have nothing of the essentials of a Minister of Christ to be found upon them may be accounted of as his Ministers and be adhered to Answer No. 15. Whether such as shall so do be not guilty of casting contempt upon the institutions of Christ and disobedience against his royal edicts commanding them to seperate from persons of such a Complection To which many others of the like nature might be added Answ. They would be if they should do so wittingly and willingly Enough of questions are propounded already and this is Answer to the 12. Arguments and 15. Quaeries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now for the other part of the book in the last Chapter which begins thus CHAP. 10. Fifty Arguments for hearing the present Ministers Sect. 1. Christs direction Matth. 23.2 3. warrants hearing the present Ministers HAving hitherto been upon the Confirmation of the truth asserted by us viz. That 't is not lawfull for Saints to hear the present Ministers of England we come now to consider what is in this matter objected by our dâ—ssenting Brethren This is that they say Object 1. Christ commands or at least permits his Disciples to hear the Scribes and Pharisees who were men as corrupt in their doctrine as vicious in their lives as the present Ministers of England can be supposed to be Matth. 23.1 2. Therefore it is lawfull to hear these Answ. This being the main Objection used by our dissenting Brethren in this day as it was by others in times past their very Achilles in this controversie we shall speak the more largely to it To which I reply that this is justly urged to prove it lawfull to hear the present Ministers of England preaching the doctrine of Christ because Christ allowed his Disciples and the multitudes hearing the Scribes and Pharisees teaching the law of Moses notwithstanding they were erroneous vicious intruders in that business as much or more than are the present Ministers of England into the office or work of preaching the Gospel That the force of this reason may be perceived it is to be noted that it was the office of the Priest who were to be of the Tribe of Levi to instruct the people in the law of Moses as we find the Prophet Malachi speaking Mal. 2.7 The Priests lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the law at his mouth for he was the Messenger of the Lord of Hosts yet there they are complained of to have departed out of the way to have caused many to stumble at the law to have been partial in the law v. 18 9. Which occasioned especially after the return from the Captivity of Babylon the rising of sundry Sects among the Jews as Sadduces and Pharisees known by their peculiar tenents and usages who were not all nor necessarily of the Tribe of Levi as it is certain concerning St. Paul that he was a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee Acts 23.6 yet of the Tribe of Benjamin Philip. 3.5 which therefore had no special function of teaching committed to them by God having neither extraordinary nor ordinary calling of God but had betaken themselves to that way as the orders of Friers among the Papists by their voluntary choice yet as the Friers among the Papists so the Pharisees among the Jews bare the greatest sway with the common people as having greatest influence upon their Consciences in matters of Religion and in process of time greatest power in the government of the State though they were not the ordinary Magistrates Now to these Pharisees were adjoyned Scribes who were Writers Teachers Expositors Disputers Rabbins Masters Lawyers or Doctors of the Law among whom our Saviour is said to sit at 12 years old in the Temple hearing them and asking them questions Luke 2.46 By which it is apparent that they which were then the Doctors of the law used to sit in the Temple to resolve cases about the law for which reason they were said to sit in the seat of Moses Matth. 23.2 Concerning whom though our Lord Christ had charged them with corrupting the law by their traditions Matth. 15.3 Mark 7.8 and had warned his Disciples to take heed of the leaven of their Doctrine Matth. 16.6 11.12 yet Matth. 