptur in that by Apocriphal Antiscriptural new invented Degrees and orders It diversities and cutts asunder what God hes made one and the same I mean the Pastoral Office and by consequence other offices mentioned in Scripture as that of Prophets Evangelists Deacons non of which offices admites of Subordinat Spheeres and degrees but all the persons that are Intrusted with these offices are of the same degree and authority therin by the Word of God No Evangelist Prophet or Apostle is found of a Superior office or order to other Apostles Evangelists c. Whence comes this diversity then in the Pastoral office that one Pastor must have a Lordly Dominion over some hundreds of his fellowes If it be said that the Episcopal office succeeds that of the Apostles or Evangelists besides that wee shall disprove this afterward and shew that these offices taken formaliter as superior to that of the Pastor are expyred as sound Divines doe almost universally grant I answer that most if not all Prelatists ancient and modern doe hold the Diocesian Prelat to be no officer Specifially distinct from the Presbyter or Pastor but only gradually distinct as being a Pastor with a more amply extended authority for order of Government Mr Burnet in his pretended vindication of the present Prelacie 4t Conference pag. 310 311. tells us that he is not clear anent the notion as he calls it of the distinct offices of Bishop and Presbyter and akonowledges the Presbyter to be of the hiest office in the Church telling us that the Prelat is but a different degree in the same office Although in this he and the rest doe speak most inconsequently the forementioned ingredients of the Prelatical function being such as doe certanly amount to make up a new species of ane office such as a different work consecration or ordination the actus primus of a State Ruler different qualifications by consequence above and beyond these of a Presbyter The diversitie of these distinguishes the Scripture offices of Apostles Evangelists c. which Paul setts in several Classes as first and second 1 Cor. 12 28. Mr Burnet his reason is the same with that of others herine viz the Pastors authority to administer the word Sacraments which are the highest acts of the power of order He tells us that since the Sacramental actions are the highest of sacred performances he cannot but acknowlege that such as are impowered for them must be of the hiest office in the Church now I say since they will needs have the Diocesian Bishop to be only a different degree of the Presbyterat or Pastoral office they cannot with any shaddow of reason make him Successor to the Evangelists or Apostles in their formal office which they will not dare to affirm to be only a different degree of the Presbyterat or Pastores office and will affirme it to have been specifically distinct from the same The Ancients and Schoolemen held that the Pastor in his ordination receaved the same Power of Government that the Prelat hath but that the Prelat is the primus Presbyter who hath the raines of all the exercise in his hand But how cross is this to Scripture that any Church officer hath a power and authoriritie which he cannot exercise To whomsoever God hath given the power he hath certainlie commanded the exercise of it and particularly Pastores or Presbyters are as we have heard enixely commanded to exercise all their Pastoral authority and power as they shall answer to their great Master Besyds if the Pastoral office or its official power of order and jurisdiction may be warrantably thus divided and cutt out in Shreeds and parcells and divyded among different recipients then it were lawful to divyde preaching and administration of the Sacraments so as one Presbyter notwithstanding of his authority and mission in relation to both word and Sacraments receaved in his ordination might have preaching only allowed to him but no administration of Sacraments Another might be allowed to administer Sacraments but not to preach One Presbyter upon the pretence of order or union pretences are never wanting to humane inventions might be sett a part and authorised to Baptise all the Children in a wholl Province doing nothing else of the Pastoral Office And this power by the same authority might be taken from all the Pastoures of the Province Sure all would acknowledge this to be a most wicked divyding and diversifieing what God the conjoyned And such is this Prelatical divyding of the Pastoral charge in relation to order and jurisdiction or the keys of Doctrine Government the power wherof the Pastor receaves intirely in his ordination as well as the Authority of administrating Sacraments 7. In this the Diocesian Bishop is contrare to Scripture In that his Office is in many respects cross to the very nature of the Gospel-Church Government and is ane Office which the man that exercises cannot but in so farr cease to be a Gospel Church-ruler Which I prove thus 1. Since all authority in the Diocess as to either the Word or Disciplin is deryved from the Bishop as its proper fountaine and subject this power of the Bishop is properlie and of its own nature not a Gospel Ministery But a dominion and principalitie discharged to Church Officers of what ever sorte whose authority is not a despotick nomothetick or architectonick power but a Ministerial Stewardship only Matth. 20 v 25 26. 2 Cor. 1 24. 1 Cor. 4 D. 1 Pet. 5 2 3. 3 Epist. John 9. The work of all Church Officers is called a Ministery Pastours Doctores yea Apostles Evangelists were appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the worke of the Ministery Ephes. 4 12. 2 Cor. 4 v. 5. Paul calls himself a fellow servant with Epaphras Collos. 17. with Tichicus Collos. 4 7. And calls Ministers his fellow-souldiers and fellow-labores Philip. 4. 3 -2 25-Rom 16 3 -2 The Bishops power inverts Christs rule as to the gradation in point of censures and appealls which is from one one to more from the lesser number to the greater from
