this argument was forced to alledg That all the Presbyters mentioned in the Scripture were Bishops and not Ministers for he saw that he behoved either to lose the Bishop or the Presbyter in the Bible for not only are Presbyters called Bishops but they are made Bishops by the Holy Ghost now to say that the Holy Ghost made them nominally Bishops but not really Bishops is very injurious to the work of the Spirit as if it were productive only of an empty name And it takes away the force of the argument Feed the flock of God over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers or Bishops If they had only the name of Bishops and not the Office the argument would not be cogent for a meer empty name and title doth not oblige a man who gets it to any work And as Paul says That the Holy Ghost made the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Bishops So the Apostle Peter exhorts Elders to take inspection to do the work of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither doth the name of Bishop import any primacy of one Minister over others for the Apostle John taketh the love of pre-eminence or primacy in Diotrephes but Paul commends the desire of the Office of a Bishop which shews that the Office of a Bishop doth not import a primacy But though Bishop and Presbyter be one in the Scripture yet it cannot be denied that afterward the name of Bishop began to be appropriate to some Ministers in eminent Cities and afterward Ordination and then Jurisdiction was by degrees taken from the Presbyters It 's true Presbyterians when they are urged with these humane stories and with the holiness of the Ancients who were Bishops they do not deny but praise the holiness and zeal of these Ancients who were Bishops but neither the holiness of the men nor the Ecclesiastick custom will prove the Divine right of the Episcopacy pleaded for If any would plead for Polygamy from the holiness of Abraham the Father of the Faithful and of Jacob who as a Prince did prevail with God in weeping and making supplication Or from the long continuance of that Polygamy the answer were easie From the beginning it was not so God made male and female So when they plead that Bishop and Presbyter were distinguished in after-times it 's answered From the beginning it was not so God made Bishop and Presbyter one man should not have made them two nor made the one less to make the other greater than he was by Divine constitution Yet it cannot be denied that this is a very plausible pretext for setting up Bishops above Presbyters But their new Prelates have no pretext nor colour imaginable for their Jurisdiction over Presbyters for they pretend to no other name but Ministers and yet they will Lord it over their fellow Ministers and thus their Soveraignty is more intollerable because it hath no kind of colour or pretext for it The last clause in the Doctors Definition against Presbyters is pretty ingenious for Prelates engross the power that Presbyters should have Prelacy rises upon the ruines of Presbyters yet I suppose the generality of those who are for Episcopacy will give the Doctor no thanks for that clause of the Definition but it agrees very well with their new Prelates for at their first appearance in the world they stand in a posture of opposition against the Presbyters of the Church of Scotland they libel them they effectually depose them if not excommunicate them nor can they expect to be absolved till they make these their Accusers their Judges and stand in Judgment to be judged by them and if we may guess by the Libel which the Judges themselves formed the sentence would not be very comfortable There is yet another thing which would make them a very dangerous sort of Prelates and that is That they not only engross this Sovereign and Peerless power over Presbyters but also which other Prelates use not to do they engross a singularity in Holiness as if they and they alone had followed God and were free of Defections which other Ministers are involved in and it 's like this is one of the Foundations of their new Sovereignty that they think themselves though the lesser yet the sounder part of the ministry It puts me in mind of a Countryman who understood not Latine who heard some talking great things that the senior pars Ecclesiae could do he enquired what is he that Sanior he sems to be some great man but except they be Judges themselves they will not be accounted by men of sound minds to be the sounder part of the Church Nay Orestes himself would say it and swear it That the contrivance of this Bond was not the work of a man sound in his mind Non sani esse homines non sanus juret Orestes Any may see with half an eye that this is not a Presbyterial form of Government for in Presbytery the Plurality carries matters and the part is ruled by the whole but here the part and a very little considerable part and a part not in conjunction with the whole but that hath disjoyned it self from the whole takes upon it to govern the whole even as if a little Toe should disjoyn it self from the Body and then take upon it to judge the whole Body and dispose of it at its pleasure It is a wonder that so few men so inconsiderable for number and parts were not ashamed to think of their sitting and judging so many Ministers let be to publish it to the world As their high Court of Justice would have made strange havock of Magistrates and readily dispatched