23.1 2 3. he spake to the multittude and to his Disciples saying the Scribes and Pharises sit in Moses seat All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do but do not ye after their works for they say and do not Now our Lord Christs appointing them to observe what they bid shews he allowed or permitted their hearing them for otherwise they could not observe what they bid them yet not absolutely for then he should have contradicted himself in warning them against their traditions and the leaven of their Doctrine but conditionally or respectively that is what they bid them do according to the law of Moses in whose seat they sate that is took upon them to be expounders of the law of Moses Whence it is inferred that while the Ministers of England teach the doctrine of Christ they may be heard notwithstanding defects in their calling and their personal evils as the hearing of the Scribes and Pharisees was allowed by Christ to his Disciples And the Argument may be formed thus That hearing of Ministers against which there is no more just exception than was against the hearing of the Scribes and Pharises sitting in the seat of Moses in Christs time by his Disciples is lawful for Christian Saints now But there is no more just exception against hearing the present Ministers of England than was against hearing of the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in the seat of Moses in Christs time by his Disciples Therefore the hearing the present Ministers of England is lawfull to Christian Saints now The major proceeds on this rule that what in the same case our Lord Christ allowed to his Disciples then is allowed by him to Christian Saints now which if it be not granted Christs resolutions then are no satisfactions or directions to our Consciences now which were to make those Scriptures useless which were blasphemous The minor is proved by shewing the exceptions against hearing the present Ministers are not greater nor more just then against the Scribes and Pharisees and the hearing of them nor the Christian Saints now any more forbidden to hear the present Ministers than the Disciples of Christ then to hear the Scribes and Pharisees Again we may thus argue That which warranted Christs Disciples hearing the Scribes and Pharisees in his time notwithstanding other defects warrants the Saints hearing of the present Ministers of England now notwithstanding other defects which is grounded on such rules of Logick as these De paribus idem est judicium Of things alike we are to have the like judgement Idem quà idem semper facit idem the same consequent follows on the same reason as it is the same But the Scribes and Pharisees preaching or declaring the will of God warranted Christs
suppositions as ever objection in so weighty a case was built upon 1. 'T is supposed that Christ hath not determined in the Scripture how the affairs of his house should be managed with decency and order as well as commanded that they be so which is 1. No small derogation to the perfection of the Scriptures 2. To the wisdom and faithfulness of Christ debasing him herein below Moses though the Scripture in this respect prefers him before him 3. Diametrically opposite to the Scripture instanced in which stands as a two edged Sword to cut the throat of their cause in its approaches thereto for shelter of which take this brief account The Apostle having in the beginning of the Chapter prest the Church of Corinth to follow after spiritual gifts but especially that they might prophesie the liberty of the Saints therein being fully asserted and several directions thereabout given he condemns their disorderly practice in respect of this important duty and priviledge ver 26. and gives direction touching its regular performance and this he doth First Generally ver 26. Let all things be done to edifying which with a little alteration he represses ver 40. Let all things be done decently and in order Secondly Particularly by telling them how they ought to manage this affair in a way of decency order and edification wherein several rules are comprised too long to be here insisted on as in cases of speaking in an unknown tongue ver 27 28. of prophesying by two or three ver 29 30. of the duties of women with respect thereunto ver 34 35. that from hence a power invested in the Church for the binding of the consciences of men touching ceremonies in Worship should be regularly deduced is the first born of improbabilities and absurdities 1. Paul speaking by an infallible spirit of Prophecie advises the Church of Corinth that all things be done decently and in order therefore persons that have not pretend not to such a spirit may of their own heads bind our Consciences by Laws and Rules of their own in the service of God 2. Paul doth not only tell them that all things ought to be done decently and in order but discovers to them wherein that decency and order lies therefore the Church hath power to determine in this matter are such Non-sequiturs as will not in haste be made good I reply as the Argument is framed by me there is moment in the objection which is not built upon the principle he expresseth but this that however Christ hath not only commanded but also determined in generals in the Scripture how the affairs of his House should be managed with decencie and order yet in many particularities he hath not determined how the Worship of God and Rule of his Church should be managed with decencie and order as whether at the Communion there should