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
use in after ages But are they therefore to be imitated and retained What will he say to the Papists pleading for the anoinâ—… of the sick upon the Apostle James his precept let the elders anoint the sicke with oile and pary this is ane Act enjoyned to ordinary officers viz to elders and joyned with with prayer a constant standing dutie and he will not say that this Apostolick precept is to be ex punged as useles What must we therefore retean anointing would he not in this case distinguish betwixt that which is a constant dutie and a temporarie concomitant and appendix Acted not the Apostles extraordinarely in their very preaching both as to its extent its confirmation by miracles their gifts of tongues and are not the Acts of preaching and baptizing of constant use in the Church Must not this Informer grant that these Apostolick Acts of preaaching and baptizing are perpetual though the mould and maner is extraordinary and gone in so far as their extraordinary Apostolick power interposed therein Thus the Acts of ordination and jurisdiction are moral but the modusrei is extraordinary in so farr as their Evangelistik authority and special legation interposed therein He must either acquiesc in this and acknowledge this his argueing Sophistick and pueril or he will contradict what he said before anent the Apostles extraordinary Priviledges which are gone with them viz infaillibilitie their immediat call sending to all nations and what else was necessary for the first founding of the Church Now is not that which was thus necessary of perpetual use Are we not built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Are not the ordinances and Ministery receaved from them of perpetuall use And their most extraordinary Acts if we mean it of improvement Nay did not the new-Testament Church receave the Law of God and ordinances from the Jewes Must we therefore Judaize 2. How will he prove that the asserting that any officer hath ane extraordinary authority conversant about such ane Act will give ground to say that the Act it self is extraordinary or the ordinance touched by that Act expyred Will his asserting that the Apostles exercised ane extraordinary authority which is now ceased in their preaching unfixedly by ane immediat call and confirming their doctrine with miracles and strange tongues give ground to conclude that the ordinances of preaching and baptizing are expired also I trow he will not grant this How then will our asserting that Timothy and Titus put forth ane extraordinary Evangelistick authority in ordination and jurisdiction infer that the Acts of ordination and jurisdiction or these ordinances themselves are expired can he not distinguish betwixt the power it self and the different subject and manner of its exercise ordinary or extraordinary can he not see in Scripture ane extraordinary power derived and cut out in a succession of different and ordinary channels and diverslie exercised Sayes he not that the Apostles had ane extraordinary power of both ordination and jurisdiction and both the keyes But I trow he asserts that there are different recipients who bring down ane ordinary power by succession Some Prelats forsooth have the key of Governmant others viz Presbyters have preaching for their work but no rule properly And sayes he not that the extensive authority in which the Apostles exercised their Ministry is gone and a limited ordinary Ministry derived from them If the extraordinary Mission of twelve Apostles hath derived from it a Ministery and ecclesiastick authority spread throw all Church-officers in the world who succeed them not into the same office let this Informer shew me why may not Timothies Evangelistick extraordinary power in ordination and jurisdiction be deryved by and seatted in a Presbytery though the Evangelistick Office is extraordinary and as such not succeeded unto The service and worke of teaching and governing to continue in all times doth not render the Apostolick mission or commission ordinarie nor infer their being succeded in idem officium eundem gradum the ordinary power being institut and settled in the hands of ordinary officers by a new warrand and commission according to the Scripture rules of ordination The office of Moses was not rendered ordinary because many works of Government exercised by him were recommitted to the Elders of Israel and so the case is here The Evangelists extraordinary office and commission necessary as that of the Apostles for the first founding of the Churches and watering and building them up in their organick being for settling all their ordinary officers is changed into the Presbytery their ordinary Collegiat power of ordination jurisdiction which we find was in the Apostolick Churches exercised and even in this of Ephesus His 2d Reason to prove them Bishops is Because their commission at Ephesus Crete was nâ—…t voyded upon the first settling of Ministers in those places therefore their office was to be constant since if meerly as Evangelists they were to settle a Church there then they were to give place to the Presbytery when some Ministers were ordained but they did not so â—…itus needed not ordain Elders in every city if some few ordained might ordain the rest Ans. 1. This is a poor argument and hath no twist of a connexion their commission at these places was not voyded upon the first settleing of Ministers ergo they were not extraordinary officers but had a standing Episcopacie there which is a meer rope of sand The Apostles office and commission was not voyded over all Churches when settled Ergo they had no extraordinary inspection office or commission towards all these Churches What consequence is here So may it be said of these Vicarious Apostles their commission to these or other Churches could not be voided or expired though they were never so much settled but they were prore nata to visite and water all the Churches and bring Apostolick instructions to them and reports from them anent their case We have proved that Timothie and Titus exercised their extraordinary office and commission towards many other Churches after their return from these of Ephesus Crete so that their commission towards these or other Churches could be no more voided whil the Apostles Imployed them therin then their office Besid this Informer should advert that Timothy is left To charge some that they teach no other doctrine which was a commission beyond the meer settling of Ministers and supposing some already settled 2. Will he say that Timothy and Titus were ordinary standing officers or Bishops over these severall Churches where they might reside some time and have Imployment therin even after they had officers of their own did they not visite and water many other Churches were they therefore their Bishops if so he must quickly transport them to be Bishops of other Churches after they were Bishops here exalt them to metropolitan's as some of the ancients make them 3. Their Evangelistik inspection direction and assistence even after
some ordinary officers were settled could no more prejudge the ordinary power and authority of these officers then the Apostles extraordinary inspection and infallible universal directive power could prejudge the Churches ordinary authority in ordination and jurisdiction The Apostles power which could not be voyded nor expyre whil they were alive being Cumulative unto but not privative of the Churches ordinary power so it is here I would ask our Informer was Pauls apostolick commission to Crete and Ephesus voyded after Bishops were set up there Nay he will not say it But did this Null the Episcopall power of Timothy and Titus over these Churches I trow not Well no more could Timothys extraordinary inspection make voyd the ordinary power of presbyters 4. We told him already that how long soever Timothy and Titus were resident there they were to doe nothing pro imperio and were not to lord it over the presbyters 5. Although elders once ordained have power to ordaine others yet the bene esse did call for the Inspection and direction of such highely gifted and extraordinary officers herein as these were And Moreover in that Infant-state of the Church Apostolick precepts and rules in reference to Church government and the exercise of both the keyes were to be delivered by these extraordinary officers consequently might call for protract their continuanc therein even after ordinary officers were ordained Infine He cannot deny but that the Apostle recalled both Timothy and Titus from these places to the further prosecution of their employment in other Churches and that their transient imployment therein is held out after their return from Ephesus and Cret as likwayes their occasionall employment in both these places which will in so farr voyd their commission in relation to them as clearly to refuâ—… the supposed episcopal ordinary charge which he alledges they exercised Next from the Authores of jus divinum Minist evangel concluding against the peoples power of ordination upon Timothy and Titus being left at these places to ordaine elders The Informer inferrs against them thus why was Timothy or Titus left to ordaine elders after some were ordained by Paul If Ministers so ordained could ordaine the rest and after some were ardained by Timothy and Titus they were left still upon that imployment I answer his inference touches not these Reverend authors in the least The ordaineing of elders in relation to the beue esse even after some elders were there and the furder directing and compleating of these Churches in their members and officers did require ane Evangelistick inspection though the ordinarie power of ordaineing remained with the ordinary elders and Church officers as the scripture doth clearly hold out Paul haveing after committed to the elders of this Church of Ephesus the whol power of government But the scripture gives not the least hint of the peoples power to ordaine but attributs this still to Church officers as proper to them So that this Inference stands good in the generall though some were converted to Christianity there yet they could not ordaine officers but Church officers were sent upon that Imployment ergo Church officers must ordaine and not the people but the speciall inference will not hold ergo Biohops must only ordaine for the reasons already given no more then from Paules ordaining the first elders it will follow ergo Paul or ane Apostle only must ordaine which is a Consequence our Informer dare not admitt else he will contradict himself It is a good consequence Paul a Church officer preached and baptized ergo none but Church officers must preach and baptize but ergo none but ane Apostle must preach and baptize is bad logick So his inference is neither logicall nor theological His 3d. Reason to prove Timothy a Bishop is taken from Pauls solemne Charge 1. Tim. 6. 13. to keep what he had commanded him till the appearing of Iesus Christ. That presbyterians particularly jus divinum Minist pag. 74. hold these Directions to be for all ages of the Church making them paralleel with Matth. 28. 20. anent Christs promised presence to the end and 1 Tim. 5. 7 21. Anent Pauls Charge to observe these things Whence he concludes that they were to have successors in their office and were not extraordinary officers since these divines say page 160. That Apostolick examples in things necessary for the good of the Church and which cary a perpetuall equiry and reason in them have the force of a rule and the Apostles setting Timothy and Titus over these Churches is ane example Apostolick for the good of the Church and hath a perpetuall reason and equitie in it Ans. 1. Wee have made it appear that no directions given to Timothy will amount to demonstrat any episcopall dominion over this Church and that he had no sole or arbitrary power either in ordination or jurisdiction consequently that the charge of keeping that which was commanded him will Import inferr no keeping of ane Episcopall charge 2. Wee have also shewed what a bad consequence it is to argue from the perpetual use of precepts or directions given to extraordinary officers in relation to extraordinary acts towards the Churches imitating of these acts and retaineing these expired functions which is palpably a non-sequitur as this man can not deny else he will swallow horrid absurdities Every thing which is for our constant use and Improvement is not likwayes for our Imitation Againe 3. I would ask this Informer if the Command 1. Tim. 6. 13. joyned with the promise Matth. 28. 20. Will not reach and include every peece of the Apostolik and evangelistik office Sure he cannot deny this and yet he acknowledges there were severall peeces of their work temporary and expyred Will he dare to say that what the apostle commanded Timothy in this Epistle was confined within Ephesus or reached him only as oversieing that Church and not in relation to his Evangilistick office throw all the Churches and that the promise Matth. 28. did not reach the most extraordinary Apostolick Acts So that himself must distinguish unless he be inconsistent with himself betwixt what is moral and extraordinary in this command and charge and accordingly reached by the promise 4. His citation from the Ius divin Minist c Cuts the throate of his cause for argueing thus against privat persons intrudeing into the ministry That the scripture layes down rules for calling men to that office they instance in the qualifications of the person Citeing 1. Tim. 3. 2 3. anent the properties of the scripture Bishop or presbyter Then they add That the Scripture directs as to the maner of his calling viz who are to ordaine how hee is to be ordained citeing 1. Tim. 4. 14. viz that the presbytery is to ordaine and ordaine by the laying on of hands adding that these directions are for all ages and citeing â—…1 Tim. 6 13 14. Now if these perpetuall directions for all ages be touching no other Bishops but
themselves into which wee hopâ—… will be aboundantly clear to the understanding peruser of what I have offered upon that head and the state of the question as It is exhibited how clear and full our confessions and principles are in asserting the due right of Magistracy as well as of a true Gospel Ministry and how harmoniously wee join to the confessions of all the Reformed Churches herein is sufficiently notour to the unbyassed and judicious and consequently that no precipitations or strayings from the scripture path upon these heads can be charged upon our cause and principles Great and manifold have been the assaults of Satan upon this poor Church and reproaches of that grand accuser of the brethren upon our Reformation and the faithful promoters thereof And the plowers have long plowed upon her back and enemyes of all sorts have many time afflicted her from her youth O that our provoked jealous God would shew us wherefore he contends and give both Ministers and People a heart-affecting sight and sense of the true grounds of this controversy and shew unto us our transgressions wherein wee have exceeded and provoked him thus to lengthen out our desolation that he would excite Ministers to make full proof of their ministry and open up to them an effectual door and engadge his people to a due and suitable subjection to their Ministry that this word might run swiftly and this sword of the Lord eut the cords of the wicked that wee were all excited to encompase his throne with strong crying and tears in order to the returning of the Ecclipsed departing glory that this great Shepherd Israel would shew himself the only wise of God and the only Potentate in dissappointing and crushing the crafty cruel stratagems and designes of Satan now acting both the roaring lyon and subtile old Serpent and of his grand Lieutenant Antichrist and his Artizans That this our Isle upon which the â—…ay-spring from on high did early shinâ—… and which did early wait for his Lawâ—… who is Zions great Lawgiver was recâ—… vered from Popish darknesse and froâ—… decayes after the times of Reformation may have a restoring healing visit and being made a maried land may be upon this ground a land of desires That Christs Tabernacle now fallen down may be rear'd up according to the pattern and planted among us untill his glotious appearance to accomplish his Churches warfare and to make up his jewells This is the Expectation of the prisoners of hope and in this expectation let us turn in to the strong hold even to his name which is a strong tower and go on in his strentgh keeping his good way which hath alwayes been strenth unto the upright Let us contend for the faith once delivered to the saints and be stedfast unmoveable alwayes abounding in the work of the Lord since he comes quickly who is our head and judge and his reward is with him so that neither our labour nor suffering shall be in vain in the Lord. The Contents FIRST PART Chap. 1. page 2. THat the prelat now established in this Church is both Diocesian and Erastian cleared By the present standing acts hereanent page 2 3. A twofold state of the question proponed accordingly Arguments from Scripture against the Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church officer such as 1. appropriating the term Episcopus common to all Pastors to a Prelat The absu diâ—…y of this discovered Calvines remarkeable Testimony on Titus 1 7. page 4. 2 making it relate to Pastors which hath the flock for its immediat object Cleared from 1 Pet. 5 3. Invading and nulling the Authority allowed to Presbyters The matter of fact cleared from the principles of Prelatists and the absurdity hereof from severall Scripture grounds page 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. 4. Impeaching Christs Kingly office as head of his Church and the perfection of his word in obtruding an officer on his Church of a different mould from those described and allowed by him cleared from the nature of the prelats office and some Scripture grounds page 13 14 15. Chap. 2. page 16. Some more Arguments against the Diocesian Prelat that his office debases the acts and exercise of the power of order cleared from the matter of fact and Severall Scripture grounds page 16 17 18. It maimes and diversifies the Pastorall office by Anti-Scripturall new invented degrees thereof cleared at large page 19 〈◊〉 His office many wayes contrare to thevery nature 〈◊〉 the gospell Church Government cleard also at largâ—… from the nature of the Prelats office and several Scripture grounds page 21 22 23 24. Cap. 3 page 25. The Diocesian Bishops office debases extraordinary offices in consounding them with ordinary cleared from the Scripture-account of these extraordinary offices and the nature of the Prelats office according to the principles and pleading of the Episcopall party Pag 25 26 27 28 29. 30. The derivation of the Prelats office from the Apostolical Authority and the power of Timothy and Titus loaded with absurdities ibid. Chap. 4. page 30. The Diocesian Prelats office takes away the peoples right to call their Pastor This right proved from Scripture and divine reason page 31 32 33. It excludes the office of the ruling elder proved from the practice of Prelatists as likewayes the preceeding charge the divine right of this office proved from several Scripture grounds especially 1 Tim. 5 17. And some chief exceptions of the prelatick party examined Page 34 35 36 37 38. Chap. 5. page 39. That the present Prelacy is grosse Erastianisme proved from the matter of fact some Arguments against it under that notion It excludes and denyes all Church Government in the hands of Church officers distinct from the civill contrary to the Churches priviledge both under the Old and New Testament which is demonstrat at large Page 41 42 43 44 Is in many points ane incroachment upon the liberties of the gospel Church and upon Christs mediatory Authority over the same which is cleared page 45 46. Chap. 6 page 47. Erastianisme denyes the compleat constitution of the Apostolick Church in point of Government Removes the Scripture land marks set to distinguish the civil and Ecclesiastick powers which is cleared in several points page 47 48 49 50. It is lyable to great absurdities ibid. Chap. 7. pag. 51. The Informers shifting and obscuring the true state of the question anent Episcopacy and flinching from the point debateable discovered several wayes page 52 53 He declines a direct pleading for the Prelats civill offices yet offers some arguments in defence thereof wherin his prevarication and contradiction to himself is made appear His pretended Scripture Arguments from the Instances of Eli and Samuel and the Priests concurrence in that Court 11 Numb to fortify the Prelats civil state offices ad examined page 54 55 56 57 58 59. He is contradicted by interpreters in this point Antiquity full and clear against him The grounds of the Assembly 1638 Sess. 25. Against the
do destroy that distinctione Mr Gillespie Eng Pop Cerem Ames Consc Lib 5. Cap. 11. Mr Durham on Scandal part 3. Chap 1 discover the futility of his doctrine on this head page 139 140 141 142 143 144. The Doubters Argument for presbyterian Ministers preaching in the manner contraverted taken from Christ and his Apostles preaching in the fields and houses The Informers general answer anent Christs not separating people from the Synagogue weighed and found frivolous page 145 146 147. Some special reasons wherefore our Lord did not separate the people from the Synagogue ibid. The special grounds of our Lords practice offred by him to enervat our Argument considered and Answered Such as his bringing in the doctrine of the Gospell as the Messiah his being head of the whole Church page 148 149 150 151. What actions of our Lord were mitable Rules hereanent allowed by sound divines applyed to the case and practice controverted That the law allowes the gospell to be preached purely and faithfully by some though granted to the Informer will help him nothing ibid. The Informers answers and exceptions to our argument from Acts 14 19. examined His answer from the Apostles extraordinary callfrilous as also from the tendency of the rulers prohibition to silence gospell page 152 153 154 155. His reasoning upon Solomons thrusting out Abiathar from the priesthood examined as also his citation of Bezaes letter to the Non-Conformists in England Page 156 157. Chap 6. page 159. The nature of Presbyterian Ministers relation to this Church and their call to officiate therein vindicat from the Informers simple cavils Mr Rutherfoord and Mr Durhames acknowledgement that a Minister isnotmade a Catholick Minister of the Catholick Church but by his ordination restricted to a flock will not help the Informer which is cleard in six points page 159 160 161 162 His Dilemma which he offers to us viz. that our call to preach is either ordinary or extraorninary answered retorted upon him His Cavills in relationall to the Acts of Councils condemning this encroachment as he calls it and the Doctors of Aberdeen their charging Presbyterian Ministers therewith repelled ibid. His charge anent our ordaining others to perpetuat our Schisme a manifest groundlesse calumny page 163 164. His passage cited out of Mr Baxters preface to the cure of Church divisions answered page 165 as also his 5 healing advices to his half-proselyted Doubter page 65 166 167 168 169 170. Mr Baxters rules in his cure of Church divisions which he after commends unto us shortly viewed their impertinency to his purpose discovered page 171 172 173. 174. his testimonies out of the jus divinum Ministerii anglicani and of Mr Rutherfoord in his due right of Presbytery anent unwarrantable separation in sufficient to bear the weight of his conclusion The difference between the case they speake to and our case cleared in 4. Considerations page 175 176 177. His citations from the first author particularly considered and their insufficiency to bear the weight of his conclusion discovered page 178 179 180 181 The citations of Mr Rutherford particularly examined in so faâ—… relating to his scope page 182 183 184 185 186 187. In his citations from both these authors and arguing therefrom he is found inconsistent with himself to walk upon groundlesse suppositions and lyable to a manifest retorsion ibid. The Informer drawes out no conclusion upon these citations save this general one at the close viz That real much lesse supposed corruptions in the Worship or administrators will not warrand separation The impertinency of this position to help him cleard ibid. He pleads for retractions and presents at the close a character of Schisme which is retorted against him page 187 188. Chap 7. misprinted Chap 6. page 189. Animadversions upon the Informers preface and title page prefixed to this Pamphlet He pretendes conscience a design of union in this undertaking how unsoundly discovered page 189 190. 191. His Testimonies out of Zanchy and Blondel to evince their approbation of Prelacy left by him untranslated though he pretends for the advantadge of the English reader to translate all other testimonies answered A Confutation Of the First DIALOGUE Upon the point Of EPISCOPACIE Wherein it is demonstrat that the Episcopacie now existent both in its Diocesian Erastian cutt is contrare to the Scripture to the first and purer Antiquitie the Doctrine and Confessions of Reformed Churches sound Divines And the Informers Reasonings for it from Scripture Antiquitie are weighed and found wanting CHAP. I. That the Prelat now established in this Church is both Diocesian and Erastian cleared The Informer is engaged to defend both A twofold State of the Question propounded accordingly Some Arguments from Scripture against the Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church-officer Such as 1. Perverting the Scriptural term Episcopus commune to all Pastors in appropriating it to a Prelat 2. Making it relate to Pastors which hath the flock for its immediat object 3. Invading nulling the Authority allowed unto Presbyters which is demonstrat at large 4. Impeaching Christs Kingly office as Head of his Church and the perfection of his Word in obtruding ane Officer upon the Church of a different moold from those described and allowed by him THE state of the first Question in the first Conference is whither the Episcopacie now established by Law in Scotland be warranted or condemned by the Word of God For clearing this it must be understood what that Prelacie is which is now existent and which this Author pretends is consonant to Scripture and Antiquitie As to matter of fact it is undenyable 1. That the Parliament 1662. did expresly raze Presbyterian government in all its preexistent Courts Judicatories and Privileges declaring it voide and expired 2. They did Redintegrat the Bishops to their Episcopal function presidencie in the Church power of ordination and censures and all Church discipline to be performed by them with advice only and of such of the Clergie only as they shall find they themselves being judges of knowne Loyaltie and prudence And they redintegrat them to all the pretended Privileges possessed be them in Anno 1637. What time their power was at the greatest height Since of themselves they framed the Book of Canons which doth establish their sole power and dominion over all Church Judicatories razing classical Presbyteries and Parochial Sessions and drew up the Liturgie and Book of Ordination without the least shaddow of advice from this Church Threatning even excommunication against the opposers of that course 3. It is also evident that all this Power and Authoritie of our Prelats is fountained in derived from and referable unto the Supremacie As is evident by the Act restoring Prelacie after the declaration of the Supremacie as his Majesties Commissioners in the exercise of his Ecclesiastick Government and in the administration of all their pretended spiritual Authoritie as accountable to him their Head and supreme Legislator in all
Church matters Hence it is evident that this Author is obliged if he would answer his undertaking in pleading for the present Prelacie not only to evince the warrantablenes of the Diocesian Bishop in all his pretended spiritual power over Church Judicatories But likewaves of the Erastianbishop deriving all his Authoritie from the Civil Magistrat Wee shall then befor wee come to examine his pleading upon this Head offer I. Some Arguments against our Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church-officer and shall shew his office to be contrare to Scripture 2. As ane Erastian Prelat deryving all his spiritual power from the Magistrat I. As a pretended Church officer the Diocesian Bishop is contrare to Scripture in many respects I. In narrowing and restricting the Scripture term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to ane office and officer distinct from and Superior to a Presbyter or Pastor For since the Spirit of God in Scripture appropriats this term to Presbyters and consequentlie the work and office therin imported Tit. 1 5 7. Act. 20 28. 1 Pet. 5 2. 3. Sure it must be ane anti-Scriptural and Sacrilegius robbing of Presbyters of their right and due designation to make this proper and peculiar to a Diocesian Bishop onlie as the Characteristick of his office Episcopal men themselves and this Author particularely doe acknowledge this term to be in Scripture applyed to Presbyters Let them then shew a reason why they have made it peculiar to a Prelat as distinct from Presbyters Or let them shew where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denots such ane officer as they have shappen out viz. A diocesian Prelat having sole power of ordination and jurisdiction over a wholl diocess with a negative voice and a sole decisive suffrage in the Church Judicatories thereof Should they appropriat the term Pastor or Minister to a diocesian Prelat onlie Who would not call this ane Anti-scriptural usurpation of the Presbyters due And why also shall it not be thought such ane usurpation when they appropriat the term Episcopus or Bishop to such a pretended distinct officer Since this term is as much given to Presbyters in Scripture as the terme of Pastor or Minister Judicious Calvin hath some remarkable passages to this purpose in his Comentaries On Tit 1 7. Having observed that Bishops and Presbyters are all one He calls the appropriating of the name Bishop to the Prelat a profane boldnes and ane abrogating of the holy Ghosts language Abrogato Spiritus Sansti sermone usus hominum arbitrio inductus praevaluit nomen officii quod Deus in commune omnibus dederat in unum transferri reliquis spoliatis injurium est absurdum Deinde sic pervertere Spiritus sancti linguam nimis profana audaciae est Act. 20 28. He collects the identitie of the name office of Bishop Presbiter from the elders being called Bishops And having observed the same on Philip. 1. And that after the name Bishop became peculiare to one He adds id tamen ex hominum consuetudine natum est Scripturae autoritate minime nititur Telling us that under this pretext of giving the name to one ane unlawful dominion was brought in But of this againe II. The office hereby designed doth alwayes relate to the Flock and hath them for its immediat object and Correlat as much as the word Pastor The Bishops of Ephesus were made by the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the flock of God whom they were to feed Whereas our supposed Diocesian Episcopus or Bishop His office and inscection relates immediatly to the wholl Pastores of his diocess who are alse much his flock and the object of his oversight care direction correction and censure as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or layetie Peter bids the Episcopountes feed the flock act the Bishops over them But our diocesian Prelat pretends to feed and rule the Pastores themselves The Scripture Bishop is Populi Pastor but the Diocesian Prelat is Pastor Pastorum Presbiter Presbiterorum And therfor is ane Antiscriptural Monster III. The Diocesian Prelat usurpes and takes from Presbiters that authoritie allowed them of God in his Word For both power of ordination and jurisdiction is soly and properlie in the Diocesian Prelat according to Episcopal men and likewise according to our Lawes As we saw above in the act anent Prelacy For according thereto the Prelat is a Superior ordinar Church officer above Presbyters he is sole as to ordination may doe it alone and assumes Presbiters onelie proforma Which no more lessens his Principalitie and Supereminencie in this pointe then a Prince in assumeing Counsellors saith Dounam Def. lib 5 Cap. 7. weakens his princely power and authoritie Presbyters exercise all their Acts of the power of order in a dependance upon him he only is the proper Pastor of the diocess as shall be afterward cleared Presbiters are but his substitutes and helpers They are likwayes Subject to him as their proper Sole judge and censurer by Ecclesiastick censures of suspension deposition excommunication the decisive power in Church judicatories is properlie his For the most unanimous Acts and conclusions of the diocesian Synod falls unders his cognisance to be ratified or Cassat at his pleasure He is the Sine quo non and hath a Negative voice in the judicatories the law allowing his Presbiters only to give him advice Nay and not that either unles he judge them of known layaltie and prudence Now in all these he usurps over Presbiters authoritie allowed them of God For I. Wee find the Scripture atributes the power of order jurisdiction equalie to all Presbiters who have both keys of doctrine discipline given them immediatlie by Christ. In that I. They are command 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5. 28. Act. 20. 2. which comprehends the authoritie and exercise of both the keys of doctrine and discipline 2. In all commands relating to the exercise of this power ther is not the least hint of ane equalitie among them which were very cross to the Lords Scope if the Diocesian Prelats Superioritie were allowed and appointed The Presbiters or Bishops of Ephesus and those of the Churches which Peter writs unto are commanded to feed and rule jointlie equallie and with the same authoritie but non of them in dependance upon and deryving a precarious authoritie from another in feeding and ruleing 3. In all the commands relating to peoples Subjection obedience to Church Rulers in the exercise of their power their is not the least hint of disparitie among these Rulers 1 Thess. 5 12. People are commanded to obey them that labour among them and are over them in the Lord and to esteem them highly And Hebr. 13 17. They are commanded to obey them who have the rule over them and watch for their Soules but nothing of a special degrie of obedience to this supposed highest supereminent watch man is heard of in these or any