some Presbyterian Minister for Loyalty as Mr. Love was dispatched in England to be a terrour to others so this Ecclesiastick Judicatory in all appearance if Ministers had been such fools as to have owned them would have made great havock of Ministers for a few weak men not sound in their Principles and transported with Passion and Impatience and possest with a Conceit of their singular Purity and Zeal and usurping a pre-eminency over the generality of Ministers and taking on them to be their Judges and talking of no less than deposition before they were in any capacity to depose would have made a very Kittle-Court It 's a sad spectacle to behold many through ignorance and blinding humours running into the same evils which they in words disclaim They in words disclaim Independency and yet really make the people and not Church-Officers to be Rulers and guides to direct Ministers what to preach and do and to depose them if they obey not these directions They who called themselves the Council of the Army which was broken at Bothwel-Bridge were highly displeased with the indulged Ministers because the secret Council had sent instructions to them though the indulged Ministers did not accept of them and yet these same persons took upon them to prescribe to those Ministers and Preachers that were with them
exercise of the Ministry as if he had thereby acknowledged That they had the exercise of their Ministry from the Magistrate but if Mr. H. had used such words as this Author doth when he speaks of the Non-Indulged who as he says have not so much as freedom to exercise any part of their Ministry O what out-crying should we have heard when he makes such a noise about Mr. H's words though he not only adds liberty and freedom but also publick to the exercise of the Ministry and subjoyns after so long a restraint and under the protection of lawful Authority If Mr. H. had said in the words of this Author My Lords whereas since we were turned out we had not so much as freedom to exercise any part of our Ministry but now we have freedom to exercise our Ministry c. What Commentaries and Harangues would have been made upon and out of these words Now if the Non-indulged want the freedom to exercise any part of their Ministry is it not by the penal Statutes that they are deprived of this freedom were it not an advantage to have this freedom which they want and this they cannot have without the Magistrate and why may they not accept of this freedom from the Magistrate and if they may what ails the Author at the Indulged Ministers for the accepting of that freedom which they wanted 2. He deals not equally with the Indulged and Non-indulged The Non-indulged are saith he allowed of God to do all they can seeing they cannot do as they would but he would have the Indulged Ministers do more than they can He would have the Indulged Ministers keeping Presbyteries and Synods which they can no more do without hazard than the Non-indulged yea their hazard would be much greater than the hazard of the Non-indulged for the Magistrate would know where to find them if they had a mind to take them or if they cited them they behoved either to appear or to lose the peaceable exercise of their Ministry which the Non-indulged have not and so cannot lose His tacite insinuation that the Indulged are not countenanced in the exercise of Discipline and Preaching as the Ambassadours of Christ and his asserting that they are under the Leesheet of the Supremacy as if they acknowledged any Erastian or absolute Supremacy in the Magistrate in Ecclesiastical matters and his reflection on the constitution and guiding of some of their Sessions are a new addition to his former unproven and ill-grounded alledgances As for his 12. the Indulged Ministers cum periculo as well as the Non-indulged ordain Ministers they have accepted of no terms to incapacitate them for Ordination But this would not satisfie this Author except they did relinquish the Indulgence and betake themselves to the fields but we saw before why nothing but the fields will please this Author Pag. 101. We have his 7th head of Arguments He alledgeth That the Indulged Ministers have stepped off in such a way as cannot but be accounted a falling off from the cause and ground of our sufferings We have answered already these Arguments whereby he would prove this alledgance in his first seven Sections His 8. Section makes much against him and for the Indulged Ministers as we saw before As for his 9th it 's no new thing to see Ministers compearing before the Council the first Book of Discipline was directed by Ministers to the Council which was much more than compearance He supposes the Indulged to have accepted the instructions but it 's a false supposition as hath been before cleared If he will make a parallel case either in the year 1649. or any year he pleaseth the Indulged Ministers are content to leave to all who are fit to judge of matters of this nature to judge concerning their practice As for the History which is in his 10. he speaks as if the Indulged Ministers generally had said they had not seen these instructions which is very false His 11th He indefinitely charges the Indulged Ministers with laying aside the Lecture which is another falshood That any of them who do not Lecture have forsaken it upon the command of the Council is another of his groundless alledgances as some few of the indulged