be a Table spread with a linnen cloth the Service begin with a recital of the Institution or Prayer Publike Prayer begin with Confession of Sin or Thanksgiving or profession of our faith seating of persons in the meeting be with respect to their civil degrees or sexe or promiscuously Sermon begin at the reading of the Text and Prayer be after or before these with many more are indeterminate by Christ or his Apostles in the Scripture and yet are to be determined according to the Rule of Decency and Order either by each person himself in that which is private or by Rulers in that which belongs to the Community and Obedience is due to the determinations of Rulers in these things And it seems to me to use this Authors own phrase the first-born of improbabilities and absurdities that God should charge parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord Eph. 6.4 that we should first of all make supplications prayers intercessions giving of thanks for all men for Kings and for all that are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty 1 Tim. 2.1 2. that the Bishop should be one that takes care of the Church of God 1 Tim. 3.5 If these have no power in the Worship of God and rule of the Church to make Constitutions about things undetermined or that they may without any sin be disobeyed For as for the exception as if such power reaches only to things Civil not Ecclesiastical the contrary is proved by Bishop Sanderson in his sixth Lecture about the obligation of Conscience Nor is there any derogation to the perfection of Scripture or the faithfulness of Christ by such a grant For the sufficiency of the Scripture being in affording Doctrines of Faith and Rules of Life if as able to make a man wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus as the Apostle speaks 2 Tim. 3.15 its perfection is acknowledged there is no lessening of its use though it be said that notwithstanding its sufficiency to its end yet Laws Domestical Civil National Ecclesiastical are necessary to be added for good order and Government And the faithfulness of Christ Heb. 3.2 is not placed in determining every particularity in Worship yea he was faithful in that he did not for then he should have put upon us such a yoke as Moses bid contrary to his Office Joh. 1.17 but in that he discharged the work his Father had appointed him as our High Priest in suffering and interceding for us and as the Apostle of our Profession in teachinng us the counsel of God fully in the Doctrine of the Gospel and that above Moses as being not as a servant in Gods house only as Moses but as a Son over his own house And it is to be considered what Bishop Sanderson observes that if Christs faithfulness must have been extended to the determination of all particularities equally to Moses he must have set down all particularities of Civil Government as Moses did in the judicial Laws of the Jews and so those Laws must be observed as some have attempted and the Common Law of England must be evacuated and a yoke put upon our necks from which Christ hath freed us And therefore a good Argument is hence deducible that God would have the ordering of things undetermined left to Governours because otherwise Christ should not have been faithful as Moses sith he hath not determined them yea should have been unfaithful if he had sith it was the Will of God that Christians should not have such a yoke of Rites put upon them as Moses did put upon the Jews Acts 15.9 10 Gal. 5.1 2 3 4. But the Text 1 Cor. 14.40 requires more consideration sith he saith it is diametrically opposite to that principle it is alledged to establish which is but a meer Dictate of his for which he brings no proof For neither is his account of the Apostles dissertation right it being not true that he asserts the liberty of the Saints in prophesying as if prophesying were the liberty of the Saints as such which
of the Scribes and Pharisees as their Pastors nor need we It is sufficiene for our purpose that Christ allowed the hearing them teaching Moses Law and that proves it lawful to hear the present Ministers while and so far as they teach truth which hearing not constant attending on their Ministry was to be proved lawful as the question was stated by this Authour ch 1. and all along was his conclusion And that he hath not proved it unlawful nor evaded the Arguments from Mat. 23.1 2. Notwithstanding his irrision of this dispute I am of the mind the solid reader will say I think it not amiss to add here the words of Mr. John Norton Minister of Ipswich in New England in his answer to Apollonius of Middleburg in Zealand c. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scribarum Pharisaeorum in Mosis Cathedrâ sedentium fuit corruptio al qua in publico Dâ—i cultu absque debitâ reformatione toleraâ—a quia Cathedra Mosis i e. officium docendi publicè in Ecclesiâ legem Mosis libros Prophetarum Sacerdotibus Levitiâ— ex instituto Dei ordinariò propria erat eos autem audire non ab eis separare jubet Christus Matth. 23.1 2. Of the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses seat the embassage without commission was some corruption in the publick worship of God tolerated without due reformation because the chair of Moses that is the office of teacâ—ing publickly in the Churches the Law of Moses and books of the Prophets was ordinarily proper to the Priests and Levites by the appointment of God yet Christ commands to hear them not to separate from them Matth. 23.1 2. It follows Sect. 6. Christs and his Apostles going to the Jewish meetings is opposite to the Separatists opinion and practice Object 2. If it be said But we find Christ and his Apostles after him going frequently into the synagogues where the Scribes and Pharisees Preached Ans. We answer first That all that Christ and the Apostles did is not lawful for Saints to practice will not be denied many instances are near at hand for its confirmation should it so be 2 That 't is one thing to go into the synagogues and another thing to go thither to attend upon the Ministry of such as taught there This is the present case which that Christ or the Apostles ever did cannot be proved 3. They went thither to oppose them in and confute their innovations and traditions in the worship of God to take an opportunity to teach and instruct the people in his way and will which when any have a spirit to do and are satisfied that they are thereunto called by the Lord in respect of the present Ministers and worship of England we shall be so far from condemning them therein that we shall bless God for them But this is not to the purpose in hand the attendance of our brethren upon the Ministers of England is quite another thing that requires other arguments for its support than we have hitherto met with Parvas habet spes Troia si tales habet I reply It is clear from Luke 2.46 that our Lord went to the Temple at Jerusalem sate in the midst of the Doctors both hearing them and asking them questions Luke 4.16 That he came to Nazareth where he had been brought up and as his custom was he went into the synagogue on the sabbath-day and stood up to read that he cured persons there Preached in the synagogues that Peter and John went up together into the Temple at the hour of prayer the ninth Acts 3.1 That Paul and Barnabas went into the synagogue on the sabbath-day and sate down and did not speak to the people till after the reading of the Law and the Prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them Acts 13.14 15. That on the sabbath St. Paul went out of Philippi by a river side where prayer was wont to be made and sate down and that this was his manner Acts 16 13. and 17.2 Now neither were these synagogues by any appointment of God that we find nor their meeting nor their rulers nor the order of their reading of the Law and the Prophets nor their Teachers nor their worship at the Temple without many corruptions and yet our Lord and his Apostles were present at them and joyned with them in hearing them read and such other services of Religion as were done to God Which is a good reason wherefore it should not be counted necessary to separate from the present Assemblies in England and the publick Ministers notwithstanding such corruptions in their worship such defect in their calling such pullutions in the places of meeting as are by this Authour and other Separatists urged as a sufficient reason of their separation The answers hereto are insufficient For 1. Though all that Christ and his Apostles did either out of peculiar power or Commission or instinct be not lawfull for us to do as toâ—whip buyers and sellers out of the Temple to sentence persons to death as Peter did Ananias and his wife yet what they did as men or part of the Jewish people in the worship and Church of the Jewes is a warrant to us in the like case to do in the assemblies of the Christians there being no cogent reason why we may not in these things do as they did and if these things may not be used for direction and setling our Consciences they are in vain written by the Spirit 2. Though Christ and his Apostles did not go into the Synagogues to attend on the Ministry of such as taught there yet they did there hear the Law and Prophets read and joyned in prayers which this Authour will not allow his brethren to do in the Church Assemblies of England 3. That Christ or his Apostles went into the Synagogues to oppose them in and confute their innovations and traditions in the worship of God is more than I remember to have read nor do I know that any that have or shall come into the assemblies of the Church of England to