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
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
us the Image and lineaments of our present prelacie in the Jewish Church Government For 1. We cleared above that the Ecclesiastick Sanhedrin was distinct from the civil and that the priests had a distinct independent authority and ministery But the prelats derive all their spiritual authority from the Magistrat 2. He cannot shew that either the Highpriest or any inferiour priests had the sole decisive Suffrage in their ecclesiastick Courts or such a negative voice as the prelats exercise assumein their pretended Synods and presbyteries The learned Iunius will informe our Informer De Cler. Cap. 24 Not 13. That par consortium honoris potestatis fuit inter sacerdotes sed ordine impari qua familiarum qua temperis respectu Penes concessum sacerdotum ex lege fuit ordinaria jurisdictio ecclesiastica That is Among the priests there was a like participation of honour and power though in a different order partly in respect of families and partly in respect of times the ordinarie ecclesiastick jurisdiction belonged to the assemblie of the priests according to the Law Thus he Sure then it belonged not to the Highpriest alone farr less to any inferiour priests and therefore none of them all had our prelats negative voice in judicatories or a sole decisive Suffrage so that they were farr from our prelats principality as to directive and corrective power And therefore though we should grant that his argument will hold as to our being oblidged by the policie of the Jewes and to have the government of the Gospel Church this moulded yet our present hierarchie is so different from it that it will not help his cause in the least But the doubter objects that there ought not to be such a subordination under the new Testament To which he answers That the Old Testament-subordination being to maintaine order and unitie in the in the Church there is the same reason for it under the new and stronger because the Christian Church is of larger extent then the Iewish and the danger of schismes and the necessity of preventing them the greater And what better way for this then Gods way thus exemplary pointed out to us although the New Testament gave no other ground Gods own model being best for the Church I answ 1. He must plead for much more then a meer subordination of Officers if he speak to the point as is clear from that is said And his Doubter if he had dealt fairely should have objected that the New Testament Church ought not to have the same mould of government that the Jewish had and that there is a vast disparitie betwixt their prelatick Erastian Hierarchie and the Jewish Church-Government Both which grounds doe break the force of his argument But it is good that our Informer hath the doubters arguments and objections of his own moulding 2. Though he know reason of a subordination under the Old Testament he should have said of that particular mould of government which the Iewish Church had but his general one to maintaine order and union in Gods Church he should have said in that Church under that special dispensation yet we have showen him some Reasons of their particular policie which doe not reach us And shall onely resume to him that we have neither 1. Such a distinction of tribes Nor 2. A common Temple and common Ministry in one Temple for the universal or for any National Church as they Nor 3. Have we such types and shaddowes from which as upon the former grounds this mould of government did flow Nor 4. Such various sanctuarie offices and degrees and varieties of administrations requiring as Bishop Bilson hath told him such varietie and different degrees of Administratores the Word and Sacraments being concredited to all Ministers without distinction c. Besides hath not the Apostle in the forementioned passage Hebr. 7 12. Given this Informer a sufficient Reason why wee are not tyed to the same Policie viz because that the Priosthood is changed i. e. their particular frame of Church officers that therefore there is made a change of the Law that is of the legal ordinance both of worship Government 3. Darene say that Christs Church under the New Testament may have every mould of government which may be in it self or in respect of some circumstances commendable and subservient to these ends of order and union Where is Christs faithfulness as a Sone over his own house beyond that of Moses Where are all the New Testament prescriptions in point of government Officers Lawes Censures if the Church thereof like a Tabula rasa may have any government introduced into it which may be in its own time and place good and Ministers framed according to the Old Testament dispensation 4. How will our Informer extricat himself as to the Jewish High priest in maintaining this Answer to