Ministers so several of the not-indulged do not lecture But I hope he will not say That it 's the command of the Council that they forbear it They have other Reasons some found themselves not able to lecture and preach twice on the Lords day His 12th is resumed in his 8 head of Arguments pag. 104. where he undertakes to prove That the hands of Prelates are strengthened by the Indulgence The Prelates I suppose are not of that mind themselves First saith he not to mention the open door that is left to them to accept of the Prelates Collation nor the encouragement they have to seek and obtain He did well not to mention this for it is not worth the mentioning It 's false That the indulged Ministers put themselves in prison under the Bishops lock and key As for his second the Churches where the indulged Ministers are setled are not encumbred with those who own Prelacy as they were before the Indulgence which is no small disadvantage to Prelacy It 's a false alledgance That the indulged Ministers were content that their Ministry should be confined within limited places let the necessity of the Church be what it would or could be how knows he that the indulged Ministers would not deny to help people that are destitute in other places if they saw that the necessity of the Church did require it It would be a prejudice and no advantage to the Church needlesly to leave the charges where they are setled and to leave the Congregations where they are to be planted with Conformists His third Section in which he alledgeth the friendly and brotherly love and correspondence betwixt some of the indulged and Neighbour-hirelings and the want of Zeal against Prelates wherever the Indulgence is is grounded upon misinformation That Prelates will possibly say That one Field-Conventicle hath done them and their cause more prejudice than many preachings of all the indulged men is another of his groundâ—ess guessiings and needs no other refutation but â—his That possibly they will not say it Possibile esse possibile non esse It 's another of his groundless guesâ—ings That they use more keenness against Field-Preachers than against Prelates The indulged Ministers as they have occasion preach against Erastianism and an absolute Supremacy and shew from the Scripture That the keys of the Kingâ—om of Heaven are not committed to the Magistrate and that all the powers on earth have â—o power to dispose or order Ecclesiastical matters â—t their pleasure but that all things in the house â—f God should be done according to the will of God â—evealed in the Scripture His 4th is a begging of the question he should â—ave proven That the indulged Ministers have accepted of any thing
no magistrate's sending ministers to preach c. doth make them no ministers of Christ Did Ezra cease to be a Scribe and minister of the Lord because Artaxerxes and his seven Councellers sent him to do the work of a Scribe in Judah and Jerusalem Ezr. 7.13 14. For as much as thou art sent of the King and of his seven Councellors Pr. If Artaxerxes had destroyed the Temple and the Worship of God Ezra would not have taken any benefit of such a Decree and Commission Min. What warrant have you for that if Nebuchadnezzar who destroyed the Temple had made a Decree That the Priests and Levites and people should return and worship God at Jerusalem would they have been such fools to refuse to return till Nebuchadnezzar were dead and some other King made such a Decree Did Jeremiah reject the favour which was appointed by Nebuchadnezzar Jer. 39.11 12. and conferred upon him by Nebuzaradan Jer. 40.4 who had burnt the House of the Lord 2 King 25.9 Pr. But these were Heathens who had never professed the true Religion and so had not backslidden Min. The backsliding of Rulers makes them not incapable of doing good afterward Manasseh had been Religiously educated and became monstrously wicked and yet was an instrument of Reformation afterward and Judah did not refuse to serve the Lord because Manasseh who had so fearfully fallen away did command them to serve the Lord 2 Chron. 33.16 Pr. Manasseh repented Minist But do ye think that if he had commanded Judah to serve God or the Lords Priests to sacrifice to the Lord before he repented that these commands should have been rejected because he was not truly penitent It 's the duty of all Kings whether they be penitent or not to command the Lords ministers and people to serve God The Orthodox ministers who had been banished in the time of the Arrian Persecution and Athanasius among the rest did not refuse to return to the exercise of their ministry upon the Edict of Julian the Apostate who had been a professed Christian and turned Pagan and a despiteful enemy and mocker of Christ and tho' he made that Edict for ill ends yet these godly zealous Servants of God made use of it Ye may read the History in Zozomens Church-History Book 5. Chap. 5. where he shews that he afflicted the Church in all things most bitterly and grievously except that he recalled the Bishops and Priests which were banished in the time of Constantius and that it was said he gave not that command out of mercy or pity but that either they by their mutual contentions might fight against the Church by an intestine War and so fall away from their own Laws and Institutions or that he might wrong the Estimation of Constantius and might raise up hatred against him through the whole