the truth is ye can give us no President for the Presbyteriall Government in any one Orthodoxe Church for 1500 yeers after our Saviours ascension All this while the wisedom of God it seemes was breeding this truth and stayed for you and such as you are to be her midwives Her pangs were long and doubtful but now Juno Lucina hath done her part and the stripâ—ing reckons fourescore yeers and that but in Cantons in some odde corners of the world Truth it is he was creeping in here about seventy yeers since but banished he was as dangerous to the Crowne But now he is returned in a fresh suite and hath got the hand both of King and Bishops yea he hath put the Peeres shroadly to it even those that complyed with him 10. It may be for all this you will replie that these are but the opinions of a few particular men What say you to that memorable convention at Auspurg where met all or most of the learned that endeavoured the Reformation These were at least the whole Reformation representative and Melancton gives them that very title in his Apologie Wherein he tels us that ALL THE REFORMATION did often professe in their meetings at Auspurg that they desired exceedingly to preserve that Ecclesiasticall Policie which was settled by the Cannons of the Church as also to continue those very Degrees in the Church which were agreed upon by humane authority These pious men desired not the subversion but the Reformation both of Church and Church-men Yea by Protestation they cleer themselves to all porsterity that it was neither their intent nor fault to overthow the Order or authority of Bishops Melancthon therefore in behalf of all his brethren acknowledgeth that Bishops have both potestatem ordinis potestatem Jurisdictionis power of Order and power of Juridiction And I beleeve that these men had seriously considred of their Protestation 11. But what is this that he calls power of Order Surely a power to do that which Presbyters could not do that is a power at least to ordain Ministers For herein by Calvins confession was the difference between a Presbyter and a Bishop properly so called in the opinion of the ancients that a Bishop hath power to ordain but not a Presbyter Indeed the resolution of the ancient Church is this Presbyterorum ordo non est potens generare patres the whole Order of Presbyters is not able to beget Fathers that is Presbyters for the Church but Bishops are able The Order therefore of Bishops and Presbyters is not one and the same Hence it follows that there is a necessity of continuing Bishops in the Church if so we desire Presbyters since without a Bishop no Presbyter and without a Presbyter at least no Lords Supper 12 Besides your grand Champion Walo Messalinus acknowledgeth that from the time that those Orders and degrees were distinguished and that a Bishop became greater then a Presbyter ORDINATION COULD NOT BE COMMON TO THEM BOTH But those Orders and degrees were from the beginning distinguished by our Saviour though not by these specificall titles Observe I beseech you In the first place he names the Twelve those of the higher Order Apostles and after this those of the lower Order the Seventy are called Diciples as I conceive 3. Luk 10. 22. Or else in the four Evangelists they are distinguished from his other Diciples by number onely and not by title In the other writings of the New Testament they are distinguished into Apostles and Presbyteres or Bishops The Apostles are of two sorts either such as were immediately ordained by Christ or such as were ordained by those Apostles The former are called the Apostles of Christ or the holy Apostles and sometimes the chief Apostles The other are styled Apostoli vestri and Apostoli Ecclesiarum your Apostles and the Apostles of the Churches because they had set Cities and a certaine people committed to their charge The twelve were ordained by our Saviour while in the flesh he was conversant here on earth But S. Matthias and S. Paul after his ascension were called to be Apostles by Jesus Christ and God the Father These did ordain but not the Seventy not Presbyters or such as in Scripture text are called Bishops S. Paul and S. Barnahas were Apostles those we finde ordaining Presbyters Act 14. 23. And S. Paul professeth that he ordained Timothy 2 Tim. 1. 6. 