such like precepts And no wonder for thes simple Gospel times knew no Bishops who watched not over Soules and laboured in the word and doctrine When the Apostle Peter commands Christians to obey civil Rulers He distinguishs the King as Supeream and Governours sent by him that a Chief subjection may be yeelded to the one and a subordinat to the other But nothing of this is heard of in enjoining peoples subjection to Ministers Ane honour must be allowed by Timothey by the people of God consequentlie to elders that rule weil yea and a double honor but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especialy to those that labour in the Word and Doctrine The Apostle in stating a distinction in the degries of honour allowed to elders and in this different character of the one from the other diversifies elders higher lower Now by the same reason upon which Divines doe rationaly build this conclusion it must be granted that the enjoyning obedience to all Pastores promiscuusly and without any Note of distinction will inferr their equal office and authoritie And by the same reason that the Apostle added this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or especialy in this place he should have added in these or some such comands relating to the peoples obedience a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or especialy to distinguish the Diocesian Prelat from other Pastores and expressed it thus esteem them all highly obey them be subject to them that teach and watch over you All your Pastors but especially the Supereminent Pastor or Bishop who hath the cheifinspection and from whom all the rest derive their authoritie Likwayes in enjoining the pastoral duties he should have been especially noticed who had the cheif hand and authoritie therin which is a Topick improven by this informer but nothing of this is seen in Scripture as shall be after more fully cleared 4. Wee find accordinglie A practical Equalitie among Pastores or Bishops in the exercise of this governing power abundantlie held out and exemplified in Scripture The judging and censuring of the incestuous man is by the Apostle enjoyned to the Church Officers or Ministers of Corinth joyntlie 1 Cor. 5. Chap. compared with 2 Cor. 2. Chap. The Apostle all along supposeth ane inherent authority in these Ministers to put forth this grand juridical Forensical Act â—…ydes them for so long neglecting it and shewes its object viz. This person under the formalis ratio of wicked or scandalus Again he shews its nature to be Ajudging or puting from among them and delivering to Satan upon this judging previous thereunto He also shews that this authoritie touches all Church Members not them that are without whom God judgeth but those that are within Now as hee supposes I say ane authority of this Nature and extent inherent in these Church officers so he speaks to them indefinitly and universally all along which were very cross to his Scope If he had set up or allovved the Diocesian Prelat whose sole prerogative this were And the inflicted Censur he calls with the samine indefinitnes A punishment inflicted by many who accordingly are commanded with the same indefinitnes or universality of expression To receave absolve him upon his repentance The exercise of the binding and â—…owsing power being in the representative juridicall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church to whom scandales must be delated and to whom the promise of ratification of her juricall Acts in Heaven is made Matth. 18 17. Besids we find the exercise of ordination in a Presbitry 1 Tim. 4 14. And that even in relation to ane Evangelist Timothy The Presbitry here must be a juridicall Senat and meeting for the Office can lay on no hands And ordination is ane hie authoritative juridicall Act. Pauls presence and laying on of hands together with them confirmes their authoritie as being cumulative thereto not privative therof even as his countenanceing of or concurring with our Adversaries pretended Diocesian Prelat let us suppose it in his Act of ordination would not infringe his pretended right herein Ergo. By their own Confession and by paritie of reason it cannot infringe or Impeach this power which is attributed to the Presbitery Had the Apostle in stead of Presbyterie put in Prâ—…at and expressed it thus By the laying on of the hands of A Bishop or Diecesian-Bishop I suppose our Adversaries would have thought the Episcopal power of ordination invincibly demonstrat ther from notwithstanding of Pauls saying 2 Tim 1 6. By the laying on of my hands viz together with the Bishop Pauls extraordinare Apostolicall imposition of hands being no white derogatorie unto the supposed Episcopal ordinarie power now verte tabulas the Apostle sayes by the laying on of the handes of the Presbitry Ergo the ordinary and equal power of Pastores and its equal exercise in ordination is herin convincingly made out Nixt The Prelats monopolizing thus in himself the decisive suffrage of Judicatories is cross many wayes to Scripture For I Its a stepping up in a peice of Diotrephese-lik or rather papal-pride above the Apostles themselves who in Churches constitut did alwayes take alongst with them the advice consent and authoritative concurrence of ordinary Ministers and Elders in Government As is evinced in the premised Scriptures wherin it is convinceingly clear that Paul though ane Apostle of all the Churches indewed with extraordinarie unconfined inspection over the same and Pastor thereof in actu exercito having extraordinary Miracolous-gifts being the Master Builder and Spiritual Father who by the Gospel had begotten both Pastores and flocks of many Churches Yet would neither excommunicat the incestuous Corinthian alone but put it upon the Church Officers as their duty to doe it by a judicial decisive joynt suffrage Nor yet did he exclud the presbyters in ordaining even ane Evangilist but took in their judicial and presbyterial concurrence And in Act. 15. In that meeting or Counsel at Jerusalem where was a wholl Colledge or Presbitery of Apostles and mett about ane Act or decision of a high Nature wherein was put forth both Adegmatick critick diatactick authority or power in relation to the clearing of that great pointe of truth anent the abrogation of the Mosaicall ceremonies and censuring the opposers of Paul and Barnabas herin who had disturbed the Churches and belied the Apostles Doctrine And accordingly in order to the restoring and establishing truth and order in these disturbed Churches The ordinary Ministers or elders concurr with the Apostles in every step viz In the conferrence disquisition the authoritative decision the drawing forth of the sentence and decree the sending out of the decreeing and censuring Epistle the imposeing of the decrie upon the Churches to observe and keep the same c. 2. This cutts the throate of that juridical forensical joynt decision of Church Judicatories which the Scriptur doth so clearly hold forth Where is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the censureing juridiall court drawing sorth a joynt decision or censure Wher
is the Presbiteries forensicall Act in ordination of Timothie To what end must the Corinth Church Officers Meet together and authoritatively and joyntlie punish or censur the incestuous man Wher is that pleasing of the Apostles and elders as the foundation of the Synodical decree and letter together with it seemed good to the HolyGhost and to us And to us Mett with one accord Wher is I say this joynt decisive power of Church Judicatories thus clearly held out in the premised Scriptures if the Act and Ecclesiastick decision thereof be soly the Prelats sic â—…olo sie jubeo masked with advice of Presbyters of whose advice he may make what use he pleases and with a simple nego make their judgment and suffrage evanish into smoake 3. This power of the Prelats cuts of from Ministers one half of their authoritie and commission receaved in their ordination They are made therein as is clear in Scripture our adversaries grant it Rulers Governours Overseers Pastors Stewards in the Church Have both the Shepherds bagg staff the key of doctrine and the key of discipline intrusted to them By what warrand then must they give up all their power in government their decisive suffrage in Church Judicatories unto the domineering Prelat and as to spiritual power in Church Judicarories become meer Ciphers They watch and rule as they that must give account of all their administration to Christ. Peter exhorts the Elders suteablie to exercise their Episcopal Authority over the flock that they may get the Crown from the chief Shepherd Stewards of God especially must be faithful and imploy well all their Talents receaved from the great Master that they may get his approbation and reward as faithful Servants The Elders of Ephesus were obtested by Paul to take heed to themselves and to all the flock over which they were made Bishops by the Holy Ghost to feed and rule the Church which God hath purchased with his blood Now all thes exhortations directed to Ministers are to no purpose if they have no inherent immediat Rule essentially included in their office And to be exercised accordingly but must only preach as a Diocesian Prelats Deputes and be in the exercise of their ruling governing power absolutly subject to him and at his disposal Finally This usurped authoritie in the Prelat sets him above the reach of all censure by Church Indicatories So that though Ministers are absolutly and at his beck censurable by and subject to him both as to their doctrine conversation and discipline and every one of them thus censurable and jointly yet this hie Pop who judges All will be judged by none himself Either as to his Doctrine Life or Government Some have said of the Prince that though major singulis yet he is minor universis less then the whole body of the people though greater then every one aparte But the Prelat exercises a greater principalitie in Church Judicatories is therein major universis greater then the whole meeting so that thogh he can stop the Votes and Censures of the whole Synod yet they cannot either by suffrage or censure in the least put a check to him in any of His most wicked Acts or Antichristian Exorbitances Now how contrary this is to Scriptur any may judge The Prophets after their prophesying must be judged by the rest as to their doctrine 1 Cor. 14 29 Ergo a fortiori much more as to their conversation government are lyable to be judged and consequentlie censured if deserving it For he were a great Critick that would distinguish these so as those who have power to judge have no power to censure or pass sentence upon their judging And this is founded upon a general comprehensive ground viz. the Spirits of the Prophets that is the gifts and exercises of the Ministery in all Church Officers without exception are subject to the Prophets viz. to their disquisition and censure in any peece of their work or official Acts. Now unles our Prelats would deny themselves to be Prophets and Ministers or the Presbyters to be Prophets they must acknowledge this subjection to their censure enjoyned in the Scripture premised and consequently that their exeeming themselves from the same is an anti-scriptural usurpation I remember while a writting that proposing once this Argument to ane Episcopal Clergie man I enquired to what Church Judicatorie in Scotland was Mr Sharp subject as to either his life or doctrine He answered that he was subject to a general Counsell and this was very apposit and consequenter to their principles So that our Prelats at least the two Arch are in no fear but of a general Council if the Court froune not In our Act of Parliament touching the mould of our National Synod the Primat is the essential President sine quo non and so is sure enough from being censured there so are the rest of the Prelats as to all their Synods according to our Lawes But what think these exleges Episcopi or hie Court Prelats of such a humble Bishop as the Apostle Paul who had hands laid upon him and was authoritativelie sent out by that Presbitery of Prophets and teachers at Antioch Act. 13. together with Barnabas about ane eminent Gospel-Legation and was by the same Church and Presbytery sent together with Barnabas and certain other commissioners of the Churches to that Synod at Jerusalem Act. 15. Why did not Paul make use of his Negative voice and command them all silence in this debate How comes it that his hie Bishop subjects himself to the authoritative blessing and mission of some pettie Prophets and teachers Ane amazeing looking glass this is no doubt to our aspyreing Prelats 4. The holding of the Diocesian Prelat and obtruding him upon the Church as ane ordinary Church officer distinct from and superior to Presbiters doth many wayes Impeach Christs Kingly office as head and law giveâ—… of his Church whose faithfulnes above that of Moses who ordered according to the Patern shewed upon the Mount the least pine of the Tabernacle must needs reach the appointment of the officers offices qualifications work and gifts of these officers who are to officiat in his house as our Confession of Faith and Catechisim doe assert For according to our Prelatical Clergie and according to the Lawes the Prelat hath a distinct Work from that of a Presbiter viz. to govern a diocess he hath the Actus primus of a State ruler to sitt in Council or Parliament Nixt he hath a distinct solemne Consecration or inauguration to his Office And 3. Must needs be supposed to have likwise distinct qualifications and Gifts from those of a preaching Presbiter conferred by this solemne imposition of hands and blessing at his Consecration wherby he must be supposed to have a superior distinct mission and to be in all the forementioned particulars distinct from and superior to a Presbiter Now if non of all these points of his superioritie can
be found in Scripture this Officer patched up thereof must either be unwarrantable or Christ the Churches head and lawgiver his Lawes and rules in point of Church Government and in relation to the duties gifts ordination and work of Church Officers are not full and perfect but mank and deficient as to such ane eminent Church Officer And where is then the perfection of his word and Testament to make not only the ordinarie Christian but even the mà n of God the Minister of God perfect and throughly furnished to every good work That non of all the formentioned particulars as to this Officer distinct from and superior to a Presbiter can be found in Scripture but are contrarie therunto I prove thus 1. The Scriptur mentions no name qualification work dutie or ordination of any or dinary Church Officer superior to presbiters and which are not likewayes appropriat to them who are called Rulers Governours Bishops and both ordination and Jurisdiction ar apropriat to them in a perfect paritie 1 Thess. 5 12. with 17. v. and 1 Tim. 5 17. Hebr. 13. v. 7 17. 1 Cor. 5 13. 1 Tim. 4 14. 3 Epist. Ioh. 9. v. 2. In all the Holy Ghost his purposed recitalls of ordinarie Church officers and purposed declaration of their gifts and duties ther is not the least hint of the premised ingredients of the office of this supposed Diocesian Bishop as thus distinct from and Superior to Presbiters 1 Cor. 12 28. Eph. 4 11 12. Rom. 12. 7 8. In these places wee have besyds the Apostles Prophets Evangelists whose Office as extraordinaire is ceased Pastores Elders Deacons But no hint of the Office name qualifications or Mission of ane ordinarie Church Officer Superior to the Pastor is either heire or in any Scripture else which notwithstanding is express as to the Office and qualifications even of the Deacon the lowest Officer Strange the server of Tables his Office and ordination clearlie set down in Scriptur And yet Altum silentium as to either name Office or ordination of the Diocesian Bishop If the argument of our divines be good from hence against the Pope because not mentioned in these Catalogues of Church Officers Ergo a pari It must hold good against the Prelat And as to that that the Prelat hath the Actus Signatus of a State Ruler how cross this is to Scripture we may after shew Sure since Christ set all these his Officers in the Church and commands them diligentlie to wait upon and attend their work and Ministery therein He never made or allowed them to bee State Rulers CHAP. II. Some more Arguments against the Diecesian Prelat That his office debases the Acts and exercise of the power of order cleared It maims and diversisies the Pastoral office by anti-scriptural now invented degrees thereof His office many wayes contrare to the very nature of the Gospel-Church-Government THe Diocesian Bishop his office is in this contrare to the Word of God V. In that it Debases the highest Acts and exercise of the power of order in a Gospel Ministery For all do grant preaching of the Word and the Administration of the Sacraments and Seals of the Covenant of grace to be such So that he who can do thes Acts hath the badge of the highest Ministerial Authority as ane ordinarie Church Officer these being among the most emnient Acts of the Apostles there office and Authoritie Go teach baptize c. They must have some to serve Tables that they may give themselves continually to the Ministery of the Word Timothy our prelatical mens Supposed-Bishop must preach the Word and be instant in season out of season reprove rebuke exhort with all long suffering and Doctrine 2 Tim. 4 1 2. The great Apostle of the Gentiles who had the care of all the Churches coming upon him and therin a great ruleing work Yet pronunces a woe upon himself if he preach not the Gospel 1 Cor. 9 28. And he tells us this was a speciall trust committed to him In this he admires the rich grace of God that he was putt into the Ministery and honoured to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ. Peter that great Apostle of the circumcision when by the Lord restored to his office and encouraged to its exercise by a Threefold renovation of his Mission is thryce enjoyned as the great badge of his love to his Master to feed his Lambes and Sheep Accordingly the Scripture Bishop must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apt to teach and he that teacheth by office scilicet must waite upon teaching and the wise and faithful Steward appointed by the Lord to give the children their meat in dew Season must be found So doeing when the Lord comes to reckon with him and not lay up this noble Talent in a Napkine To this the key of diseiplin is inferior and Subordinat as themean to its end the higher honour above ruleing only being allowed to the labourer in the word doctrine 1 Tim. 5 17. This being clear I say the office of the Diocesian Bishop debases and tramples upon these highe and noble Acts of a Pastor and consequently upon the premised Scriptures asserting the same and that in these wayes I. In that the quondam Presbyter only when made a Prelat leaves off The feeding of the flock and layes by the preaching talent the Church wher he did preach or officiat it may be shall never see or hear him againe but is ipso facto voyde to be possed by another nor by his now-office is he oblidged to preach or Minister the Sacraments any more at all these petty peeces of work being below his new Lordship Trew he may preach if he please and at the Church wher he reseeds but that is per accidens ex abundanti and out of courtesie but by his office Qua Prelat he is bound to preach no more to any frock nor is he in the least judged faultie or deficient in his Episcopal office if he be wholly silent Nay in England preaching Prelats have been highely upbraided and reproached by their fellowes and called preaching Cox Combes Wee all know what ane odd peece of work Mr Lightoun's preaching was esteemed by the generalitie of the Prelatick partie when he turned Prelat Now let any of commune Reason or ingenuity judge what ane office that must be which putts a Minister intrusted with the Lords great commission to preach the Gospel under pretence of advancement to a higher Sphere in the Ministery to lay by this work which is the noblest and highest of the Ministerial Authoritie wherin the Apostles themselves mainely laboured and gloried as the most noble meane of the conversion of Sonles and consequentlie of the glorie of Christ therin Nay to lay by this noble work under pretence of new burdene of Government Wheras the Apostles who had the wholl Churches to plant and Govern most enixely plyed this work still If this man become not a dumb dog and a sloathfull unprofiteable servant let
any judge 2. The Diocesian Prelat debases and tramples upon this noble work in that be makes it in all the Pastores of the Dioces to depend upon his Lordly disposal and the authoritie thereof to be deryved from him as the sole proper Pastor of all the Diocess whose deputs the preachers are in this work although himself is obleiged to feed no flock 3 He maks these high and noble Acts of the power of order preaching and administration of Sacraments a lower and subordinat work and office to the work and office of ruleing only which is his Characteristick whereby he holds himself Superior to all the preachers of the Diocess whereas the Scriptur doeth as we heard appropriat the highest honour to the labourer in the word and doctrine as the nobler employment and office above the Ruler only 6. In this the Diocesian Prelats office is contrare unto and reprobat by the Scriptur in that by Apocriphal Antiscriptural new invented Degrees and orders It diversities and cutts asunder what God hes made one and the same I mean the Pastoral Office and by consequence other offices mentioned in Scripture as that of Prophets Evangelists Deacons non of which offices admites of Subordinat Spheeres and degrees but all the persons that are Intrusted with these offices are of the same degree and authority therin by the Word of God No Evangelist Prophet or Apostle is found of a Superior office or order to other Apostles Evangelists c. Whence comes this diversity then in the Pastoral office that one Pastor must have a Lordly Dominion over some hundreds of his fellowes If it be said that the Episcopal office succeeds that of the Apostles or Evangelists besides that wee shall disprove this afterward and shew that these offices taken formaliter as superior to that of the Pastor are expyred as sound Divines doe almost universally grant I answer that most if not all Prelatists ancient and modern doe hold the Diocesian Prelat to be no officer Specifially distinct from the Presbyter or Pastor but only gradually distinct as being a Pastor with a more amply extended authority for order of Government Mr Burnet in his pretended vindication of the present Prelacie 4t Conference pag. 310 311. tells us that he is not clear anent the notion as he calls it of the distinct offices of Bishop and Presbyter and akonowledges the Presbyter to be of the hiest office in the Church telling us that the Prelat is but a different degree in the same office Although in this he and the rest doe speak most inconsequently the forementioned ingredients of the Prelatical function being such as doe certanly amount to make up a new species of ane office such as a different work consecration or ordination the actus primus of a State Ruler different qualifications by consequence above and beyond these of a Presbyter The diversitie of these distinguishes the Scripture offices of Apostles Evangelists c. which Paul setts in several Classes as first and second 1 Cor. 12 28. Mr Burnet his reason is the same with that of others herine viz the Pastors authority to administer the word Sacraments which are the highest acts of the power of order He tells us that since the Sacramental actions are the highest of sacred performances he cannot but acknowlege that such as are impowered for them must be of the hiest office in the Church now I say since they will needs have the Diocesian Bishop to be only a different degree of the Presbyterat or Pastoral office they cannot with any shaddow of reason make him Successor to the Evangelists or Apostles in their formal office which they will not dare to affirm to be only a different degree of the Presbyterat or Pastores office and will affirme it to have been specifically distinct from the same The Ancients and Schoolemen held that the Pastor in his ordination receaved the same Power of Government that the Prelat hath but that the Prelat is the primus Presbyter who hath the raines of all the exercise in his hand But how cross is this to Scripture that any Church officer hath a power and authoriritie which he cannot exercise To whomsoever God hath given the power he hath certainlie commanded the exercise of it and particularly Pastores or Presbyters are as we have heard enixely commanded to exercise all their Pastoral authority and power as they shall answer to their great Master Besyds if the Pastoral office or its official power of order and jurisdiction may be warrantably thus divided and cutt out in Shreeds and parcells and divyded among different recipients then it were lawful to divyde preaching and administration of the Sacraments so as one Presbyter notwithstanding of his authority and mission in relation to both word and Sacraments receaved in his ordination might have preaching only allowed to him but no administration of Sacraments Another might be allowed to administer Sacraments but not to preach One Presbyter upon the pretence of order or union pretences are never wanting to humane inventions might be sett a part and authorised to Baptise all the Children in a wholl Province doing nothing else of the Pastoral Office And this power by the same authority might be taken from all the Pastoures of the Province Sure all would acknowledge this to be a most wicked divyding and diversifieing what God the conjoyned And such is this Prelatical divyding of the Pastoral charge in relation to order and jurisdiction or the keys of Doctrine Government the power wherof the Pastor receaves intirely in his ordination as well as the Authority of administrating Sacraments 7. In this the Diocesian Bishop is contrare to Scripture In that his Office is in many respects cross to the very nature of the gospel-Gospel-Church Government and is ane Office which the man that exercises cannot but in so farr cease to be a Gospel Church-ruler Which I prove thus 1. Since all authority in the Diocess as to either the Word or Disciplin is deryved from the Bishop as its proper fountaine and subject this power of the Bishop is properlie and of its own nature not a Gospel Ministery But a dominion and principalitie discharged to Church Officers of what ever sorte whose authority is not a despotick nomothetick or architectonick power but a Ministerial Stewardship only Matth. 20 v 25 26. 2 Cor. 1 24. 1 Cor. 4 D. 1 Pet. 5 2 3. 3 Epist. John 9. The work of all Church Officers is called a Ministery Pastours Doctores yea Apostles Evangelists were appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the worke of the Ministery Ephes. 4 12. 2 Cor. 4 v. 5. Paul calls himself a fellow servant with Epaphras Collos. 17. with Tichicus Collos. 4 7. And calls Ministers his fellow-souldiers and fellow-labores Philip. 4. 3 -2 25-Rom 16 3 -2 The Bishops power inverts Christs rule as to the gradation in point of censures and appealls which is from one one to more from the lesser number to the greater from
the Presbytery to the Synod as from the Presbytery at Antioch to the Synod at Jerusalem Not to any one Apostle Pop or Prelat Whereas the last appeal and reference in this Diocesian Mould is to the Bishop Our Lords rule is this in relation to the removeing of Scandales First tell the offending Brother Alone then take two or three more then if he be farder contumacious tell the Church the greater embodied court or Judicatorie who have the official power of binding or lowseing He bidds not toll it uni to one but unitati a multitud gathered into one for so the Greek word doth necessarly Import whereas in the Diocesian sea the gradation is from many to one Prelat whose sole prerogative this highest censure is And with Prelatists the rule runns thus tell two or three lastlie and finallie one Lord-Bishop Which is point blank contrare to the Scripture rule 3. The Diocesion Bishops power and Ministerial Pastoral pretended duties as Diocesian Bishop are such as falls within he compass of no command and which it is impossible to performe according to Scripture rules which I prove thus 1. The Prelat according to their principles is the proper Pastor of the whole Diocess for he being peculiarly Bishop of it and consecrat in order to his Episcopal inspection over the same for to the participation of his power office denoted by this term Bishop of Edinburgh c. He admitts non in the diocess it being the characteristick of his Superioritie over Presbyters withall it including the wholl Ecclesiastick Authority both of order and Jurisdiction with in the Diocess It followes of necessity that he is the sole and proper Pastor thereof according to this mould of Government Now it being so let it be considered 1. That the trew Scripture etimon of Episcopus or Bishop imports all the Pastorall duties of feeding and ruling and layes aâ—…e obligation upon the person under this relation and cloathed with this Office to perform all these duties accordingly to these to whom he stands in that relation 2 That its impossible the Bishop can feed Rule Oversee and perform the Pastoral duties unto and watch for the souls of all that large flock in which some hundereds of painful Pastores will find their hands full of work So that the Bishop assumes a charge which it is impossible he can dischag or perform 3. The Scripture allowes no Derivation or Deputation of the Pastores work and Office to which he is called of God unto other subserviant Officers Because God intrusts no man with any peece of Stewardship in his Family but what he must both oversie and execut immediatly by himself and is likewayes disposed and enabled to manage and overtake God still conjoyneing the Office gifts and call together for every peece of his work Which the man that is intrusted with and called unto must himself immediatly waite upon and attend Rom. 12. 7. and not intrust it to others for him Hence 4. By clear consequence it followes that the Diocesian Bishopes work qua talis is such as he can neither mannage nor hath warrand from the great Shepherd to exercise or assume In the 4t Place the present Diocesian Bishop is a Person who is authorised to sitt in Parliament Council and other civil Judicatories as a constituent member therof For they are restored to their places in Parliament civil pretended dignities which places they aâ—… by there Office bound to manage as civil Rulers But so it is that all civill dominion Magistraticall Rule is expresly prohibit to Church Rulers so that the Church Officer who is installed in these Offices falls from Heaven to Earth The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them and they that are great exercise authotie upon them but it shall not be so among you Matth. 20 25 26. This charge our Lord gave to his Apostles and their Successors Pastores or Bishops who are here forbidden all civill rule or Magistracy the nature wherof is properly a Dominion and thus distinct toto coelo from the nature of Ecclesiastick Offices which is a Ministerial service or stewardship only All our divines impugne from this text the popes civil Dominion and the amphibius civily ruleing or domineering Prelat falls under the lash thereof Non who goe Christs errands and his warrfare must be inâ—…angled with these things that are temporal The Minister must waite upon his Ministrie So the civil Magistrat is Gods Minister in civiles attending Continually upon this employment Rom. 13 4 6. Now those being in their nature so disparat employments and both requireing a constant waiting and attendance he is a strange man That can be called and sufficient for both Who is sufficient for these things said the great and highly gifted Paul speaking of his Ministerial employments Are our Prelats beyond his sufficiencie who can act the Pastor of a wholl Diocess and guide State affaires too Christs Kingdome is not of this World and so are not its Officers the weapons of whose warrfare must not be carnal Who made me a judge said the great Shepherd himself when desired but to giue a deciding advice in a civil cause Luk 12 14. Where is there any thing like the work or qualifications of the Magistrat in all the New Testament Rules and instructions anent the work Office and call of Church Officers CHAP. III. The Diocesian Bishops Office debases extraoadinarie Offices in confounding them with the ordinary That Timothy and Titus power layes no foundation for Prelacy cleared at large The derivation of Prelacie from them loaded with gross absurdites VIII THe Diocesian Bishops Office is in this contrare unto the word in that It debases the Apostolical and Euangelistick Offices and confounds the ordinarie extraordinarie functions administrations which Scripture Reason all sound Divines doe diversifie distinguish The Prelats Advocats this new informer particularly pleads for and derives the Episcopal preheminence from the office and inspection of the Apstles and Euangelists whom they affirme to have been properly formally Bishops in the sense they take the Diocesian Bishop and that the formal power and offices which they exercised are to be continued still in the Church That Timothy was formally constitut Bishop of Ephesus Titus of Crete Iames of Ierusalem And that the Prelats office is the same and properly Succeeds them and is as it were A continuation of their office in a formal sense Timothy's authority is is one maine ground which the Episcopal men at the Isle of Wight and this Auther also do plead to legittimat the Prelats office This being clear I say this pretended Mould of the Diocesian Bishops Office and Authority is lyable to the charge censure of debasing these holy extraordinarie functions and confounding them with the ordinary which I prove thus 1. All sound protestant Divines do harmoniously assert the extraordinary nature of the Apostolick office as such and likewayes of the Euangelists reckening the Apostles Prophets
