Ecclesiastical officers who are there abjured Nay doth not Timorcus tell us that in England the Commissaries exercise a power in Church discipline by a delegation from the Bishop And doth not Bishop Lighton deny this to be competent to our Commissaries here For in that passage of the letter now cited he sayes we have nothing but the name of Commissaries he means in respect of these in England who exercise ecclesiastical discipline under the Bishops Didoclavius pag. 458. Cites Cowellus in Interprete about the office of the Bishops Commissary in England speaking thus Commissarij vox Titulus est Ecclesiasticae Iurisdictionis saltem quousque commissio permittit in partibus Diocesios a primaria Civitate tam Longe dissitis ut Cancellarius subditos ad principale consistorium Episcopi citare non potest c. That is that Commissary in England is a title of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction so faras his commssion will allow in places which are so far remote from the cheif city of the diocess that the Chancellour without great molestation cannot cite them to the Bishops cheif court Didoclavius tells us ubi supra that according to the Statutes of England the Chancellour is the Bishops principal officiall the Commissary the Bishops foraneous officiall To conclude 1. The Bishops power as to Civills and their deputation of this their power to Chancellours is a most gross usurpation Contrary to the Scripture which forbids the Minister to entangle himself with things of this life Our Lord himself would not so much as be an arbiter in a civil Cause Paul speaking of the ministerial duties saith who is sufficient for these things The Apostles must Give themselves continually to the Word Cartwright against the Rhemists upon 2. of Tim. 2. 4. Proves that pure antiquitie Knew nothing of prelats thus medling citing Jerome super Sophon cap. 1. who expounds that place against Ministers medling in Secular affaires And Cyprian who applies this place against one who took upon him to be executor of a Testament Lib. 1. Epist. 9. concil Carthag 4. Cap. 20. Apostol can Can. 6. Seculares Curas non Suscipite Likewise Ambrose who affirmes that Worldly Government is the weakning of the priest Lib. 5. Epist. 33. Smectimnuus pag. 32. Sect. 10. cites concil Hispall 2. Cyprian Epist. 28. against this deputation of prelats power to Chancellours Commissaries c. and Brings in Bishop Dounham aknowledging Defens Lib. 1. that in Ambrose time and a good while after which was about the year 400. till presbyters were wholly neglected the Bishops had no ordinaries vicars Chancellours Commissaries that were not Clergie men But this restriction they affirme to be a meer blind and Challeng him to shew any such under-officers of Bishops in those times So that they hold this to be one main point of difference betwixt their Bishops and the primitive Bishops 2dly in England not only hath the Commissary a Civil administration under the Bishop but hath Likewise power of Spiritual censures and a great part of the Bishops ecclesiastical administration committed unto him both over Ministers and others such as suspension deposition excommunication See Didoclav pag. 464 465. de officialibus Cartwright 2. repl part 2. pag. 69. who shews that the prelats not only exercise Tyrrany themselves over the Church but bring it under subjection to their very Servants yea their Servants Servants such as Chancellours Commissaries c. 3ly it is clear that since the reformation we never had in Scotland such Commissaries but our Law and practice since that time and since Popish Prelacies were dissolved hath much reduced them to the state Quality of other civil officers whose administration of its own nature depends upon superiour civil officers For this we have as I said Bishop Lightons own Confession that we have but the name of Commissaries here who have nothing to do with Church discipline Only their civil power is invaded again by the Prelats 4ly B Lighton and this Informer do both plead that its only the officers enumerat in the 2d Article of the Covenant and the Commissaries as then moulded Existent in the Church of England that this Oath oblidges against And so according to their Principles and pleading our Commissary here so vastly discrepant from theirs falls not within the compass of the Covenant abjuration Hence finally the owning of the Commissary in his Lawfull civil administrations can be no acknowledgement either 1. of the English Commissaries Power which he hath not Nor 2dly of the Prelats usurpation upon this civil office no more then the simple using of our civil Laws and the ordinary civil courts during Cromwells usurpation was a homologating the wickedness therof which this man will not dare to assert An usurper may be in titulo and such submission and improvement of the civâ—…l power invaded by him as doth acknowledge the providentiall Title and his being possessed of the power de facto and having as they use to say jus in re or actual providential possession therof If there be no active concurrance towards his Establishment is as to civills free of any guilt of the usurpation and