13. Let us now descend to those Apostles who were ordained by Christs Apostles Such were S. Iames Appollos Epaphroditus Timothy and Titus None of these were immediately ordained by Christ and yet they are called Apostles The three former plainly in Scripture as is heretofore evidenced the latter by your good friend Salmasius That Timothy Titus did ordain is too plain to be denyed and for Epaphroditus we have an acknowledgement likewise from Salmasius 14. These Offices were necessarily to be continued in the Church for Christ gave them for the gathering together of the Saints for the work of the Ministery and for the edifying of the body of Christ till we all grow up unto a perfect man Which is now but in fieri in polishing not perfected neither will it be till the second comming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ For the Church is the body of Christ which will have her imperfections and blemishes till she be made fully compleat in the Kingdom of glory Our Saviour therefore saith Behold I am with you alwaies even unto the end of the world which could not be spoken of their persons but of their Office as is confessed by the London Ministers Since their persons were shortly to leave this world but their Office is to continue till heaven and earth passe away When therefore S. Paul had lively described the true Government of the Church and instructed Timothy the Bishop of Ephesus how he ought to behave himself in the Church he charged him in the sight of God and before Jesus Christ that he keep these commands without spot and unrebukeable untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ But this he could not do in his own person which was shortly to depart Calvin therefore readily acknowledgeth that these things were written not so much for Timothy s as for other mens directions that were to come after him since herein as Beza observes many particulars belong to the daily Office of a Pastor These things then must be daily and duely done as occasion requires But diverse of these ought and might be done by Timothy onely and by such as were of his ranke but by no other needs therefore must this Order be continued for the edifying and perfecting of the body of Christ This Office then being quotidâ—aâ—um munus an Office of daily use must of necessitie be continued in the Church 15. But what Office was this that Timothy and Titus did
Oath is for the maintenance of Episcopacy and your endeavour is for the abrogation of Episcopacy According to your sense therefore by Prelacy I understand Episcopacy which you have vowed and covenanted to extirpate Whether upon just grounds or no shall be now enquired For the Office is either good or bad lawfull or unlawfull necessary or indifferent If in it self bad and utterly unlawfull God forbid but we should joyne in the extirpation of it If indifferent it is in the breast of authority to allow or disallow it But if simply lawfull and good and necessary for the being and continuation of a Church then it is not in the just power of man to discard it or cast it off And yet you resolve that the Kings Oath to uphold Episcopacy is sin If sin then it necessarily followes that Episcopacy in it self is naught and utterly unlawfull Thus in the first place you condemne all the Kings and Queens of this Kingdome that have taken this oath Secondly you condemne those many Saints of God that have discharged this Office of Episcopacy Thirdly You condemne all those Fathers and Councels which justify a necessity of Bishops And last of all you condemn the whole Church of Christ which from her Infancie hath been governed by Bishops Is not this to blaspheme the footsteps of the Lords anointed Is not this to question the actions of those Saints to whom the Faith was first delivered Is not this to vilifie the Spouse of Christ and Christ himselfe who hath suffered the Church to erre so foully from the beginning 2. But how shall it be proved that Episcopacy is so bad that it is a sin to defend it An universall Proposition must have an universall Proofe Exparticulari nonest syllogizari A particular makes no proofe but for that particular whereof it treats Iâ— I manifest that Monarchy or Aristâ—cracy hath been aâ—used in such a State or Nation by such or such a Prince or Peeres do I therefore justifie that it is a sin to defend Moarchy or Aristocracy Oâ— if I shall make it appeare That some Parliament men have abused that trust which is committed to them is therefore a Parliament naught This follows not but hereby I manifest that they who at that time sat at the helme in that place did abuse that which in it self is good Is the Apostleship naught because Judas abused himself and that Is Episcopacy bad because Gregory VII of Rome George of Cappadocia or Paulus Samosatenus abused their place and function Far be it from me to argue or conclude in this manner I have learned to distinguish between the office and the Officer The Office may be simply good and the Officer extremely bad This then is no argument against Episcopacy though perchance you may prove that Episcopacy hath been ill managed 3. But view we your own words which are the minor of your conditionall Syllogisme which are these And truly as Prelacy stood with us in England ingrâ—ssing all ruledome in the Church into the hands of a few L. Bishops I think it may be cleered to be an usurpation And truly I think not So you and I are of two severall opinions But truly your thinking shall be cleered â—y this one argument That power that dispoiles any of