contrivance We have heard in the second Article that he is willing that Chnrch-matters be managed in Presbyteries and Synods by the vote of the plurality a fair insinuation that the matter of Ordination shall be in the same manner transacted And in this Article he leaves the trial to the Presbytery consents that if possible the Ordination be at the parish Church where one shall be appointed to preach and lastly is content differences falling in be referred to the Superior Courts all fair generals But wherefore no mention who shall be the actual ordainers whether the Bishop and whole Presbytery or the Bishop alone in behalfe and as Mederator of the Presbytery or the Bishop alone as indeed something greater whether as in a superior order or only in a higher degree is but a School nicety then either a Presbyter or the Presbytery to whose office this part doth properly belong And as to these things though we be left in the dark yet many palpable indications lead us to feel this last to be the thing designed against which if I might now stand to debate I could show this not only to be contrary to Evangelick parity and simplicity and Apostolick practice and destitute even of these pretended testimonies of the next Ages for a fixed prostasia but that it hath been one of the main impostures of the prelatick Spirit first injuriously to usurpe and then mysteriously to involve the matter of Ordination that the Bishops might have the dignity to be its proper dispensators and the mystery of iniquity be the more thereby advanced But the point here most remakable is that apprehending his condescendencies might render him as being obnoxious to the plurality of voices of lesse power and influence in this affair Behold how craftily he goeth about to salve his negative which he may not for fear of a discovery plainly owne and that is by making the appointment of the day for ordaining to depend on his and the Presbyteries joynt agreement wherein if he please to be a dissenter It is certain that his not assenting to this circumstance will be of no lesse consequence for his purpose then if he had reserved unto himself an inhibiting veto upon the substance of the whole businesse Now that this power in what sort soever by him couched and covered is not to be allowed his want of any sufficient warrant for it doth aboundantly evinceâ— And further what the Scripture and Apostolick rule in this affair is these few considerations may in this place satisfie 1. That the power of Ordinantion is certainly annexed to dependent upon the pastoral charge for seing that the cure committed to the Apostles and by them to succeeding Pastors could not be perpetuat without a succession the evident reason of the thing it self with the import of that command The things that thou hast heard of me the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also do plainly perswade the assertion 2. As we find in Scripture the Apostles and others upon occasion by themselves alone ordaining so whereever a concurrence did offer we may observe the Act to be alwayes joyntly done and administrat so we find the twelve joyntly ordaining and laying their hands upon the seven Deacons without any prerogative acclaimed by Peter who yet if falshoods may be compared hath more apparent grounds in Scripture for his Primacy then can be shewed for the Presidency of any Bishop Next we have the fraternity of Prophets and Teachers at Antioch sending forth and imposing hands upou Barnabas and Saul by a like equall conjunction 3. It is said of Paul and Barnabas that they in a plural union Did ordain Elders in every Church And 4. it is manifest that Paul by reason of his concurrence with other Presbyters in the Ordination of Timothie doth attribut the same act indifferently to his own hands and to the hands of the Presbytery Which Scripture-grounds being joyned to the want of any probable reason for this singularity and the manifestly woful and sad consequences of this Episcopal imparity with the present unquestionable design of bearing down the just liberty and authority of the Lord's Ministers in a convenient Subserviency to mens lusts and wickednesse by the stiff and inflexible retaining of this privilege do I am confident make out the eccentrick preheminence acclaimed to be not only in it self unlawfull but by our solemn Oaths to maintain Presbytery and extirpat every thing that shall be found to be contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of godlinesse perpetually abjured Seing therefore that this Article doth certainly imply this corruption as I have above declared that it can have no better acceptance from us then the preceeding needeth no further reasoning As for the other trifling circumstances whereby the principal thing in it is endeavoured to be palliat they do not merite any more speciall inquiry The fift Article is It is not to be â—oubâ—ed but the Lord Commissioner will make good what he offered anent the establishment of Presbyteries and Synods and we trust his Grace will procuâ—e such security to the Brethren for declaring their judgment that they may do it without any hazard in counterveening any law and that the Bishop shall humbly and earnestly recommend this to his Grace