congregations But where shall a Magistrat be found for establishing this one forme of Government Is it not then saifest to say That Christ hath set down such a forme which all Churches all the world over are obliged to follow imitat for he is only head of the Church Obs. 3. When he stateth the question Part. 2 c. 3 § 1. He limiteth the disput unto two sorts or species of Government thus Whether the Church should be Governed by a colledge of presbyters or by a superiour order above the standing ministery having the power of jurisdiction ordination belonging to it But under favour this is not faire dealing in stateing of a controversy for his bussinesse is to shew that there is no forme at all setled by a Ius divinum That there is no warrand in the word for any one forme more then for all the rest that there is no one forme so determined by a positive law of God that all the Churches of Christ are bound to observe it but that it is left to the prudence of every particular Church to agree upon its own forme which it judgeth most fit for the ends of Governement in it self if this be his drift scope may not every one see how he prevaricateth here in limiting the disput to these two formes seing there are moe formes pretended unto The independents will grant that there is no warrand in the word for either of those two formes mentioned yet will allaidge that there is another forme allowed of God determined The Papists have a forme of Government it may be the prelats think that their forme differeth from that The Morellians have another forme distinct from all these the Erastians have a sixt it is possible that Mr Baxter shall give him a seventh made out of presbyterian episcopall independent Erastian now if his principles exclude all these why was the disput limited to two or doth he think that these other formes are expresly excluded by the word that Churches are not left at liberty to make choise of any of them but only of either of the two which he mentioned Then the scripture is expresly determinatly against severall formes of Governement if this be true his principles are overturned for if the law of God be expresly against some formes it must be more for other formes then for these all formes are not indifferent nor are men left at liberty to pitch upon what forme they please Obs. 4. He granteth Part. 2. c. 2. § 1. That the Government of the Church ought to be administred by officers of divine appoyntment And now what shall become of that Government by a superiour order above the standing ministery for a prelat as a superiour order is a distinct officer from presbyters so must have a divine appoyntment if he hath a divine appoyntment he must be a standing officer as well as presbyters if so men must not as they please lay him by but the Government by prelats must be juris divini if upon the other hand he be really a distinct officer hath no divine warrant or appoyntment the Government of the Church by prelats must be utterly unlawfull But what sayeth he to this objection Part. 2. c. 4. § 11. These officers are only said to be new that were never appoynted by Christ the Church may appoynt none such but if such be meaned as have a Charge of more then one particular congregation by the consent of pastours themselves such an officer is not neâ—… for beside the generall practice of the Church from the first primitive times which have all consented in the use of such officers we finde the foundation of this power laid by Christ himself in the power which the Apostles were invested in which was extended over many both pastours Churches this power must be proved extraordinary before it can be said to cease that must be done by some arguments proper to their persones for if they be of a morall nature they will prove the office to be so too I say not but that the necessity of the office as in their persons for the first preaching propagating the Gospell did cease with them but that after their death it became unlawfull to take Charge of diâ—…ecesian Churches I deny for to make a thing unlawfull which was before lawfull there must be some expresse prohibition thus he To which it is answered 1. It appeareth then that a Bishop is a distinct officer from a Presbyter for the Apostles were distinct from Presbyters their office by Mr Stilling fleet is the same upon the matter with that of the Apostles viz a power over both Churches pastours for he will not grant that that power in the Apostles was extraordinar for he sayes that the foundation of this power was laid by Christ himself in that power which the Apostles were invested in therefore that power of the Apostles the power of Prelats must be one upon the matter and so Prelats must be distinct from Presbyters as the Apostles were 2. It is strange how he can so confidently say That it was the practice of the Church of God from the first primitive times to consent to the use of such officers sâ—…ing himself is at so much paines to prove that antiquity is most defective in the times immediatly after the Apostles that none dar with confidence beleeve the conjectures of Eusebius at 300 yeers distance from the Apostolicall times when he hath no other testimony to avouch but the hypotyposes of an uncertaine Clement the commentaries of Hegesippus c. Pag. 296. 297. 3. To let this passe Mr Stilling sleet would do well to shew whether the office of Apostles which is a distinct thing from their extraordinary immediat mission which he is pleased to make the maine distinguishing note of an Apostle also from the power of working miracles to confirme the truth of what they preached did cease by God's warrand and approbation or not if not how could any be so bold as to lay this office aside by which persons should be invested with power over many both Churches and pastours how can any say that it is not still necessary Mr Stillingfleet seemeth here to plead for the divine right of prelacy And indeed if the office power of Apostles be the same with prelacie if that power or office be not laid a side with God's warrand approbation it must still be an office allowed of God if so Mr Stillingfleet's notion will fall to the ground His saying that the necessitie of the office as in their persons for the first preaching propagating the Gospell is ceased is nothing to the purpose for he must speak of the office as it is the same with the office of Prelats It is certaine the necessity of the office as in their persons must cease because they are gone