such an end as Quakers and other Separatists heretofore have done can be judged to do it out of any other spirit than a turbulent and evil spirit without any true calling by the Lord which might satisfie their Consciences And though we should bless God if liberty were granted more than is and opportunities taken to teach the people especially where there is want thereof in the way and will of God yet we should not rejoyce that mens particular opinions or such unnecessary truths as being unseasonably delivered would tend to division and not to edification should be vented especially in such auditories as are in the common sort of those assemblies and most of all where there are able preachers who constantly and rightly teach the Doctrine of the Gospel of Christ. It is added Sect. 7. Pauls rejoycing at the preaching Christ of contention warrants hearing the present Ministers Object 3. Paul rejoyceth at the
and Preaching the same Gospel If any to stop the mouths of the clamourous Papists have derived their Succession from the Bishops under the Papacy by proving as Mr. Francis Mason did the Consecration of the Bishops after the Reformation by three Bishops allowed by the Romanists themselves after the ancient Canon though perhaps more than needs yea though they were Consecrated and Ordained by the Pope himself and some Cardinal Bishops yet if they were Consecrated or Ordained to no other work nor in any other manner than Priests and Biships are Ordained and Consecrated according to the order of the Church of England they would not be Antichristian For though it be not gainsayed but that the Pope is the Antichristian head over many Countries yet it is gainsayed that all that is derived from him or done by him is Antichristian I do not think it is Antichristian to confess the Apostles Creed though a person say he believes it because it is received from the Pope and Trent Council 5 That Bishops as a Superiour Order or Degree above Presbyters were not dream'd of in the World for several hundreds of years after Christ I think can hardly be made good though I will not meddle with that point which hath been debated so much by men of greatest and most exact skill in Antiquity with whom I conceive my self no way fit to be compared yet this I say that the not taking notice of Bishops distinct from Presbyters by Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians published not long since by Patrick Yong is ballanced by the passages in Ignatius his Epistles if they be genuine concerning which the Reader may judge by what Arch-bishop Usher hath written in his Edition of those Epistles of Ignatius As for Lombard if the Primitive Church according to him extend not beyond the dayes of the Apostles as his words import they prove not that the Order of Bishops above Presbyters was not dreamt of several hundreds of years after Christ. But of this I will not contend it 's enough for my purpose if the Office be found in Scripture though not their Superiority 6. As for the words of Dr. Hammond I find them Dissert 4. de Episcopatu c 5. sect 4. though not fully cited by this Author and I acknowledge that he makes the state and frame of the Churches to have been accommodated to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations in the Empire yet withall he conceives that the reason of directing seven Epistles to the seven Angels of the seven Churches was because they were Metropolitan or Mother-Churches and conceives this division into Provinces Dioceses and depending Churches to have been transcribed from the samplar of the Jews by Moses Law Deut. 16.18 and 17.9 And therefore his words are not to be drawn to an acknowledgement of Lord-Bishops Primacy and Supremacy to have been the result of the design and contrivements of men much less that the Superiority of Bishops above Presbyters had its rise and occasion from the aims and designs of men to accommodate Ecclesiastical Affairs to the state and condition of Civil Government It is added Sect. 6. The office of Lord Bishops is not contrary to express precepts of Christ in the Scripture 2. That the office of Lord Bishops is contrary to express Precepts of Christ in the Scripture the truth of which he that runs may read in the ensuing Scriptures Mat. 20.25 Mark 10.42 Luke 22.25 1 Pet. 5.3 the English of vos autem non sic but ye shall not do so neque ut dominantes Cleris not lording it over God's Clergy or Heritage an ordinary Reader may easily conclude to be inconsistent with their Lordly Dignities Answ. This Author still shoots wide from the mark He undertook to prove that the Office of Lord-Bishops is contrary to express Precepts of Christ in the Scripture but he concludes against their Lordly dignity which is no more their Office than the honour ascribed to a Preacher or Reader in the