This Article made up of uncertain assurances ridiculous trusts and the Bishop's conformable undertaking is already by me sufficientâ—y examined in the very entry of this discourse and there told that what the Commissioner did undertake anent the establishment of Presbyteries I did not exactly know but if it was that which is reported viz that they should be set up as preceeding the 1638. I thought it could contribute notâ—ing to the removal of our just exceptions I shall not here offend the Reader by a vain repetition but seing the grounds formerly laid down are very material and yet by the most part little adverted to it will not be amisse that after the full and plain account I have given of these matters I again run over them and 1. That according to the principles of truth Presbyteries are not founded in any humane establishment but in the right and Authority which our Lord hath given unto his Church is our constant perswasion so that though the accessory confirmation and countenance of the powers may be of great use to and no lesse acceptance with the Church yet it is no part of their original right 2. Before the 1638. and even until the Year 1661. Presbyteries were founded and did continue in this Church not by vertue of any Act of â—arliament whereby they were properly authorized but upon the basis of that intrinseck right which I have already mentioned Thus having conveened and settled themselves shortly after the Reformation they continued their possession uninterrupted until the Year 1661. It is true they obtained the confirmation of King and Parliament in the Year 1592. as also in the Year 1612. many corruptions introduced and
more allow the Angels representing the Pastors then the Stars signifying the same thing nay or the Candlesticks the Churches to be taken for single persons But for further clearing of all these and like objections I referr the Reader to the many Authors by whom these things are more fully handled These grounds then being all undoubtedlâ— Scriptural with what confidence can it be demanded where doth the Scripture hold out a paritie among Ministers Or how can it be affirmed that the Episcopus Praeses contended for specially with his necessary presence in Ordination as we will afterwards hear is not contrary but agreeable to the word of God By all which it appears that as our Presbyterian paritie is plainly warranted both by general Gospel-rules and very expresse instances contained in Scripture So the apparent lawfulness of any other form of mans devising can be no justification thereof But it is objected If this ground be rejected how will we maintain or where will we finde an expresse command or rule for our own model of Kirk-sessions Presbyteries Syonds Provincial and National with a Commission of the Kirk in their several dependencies and subordinations and the changing of the moderator in these meetings excepting that only of the Kirk-sessions wherein the Minister doth constantly moderat for without this expresse Kule a Bishop or fixed President may very well consist with that frame which we contenâ— for And it is really and actually so at this present in this Church In answering this objection I must begin with its latter part which is so directly contradicted by the present constitution both in its legal establishment and known exercise as I have already proven that I marvel how it could escape any person of ordinary understanding As for the main thing objected having from the Scripture asserted the warrant of our parity its difficulty is easily satisfied for seeing that by Divine institution the Church is erected into one Society and officers in an equal parity for its oversight and Government thereto appointed And seeing that in every concession the things natural and proper to what is conceded must be understood to be therein imported the libertie and power of common counsel together with the subordination of the parts to the whole do thence necessarily result The premisses of which argument being so consistently composed of Scripture and reason thereon dependent I need not here enlarge in any explication Sure I am he who duely perpendeth these uncontrovertible Scripture-truths That the Church is gathered into one body that the Apostles together the Pastors and Elders together are incharged with its oversight and rule that the Spirit of the Prophets is subject unto the Prophets and that where two or three are gathered together in the Lords Name there he is in the midst of them It is impossible he should remain doubtful of the Divine warrant and authority of our meetings Conforme to which truths and principles we not only finde in the Acts of the Apostles the Church governed by common counsel but the same Meetings and Councels inspired and directed by that humilitie love and harmonie that no more then a chair man for the time no sixed moderator can therein be discerned If these grounds were not both solidly and evidently conclusive of all necessarie for me to prove I might easily without either worming or straining as our moderatists phrase it adduce and make out from Scripture precedents more exactly correspondent to our formes But seeing the right and Priviledge of common Counsel for Government