Christs Officers of any Priviledge or duty indulged or injoined them by the word of God that power is an usurpation against the word But this Prelacy did as it stood in England Ergo English Prelacie was an usurpation against the word of God 4. How properly you speake and how strongly you argue let the intelligent judge That you and others may be sensible of the strength of your argument under favour of Parliament I shall invert it thus That power that despoiles any of Christs Officers of any priviledge or duty indulged or injoined them by the word of God that power is an usurpation against the Word But this the Parliament doth as it stands now in England Ergo the English Parliament is an usurpation against the word of Gâ—d I hope you know your own argument though it alter a terme it alters not the forme The Major you say is cleer of it self it needs no proofe as you conceive The difficultie is in the Minor and that I make good thus out of your own words Presbyters are by Christs warrant in Scripture indued with power to rule in their own congregations as well as preach But the Parliament hath banished many hundreds of us from our own congregations and barred us from preaching therein Ergo The Parliament hath despoiled many of Christs officers of their priviledges and duties indulged and injoyned them by the Word of God You cannot deny us to be Christs officers since we are Presbyters That we are Presbyters is acknowledged by your great Masters who grant all those to be Presbyters who have been ordained by a Bishop jâ—yned with other Presbyters And so I am sure we are 5. Let a review be taken of the soliditie of your former argument and then we shall finde you offend in limine in that Major which is so clear of it self For do not you say thus That power that despoils any of Christs â—fficers of any priviledge or duty indulged or injoyned them by the Word of God that power is an usurpation against the Word Had you said That power that wrongfully or causelesly despoils any of Christs officers c. you had said something You have not it seems learned to distinguish between justly and unjustly but we must And yet this Proposition is clear of it self if we take your word But Gods Word and yours are two Gods Word saies Non est potestas nisi à Deo There is no power but of God but you say that there is a power which is an usurpation against the Word of God But how can that be usurpata which is data both usurped and given That it is given by God our Saviour testifies S. Joh. 19. 11. Indeed this power may be abused and the abuse of this power is an usurpation The office is from God the abuse from our selves But you cannot or will not distinguish between the office and the abuse If all â—ffiâ—es must be discarded because the officers have done a misse what office will remain in this Kingdom I fear not one 6. We read that Pasâ—ur the High Priest set Jeremie the Prophet in the stocks for preaching the truth which the Lord had commanded him to preach And yet who dares say that the High Priesthood in the old Law was an usurpation We know that the office of a King is Gods own ordinance and yet we dare not say that the power of Jehoiâ—kim King of Juda was an usurpation against Gods Word when he slew Vrijah the Prophet But we may safely and truly justifie that he abused his power And so did King Zedekiah when he imprisoned Jeremiah for prophesying what the Lord had
power of Ordination but not the Seventy not those of the inferior order not meer Presbyters 4. Besides doth not St. Paul justifie that none may preach except they be sent Talk not of an inward calling or extraordinary sending Neither of these will serve the turn without the outward without the ordinary Ordination St. Pauls words are full to this purpose No man taketh this honour of Priesthood to himself but he that is called of God as Aaron was The extraordinary calling which some pretend to is abolished in that No man takes this honour to himself How then must he attain the Priesthood The Apostle tels you he must be called of God as Aaron was And how was that Non immediatè a Deo sed mediante hominis ministerio he was not called or ordained immediately by God but by the interceding Ministery of man The Apostle therefore doth not say He that is called of God as Moses was but He that is called of God as Aaron was But we know that though Moses were immediately ordained by God yet Aaron was not he was ordained by Moses And yet both Moses and Aaron are among his Priests for Moses discharged the Priests office before Aaron was ordained Exod. 24. 4. c. Exod. 29. 12. 18. 25. 36. c. Exod. 30. 29. 30. 