University by giving them the titles of Master or Doctour in Divinity is their Office The term Bishops indeed implies their Office appointed by Christ to have inspection over the flock but the term Lord is only a tâ—tle given them by the King when he makes them Barons of the Realm which may be severed from the Office of Bishops as it hath been since the Reformation in England when Suffragan Bishops have been made without the addition of Lordship But however this Author conceives the having such titles as Lords to be contrary to the express precepts Mat. 20.25 Mark 10.42 Luke 22.25 1 Pet. 5.3 and he translates Vos autem non sic But ye shall not do so But this is more than either the words or translations do permit It is in Mat. 20.26 Mark 10.43 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It shall not be so among you or to you which explains best Luke 22.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But ye not so that is as our translation renders it But ye shall not be so and so notes not a Precept but a Prediction and shews Event not Duty which Mr. Gataker thinks in his Cinnus l. 1. c. 3. p. 36. after a discussion of several Interpretations to be the genuine meaning of Christ. But granting it to be a Precept is it a Precept to the Apostles only or to others The former hath countenance from the Text 1. From the occasion the request of the Mother of Zebedees children 2. The indignation of the Ten by reason of it 3. Christs calling of them to him and no other in Matthew and Mark. 4. Their contention of St. Luke 5. Christ's speaking to them who had been with him in his temptations 6. His allotting to them a Kingdom and to sit on twelve thrones But if it be to others it is doubtful whether to all Christians or only to Ministers of the Gospel and whether it forbid simply Dominion at all or such Dominion as the Rulers of the Gentiles exercised to wit Tyrannical or the affectation and inordinate seeking of it not the having or the exercise of Dominion In my Romanism discussed Article 7. sect 8. p. 172 173. I have set down ten Reasons to prove that the Rule meant in those Texts is not only Tyrannical Dominion but also the Dominion of one Apostle over another and the affectation and inordinate seeking of that rule which a person may have and lawfully exercise and this is forbidden not only to Ministers but also to all Christians but not a Christians having or exercising the Office of a King or Civil Magistrate nor the Apostles Rule over the Church of God or Ministers of a lower Order For then Christians should be forbidden to exercise that Office which is Gods Ordinance and the Apostles did ill in practising and appointing Rule over Christians yea of some Ministers over others in some cases But the Rule which is forbidden is Rule over the Faith of the Saints which St. Paul disclaims 2 Cor.
1.24 and the Popes usurp whose decrees in points of Faith and determinations of doubts of Conscience and impositions of Laws binding the conscience are made unerring such Rule over Princes in secular Affairs with pomp outward grandure like Gentile Princes as the same Popes usurp rule for themselves not for Christ rule by force not by authority of Gods Word If any Lord-Bishop affect seek take upon him or exercise such Lordship or Dominion it may be censured for Antichristian yet not his Office but his practice is to be thus censured and this not to be imputed to his Order but his Person But to judge so of a person barely because of the Title of Lord which was given by Sarah to her Husband and propounded as meet 1 Pet. 3.6 or to deny any liberty to manage any civil business to an Ecclesiastical person because of those words of Christ is more than I conceive they have sufficient ground to do Sure such Congregational men as have been Heads of Colledges in the Universities or Vicechancellors or Leaders of Forces have given occasion to be termed Antichristian as well as Lord-Bishops if Lordly Dignity and Secular Rule merit that appellation As for 1 Pet. 5.3 the Annotation in the Book of the Annotations in English termed the Assemblies is thus Lords that is not imperiously commanding your own inventions instead of the Doctrine of the Gospel nor carrying themselves insolently and magisterially towards Gods people 3 John ver 9. which imports not an Office forbidden but the evil practice of them whose Office is allowed For this very Exhortation is given to those who were Elders among the Christians even St. Peter who entitles himself a fellow Elder to them and therefore contains not a Precept forbidding the Office of a Lord Bishop any more than of an Elder such as St. Peter was but the abuse of the Office nor doth it forbid Lordly Dignity but Lordly Rule whereas Bishops Rule should be Pedo non Sceptro not as Princes but as Shepherds If any Prelate