will import no acknowledgement of the usurper his Pretended jus Which is the Judgement of all sound divines and Casuists But the case is far different as to our Informers deriving his deputed Ecclesiastical Ministery or spiritual authority from the Bishop because 1. the Prelats office it self is a gross usurpation contrary to the Scripture so is not the Commissaries office 2dly the Pelats usurped possession of unlawfull power over the Church which is Christs Kingdom cannot give him so much as a providentiall Title and therfore all acknowledgement therof is unlawfull Thirdly his submission to prelacy as now it stands Circumstantiat is an acknowledgement both of the possession and jus which this man will not deny and this is far dictinct from an act which doth but indirectly acknowledge the usurpers possession So that his Conformity is ane express acknowledgement and owning of a gross encroachment upon Christs Kingdom his Church which is toto Coelo different from acknowledging a possession de facto of and a Providential title unto a part of the civil administration of the Kingdoms of the world which are mutable And as for a testimony against this usurpation I suppose that had the people of God disowned these civil courts upon this ground of the Covenant obligation his party for the preceeding reasons had signally cried out against it as an AnaBaptistical rejecting of Lawfull civil Government more then he doth upon this Pretence alledge a homologating of Prelacie in this acknowledgement But however we say that the people of God their notour and standing testimony against Prelacie it self as now Established doth sufficiently reach this among other its usurpations although this piece of civil Government be eatenus or in its own nature and as such owned as formerly But now our Informer charges us with another breach of Covenant upon the ground
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
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
in the parallels 1. Cor. 12 28. Rom. 12 6 7 8 Is this That the Holy Ghost therein describing purposly the various kindes of Church officers and speaking of the office of the pastour makes no distinction of a higher and lower pastour nor gives the least hint of either Name or thing of a diocesian prelat although both ordinary and extraordinary officers be enumerat even the ruleing elder and the deacone from which silence of the Scriptur as to this imaginarie Bishop we conclud him to be no plant of the heavenly fathers planting by the same reason that our divines conclude the pope to be such To this our Informer answers 1. That it is ill reasoning that because such ane officer is not in such a particular place or enumeration that therefor he is no where to be found in scripture for how prove we that the Apostle intended in that place a cempleat enumeration Ans he is guilty of a palpable forgerie here whillmaking his Doubter instance in this place only as if we held that there is here a full enumeration wheras he cannot but know that presbyterians in this argument against prelats as also protestants in opposition to the papacie doe together with this passage joyn the parallels 1. Cor. 12 28. Rom. 12 16. In which places collated there is found a compleat enumeration of all Church officers ordinary or extraordinary and adiscoverie of their duties and gifts who are ordinary officers even of the very Deacon Lykwayes we take in with these Texts the several descriptions of ordinary officers and particularly of the Bishop his gifts and duties found in any other places of the new Testamament And since this Informer cannot deny the Apostles or rather the Spirit of God his intention of a full enumeration in these places Collated Such a full Catalogue of Church-officers being therein found our argument from the Scriptures utter silence of the Diocesian prelat in all these places stands firme by his own Confession until he shall disprove this silence and prove the Contrary 2. Wee might tell him also that upon his own ground even the Silence of this Text as to the Prelat will prove our point for it being upon the one hand the Apostles scop to enumerat the most illustrous excellent gifts and offices given by Christ to the Church for her grouth and edification as his royal Mediatorie Donations upon his ascention into heaven and upon the other hand the Apostle descending as low in his enumeration as the Pastor and teacher whom this man holds to be officers inferiour to the Diocesian Prelat Certainely upon both these grounds he would have mentioned him in order to this scope had such ane officer been allowed or apappointed And as for this Text it is enough if we prove that the Apostle intended therein though not a compleat enumeration of all yet of the most excellent functions and officers given by Christ to his Church amongst which the Diocesian Bishops office hath the prime place in this mans Judgement How then I pray can he be here ommitted and ane inferior officer named His 2d Answer is That Bishops are comprehended under pastoures and teachers Bishops being such though of a Superior degree to ordinary Pastoures Ans. first