the work of first preaching propagating the Gospell could be done by none after them when they had done it themselves but that was not their ordinary office if Mr Stillingfleet speak truth here If this office did cease by God's warrand then how can any raise it up againe without his expresse warrand for either it was the Lord's will when he caused it to cease that it should cease till he was pleased to make use of it againe or till men pleased to raise it up at their owne pleasure This last cannot be proved therefore seing God thought fit to lay is aside gave no signification of his minde when the Churâ—… should be at liberty to make use of it againe It must now be aâ—… new office unwarranted of God so unlawfull 4. That rule thâ—… to make a thing unlawfull which was before lawfull there must be some expresse prohibition for bidding any furder use of such power will not alwayes hold in this case because some othâ—… thing may be equivalent unto an exprese prohibition 〈◊〉 when God removeth the speciall propper work of such an office the speciall proper qualifications with which such officers were endued when those cease the office ceaseth God thereby declareth that the office work was extraordinary therefore should not continue As for Example in the primitive Church there were some Prophets these were distinct from Apostles Evangelists Pastors c. so were there workers of Miracles such as had the the gift of healing of speaking with tongues And when God withdrew those gifts fiting those offâ—…cers for the work unto which they were then called did he not therby declare that it was his will that that office should cease was there a necessity for any other expresse probition And because of the want of this expresse prohibition will it be lawfull now for any to set up such officers offices in the house of God when God giveth not the qualifications so giveth not the call thereunto So is it in this case of the Apostles when their qualifications their speciall work ceased their office ceased there will be no call for such officers till there be fit work God give fit qualifications without a call warrand it must be unlawfull to set up such an office againe This will be clearer if it be considered what was the speciall work of an Apostle It was this A planting of Churches setling of the Gospell government in them by insâ—…nteing the standing officers thereof that by an eminent power immediatly granted by Christ to them solely This was their speciall work this ceased with them so did their office with it As also the qualifications And therefore it would be unlawfull now for a Church at here own hand to set up such an officer againe though there be no expresse probition By this it is clear 5. That the power office of Apostles laid no foundation for prelaticall power the work belonging to them as such being altogether extraordinare It is true their power did extend over many Churches pastours but yet 1. They were not fixed to such such particular dioecies as propper to themselves but sometimes moe of them were to gether in one place following their work Nor. 2. Did they account themselves the sole pastors of such or such a Church after other ministers had been ordained there 3. â—…or did they ordaine alone in Churches constituted nor 4 Did they exerce jurisdiction alone but alwayes they joyned others with them in Churches setled 5. They assumed to themselves no negative voice either in ordination or jurisdiction so in them there could be no foundation for prelacy laid even as to their common work or work of a lasting nature which did not properly peculiarly appertaine to them as Apostles 6. Neither finally were they consecrated ordained after the manner that prelats are now consecrated being first made Deacons next Presbyters then Bishops so that there is a vaste disparity But distrusting this answer he giveth a second § 12. to this purpose The extending of any Ministeriall power is not the appoynting of a new office because every Minister hath a relation Actu primo to the whole Church of God the resiraint enlargment of which power is subject to positive determinations of prudence conveniency in Actu secundo The exercise and execution of the power of order belongeth to every one in his personall capacity but as to the power of jurisdiction though it belong habitually and Actu primo to each presbyter yet being about matters of publicke and common concernment the limit ation and exercise of it belongeth to the Church in common such is the power of visiting Churches of ordination and censures and when this is devolved to some particular persons by the rest of the pastors or by the Magisrat quoad executionem it belongeth to them Ans. 1. This contradicteth the former answer for the former answer did suppone that these were distinct officers from presbyters because their office was such as the ordinary office of the Apostles and the Apostles were distinct from other Church officers even by their office not in respect only of their extraordinare mission or power of working miracles But this answer affirmeth them to be one the same with presbyters But. 2. By this answer he might plead for the Pope for every Minister in actis primo hath a relation to the whole Church so might be a Pope if the supreme Magistrat or the rest of the Ministers would devolve upon him the execution of the power of jurisdiction so the Pope is no new officer but a mere presbyter only his power of jurisdiction is enlairged So may he plead for Cardmals Patriarchs Primats Archbishops as well as for Bishops But it will be objected that the Pope pretendeth to some other thing as the warrand of his power even to a jus divinum Ans. so do prelats but with Mr Stillingfleet all is one whether that be pretended unto or not for it is no matter what they say of themselves but what any may feigne of them to the end they may both deceive others be deceived themselves This is as if one would defend a man who had taken upon himself to be a King of such or such a common wealth contrare to the fundamentall lawes of the land and would alledge that he were no distinct officer from any other member of Parliam because for sooth the power of Government as to its execution is subject to positive determinations Parliaments may do commissionat some of their number to some eminent piece of work as to be a Generall or the like he who calleth himself King is nothing else notwithstanding that he rule the commonw with as absolute power unlimited as ever King did Sure any man of understanding would smile at such a defence and just