and Euangelists as the extraordinary New Testament Officers whose proper formal Office died with them and admits of no succession for thus they ordinarily defyne the Apostles that they were Christs immediatly called and extraornarily gifted universal Ambassadours sent out to lay every where the foundation of the Gospel Church and to plant the Gospel government therein Particularly Polanus in his Syntagma reckens up these as their extraordinary expired prerogatives to which we will find this Informer in parte give assent 1. Their immediat institution by Christ. 2. Their immediat mission to teach Paul had his from heaven 3. Their universal legation to found and plant Churches throw the world 2 Cor. 11 28. 4. It s visible badge viz. the conferring of the Spirit by the laying on of hands 5. Their extraordinary authority beyond any of their Successors as being set over the whole Church c. Hence all the ingredients of their formal Office as such must needs be expired And no Church Officer can be said to succeed them therein Their Call was immediat sure non can succeed them in that Their special or proper work was to plant Churches and the Gospel-government in them and set up their Officers of all which Churches they were Ministers in actu exercits sure no Church Officer could succeed them in this Their Qualifications as such Ambassadours were correspondent to this great work viz. their gifts of miracles gifts of tongues Prophesie infallibility in Doctrin Sure now can pretend to succeed them in this Nixt for the Euangelists their Office was equally extraordinary it consisting in a planetary motion from place to place to water where the Apostles planted to bring reports of the Churches state to the Apostles and commissions from the Apostles to them Their various motions pro re nata upon down even after these Epistles wherein they are supposed to have receaved their Episcopal charge were written to them and the Scriptures absolut silence as to their ever returning to these Churches againe besides the Apostle Pauls shewing expresly in these Epistles their occasional transient employment in this places and express recalling of them therefrom to the further prosecution of their extraordinary employment and in these very Epistles identifying the Office of the Bishop and Elder All these clear grounds I say do evidently demonstrat that the work and office of Timothy and Titus as Euangelists is expired and cannot be pretended unto by any ordinary Church Officer it being an appendix as it were of the Apostolick charge and supposing its exercise and existance and the Churches then infant state and condition Now to make these high and extraordinary functions ordinary and thus confound the two together must be a very gross usurpation 2. Hence it is manifest that the Episcopal function as above described in the quality and mould of the Diocesian Bishop will never be found in these extraordinary functions either formaliter or eminenter and consequently it must be a gross belying of the Spirit of God to pretend this in the assuming of this usurped Office First The Episcopal Office will not be found in that of the Apostles or Euangelists formaliter For these were universal unfixed Officers set over no particular Church or Diocess But were pro re nata to officiat to the whole Church as being the Apostles especially Officers thereof in actu exercito Nixt the Episcopal function is not included in these Offices eminenter or in the ordinary power whiâ—… the Apostles or Euangelists exercised or transmitte 〈◊〉 the Church And that for these Reasons 1. Neitâ—… the Apostles nor Euangelists in respect of their perpetâ—… ordinary Ministerial authority transmitted by them in 〈◊〉 Church did exercise Superiority Episcopal over other Ministers but as to the perpetual Pastoral Charge they held them their equals and in the ordinary power of government as wee saw above in the Apostles practise in ordination and Jurisdiction amongst Churches constitut and farr less can we suppose that the Euangelists were in such Churches to exercise any single or Episcopal preheminence in government For it were strange if Timothy who was ordained by a Presbytrye wherein Paul himself was present should notwithstanding usurpe preheminence over a Presbytery though inferior to ane Apostle And that whereas Presbyters did concurr pari passu with a whole Presbytery of Apostles in every peece of a judicial Act and decree yet that ane Euangelist inferior to any of the Apostles should take Episcopal preheminence over a Presbytery 2. The Apostles planted no such ordinary Officers in the Church as had that Episcopal Power therefore the Episcopal Power was not transmitted by them in the Church And by further consequence it is not included in their Office eminenter For it is evident that in the first plantation of the Churches they fixed Presbyters or Pastors as their immediat Successor's in the Ministerial power and likewise in their last farewel's into Churches they committed unto these Pastors the ordinary power of government without the least hint of a Super-institution of any officer of a higher order Act. 20 28 29. Compared with 25. 1 Pet. 5 2 3. with 2 Pet. 1 14 3. It was in respect of Paules ordinary Ministerial power and in that Capacitie that he had hands laid upon him by that Presbytety at Antioch and was sent out with other commissioners to that Synod at Jerusalem by them which looked like a humble submission pro tanto unto them and is far from the Episcopal preheminence since the Prelats dissoune all Subjection to the Prophes in greater or lesser assemblies 4. The Prelats authority is this he is upon the mater the only proper Pastor of the Diocess whose Episcopal inspection reaches Pastores and flocks both as is above cleared He is the fountaine from whom the power of order and Jurisdiction in the wholl Diocess is deryved and the exercise of both depends upon his Lordly disposal Now this is contrare both to the Apostles and Evangelists their ordinary and extraordinary power contrare to its very nature in universum their office being a declarative executive Ministerie onlie And Dominion or Lordship being discharged to all Apostles and all Church Officers whatsoever Hence in the 3d. place This Episcopal pretence aâ—…nt the derivation of their Lordly grandour from the Apostolick Office fastens a grosse charge of unfaithfulness upon them 1. In assuming a power in its nature distinct from what there Lord allowed and enjoyned them viz. a Lordly dominion not a ministerial Stewardshipe service only such a dominion as Princes of the gentiles exercise even to have the actus primus of a civil Lord-peer yea Chieff-peer or Parliament man 2. In debaseing and Straitening their Apostolick Inspection and carrying ane Office incompatible with it and thus unfaithfully tearing out a parte of their commission For in becoming Diocesian Bishops they should be fixed to particular diocesses and therin exercise ane ordinary fixed poever wheras their commission was to
this especially to whom a people doe intrust their soules direction and guidance If in any thing a Christian must Act in Faith and not give up his perswasion to ane implicit conduct and thus become a servant of men sure it must be in a mater ofso great weight as this is If Christs sheep have this for their Character that they knowe the voice of the trew Shepherd from the voice of the hyreling and stranger from whom they will flie Joh. 10 4 5. Sure their knowlege and consent must interveen in order to their acceptance of and subjecton to their Shepherd If they must not belive every Spirit buttry the Spirits sure this caution and tryal must be especially allowed in this case that they admitt not a false Prophet instead of a trew So then the Episcopal Government is in this as in other pointes chargeable with antichristian and anti-scriptural tyrannie over Christs flockes 10. The Episcopal Government is in this contrare unto the Word of God viz. In denying and cutting off from his administration and the totall laying asyde of a singularely usefull Church officer appointed by Christ in his House viz the ruleing elder That Government which denies and layes aside any of the great Master of the vine yeard his servants and officers whom he hath authorized and appointed must needs be highly derogatorie to his glory and contrare to his word But such is Prelacie The Prelats are like that sloathfull wicked servant who smites and beats away there fellow-servants while they eat and drink with the drunken That Prelats disoun and exclude this officer is evident both from their principles and practise They all deny the divine warrand of this Church officer And where Prelacy is established he is excluded from Presbyteries and Synodes and upon the mater also from the congregation For they deny and exclude all decisive suffrage there and take away all Authority of congregational elderships as we seen Now that this ruleing elder distinct from both the preaching Presbyter and Deacon Is appointed by God our Divines have made good from severall Scriptur grounds Such as 1. From Rom. 12 6 7. Where among severall other Church officers which the Apostle doth enumerat there is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or he that ruleth Here is ane ordinary Ruler distinct from all other Rulers and Church officers the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Rule and authoritative power Againe he is ranked among ordinarie Officers and so must needs be ane ordinary standing officer yet stands distinguished from other ordinary officers haveing both a distinct name from all the rest likewayes a distinct worke as being diversified from the teacher the exhorter and the giver And moreover a peculiar direction as have likewise all the rest So that from the circumstances of this place the divine right of this officer is clearly demonstrate Nixt That passage is pertinently improven for this purpose 1 Cor. 12 28. Where we read of helps Governments under distinct paragraphes clearly pointing out ordinary Governing Church officers distinct from the elders that preach and the Deacon and all other Church Governoures whatsoever They cannot be Governoures in the General for what doth this among a particula enumeration of officers These are distinct from helps distinct from the teaching elder for he is already mentioned in this same vers So here is a Rule and Government distinct from all governoures either civil or ecclesiastick except this ruleing elder yet set by God in the Church under the new Testament But the third and most pregnant passage from which our divines doe demonstrat the divine right of this Church officer is that of the 1 Tim. 5 17. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially they who labour in the word and Doctrine Here is a ruleing Church officer distinct from the preaching elder For here is a general elders Nixt we have two distinct branches of these elders viz the ruleing elder and the elder that both rules and laboures in the word and Doctrine in the word as the Pastor In the Doctrine as the teacher Again they are diversified in two distinct participles and epithets ruling is made the marke and characterick of the one viz Ruling only And both Ruleing and teaching is made the marke of the other whereby they are distinguished in their nature and office But in the 3d. place the forementioned distinction eminently appears in the discretive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially which is set betwixt these two kynds of elders intimating that as there were some of these ruling elders who did labour in the word and Doctrin so there were others who did Rule and not labour in the Word Both were worthy of double honour but especially the labourer in the word over and above this ruling And to this purpose it is well observed that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially is allwayes in the new Testament made use of to distinguish one thing from another As when it is said Gal. 6 10. Let us doe good to all men but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expecially to these of the houshold of faith hereby distinguishing soom that were of the houshold of faith and some that were not In which sense it is also used Phil. 4 22. and 1 Tim. 5 8 This precept saith Pâ—…scator Anal in Locum he first illustrats by a distribution and comparison of things different and unlike for he distinguishes elders into those who were sett over Ecclesiastick Disciplin yet so asthey did not publickly teach those who did teach also Wherein he clearly gives sentence for us against the Prelatick partie in this point Wee may hence Collect that ther were two sortes of elders at that time saith Calvin on 1 Tim. 5 17. For all were not ordained to teach for the words doc manifestly hold forth that some had governed well and faithfully to whom notwithstanding the office of teaching was not committed And trewly from among the people their were grave and good men chosen and approved who did together with Pastores by commune Councell authority administer Church Government and were in some sort censors for correcting of manners which oustome Ambrose compleans to have worme out of use by the negligence or rather the pryde of teachers while they covet to rule alone The pregnancy of this Scripture tramples into the dust the pitiful evasiones of all the Prelatists in denying the divine right of this officer Some of which we shall here take notice of and the confutation of the same offered by our divines upon this point Some by Ruleing well will have living well to be understood But the Apostle is speaking of the office of ruling in a Church officer ruling over others not of ruling over a mans â—…eif in a privat capacitie Neither is the Churches Honorarium double honour double maintinance due to living well as here it is allowed to ruling well And this will say that the Minister that
preaches not is worthy of double honour for living well which will make very harsh sense Some understand this ruleing elder of the Deacon but the Deacon is no where called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or elder his work being to help to distribut not to rule 1 Cor. 12 28. Rom. 12 8 Some would being in under this Ruler The ancient Superannuat Bishop But this gloss will in honour preferr unto him the diligent preaching Minister which will wound their cause to death Some by the Ruler will have such understood as did administer Sacraments but preached not But Paul knew non of these non preaching or seldom-preaching Ministers far less would he allow them a double honoure who rather deserved the contrary Paul will have all Ministers apt to teach and able to convince Some by the ruling elder would have Inferior Magistrats understood who were appointed for ending civil Striffes but the Apostle is here prescrybing rules to Church office bearers not civile rulers and teaching Timothy how to cary in the Church Againe they had then no Christian civil Magistrats as all doe grant and for their going to Heathens to compose their civil differences Paul himself dissallowes it 1 Cor 6. Some againe will have the laboring in the word doctrine to be nothing else but ane explanation of rulcing well but this inadvertant gloss will set asyde My Lord Bishop as no good ruler Againe as is said the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here or the word especially is discriminating and discretive distinguishing one thing from another not explaining one thing by another If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were thus sensed what odd work would it make in other places 1 Tim. 4 10. Who is the Saviour of all men especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them that believe This gloss will sense it thus the Saviour of all men greatly believing Others yet by labouring in the word and doctrine will have a higher degree of labouring as to diligence understood yet so as both branches speak of labouring in the word and doctrin But as the Leyden Professoures doe well answer this will allow double honour to the less-labouring or lazie elder who deserves rather a double rebuke the Lord requiring the the utmost faithful diligence of all labourers in his vineyarde Besides that this gloss justles out and makes Superfluous that clause of the verse viz in the word and doctrine which according to this exposition should either have been totally omitted or added unto both the branches of this sentence Some to escape the dint of this text invent yet another Shift all Sort of Rulers whither civil ecclesiastick or domestical are worthy of double honour so they sense the first branch and say they this General proposition the Apostle might premise to enforce the honour he enjoyns to the labourer in the word c. But the context fully rejects this gloss since the Apostle speaks not generally of Rulers but of elders that rule well and of such elders and rulers to all which he allowes double honour So that this gloss will mak pitiful work both in allowing the Churches honorarium double honour or honourable maintinance to domestick Rulers and likewayes will allow more honourable maintinance to Ministers then Magistrats Some woulde by the labourer in word and Doctrine as distinct from the ruling elder take in transient visiting Presbyters distinct from fixed preaches but where will they shew us any such who were not Evangelists Wee find that meer ordinary Presbyters were ordained for several cities and places as there peculiar charges whom they were fixedly to feed Act. 14 23. Tit. 1 5. Act. 20 28. But where find they such Presbyters as had no fixed charge Neither can Evangelists be meaned as Dr Burnet would gladely shift it in his first Dialogues the Apostle all along speaking of ordinary preaching Presbyters These and several such like exceptions the evidence of this text hath long since refuted So that we may conclude solidely from what is said the divine right of this Church officer and by consequence the horride Sacriledge and usurpation of Prelacie in robbing Christs Church of the same And likewise the Babilonish confusion which this Antichristian Hierarchie hath introduced into our Church both in divyding and maiming the Pastoral office in bringing in offices which the Great Shepherd hath not allowed and in excluding and thursting our offices and officers which the hath ordained upon which grounds and upon all the preceeding wee hope we may now safely conclude the Diocesian Prelat existing among us to be a plant which the father never planted and consequently as a poisonus weed to be rooted up CHAP. V. That the present Prelacie is grosse Erastianisme Some Arguments against it under that notion It excludes and denies all Church Government in the hands of Church officers distinct from the civil contrar to the Churches priviledge both under the Old and New Testament which is demonstrat at large Is in many points ane Incroachment upon the liberties of the gospel-Gospel-Church and upon Christs mediatorie authority over the same HAving thus farr impugned the Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church officer Wee shall nixt offer some Arguments against him in his Erastian Mould as deriving all his power from the civil Magistrat Althogh the office of the Diocesian Bishop were acknowledged warrantable yet this will help nothing the Erastian Prelat these being very distinct theams and questions What is that Species of Church Government allowed and commanded in Scriptnre and whither there be any inherent Church Government allowed her distinct from that of the Civil Magistrat and whither Church officers or the Civil Magistrat be the proper Subject therof that the Present Prelacie is gross Erastianisme is manifest for after all Church Judicatories were in Anno 16 62. discharged untill they were authorized by the Bishops nominat by his Majestie the disposal of the Government is declared to be the Crown-right and inherent pâ—…rpetual prerogative and thereupon the Bishops are restored not only to their civil dignities but to their Episcopal function presidencie in the Church and over all Church discipline c. And it is expresly declared that there is no Church power jurisdiction or Government in the Church office bearers or meetings but what depends upon and is subordinat unto the Supremacie and is authorized by the Bishops who are declared accountable to his Majestie for their administration In the Act for the National Synod the constituent members thereof the maters to be treated of the authorizing of the constitutions as Church Canons is soly in the Civil Magistrat there work being only to give advice to him without any decisive inherent suffrage By vertew of which Ecclesiastick Supremacie his Majesty puts excommunication and Spiritual censures and consequently the power of the keys into the hands of persons meerly civil in the Act for the high commission Hence it is aparent that his Majesty as the fountaine of all Church Government impartes this
Authority to such as he pleases and the Bishops are nothing else but his Majesties Commisioners in the exercise of that Ecclesiastick Power which is originally in himself Now that this Erastian Prelacie or Church Government is a stranger to the Scripture is many wayes evident 1. This Erastian Prelacie Denyes all Church Government in the hands of Church officers distinct from civil Magistrace which is ane error fully confuted and largely bafled by all who have written against Erastus and his followers and is contrare many wayes to Scripture I. To that distinction betwixt the Ecclesiastick and civil Sanbedrin under the Old Testameet asserted and cleared by many Scripture Arguments by our divines paraicularly Mr Gillespie in the Aarons rode I. From the institution of that Court of elders supposed in Exod. 24. Who were not those elders chosen for the government of the Commonwealth Numb 11. For this was done at Sinai shortly after they came out of Egypt But on the 20 day Of the 2d Moneth in the 2d Year they tooke their journey from Sinai to the â—…dernes of Paran Numbr 10. 11 12. And there pitched when the Seventie elders were chosen to relieve Moses They were not the judges chosen by advyce of Iethro for he came not to Moses till the end of the first year or the begining of the Second after they came out of Egypt Nor could they be judges who judged befor he came for he observed that the burdine lay upon Moses alone So they must needs have been Ecclesiastick Rulers under the presidencie of Aarone and Hur. vers 14. Who were called up as the representatives of the Church of Israel after the Judicial lawes were given Chap. 22. 23. In this 24. Chapter there is a transition to the Ceremonial lawes concerning the worship of God and the Structur of the Tabernacle Deutr. 17. 8 9 10. All grant there a Supream Court of judges therfor also the text must be granted to hold forth a Supreme Ecclesiastick Court For it caryes the authority sentence of the priests as hie as the authority sentence of the judges that in adisjunctive way as Two distinct powers each binding respective in their oun proper Sphere 3. From these judges officers 1. Chr. 23. 4 26 29. Supposed set to their work when the Levits were divyded to there Charge who were not tyed to service attendances in the Temple but to judge give sentence concerning the law its meaning and this saith the text over Israel coming to them from any of the cities of the land 4. From Jehoshaphats reformation 2. Chron. 19. 8 10 11. Who restoring the government of the Church did sett in Ierusalem levits priests Chieff of the Fathers of Israel for the judgment of the Lord for controversies Here is 1. A Court of priests Levits with power of Suffrage thus consisting of Ecclesiastick membres 2. In Ecclesiastick matters Maters of the Lord distinct from Maters of the King 3. For ane Ecclesiastick end viz. to warne that they trespasse not not only against one another but against the Lord. 4. All causes of their Brethren that dwelt in the Cities were to come to them unto Jerusalem 5. They have Ane Ecclesiastick Moderator or president Amariah the chieff priest over them in all Maters of the Lord â—…istinct as is said from Maters of the King These many such Arguments are made use of by him others To clear this poynt of the Two distinct Sanhedrins which fully overthrowes this Erastian Confusion of these two powers governments 2. This fountaining of all Church power in the civil and denying of Church government in the hands of Church officers distinct from the Civil government is Cross to that distinction of the Gospel Church her government from that of the Civil power wich is clearly held out in the new Testament Wherin it is evident 1. That the visible Church is Christ the Mediator his visible kingdome as Mediator And so its Officers Lawes Censures falls with in the compasse of his Mediatorie appointment and inspection Matth. 16. 19. 28. 29. Joh. 18. 36. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11 12. 2. That the gospel Church was Compleated in her being essence both as to Rulers Ruled Members officers and in rules directions for the exercise of her government accordingly when no Magistrat was so much as a member of her 3 That in all the precepts anent the exercise of this power it is enjoyned to the Church to these Church officers as such with the same freedome independancy upon the Civil power as at the first without the least restriction limitation in case of the Magistrats becoming Christian All the grounds made use of in pressing the exercise of this power being moral perpetual respecting the Church her condition as a Church whither the Magistrat be friend or enemie In the 2d Place This Erastian prelatick mould of government brings in many grosse encroachments upon the liberties of the gospell Church As 1. Denying her liberty to exercise her power Key of Censure without the Magistrat Contrare to all the New Testament instances of the exercise therof with out him 2. Introduceing a dominion arbitrary power upon all her government Contrare to her liberty the very nature of her government which is a Ministerial Stewardship not a dominion for thus the Church is the proper object of the Magistrats dominion that being the Nature of his power Rom. 13. And the present prelatick Church ounes the Supreme Civil governoure as her Chieff Church officerer 3. Giving to the Magistrat qua talis for this power in Church matters is by Prelats and their adherents aknowledged to be a perpetual Croun-right the proper Sole decisive suffrage in all causes falling under Ecclesiastick cognisance for Prelatists onely meet to advise him in there Suprem Court or national Synod according to the forementioned Act. Now this Cutts off all Church judicatories ther decisive suffrage as Church judicatories which as is cleared above they did fully at first exercise of themselves without the Magistrat 4. This mould will make the Civil Magistrat the proper immediat subject of the Keys and Impartes all Church government to One who as such is not so much as a Church member and impowers him to give out this supposed fountaine power to no Church members or to here enemies at his pleasure As his Majesty gives to persons Civil the power of excomunication Yea it gives him a power by his oun proper clicite acts to dispense all her external government as the law terms it which if we look upon it as including all externall ordinances contradistinct from the internal government of the inward man the Church invisible will necessarely import include the exercise of both the Keys all the external dogmaticke diatactick Critick authority power intrusted to the Church representative Which is a meer