that Scripture Bishops are comprehended under the pastor and teacher is certan but that the Diocesian should be so is Impossible and by him gratis dictum For. 1. he cannot shew that in these enumerations the Superior officer gets the designation of the inferior now he holds the Diocesian Prelat to be ane office and order Superiour to the Pastor Nixt this were no proper enumeration as he acknowledges there is here of distinct officers offices if they had not all there proper distinct names and designations And since Apostles Evangelists Pastors are proper designations of distinct officers and offices why ought not the Diocesian Bishop to have had his proper epithet and to have come in between the Evangelist and the Pastor for this was his proper Classe as the higher Church officer Againe This answer and shift is the same with that of the Papists to save the pope for they answer our divines Argument from this Text that he is included in the office of the Apostle But as we tell them that according to there account and Character of him he ought to have had a more peculiar designation So we may say to this Informer here Besides may not Patriarches and all the rabble of the popes locusts have this pretended for them that they are included in some of these officers Sure we may in Charity suppose that if a Papist were pleading thus This man would tell him that it were no defence to shape out officers of their own devising then alledge they are included in some of these scripture designations which answer suites his own case Since he cannot make it appear that the Diocesian Bishop is appointed in Scripture And we have proved his office to be contrary unto it Lastly Hetels us That if we will have here ane perfect enumeration of all Church officers we must comprehend ruleing elders and deacons in some of these words and why may not he doe so with Bishops Ans. 1. We need not in order to our scope nor argument from this text alledge either a full enumeration of all officers or goe about to includ elder and Deacon under some of these words It being enough if wee con shew that the most eminent Church officers given for the Churches edification are here enumerat that the enumeration comes the length of ane officer inferior to the Prelat in this mans esteemâ—… down from ane Apostle which renders our Argument from this Text impregnable 2. If we should include the elder and Deacon in one of these words we should but include therein inferiour officers of divine appointment in the designation of Superior which he will acknowledge to be no unusual thing in Scripture But his including the Diocesian Bishop is both the including of a forged anti Scriptural officer of his own deviseing and likewayes if he includ him under the Pastor and teacher ane including and comprehending of a Superiour officer under the designation of ane inferiour both which differences doe cutt the sinnewes of Reason and answer CHAP. XII The Informer offers Scripture warrand for Bishops His Argument from the Government of the Church under the old Testament and from the Apostles superioritie to the seventie disciples examined The first Argument concludes a lawful subordination of Church-offiers in general but reaches no help to the Diocesian Erastian Bishop The second beggs the question in supposing Prelats to succeed the Apostles immediately and Pastoures the seventy disciples and from a Superiority among officers of different kindes groundlesly concludes a superiority among officers of the same kind No Image of our Prelacy in the Iewish-Church-Government or in the Apostles superioritie above other Church-officers The Informer contradicts his fellowpleaders in this cause
to preside Ergo he speaks exclusively and cannot put Mark among the series of them for Mark was ane officer of a higher nature Moreover the Informer tells us that Mark died before Peter and Paul hence I infer against him ergo Ierom could not reckon Mark among these Bishops of Alexandria for Ierom drawes his proofes for the Presbyters divin right of governing in Common from Act. 20. phil 1. 1. Pet. 5. And from Iohn the last of the Apostles and maks this divine Presbyterial government run along all the Apostles time and tells us that the Bishops who were set up came in by custome and afterward and by degrees when it was toto orbe decretum decreed through the world to put the power upon one ergo these Bishops of Alexandria behooved to be sett up long after Mark was in his grave according to jeroms calculation And wheras he compleans that Mr Durhame leaves out that Clause Where jerom maks use of a simile anent the armies choosing ane Emperor That he may make the Bishops power when brought in as little as can be It s answered that passage will as little help him as the other for jeromes scope is to shew That the Bishops first rise and power over Presbyters was by their own free election not by divine disposition as the Army chooses the Generall Now no simile must be strained and hold in every poynt else it were not a simile Scripturparables themselves mast not be strained beyond the scop And besides jerome cannot be supposed to