Empire c. And Georgius Horsnius in his Ecclesiastick History Pag. 93. saith That Julian recalled Athanasius from Banishment to the place of one George an Arrian a most naughty man who had been slain a little before Athanasius's return There is no man more famous for Learning and Zeal and stedfastness in the Church-History than Athanasius and I am sure if ye have read the History of Julian the Apostate ye will be ashamed to say that any of our Rulers are so ill as he was and yet none of these holy and Learned ministers made any scruple to obey his command when he called them to the work of their ministry If many would compare their practices with the Scripture-rule and examples in Scripture and in Church-History they would find that what they take for light and zeal is but ignorance and an humourous peevishness who would have thought that ever any who had been members of the Church of Scotland that besides the obligation common to them with other Protestant Churches are by solemn Covenants obliged to extirpate Schism and maintain the Kings person and authority would have so far degenerate as to place their zeal and Religion in scarring at the Preaching and Hearing of the Gospel because the ministers who preach it are permitted and allowed to preach it by the magistrates who are bound as magistrates as Christians as Protestants to permit allow countenance protect by their authority the Preaching of the Gospel in this Kingdom Farm Sir I desire ye would return to answer what is said against the Ministers in that sixth Article of the Band. Min. As for what they say of Ministers submitting to the Magistrates censures and saying they would not have done the things they were charged with if they had thought it would have offended them it 's a confused charge and it is not easie to guess what they mean they cannot prove that any of those Ministers have done any thing that will import an acknowledgment that the Magistrate hath power of inflicting Ecclesiastick Censures or of making Ecclesiastick Canons And as for Civil Restraints of Imprisonment and Banishment if they condemn submission to these they will condemn all who have been imprisoned and banished and among the rest the Ministers who went to Holland who did not only passively submit to Banishment but also by their Subscription engaged not to return If any Minister hath done any thing which warrantably might have been forborn or which might have been done as conveniently or more conveniently at another time in another place in a way that would not have irritated or provoked the magistrate if such a person hath made the foresaid acknowledgment who can with reason condemn it for we owe thus much even to any private person whom we should not needlesly provoke to anger if we can conveniently help it but the contrivers of this bond and those who go their way are for needless provocations of the magistrate and if there be many ways of doing what is right upon the matter they will chuse the way that is irritating to the Rulers because it is irritating and shun that way which will not provoke the magistrate as if it were a duty to provoke the magistrate to wrath And if any have needlesly provoked them they will not allow him to give an innocent soft answer to turn away their wrath But it is no wonder that they who are for overthrowing the magistrate and the Government be against all things that make for peace with them or may tend to pacifie them when they are angry and be for grievous words and things which may stir up strife and put evil betwixt the magistrate and subjects What they add That these ministers have departed from the Courts of Christ and subjection to the ministry are meer calumnies Do they think that ministers appearing before the magistrate when called that by the magistrates Civil allowance of the peaceable exercise of the ministry they might without disturbance preach the Gospel in such or such places will prove that these ministers have departed from the Courts of Christ and have changed their Courts and so by common Law have changed
them and they must stand and fall as they are pleased to determine Their Soveraignty is the more absolute that their Dignity proceeds of themselves and men use not to limit their own power when they have it at their own making or taking the old Prelates depend upon the King and they are sent from Court It 's true Athanasius * Epist ad Solitariam vitam Agentes finds fault with that ubi ille Canon ut è palatio mittaturis qui futurus est Episcopus Yet any thing that is in its nature excessive and inclined to pass bounds is less dangerous when it is limited by some other thing on which it depends than when it is left to its own indefinite appetite or inclination Their new Prelates depend neither upon King nor Kesar but are independent their Prelacy proceeds of themselves this makes it very dreadful like the Dominion of the Chaldeans Hab. 1.7 They are terrible and dreadful their judgment and dignity shall proceed of themselves They were terrible because as Mr. Hutcheson upon the place saith They would be their own carvers in all matters of advantage and honour standing to no law either of Nature or Nations in dealing with a terrified and subdued people but meerly following their own will armed with power If ye say they are not designed Lords nor a Soveraign power ascribed to them in the Bond but they are designed Ministers that is