Civil papacie the grossest of usurpations which the Church can be exposed unto as shall be afterward touched Finally This will inferr that Children Heathens yea women may be chieff Church officers and heads of the Church too since they may possesse the Crown of these Kingdoms to which this Headship and Supremacy is annexed But of this also againe 3. This Erastian government is a gross encroachment upon Christs prerogative over his Church And that in these wayes 1. In assumeing a power over the Church which is proper to Christ only I mean a Magisterial architectonick power That this is assumed by this Erastian mould of government is evident He who can dispose of government and governoures of the Church arbitrarly and dispose of all Church meetings and Church maters as he pleases and thinks fitt Hath certanly this power but that this Magisterial architectonick power and dominion over the Church is Christs Sole prerogative is abundantly clear by manifold plaine positive Scripture assertions To Christ is all power given in Heaven and Earth Matth. 28. 18. And he as Mediator is given to be head over all things to the Church Ephes. 1. 21 22. To hâ—…m is all judgement over her committed John 5. 22. Hee it is also who possesses these high tittles to be the Governoure over his Church by way of eminencie Matth. 2. 6. That great shepherd of the sheep Hebr. 13. 20. the shepherd and Bishop of Soules 1. Pet. 2. 25. Hee is that one Master over all Church officers who are but Brethren Matth. 23. 8 10. To us there is but One Lord Iesus 1. Cor. 8. 6. Hee it is to whom onely the imperiall acts of power are ascribed as the giving of lawes to his Church the gospel precepts are his law Gal. 6. 2. Hee it is who gave commandments to his Apostles Act. 1. 2. there is but one law giver who can save and destroy Jam. 4. 12. The Lord is our judge the Lord is our lawgiver or Statute maker the Lord is our King I say 33 22. He it is who Constitutes her ordinances preaching of the word Matth. 10. 7. 1. Cor. 1. 17. administration of the Sacraments as of baptisme John 1. 33. the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 11. 20. dispensing of Censures Matth. 16. 29. Hee it is who appointes his Officers Prophets Pastores Teachers Ephes. 4. 11 12. 1. Cor. 12 28. In his name onely all ordinances are dispensed Not in the name of Magistrats or of any Mortall The Apostles spake and taught in the name of Jesus Act. 4. 17 18. In his name we are to Ask Joh. 14. 13 14. In his name onely Ministers are to preach and baptize Matth. 28. 18 19. 2. Cor. 5. 20. In his name onely they are to Censure to deliver to Satan 1 Cor. 5. 4. In his name only Church assemblies are to be gathered which seems the Smallest Act. Matth. 18 20. See jus divinum Regim Eccles Appollon Revius c. 2. This Erastian government incroaches upon Christs prerogatives In taking and using the Keys against Christs donation and authoritie Christ is the only Lord giver of both the Keys and all their power But in this Usurped power the Kevs are 1. Divyded against his prescription who gave both the Keys of Doctrine and Discipline joyntly to the proper recipients theâ—…of viz. Church officers Matth. 16. 19. This Erastian government â—…ches away One Key viz. of government from such to whom Christ the great Master of the House hath Intrusted both Christ in this donation of the Keys making no mention of the Civil Rulers but only of Church Officers then appointed who were distinct from the Magistrat Hence 2. The Key of disciplin is taken and used against his mynde by these to whom he hath not Intrusted it which is a great encroachement upon his authoritie In the 3d. place this Erastian government encroaches upon Christs authoritie over his Church In superadding Ane officer to theseChurch officers institut and appointed by him For in all the Scripture rolls of Christs Church officers the Civil Rulers are not found Eph. 4. 10 11. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 6. 7 8. 4. This encroachment appeares in making Church officers as such imediatly subject to the Magistrat in all their Spirituall administration which is a hie Censure of the Primitive exercise of this power independantly as we shal shew 5 In exeeming him from all Spiritual subjection unto and censure by Church Rulers For where â—…pray shal we find the Magistrat excepted and the hiâ—…herCivil powers if within the Church from Christs lawes and rules anent subjection to Church censures and to his Spiritual office bearers intrusted therewith CHAP. VI. Erastianism denyes the compleat constitution of the Apostolick Church in point of Government Removes the Scriptur Land-markes set to distinguish the Civil and Ecclesiastick Powers which is cleared in several points It is lyable to great absurdities IN the 4th place This Erastian Government presumes to impeach the primitive Apostolick Church her compleat constitution and faithfulness of Administration in relation to Government and makes here to have had but a defective maimed constitution and authority thereanent while the exercise of the civil power in her was wanting Which charges a gross deficiency upon Christs prescriptions in relation to her Lawes and Officers Which are found in Scripture very full and suited to her state and condition in all times until all the Elect be made up and here warfare is accomplished and consequently it impeaches Christs saithfulness and authority as Mediatour whose proper work this holy constitution is 5. This Erastian Prelacy takes away all the Scripture Landmarks and Limits which are fixed therien by God to distinguish the Civil and Ecclesiastick Powers and Governments and makes them every way the same in all things wherein Scripture and Reason do distinguish them both as to their Nature and Acts and likewayes as to their Causes 1. As to their Nature this Erastian Government doth confound them 1. In that it makes the Church and Commonwealth the Political and Ecclesiastical Societies one and the same which are formally distinct It being a visible profession that make a Church member and outward habitation and subjection to the civil power that makes a Subject Which may be where there is no profession and consequently no Church-membership For in this mould the Kings Government Civil is Church Government for it is his Government as King in which capacity this Ecclesiastick Supremacy is his prerogative and his Ecclesiastick Government is also Civil Government for it is his Government as the Supream Civil Magistrat And thus the Church respected by his government is the Common-wealth vice versa 2. This confounds the Officers of Church and State which the Scriptur doth aboundantly distinguish For as is said The Church had all her Officers of Christs appointment when no Magistrat was a Member thereof and on the other hand Common-wealths had all their civil Rulers before they became Churches But in this Erastian
Prelacy this order is confounded The chief Officers of this Church are the Magistrats Commissioners to Church and State whereas Church Officers are given by Christ as Mediatour to his Church as a Church 1 Cor. 12 Ver. 28. 3. The actings of civil and Ecclesiastick authority are thus confounded Spiritual church Rulers Act onely in Spiritual matters by Gods appointment and civil Rulers there immediat proper Acts are only in matters Civil But here Church Officers are Parliament Commissioners and civil Rulers in the high commission do excommunicat Againe in the 2. place This Erastian Prelacy confounds these two powers in their causes which are wholly diverse 1. The efficient cause is diverse God as Creator is Author of Magistracy Rom. 13. But Christ as Mediatour appoints Church Government Matt. 28 18. But here the Magistrat qua talis is a suprem Church Ruler And thus is supposed to have his power from Christ as Mediator and Head of his Church Which is ane opinion fully confuted by those who havewritten against Erastus particularly Mr Gillespie in the Aarons Rod. 2. They differ in the material cause the matter on which the two powers do act are diverse Ecclesiastick power doth act in the exercise of the Keys the administration of the Word and Sacraments having this for its proper Object and matter The civil power consists in the civil and secular Sword the one reaches the inward the othere the outward man But in this Erastian Prelacye the Sword and Keys are made one promiscuously used and put into the same hands 3. The two powers differ in their formal cause the civil power is put forth in political punishments the Ecclesiastick in spiritual censures But here the same power is the first Radix and Fountaine of Spirituall Censures and Civil punishments and gives them their formal essence and being as such Finalie The proper immediat end of Civil power is the Temporal External political peace of the commonwealth Rom. 13. 1 2. 3. But the proper end ofEcclesiastick power Is the Churches Spiriual good and edification as such Matth. 18. 15. 1 Cor. 5. 5. 2. Cor. 10. 8. and 13. 10. But here the Magistrat quatalis being the Churches head these ends are Confounded These and several such like arguments are made use of by our writers against Erastus which doe fully evince the unlawfulnes of this Erastian prelacie Whosoever shal peruse Apollonius His jus Majest Circ Sacr the jus Div regim Eccles the Aarons rod wallaeus against Vtenbog and such like will find this abundantly clear To shâ—…t up all with One word more Ther are these 3. horride absurdities in relation to Church government which the premised mould of this Erastian prelacie will necessarly inferr 1. That a man may be borne not only a Church member but a Chief Church Ruler Nay that a Heathen and a man that never professed the true religion but lives and dies ane ingraind enemie to it and so hath neither mater nor forme of Church membership may be a Chieff Church officer For his Majesties present authoritie herine acknowledged by our prelats and which is the Fountaine of their power is the proper Croune dignitie of all that ever shall possesse and wear it and so here is a monstrous Church officer who 1. hath no qualifications of any Church officer whom ever Christ appointed 2. A Church officer who is not Set in the Church which is the essential marke of all Church officers 1. Cor. 12 28. for that supposes he must be a Church member A 2d absurditie is this That Children and women who may have a lawfull lineal right to the Croun may be Church officers Yea the Fountaine of our prelats authority and of all their Underâ—…ings and the chieff governoure of this Church and thus they who are forbidden so much as to speak in the Church shall be Chieff Church Rulers and likewayes such as have not the use of Reason 1. Tim. 3 5. 1. Cor. 14. 34 35. A 3d. absurditie is That the Church government upon earth may be Monarchical and that One man may be her Supream head legislator And architectonick Monarch and Ruler for aquatenus ad omne valet consequentia Upon the same ground that the Suprem Civil Ruler is Chieff head and Ruler over the Church in his dominions the Church in all other places being a body of the same nature Should the Christian Church be contracted within his dominions he were her Supreme universall head And it were so if his Civil dominion should be extended over all the Churches By this same reason of his headship over One he may be head over all and exercise ane arbitrary at least a legislative power over all her ordinances and officers And if this will not Clearly set the popes Treeple Croun upon his head and disowne all that ever the protestant Churches have writen and acted against his blasphemous Supremacie let common discretion judge Ambrose Epist 33. ad valentinianum imperatorem Saith noli gravare imperator ut putes in ea quae divina sunt aliquod imperiale jus habere opliticorum tibi munerum jus concessum est non Sacrorum Grieve not O Emperour so as to think that you have any Imperial authority over these things which are divine the right or authority of politicall offices is committed unto thee but not of Sacred CHAP. VII The Informers deceitfull shifting and obscuring the true State of the Question anent Episcopacie and flinching from the point debatable discovered Severall wayes He declines a direct pleading for prelats civil offices Yet offers some arguments defence therof Wherin his prevarication and Contradiction to himself is made appear TO come now to examine what this new Dialogist hath produced in defence of the present prelacie established amongst us And to examine his answers to our plea against it We shall not stand upon the trifling debate about the personal good qualities of some that have been prelats with which Hee prefaces this Dialogue it being altogether extrinsick to the Question anent the lawfulnes of the office it self And would be no argument in our case against him as this man cannot but acknowledge else Hee must give up the cause upon his concession of the Unquestionable eminent pietie and integritie of many burning and Shining lights who have been the Lords Constant witnesses against prelacie That which is here mainely considerable Is his prevarication in Stating the Question anent prelacie viz. Whither the ancient Bishopes had a Superioritie over other Ministers wherin he utterly â—…ches away from the pointe debeatable 1. In making this the State of the Question what Bishopes were in the primitive Church wheras the true State of our Question is whither the prelat now existent in this Church be a Scripture Bishop and consonant therunto Or ane officer appointed by Christ in his house Yea or not And not whither there have been Bishops or such as we now have in the ancient Church The Question is not of the mater of
primacy or ecclesiastick Monarchy even as abstracted from his civill Dominion is not here discharged And if it be as all our divines assert it is then our Lord understood another sort of abuse of power then invadeing a Dominium civile even all despotick or Lordly power whither civill or pretended ecclesiastick in Church officers Besids if he discharged Lordly power he discharged that which Peter discharged 1 Pet. 5. Even to Lord over Gods heritage What will he dare to say that it is only a civill Lordship which is there discharged not rather ane ecclesiastick dominion Which bath Gods heritage or Church for its object And if so then the Prelats Dominion is expresly stricken against since as we have above cleared his power is a meer despotick Lordship or rule For to be the proper object fountaine of all ecclesiástick authority in the Diocess to have sole power in ordination jurisdiction the sole decisive suffrage in Judicatories is either a despotick Dominion and Lordship or it is nothing and if the Churches power is of another nature then this civill Dominion as this man tells us of what nature is it Only of another nature because it touches spiritual objects Then for any thing that is here forbidden a papall ecclesiastick monarchy is never touched Or is it of another nature because in it self Steward-like and Ministerial not despotick or Princely like that of the Magistrat which is the sense of all sound divines and must be his too if he speak sense then who sees not that the power of the Prince-or Lord-Prelat is most formally discharged It being evidently of this nature Yet againe it is in this apparent that he shiftes and shuffles the question and its terms here anent the power of the Prelat and the power discharged in this text For in saying in the beginning of his Answer that Christ discharges that kind Dominion of onely which civil Princes exercise he must needes be supposed to contradistingush from this ane ecclesiastick Dominion which is allowed yet when he speaks of this he alters the terms telling us that the Churches power is of another nature he should have said the Churches reserved Dominion if he had spoken consequently as that other kind of Dominion which he allowes and by the consequence of his discourse holds that the Text will allow In a word that all sort of Dominion whither pretended ecclesiastick or civil is here discharged to Church officers and consequently his offering violence to the Text is apparent from the context two wayes 1. In that the strife among the Apoles flowing from this desire of unlawful greatnes and which drew forth this exhortation and prohibition under debate was not about a civill despotick rule properly or onely but anent a Lordship chief rule in the Church and in matters ecclesiastick under Christ as their head So that though the Lord exemplified the greatnes which he discharged them in that of earthly princes there being no other then existent and apparent yet it was not this primarily but ane ecclesiastick Lordship or dominion which he strycks against Since he is directing them both negatively and positively anent the nature And exercise of their spiritual and ecclesiastick Authority and Rule 2. The positive parte of his injunction touching a Ministerial service or humble Ministery excludes all sort of dominion in what ever sense it can be taken and not a civill dominion onely Our Informer tells us nixt That sundrie interpreters interpret Christs words as discharging only Tyranny such as earthly Princes exercise And in this he Informers us right Onely he should have been so ingenuus as to tell us that they are interpreters beyond our line that is popish interpreters for this is directly Bellarmins shift to which since he stands here upon the same ground with him I shall return learned Whittakers interpretation and answer which hitherto I believe hath passed current with all sound Protestants Christ sets before them the example of the Kings of the Gentiles not to the end they may flie ambition on'y as this man shifts it but to let them understand that they have nothing to doe with a kingly rule For saith he though the words translated exercise dominion or authority which Matthew maks use of doeth sometimes signifie immoderat dominion yet Luke Omitts the preposition in both these Words But so it is that the simple verb is attribut to these who obtaine power and dominion not to these who insolently and tyrannically overerule for all those who among the gentiles obtained principality did not reigne tyrannically or unjustly nay the Clemency of many such and their justice is praised Thus he de pontif Quest 1. To which I may add that our Lord speakes of such Princes as were called Benefactoers or gracious Lords a very unsuiteable designation for Tyrannes How easie is it from the Informer reasoning here and with his net to fish out a papacy That which the Apostles here desired was in it self lawful and the fault was onely in the ambitious desire as it was with diotrephes who desired a lawful preexistent office This he clearly asserts I subsum But that which they desired and were striving about was a primacie or papacie Ergo that office is lawfull in it self The pope will thank our Informer for this The nixt text objected by the doubter is that pregnant passage 1 Pet. 5 3. Be not Lords over Gods heritage And from this he maks him mutter out this slender argument is not superiority among Church men there clearly forbidden Still we see our Informer keeps him under the covert of his own groundless supposition that we doe from this and such like texts Impugne Superiority among Church men as he terms it whereas wee allow as he cannot but know with all sound divines and scripture it self superiour and inferiour degrees among Church officers And he cannot shew that any Presbyterian did ever draw forth from this text such ane insignificant notion as this against Prelacy But hee behoved to make the knot easy since himself must loose it Our Argument from this text is this That the Apostle here injoyneing Ministers their duty both negativil and positively he first dehorts from evills they are lyable unto such as heart reluctancy at their laborius employment covetusness and usurpation or Lordship and Dominion whither over their fellowes which Dietrephes affected or over the people by taking ane arbitrarie masterly imperious way with them or a way of force and rigoure as these reptehended Ezek. 34 4. He nixt positively exhortes them to lead or rule in a holy exemplarie Shepherd-like Method expressing the word of grace in their practise Now I say from this genuine sense and scope of the place wee argue against Prelacie thus 1. The Apostle exhorts these elders or Ministers as their fellow-elder supposeing them his immediat Successors in the highest Spheere of ane ordinarie Ministery for he supposes them to have non higher over them now when he
him Besids will any say that the Deacons joyned with these Bishops in the period of this verse were not at Philippi or belonging to that Church but with Paul But they are mean men and their credit needed not to be saved by such a conceit as this All the fear of that Father was â—…east these Bishops at Philippi be found meer Presbyters of that Church And how to ward off this blow hoc opus hic labor ese Well what further answers he He tells us nixt That others think they were Bishops of theChurches about conveened at Philippie which Paul knowing of salutes them with the Church Since he first salutes the Saints as intending mainely to write to them and then the Bishops So wee see the Prelatists saile every point of the compasse to save the credit of these Bishops If Bishops cannot be gotten sett beside the chaire with Paul when addressing the Epistle this gloss standing clearely antipod to the Text the nixt shift is rather then these Bishops be degraded to meer Presbyters to send for some other Bishops to Philippi at this tyme of Paules Writing that this casual Mustere of Bishops of other Churches may warde off the deadly blow which the cause will gett by seating all these Bishops at Philippie as officers of that Chuch and to compass this designe they must be but occasionally saluted here and not as fixed members or officers thereof upon the Apostles Information comeing to late to his ears from our Informer and his fellows that there were several Magnates there besides the ordinary Presbyters at Philippi But which also odd they must become so humble as to fall behind the Saints the persons mainely written to Had our Informer left out this clause which notwithstanding his answer did require Our Prelats Parliaments order Who are before because behind the most would have saved their reputation still But many of the Ancients are more ingenuous Thodoret confesses that Presbyters are here understood because their could not be many Bishops in one-city on Philip. 1. Oecumenius on Philip. 1. Tells us That we are not so to understand it as if there were many Bishops in one citty but that the Apostle calls the Presbyters Bishops Chrisost. ibid. acknowledges That they were Presbyters who were called thus because the names were then common and the Bishop himself was called Deacon and that the distinction of names came afterward This conjecture is sib to that other shift to take off the strength of our argument from Act. 20. viz. That these Elders were not Church Officers of Ephesus onely but the Bishops of all Asia mett together at Ephesus and sent for by Paul from thence least if the Episcopal authority be found seated in these Elders of Ephesus at Pauls last farewel it breake the Diocesian Prelat all in peeces But as it is well replyed that since Paul sent to Ephesus for the Elders of the Church it is a groundless conjecture to call them any other Elders then of that Church to which he sent and that there is no hint in the text of any other Elders there at that time So this fancie is as fond when applyed to this passage and may receave the same reply What shaddow of proof can be produced that therewere any other Officers there at this time then the Bishops or Ministers of this Church And what Logick I pray or sense is there in this inference that because the Apostle first salutes all the Saints or the Church collective in bulke and then the Church Officers Bishops and Deacons or the Church representative in special that therefore he salutes these Church Officers as casually there and not as Officers of that Church Beside had the Apostle saluted them as casually present they would have been saluted with every Saint in Christ Chap. 4 21. rather then in the inscription The English Annotations thus sense it That by the Bishops and Deacons we are to understand the whole Ministery at Philippi consisting of Presbyters to whom the government of the Church was committed and Deacons who not only had the care of the poor but also assisted the Ministers in their Ecclesiastick function But our Informer hath a third Answer wherein He grants that these Bishops and Deacons were Officers of this Church and askes where were the ruling Elders here and if we say they are included in the word Bishop then he tells us that upon better ground he can affirme that Bishops here signifies both the superiour Bishop and the ordinary Minister who may be called Bishop as well as Epaphroditus is called ane Apostle Answ. 1. Our Argument from this place and such like beside the Scriptures silence as to the Diocesian Bishop is That the Scripture Bishop doth therein stand so described and qualified that it is impossibe to understand him of any other officer then a meer Presbyter which is most manifast here It being impossible that a multiplicity of Bishopes could be at Philippi as is universally acknowledged And if he grant that these Bishops were officers of that Church in Philippi he must either say they were meer Preebyters which is all wee seek and the yeelding of his cause or he must prove that either here or els where the word Episcopus or Bishop designes the diocesian Bishop and place a multiplicity of such Bishops here against the old Cannons particularly that of Nice But 2. As to what he sayes of the ruleing elders it is utterly impertinent and answered already We proved the ruling elders office as distinct from the preaching elder by clear Scripture grounds and did shew that the Scripture points out two sorts of elders giving them both this generall name of elder then distinguishing them into such as rule and such as labour in the word and doctrine But this Informer will never prove that Episcopus or Bishop designes two sorts of Pastors a higher and a lower or that there is any difference of degrees in the pastoral office So that he cannot include here his Superior imaginarie Bishop of whose office the Scripture is utterly silent As we may the elder in the Bishop And till he make the Diocessian Prelat appear in Scripture we must still hold that when Ministers are called Bishops they get the proper specifick designation and characteristick of their office are not called â—…o in a general figurative sense or Catachrestice as Epaphroditus is called the Philippians Apostle or messenger But how viz. their messenger sent to Paul who ministered to his wants Phil. 2 25. So 2 Cor. 8. v. 23. Titus and others are called the Apostles and messengers of the Corinthianes viz as it is there inumar in that bussines of the collection for the Saincts at Jerusalem for which end they were sent to the Corinthians So the Spirit of God in Scripture both in holding out the distince office of Apostle properly so called for I hope our Informer will not upon this ground make different degrees of Apostles as he doth of Pastors
us the Image and lineaments of our present prelacie in the Jewish Church Government For 1. We cleared above that the Ecclesiastick Sanhedrin was distinct from the civil and that the priests had a distinct independent authority and ministery But the prelats derive all their spiritual authority from the Magistrat 2. He cannot shew that either the Highpriest or any inferiour priests had the sole decisive Suffrage in their ecclesiastick Courts or such a negative voice as the prelats exercise assumein their pretended Synods and presbyteries The learned Iunius will informe our Informer De Cler. Cap. 24 Not 13. That par consortium honoris potestatis fuit inter sacerdotes sed ordine impari qua familiarum qua temperis respectu Penes concessum sacerdotum ex lege fuit ordinaria jurisdictio ecclesiastica That is Among the priests there was a like participation of honour and power though in a different order partly in respect of families and partly in respect of times the ordinarie ecclesiastick jurisdiction belonged to the assemblie of the priests according to the Law Thus he Sure then it belonged not to the Highpriest alone farr less to any inferiour priests and therefore none of them all had our prelats negative voice in judicatories or a sole decisive Suffrage so that they were farr from our prelats principality as to directive and corrective power And therefore though we should grant that his argument will hold as to our being oblidged by the policie of the Jewes and to have the government of the Gospel Church this moulded yet our present hierarchie is so different from it that it will not help his cause in the least But the doubter objects that there ought not to be such a subordination under the new Testament To which he answers That the Old Testament-subordination being to maintaine order and unitie in the in the Church there is the same reason for it under the new and stronger because the Christian Church is of larger extent then the Iewish and the danger of schismes and the necessity of preventing them the greater And what better way for this then Gods way thus exemplary pointed out to us although the New Testament gave no other ground Gods own model being best for the Church I answ 1. He must plead for much more then a meer subordination of Officers if he speak to the point as is clear from that is said And his Doubter if he had dealt fairely should have objected that the New Testament Church ought not to have the same mould of government that the Jewish had and that there is a vast disparitie betwixt their prelatick Erastian Hierarchie and the Jewish Church-Government Both which grounds doe break the force of his argument But it is good that our Informer hath the doubters arguments and objections of his own moulding 2. Though he know reason of a subordination under the Old Testament he should have said of that particular mould of government which the Iewish Church had but his general one to maintaine order and union in Gods Church he should have said in that Church under that special dispensation yet we have showen him some Reasons of their particular policie which doe not reach us And shall onely resume to him that we have neither 1. Such a distinction of tribes Nor 2. A common Temple and common Ministry in one Temple for the universal or for any National Church as they Nor 3. Have we such types and shaddowes from which as upon the former grounds this mould of government did flow Nor 4. Such various sanctuarie offices and degrees and varieties of administrations requiring as Bishop Bilson hath told him such varietie and different degrees of Administratores the Word and Sacraments being concredited to all Ministers without distinction c. Besides hath not the Apostle in the forementioned passage Hebr. 7 12. Given this Informer a sufficient Reason why wee are not tyed to the same Policie viz because that the Priosthood is changed i. e. their particular frame of Church officers that therefore there is made a change of the Law that is of the legal ordinance both of worship Government 3. Darene say that Christs Church under the New Testament may have every mould of government which may be in it self or in respect of some circumstances commendable and subservient to these ends of order and union Where is Christs faithfulness as a Sone over his own house beyond that of Moses Where are all the New Testament prescriptions in point of government Officers Lawes Censures if the Church thereof like a Tabula rasa may have any government introduced into it which may be in its own time and place good and Ministers framed according to the Old Testament dispensation 4. How will our Informer extricat himself as to the Jewish High priest in maintaining this Answer to his doubter Was not his office a special mean of order and unitie in that Church and to prevent schisme s and divisions And is there not the same reason that the Christian Church should be thus kept from that evil by a supream Highpriest or bishop What better way for this then Gods owne way And what better pattern for modelling the New Testament-Church in point of her government then this pattern Surely the Pope will thank him for this I know he sets aside in contradiction to Saravia as I shall shew the Highpriest in his argument as a Type of Christ the man forsaw that this would cast his argument in to ane intire Popish mould but he is not so forseeing as to prevent his being snared by his own reason caught in the brieres of contradictions For 1. He dare not deny that this Officer was a singular Mean of their order and union Hence he must grant that his answer to the doubters objection is naught and that Gods way of preserving order and union in the New Testament Church is different from his way and the means of preverving it under the Old and that the Samenes of the end of Gods ordinances and institutiones under both dispensations will not plead for holding the same institutiones Was not order union and the edification of the Church the great end of all the Mosaical Ceremonies and Pedagogie Were not the Jewes for this great end of order and union to keep their solemne Feasts To go up to Jesusalem solemly and joynly three tymes in the year To have one common Temple one Altar c. And must therefore the Christian Church observe the same ordinances and institutions 2. How will he prove that the inferiour Priests were not Types of Christ as well as the Highpriest Dare he say that their praying for the people and their sacrificeing were not typical of Christs intercession and sacrifice as well as the praying and sacrificing of the High priest though not in the same degree of eminencie I grant that the Apostle Heb. 5. speaking of the authority and honour of Christs Priesthood presentes
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