such an one is Mr Stillingfleet's prelats rule domineer with as absolute unlimited power as ever any did when it is alledged that they account themselves distinct officers from superiour to other presbyters that there is no warrand for any such officers Mr Stillingfleet their new advocat cometh in sayeth They are no distinct officers let themselves say what they will you may take them up as no distinct officers so suffer them to domineer still if you look upon them as no distinct officers there is no hazard all is saife be they Pope be they Prelat let them pretend to never so high speciall commissions as speciall distinct officers yet they may be submitted unto obeyed this mentall conception will make all right 3. When any are disputing against an intruder in the house of God whether is it saifest to take him up in his own colours to look upon him as he holdeth forth himself or to paint him as any think best If any disputant would take liberty to paint him as he pleaseth he should not dispute for truth but deal deceitfully Let Mr Stillingfleet answere this question Whether is it possible that a man may give out himself for a new officer or not or whether is there any hazard that such an one may be acknowledged countenanced as an officer as such an officer as he giveth himself forth to be in the house of God or not If Mr Stillingfleet be consonant to his principles he must answere that it is not possible for really there can be no new officers warranded of God every one is at liberty to take them up under a right notion there is an end then let all the popish rable ten times moe come in they may be submitted unto for really there can be no other officers in God's house but pastours deacons with Mr Stillingfleet every one may look on all the rest as having their power either restricted or enlairged according to the determination of prudence 4. It may be asked whether the Apostles were distinct officers from presbyt yea or not If they were distinct what was it which made them distinct It could not be their different way of mission for Matthias had not such a mission as Iames Iohn Peter the rest had yet all of them were Apostles Matthias no lesse then the rest It could not be their extraordinary qualifications for Prophets workers of miracles speakers with tongues had extraordinary qualifications yet they were not the same with Apostles further distinct qualifications make not distinct officers Or was it a larger extended power Then it is certane that prelats upon the same account must be distinct officers from other presbyters for they have a larger extended power then other presbyters have 5. Doth Mr Stillingfl think that there is no difference betuixt a man who acteth as commissionated from a judicature having his power particular commission from them a man who doth all of himself by his own power having a commission from none that there is no difference betuixt one who receiveth commands from others as accountable to them one who taketh upon him to command them as he thinkest best betuixt the generall of an army sent forth by the Estates of a land ruled without a King having power commission from them a King making use of the Estates or of the Parliament of the Kingdome as his counsellours whose advice he will follow or not follow as seemeth him good commanding all of them aâ—… pleaseth him best If he think that there is no difference betuixt these then indeed he cannot be much blamed for thinking that the prelat whom he busketh is one the same with the prelat of whom the controversie is But in sober sadnesse let it be asked of Mr Stillingfleet If he did satisfie himself with this his fiction notion There is no controversy now about what may be or of a man in the moon but of the prelats who are now in being concerning these it would be asked whether he thinketh that they arâ—… chosen by the Church over which they are that they are impowered by that Church or by the officers of that Church for that effect that they are accountable unto them so that their power may be restrained at the Churches pleasure Or not rather that they choose ordaine the presbyters commissionat them calling them to an account punishing as they think sit usurping useing this power as their owne not borrowing it from the presbyters in whole or in part as being themselves solely invested with all Church power from Christ letting out the same to presbyters as they think meet Now it is of these that the controversy is it is such as are understood when it is said that they are new Church officers there is no controversy concerning Mr Stillingfleet's supposed Commissioners for whether such as he speaketh of be new distinct officers or not it is no matter so long as these of whom the disput is are such without all question for any thing which Mr Stillingfleet hath said to the contrary for the persons he speaketh of are not the same with the persons concerning whom the controversy is Commissioners having all their power derived from others are one thing such as have all the power from with in themselves are another thing But. 6. To put the matter more out of doubt let it be considered that a distinct proper work with a distinct ordination for that effect is enough to make a distinct officer What distinguisheth Presbyters Deaâ—…ns Let ruleing elders be laid a side seing Mr Stillingfleet will not owne them as Church officers but their distinct peculiar work ordination so since prelats assume to themselves as their peculiar work the power of jurisdiction ordination to speak nothing of the power of order they do account themselves so must all take them to be distinct officers All the prelats that ever were yet in the world did look upon themselves as distinct from presbyters all who ever wrote of prelats took them up as such whether Iure Divino or Humano all is one as to this bussinesse of their being distinct till Mr Stlling fleet did vent his new notions 7. That a judicature which acteth joyntly in matters of jurisdiction may in some particulars for facilitating their execution impower one or moe of their number for that effect is easily granted but that they may so Impower them as to denude themselves wholly of the power so enlarge the power of others as to null their owne must be otherwayes proved then by Mr Stilling fleet 's bare assertion Christ's commission taketh in both the power of order jurisdiction alloweth his servants no more to denude themselves of the one then of the other They themselves must answere for
persecution is another question Elders are ordained appoynted to Churches Act. 14 23. Tit. 1 5. But enough of this in this place The first particular then must be a little more narrowly examined he sayeth That in some places at first there were noneplaced but only a Bishop Deacons for this he citeth Clement's Epistle saying The Apostles preaching through countreyes and cities ordained the first fruits of such as beleeved to be Bishops and Deacons But by Bishops here he cannot understand such Bishops as are now spoken of that is such as had power over Presbyters and Churches for himself doth abundantly cleare the contrary And what can be allaidged to prove that he meaneth only one Bishop in one place is not yet apparent only he referreth his reader to other testimonies which must also be looked upon examined But it is certaine the place it self speaketh as much for one Deacon in a place as for one Presbyter or Bishop for both are one as himself will acknowledge as clearly for moe Bishops as for moe Deacons in villages or cities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here