give at that time even de sacto far less jure divino an Imperial or Lordly power to these Presbyters thus chosen out by their brethren and made Bishops over them unless he would Cross his own doctrine since he maks this choic and Election of the Episcopusâ—…reses to be the humâ—…n Custome posterior unto and different from the divine appointment of governing in a parity which first took place Likewayes jerom sayes in his own time quid facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter What doth the Bishop except ordination which the Presbyters doth not So that they had not then arrived at any imperiall power And because this man tells us even ad nauseam of this passage a Marko Evangilista I will turn here the weapons point upon him and demand Since Ierome make these Alexandrian Bishops from Mark to have been sett up by Presbyters free election how comes the Prelats he pleads for to be Elected and set up at Court while the poor Creatures the Curats over whom they are set to play the little emperoures have no more Interest as to their choice and Election then the silliest Monck in choosing the pope I add here that this supposition of his that Ierom holds the Apostles to have supplied the Bishops rowme for a time though no fixed ordinary Bishops untill the Churches growth and their necessary absence did necessitat to set them up for preventing schism will Crosse what himself and Downam also doe plead defens l. 4. c. 5. Sect. 3. If at least they will not make Ierome oddly to contradict himself viz. that Ierom in Catal. Scrip. Eccles holds that Iames immediatly after the Lords suffering was Constitut Bishop of Ierusalem Besids that neither of them will prove that to be the true jerom But now the Informer will resolve the great doubt against what he hath said viz. That Ierome proves from Scriptur Bishop and Presbyter to be all one and that schismes by Satans instinct gave occasion to change the government from the Common Council of Presbyters to another mould of setting up one over the rest to whom the whole Care should belong c. To which he answers that Ierom speaks of the power which Bishops in his time had come unto beyond what the first Bishops had viz. That at the first Presbyters had a hand in government but after omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum de lata that is the wholl care was put upon the Bishop But if we take Ierom to speak of the first introduction of Bishops then he must be understood as speaking of the Apostles own times Ans. 1. Upon this ground the Informer must grant that in Ieroms sense Bishops who only in ordination were superior to Presbyters had a greater power then the Bishops first set up by the Apostles which will clearly exclud his diocesian Prelats who have sole power in ordination and jurisdiction as no divine Bishops And Next it will follow that the ishopes set up a Marco or after Mark were meer presidents or Moderators since they were less in power then these Bishops who onely in ordination differed from Presbyters So we see the rebound of this answer will strik his cause dead And he must feel another rebound of his own blow as to his Complaint of our leaving out what maks against us in Ieroms words For I ask why he leaâ—…es out here Ieroms scripture proofes evincing that Bishops Presbyters are one jure divino Why leaves he out Ieroms Collection upon all these scriptures which runes along the through Apostolick age viz. That the Bishops are more by Custom then by any true dispensation from the Lord set over Presbyters for although he after bringes in this as ane objection yet it ought to have been set downe here as the main conclusion of Ieromes arguing and his testimony is very blunt without it Again how comes he thus to disguise what Ierome sayes of Presbyters governeing Communi Councilio or by common Councill as if it Imported no more then haveing a hand in government which he maks Compatible with prelacy wheras Ierom maks it distinct from and anterior unto even the first human prostasy Beside their governeing Communi Concilio Imports particularly their joynt decisive suffrage in government which he doth but meanly express by their governing in Common 2. What a rediculous conceit is this That Ierom speaks of the power of Bishops in his time beyond the first Bishops Ierom speaking of Presbyters expressly as contradistinct from Bishops and of the Presbiters existent in the Apostolick Churches while the Apostles were alive as himself just now explained iâ—… in saying that the Apostles by their presenc and industry supplied the want of Bishops over these Presbyters So that he compares not the Bishops in his time with the first Bishops who came in by Custome but these human Bishops who thus came in with the first scripture Bishops we know not wher to find this versatil proteus in his answers here and may truely alleadge that this Testimony pinches him and his fellowes Next will he stand to this exposition of Ieroms words which he here offers viz That the first Bishops admitted Presbyters to governe with them and the after Bishops in Ieroms time governed alone Then he must grant that the first and second Bishops were of very different cutts and so he breaks his Argument from the Catalogues all in peeces and must grant that the word