his doubter Was not his office a special mean of order and unitie in that Church and to prevent schisme s and divisions And is there not the same reason that the Christian Church should be thus kept from that evil by a supream Highpriest or bishop What better way for this then Gods owne way And what better pattern for modelling the New Testament-Church in point of her government then this pattern Surely the Pope will thank him for this I know he sets aside in contradiction to Saravia as I shall shew the Highpriest in his argument as a Type of Christ the man forsaw that this would cast his argument in to ane intire Popish mould but he is not so forseeing as to prevent his being snared by his own reason caught in the brieres of contradictions For 1. He dare not deny that this Officer was a singular Mean of their order and union Hence he must grant that his answer to the doubters objection is naught and that Gods way of preserving order and union in the New Testament Church is different from his way and the means of preverving it under the Old and that the Samenes of the end of Gods ordinances and institutiones under both dispensations will not plead for holding the same institutiones Was not order union and the edification of the Church the great end of all the Mosaical Ceremonies and Pedagogie Were not the Jewes for this great end of order and union to keep their solemne Feasts To go up to Jesusalem solemly and joynly three tymes in the year To have one common Temple one Altar c. And must therefore the Christian Church observe the same ordinances and institutions 2. How will he prove that the inferiour Priests were not Types of Christ as well as the Highpriest Dare he say that their praying for the people and their sacrificeing were not typical of Christs intercession and sacrifice as well as the praying and sacrificing of the High priest though not in the same degree of eminencie I grant that the Apostle Heb. 5. speaking of the authority and honour of Christs Priesthood presentes
among other corruptions and since he drawes his first instance of the Levits subordination from Exod 6. before that tribe was set apart at all to the Holy Ministery that passage at least and as I said in the judgment of some its parallels also aftermentioned by him doe speak of the Civil Government and subordi nation of the Levites in that capacitie and that any of their Chief rulers are by the Greeks termed Episcopus is a very poor argument to conclude their Ecclesiastick rule it being notourly known that the best Greek Authores put his designation upon Civil Governoures This subordination among the Levites in Exod. 6 15. is unquestionably civil upon the ground assigned And numb 3. It is evident that the heads and princes of Families are numbered And accordingly the heads and Chief of the families 1 Chron. 24. and in Neh 11 14. He that is set over the priests is the son of one of the great men Haggedolim or eminent in paris and place as many take it 1 Chron. 24 4. before the division and order is set down it s said there were more Chief men found of the sones of Eleazar then of the sones of â—…thamar c. all which doth much plead forthis assertion but we need not be peremptor in pressing this since the weight of our answer lies not upon it Our Informer comes nixt to his New Testament proofes for Bishops and produces first the superiority of the twelve Apostles above the seventy Disciples Where 1. Wee see He is still in the clouds of a general superiority which is farr from the Prince-like Arbitrary and Erastian superioritie of the Diocesian Prelat now existent and whom he undertakes to plead for which this Informer Had he intended to have informed right should have condescended upon Had the Apostles such a superioritie over the seventy Disciples Were they subject to the Apostles as their Rectors and judges Did the Apostles as our Prelats assume a Sole Decisive conclusive suffrage and a negative voice over Church Judicatories notwithstanding of their extraordinary and high prerogatives Did we not see the contrary exemplified in that meeting of Apostles with ordinary Ministers Act. 15 Had the seventy onely a derived precarius Ministry under the twelve Apostles as their Vicars Substitutes in their Ministration Had they no Interest in the Church-Government but upon the Apostles meer pleasure As Curats are now in all these respects subject to their Prelats Had not the seventy their mission their institution immediatly from Christ as well as the Apostles themselves Were they not consequently to exercise their Ministery upon this ground without such a servil dependance upon the twelve as Prelats doe arrogat to themselves ane arbitrary principality over Ministers Were the twelve to rule only and to committ the preaching worke to the seventy as their deputes as our Prelats now doe Or were they not rather to help forward the great harvest and the work of the Ministery together with the Apostles themselves So that this Informer will never find the least shaddow of ane Episcopall superiority here But 2. Granting that the Apostles were officers in asuperiour degree to the seventy which is the utmost Conclusion which he can draw from Scripture how will this infer a superiority among officers of the same degree We grant the Apostles were superior to Evangelists they againe to Pastoures Ergo one Pastour may be a diocesian Prelat over hunderds of