are as well Bishops in cities villages as Deacons But then he citeth Epiphanius contra Aeâ—…m Haeres 75. saying That at the first there were no Bishops appoynted then the Apostle writteth to Bishops Deacons for the Apostles could not setle all things at first for there was a necessity of Presbyters Deacons for by these two Officers all Ecclesiastick offices might be performed for where there was none found worthy to be a Bishop the place remained without one but where necessity required one there were some found fit some were ordained Bishops but for want of convenient number there could be no Presbyters found out in such places they were contented with the Bishop Deacons But what can Epiphanius or any other writter in his time do as to the clearing of what was the practice of the Apostles concerning which is the present discourse must their testimony be beleeved without a word of Scripture to warrand the same Yea must they be beleeved when they speak contrary to the word Be it so that there was a time in which there were Presbyters Deacons againe a time in which there were Bishops deacons what will this say so long as nothing is said to prove that these Bishops Presbyters were distinct officers not one the same as is supposed of the Bishops presbyters now under debate all this will never prove a distinct species of Government but alwayes one the same whether the presbyters be called presbyters or Bishops 3. Be it so that in some places there were only one Bishop or Presbyter deacons appoynted of which there can no warrand be seen in scripture for scripture sayeth that there were presbyters ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 14 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. 1 5. for it was to cities whither the Apostles did most resort to plante Churches not to countrey villages where gentilisme did long thereafter continue whence these of that religion were called Pagani what will this speak for Episcopall Government so long as this one Bishop could not be a Bishop properly so called not having presbyters under him Or doth he think that it is inconsistent with presbyterian Government that one preaching presbyter be set over a parish or a village that he others joyn with the presbyters one or moe of a Neighbour city in things of common concernment or must he rule in that village independently Mr Stillingfleet will not acknowledge this Nor can he say that he can exerce Episcopall power Therefore though this were granted to him the Government may still be presbyteriall 4 How can Epiphanius say that the Apostles could not setle all things at the first if they could not do it who could do it else had they not the Spirit in great measure to prompt them to do what was fit expedient either they could not get men fit to be Bishops or a sufficient number to be presbyters But this will suppone that at that time presbyters Bishops were destinct which Stilling fleet will not acknowledge Epiphanius cannot give one instance of a Bishop distinct from superiour unto preaching Presbyters setled in a Church alone with some few deacons The reader may see this passage more fully examined by Wallo Messalinus pag. 102. pag. 277. c. The next author which he citeth is Clemens Alexandrinus out of Eusebius saying That Iohn after his retâ—…n from Paâ—…mos went abroad into severall places in some constituting Bishops in some setting in order whole Churches in other choosing â—…ur one among the rest whom he set over the Church But of this the 〈◊〉 is utterly silent therefore it cannot be received as an undoâ—… ed thing what would Mr Stillingfleet gather from 〈◊〉 He seteth it down in the words of Walo Messalinus Pag. â—…25 In majoribus urbibus plures i. e. it is probable that there were moâ—… presbyters ordained in greater townes and fewer in lesser towâ—… bâ—… villages or litle parishes one only especially when there was no 〈◊〉 number of beleevers And now let any â—…dge it there câ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thing gathered thence for Episcopall Government 〈◊〉 thing for this end he must prove out of this passage 〈◊〉 doth nothing He must prove out of it that the 〈◊〉 some places did setle presbyterian Government 〈◊〉 places Episcopall otherwise he is but beating the winde for no asserters of Presbyterian Government did ever yet finde them selves necessitated to maintaine that the Apostles did set up an equall number of Presbyters in every Church or yet a plurality of preaching presbyters in each village or countrey place or such as the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that though all this were granted his poynt would not yet be proved At leâ—… he citeth Ambrose or rather â—…ilarius in Eph. 4. saying primum enim c. i. e. at first all did teach all did baptize at any time or on any day but when the Church took in all places about there were conventicles instituted there were Governours other offices appoynted that so none might assume to himself that office which did not appertaine to him not being as yet ordained therefore the writtings of the Apostles do not in every poynt agree with the ordination which now is in use in the Church c. But how this can speak home to the poynt iâ—… not discernable For the author is to give the ground why the writings of the Apostles were not suiteable to the times in which he lived viz because matters were other wayes setled in his time then in the dayes of the Apostles and will any hence inferre that the Apostles setled Churches with distinct formes oâ—… models because after ages did so who will beleeve this consequence 2. There is no mention made
In this Chap. the Apostle speaketh to them all alongs in the plurall number Mr Stillingfleet who is no friend to the independent way will easily acknowledge that what is there said was spoken to the Church Governours So then Mr Stillingfleet must say that these Governours were Presbyters of that one Church ruleing it together communi corsilio And that they can not so well be understood of Bish. for one Church should have but one Bishop So then here is a place which cannot be understood alike of both but must of necessity be understood of a Presbytery of a Presbytery having full Episcopall power in the matter of jurisdiction what Mr Stilling fleet will reply to this can hardly be conjectured A second passage is Phil. 1 v. 1. where mention is made of Bishops Deacons now these Bishops could not be Bishops properly so called in opposition to as distinct from preaching Presbyters Because of such Bishops there can be but one in one Church at once therefore they behoved to be Presbyters endued with Episcopall power having the thing as well as the name Presbyters of that one Church So that this passage cannot be equally understood of both with any shew of reason A third passage is 1. Thes. 5 12 13 14. Where there are some mentioned who were labouring among the people were over them in the Lord these were to warne the unruly c. So that in this one Church there were severall Presbyters Presbyters endued with power of warning the unruly Mr Stillingfleet cannot imagine any colurable pretence whereby without much apparent incongruity this passage may be understood of either of the different formes And seing this ground faileth here we may for all which he hath said to the contrary arrive to such an absolute certainty of that course which the Apostles took in setling Churches So much for this observation 6. It may be observed That Presbyterians have more then the practice of the Apostles even their positive institutions in these few particulars 1. In ordaining instituting such such Officers as Pastours Doctors Elders Deacons as may be seen Rom. 12 v. 6 7 8 1 Cor. 12 28. Ephes. 