were adressed to a Moderator would that infer his Authoritie over the Synod Nay since a Presbytry laid on hand 's upon Timothy himself Since the Presbyters of this Church of Ephesus had the Episcopal power in Common committed to them as the Holy Ghosts Bishops Since the Corinth-Presbytery did excommunicat the incestuous we may clearly infer that these directions though immediatly addressed to Timothy yet belonged to Presbyters of that and Other Churches as well as him 2. Supposing that this adress will give him a speciall Interest herein yet how will the Informer prove that it respects Timothy any other way and in any other Capacity then of ane Euangelist which he sayes it might be he yet was and not a Bishop He dissallowes not of Gerards opinion who sayes that he was not yet made Bishop Now if these Rules were to be observed by him and this his supposed singular Authority exercised as ane Evangelist whose office was to cease It will plead nothing for the Episcopal power Surely upon our supposition that he was a fellow-helper and assistant of Paul in his Apostolik function and had a transient occasional Imployment here as is clearely held out in the Text these rules are very suitable unto him in that capacity Besids these Directions are for instruction of every man of God or Minister in point of Church-Government 2. Tim. 3 16. 1 Tim. 4. 6 But doth not give them Episopal power Or will he say that every man hath the formal office or place in the nature whereof he is instructed The dedication of a book to a man anent rules of kingly Government will not make the man or suppose him either King or Governour In the 3d. place As to these Directions themselves particularly as to Timothies direction as to laying on of hands 't is Answered that laying on of hands in ordination is found in Scripture a Presbyterial Acte competent to meer Presbyters which as I said they exercised upon Timothy himself though Paul was present 1 Tim 4 14. 2 Tim. 1. 5. And therefor Timothy could have no single or Episcopal authority therein in Churches Constitute So that the precept directs Presbyters as well as him in that point Nay this addressed direction mainly respected them as the proper subject of this power and the Presbytery received their lesson here not to lay on hands suddenly rather then Timothy Nixt As for his Authority and directions anent rebuking and Censures I answ That neither can this be Timothy's sole prerogative for either it is meaned of a Privat rebuke and this every Christian hath authority in Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour and not suffer sin upon him Levit. 19 17. Prov. 9 8. Or of a ministerial rebuke and this is competent to every Minister of the word Isa. 58 1. 2 Tim. 41 2. Tiâ—… 1 13. 2 Sam. 12 8. And besides Institutions and reproofs of Church officers will not prove a fixed Episcopal power Prophets rebuked but had no jurisdiction over Priests nor Paul over Peter though he reproved him As for that which he particularly mentions about receiving ane accusation against ane Elder It is answered That this also belongs to the official juridical power of Elders since Ruling Government attribute to them in Scripture doth necessarily import ane authority to receive accusations and correct delinquents by reproofs and censures Matth. 8 16. 17. There is ane accusation to be delated ecclesiae to the Church or the juridical Court not to one Prelat as is above cleared and therefore the direction anent the receiving of the accusation respects them who were to judge upon it and not the Prelat Compare this with 1 Cor. 5 4 5. The Presbyters must meet together to rebuke the Incestuous there and they that are Spiritual must restore the delinquent Gal. 6 1. The Church officers or Ministers of Thessalonica must note and admonish authoritatively the disobedient Brother 2 Thess. 3 14 15. To which I may add that as upon the one hand Timothy is forbidden to rebuke ane elder and positively enjoyned doubly to honour them when faithful So the receiving ane accusation is no more then that which every privat Christian and Minister is capable of even against the superiour whither in state or age in relation to admonition Counsel or Comfort accordingly Levit. 19 17. Gal. 6 1 2 Joh. 10 11. None in whatever capacity are exeemed from this precept not to receive accusations lightly Hence the 4th Council of Carthage cited by Blond Apol. Sect. 4 enacted That no Bishop should hear ane accusation without the Clergie and that without their assent the sentence should be voyd where was the negative voyce here Whittaker thus answers the Popish pleading upon this text and our Informers too controv 4. Quest. 1. Cap. 2. That Timothy is commanded not rashly to receive ane accusation proves not that he had dominion over Elders which according to the Apostles minde is to bring a crime to the Church to bring the guilty into judgement openly to reprove which not only superiors may doe but also equals and inferiors In the Roman Republick the Kings did not only judge the people but also the Senators and patricii and certainly it seems not that Timothy had such a â—…sistory and Court as was afterward appointed to Bishops in the Church what this authority was may be understood by that which followes those that sin rebuke before all which equals also may doe Thus bishops heretofore if any elder or Bishop had ane ill report referred it to the eeclesiastick Senat or Synod and condemned him if he seemed worthy by a publick judgement that is did either suspend excommunicat or remove him the Bishop condemneing nocent elders or deacons not by his authority alone but with the judgment of the Church and clergie in case of appeals even to the Metropolitan he could doe nothing without the Synod what they did was ratified The same is the answer of Bucer de vt usu Sacr. Minister Willet Sinops Papis Contr. 5 Ques 3 part 3 In the appeudix Eucer de Gub. pag. 300. to 398. The Informer tells us in the next place that these directions concern after ages and are of ordinary use and therefore they cannot be extraordinary officers in these Acts that in calling Timothy and Titus extraordinary officers in these Acts we lead the way to their errour who call ordination and jurisdiction extraordinary Answ. As we have proved that none of these directions will infer in Timothy ane Episcopal Power properly such but that any power he had above Presbyters was by his special Evangelistick Legation so the concernment of after ages in these directions and their being of constant use is a pitiful argument to prove the continuanc of the power in that manner Are not all the old Testament precepts anent the antiquated ceremonies all the acts directions given to extraordinary officers both under the Old and New Testament of perpetual
Miâ—…prin un Bish of Tim and Tit p. 34. The Doubter objects against Timothies Episc. That he was ordained by the layingon of the hands of the presbytery 1. Tim 4. 14. and therefore could not be a Bishop Since a Presbytery which is a company of Ministers cannot make a Bishop To this the Informer returns 1. That Calvin thinks that by presbytery is meaned the office I answer Suppose Calvin think so what will that say to the argument it self Againe Calvine upon the place doth not wholly dissoun the ordinary comment which takes the presbytery for a company of elders but thinks it may well sustean Presbiterium qui hio saith he Collectivum nomen esse putant pro collegio presbiterorum positum recte Sentiunt meo judicio Such as esteem the presbitery here to be a collective word put for the assembly of elders doe rightly judge in my judgement Besids that the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyterie especially as it stands here constructed cannot in any tollerable sense import the office for the office hath no hands to lay on 2 The Informer flies to his old shift of shâ—…uding the diocesian Bishops under the lapp of these presbyters which he tells us we need not think strange of since he hath shewed that the Apostles are called elders or presbyters Ans. Wee have already disproved what he alledges from the Apostles being called elders in agenerall sense here as befor he but begges the Question in supposing his imaginary different degrees of preaching presbyters or Pastours to be at this tyme existent which untill he make it appear from Scripture is as easily denyed by us as affirmed by him What a pitiful cause must that be which needs the support of such vaine shifts In phil 1. and Act. 20. Bishops diocesian Bishops must be set up among the presbyters So here they must be brought into this presbytery whereas the very Question is anent the being and existence of any such Bishops at all at this tyme. Next If hi-man were posed upon it why he maks the presbyters here to be of his imagined hiest class of diocesian Bishops and not also in all placâ—…s where they are mentioned as Dr. Hamon doth And how it comes that there were so many Bishops so early here befor Ephesus Crete and other Churches had even his inferiour elders or ordinary Ministers He could give no answer but what would render him rediculous in his running the Circlestick and begging the Question Besides Timothy was yet no Bishop for he was advanced to this office when set over Ephesus in the Informers judgement and he was now only with him a sort of unfixed preacher of the gospell or ane Evangelist in his large sense And Hooker sayes the Evangelists were presbyters of prime sufficiency assumed by the Apostles to attend them This resolver will have him to be no other wayes ane Evangelist then Philip who he supposes was still a deacon when so termed Thus it evidently appears that Timothy according to him and upon the sequel of that answer receaved at the utmost but a meer presbyterat in his ordination and then I wonder what needs a number of Bishops be mustered together for ordaining him Might not Paul and the Inferiour presbyters ordaine such ane one Thus we see he is still inconsistent what himself in all his shifts But he hath a 3d. Answer taken from the laying on of pauls hands mentioned 2. Tim. 1. 6 which he sayes gave the substance of the ordination although the presbyters might share in the Ceremonial pare of is Ans 1. If it were denyed that the Apostle 2. Tim. 1. 6 affirmes That Timothy was ordained by the laying one of his hands since hementiones onely the gift conferred by the laying on of his handes which Paul might confer upon him antecedaniously to his ordination since he laid on hands in order to gifts of the Spirit abstracting from ordination as other Apostles did Act. 8. 17. And also because the different maner of expression in 2. Tâ—…m 1. 6. and 1. Tim. 4. 14. viz 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the one place and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other diversifies the conferring of gifts and the ordination or at least wil plead that Pauls laying on of hands was in order to the Conferring of the gifts and not necessarie for the ordination it self which he receaved intirely by the laying on of the presbyteryes hands even supposeing that they were both contemporarie If I say Some presbyterian Doubter should suggest these difficulties to our Informer he would be puzled to come liquide off with this his answer Surely the Charisma the gift is a differing thing from the office And the Apostles laying on of hands as ane Apostle being in a speciall way in order to the end mentioned thouh contemporarie with the presbytryes action yet migâ—…t be temporary and expired 2. What Calls he the cemonial part distinguished from that substantial pat of his ordination which Paul gave which he admitts the presbyters unto if we will Nay Sir we will not 't is known your party are much in love with ceremonies and we quite them unto you where they want substance Was it the Ceremonial part to lay on hands Then I would propose to our Informer 1. That since this was neither in order to the gifts which Paul gave nor any part of the sacred authority and mission as a Church officer which Paul only gave according to him what signified their laying on of handes at all Was it only to signifie their consent Where can he shew in all the scriptures where laying on of hands is mentioned that it Imports onely consent and not authoritie this Ceremonie borrowed from the old Testament doth alwayes present a badge of ane Authoritative blessing flowing from Prophets Patriarchs and others to which though there were many assenters yet none of these assenters laid on hands Next since this Ceremonie was used by our Lord towards his Apostles and thereafter by them and particularly in this work withall since it must needs Import here a solemne blessing of a setting apart unto God and sending out into his vineyeard the person thus ordained not to debate whither this Ceremonie be of the essence of ordination as some judge yea or not let our Informer shew me why it may not upon all these grounds be looked upon as a badge of Ministerial authority and supposing this authority inherent in the presbyters I would ask him 3. Since Paul commended the whol official power of ordination jurisdiction to the presbyters Act. 20. Peter 1. Epist. 5. Ch Imputs ane 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or actuall exercise of Episcopall authority to the elders who were as himself acknowledges set over the flocks onely and so none of his imaginary Prelat elders With what sense or reason can he or anyelse say that they could not share in the substantials of ordination many no doubt concurred with the publick blessing
at Timothies ordination for I suppose it was done in the view and presen ce of the assembly But did any of them lay on hands Besyds we might here tell him that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presbytery doth alwayes Import a juridicall authoritative Court so the word is taken Luk. 22. 66. and Act. 22. 5. As likewayes the word presbyter Imports ane officer cloathed with authority so that this Court of elders must needs have ane interest in much more then the rituales of ordination His Last Exception is That upon our supposition That Timothy was ane extraordinary officer and Evangelist he could not be ordained by ordinary inferiour officers or Ministers Ans. 1. As some say of the Prince that though Major Singulis greater then every single person yet he is Minor universis lesse then the whol body so it may be said that though Timothy as ane Evangelist were superiour to any meer elder yet ane eldership the juridical Court the Church representative might be above him if at least such a superiority was here necessary else let him say whither the Prophets at Antioch were in Capacity to Impose hands upon Paul and Barnabas and send them out upon a gospel legation Himself is bound to answer this whither these Inferiour officers in that act were greater then he yea or not and how these ordinary officers and teachers could authoritatively bless and lay hands upon ane Apostle And when he hath cleared this he will easily exped our difficulty in this point 2. Though it were granted that a presbytery consisting of meer ordinary officers could not ordain ane Evangelist yet I hope he will grant that a presbytery where such a one as paul was might doe it who as ane Apostle might ordaine alone If he say what is then become of our presbyterial ordination which we draw from this text I answer it is much confirmed but not weakened by what is said for if the Apostle Paul took along in this high Act the ordination even of ane Evangelist the authoritative concurrenc of a Presbytery therefore much more doth this power of ordination belong to the Presbytery now in relation to ordinary Church officers or fellow Presbyters when the office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased 3. If the ground and topick of our Informer's argument They who ordaine must be greater then he who is ordained were denied he would be more puzeled to make it good then he Imagines Because 1. The blessing in ordination being only ministerial and instrumental by way of service but not by ane original primative authority as a learned man distinguishes here God and Christ alone ordaining thus whose servants and Ministers both the ordained and ordainers are Ephes. 4 11 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Matth. 9 37 38. 2 Cor 4 5. 1 Cor. 3 5. 21 22. Act. 13 1 6. The ordination will no more infer a superiority over the ordained then peoples blessing of God will make them greater then Hee Jacobes blessing of Pharaoh will make him greater then Pharaoh the peoples blessing of Solomon greater then Solomon The Kings Acturney saith he who drawes the noble-man or officer of state His patent and commission is not greater then hee But the King who is the original of temporall honour So Ministers in this work doe only draw out the Kings patent and apply it but Christ only is the original proper ordainer As for that text Hebr. 7 7. He sayes iâ—… is meaned of Christ himself who by Melchisedeck his type blessed Abraham by his own inherent authority and power 2. Admitting that the ordainers behoved to be greater then the ordained before the ordination is execut yet it will not necessarly follow that they must be still greater after the ordination is past finished the very end of it being to conferr upon the ordained a like Ministery with that which themselves have Hee instances Matthias and Paul who were inferiour to the Apostles before they were called and ordained But being called they became equal with other Apostles in Apostolick power dignity degree c. Wee might exemplitie this in other instances if intending to Press it As the armie Creats the Emperor which of the two is greater Three Bishops creat a Metropolitan the Council of Cardinals a pope c. But enough is said to rectifie our Informer's thoughts of Timothy and Titus and so we proceed unto hâ—…s next Argument CHAP. XI The Informers pleadings for Prelacy from the seven Asian Angels discussed That the stile of Prophetick writinges and of this book doe strongely conclud a collective sence of the term Angel fully proved The admitting the Angel to be a single person will not help the Informer his reasonings from the pretended Catalogues of succeeding Bishopes in these Churches frivolous and vain as also his new Argument taken from diotrephes's love of preeminence wherein he imbraces Bellarmins evasiones and offers violence to this and parallel Texts OUR Informers next great Argument for Prelacy is taken from the seven Asian Angels Revel 23. Whom he holds to be Diocesian Bishops Because though there were many Ministers at Ephesus Act. 20. Yet when that Church long after this is written to and when increased there is but one Angel addressed and commended or blamed according to what was well or amisse in the Church And in all the rest whatever is commended or discommended is directed to one Angel who by his place and authority was mainely concerned therein Ans This man if he had been so ingenuous and seen in this debate as he would appear might have found all this and much more then he hath offered fully removed and answered by many Godly learned But they must still tell over and over their old baffled arguments to which satisfying answers have bein often returned But to the point the weaknes of this proofe is many wayes evident 1. It is grounded upon a Misterious Metaphorick terme of Angel and starrs Revel 1 20. the mistery of the Sevenstarrs so must the expression of Angel be likwayes a part of this mistery The Maxim is known â—…heologia Symbolica non est argumentativa Far less can this be rationally opposed unto so many pregnant clear scriptures as are produced for Presbyterian Government Besides that the word Bishop is no where in Johns writings made use of who calls himself a Presbyter and never mentions superiority of one Presbyter over another but in condemneing Diotrephes He calls Christ the word and the Sabbath the Lords day these are expressions not found before in Scripture Surely he should have made mention of a new office as well as of a new phrase had any such thing as a Bishop been allowed by him Besides the Metaphorical terms of Starrs or Angels doe import the qualities of light heavenlines of frame c which are proper and suiteble to all Ministers of the Gospel and therefore they cannot ground the peculiar preheminence of a Bishop over many Ministers 2. The great topick of
all that Synodall assembly or Church Surely not at all The Moderator may be a man as little concerned therein and possibly less then any of the meeting Or will the Kings Message or Charge to a parliament adressed to the speaker containing reproofes and commendationes of that great body and assembly fix the guilt or commendation principally upon the speaker or president He will not say it As for Timothy and Titus we have proved that they had no such power as he pretends and that their inspection was extraordinary and Evangelistick which cannot with any shew of reason be said of these Seven Angels As for Beza his acknowledgment of a more eminent Authority in government which these single persons had this man cannot with any shew of reason alledge Beza to understand thereby any other thing beyond the eminency of his Episcopus divinus which with Beza is the Pastour among whom jure divino he will not aâ—…mit so much as a perpetual president far less a Bishop for the perpetual president or Moderator is with Beza the Episcopus humanus which he distinginshes from the divine or scripture Bishop and the diocesian prelat pleaded for by this Informer who hath the Chief and sole power in ordination and jurisdiction is the Satanical Bishop In his Treatise de triplici Episcopatu So that Beza cannot Imput to these single persons any authority over their brethren or ascribe to them any other eminency then what the eminency of a Moderatorship will give If Beza doe not compare them with the Elders of the Inferior sort who rule only as some would readily admit who take these Churches to be Congregational As for Mede it is no great matter whither he take the Angels Collectivly or for Single persons if he Imput not to these Asian Angels ane Episcopal Authority which this Informer proves not in telling us Thaâ—… the Tuentie four Angels about the Thron doe with him represent the Bishops unless he can shew that he means his Diocesian Bishops for he may mean the Bishops indefinitely according to the genuine scripture acceptation He holds there are Seven Bishops of Asia here only written unto where are the Tuentie four Bishops if Mr Mede take them in his sense As for Mr. Brightman his exponeing ordinarly the Angel of a single person as the Informer alleadges Let us hear Brightman himself To the Angel c. The Epistles are intituled saith he one by one to the Pastours Becaus the safety of the Congregation depends upon the soundnes of the Pastours for there was not one Angel alone at Ephesus but many Neither yet any prince among these as is manifast by Paul who to Miletum sent for the Elders or Bishops of Ephesus adding that nothing is spoken of their obedience to any one Chief Bishop That a Prince hood came after the Apostles and was not yet borne save only that Diotrephes gave some shew of it hence he concluds thus therefore under the name of one Angel the Epistle is written to the whol order of Pastours c And by this account of Brightmans acceâ—…tation of the word Angel Let any judge of our Informers fidelity But now comes his last Argument for Episcopacy which surprises not only his Doubter but I believe Most if not all else who have seen it taken from Diotrephes his loveing to have the preeminence 3. Joh. 9. who he sayes ambitiously loved to be first and to have the Chief place and that this ambition only John speaks against he adds that ane office may be good and lawfull though ane ambitions seeking of it be sinfull That Beza renders it qui primatum ambit that our Inference of the unlawfulnes of the office he aimed at will not follow from his seeking of this chief place but rather that their was such ane office at this time in the Church and now void into which he meaned to put himself or had already done so out of ane ambitious desire to be great which was a sinful end that he looked after himself not the good of the Church Ans. 't is long since we had this answer and gloss from Romanists though not as ane argument Wee see popri and prelacy in despight of all conâ—…radiction will strick hands When Luk. 22. Touching our Lords forbidding a Dominion or primacy among his Disciples is objected to Bellarmin he resolves it just as this resolver viz. That the Lord rather institut and established a primacy in the Church then removed it And commanded his vicar to preside but not as the Heathen who seek themselves and their own glory and commodity de Pontif Ques 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Yee shall not rule as the Princes of the Gentiles saith he Imports that he admitts one to preside but not after that manner He presses the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a Prince or Captaine just as this man doth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or loving of preeminence to shew that such a Prince or primat was designed de Pontif. Lib 1. Ch. 9. Thus the Papists glosse generally the Text under debate Tilen in his Not. 67. answering him That if it were so then Christ rather inflamed then quenched their ambitious thoughts which they â—…hil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or loving preeminence intertained makes this sin of diotrephes the same with theires which the Lord reprehended viz. A sinful desire of ane unlawfull forbidden primacy Adding That the Lord said not he who by my appointment shall be Chiefâ—… but he who from his sinfull desire would be Chieff Bellarmin and the Papists fine notions and old exploded evasions we see stands these men in much stead And doe furnish usefull materials to dress up Prelatick pamphlets But what will this man say Will he indeed owne this popish Argument and answer upon Luk 22. Which the topick of his argument here will necessarly inferr Was their a lawfull primacy supposed among the Apostles the ambitious desire only forbidden Bellarmin presses that ane exorbitant dominion or tyrannicall only was forbidden since the Princes of the Gentiles are mentioned which this man also taks hold of which seems to put a restricton upon that prohibition but there is no such restriction in this place under debate So that he is cut off from Bellarmins evasion We heard before he admitted a lawfull Church Dominion as not discharged in Luk. 22. And here he admitts a lawfull primacy over this Church and in his pretended antiquity we will find him not to diâ—…owne a Chief patriarch if not directly to plead for him And then I see not why he may not take in the High Priest into his old Testament Argument in relation to a morall standing primacy in Church-Government and merite a coâ—…l in some Popish order â—…r it be long Now it is evident that the Apostle simply dissounes this lover of preeminence and censures him upon the account of the preeminence he desired And the Informer himself though as I observed before he
such a president or primat as diotrephes affected to be distinct from the Divinely appointed Bishop And therefore whatever he might suppose to be creeping in at that tyme he must needs upon this ground interpret it to be a recesse from the divine appointment and in so far a Corruption As for what our Informer repeats here againe ad nauseam That Bishops were immediatly the Church before all the Apostles were gone and imediatly after which is a commentary upon Timothy and Titus and the Asian Angels and Diotrephes I answer I beleive indeed as to his last instance that there were Diotrephesies earely enugh and Beza's Episcopus humanus or fixed president but that there was either in the Apostles time or ane hundered years and more afterward I speak far within compass his Diocesian Prelat with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction in a Diocess he will assoone joyn the poles together as prove it by any faithful and authentick Testimony CHAP. XII The Informers appeal to antiquity in the point of Episcopacy That antiquity is at most testis facti but not judex veri may witness matter of fact but is no judge of what is right therein proved from the Testimony of Scripture and the fathers The Informer's reasoning on this head reduced to a formal Syllogisme and discussed That in the first purest age the Church was governd by Presbyters withtout Bishopes proved by Testimonys of the fathers particularly of Ierome His Testimony at Large vindicated from the exceptiones of the Informer OUr Informer hath by this time got out of the straites of his Scripture Arguments for prelacy and his pretended replyes to Scripture arguments against them Wherin we have seen how pittifully he lies been Bruillied in his endeavours to put the fairding of some Scripture Characters upon this Monster The Diocesian Prelat Now he wil lanch out in to the vast Ocean of Antiquity wherein he supposes and not altogother amisse that this Leviathan can swim much better And therefore he fills up the Third part of the pamplet with a tedious legend of human Testimonyes in relation to Bishops But in this his argueing from antiquity he playes the same petty Sophister as in his pretended Scripture proofes For he is still pleading for a versatil Chimaera of his own braine and dare not state the Question as to the Prelat now existent in his Diocesian and erastian mould like to whom if he will shew me but one Prelat among all his ragged Testimonies I will yeeld the Cause to him So that we are not concened in his Testimonies They being all Mute or Ambiguous as to our debate Wee shall therefore proceed to Consider the substantials of his Argument on this head and add some Chapters which will be found abundantly to cutt the sinneâ—…es of his reasoning from pretended Testimonies of the Fathers and vindicat our Cause even in point of Antiquity 〈◊〉 I Suppose this man if he will not renounce his protestant profession cannot but grant that it is not Antiquity as he call it or human Testimonies but the Scriptures of truth which most judge in this debate So that I hop I may suppose that he lookes upon his Antiquitity as ane accessorie appendix onely to his Scripture arguments and that the Scripture is not for him but against him I hope it is conuincingly apparent from that is said above we must to the law and the Testimony in this and all other points of faith Antiquity without the first Scripture antiquity deserves not the name Id adulterum quod posterius id verum quod pri nium said Tertullian That is adulterat which is Last and trere which is first I am the way the truth and the Life said Christ but not I am Custome And Cyprian tells us that Consuetudo sins veritate est vetusias erroris Antiquity without truth is but a mouldy error Our Lord himself rejected this argument it was said of old and apposes unto it but I say Well may we then oppose the Scripture sayings to our Informer's it was said of old and by our Lords warrand reject his pretences from Antiquity to warrand any thing which the word condemnes and for this we have good warrand of antiquity it self for the fathers universaly doe hold that onelie the Scriptures must judge in points of faith Sunt libri Dominici quorum authoritati utrique consentimus utrique credimus there being in them all things to be believed and practised utrique servimus ibi quaeramus ecclesiam ibi discutiamus causam nostram is great Augustins advice The books of the Lord are they to whose Authority we both consent which we both beleive To which we both submit There let us seek the Church There let us discusse our Cause Jerom on Chap. 23 of Matth. tells us quod de scripturis authoritatem non habet eaedem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur That which derives not its authority from Scripture the contemneing of it is as ready as the proof is offered and on the 1. Chap. of Hag Quae absque athoritate Testimoniis scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit Gladius Dei Such things as men of there own accord find out forge upon pretence of Apostolick tradition with out the authority and Testimonies of Scriptures the sword of God strikes throw the same Besides this discovers the plea from Antiquity to be very Impertiment in this debate Because the Question betwixt us is not defacto but de jure not what sort of Bishops have been as to matter of fact introduced into the Church of old or of late but by what warrand and right they have possessed their places We alledge and prove that the present Prelat now existent stands condemned by Christ the great lawgiver his rules in point of Church Government set down in his Testament Now to answer this Charge with humane Testimonies as to Custom or practise of the Church even granting that his Testimonies did prove the matter of fact viz That our present Prelat is exemplified in the ancient Bishops what is it but to oppose humane corruption to Gods ordinance The practise of men to Gods rule and mens Testimonies who are liars to the divine Oracles of the God of truth This man thinkes it a Herculean argument when he drawes his human Testimonies as to prelacy neer the Apostles time as if he had travelled to Hercules pillars and wonders how we can suppose that the Church could so soon alter the divine institutions But I pray how long was it after Gods Holy law was proclaimed from heaven by his own terrible voice that the wholl Church of Israel together with Aaron himself set up and worshiped the golden Calf contrary unto the very express letter of the Second command Now suppose that idolatry several hundered years afterward had pleaded this Antiquity or ancient Custome of the Church of Israel after frequently imitated and which had its plausible pretexts of intention to
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.