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
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
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
gospel and an enemy unto it Jackson thinks with sevral others that Paul said I knew not that he was the high priest c. ironically it being very improbable that Paul knew not the high priest and suppose it were so he knew him to be a ruler as his own words discover so that it was no excuse to say he knew not the high priest because as a judge it was against the law to revile him Therfore saith Jackson upon Exod. 22. 28. though they understood Paul as excusing himself yet he spoke by way of derision as disdaining he should be accounted Gods high-priest who carryed so Which saith he is the more probable when it s considered how far he was from having any true right to that place and power to which he pretended when Christ had abolished the legal priest hood Calvine on that place of the Acts sayes It s not credible that Paul-gave him his wonted honour Cum abolita esset adventu Christi sacerdotij Majestas secuta turpis prophanatio Paulum quasi integra vigeret solito honore prosecutum fuisse qui tunc sub Pontificum titulo nullo jure dominabantur after the majesty of the priest hood was abolished by the coming of Christ and vile prophanity attending it that Paul as if the priesthood had been standing intire would have allowed the wonted honour to such who under the title of Priests were governing without any right or just title And having objected to himself that we must not contemn civill Magistrats in his answer he puts a difference betwixt civil Mahistrats and Church rulers Inter civiles Magistratus saith he ecclesiae praesules aliquid est discrimenus there is a difference betwixt civill Magistrats and Church officers tho the administration of civil Rulers be perverse and confused yet he tells us the Lord will have subjection remain intire Sed ubi spirituale regimen degenerat solâ—…untur piorum conscientiae ne injustae dominationi pareant c. spirituall government being degenerat the consciences oâ—… the faithfull are loosed from obedience to an unjusâ—… domination But our Informer will say that I thuâ—… set the authors of jus divinum minist anglic by the earâ—… with Calvin and Iackson as to the sense of this place I answer they do not peremptorly and positively assert that Paul acknowledged him as high priest buâ—… onely that many think he did 2. Hence the weight of their conclusion subjoyned viz. that corruptions cleaving to Gods ordinances null them not is not laid upon this solely nor positivly at all even as a partial but onely as a probable ground And the conclusion it self when admitted will never reach his designe as is above cleared Again admitting that Paul acknowledged his providential title or jus in re as to a civil office and administration at that time as it may well have its own weight in reference to the premised conclusion civil rule as such being Gods ordinance which is not made null by corruptions so upon the the difference of civil from sacred rule this concession will not legitimat or infer an acknowledgment of the spiritual part of his administration Thus we have seen how well our Informer hath acquit himself in his arguing from the English Presbyterians Let us next consider how he reasons from Mr Rutherfoord in that peice forecited if at least we may call that which he here offers a formal reasoning since he offers not as I said any argument from these citations but sure we will find that these passages will burn his fingers In that piece scil Due right of presb page 220. to 256. There are several passages which this man takes hold of as 1. He asserts that separation from a true Church where the orthodox word is preached and sacraments duely administrat is unlawfull and vindicats 2 Cor. 6. Ans. This in Mr Rutherfoords sense will plead more for the Presbyterian Ministry professors then for Conformists whom he will not say that Mr Rutherfoord will look upon as our Church in such a case as this since as we heard he holds that in case of such a breach as we have now the pure Church remains with the smaller stedfast number and that the backsliders from truth and purity tho the â—…reater number yet really are the Schismaticks And â—…n this sense we are to understand him when he sayes that this separation as to worship will not infer an absolut separation And his allowing non-union where there is not sufficient cause of separation in the case of purer to be joyned with and his admitting a partial separation because of a partial corruption of ordinances Peacable plea page 121. will much more plead for a total non-union in this our case and I dare appeal this Informer if Mr Rutherfoords words Peaceable plea page 122. doth not suite our case and express such a sense therof as we have explaind and if he would not have applyed that which follows unto our present prelatick party had he seen our Church in this posture and in her present