4 v. 11 12. In all which places there is no mention made of a Bishop distinct from a preaching Presbyter If Mr Stillingfleet say according to his principles that there was no necessity of making mention of him particularly because he is no distinct officer from a Presbyter but only impowered by the rest as their Commissioner Beside what hath been replyd to this formerly this may be added here That if this be truth which Mr Stillingfleet affirmeth he hath wasted much paper and paines in vaine when he went about to prove that no certanety of the practice of the Apostles could be come at whether they did set up episcopall or Presbyterian Governement for these should not be two distinct Governments And he had a shorter cut for Answering all the places of scripture then the way was which he took Yea he might have spared his whole book given out this one Thesis for all viz Though Presbyterian Governement be Iuris Divini yet the Presbyters may lawfully intruste one of their number with some speciall piece of the exercise of jurisdiction ordination And then he might have had more to say upon the ground of prudence or the like for himself then now he hath But it is not good to be wise above what is written it is best wisdome prudence to follow the rule of the word But more over 2. They have the Apostles institutions concerning the qualifications of these officers as is to be seen in Paul's epistles to Timothy Titus 3. These officers are commanded to such such pieces of work Some to rule some to teach also some to take care of the poor 4. These officers are commanded to attend that work of theirs with all diligence in their own proper persons without rolling it over on others Rom. 12 6 7 8. The Minister is to waite on his Ministery he that teacheth on teaching he that giveth is to do it with simplicity he that ruleth is to rule with diligence 5. In matters of discipline juridiction they are commanded to Act joyntly for the officers of the Church of Corinth were appoynted to conveen together that they might deliver the incestuous person unto Satan 1 Cor. 5 4 5. So the brethen the officers of the Church of Thessalonica were exhorted to warne the unruly Now lay all these together Such such officers set to such such work appoynted to attend the same ordained to Act joyntly in matters of government there is a species of Government a species warranted by Divine institution viz by Apostolick commands for these positive commands are of a lasting nature till God repeale them againe Himself giveth some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Marks whereby to know when positive lawes binde immutably the first whereof mentioned Part. 1. c 1. § 6. Part. 2. c. 2. § 2. Is usefull here viz. when the same reason of the command continueth still Now let Mr Stilling fleet show if he can what reason could plead for Ministers acting collegiatly in matters of discipline then which will not be of force now was there lesse of the spirit then nor is now Or was there fewer able fit men for to be Bishops then nor is now Or was there lesse care to have things done orderly exactly or shall we say that all these commands were for that age of the Church only If so there is an easie way found to cast all the commands injunctions of the Apostles though they were induced with the spirit Shall it be thought that the command given to the Church officers of Corinth to conveen to excommunicat did binde them only at that time if so there should be a wide door opened to much evil a way prepared for laying aside all the injunctions instructions of the Apostles as now uselesse as an almanack out of date Enough of this consideration Obs. 7. It would seem to be a great reflexion upon Iesus Christ who was faithfull to him that appoynted him that as a sonne so beyond Moses who was faithfull as a servant Heb. 3. 2 5 6. To say that he hath not appoynted a standing forme of Governement in his house Mr Stilling fleet replyeth Part 2. c. 4. § 1. 1. That then it must be made appear that the setling of this forme was a part of his mediatory work Ans. This may easily be made to appear for it did belong to his Kingly office so was a part of his mediatory work as well as his instituting of officers in his house as Mediator the Government is laid on his shoulders Isa. 9. 6. And all power in heaven earth was given to him Mat. 28 18. He addeth I grant he is King of the Church doth
is one that are so intrusted by law to call for such promises engadgments do search into mens apprehensions concerning the grounds of their power or not yet the very promiseing of obedience in things lawfull for in things unlawfull obedience must not be promised to any lawfull power under heaven is an acknowledgment of the lawfulnesse of their power of subjection as due unto them an owneing of them as lawfull officers lawfully installed authorized because this could not be done therefore neither could the other be done He replyeth 1. It is not obedience under a reduplication and as formally obedience they call for If it be obedience materiall they are satisfied Ans. And what more doth the most lawfull power under heaven ask do they search into the principles of mens doing such such acts do they examine the reduplications under which they act But. 2. Whether they call for it under that reduplication or not It is reall obedience they call for and. 3. The promiseing of obedience under whatsoever reduplication hath in its bosome an acknowledging of the lawfulnesse of the authority calling for such obedience He replyeth 2. Suppose it were so that obedience as formally obedience were required yet it were hard to say it could not be promised or that it could not be acknowledged that they have any laâ—…full authority for looking upon them as the Kings Maj. commissioners in causes ecclesiasticke for regulating the externall order of the Church in their severall bounds and impowered by the law of the land so to do the strickest presbyterians will not finde ground to disowne their office in that consideration