use such Rule it is not his Office but his Practice which is to be termed Antichristian Sect. 7. The Office of Lord-Bishops not from the Papacy But this Author proceeds Not to multiply Arguments in a matter that others have so largely debated 2. That Office that is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy is surely Antichristian if the Pope be the head of Antichrist this must not be denied But the Office of Lord-Bishops is derived from is only to be found in the Papacy Which of the Reformed Churches that have separated from the Papacy have retained it Did the woman in her flight into the Wilderness carry it along with her What more absurd then to run to the persecuting Whore and Beast for an Office of Ministry and what more evident demonstration of its being an Antichristian Office than its entertainment only by that false Antichristian Church and its utter rejection and detestation by the true Spouse and witnesses of Christ in all ages What is delivered over to us in this matter by some of them we shall briefly affix hereunto Hierome in his Epistle to Evagrius and in his Commentary on the Epistle of Titus professes That it is more by custom than by any institution of the Lord that Bishops are become greater than the Elders or Ministers Harm of Conf. Sect. 2. Tit. 11. So from him do the Churches of Helvetia proclaim whence they infer and that truly according to Act. 4.9 That no man by any right can forbid but that we should return to the old appointment of God and rather receive that than the custom devised by men Wickliff in his Answer to King Richard the Second citing Mat. 20.25 1 Pet. 5.3 sayes Lordship and Dominion is plainly forbidden to the Apostles and darest thou then usurp the same If thou wilt be a Lord thou shalt lose thy Apostleship c. The University of Geneva say Theses Genev. 71. These functions following we hold to be altogether false and destitute of all true foundation viz. the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all Churches the Cardinalship Patriarchship Archiepiscopalship and briefly the whole degree of Lord Bishops over their fellow Elders Marlorat in his Exposition on the Revel chap. 17.3 sayes That Archbishops Deans c. are in Office under Antichrist yea upon Chap. 9. that they are the tails of Antichrist Beza saith They could not be brought into the Church until they had driven him out who is the only Master Christ and there is neither holy Scripture nor Council nor antient Doctors which ever did know such Monsters Beza's Confess Art 7.14 The noble antient Oldcastle Lord Cobham saith That the whole Episcopal degree of Lord Bishops over their fellow Elders is altogether false and destitute of all true foundation yea that all other Functions and Offices besides Priests and Deacons are unlawful as being Sects devised by men destitute of all true foundation To these we might add honest Bale upon the Revelation viz. chap. 17. where he saith Canterbury and York are the Beastly Antichrist's Metropolitans and Primates and upon Chap. 13. that Archbishop Diocesan Archdeacon Dean Prebend Doctors Parson Vicar c. are very names of blasphemy For Offices they are not appointed by the holy Ghost nor yet mentioned in the Scripture Cartwright sayes of them that their Functions are not in the Word of God but of the Earth new devised Ministries and such as can do no good that their Office is the neck of the Popish Hierarchy come out of the bottomless pit of Hell Fenner proclaims them to be no natural members of the body of Christs Church as being of humane addition not born with her nor grown up with her from the Cradle The French and Belgick Confession sayes That they pass not a rush for them The Church of Geneva That the Hierarchie is Devilish confusion stablished as it were in despight of God and to the mocking and reproach of all Christian Religion The Seekers of Reformation in Q. Elizabeths time spake fully hereunto 2 Adm. to Parl. we have an Antichristian and Popish ordering of Priests strange from Gods Word never heard of in the Primitive Church taken out of the Popes Shop to the destruction of Gods Kingdom The Names and Offices of Archbishops Archdeacons Lord Bishops c. are together with their Government drawn out of the Popes Shop Antichristian Devilish and contrary to the Scriptures Parsons Vicars Parish-Priests are birds of the same feather to whom might be added many others Answ. 1. Though the Pope in these later ages especially since Boniface the third obtained of Phocas the Emperor more than 600 years after Christ that Rome the seat of blessed Peter the Apostle which is the head of all Churches should be both so called and accounted of all as Platina speaks and as Onuphrius addes Had the title of Universal Bishop conferred on him and it was added that the name of Pope which was