excommunication nor receaving of penitents Bishops could doe any thing without presbyters And that there was no delegation of their power Downam himself confesses in reference to Ambrose time and long after it So that for 400 Years our prelats present Prince like power was not known in the Church The ancient Bishops made themselves sole in no pointe of ecclesiastick disciplin as our prelats who have excommunicat alone Tertull. Apoleget shews that the exhortations castigations and censuradivina the divine censure among which he takes in excommunication were performed by the probati quique seniores all the approved elders Befor him Iraenus haeres lib 4 cap. 44. Will have these Presbyters obeyed Qui successionem habent ab Apostolis have succession from the Apostles And that ad correctionem aliorum for censure of others as well as for sound doctrine Basilius magnus Archiepisc. Caesariens affirms that jus ligendi solvendi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex aequo omnibus pastoribus doctoribus c. That the power of binding and lowsing is equally and together given by Christ to all Pastours and Doctors Which even Lombard denieth not sentent lib 4. dist 19. It is also demonstrated that elaborat piece that the oath ex officio is a Monster to Antiquity 6. Our Prelats Civil State offices are also a Monster to pure antiquity as they are Croâ—…se to our Churches Authority who in her general assemblie hath condemned this Assemb 38. sess 25. The forsaid author proves this also at large to whom we refer the Reader So that our Informer must acknowledge that our Prelats in this point also are different from the Ancients Whosoever shal peruse the Canones called Apostolick and of ancient councels will find Bishopes medling in state-affairs and especialy their holding of state offices so harmoniusly condemned that its a wonder that any who pretends to the knowledge of antiquity and to plead for prelacy upon this ground should have the considenc to justify it The 6. canon of those called Apostolick passes the sentence of deposition upon bishops who assume secular imployments Episcopus vel Presbyter vel diaconus seculares curas ne suscipiat alioqui deponatur Balsamon upon this canon referrs us to 13. cap. 8. Tit. Where there is exhibit a full collection of canons to this purpose The 81 canon diximus non oportere Episcopum vel Presbyterum seipsum ad publicas administrationes demittere sed in Ecclesiasticis negotiis versari Vel ergo ita facere persuadeatur vel deponâ—…tur That is we have appointed that a Bishop or Presbyter must not stoop to or debase himself with publick that is civil administrationes or offices let him therfor be either perswaded so to do or let him be deposed â—…alsamon upon this canon observing that it lenifies the first referrs to XVI Canon Carth. Syn. Again Canon 83. runes thus Episcopus vel Presbyter vel diaconus exercitui vacans utraque obtinere volens remanum scilicet magistratum Sacerdotalem administrationem deponatur quae sunt enim caesaris Caesari quae sunt Dei Deo That is a â—…ishop or Presbyter or deacon who bears office in an armâ—… and will needs hold both offices to wit the Roman magistracy and the sacerdotal administration or ministry let him be deposed for â—…uch things as belong to Caesar must be rendred to Caesar and the things that are Gods unto God Balsamon upon this canon referrs us to VII Can. chalced syn tales saith he anathemate ferientem si non penitentiam agant Which strickes them with anathema the last extremest curse or ex communication who assume military imployments and repent not And having moved ane objection whether the formentioned clause cesset vel deponatur let him leave off this office or let him be deposed is here also to be understood he tels us in the close of his answer that omnia publica eandem rationem habent that al publick civil offices fals under the same consideration as thus discharged And begins his gloss upon this canon thuâ—… diversi canones Apostolici prohibuerunt sacris initiatos publica negotia administrare That is diverse Apostolick canones have forbidden such as are entred into sacred functiones to handle or administer publick or civil affaires In the beginning of his gloss upon the 6 canon he represents thus the crime of church officers holding of civil places which is censured therin De hominibus consecratis qui seculares servitutes exercent c concerning men consecrat to god who exercise wordly slaveries such a Character do the Canons put upon our Prelates state offices That VII Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon puts the formentioned censur upon such as secularia negotia exercent divinum ministerium negligentes who manadge wordly places and offices neglecting the divin ministry The XVI Canon of the second Council of Nice forbidding Bishops or presbyters to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 actores or procurators doth it upon this ground debent enim ad id quod scripium est respicere nemo Deo militans seipsum implicat secularibus negotiis For they ought to take heed to that which is written no man warring for god or who is his souldier should involve himself in secular affaires see Balsamon comment in Canon Apost concil patrum in Photii nomo can pag. mihi 39 108 127 178 167 319. Whenc we may collect 1. how constant and sever the ancients were in their censour of this guilt 2. That they held this to be a debasing of the holy ministry to which the pastor or Bishop most give himself 3. That upon the ground of that gospel precept 2. tim 2 4. No man that warreth intangleth himself With the affaires of this life and that other ground of giving Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods they do condemne not military imployments only in a Pastor or Bishop or taking farms as our Informer would make us believe but also also all secular and civil offices without exception 4. That they held the sacred function of the ministry to be utterly inconsistant with publick civil imployments And the civil office of a state-ruler incompatible with the ministerial office in one and the same persone since they are opposed contradistinguished as thus inconsistant in the forementioned Canones and the grounds thereof So that there is not a shaddow of defence for prelates state offices Whil these Canones do sit in judgement especialy the scripture grounds hinted therein and many others which have been adduced 7. What ever generall expressions of the ancients he may plead yet is it not certain that in the first pure ages even after the Episcopus humanus and the fixed presidents were set up the archbishops primats metropolitanes were Monsters and unknowne yea even the diocesian mould and cast of Churches let any peruse Mr Bains his diocesians tryall tryall against Downam and this will be convincingly clear 8. Where will the Informer shew us our erastian prelacy
in all his antiquity A prelâ—…y deryoing all its power both of ordination and Jurisdiction absolutly from the civill Magistrat having no intrinsick spirituall authority and in all its administeration acting by way of deputation and commission from the Magistrat as accountable to him in every piece thereof immediatly and solely as other inferiour civil Governours Dar he say that these Bishops in the first ages exercised not ane inherent Ecclesiastick spiritual power distinct from and independant upon the Magistrat Was all their meetings and all matters cognoscible in them given up to be pro libitu disposed of by any Prince or potentat whither heathen or Christian Did not all Ministers and Bishops of these times exercise ane Ecclesiastick independant authority as being totally distinct from and not a part of the civill Government Was ever there Erastian Government heard of in the Christian World till Thomas Erastus of Heidleberge brotched it And hath it not since that time been Impugned by the most famous lights of the reformed Churches as contrary to the Rules of the Gospell Church Government So that our Informer must acknowledge the present Ecclesiasticocivil or linsy-wolsy-Prelacy to be a speckled bird of new fashioned coloures never before seen to which he will not find a paralleel among all the Fathers or Bishops of former ages 9. Let me add how will our Informer make it appear That in the first purer ages any of the ancient Bishops did deny wholly exclud ruling elders from Church Iudieatories We have proved this officer to be juris divini from Scripture And the full consent of Antiquity also of reformed divines is abundantlie clear exhibit by many of the learned for the divine right of this officer Ambrose is brought in compleaning of the disuse of these officers on 1 Tim. 5. As a devation from the Scripture-patern proceeding from the pride negligence of Doctors Origin his Testimonie lib 3. contr Celsum is remarkable who shewes that among the more polite hearers who were above the Catechumenists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Non nulli praepositi sunt qui in vitam mores eorem qui admittuntur inquirunt ut qui turpia committunt eos communi caetu interdicant qui vero ab istis abborrent ex animo complext meliores quotidie reddant There are some set over the rest who inquires into the life and manners of those who are admitted that such as committ these things that are vile they may discharge them from the publick assembly and embracing from their heart such as are farr from these things they may render them every day better Here are censurers of manners found in the ancient Church though not Ministers and designed and constitut to their work with authority in their hand to interdict the scandalous and what are these but ruling elders So Augustin Epist. 137. writeing to his Charge directs it thus dilectis sratrbus clero Senioribus universae plebi Eccleâ—…ae hippo ensis To the beloved brethren the Clergie the elders and the wholl people of the Church of Hippo. So Contr. Crese Gramattic omnes vos Episcopi Presbyteri diaconi Siniores Scitis All you ' Bishops Presbyters deacons and elders doe know Here are Tuo sorts of elders mentioned in one comma who can be nothing else but ruling elders For the same purpose the learned in handling this theam doe cite Barronius Ann 103. Where he enumerats Episcopi Presbyteri diaconi Seniores Bishops Presbyters Deacons Elders So also Tertullian Apolleget adversus gentes c. 39. Cyprian Epist. 39. Optatus lib. 1. p. 41. and many others See assertion of the government of the Church of Scotland Christoph justell observ not in Cod. Can. Eccles. affric p. 110 111. jus divinum Regim Eccles. Smectim c 10. The Ancient Bishops were not set over whole provinces but city by city for most part yea severall Cities had more which sayes they were not at all Bishops properly Clemens in Constit. l. 7. c. 46. shews that Evodius and Ignatius had at once the Episcopacy over the Church of Antioch and what was this but a meer Collegiat Ministery Council African Cap. 21. appoints that to examine the cause of a Presbyter sex Episcopl ex vicinis locis adjungerentur 6 Bishops from neighbouring places be adjoyned Poor dorps had their Bishops as is clear in History Nazianzon a little towne neer Caesarea yet was all the Episcopall See of Gregory Nazianzen In Chrysostoms time the diocess contained but one citie Homil. 3. in acta nonne terr arum orbis imperium tenet imperator c. doth not the Emperour saith he Govern the World but this man is a Bishop only of one city Sozom. Hist. Bcclesiast lib. 7. cap. 19. Tells us that he found with the Arabians and those of Cyprus Bishops in little Dorps 11. The Ancient Bishops placed preaching among the chief partes of their office and were not idle drones as ours are Theophilact on 1 Tim. 3. tells us that docendi officium omnium precipue ut insit episcopis est necesse that the office of preaching which is the chieff of all others its necessarie that the Bishop be indewed with it As ours Court-prelats so our non-preaching Prelats are strangers unto and condemned by the ancient Canons Photii Nomocan tit 8. cap 12. de Episcopis qui non convertunt haereticos de Episcopis clericis qui non docent populum he presents and digests the Canons against Bishops and clergy men who convert not haeretiks and teach not the people some of these Canones are as followes The 58. canon of those called Apostolick runes thus Episcopus vel Presbyter qui cleri vel populi curam non gerit eos piet atem non docet segregetur si in socordia perseveret deponatur The Bishop or Presbyter who takes no care of the people or clergy and teaches them not piety let him be set aside and if he continue in his folly let him be deposed Balsamon upon this Canon tells us that Episcopalis dignitas in docendo consistit omnis Episcopus debet docere populum pia dogmata c The Episcopal dignity consists in teaching and every Bishop ought to teach the people holy statutes for the Bishop is for this end established to attend the people c therafter he shewes that the presbyters ought to be so imployed quia etiam prope Episcopos sedent in superioribus cathedris because they sit beside the Bishops in the higher seats they were not then the prelats underlinges as our curats are now hence he concludes that the Bishop or priest who neglected this duety were to be set aside and if continuing to be deposed The 36. of these Canons puts this censour upon the Bishop who neglects this duty Si quis ordinatus Episcopus non suscipiat ministerium curam sibi commissam sit segregatus c That the ordained Bishop shal be set asid sured who goes not
and attendants although a great Bishop is highly condemned as exposeing our faith to envy and hatred Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 29. The Canon of the 4 Councell of carthage insert by Gratian in the body of the decree distinct 41. provides that Episcopus non longe ab ecclesia hospitiolum vil emsupellectilem c. That the Bishop have his little manse not far from the Church that he have meane houshold stuffe c. Et dignitatis suae Authoritatem fide meritis quaerat and purchase Authority to his office or dignity by faith and good works Sozom. lib 6. Cap 16. Relats of Basilius Magnus Bishop of Caesaria that he answered the Imperours praefect who threatned the Confiscation of his goods thus Horum nihil me Cruciari potest equidem opes non habeo preterquam laceram vestem Paucos libros None of these things can torment me truely I have no goods but a torne garment and some books See the historia motuum page 143. to 174. Now from all that is said I think common ingenuity will acknowledge and this Informer himself if he be not ane utter stranger to it that our present Episcopacy is as far discrepant from that of the Ancient Christian Church as east from west and by consequence that this pleading from the ancient prostasie or even the after Bishops to legittimat and patronize our present prelacy is a most gross nonsequitur and notorius fallacy CHAP. XIV The Informers pretended Testimonies out of Calvine Beza Blondel c. For Episcopacy Examined Their anti-Episcopall judgment cleared from their writings The Informer crosses Bishop Spotswood and Tilen His two absurdities which by way of Dilemma he offers to us from our assertion of the unalterablees of Presbyterian Government our concession of a Proestos early brought in Scanned retorted upon himself The Authores of jus divinum Ministerii Evangelici vindicated at some length WHereas the Informer is bold to affirme that Calvinâ—… Beza Blondel and other eminent divines who have written against Episcopacy are reconcilable to it yea to a hierarchy of the highest stamp Wee answer 1. The full and harmanious consent of Ancient and modern divines and reformed Churches for that which we plead for in point of Church-Government shall be exhibit in the last Chapter 2. As for Calvin's judgment in relation to Presbyterian Government It is so fully known to the world in his writings that we think there needs no more to put a brand of impudence upon any then to deny it And we doe appeal to his judicious commentes upon all the controverted places of the new Testament betwixt them and us wherein all that we plead for either as to the identity of Bishop and Presbyter in name and thing the Presbyteryes power in ordination and jurisdiction the extraordinary Evangelistick Power of Timothy and Titus the divine right of the ruling elder the peoples right in the call of Ministers the unlawfulness of Prelats sole power and dominion over their brethren the unwarrantablenes of Ministers state offices c is clearly asserted Let any consult him upon Matth. 18. 17. Matth 21 22. Luk. 22 25. Act. 6 2 3 4. Act. 14 23. Act. 20 17 28 29 30. 1. Cor. 5. 1 Cor. 12. 28. with Rom. 12 6 7. 2 Cor. 2 6 7. Eph 4 11 12. 1 Thess. 5 12 13. 2 Thess. 3 14. Heb. 13 7 17. 1 Tim. 1 3. c. and 4 14. 2 Tim 2 4 2 Tim. 1 6. Tit. 1 6 7. c. and such like places where he will be found to give sentence for us against the Prelatik party and expounding them just as we doe 3. These adversaries doe grant that the Government in this Church which famous Mr. Knox owned and all his dayes contended for was Presbyterial Government And it is as well knowne and acknowledged by themselves that he had the sense and judgment both of Calvin and Beza in that great bussiness Spotswood in his history tells us that John Knox framed our rules of disciplin in imitation of what he had Seen at Geneva Tilen in his petulant piece intituled Paraensis ad Scotos Genevensis discipline Zelotas makes this undenyable He calls Calvin and Beza all along our Masters and alledges that we can hear of nothing but out of their scool c. But that they owned Presbyterian Government as the onely Government appointed in the house of God he never took the confidence or had the forehead to deny When John Knox was desired by some to write to Calvin and others about a certain difficulty he answered that he came not here without all their Iudgments in what he had done and that they might think him unconstant in writting for a resolution in that matter Now John Knox look't upon Episcopocy as a limb of Antichrists Hierarchie and as haveing aliquid commumune cum Anti Christo. Something in it common with Antichrist So that what the Informer mentions of Measson and Bish Andrews their asserting of Calvin and Beza's Episcopall Government at Geneva and their preeminencie in ordination and jurisdiction is a gross calumny The eminent parts of these famous divines might make their judgement have great influence in determining others but that either Calvin or Beza did ever incroach upon the decisive power of their fellow Presbyters or acted any thing pro imperio or solely is a calumny which any who ever read their lives can sufficiently disprove Their laboures and practise as well as their writings was for mantaineing the due right of Presbyterian Government against enemies of all sortes In the life of Galleaceus Caracciolus It is reported That Calvin being consulted by him in a case of conscience requireing secrecy in a great measure would give him no determinat answer tho a ruleing elder in that Church without consulting his Brethren As for that which the Informer cites out of Calvines Inflit. l. 4. c. 4. Sect. 2. where He acknowledges that Jerom teaches that the proestos is ane ancient institution and that he repeats what Jerome sayes a Marco c. It s a pitiful proofe to conclud therupon that Calvin acknowledges diocesian Prelats as Ancient as Mark. For Calvine knew well that Jerome speaks but of the proestos first set up and the Informer hath not proved that either Calvin or Jerom gave their approbation to the setting of him up And for what he adds That Calvin sayes ne ex equalitate ut fieri solet dissidiâ—… orirenter That they were set up least from equality discord should arise as usuallie there doth granting that he acknowledges they were more then meer Moderators that is fixed Moderators What then Are our Prelats no more Or will his acknowledgment of the factum prove his acknowledment of the jus and though mans corruption abuse parity to discord what then our corruption will abuse the best ordinance of God As for what he cites from Instit. l. 4. c. 5. Sect. 11. Our Informer hath not proved That Calvin by Episcopi and
paraeciarum rectorcs doth understand diverse Church officers of Gods appointment as he distinguishes the Bishop and Presbyter That Calvin did not acknowledge the Episcopus distinct from the paraeciae rector his comment on Tit. 1 7. makes it evident For a Bishop c. locus hic abunde docet nullum esse episcopi Presbyteri discrimen quia nunc secundâ—… nomine promiscue appellat quos prius vocavit Presbyteros Imo idem prosequens argumentum utrumque nomen indifferenter eodem sensu usurpat quemadmodum Hieronimus tum hoc loco tum in Epistola ad Evagrium annotavit Atque hinc perspicere licet quanto plus delatum hominum placitis fuerit quam decebat qui abrogato Spiritus Sancti Sermone usus hominum arbitrio inductus praevaluit That is This place abundantly shewes that there is no difference betuixt a Bishop and Presbyter because now again he promiscuusly calls them by the seccond mane whom befor he called Presbyters nay prosecuting the same argument he maks use of both the names indifferently in the same sense as also Ierom both in this place and in his Epistle to Evagrius hath observed And hence we may perceive how much hath been ascribed to mens pleasure inventiones more then did become because ane use brought in at mens pleasure hath prevaled while the language of the holy ghost is laid aside and after he hath spoken of the first Moderators earlie brought in he adds verum nomen officij N. B. quod Deus in communi nibus dederat in unum solum transferri reliquis spoiliatis injurium est absurdum deinde sic preveâ—…tere Spiritus sancti linguam ut nobis eaedem voces aliud quam volueâ—… 〈◊〉 significent nimis profanae audaciae est That is But that the name of the office which God gave in common to all should be transferred to one only robbing the rest thereof is injurious and absurd More over to pervert thus the language of the holy ghost that the same words should signifie another thing then he pleased is too profane boldnes Thus Calvin puts this censure upon our Informer in making the name Bishop signifie any more then a Presbyter And upon Act. 20. 28. De voce Episcopi hic notandum omnes Ephesinos Presbyteros sic vocari indifferenter unde colligimus Secundum Scripturae usum nihil a Presbyteris differre Episcopos That is Concerning the name of Bishop we must observe this that all the Presbyters in Ephesus are so called indifferently hence we conclud that according to the scripture language Bishops doe nothing differ from Presbyters Now let any judge if Calvine make not the Name and thing of the scripture Bishop proper to every Minister of a parish and if he judged a Diocesian Bishop thus differenced from the parish Minister to be a warrantable office which he holds to be so crosse to Scripture So that in the passage which this man hath above cited he would have all Bishops contending for and reteaning the true scripture function for none else he can call eximium munus or ane excellent gift So that those of these places will help our Informer The Context and tenour of that 4 chapter obliedgeth as to think that this is really the meaning that whatever titles these Ancients used yet they designed not thereby to wrong that Presbyteriall Government grounded upon Scripture which Calvin is there defending And moreover even straniing that place Chap. 5. par 11. to the out most advantage it will Inferr nothing but this that Bishops and Parishpriests in those dayes had the essence of the Pastorall office which is not denyed or that their Pastorall acts when rightly performed were valid The Pastorall office Calvin cals pium eximium munus as the ensuing words doe convince As for his citation from Sect 13. it were very absurd to think that Calvine by the heirarchy which the Fathers commend as handed down from the Apostles should understand the prelatick hierarchy which this man pleads for Since 1. Many Fathers as Ierome never saw such a hierarchy set up but by Bishops understand either the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at first set up or the Bishops of whom we now heard who governed with Presbyters joyntly and had no sole power in ordination and jurisdiction 2. Calvin speaks of the Fathers commending a Hierarchy not like the papall but he tells not what his judgement of that hierarchie is 3. How could Calvin commend a hierarchie such as the Informer pleads for or so much as acknowledge it as handed doun from the Apostles who shews from their Doctrine that they owned no Bishop higher then a Presbyter as is clear from what is said To which we may add Calvins words on Philip 1. Episcopi nomen omnibus ministris est commune Sunt igitur synonâ—…ma Episcopus Pastor Postea invaluit usus ut quem suo collegio praeficiebant in Singulis Ecclesijs Presbyteri Episcopus vocaretur Solus Id tamen ex hominum consuetudine natum est scripturae authoritate minime nititur That is the name of Bishop is common to all Ministers Bishop and Presbyter then are one and the same Afterward the Custome prevailed to call the Minister whom the Presbyters set over their meeting in evry church the Bishops only but this had its rise from mens Custome but is not at all grounded on the Authority of Scripture And after he hath spoken of the advantage of one to preside for orders sake he adds this limitation de Singulis corporibus loquor non de totis provincijs c I speak of single incorperations not of whole provinces adding prestaret spiritum Sanctum linguarum autorem in loquendo sequi quam formas loquendi ab ipso positas in deterius mutare nam ex corrupta verbi Significatione hoc malifecutuâ—… est quod per inde ac si non essent omnes Presbyteri collegae N. B. adeandem vocati functionem unus sibi pretextu noâ—…ae appellationis dominium â—…n alios arripuit That is it were better in our speech to follow the holy ghost the author of languages then to change into the worse the forms of speaking set downe by him For from this abused signification of the word this evill hath followed that as if all Presbyters were not Colleagues called to the same function one hath usurped to himself a dominion over the rest under pretext of this new appellation As for what he objects p. 78. from Calvin upon Tit. 1. 5. That unus authoritate praeest c I Ansr. After he hath said that every city had severall Presbyters and asserted that there are Two sorts of elders and that these elders were the Bishops appointed to teach He moves ane objection Had Titus this Princely power and alone and answers Non permitti arbitrio titi ut unus possit omnia quos voluerit Episcopos Ecclesiis imponat sed tantum jubet ut electionibus praefit tonquam Moderator That
after the doctrine was reformed Why lived they so long without a beloved hierarchy and which is yet more strange why Imployed they their pens and their paines so much for Presbyterian government and not rather for the hierarchy why were both Calvin and Beza so active in that which Iohn Knox did here in opposition to prelacy But stay hath not the Informer told us that Masone and Bishop Andrews doe assert That Calvin and Beza assumed ane Episcopall power at Geneva How comes Durel and Hooker then To suppose a compleat parity among the Ministers to havt begun and continued at Geneva for want of a Bishop foresooth He must grant that some of these accusers are ingrained liars and accusers of the brethren in this point So he must deliberat whither he will bestow this upon Mason and Bishop Andrews or Hooker and Durepl For what he adds of these that have written for Presbyterian government that they designed only to prove it lawfull it is a gross Calumny their designe is to prove it a divine frame of government appointed in the new Testament which I hope he will say is necessary as well as lawfull since Christ promises to the end his presence with those officers cloathed with his commission And him self holds that the end of that Government practised in the new Testament and its grounds are Moral and perpetual For Blondel his calling Episcopal preeminence an apostolical constitution which the Informer cites page 84. no such wordes being in the printed copy as he acknowledges who will be so foolishly credulous as to take it upon the Informer or Durells bare word that it was in the written on Unless we will admitt the Informer as the Papists doe by the Scriptures in their unwritten traditions to add his unprinted patchments to any author and thus to dispute pro libitu and make his weapons from testimonies of authors as once a certain Chiftain's sword is said to have done to wound and kill a great way before the point He distinguishes the Government he pleads for as divinitus institutus or of divine appointment from any other frame as humane only which will say that this divine institution must stand and all other frames of Government give place to it The same may be accomodat to that which he cites out of Beza pag 85. who looked upon the very Episcopus humanus as he calls him or the first proestos as the first rise of all the popish Hierarchie and mischeiffs That sentence of Beza de min. grad Cap. 21. pag. 343. stands Intirely thus imo Câ—…nctos sic id est Archiepiscopos Episcopos hodie appellâ—…tos modo sanctissimorum illorum Episcoporum meaning Timothy and Titus c whom Saravta termed Bishops Beza allowing the designation in a sound scripture sence exemplum imitentur tam misere deformatam domum Dei ad amussim ex verbi divini regula pro viribus inâ—…aurent ut Ecclesiae Christianae fidos pastores cur non agnoscamus observemus omni reverentia prosequamur Nedum ut quod falsissime impudentissime nonnulli nobis objiciuut euiquam uspiam Ecclesiae c. certainely there walking up to such rules and patterns as are here prescribed as the proviso's upon which Beza Proefesses to reverence and owne them would so sned off the Episcopal heteroclyt excrescencies of our diocesian Erastian Prelats and smooth them to the Scripture Episcopacy as quite to destroy their power and office pleaded for by this pamphleter As his acting so his writing for Presbyterian Government accordingly was not to prescribe his owne which Beza disclaimes but Gods example How will the Informer prove that Beza's denying his prescribing of their example of Church Government at Geneua meerly as such will infer his not commending a divine frame of Church Government This was not to prescribe his example simpliciter And how will he prove that Beza looked upon a Government which he held to be the egg from which Anti Christ sprung as Dei beneficentia or Gods beneficence He makes him a very gross ignoramus for what man of the meanest capacity would say so And if Beza held the first Episcopacie or proestos to be a recess from the divine institution he certainly condemned it in so far And the diocesian Prelat he holds to be Satanicall Therefore when he seems to condemne the desowning of all order of Bishops he must understand it of a condemning scripture order the beautiful subordination among Church officers or that divine order that is among them But here again I must needs take notice that in this passage of Beza in his dispute with Saravia the Informer hath sned off that which wounds his cause to death for the words following doe discover another ground of this distinction of Bishops from Presbyters viz Beza and Jeroms humane Custome then what the Informer would persuade For it followes immediatly neque hoc scelere tenentur qui de episcopalis muneris sive prostasias finibus regendis de discrimineinter ordinem gradum postulant ut ex verbo Dei decidatur Whence it is evident that he does not understand Bishops set over Presbyters to be Iure divino or speaks of them in this place As for the passages of Beza's letters to Bishop Whitegift and Grindal which the Informer after cites pag. â—…6 I say 1. That certainly Beza's principles so largely expressed from Scripture anent Church Government and the contrariety of the episcopus humanus or humane Bishop far more the Diocesian Satanical Bishop to the divine rule in his principles will necessarly infer that in this great mans Judgement none of these Prelats had qua tales or as such a lawfull spirituall authority from God 2. It is as certaine that all Beza's pleading and arguments strikes against the diocesian Prelat or Arch prelat as in that capacity and against this office and policy in it self abstracting from its union unto the pope so that he could own no authority that way committed to them of God 3. It followes that since he judged the episcopall hierarchy unlawfull he held the first parity unalterable since he pleades for it upon morall perpetuall Scripture grounds and institutions And by these his solid Scripture grounds when ex professo handling this point and theologically we are more to determine of his Judgement then by Missives Wherein the circumstances of time and severall exigences might engadge to some insinuations in point of a civill deference and respect But however that be we are to look unto intentio and natura operis in his writings or the native designe thereof rather then critically to scanne or straine every practical conformity or disconformity therunto And the Informers answer to what we offer anent the assertions of Bishop Mortoune Bilson Iewel who write for the parity of Bishop and Presbyters by divine right viz That they held the Episcopall office themselves charging them thus with a practical breach of their principles most make him retract this