circumstances viz. we separat not from a true Church or her Lawfull Pastors when we separat from hirelings and Idolshepherds who will not go before us and whether he would not have thought and called Conformists so Thus page 148. concl 6. he tells us we may separat from the worship when we separat not from the Church So that its evident that in Mr Rutherfoords sense we separat not from the Church of Scotland nor her worship while withdrawing from Curats in attending the Ministry of Christs faithfull ambassadours In the Next place this Informer presents to us these passages further in that peice mentioned viz. page 233. the personal faults of others are not sufficient ground for separation That the disciples thought not the society unclean for Judas sin though they knew one of them had a Devil Again page 250. It was not Lawfull to separat from the Pharisees preaching truth page 253. The Godly separated noâ—… from the Church when the altar of damascus was seâ—… up things dedicat to Idols as Lutheran images are called Idolatry 1 Cor 10. 34. Idolatry by participation and the cup of devils yet Paul commandâ—… not separation and the table of the Lord was there I answer this is already removed by what is said above as to any conclusion for his cause which thiâ—… loose disputer doth not so much as offer to draw ouâ—… upon these citations 1. Unless he prove the Conforming party to be the true Church of Scotland to which in this case we are obliged to adhere or 2. If we can prove that according to our Churches Reformation Presbyterian ministers and professors are the true organick Church of Scotland though the persecute smaller number which according to Mr Rutherfoord is very easy for he sayes that in case of defection truth as life recools to the smaller hidden part Due right page 253. In either case I say this will plead more appositly for adherence to
that the Bishop at his first rise was only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator of the Presbytery Blondel at large mantains the same only he holds that the next in degree succeeded him when dead Hence Musculus after he hath from the texts alledged by Jerome proved that Bishop and Presbyter are all one adds That thereafter Ambition begetting strifes about precedencie one was set up to be Moderator in a fixed orb And least our Informer or any else alleadge that prelacy therefore is necessary to prevent Schisme This eminent light of the reformed Church adds but whither that device of man profited the Church or no the times after could better judge and that the effects issueing upon it dicovered that it was not the Spirit of God his remedy to take away Schisme but Satans project to destroy a faithfull Ministery The same saith Sadael viz that this difference betwixt Bishops and Ministers which was introduced to remedie Schisme opened a gap to ambition So Dr Whittaker haveing out of Jerome shewed That faction occasioned the change of the Ancient Apostolick parity among Ministers adds That many wise and godly men have judged the change and remedy more pernicious then the disease it self which though at first it did not appear yet experience after proved that it brought the Antichristian yoake upon the neck of the Church See the appendix to jus divin Minist Evangel In which Testimonies of these great men we may observe two things 1. That they admitt the first Bishops to have been nothing else but fixed Moderators 2 That even this much they doe condemne as a deviation from the first appointment and as that which gave a rise to the Antichristian Tyranny Now the difference and disproportion betwixt this fixed Moderator and our present diocesian erastian prelat is so plaine and obvious that nothing further needs be said to clear it Therefore his Argument from the Catalogues and those early first Bishops who tooke place in the Church is pitifully claudicant as to a conclusion of the ancient Churches approbation of our Prelats To clear it further its evident if we lay weight upon the Judgement of the ancient Bishopes themselves in point of Church Government that 1 They held not their consecration or ordination to be distinct from that of Presbyters Episcopi Presbyteri una eadem est ordinatio That the Bishop and Presbyter have one and the same ordination we heard is Ambrose assertion 2. No delegation of externall jurisdiction to Presbyters was acknowledged by the ancients As it is by our new hierachical pleaders The Prelatists hold that the Bishop is properly the Pastour of the whole diocess and that all the Ministers thereof have but a derived precarius Ministry under him so Dâ—…wn defens lib 2. c. 4. p. 67. Field of the Church 56. c. 27 Sarav de trip epis p 87. Spalaâ—… l. 2. c. 9 Num. 15. and yet Ambrose on 1 Tim. 5 And Chrisostom Hom. 17 on Matthew calleth Presbyters expresly Christi vicarios Christs vicars Cyprian lib. 4. Epist. 