other Pastours is a consequence known to no logick Christ appointed both extraordinary and ordinarie officers in their severall degrees as Apostles Evangelists Pastours Ergo he appointed different degrees of Pastours hath no connexion imaginable 3. Tht basis of his argument lyes in this that the Prelats are immediat successours of the Apostles in their degree of superiority to the seventy Disciples and Pastours come after the seventy in their supposed subjection and are not the Apostles immediat successours in the ordinary Ministery but this as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the quesitum or question must be proved not begged and supposed by him We did already evince the contrary viz That the Pastour to whom is committed the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments and both the keys immediatly from the Apostles are the highest ordinary officers and the Apostles immediat successorus as to both order and Jurisdictione But the doubter and I object furder that the Apostles superioritie over the seventie was extraordinary personall temporarie and to cease with themselves In answer to this He grants that in some things their priviledges were extraordinary and to cease with themselves such as their immediat cas ling their sending to all nations their infallibility gifts of tongues or whatever was necessary for the first founding of the obristian Châ—…rch but in other things wherein they were superior to other Ministers their power was not extraordinary and temporarie but still to be continued such as ordination of Ministers and governeing them by ecclesiastick authority in which power the Bishops succeeds them who are the children in stead of the Fathers as Augustin applies that of Psal. 45 v. 19. Ans. 1. Then it seems that with him the Episcopal office properly succeeds to that of the Apostles and is a continuation of their power in ordination and jurisdiction over Pastours which contradicts his second answer to our Argument from Ephes. 4 viz that Bishops in that place may be comprehended under the the office of Pastours teachers For here he makes their office the same with that of the Apostles as importing ane authority in ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors and teachers and so he should have said rather that it is comprehended under the Apostolick office 2. He yet againe contradicts himself in this answer whill granting that whatsoever was necessary for the first planting of the Christian Church is a priviledge ceased with the Apostles and yet making their power of ordination of Ministers and in governing them to be still necessary he must understand it as performed and done by them since therein he imagins the pattern of episcopall power to ly For other wayes the Presbyterians doe hold and prove that ordination by the Presbytery and Government by Presbyters collegiatly is still continued and necessarie This he will not allow and so must understand it of the manner wherein the Apostles performed this at first Now I say their Apostolick power in ordination and Government as exercised by them at first was necessarie for the first founding of the Church For 1. Their power of ordination was of equal limits and extent with their mission to all nations Goe disciple all nations I hope he will grant was extraordinary as being necessary for the first founding of the churches Ergo say I. so was their power in ordination and Government of Ministers since it was of a like nature and of the same extent for to what ever nations they were sent together a Church therein there they were to ordaine Ministers
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
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
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-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
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
all along he pleads by many arguments in the places mentioned that if the thing be indifferent the case of offence makes it unlawfull And all his arguments in these passages which do press the eshewing of offence are moral and constantly binding and consequently admit no such restriction as this such as Christs tenderness of the weak their redemption purchased by his blood Christian liberty the evill of my brothers doubting whatsoever is not of faith is sin c. And he moves objections against his doctrine such as I have knowledge I have faith And shall I be limited of my liberty because anther is weak or wilfull c. Such like objections he moves and answers but of this exception and restriction anent a command from Rulers altering the nature of the thing and loosing all his arguments in relation to offence the Apostle mentions nothing 2. This puts a blasphemous authority upon the Magistrat we know the terrible interminations and threatnings thundered against giving offence and discoveries of the dreadfull tendency thereof wo to them by whom offence comes Again better be cast into the sea then offend one of the little ones destroy not him saith Paul with thy offensive carriage for whom Christ dyed Now will the Magistrats command give me sufficient warrand and security in and for a thing indifferent to destroy my brother and will it list off Christs wo and make it lighter then a feather which is more dreadfull then to be cast into the sea with a milstone tyed about ones neck 3. I would know if this Informer