proposition of their appendix he might have seen this objection fully removed For therein they make good from many places of Irenaeus which were tedious here to transcribe that by Bishops he understood meer Presbyters and not Bishops distinct from Presbyters From which places of Irenaeus they collect 1. That he calls Presbyters Successors of the Apostles 2. That he calls them Bishops 3. That he holds the Apostolick doctrine to be derived by their succession 4. That what in one place he sayes of Bishops the same he sayes elswhere of Presbyters which sense and account of him they back with pregnant Testimonies of Dr. Reynolds Whittaker other learned protestant divines and lights in that Church And in proposition 7. anent the pretended Succession of Prelats from the Apostolick times they cleare it that these Successions are drawen from meer Presbyters viz the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Minister first ordained as among the Athenians their were 9. Archontes or Chief Rulers equall in Authority yet the Succession of Governours in Athens was derived from one of them who was the first Archoâ—… ut compendiosior ac minus impedita esset temporum enumeratio that the Calculation of times might not be hindered but be the more compendious 4. He sayes it is more likly that Ierom was deceaved If we understand him to speak of Bishops who were introduced after the Apostles times then Eusebius or Irenaeus who lived before Ans. That Eusebius was deceaved is not only alleadged but proven by the learned and Ierom proving so clearlie from Scripture the identity of Bishop and Presbyter both in name and thing doth convincing lie inferr that the Bishops set over Presbyters are discrepant from the scripture pattern That Irenaeus by Bishops understood these first Moderators is made good from his writings Next wheras these reverend authores pag. 114 115. say that Irenaeus by Bishops meaned Presbyters and page 65. That the Fathers spoke of Church officers of former times after the stile of their owne and that the Bishops in the Catalogues are onlie the first ordained Presbyters for the more expedit reckoning this man thinks these Answers inconsistent Because 1. they say that Eusebius Irenaeus were deceaved when they spoke of Bishops And Next that by Bishops Irenaeus meaned only Presbyters Ans. Had the Informer attended better the places he points at he would have keepd off this fantastick reflection For they shew that these first Proestotes or Moderators who were in themselves and upon the Mater meere Presbyters were by former times and writers presented under ane Episcopal notion and the power of Bishops then prevalent unto Eusebius and Irenaeus whom Eusebius especially too credulously following in his Character and accounts of them occasioned the deceaving of others and that he and Irenaeus speaking of them in that manner and stile in the Catalogues might deceave others by naming them so who were upon the mater meer Presbyters whom the succeeding writers following as they shew out of Iunius Contr. 2. Ch 5. not 18. and fancying to themselves such Bishops as then had obtained fell into these snares of tradition because they supposed that according to the Custome of their times there could be but one Bishop in a Church at the same time And to cleare it that the persons whom Irenaeus speaks of were upon the mater Presbyters in answer to that objection from Irenaeus lib 3. Cap 3. where Bishops are named as set up by the Apostles They answer that the word Bishop hath a various acceptation and that Irenaeus names Anicetus Higinus Pius Presbyters of the Church of Rome the words being then promiscuouslie used So that whatever impression Irenaeus might have of them according to the language and Custome of the time yet upon the matter they were Presbyters only and therefore they put the Episcopall partie to prove that those whom they named Bishops were veri nominis Episcopi or Hierarchicall Bishops They doe not speak so much of the Impression which Irenaeus or Eusebius had of them as of the true nature and State of these Church-officers whom according to the Custome of their times they call Bishops By Irenaeus his calling them sometimes Presbyters according to the promiscuous use of the names even handed down to him they prove that his expressing them under ane Episcopall notion then receaved or any such impression of them which he might entertaine was wrong since according to the scripture language the Bishop and Presbyter imports no other office then a Pastour What inconsistency will our Informer shew in this that Irenaeus and others were deceaved in representing the first Proestotes under ane Episcopall notion upon a Credulous report from their forefathers and yet that the persons whom they thus represented were upon the mater Presbyters As for what he adds p. 102 from Bucer de animarum cura anent a Proestos or the Election and ordination of one who went before the rest and had the Episcopal Ministerie in the Chief degree even in the times of the Apostles by the Testimony of Tertullian Cyprian Irenaeus Eusebius ancienter then Ierom Wee say that any who knowes Bucers judgment in Church government and are acquaint with his writings theranent will acknowledge that the Proestos is the utmost length he goes as to Episcopacy and a Proestos during life hath no doubt something of ane Episcopal Ministerie and is above his Brethren and we are to expone his summus gradus or Chief degree by the word praecipue or Chiefly that goes before Who will doubt but the constant fixed Proestos is in so farr set over the rest But here we must minde the Informer of Two things 1. That this Proestos chosen by the Presbytery is as we said farr short of the Diocesian Prelat who owns no Presbyters in his election hath ane arbitrary power over them 2. That it being thus defacto is farr from amounting to a proof of the jus and who will say that Bucer could take the Apostle James to be formalie Bishop of Ierusalem or chosen to be a fixed Moderator by Presbyters whose Apostolick office both Bucer and the Informer will acknowledge to have reached the whole world in relation to the watering planting of Churches Next if these words will plead for a Hierarchie even in the Apostles times and that Bucer took upon the Testimonie of Tertullian Irenaeus c the Apostle James and others for Hierarchicall Bishops surely he was oblidged to have taken notice of Ieroms proofs for the parity of Bishops Presbyters in the Apostles times which since he doth not it s most probable that he means to assert the factum only of exalting Presbyters to such a degree at that time but not the jus as is said else I see no consistencie in the words if he reckon the Apostle James in this account For he sayes Apostolorum temporibus unus ex Presbyteris electus That in the Apostles times one was chosen from among the Presbyters
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
solemnlie consecrat by their fellowes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to their new episcopall order In a word we heard from Cassander that the Canonists and Theologues who dispute this Question doe both accord that as to a jus divinum or divine right there is no difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter either in order or degree And so though it were granted which yet the Informer himself dare not positively assert that the Fathers tossed this question it will nothing help him nor prejudge Mr Durhams quotation which speaks of a jus divinum As for what he adds That the Fathers cited by Medina might hold the same notion Let him hear how Bellarmin no friend to Presbyterian Government represents his assertion de Cler. Cap 15. Michael Medina lib. 1. De sacrorum hominum origine eminentia Cap. 5. Affirmat sanctum Hieronimum idem omnino cum Aerianis sensisse neque solum Hieronimum in ea haeresi fuisse sed etiam Ambrosium Sedulium Primasium Chrysostomum Theodoretum Oecumenium Theophylactum atque ita inquit Medina isti viri alioqui Sanctissimi Sacrarum Scripturarum consultissimi quorum tamen sententiam prius in Aerio deinde in Waldensibus postremo in Joanne Wickleffo damnavit ecclesia That is Michael Medina in the first book concerning the originall and eminencie of sacred men 5. Chap. Affirms that St Jerome was every way of the same judgment with the Aerians And that not only Jerome was in that Heresie But also Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostom Theodoret Oecomenius and Theophylact And thus saith Medina these men otherwayes most godly and most expert in the holie Scrptures whose judgment notwithstanding the Church condemned first in Aerius Next in the Waldeneses And lastly in Iohn Wickleff Let our Informer note here 1. That it is beyond debate with Bellarmin that with Medina at least all these Fathers were Aerians 2. That his holy Catholick Church of Rome is the grand condemner of this Heresie 3. That this is one of the Heresies of the old Waldenses these famous witnesses against Antichrist And of John Wickleff and such like eminent reformers Afterward he adds That in Jerome and these Greek Fathers that opinion was of old dissembled out of reverence to them But contrarily in the Hereticks alwayes condemned So we see the Presbyterian Principles are with him one of the Heresies of Protestants Peter Swav in the History of the Council of Trent pag. 664. edit Francfort relates That when the Authoritie of Ierom and Augustin was brought to prove episcopacie to be but ane Ecclesiastick constitution Michael Medina answered That it was no wonder that Jerom Augustin and others of the Fathers fell into that heresie not having throughly searched the matter that he maintained pro virili this to be their opinion Finallie to make these Fathers one with themselves whom this man enforceth in his next passages cited page 71 72. Anent the derivation of Episcopacie from the Apostles and higher to speak palpable contradictions we must say with Whittaker that they call the Apostles so because they did that upon the matter which Bishops then did And because their power quadam similitudine or by a certain similitude or likenesse as Junius expresseth it was like to that of these extraordinarie Church officers whom notwithstanding they could not succeed in the same office nor could these Fathers think so upon the grounds formerly mentioned Tilen in his Specul Antichr ortum aperiens Aphoris 88. Tells us that episcopos Presbyteros re nomine eosdem fuisse non Hieronimus solum in 1. Tim. 3. Sed etiam scriptura perspicue docet Tit. 1. Act. 20. Phil. 1. Proinde humani instituti sive positivi ut vocant juris est illa sub diversis nominibus munerum distinctio That Bishops and Presbyters were the same in name and thing or office Not only Jerome on 1. Tim. 3. But the Scripture also doth evidently teach Tit. 1. Act. 20. Phil. 1. And therefore that distinction of the offices under diverse names is of human institution as they call it or of positive right A fitt looking-glasse this had no doubt been to the same Tilen when he wrote his paraenesis and changed his note And likwise it is a fitt looking glasse for this Informer CHAP. XVI The harmonius consent of ancient Fathers Modern divines and confessions of Reformed Churches for Presbyterian Government in all its essentiall points of difference from Prelacie is exhibit IT is clear that Presbyterian Government the pure ancient and genuine Government of this Church in every essentiall ingredient of it as it stands in opposition to prelacie is approved by such a consent of antiquity and modern diuines that it would take up almost as much roome as this Informers pamphlet to reckon up their names That we may present them in 〈◊〉 compendious view take it thus 1. That jure divino there is no difference betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter hath a very large consent of antiquitie collected by many of the learned whose testimonies we may see in Bishop Jewel against Hardin edit Ann. 1570. p. 243. And Reynolds in the forementioned Epistle at large cited Petries Hist. part 3. p 469 470 471. Where there is exhibit a full consent both of the Greek and Latin Fathers for this point of truth The Doctor in his conference with Hart holds That the president chosen out at first to moderat is be whom afterwards the Fathers called Bishop and that the name Bishop common to all Ministers was by them thus appropriat to this president Next for modern writers the same Dr Reynolds tells us in the formentioned Epistle that those who have laboured about the reforming of the Church these 500 Years have taught that all Pastours be they intituled Bishops or Priests have equall authoritie and power by Gods word Citing the Waldenses in Aen. Silv. hift of Bohem. Chap. 35. Pich Hierarch Ecclesiast lib. 2. Cap 10. Marsil Patavin Defens pacis part 2. Cap. 15. Wickleff in Thom. Waldens Doct. Fil. Tom. 1. lib 2. Cap 60. and Tom 2. cap 7. And his Schollers Husse and the Hussits Aeneas Silvius Loccit Luther Advers falso nomin Scot Epise adversus Papat Rom. Calv. in Epist. ad Phil. Tit. 1. Erentius Apolog. Confess Wittenberg Cap. 21 Bulinger Decad. 5. Serm 3. Musculus Loc. Com Tit de Ministerio Verbi Then he adds Jewel Pilkington Dr. Humphrey in Campian Duraeum Jesuit Part. 2. Raâ—… 3. Whittak ad rationes Campian 6. Confut Durae lik 6. Mr Bradfoord Lambert Fox Act. Mon. Fulk Ansr. to the Rhemeflits To these may be added Cartwright against the Rhemists Bishop Bilson himself against Seminartes lib. 1. p 318. Bishop Morton in his Catholick Apologie Part. 1. Cap. 33. Erasmus upon 1 Tim. 4. To which add that in the Oâ—…cumenick Counâ—…les of Constance Basile it was concluded that Presbyters should have decisive suffrage in Councils as well as Bishops because that by the Law of God Bishops were not greater then
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
he adds that it is irrationall to say we are bound to it in the sense of the Church and State of Scotland because they were but a part of the Imposers and the least Part. Ans. I told him already that in relation to the engadgers in Scotland they were the proper imposers the authority of the respective rulers of both nations in relation to their own subjects being first and immediately to be lookt unto and their sense scope therein to be mainly eyed and each Nation being properly and immediatly judges as to their own national end in this stipulation Thinks this man that the then representatives of Church and State did eye any other end as to Scotland then the preservation of the reformation in Doctrine Discipline Worship and Government as at that time therein establisht Moreover the sense and scope of the article it self being convincingly inclusive of Presbyterian Government it can admit of no other glosse without manifest distortion and frustration of the imposers designe therein Next he tells us that suppose Presbytery were meant in the 1 Article yet the 2d will admitt some episcopacie What poor stuffe is this Suppose the Article of extirpation relating only to England and Ireland would comport with some episcopacie which the Informer hath not yet proved what hath that to do with Scotland Or how can that enervate our engadgement to preserve the reformation as then establisht in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government Because in relation to the extirpating of Englands Prelacy after the reformation in Scotland is compleated and sworn to we are to bear with the English Church in some remaines of Prelacy till God give further light must we therfor be oblidged or allowed according to the sense and scope of this Oath to corrupt or raze the Fabrick of that establisht reformation and bring in again prelacy into that Church out of which it had been totally eradicate Nay this is too dull inadvertancie As for what he adds that Presbytery is not inconsistent with any kinde of prelacie I answer that the presbytery establisht and sworn to be maintained in Scotland is and Beza is so farre from disowning this that as we heard he exhorteth John Knox to keep that Church and house of God clean of prelacy as he loved the simplicity of the Gospel CHAP. IV. The grounds upon which the Informer undertakes to prove that the obligation of the Covenant ceaseth although its oblidging force for the time past were supposed examined at large As also his reasoning upon Numb 30. Wherein his begging of the question his contradicting of Dr Sanderson and other Casuists and manifold inconsistencies are made appear OUR Informer having spent his Master pieces and the cheife products of his invention or rather of those who have gone before him upon this difficult task of reconciling the Covenant to Prelacy doth next as a liberall bold disputer undertake to loose the Covenant even upon supposall of its pre-existent obligation against it And therefore making his Doubter tell him that he bears off the acknowledgement of anyobligation against episcopacie either in the national or solemne league lest he fall under the charge of perjurie In answer to this he will suppose that episcopacy is abjured in both Covenants and yet undertake to defend that they arenot perjured who now submit to prelacie The Doubter thinks this strange Doctrine and so do I. Because to swear against episcopacie and yet acknowledge it is to do contrary to their Oath To this doubt he returns a large resolution but still follows up the Seasonable case closs for fear of miscarrying And first he begins with a threefold partition either prelacy saith he is an unalterable necessary Government of divine or Apostolick warrand or it is sinfull and contrary to the Apostolick Government or thirdly of a middle nature neither commanded nor forbidden but left to Christian prudence as found expedient to be used or not Here I must stope him a little and minde the reader that we did upon the first Dialogue disprove this indifferent Proteus-Prelacie as a monster to Scripture since the Scripture condescending so far as to its institution of officers ordinances Lawes censures and as we heard himself acknowledge setting down all substantialls of Church Government prelacie must of necessity be either consonant or dissonant therunto and by consequence necessary or finfull commanded or forbidden So that he is to be limited to the first two and any supposal anent the indifferencie of presacy is but his petitio prnicipii and the gratification of his adversary for further clearing of this question now proceed we If it be the Apostolick Government derived from their times to all ages of the Church he hopes we will grant that no Oath oblidges against it This I willingly grant to him but what then Why we must not cry out perjurie till what he hath offered on this head be solidly answered Let this bargaine stand I hope I have made his Scripturae pretences appear to be vaine and proven the contrariety of that prelacie now established both to the Scripture and pure antiquity and till he hath answered what is offered upon this point we may impute perjury to him by his own acknowledgment What next what if it be sinfull Then he sayes we need not plead the Covenant obligation No may we not plead the Covenant obligation against Schisme heresie and profanness May not the Oath of alledgance be pleaded against treason because before this Oath treason is a sin Said he not already that the Baptismall vow is a superadded obligation though the matter it self doth binde did not the Oath and Covenant Neh. 8. containe an abjuration of many sins against which the people stood before preoblidged But he adds its true a supervenient Oath makes the obligation the stronger Right why then may not we plead that which makes it stronger Especially against this man and his fellows who have such a mighty faculty of resolving and absolving all S Peters fetters Sure they had need of Double nets who would catch a Proteus Then he tell us That the ablest champions for Presbytrie dar not assert episcopacie to be unlawfull What champions are these that prove it to be contrary to Scripture and yet dar not assert it to be unlawfull Sure they are very faint disputants We heard that Beza whom our Informer will sure call a champion for Presbytery called episcopacy diaâ—…olicall and the egg out of which Antichrist was hatched Was not that near the march of calling it unlawfull But how will he now absolve us Why it must be indifferent neither lawfull nor unlawful and then the question is with him if we could by our own Oath make it absolutely and in every case unlawfull so that we can never after submit unto it He adds that we are mistaken if we think that an Oath against a thing indifferent will in every case bind Here I shall only tell him that since all his resolving skill
that Prelacy is condemned in the word and consequently the matter of these Oaths and likewise found contrary to the priviledges and reformation of this Church to maintain which the se Prelats themselves who exacted such Oaths stood engadged and such like grounds they prove them to be Materially sinfull iniquitatis vincula and from the beginning null or never obliging and do not pretend as he to loose from Oaths antecedently lawfull and binding Besides Prelats being removed this Oath supposing their existing power and office was ipso facto null and void as the souldiers military Oath to the captain upon the disbanding of the armie and so its root was plucked up Sublata causa tollitur effectus Sublato relato tollitur Correlatum So that he gets but a Wound to his cause in kicking thus against the pricks But he tells us that he will come yet nearer with an other argument and so he had need for the preceeding have never yet come near our cause nor his designe Well what is this Commissaries he saith were abjured in the Covenant as officers depending upon the abjured bierarchy yet we ownd them before Bishops were restored and why may not he the abjured Bishops also But will he suffer a Reverend father Bishop Lighton to answer for us and shew him the disparity of our Commissariot a meer civil administration influenced and authorized by superiour civil Governours as a part of the politicall constitution of the Kingdom with a Church office In his first letter anent the Accommodation printed in that piece entituled The case of the accommodation examined he will tell him that though we have the name of Commissaries yet they excercise not any part of Church discipline Which he sets down expresly to distinguish them from the Commissaries abjur'd in the 2d Article of the Covenant Now the difference of this owning our Commissaries in Scotland from owning and swearing fealty to the Bishop as a Church officer in all his Spirituall usurpations is so palpable that any may see the impertinency of this instance even in Bishop Lightons Judgement Moreover we abjure in the Covenant all Ecclesiastical officers depending upon that hierarchy But will he dare to say that the Commissary whose administration is properly Civil and when the Covenant was taken had not the least dependance upon a Prelat was an Eclesiastical officer depending upon that hierarchy Surely the meanest capacity may discover the vanity of this argument The Doubter objects this that the Commissaries did not then depend upon the Bishops and therfore might be ownd as not contrary to the Covenant To this he answers that upon this ground of a non-dependance upon Bishops we might have ownd a Dean at that time or a Bishop as having no dependance upon an Arch-bishop and that he cannot see why any member of the hierarchy under the highest might not have been owned and retaind on this ground as well as the Commissary Ans. The disparity is manifest to any of Common sense the Dean sua natura is an Ecclesiastick officer and the very office denotes a relation unto and Ecclesiastick dependance upon a prelat in spirituall administrations so that Prelacie being laid aside and the hierarchy smoothed to Presbyterian Parity and Government the Dean is a meer Chimaera and so is the diocesan Bishop and can no more subsist the basis and fountain of his very office qua talis or as such being removed and extinct But the Commissary a civil officer and Magistrat his administration of its own nature civill depends upon and is regulat by superiour civil Rulers and so in that case subsists intirely as a part of the civil Government where prelacie is abolished and can no more be scrupled at because a prelat did somtime usurpe an authority over that office then the office of the Lord high Chancellour or any other civil office of state and inferiour offices theron specially depending because somtime a Prelat was Chancellour and usurped authority in these matters ought to be disowned or scrupled at upon this account 2ly He sayes this answer comes near to what he said before anent the English divines who hold only that complex frame to be abjured in the 2d article which consists of all the officers there enumerat Ans. 1. It is more then he hath proved that the English divines do owne even sigillatim or apart all these officers or looke upon themselves as only obliged against that complex frame consisting of all the officers enumerat in that article We heard before out of Timorcus whom Bishop Lighton in that letter and the Informer himself cites as holding that our Prelacie is consistent with the Covenant and whom they appeal unto in this debate that they disowne all Prelacie where one single person exerciseth sole power in ordination and Jurisdiction all Prelacie beyond a Proestos and particularly the name and thing of Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Chapters Arch Deacons Timorcus in the 7. Chap. adds all Bishops not Chosen by the clergie and people all Bishops who act by Deans prebends and exercise their power by Chancellours Commissaries c. Doth not the article it self abjure all ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy So that though we did come near to what they say in this answer we come never a whit nearer him 2ly we told him already that the Commissaries office is properly Civil though usurped upon by the Prelat so that when purged from this usurpation and running in the channell of a meer civil administration influenced and authorized by Superiour civil Governours as a part of the political constitution of the kingdom it falls not within the compass of an Ecclesiastical officer depending on the hierarchy by his own Confession and Bishop Lightons How then was the owning of him before the introduction of Prelacie contrary unto the Covenant But because he suffered not his poor Doubter to tell him that the Commissary besides that in our late times he did not depend upon the Bishop is really and upon the matter with us a Civil not a Church officer he thinks to surprise him with a third answer That now the Comissaries do actually depend upon the Bishops yet we scruple not nor decline their Courts and authority and if we decline them not as according to our Principles we are oblidged how are we free of perjury and if we can acknowledge a Commissary notwithstanding the Covenant why may not he also a Bishop Ans. What poor tatle is this we told him already that the Commissariot is of it self a lawfull Civil administration not ane Ecclesiastical function and the prelats usurped authority cannot render this civill office unlawfull Wheras the dicoesan Bishops office is a pretended Ecclesiastical function and in its very nature a gross corruption and contrary to the word of God as is above cleared Which disparity is palpable to any that will but open their eyes Do we abjure any Civil courts or officers in that article are they not termd expresly
thus as our late consession is disownd in relation to several doctrinal points of Christian libertie moralitie of the Sabath free election c so likewise in relation to its principles as to Church Gobernment and Christs appointing Officers lawes and censures as head of his Church his not giving the keys to the civill Magistrat c. Wherein our prelatick party are come so great a length that the late theses from St Andrews an 81 daines that Assembly of Divines whose confession is authorirized by the generall Assembly of this Church with no other name then that of a conventicle 8ly Our Churches case is now worse then when prelacy was introduced by King James The Limitations of Erastianism by the Act of Parliament An. 1592. in relation to her priviledges concerning heads of religion heresy excommunication and censures clear this Next Church-Judicatories were not discontinued but sat upon their old ground and Prelats were restored by Parliament to their civil dignities only Hence 9ly It s clear that this pure Presbyterian Church hath been meerly passive as to all these innovations lately introduced her true representatives or lawfull Assemblies never having consented to this course of conformity as appears by the Assembly 38. Their act anent these meetings at Linlithgow 1606 at Glasgow 1610. at Aberdeen 1616. At St Andrews 1617. at Perth 1618. Which consented to Prelacie All which meetings they demonstrat to be contrary in their frame and constitution to the priviledges of this Church And at prelacies late erection Presbyterian Judicatories and Synods were preparing a Iudicial Testimonie before they were raisd So that the voice of our lawful Assemblies is still heard in opposition to this course since Prelacies erection we have never had so much as a shadow of ane Assembly c. For the 3d point viz. the different grounds which the Presbyterian and prelatick party and this man particularly do plead upon for the peoples adherence take it shortly thus the prelatists do plead first that they are Ministers and in that relation to this Church 2lv That corruptions in administrators will not according to our own principles warrand separation from ordinances 3ly they plead order and union which they allege is broken by peoples withdrawing These are the cheif topicks they insist on On the other hand Presbyterian Ministers plead for disowning them according to the forementioned state of the question first from this that the body of Presbyterian Ministers professours adhering to our Churches reformation principles and priviledges are the pure genuine Church of Scotland tho now fled into a wilderness whose voice we are called to hear as her true Chiidren 2ly that this course of conformity is a meer intrusion on this Church and invasion of Christs Kingdome prerogatives and ordinances subjecting the lawes officers and censures of his Church unto men exauctorating putting in officers without his warrand that Prelats and their deputes consequently have no right to officiat as Ministers in this Chuich Since both the one and the other are arrand intruders upon the same and promoters of this Schismatick destroying course of defection 3ly that our Churches divine right and claim to her priviledges stands fast notwithstanding the present encroachments and invasions thereof and her Childrens obligation of adherence to the same accordingly 4ly That hence it followes because of the nature and tendency of this course of defection that all are obliged to keep themselves free from the least accession to it and therefore to disown Curats both as maintaining principles contrary to the principles and doctrine of this Church and as standing in a stated opposition to her likewise as the obiects of her censure if she were in capacity to draw her sword That the people of God have both corrupt doctrine to lay to their charge beside the corruption Worship and also their going out from the fellowship of this Church and leading the people away from our vowed reformation c. In the 4th place to come to clear ths great point on whose fide the separation stands let us premise these things 1. Every separation is not sinfull even from a Church which hath the essentialls yea and more then the essentialls a man may go from one Church to another without hazard of separation But further in these cases separation is not schism I. It if be from those tho Never so many who are drawing back and in so far as drawing back from whatever peice of duty and integrity is attaind For this is still tobe held fast according to many scripture comands as we shall shew So Elias when Gods Covenant was forsaken was as another Athanasius I and I only am left in point of tenacious integrity 2ly if we separat in that which a Nationall Church hath commanded us as her members to disown by her standing acts and authority while those from whom we separat own that corruption 4. If Ministers their supposed separation be ane officiating as they can have access after a National Churches reformation is overturnd and they persecute from their watchtowers by these overturners For in this case the persecuters separat from them and chase them away 4. There is a Lawfull forbearance of union and complyance with noto ious backsliders in that which is of it self sinfull or inductive to it which is far from separation strictly taken The commands of abstaining from every appearance of evill and hating the garment spotted with the flesh do clearly include this 5. Many things will warrand separation from such a particular Minister or congregation which will not warrand separation from the Church National nor infer it by Mr Durhams acknowledgment on scandal pag. 129. For if scandals become excessive he allowes to depart to another congregation 6. There is a commanded withdrawing from persons and societies even in worship the precepts to avoid them that cause divisions and offences contrary to the received Doctrine Rom. 16. 17. to come out from among the unclean be separat 2 Cor. 6. 17 to cease from instruction that causes to erre from ehe words of knowledge Prev 19. 27. to save our selves from the untoward generation Act. 2. 40 will clearly import this by consequence 2dly This charge of sinfull separation which they put on Gods people supposes many thigs which must be proved as first that the Prelats and their adherents are the only true organick Church of Scotland which is denyed her frame and constitution being such as it said surely the Ministers and professours adhering to her reformation must be the true Church of Scotland tho the lesser number as they should have been if this prelatiok defection had been intirely popish These souldiers who keep the Genâ—…rals orders are the true army not the deserters of the same Either the Church in this Nation as lately reformd constitute and to whose constitution many Conformists vowed adherence was not the true organick protestant Church of Scotland or this partie whose constitution
Principles Doctrine practice are point blank contrary therunto is not 2. It supposed that there is no lawfull use of ordinances among Presbyterian Ministers as persons who have no Lawfull call to officiat in this case Hence this man pleads for disowning them universally and absolutely but we affirm they are Ministers standing in that relation to this Church and under the obligation of Christs comand to officiat which Conformists have not yet disproved 4. He supposes that every thing which may be expedient as to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and order of a Church when enjoyning her full peacable constitution will equally oblidge in her broken and persecute condition when a prevailing backsliding party is in her bosome Now scripture and reasen will disprove this circumstances of order must give place to important duties in extreme necessity as this is the scattered officers of the Church of Jerusalem went every where preaching the gospel Act. 8 so did Ministers in the beginning of the Reformation 4. It is supposed that our change is only as to government and such only as was in King Iames time both which we have showen to be false 5. He takes for granted that their personal faults who are conformists and a supposed pullution of the worship therby is our ground of non-union and that our granting them to have the essence of a Ministeriall call and that their scandals will not pollute the worship will infer the hearing of them in this our case which is also false For even upon this supposition we are not bound to owne them no more then ane ingraind Schismatick obtruded forcibly by a party of the congregation upon the rest of the people might be ownd on this ground 6 This man begs the question in supposing that the constitution and frame of the Prelacy now establish't is the same with that of the ancient Church for he often tels us that we would have separat from the ancient Church upon the same grounds for which we disown Conformists Whereas we have shewed the difference of our prelacy from theirs in many points That our prelats both as Diocesian Erastian are wholly discrepant from the ancient Bishops 7. He takes it for granted that Ministers who disown this course of backsliding their relation to their flocks is cut off in the present posture of our Church and that the Prelats and their substituts the Curats are the onely proper representative Church of Scotland who accordingly have onely the lawfull power and exercise of the keyes as to either admission or censure of Ministers A principle alwayes disowned by our Church See Protesters no subverters pag. 96. Rutherfoords due right of Presbyt pag. 430. 431. Altare Damasc. pag. 23. 8. He supposes that its unlawfull in this our case to officiat renâ—…tente Magistratâ—… that this very violence and the present Lawes will render Ministers officiating unwarrantable pag. 205. which is a great mistake for the Magistrat cannot loose from the pastoral relation which he gave not ejusdem est constituere destituere Aâ—…esmedull cap. 30. thes 14. And hence the Ministers relation to the Church Nationall stands tho he restrain the exercise thereof in any one place and consequent ly the tyes and commands to officiat so that disobeying the Magistrats command not to officiat is no disobedience to his lawful authority Nay Apollonius thinks that the divine relation of a Minister to this Church tho banisht from his native country doth stand Ius Majestatis circasacra part 1. pag. 331. 9. He still supposes that what will not exse or of it self plead for disowning the hearing of the gospel or of a Minister simpliciter will plead nothing in this our case for disowning Conformists The mans weakness personal faults not lecturing c. are not of themselves sufficient to cut us off from hearing absolutely But tho this be granted we have the pure genuine Church of Scotland and her faithful Ministry to adhere unto and over and above these grounds mentiond conformists schismatick practice and corrupt Doctrine to lay to their charge which will make this ground in our case very weighty and preponderating and this the Informer himself must grant for he will not say that such like pretences or arguments in our case were valid as to the owning of Nonconformists and desâ—…rting of Curats Moreover he will grant that Presbyterian Ministers might Lawfully be heard if Conformists were not standing in their way Now so the case is in relation to Presbyterian Ministers pleading for that none of these things which he mentions were valid to infer peoples disowning of Conformists were there no other Ministers in Scotland and if this Church had universally both Ministers and people faln into this couâ—…se of backsliding will be readily granted But without any advantage to his cause as is evident To these many discoveries of his begging the question in this debate our plea and arguments will be clearer if we add a short view of our suppositions in this case and question Such as 1. our principle of the unlawfulness of prelacie 2. The binding force of our covenants 3. Our Churches divine tight to her Reformation and priviledges once establisht 4. that this is a case both of defection and persecution 5. of competition betwixt Ministers professours contending for our Reformation and a party of backsliders overturning it 6. The tendency of this course of Prelatick defection to raze our Reformation and that if not prevented it will end in propery 7. That Presbyterian Ministers relation to this Church and their obligation to duty founded upon that relation is not extinguished but subsists notwithstanding of the present violence and persecution which they with their weeping mother are exposed unto Having premised these things from what is said we may draw forth at length the great state of the question thus whether when the Reformation of a National Church in Doctrine worship discipline and government is by a backsliding party overturnd and a course-carryed on to raze it God having left a considerable body of Ministers professours who stand in opposition to that course and are in their capacities testifying against it are these Ministers and professors who preach and hear in opposition to that course or the complying Ministry and hearers the scismaticks This being clearly the state of this question we shall offer these arguments to fortifie our principle of disowning conformists in this our case and denying a subjection to them as the Ministers of this Church and adherence to Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry and acquit this principle and practise from the Informers charge of sinfull separation 1. Whoever of the two partiss adhere unto the true genuine Church owning her constitutions authoritie and priviledges its certain the contrary party must be the schismaticks here it must be seen who are the first departers who have first broken the hedge who have first disownd and opposed the Covenants the Government the sound and