5. I have done with your first way having according to your Covenant proved by Scripture that none may confer Orders in the Church of Christ but onely Apostles or Bishops as we take them in a strict and Ecclesiasticall sense that is onely such as are of the same order with the Apostles and may fitly be called Apostle-Bishops 6. We are now cast upon the Example of the best reformed Churches which may raise some dust For when we descend to comparisons we cannot but displease those who are left out of the superlative Yet this I dare say that those Churches are best reformed which come neerest to the Primitive Church in Doctrine and Government For to reform is not to innovate but In primaevam veram formam reducere to settle it in the ancient and true state For thus saith the Lord Stand in the wayes and behold and ask for the OLD WAY WHICH IS THE GOOD WAY AND WALK THEREIN and ye shall find rest for your souls This rule therefore is given by Zanchius Exempla veteris Ecclesiae nobis debent esse instar praecepti and your learned Ministers of London second him assuring us that the examples of the ancient Church bind us as firmly as any precept And reason good since the custome of the ancient Church is Optima legis interpres the best interpreter of the Law of Christ The ancient Church then ought to be a pattern to all Reformers 7. Well what kinde of Government was there in the primitive Church Peter Moulin testifies that either in the Apostles times or suddenly after Bishops had praeheminence over Presbyters in the severall Cities wherein they were setled This Government is very ancient and in the Church of Christ every thing the MORE ANCIENT it is the TRUER AND BETTER it is Zanchius justifies it In Ecclesia Dei quo quid ANTIQUIUS eo etiam est VERIUS ideoque MELIUS And lest I may seem to wrest that famous learned mans words to another sense then he intended them I shall give you his resolution at large concerning this point in question whether Bishops or no Bishops and this it is Hoc unum addo me coram Deo IN MEA CONSCIENTIA non alio habere LOCO quà m SCHISMATICORUM illos OMNES qui in parte Reformationis Ecclesiarum ponunt NULLOS HABERE EPISCOPOS qui AUTHORITATIS GRADU supra veros compresbyteros emineant ubi liquido possint haberi Praeterea cum D. Calvino NULLO NON ANATHEMATE DIGNOS CENSEO quotquot illi Hierarchiae quae se Domino Jesu Christo snbmittit subjici nolunt These are his words in Latine and to your comfort you shall have them in English like them as you please This one thing I adde saith learned Zanchius that IN MY CONSCIENCE before God I esteeme ALL those NO BETTER THEN SCHISMATICKS who make it A PART OF REFORMATION TO HAVE NO BISHOPS in the Church where they may readily be had which maybe above their true fellow-Presbyters IN DEGREE OF AUTHORITIE Yea with Mr. Calvin I HOLD THEM WORTHY OF THE MOST GRIEVOUS CURSE who will not submit to that SACRED PRELACY which is subject to Christ He was far from a Rooter 8. Neither is Zanchius alone he hath that moderate and judicious Melancthon to second him who is so right and home for Episcopacy that he comes with his Ego reddo I for my part restore the whole Jurisdiction and dignitie to Bishops And he wisheth with all that he and the rest of his friends might redeem peace though it were upon harder terms Yea he affirms that he sees not quo ore with what face they can take from Bishops their Ecclesiasticall government And then he adds That I may speak my mind Vtinam utinam POSSEM non quidem dominationem confirmare sed ADMINISTRATIONEM EPIScOPORUM restituere I would to God I would to God IT WERE IN MY POWER not to confirm the Dominion but to restore the ADMINISTRATION OF BISHOPS For I see I see saith he what a â—inde of Church we are like to have when the Ecclesiasticall policie shall be dissolved Video postea MULTO INTOLERABILIOREM futuram TYRANNIDEM quam antea unquam fuit I see we are hereafter like to have a FAR MORE INTOLERABLE TYRANNY then ever we have known heretofore Note that and consider whether experience hath not made us sensible that his words were but a Prophecie of these times And after this he expostulates the same businesse with Camerarius and questions Quo jure by what law it might be free for them to subvert the Ecclesiasticall Policie if so the Bishops would yeeld unto them what is meet The question being thus proposed his resolution follows Et ut liceat certè non expedit but suppose it lawfull yet is it not expedient Luther himself was ever of this opinion whom some I perceive love meerly for this because by his means they had shaked off their Bishops and thereby gained Libertatem minimè utilem ad posteritatem such a LITERTIE AS WILL BE LITTLE FOR THE GOOD OF POSTERITIE This he spake and we feel For what kinde of state shall the Church be in in after ages if all ancient customes and manners be utterly abolished and no certain Governors established God knows and we imagine 9. Hitherto you have seen how Zanchius for himselfe and Calvin and Melanthon with Luther did endeavour even in the shell to crush that new model which ye boast to be of divine Right and yet confesse that it is not much above fourscore yeers standing and that but in some Churches For