Ans. Then 1. Prelats are nothing else but the Magistrats commissioners have no power or authority jure divino by any warrant of Gods law more then any other of the Magistrat's commissioners 2. whence had the prelats in the first three hundered yeers if so be there was any such as this author is bold enough to affirme but faileth in his undertaking to prove it their commission had they it from Nero the rest of the persecuting heathenish Emperours and if they had no commission from them whence had they their power or by what commission did they act or how could they be Bishops without such a commission How will this advocat extricate himself out of these difficulties evite a contradiction But. 3. If they be the Magistrat's commissioners in causes ecclesiasticke their power must reach no further then the Magistrats power doth in Church causes viz the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or his externall order If he streach it no surder How then cometh it to passe that they meddle with more then what concerneth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or will hâ—… say that all the causes which prelats as prelats meddle with are but such ecclesiasticke causes As are for the regulating the externall order of the Church Then he must say that their chief power in ordination their chief if not only power in jurisdiction floweth from the Magistrat by vertue of his commission they act in that sphaere capacity and if he say so he speaketh plainely but without any ground in the word for then Magistrats might ordaine alone at least have a chief hand in ordaineing with others for what they may commissionate others to do in their name they may do themselves But how or what way shall we see this proved Where will he shew any example of any Magistrat as such ordaineing or deposeing Ministers censureing or excommunicating Offenders since the World began What a wilde notion must this be then And if this be the Basis which is so rotten let any judge what the superstructure must be It were tedious here to lanch forth into this debate concerning the Magistrats power in Church matters But sure it was never the doctrine of the Church of Scotland noâ—… of any reformed Church that what power the Prelats challenge to themselves as such did primarily belong unto reside in the hand of the civill Magistrat might be derived by commission from him unto them And this must be granted as a truth if it be once said that prelats Act in Church matters by vertue of a commission from the supreme Magistrat for a commission is distinct from a command the supreme Magistrat may command ministers to preach baptize do what himself cannot do for the doing whereof ministers borrow no power from him but he cannot propperly give them any commission for that effect The giving of a commission importeth the conveyance of a power for effectuating that which is to be done by the commissioner and that the person granting the commission might himself do that which he commissionateth others to do See this consequence fully cleared by famous Voctius Polit Eccles. pag. 146. arg 12. But now if there were no more to hinder any from acknowledging such a power in the prelats this is sufficient that it is granted they have all that power over presbyters by being his Maj. commissioners that they have all that power derived from him consequently that they have no such power at all because he from whom they derive that power by a commission hath no such power himself The confession of faith of the Church of Scotland acknowledgeth no such power in the civill Magistrat The scriptureâ—… by which all are to regulat their actions in the Church of God giveth warrand for no such power No reformed divine except Arminians Erastians doth acknowledge any such power nor any confession of faith of any of the reformed Churches Behold then Reader see what monsters the Prelats are swollen up to that bignesse with mere winde phancies observe by what art they ascend They make the supreme Magistrat beleeve that all the power belongeth unto him to the end he may devolve it back againe over on them by a commission so authorize them according to that Tu facis hunc dominum te facit ille deum Thus you see they derive their power a non-habente potestatem from such as have it not to give therefore their commission is simpliciter null cannot be acknowledged by any faithfull minister or Christian Nor can their power be submitted unto And hence also it is clear what reason these honest Ministers had to refuise this acknowlegment not to take the canonicall oath which was so contradictory unto the oath of the Covenant But he replyeth That there is no contradiction betwixt the covenant and that canonicall oath or promise of obedience to the prelate because Timorcus who is tender in the matter of oaths maintaineth that the ministers who of old took the canonical oath did not swear the contradictory there to when they took the covenant whâ—…nce it will follow necessaryly that they who have taken the Covenant do not contradict that oath if they should take the oath of canonical obedience Ans. Though this canonicall oath should not contradict the second
excellent Voâ—…t ubi suprâ—… Pag. 189. Quaest. 11. 9. That no Church canon or ordinance hath any effect force or validity but what shall be approved confirmed by him or his commissioner for so much doth the fore cited Act import now who but he who hath drunken in the opinions of Erastus Arminians will assent unto this It is true the canons ordinances of a Church judicatory cannot have the strength of a municipall law without the Magistrat's civill sanction But yet they may have the strength of Church Canons whether he approve of them or not as the Acts of the Councell at Ierusal Act 15. of all other Synods Assemblies which the Church had dureing the first three hundered yeers had Otherwise the Church should be in a hard case when the civill Magistrat did refuse his concurrence as hath been oft hinted in a better case under heathens then under Christian Magistrats Therefore this could not be assented unto 10. That all Church Canons are his proper Acts flow natively from him his power for the meeting is but for Counsell advice to him all which they say is without force unlesse he approve it as the Act sayeth so all their Acts Canons are his only not theirs But this could not be granted because 1. what ever he doth as supreme Governour or Magistrat is a civill Act no Church Act so no Church Canon 2. No Church Canon can be made by any but by Church Officers who are impowered by Iesus Christ for that effect but the Magistrat as such is no Church Officer 3. This power is without all warrand of Scripture therefore can not be acknowledged Thus you see what incroachments upon the Privileges of the Church the taking of this oath thus sensed by them carryeth along with it albeit there be some