will deny that the Apostolick precepts in relation to offence scandal pressed with important and great motives in the premised Scriptures are of ane universal and moral nature and do reach and oblige all that owne the profession of Christianity in their several relations and capacities These precepts founded upon the everlasting and constantly binding grounds and motives of union charity and love to the brethren the great gospel command edification the communion of Saints the very bonds and ligaments compacting and strengthning Christs mystical body none can deny to be of an universal extent and to be among the grand rules of Christian practice limiting and directing our carriage in whatever relation we stand whether Ministers or people Masters or servants Parents or children c. And the superiour being under the obligation of these great rules unless we will make God a respecter of persons it necessarily followes that they do direct and limit him in the exercise of his power so that this being one Regula Regulans as to all the Magistrat Laws it s must absurd to imagine that his counter-practice and Laws can loose himself or others from this divine superiour obligation unlesse we will deiesie him and make his Law practice the soveraign and supreme rule in every point as well as in this Whence it followes by necessary consequence that the practice which is offensive scandalous and destructive to our brother in its present circumstances and upon the constant unerring scripture grounds rules cannot be altered in its present quality and state by mens commands crossing the divine Law but remains a sinful scandalous practice though a hundred Lawes enjoyn and authorize it 4. Was not Pauls Apostolick declarator that evry thing sold in the shambles might be Lawfully eaten as powerfull to exeem that action of eating such things from the compass of offence as the Magistrats Law and authority Sure he had at least as much if not more authority in this point then the Magistrat especially as this Informer expones authority afterward from Acts 15. 28. yet that same practice Lawfull in it self and by the Apostle declared to be so and accordingly enjoyned and authorized by him must not be used in this case of the offence even of the weak and ignorant but the Apostle himself though thus declaring and may I say authoring the lawness of the practice declares he will never use nor take it up in this case of offence I beseech him was not the warrantabliness of this practice in it self by the Lords word declaring all things to be clean to the clean and Pauls Apostolick declarator in this place as valide to render it of indifferent necessary to the users as the command of our civil Rulers in relation to this practice under debate and a litle more he having the mind of Christ and being a Master builder of the Churches Yet the offending of the weak ignorant yea or wilfull will in his Judgement cut short this liberty and render the practice sinfull upon that ground But moreover the instance of the brazen serpent will here bite and sting his cause and argument to death for it was an eminent type of Christ and reserved and sure our Informer will say warrantably as a signal monument of that rare typical cure of the people stung by the fierie serpents in the wilderness yet when the people were stumbled and it became an occasion of their sinning and committing Idolatry good Hezekiah brake it called it Nehushtan and is commended for it by the Spirit of God Now in this mans principles the interposing of authority for its preservation was sufficient to keep it from being destroyed though all Israel should have been never so much stumbled and ensnared to Idolatry by it but the keeping of this monument God would dispense with in this weighty case Sure that which rendred the preservation of it highly provoking and Hezekiahs breaking of it commendable was its stumbling and ensnaring tendency and effects whatever authority and acts might have interposed formerly for its preservation Will the Informer say that Gideons ephod which in his intention was only designd for a monument of that victory over the Midianites was lawfully preserved when it became thus ensnaring as the brazen Serpent or that the preservation of it was lawfully authorized in this case surely he will not for shame assert this and so the case is here and he may see in these instances if his eye be single that a practice though in it self lawfull or indifferent yet when become offensive in its present circumstance and inductive to sin cannot in that case be rendred warrantable by any Laws of the Magistrat Finally our Informer in this asâ—…ertion cosseth found Divines and Casuists as well as the Scripures yea and fights with himself For we have heard from Chrysostom and Pareus who are herein accorded by all our writers that the action which is in its preseut state and circumstance scandalous is while cloathed with these Circumstances necessarily evill and upon many weighty grounds severely prohibited by the spirit of God in the Scriptures forecited So that no power and Laws men of can remove these scripture limits march-stones Next the great ground and rule anent a scandalous action and upon which the scripture motives against it are grounded is the state condition and freedom of the conscience lest it be hindred in its plerophory
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