be taken as joint acts of Paul Barnabas and of the Churches together with them viz. That they all concurr'd in making them Elders by suffrage and in prayer and fasting and commending themselves to the Lord. 3. How proves he that the relative they in our translation is referred to Paul and Barnabas only rather then the Churches sure this is a blind proof and as we use to say a Baculo ad angulum they ordain'd elders Ergo Paul and Barnabas only ordain'd by Imposition of hands since the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it s resolved by the learned cannot hardly in propriety of speech import laying on of hands in ordination which was proper to Paul and Barnabas and the Septuagint whom Luke followes expressing the laying on of hands by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Informer must acknowledge this from the sequel of his own reasoning for he tells us that Paul and Barnabas could not elect Ministers very true and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in its native acceptation signifies election by suffrage as he hath acknowledged must relate to the people Since there could be no hand-suffrage betwixt Paul and Barnabas 4. Giving and not granting that this was an act of Paul and Barnabas distinct from the Churches suffrage our argument stands good and this will not in the least yeeld the question as this man foolishly imagines for to read it thus Paul and Barnabas ordained elders by suffrage is all one with this that they ordained such to be elders as were chosen by the Chuch The people declared by hand-suffrage whom they would have to be Elders and Paul and Barnabas ordained them Elders As the Consul who held the court among the Romans created new Magistrats that is did receive the votes and preside in the elections Since as I said the hand-suffrage cannot in any propriety of speech relate to Paul and Barnabas alone See Calvines Institut lib. 4. cap. 53. paragr 15. and Mr Gillesp. ubi supra who further tells us that this may be either an action of the Church only as the Syriack makes it or a joint action both of the Churches and of Paul and Barnabas as Iunius makes it or an action of Paul and Barnabas in this sense that they did constitute elders to the Churches by the Churches own voices in all which senses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stands good for us To which we may add that Calvine renders the word cuâ—… suffragiis creassent when the had made by votes Adding that Paul and Barnabas ordained Ministers to the Churches for they did preside over and moderat the people's election Presbyteros dicuntur eligere Paulus Barnabas an soli hoc privato officio faciunt quum potius rem permittunt omnium sugragiis Ergo in Pastoribus creandis libera fuit populi electio sed ne quia tumulâ—…uose fieret praesident Paulus barnabas quasi Moderatores That is Paul and Barnabas are said to ebuse Elders but do they this solely and by themselves and do not rather remit this to the suffrages of all therefore in the making of Pastours the people had a free election and choise but left any thing should be done tumultuously Paul and Barnabas do preside as Moderatours So he sayes we are to understand the decree of the Council of Laodicea which seemed to inhibit the people's elections The Dutch Annot. upon this passage do tell us that this was a custome among the Greeks in chusing their Magistrats that the people by lifting up their hands give to understand their voting so it seems that from thence this custome was also used in the primitive Church that the setting forth of Ministers of the Church being done by Apostles or those that were sent by them for this purpose was approved by the Church by the lifting up of their hands which use long continued in the Church as the Ecclesiastick histories testify And having told us that others understand this of imposition of hands which they set down as the secondary and less probable opinion they add that this also was done with consent of the church as appears by the fasting and praying which was done by the whole Congregation and was also done in this chusing of the Elders referring to 1 Tim. 5. 17. Acts 10. 41. upon which passage they shew that the Greek word in Acts 14. 23. signifies properly by lifting up of hands to choose or ordain and is here used concerning the choosing of ordinary Ministers by the suffrages of the Church to which this extraordinary choosing of Apostles is here opposed as being done by lifting up or stretching forth of Gods hand alone Upon Acts. 6. 6. where mention is made of laying on of hands they tells us that as this was usual in blessing Gen. 48. 14. in sacrifices Lev. 1. 4. and in installing into offices Numb 27. 18. Deut 34. 9. So the Church pointing at the Apostolick Churches practice in investiture of Ministers did thus dedicate them to God his service and used thus to wish his blessing 1 Tim. 5. 22. The English annot upon this text under debate do shew that the word signifies making of such a choise as was made or confirmed by lifting up of hands to signify suffrages or consent and having told us of the general signification of the word in reference to ordination or appointing chap. 10. 41. they add that the Syriack reads the text thus and they appointed to them Elders in every Congregation Whence they collect that Paul and Barnabas did not all alone in ordaining Church-government other Christians shew'd their consent or approbation of the persons who were ordained Elders by lifting up their hands as very wee l knowing of what behaviour they had been among them so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies say they to disallow by some act election or decree Adding that Suidas interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which his Interpreter renders electio delectus per suffragia confirmatio populi totius consensus an election choosing a confirmation by voices consent of all the people Let our Informer here observe 1. That the choosing of Ministers by suffrage and consent of the Church is imported and held out in this passage under debate in the consentient judgment of Interpreters and that this greek word as in its ordinary so its special acceptation in this place will clearly infer so much whatever authority in ordination and election as to Paul and Barnabas and of Ministers consequently the circumstances of this text will bear out and infer 2. That this interest of the people in the election and call of Ministers is comprobate by the judgement and consentient practice of the ancient Church as the history therof doth verify 3. That that passage Act. 10. 41. doth in their sense nothing invalidate this right of the people held out in this text the one place speaking of an immediat choosing by God the
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
indeed proves that the Magistrat may civilly punish a Minister for crimes and consequently cut him off from the exercise of his Ministry but that he can simply and immediatly or by proper elicit acts discharge the exercise thereof can no more be proved from this instance then that the man who gives bad physick or hurts the Ministers person and eatenus stops the exercise of his Ministerial office hath an authority to inhibit the exercise of his Ministry As for our Informers restriction anent the Kings inhibiting a minister to preach in his dominions 't is a very poor and transparent sophistical cheat for no man ever said that he can exercise any magistratical power upon those who are without his dominions whether ministers or others And thus should his dominion in Gods providence be streached over all the christian Church he hath authority by this courtdivinity to silence the gospel sound in a clap and extinguish a gospel ministry when he pleaseth and then this man would do well to ponder how this consists with the nature and designe of Christs great commission to his first ambassadours his Apostles in reference to the gospel message and unto all ministers untill the end of the world and his promised presence accordingly as also whether the Apostles and ordinary ministers afterward did warrantably counteract the Magistrats opposition in this exercise of their Ministry and what our lords answer would have been in case such an objection anent Princes discharging the exercise of their Ministry had been offered by the Apostles at the first giving out and sealing of their great patent and commission to preach to all nations and whether our Lord would have told them that their commission did not bind in that case The Informer is afraid to set his foot on such slippery ground as to assert that the King can depose absolutely but yet averres that he can restrain the actual exercise of the Ministerial office and surely if this be granted in that extent he pleads for it will abundantly secure self-seeking polititians from the trouble of a faithful Gospel-Ministry they will be content to part with this nicety of a simple deposing But if in the Judgment even of some of his Rabbies whom I could name the most formal ecclesiasticall censures do amount to no more then this legal restraint of the exercise he doth but pityfully resarciat his lapse and mend the matter by this whimsey As for what he adds of Beza's letter to the non-Conformists in England not to exercise their Ministry against the Queens authority and the Bishops The often mentioned difference betwixt the then State of that Church and our present condition doth quite invalidat his proof since certainly in some cases the counteracting the Princes command as to the exercise of the Ministry requires a very cautious consideration but had our case in its present circumstances and latitude as above delineat been propounded to Beza touching the overturning the Reformation of this Church so fully setled by civil and Ecclesiastick Authority and confirmed by Oaths of all ranks by Prelats and their adherents ejecting all faithfull Ministers who will not be subject to that course Sure Beza who as we heard requested John Knox never to let Prelacy be introduced into Scotland and all faithfull Ministers to contend against it after it was cast out would have judged Minsters obliged in this our case especially after Prelacy is thus vowed against to keep their possessions to preach the gospel and testify against such a wicked course as well as it was the duty of our first Reformers to preach against the will of the then Bishops and persecuters Besides it s the Doctrine and principles of our Church that neither the Magistrate nor Prelats censures can loose a Minister from the exercise of his Ministry which is above cleared So that our Informers great Diana which he is all this time declaiming for viz. The imposing of an absolute silence upon the true Pastors of this Church that Conformists onely may be heard and ownd doth so stoop and bow down that the underpropings of his slender artifice and poor mean pleadings cannot prevent its precipice and ruine CHAP. VI. The nature of Presbyterian Ministers relation to this Church and their call to officiat therin vindicate from the Informers simple cavills Mr Baxters rules for the cure of Church-divisions impertinently alledged by him The Testimonies of the jus divinum Minist Anglic. And of Mr Rutherfoord in his Due right of Presbytery anent unwarrantable separation insufficient to bear the weight of his conclusion THE appearances of our Lords Ambassadours in his message and for promoting his Interest have been much opposed by Satan in very various Methods and versatile disguises in all ages but that Presbyterian Ministers of a pure Apostolick Presbyterian Church should be opposed in the exercise of their holy function and Ministry received from Christ and this exercise impugned from pretended Scripture grounds and Presbyterian principles may seem strange if these latter days had not produced many such prodigies of errors and wickedness The progress of this personat doubt-resolver his impugnations will discover so much which we now proceed to examine This Informer next alleages That Ministers among us make themselves Ministers of the whole Church and the Doubter alledging That a Minister is a Minister of the Catholick Church he Answers from Mr Rutherfoord Due right of Presb. page 204. That tho a Minister is a Minister of the Catholick Church yet not a Catholick Pastor of it that by ordination and his calling he is made Pastor and by election he is restricted to be ordinarly the Pastor of his flock And that Mr Durham on Rev. page 106 107. thinks there is odds betwixt being a Minister of the Catholick Church and a Catholick Minister of it as the Apostles were and the Pope pretends viz. to have immediat access for the exercise in all places that â—…ho actu prime they have a commission to â—…e Ministers of the whole Church yet actu secundâ—… they are peculiarly delegated to such and such posts But we have made our selves Ministers of all the congregations of the Countrey I answer this doctrine crosses not our principles nor practice in the least For first when we assert that a Minister is by election restricted to be ordinarly the Pastor of a flock and especially delegat and fixt to such a post particular watchtower it is not so to be understood as if there could be nolawful exercise of his Ministry elsewhere for first this were flat independency c. 2. All save they of this perswasion grant that the Minister receives no new authority as to his Ministerial acts and officiating in other places but a new application only Hence in the 2d place is to be understood of the Church her ordinary settled state under a settled Ministry but when there is a destroying enemy within her bosome wasting her and the fathfull Ministry are put from their
Watchtowers and posts by a number of Schismatick Innovators who are dissolving her union and impeaching her Authority In this extraordinary case Ministers more enlarged and unfixt officiating is no breach of this Rule Because 1. In this case the Parochial constitution is impossible to be held and God calls not to impossibilities and yet his call to preach the Gospel stands and binds and by consequence to preach to others then the Ministers parish The common rule will plead for this viz. necessitas non habet legem which this Informer himself doth hold will in some cases warrand the laying by of that which otherwise were a duty he knows what his inference is from Davids eating of the shew bread to keep from starving and Paul and those with him their casting their goods into the sea to preserve from perishing So that of necessity he must admit this rule and answer upon his own ground 2. The reasons which did warrand our first Reformers officiating in this manner a practice which he dare not say that the authors mentioned or any reformed divines do condemn will warrand this our practice in this persecute state of our Church it being clear that the case of Reformation is parallel to that of a Churches defection and persecution in relation to this practice contraverted as we cleard from Acts 8. 3. The same great end of the Churches greater good and edificaton which warrands fixing of Ministers to their posts in a Churches setled peacefull state will warrand their officiating more largely and at other posts when put from their own in her disturbed persecute and destroyed coondition by a prevalent Schismatick backsliding party The faithfull watchmen seing the city betrayed by a party of professed defendents who are letting in the enemy do their duty to the city best in resisting them and running to help 4. If faithfull Ministers their necessary keeping their posts and the unlawfulness of exercising their Ministry any where else were in this case asserted then it would follow that a Minister standing in that relation to a disturbed and destroyed Church and all his gifts and graces were useless in that case which notwithstanding are given for the good of the Church but this is absurd Shall not the weeping Church be taken by the hand by her true Sons when she is wounded and her vail taken away by smiting watchmen 5. By our Principles the Prelatick party are Schismaticks who have already broke and overturned our Churches order and Reformation Now this Informer will not deny that in such a case the Church may send forth her Ministers to officiat among such backsliders and Schismaticks for their healing and recovery he knowes upon what ground Mr Lightoun not long since sent out some of his brethren to preach in the West of Scotland Beside Mr Gillespie will tell him Miscell page 23. That a Schismatick Church hath no just right to the liberty of a sound Church as to the calling or setling of Ministers So that in our principles no Conformists are duely or lawfully called and settled 6. Our divines do grant that in extraordinary cases even the want of ordination it self will not hinder to officiat Ministerially but that there may be a necessity which will sustain and comport with the want of it Mr Gillespy Misc. ch 4. page 63. tells us that in extraordinary cases when ordination cannotbe had and when there are none who have commission authority from God to ordain then and there an inward call from God stirring up and â—…ing with the people's good will and consent whom God makes willing can make a Minister authorized to ministerial acts That at the first plantation of Churches ordination may be wanting without making void the Ministry because ordination cannot be had And if necessity will plead this in relation to ordination it self Ergo a fortiori this necessity of our Churches destroyed perturbed condition may much more comport with ordained Ministers their more enlarged officiating for the help and recovery of a perishing remnant by Wolves in sheeps cloathing Next this Informer going on in his nauseating repetitions charges intrusion upon our Ministers and enquires what warrand they have to preach and administer Sacraments to those of another Ministers charge being neither called nor desired by these Minsters I answer they have Gods call to preach the Gospel as Minsters of this Church and as this call would warrand their officiating in other parishes upon the lawfull Ministers desire or invitation in a settled serene state of our Church so in this her ruined and destroyed condition the same call abundantly warrands their helping of these congregations and such poor Macedonians who desire their help while under destroying Schismaticks who have no lawfull call to be their Mininisters from God or this Church But here our Informer assaults us with a dilemma either Presbyterian Ministers call is ordinary or extraordinary Ordinary they have none since they are not invited by the Ministers of the congregations to whom they preach extraordinary they will not pretend unto I Answer by a counterdilemma and retort his argument thus either the pretended Ministers of these congregations have an ordinary or extraordinary call to officiat therein ordinary they have none according to the Doctrine Reformation and principles of this Church being neither called by the people nor ordained by the Presbyteries of this Church if we speak of the generality who are ordained and obtruded by the Prelats upon these congregations where they officiat and for those who were otherwise ordained and have conformed we have told him that by accepting presentation from Patrons and collation from Prelats they have renounced their Presbyterian call and ordination and the call of this Church consequently and thus do fall under the same consideration with the rest and for the exraordinary call neither the one nor the other will pretend unto it And when he answers this dilemma and by the Scripture-rules and the Principles and reformation of this Church which the Informer hath not disproved yea admits us to suppose in this question justifies the Curats call to of â—…iciat in these congregations over which they assume an authority we shall produce ours as to this practice which he condemns Beside what answer will he give to such a dilemma in the mouth of Schismatick congregations offered unto such Ministers as the Church sends from their own congregations to officiat among them And whatever his answer be it will suite our case Then he tells us of acts of councils condemning this encroachment as he calls it But when he shall exhibit a case parallel to ours which these acts speak unto we shall consider it For what he adds of the Aberdeen Doctors their charging the Presbyterian Ministers who preacht in their congregations with a practice repugnant to the Scripture and Canons of ancient Councils he should have done well to have produced these Scriptures which the Doctors alleaged And for ancient Canons I think all
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
backsliders who are destroying and ruining the pure Church but in this case our prior obligation is in order to adherence to that pure Church and her faithfull Ministry thus opposed as is said But now at last our Informer who hath been hitherto silent as to any inference from his citations drawes out a general conclusion from them that in Mr Rutherfoords Iudgment and the English divines neither the personal faults of Ministers Nor real faults about the Worship much less supposed only will warrand a separation which when admitted lifts not his cause one hair breadth off the dust as is clear from what is said since he hath proved none of these three either 1. That they are the Church of Scotland to which we are bound to adhere according to the tenour and principles of our Reformation nor 2. That this practice of disowning them in this our case is a sinfull separation Or 3. that we disowne then meerly for personal scandals or some corruption in Worship Whereas we have proved that abstracting from both these we have ground of disowning them as Schismatick Innovators destroying this Church and himself must grant that there may be a non-union unto yea a separation from a party ground lesly assuming the name of a Church though neither their personal faults do pollute the worship nor the worship it self be simpliciter disowned or else he must yeeld the cause when this is pleaded in behalf of Presbyterian Ministers and for not separating from them since it is upon this ground that all along he pleads for people's disowning them though he dare not say that the ordinances are polluted by their supposed scandals After this our Informer exhorts his Doubter to try all things and not to be ashamed to retract what is amiss as Augustin wrote books of retractions and Ierom exhorted Ruffinus not to be ashamed to confess an error Ans. I think indeed we are to search all things by the rule of the word and had he with a single heart and an eye to the God of truth searched better he had not obtruded upon Gods people in defence of so bad a cause such insignificant arguments for demonstrations But why exhorted he not his Doubter to hold fast what is good as well as to try all things It is not fit to be ever learning and fixe in nothing And no doubt this latter part of that scripture precept justifies our opposing their Innovations But he pleads for retractions and it s no wonder to see men who have Justified the casting aside such solemn Oaths and vows unto God plead for retractions But if he and his party retract not such monstrous retractions the very naming whereof would have made Augustin and Jerom astonished the wo threatned against perjury backsliding breach of Covenant is very near them His concluding prayer that God bless us with truth and peace is good and heartily accorded and surely when our Jerusalem shall have this spiritual prosperity peace and truth which this man pretends to pray for within her walls prelats and their wofull train and corrupt principles which have made such sad breaches in her walls will be without them And the prosperity of such as love her will ruine her enemies His Doubters Resolution to hold fast what is good upon the proof of all things makes up his lame advice And having thus fortifyd the Knowledge of the serious Doubter in that which this man hath been misinforming him about and antidoted this poyson we pray that all the sincere enquirers for truth may hold it fast against the times errors and defection The character of schism presented to us at the close of the pamphlet is verifyed in the party he pleads for since their proud usurpation of the name and authority of this Church after they have thus rent and separat from her demonstrats this their schism to be superbiaeproles And in their taking up such grosse unheard of principles anent Oaths anent Magistracy c. to maintain and uphold this usurping hierarchy they are like to fall under that other branch of the character of schism that male perseverando fit haeresis And because of the corruptions which it is like to be more more productive of It may very probably become also mater haereseos The Lord awake for judgement and send a plentifull rain to water his in heritance and revive his work in the admist of the years and make his face to shine upon his sanctuary in these lands which is disolat for his names sake CHAP. VI. Animadversions Upon the PREFACE And title Page HAveing thus examined what this new Casuist hath offered in these Dialogues we shall here subjoyn some Animadversions upon the Preface prefixt to this pamplet 1. His profest design is to let people see the sin and unwarrantableness of separation as the Epidimicall desease of the time Ans. I think indeed it is so and upon whose side this separation lyes and who hath brought in this flood as he calls it not since 78 but 62 I hope may be now no doubt to the impartiall discerner It s no strange thing to see men charge upon others that whereof themselves are so eminently guilty Papists call themselves the only Catholicks and charge Protestant Churches with separation just as this man and his Innovating party deal with us they only must be the Church of Scotland and we the Schismaticks though not many years agoe it would have been thought I beleeve by many of these men themselves as strange aâ—…e absurditie and paradox to term such a party owning such principles and practices as they now doe the Church of Scotland as to affirm that nihil was aliquid non ens ens or that Zenith was in the situation and place of Nadir such ane intoxicating thing is backsliding and sinfull self love 2. He praises Magistrats in the bounds where he is whose authority together with his mightie convictions forsooth brought back people who went once to hear Presbyterian Ministers out of noveltie Ans â—…s no small peice of our sin and desolation that the Magistrats sword given him for protection of the Lords faithfull Ambassadours in following theire duty according to there solemn vowes to God should be improven in such a sinfull opposition to them What peace and order in this Church hath attended their monstrous perperjurious backsliding were 20 years experience may discover especiallie to those who have seen and known the beautifull order of our first glorious â—…temple the verie rubbish whereof is yet refreshfull in any remains of a faithfull Ministrie that is left 3. Against his modest reluctancie forsooâ—…h some of authoritie and learning among his party thought it fitt that these his Dialogues should see the light because schismatick principles and practices are not laid aside but carried on and this Informer thou ht it a mater of conscience to discover to such as are willing to be informed how unwarrarantable such coursâ—…s are if Scripure and even the Doct ine
of Presbyterians may be admited to judge Ans. How he hath fastned this charge of Schismatick principles and practices upon Presbyterian Ministers and Professors I leave it to the Impartiall to Judge from what is here replyed And how far any thing which he hath affered either from Scripture or the principles of Presbyterians is from reaching the conclusion which he aims at in these trifling Dialogues which all who are conscientious are we hope shy this rejoynder and a respect to truth and dutie sufficiently antidoted against and the learned as well as conscientious may wonder at such prodigiously bold ignorance 4. He wonders that so many of good note and not of the comons only are drinking in the principles of Brounists which have been zealously disputed against by old nonconformists Ans. How hâ—… hath made good this charge I refer it to the persusall of what is here replyed and how far the pleadings of these Non-conformists whom he mentions are from helping his cause I must here add that its astoninishing to find this man pretending a principle of conscience for this undertaking when his conscience could not but tell him that both upon the poynt of Episcopacie the Covenants and separation also he might have found all and more then he hath said fully answered and that he pitifully snakes away from our arguments dar not propose them in there genuin strength Nay he doth not so much as offer fairly to state the question in any of these three great points which he pretends to inform us about but confusedly shuffles them up for his own advantadge And upon the point of the Covenant obligation he poorly followes the arguments of the Seasonable case and some hints from the Surveyer without so much as offring any return unto what the Apologist hath long since repelyd unto them If this was conscientious dealing let any Judge and yet he is not ashamed to tell the world that because Episcopacie and the covenants are by people made the great grounds of separating therefore he premised his two dialogues concerning Episcopacie and the Covenants to shew what a sandy ground they are for separation if prelacie be found at least Lawfull and the Covenants in evry case not obligatorie whereas he hath offered nothing either to prove prelacie lawful or the Covenant not obligatorie but what is by severall of the godly learned abundantly answered and fully bafled sevrall of which viz. the Apollogist and jus divinum Ministery Anglican he seems to have had before him in writeing these Dialogues and yet nather doth he touch the answers of the Apologist to his arguments anent the Covenant nor dar he scan the pungent arguments of the London Ministers against prelacie and likwise there answers to sevrall things which he has offered for it and particularly there learned Appendix in the poynt of Antiquitie which cuts the sinnews of all his tedious legend of testimonies he durst not medle with Beside It wold seem he hath seen Smectymnus upon this subject whose learned confutation of the Episcopall plea as well from scripture as antiquity he passes over sicco pede And as for Erastian prelacie he offers not a jot indefence of it though his conscience could tell him that this is one main poynt of our plea against him So that suppose Episcopacie were in its self found Lawfull as he sayes yet if Erastian Episcopacie be found unlawfull his cause and pleading is lame and lost After this he would amuse his reader with a testimonie of Zanchie and another of Blondell which parts the hoofs of his page first as for Zanchie he cites a passage of his Obser in suam ipsius confessionem cap. 25. aphor 10. 11. wherein he saves first his faith is simply built upon the word of God Next In some measure upon the commun consent of the antient Catholick Church and that he beleeves what has been defyned by holy fathers gathered together in the name of the Lord citra ullam Scripturae contradictionem that these things are from the Spirit of though not of the same authoritie with Scripture then he adds that nothing is more certain from counsells Histories and writeings of the Fathers then these orders of Ministers of which he has been speaking to have been received into the Church with her intire consent and what is he to condemn what the whole Church has aproved I answer beside that he should have set doun these gradus Ministrorum which Zanchius speaks of that his reader might have known what these degrees were or whither they were prelatick degrees or not which no doubt he would have done had he not found that this would have marred his intent for which cause he doth not so much as offer to English any part of this or of the ensuing testimony we say first that any who knowes Zanchies learning and what the voice of the first and pure antiquity is and how far from giving a testimony to the present Diocesian much less the Erastian prelat of whom none can without extrem impudence assert that Zanchie is speaking will esteem this perswasion that the prelacy now existant with us hath the universall consent of all histories councills and fathers to be as far from the thoughts of Zanchie as its necessary to prove his poynt 2. Zanchise ayes his faith simply and mainly leans upon the word of God and so whatever the word is found to condemn as we have proved it doth the present prelacie in many respects Zanchie will make no bones to condemn it likwise own it who will The next passage he cites is of Blondell Apoll. pag. 193. who asserts that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belongs absolutly to the government of the Church and it s anext 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the maner order of its government which the Church alwayes thought permitted to her arbitrement Nather must we think every thing unlawful which humane custom of professors hath brought into the use of divine things That in such things christian prudence must act its part that no Church must be drawen into ane example that from the generall precept 〈◊〉 Cor. 14 40 the Church hath full power to follow what is more decent and commodious Ans. 1. We have before cleard that with Blondell their diocesian Prelat stands absolutly condemned in scripture and in his principles is diametrally opposit to the divine Scripture Bishop which evidently concludes his condemning the present Episcopacie with sole power of ordination and Jurisdiction much more the Erastian prelat altering fundamentally the government it self which he dar not say that Blondell ever dreamed of So that though we should grant because of this testimonie that Blondell will befound to admitt a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and constant Moderator which Its well knowen is the outmost length he goes and that the Churches example and practice here anent may be variable it falls utterly short of reaching the lest patrociny to his cause 2. he cites 1 Cor 14. 40.
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.
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