Erastians others who take these for no incroachments but trutâ—…es Yet reformed divines such as famous worthy Voetius Apollonius others have sufficiently manifested them to be grosle errours because the end designed in this undertaking is satisfaction to orthodox reformed sound divines with whose principles the present suffering Church of Scotland doth accord it is accounted sufficient only to mention those things which the taking of this oath as explained by their Acts deeds who tender it would clearly import an assenting unto But to proceed 15. By this oath They should grant that the Church is very imperfect so long as she wanteth a Christian Magistrat for she wanteth a chief Officer And hence it will follow that the Church in the dayes of the Apostles some hundereds of Years thereafter was imperfect as to its Constitution wanting this supreme Governour Otherwise they must say that Nero Caligula the rest of the Roman persecuting Emperours did sufficiently fill up this place And that the Apostles did upon the matter would not have refused plainely to have affirmed that these persecuting heathens were supreme Governours over all persones in all causes Civill Ecclesiastick But none of those can be affirmed with any probality or shew of reason 16. Yea by taking this oath They should grant that the Apostles primitive Church walked not regularly in the matter of governing the Church Because they acted with no such subordination unto the supreme Magistrat who then was they derived no power from him as their supreme Governour in causes Ecclesiastick To say that necessity did put them to this is but a poor defence for then out of necessity the primitive Church did rob the Magistrat of his power or else this power agreeth not to all Magistrats but only to Christian Magistrats it so it cannot be a power or Privilege annexed to the Crown And further it doth not agree to them as Christians nor yet as Magistrats otherwise it should agree to all Christians to all Magistrats which is false therefore i cannot agree to them as Christian Magistrats for as learned renowned Doct. Vâ—…us sayeth Polâ—…t Eccles. Pag. 137. Duo subjecta principia formalia quae non sunt unum auâ—… unâ—…a per se non possunt fundare effectum formalem per se unum sc. ex gr Homo unus si sit Consul Patâ—…r non poteâ—… dici habere potestatem consularem in cives qua Consul-paâ—…er nec potestatem patriam in sâ—…ium quâ Pater-consul 17. By taking of this oath They should yeeld unto the opening of a door unto the utter destruction overthrow of all Church judicatories for by their judgment who tender that oath the King is the fountaine of all Church power who ever executeth any Church power executeth it as his Commissioner he may imploy in this bussinesse whom he pleaseth by the Act for the heigh commission he imployeth civill persones who are no Church Officers in deposeing Ministers in excommunicating so he may imploy such persons alwayes only such for he is at liberty to imploy whom he will so at length he may put aside all Church Officers so lay aside all Church judicatures handle all Church bussinesse in civill courts But what Christian could yeeld to this See Voetius ubi supra Pag. 146 Arg. 11. 18. By this oath they should grant unto the Civill Magistrat power to erect new courts which have no warrand in the word such courts as the Church had not all the dayes of the Apostles nor many centuries of years thereafter for by vertue of his supremacy he erecteth this new court called a Heigh or Grand Commission wherein civill persons meddle with Church matters execute Church censures Church-men meddle with civill matters civill censures But to yeeld to this should be to destroy all Church power to condemne the Apostles for not leaving behinde them the example of such a court the primitive Church for not setting up such a court By Presbyterian principles no judicature must be acknowledged for a court of Christ but that which hath Christs warrand 19. By taking this oath They should yeeld unto the lawfulnesse of appealing from a Church judicature unto the civil Magistrat for it is lawfull to appeal from an inferiour judicature unto a superiour by the tenderers of the oath the supreme Magistrat is a superiour judicature It is lawfull to appeall from the Commissioners unto such as have given them that commission And Ministers in these judicatories are but his Commissioners But sound divines writting against Erastus the Arminiant will justify their refuseing to yeeld to this if they should have yeelded to this they should have condemned the Generall Assemblies that declared such as appealed from a Church judicature unto the King his Councell censurable with the sentence of excommunication And approved of such perverse troublers of the Church as took this corrupt course to keep themselves from censure Moreover there is no example of any such lawfull appellation for Paul's
their own belly not the glory of Christ. And how well this agreeth unto those men now spoken of any who know them may judge And therefore seing it is their designe intended work to deceive the hearts of the simple by their bold consident assertions to cause them beleeve things contrary to the Doctrine which they have already learned received it must be a necessary duty for poor simple people to avoid such So the Apostle writting to Titus cap. 1 14. forbiddeth to give head to jewish fables commandements of men that turne from the truth who are these who teach such things See v. 10 11. unruly vaine talkers deceivers teaching things which they ought not for filthy lucres sake It cannot then be lawfull to obey this act So writing to the Philippians cha 3 2. He sayeth beware of dogs beware of evil workers beware of the concision by whom the false teachers of these times are to be understood Now he commandeth to beware of those that is shun them forbear to hear them follow them not And againe v. 17 18 19. he sayeth Brethren be followers together of me Marke them which walk so as ye have us for ensample for many walk of whom I have told you oftin now tell you even weeping that they are enemies to the crosse of Christ whose end is destruction whose God is their belly who minde earthly things So he would have them following such as taught as he did walked as he walked not such as were enemies to the crosse of Christ And certanely when Paul would have the Ephesians cap. 4 14. No more carryed about with every winde of Doctrine by slight of men cunning craftinesse whereby they lie in waite to deceive he would not have them following or attending the Ministerie of such concerning whom the question is So when he willeth the collossians cap. 2 v. 8. to beware least any man spoile them through Philosophy and vaine deceit after the tradition of men after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ he would not have people give obedience unto this Act to