in order both to the whole and certain of the partsâ— is by Scripture-practiâ—e obviously held forth its extension to all the parts and their â—ubordination to the whole doth so naturally and necessarily â—ollow thaâ— I judge it superfluous to engadge my self further into our adversaries scrupulous quiblings Now as for the Commission of the Kirk whereof Scripture warrant is also required seeing we do not hold it to be an ordinarie Church-judicatorie but do only regard it as a delegation from the preceeding National-assembly elicit by extraordinary exigences and precisely accountable to the next ensuing It s right is so certainly parallel to that of every Committee appointed by any meeting for dispatch that unlesse it were alledged that this power of commissionating is by Scripture inhibite it must of necessity be understood to be founded in the same warrant with the Assemblies from which it doth flow receive its conâ—irmation I contend not but our observance in practice might have had its own failings in this point but seeing the excesse in this matter if any was did probably flow from the mistake of a suppoâ—sed expediencie the evidence of its warrant and right use by such and error in fact cannot at all be impugned But the ministers their being constantly moderators in Kirk-sessions among the Elders joyned with them for Discipline is that wich our adversaries do urge as a great advantage for proving the lawfulness of the fixed Moderator in Presbyteries and Synods and our inconsequence in denying the same In the fond conceit of which argument it hath been and is so frequently by them inculcat that here is a Presbyter having a fixed presidencie among presbyters that I am sure it may â—ustly nauseat or move to laughter any indifferent observer To begin therefore with this childish emphasis taken from the terme Presbyter and the calling of the minister and parochial-elders both of them presbyters such indeed they are but seeing the scripture doth warrant the office of our Ruling Elder also attributeth several other names to Ministers agreeable to the main labour and to these Parochial Elders only that of Presbyters or Elders and yet on the other hand the classical Assemblies principally consisting of Ministers are commonly called Presbyteries If use for distinction hath appropriat to these Parochial-elders the name of Elders rather then that of Presbyters what folly is it to think that a contrary usurpation of names can be of any import or wherefore do not our adversaries if they have such a complaisance for these conceits tell us further what a qstrange thing it is to see a Presbyterie for so a Kirck-session may well be termed consisting only of one Minister and all the rest Laiks as they speak and withal reflect upon these more pungent retorsions nearer Home viz. that in their way a Bishop pretends to a-Superiority or presidencie over many Bishops and a single Presbyter must have the preheminence over his Fellow-presbyters But leaving these fopperies and taking words according to the determination of custome in such cases in answer to what is material in the objection I say 1. That where there are two Ministers in a parish they moderat in the Session by turnes 2 Where the Session doth consist of one Minister both a preaing and a ruling Elder and the other Elders of the Congregation who are but his helpers in discipline his different quality with the double honour allowed to him by the
very adversaries destitute of all satisfying pretenses For asmuch then as our Lord had very clearly and positively commanded the paritie of his Apostles and in them of all his Ministers by declaring them to be Brethren in direct opposition to that pharisaick pride which might have tempted them to the like affectation and further doth adduce his own blesâ—ed example that by the consideration of his Ministerial lowliness in the manner both of his administration and conversation compared with the infinit excellency of his person power and dignitie he might the more effectually obviat all imaginable temptations utterly ruine the very thoughts of any inequality of a stated superioritie amongst them let us with all fear and reverence acknowledge his holy wisdom and appointment and constantly disown and rejâ—ct the vanitie of all contrary inventions specially seeing it is moâ—t certain that however men may endeavour by specious pretexâ—s to obscure the prohibition and to palliat this corruption yet its wicked pernicious and abominable effects and consequences have rendered it to all the sincere lovers of our Lord Iesus palpably odious That which doth next occurre is two objections in the Authors second and seventh consideration The one That the fixed presidency of Bishops in Synods hath as much warrand as the fixed moderating of a Presbyter in a Kirk-session of ruling Elders The other That it can as little be quarreled for want of an express command in Scripture as Kirk-sessions Presbyteries Synods and National assemblies and their Commissions which with their severall subordination are nevertheless by us pretended to be of divine institution But having in the former Treatise by shewing the Scriptural and most rational disparitie of the first case and the