8. sayes Dominum sacerdâ—…tes in sua ecclesia c. That the Lord condescended to elect constitut to himself Priests in his Church 3. The Ancients held that the power of externall jurisdiction was common with Bishops and Presbyters Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians Calls the Presbyters senatum Dei Gods Court or Senat. Et non consiliarios solum sed assessores Episcopi not Councellours only as are our Curats and scarse that but the Bishops assessors Irenaeus lib. 4. Cap 44. Calls them Principes Princes or Chieff Augustin Serm 86. Calls the Brethren ineremo Patronos rectores terrae Patrones and Rectors of the Earth Chrisostom expressly shews on 1. Tim. 1 Hom 11. Ecclesijs praesidisse sicut Episcopi c That they presided over the Churches as the Bishops and receaved together with them the office of teaching and governing the Church The homily begines thus postquam de Episcopis dixit eosque formavit quidnam illos habere conveniat a quo item abstinere necesse sit dictans ommisso interim Presbyterorum ordine ad diaconos transiit Cur id quaeso quia scilicet inter Episcopum atque Presbyterum interest ferme nihil quippe Presbyteris Ecclesiae cura permissa est quae de Episcopis dixit â—…ea etiam Presbyteris congruunt that is after he hath spoken of Bishopes and formed them injoyning what thinges it becomes them to have and from what it is necessary they should abstain omitting the mean whil the order of Presbyters he passes over to deacones Why so I pray even because that betuixt a Bishope and Presbyter there is almost no difference Because unto Presbyters also the care of the Church is allowed and what he said before concerning Bishopes the same thinges also do agree to Presbyters I know he addes sola quippe ordinatione superiores illi sunt atque hoc tantum plus quam Presbyteri habere videntur That the Bishopes only in ordination are superiour to Presbyters according to the latin interpretation followed by Dounam and Bilson and by Bellarmin before them But the more learned interpreters have observed that the greeke will bear a farr other sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sola enim suffragatione horum ascenderunt atque hoc solo videntur Presbyteris injuriam facere that is that onely by the Presbyters suffrage they have ascended viz to this power and in this onely they seem to do injury to Presbyters The learned Iunius de cleric cap. 7. not 611. tels us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic Presbyterorum non Episcoporum quod si 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est ordinatio ergo Presbyterorum est ordinatio The hand suffrage is here the Presbyters but if it be meaned of ordination then ordination belonges to them And having proved this construction sence of the greeke from Suidas he shewes that Chrisost. places not the difference in ordination betuixt the Bishop and Presbyter but in this that the Bishopes ascendunt supra Presbyteros in gradum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doe ascend into there degree of Episcopacy above the Presbyters although because they stepp up by their suffrage they seem to wrong them when they assume any power to themselves who upon the ground of order not of power saith he are set over them by there owne suffrag He also tels Bellarm. de cleric ca. 15. not 29. That granting his sence of Chrysost. Wordes yet the Bishop ordained onely signo sermone declaring the sacred institution or inauguration of the person ordained but not ordinatione veritatis or by the true ordination which that signe represented Some add that if Chrisost. be thus understood in the sence of Bellarm. and his Episcopal sectators he did not rightly expound his text while distinguishing that which he acknowledges the Apostle makes one theâ—… same Ierome tels us of their common Government of the Churches together with the Bishops from whom Gratian
in decretis caus 16. Quest. 1 cap. shewes that Ecclesia habet senatum Presbyterorum c That the Church hath a senat of Presbyters without whose counsel the Bishop can doe nothing 2. We heard that these Ancient Bishops were sett up by the Presbyters as their fixed Moderator and had all their Episcopall power from their free choice and election And that any prerogative which they had over Presbyters they ascribe it to Custom and to the Presbyters own choic consuetudini non dominicae dispositionis veritati to Custom not the truth of divine appointment as Ierome speakes Irenaeus who lived ann 180 lib 4. cap. 43 tells us that we must adher to those Presbyters qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis acceperunt Who have succession from the Apostles and together with the succession of Episcopacy have the gift of verity Ambrose in cap 4. Ephes. affirmes that non per omnia conveniunt c. the government in his time agreed not in al points with scripture he means it of any excrescent power which the Bishop then had above Presbyters And Augustine ascribes al his difference from Ierom who was a Presbyter unto Ecclesiae usus the Churches Custome and grantes that in this onely Episcopatus Presbyterio major est the Episcopacy is greater then the Presbyterat Tom. 2. operum Epist. 