Servants I answer if folk will be beguiled with names the Pope will call himself Servus servorum a Servant of Servants but there is a real Soveraignty given to them when a Jurisdiction over all Presbyterian Ministers to suspend depose and dispose of their Ministry as they please is ascribed to them And the other Prelates deal more candidly in taking the name of Soveraignty and Lordship seeing they have the thing Is it not a strange arrogance that a Presbyter or two or three Presbyters shall claim a stated Jurisdiction over a great multitude of Presbyters who have the same office with themselves they either have that power over their Brethren by vertue of their Ministerial Office as they are Presbyters or by vertue of some other Office not by vertue of the Office of a Presbyter or Minister for then one and the same Office should make one Presbyter a Soveraign and Lord and another Presbyter his subject a Presbyter as a Presbyter cannot have dominion over a Presbyter for one and the same Office cannot make a man Soveraign over another who hath the same Office that he hath If they have this Soveraign power over their Brethren by vertue of some other Office than the Office of a Minister or Presbyter then let them tell us what Office this is if it be not the Office of a Prelate 2. It hath not yet been proven that the Lord gave a Soveraign power and Spiritual jurisdiction to any one of his Ministers no not to the Apostles over the rest Paul Bains in his Diocesan Trial Pag. 73 77. shews that a majority of directive and corrective power such a power as Bishops claim is more than Ministerial And Mr. Rutherford in his Divine Right of Church-Government saith Nor do we find that the Apostles had jurisdiction over Pastors in the Scripture nor in any Ecclesiastick Records but where Papacy was working See Pag. 21. There is but one Lord in the Church Ephes 4. and Christ hath forbidden Lordship and enjoined ministry and serving Luk. 22.24 1 Pet. 5.3 Non requiritur in dominatione humilitas sed ipsa Dominatio prohibetur saith Whitaker Christus de re dominantur non autem de modo dominandi hoc vel illo modo dominantur saith Junius The work of all Church-Officers is a Ministerial work not only Doctors and Pastors but Apostles Prophets and Evangelists were appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the work of the Ministry Ephes 4.12 2 Cor. 4.5 Paul calls himself a fellow-servant with Epaphras Col. 1.7 with Tychicus Col. 4.7 Paul's dignity consisted not in Lording over other Ministers but in labouring more abundantly than others the Apostles claimed no Mastery or stated jurisdiction over other Ministers but they did draw with them as yoke-fellows and fought with them in their Spiritual warfare as fellow Soldiers and wrought with them as fellow-labourers Phil. 4.3 Phil. 2.25 Phil. 2. Rom. 16.3 they engrossed not the power of Jurisdiction in the Synod of Jerusalem to themselves for the Presbyters judged with them the Decrees of the Council Act. 16.4 were Ordained by the Apostles and Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church at Antioch sends Paul to Jerusalem Act. 15. the Officers of the Church at Antioch lay hands on Paul and Barnabas Act. 13.1 2 3. Paul and Barnabas are sent with a Collection Act. 11.29 30. the Apostles claimed no negative in Presbyteries or Synods in Ordination Excommunication c. The Apostles were extraordinary Ambassadors had infallible instructions by their Doctrine and practice did shew the Platform of the Church were not limited to any fixed charge and so might exercise their Ministerial authority in all places where they came they were to lay the foundations of Churches But that they had any such stated Jurisdiction over other Ministers as Prelates claim over Presbyters is yet to be proven for any thing I know their instructing Ministers and Churches in their duty and reproving their sins will not prove it for the Prophets did so and yet they had no stated Jurisdiction over the Priests Paul reproved Peter but had not jurisdiction over him That Timothy or Titus had such a stated Jurisdiction over the Ministers of Ephesus and Creet is yet to be proven that they had the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and that the Ministers of Ephesus and Creet had no power of Ordination and Jurisdiction is not yet proven The Apostle directs them to Ordain but that they are directed to do it alone and not in conjunction with other Ministers is yet to be proven Lay hands suddenly on no man is a Direction applicable to every Minister there are multitudes of Directions given them that cannot be denied to be given to all Ministers and that some Directions are given to them as Prelates and some as Presbyters is as easily denied as affirmed But though it were granted that those extraordinary Officers in founding Churches at first might do some things which ordinary Ministers might not do this would be no warrant for these two or three who were but very ordinary persons to claim a Jurisdicton over the rest Whence have they their power No man can receive any thing of this nature except it be given him from Heaven Joh. 3.27 Let us see their Patent that we may know if it be leill come They must first shew a Warrant from the word for such a Prelatical Sovereignty and then let ut see how they came by it no man should take any Honour in the Church to himself at his own hand he must be called of God