undeniable grounds of divine right and institution for the second fully answered all that is here excepted I will not now detain my Reader by any superfluous repetition or addition The fiâ—t thing asserted by the Author is that if the thing it self be lawful the appropriating of the name of Bishop to the superior Presbyter cannot make it unlawful though these two names be indifferently used in the scripture Thus the Author loves to quible We say that not only these two names are indifferentlie used in Scripture but that they are used as signifying one and the same thing without the least insinuation of a more proper application either of the one or the other to any thing distinct thence do strongly inferre that after-times did verie unwarrantably and contrarie to Scripture-grounds divide both the things and names And this our Author doth very lightly turn over as if all the question anent a divine warrant for the identity or distinction of Bishops and Presbyter were only a plea of words and whether the names of Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture commonlie and promiscouslie used might lawfully afterwards be severally appropriat without the least notice taken that in Scâ—ipture the use of the words is no more common then the thing the same and that therefore the separation afterwards made was a meer human invention But he adds for a reason that the names are in the same manner used in some primitive writers who in other passages do clearly owne the different degree of Bishops over Presbyters and vvere themselves of that degree What then A man may indeed hence conclude that in the times succeeding the purest with the distinction introduced of a superior Bishop over a Presbyter the names beside thâ—ir common use became to be usurped to peculiar significations but seeing this manner of writing observed in these primitive writters doth no wayes hold in sacred write whence we ought to search for our warrant and wherein there is no passage which doth in the least favour the diffâ—rent degree of Bishops over presbyters what can be gathered from thesâ— indigâ—sted reflectious save this that the primitive times soon varied from thâ— primitive simplicitie and consequently swerved from the primitive purity Seeing then that all the weakness of this argument is from the Author his own mistake to take notice of his attempt to bafle the reasoniâ—g from this Topick as too vveak and unvvorthy of any serious persons insistiâ—g upon it were in effect to be ridiculously serious in his follies But he proceeds to tell us in his sixt assertion That it is yet more strange to be offended vvith the solemne vvay of blessing or consecrating Bishops to that presidency vvith the imposition of hands as if a grave and solemn admission to a high and holy employment vvere apt to unhallovv it and being in appearance so proper an instrument of making it the better should yet effectually make it the vvorse How the Author comâ—s to terme it strange yea more strange that we should be offended with a practice wich yet for all his suprisal by reason of our offence he himself dar not distinctly avow might be to us really so were it not that our experience of his methods doth abundantly satisfie us that all the arts of insinuation are familiar unto him The thing he here points at is without doubt to justifie the peculiar ordination of his Bishop or Episcopus Praeses knowing that a distinct ordination doth certainly require and inferre things altogether incononsistent with his discription oâ— his Episcopus Praeses he therefore endeavours to smooth it over as if all considerable in the case vvere only a more solemn vvay of blessing or consecrating of Bishops to their Presidencie But not to stand vvith him upon the matter of words the things that we are indeed offended at are 1. That vvhere in his Episcopal consecration both the vvords manner and whole forme of a special ordination are most exactlie used yet he would have us to believe that all transacted by this performance is only a more solemn benediction if any man inquire the Difference that more solemne lawful action if capable of a solem benediction is known and obvious whereas although Ordination be accompanied with benediction yet both the notation of the word and reason it self do plainly intimat that it is not formally a benediction but that its principal act as it is performed by men is a Ministerial conserring in the name personâ— and Authority of Iesus Christ of a special Church-office and consequently that it supposeth aswel the office it self as the manner of its conveyance to depend upon our Lords institution and warrant Whereby it is evident that either this place of presidencie being only a humane contrivance upon the pretence of order of a superior eminencie for the better conduct of common administâ—ation cannot at all bear or admit of it or that under the proposal of this presidencie it is in effect not only a higher degree but a higher order oâ— Church-officers that is intended to be introduced Which how pernicious it hath proven and may yet again prove to the Ghurch of Christ both the proud usurpations of Prelacie the hights of Papacie do sufficiently testifie But the second thing that