19. ad Hieron And Ierome holds in his Epistle to Evagrius Primatum hunc Episcoporum Alexandriae Primum caepisse c. That this primacy of Bishops began first at Alexandria and post-mortem Marcae Evangelistae after the death of mark the Evangelist And thus gives the lie to our Informer who would make us believe that it came from Markes personal practise and appointment while a live he tels us also that it was paulatim by â—…ent degrees that omnis sollicitudo ad unum delata The episcopall care was put upon on Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 15. calls it civitatis consuetudinem a custome whâ—…ch prevailed with other cites 't is remarkable that by Ephiphanius confession Haeres 87. non habuit Alexandrie duos episcopos ut aliae urbes Alexandria had not two Bishopes as other cities But the Informer wil not dare to say that our Prelats now have their power by Presbyters election as these ancient Bishopes 3. It is also clear that in these first times when the Episcopus praeses was set up and for some ages afterward not only the Presbyters but the people also had a great interest in their choice Cyprian epist. 68. speaking of the choice of Bishops sayes That plebâ—… maxime habet potestatem the people have mainely a power and that plebe presente that is in the peoples presence they were set up Which he sayes was a power they had descending upon them de divina auctoritate that is from the divine Authority And this had the approbation of ane African Synod consulted by the Churches of Spaine as to Election Athanas epist. ad Orthodox condemned the comeing in of a Bishop without the peoples consent as a breach not only of ane Ecclesiastick constitution but ane Apostolick precept See Smect page 26. proveing this at large that Bishops were elected by the people Cyprian lib. 1. Epist. 4. nomine Synodi africanae videmus de divina authoritate descendere ut sacer dos plebe presente sub omnium oculis deligatur c. That the Priest was chosen under the eyes of all the people being present and approved as fitt and worthy by a publick Testimony This he sayes we see descends from divine Authoritie ibid diligenter de traditione divina Apostolica traditione tenendum est quod apud nos fere per provincias universas tenetur ut episcopus deligatar plebi cui ordinatur presente c. That it was to to be held from the divine and apostolick tradition as almost through all provinces it was observed that that the Bishop was chosen in the peoples presence over whom he was ordained c. He testifies that thus Cornelius was chosen Bishop of Rome lib. 4 epist. 2. Grat. dist 62. Can nulla ratio fuit ut inter episcopos habeantur qui nec a clero sunt electi nec a plebibus sunt expetiti No reason permitts that they should be holden Bishops who are neither chosen by the clergy nor desired by the people So Ambrose was chosen by the citticens of Millan Flavianus by those of Antioch Chrisostom by the Constantinâ—…politans This Custome was so rooted that when Emperors afterward obtruded Bishops without the previus election of the clergie and people the most famous Bishops much stomached it Ubi ille Canon saith Athanasius Epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes ut a pallatio mittatur is qui futurus est Episcopus Where is that canon That he who is to be Bishop should be sent from the court Let our court prelats mark this And our curats answere this quere Now I hope our Informer will not alledge that the people have any the least Interest in the choise of our Prelats so that they are but novell none of the ancient Bishops in this point 4. Non of the first Bishops could ordaine alone This is beyond debate as to the first Episcopus preses But even in after times also when Bishops power was farther advanced they could not thus ordaine That their power of ordination was not singular appeares from the 4th Councel of Carthage Can. 22 which decrees that the Bishopes ordain not without the Clergy and Can. 3. they are not to impose handes without them The Presbyters in Cyprians time had the power bartisandi of baptizing manum imponendi or of laying on hands ordinandi that is of ordaining epist. 78. and in Egypt in absence of the Bishop they ordained alone see Smect p. 27. upon this ground Ambrose said that betwixt the Bishop and presbyter there is almost no difference Now have not our prelats power to ordaine alone and have they not de facto frequently done so so that upon this account also they are new minted Gentlemen 5. The power and Government of the ancient Bishops in Church judicatories was not sole and singular as that of our prelats nor did they invad or inhanse their decisive conclusive suffrage as they doe who are Princes in all the present Church meetinges which must only give them advice and not that unless this high priest judge them of known loyaltie and prudence and may doe with their advice what he pleases Wheras Cyprian Epist. 6. and 28 professes that he neither could nor would doe any thing without the Clergie And the 4â—… councill of carthage condemnes the Bishops decision unless fortified by the sentence of the Clergie Can. 23. where was the negative voice here see Ruffin hist. lib. 10. Cap. 9. Smectim proves from Canons of ancient Councills the Fathers That neither 1. In censuring presbyters Nor 2. In judgeing of the conversation or crimes of Church members Nor 3. In