attend the Ministery of such who teach false Doctrine By slight cunning craftinese whereby they lie in waite to deceive seek to spoile people of the truth by their Philosophie such as it is vaine deceit after the traditions of men not after Christ seek to beguile with enticeing words So in his first Epistle to Timothie cap. 4. v. 1 2. He sayeth that in the later times some shall depaire from the faith giving head to seduceing spirits speaking lies in Hypocrisie having their consciences feared with a hote yron It must then be hazardous most dangerous to give head to such seduceing spirits as speak lies have their consciences seared with an hote yron as being the cause of departing stom the faith so that such as will guaird against departing from the faith would take heed whom they heare So in his second Epistle to Timothie cap. 3 v. 5. he speaketh of some whom he would have all honest people turne away from these he describeth first from their corrupt conversation v. 2 3 4 5. thus men shall be lovers of their own selves covetous boasters proud blasphemers disobedient to parents unthankfull unholy without naturall affection false accusers incontinent fierce despisers of these that are good treatours heigh minded heady lovers of pleasures more then lovers of God much time needs not be spent in shewing how fitly all these agree unto the persons now spoken of such as know them can best judge But then secondly he describeth them from their Doctrine v 6 8 13. They creep into houses and lead captive silly women us Iaâ—…es and Iâ—…mbres withstood Moses so do these also resist the truth men of corrupt mindes reprobat concerning the faith evil men and seducers all which particulars without contradiction agree to these now spoken of And therefore the Apostle's command standeth in force from such turne away By all these passages It is clear that the Ministerie of false corrupt teachers should not be attended 7. If it were lawfull to hear these in obedience to this Act it would be also lawfull upon an Act to attend the Ministerie of Anabaptists Antinomians Socinians Arminians or Iesuits And if it would not be lawfull to do this no more can it be lawfull to attend the Ministerie of these in question who seek to pervert the right wayes of the Lord labour to subvert the simple people to turne them away from the truth 8. Such as their Doctrine is such are the prayers not only stuffed with errour but larded with blasphemy as might easilie be shown were it fit here to mention what their expressions are As their Doctrine tendeth to reproach the work of reformation the power of godlinesse so do their publick prayers as such as hear them can showe They pray for a blessing on the prelats under the name of Reverend right Reverend fathers on their wayes courses which God will curse blaste not to mention their unsound parasitick expressions concerning the King's supremacy calling him head of the Church c. Now seing tender consciences can not joyn with them in those prayers how can they attend their Ministerie Are not all present bound to joyn in prayer with them who should be the mouth of all the congregation unto God pray with them when out of the corruption of their heart they ordinarily utter expressions savouring of blasphemy errour can godly tender consciences goe alongs with them And seing they cannot how can they be bound to attend their Ministerie There are snares in Prayer no lesse then in preaching Yea particular persons concurre more with the minister in prayer then in preaching there fore they may more saiflie hear errour preached then joyne in an erroneous prayer for in the one they are purely passive But in the other they are some way active therefore unquestionably there is sin in constant attending the Ministerie of such with whom if they concurre in prayer they must sinne 9. Yeelding obedience unto this Act were upon the matter a consenting unto the great incroachment made upon the privileges of the Church The Church hath this power privilege from the Lord to make choise of her own officers as the frequent examples thereof in the dayes of the Apostles do cleare this would be the greater sin now after the Lord hath graciously delivered that Church from that yoke put her in possession of her power privileges after that the power of patrons which was a piece of cruell bondage oppression unto the Church is removed to consent againe unto wreething of that yoke about her neck were no small transgression And it is clear that the attending of the Ministerie of such must be an accepting of them as Ministers lawfully called notwithstanding that they want the election of
function any more within the Kingdome If the objection goe upon this supposition it is sufficiently answered above But next suppone there were such a command expresly prohibiting them they were not bound to give obedience Because to inhibite discharge the Actuall exercise of the function of the ministry is a spirituall censure it is reall suspension which is a sentence that can lawfully be passed only by a Church judicature the civill Magistrat can no more suspende from the exercise then he can depose from the office for the one is a degree unto the other See Apollde jure Maj. circa sacra pars 1 pag. 334 335 336. And Rutherfurd's due right of presbyteries pag. 430 431. And therefore though the civill Magistrat should passe such a sentence conscientious Ministers ought not to obey because the civill Magistrat in passing such a sentence is not keeping within his sphaere but transgressing the limites of his calling when the civill Magistrat is usurping the power that doth not belong unto him obedience is not to be yeelded neither is he to be countenanced or encouraged in that Therefore though there were no more this is sufficient to call all Ministers to give testimony against such an usurpation by refuseing to obey any such Act or by preaching when God giveth a call in his providence in any place they comeâ—… unto though there were never such an expresse Act to the contrary They mâ—…st not by their silence And obedience unto such commands gratify the civill Magistrat make him another pope See Apollon juâ—… Maj. circâ—… sacra par 1 pag. 338. SECTION XVII It is lawfull for Ministers to preach after the pretended prelate hath either suspended or deposed them BEing now speaking of the trouble that Ministers are put to for preaching of the Gospell it will not be amisse to speak hâ—…e of another case And it is concerning such as either are or shall be suspended or deposed by the prelats or their Synods And it may be some may think that though they be not bound to be silent upon the sentence of banishment passed against them by the civil Magistrat Yet being formally silenced or deposed by the Bishop or his Synod they cannot lawfully contraveen that Act sentence it being the act sentence of a Church judicature or of such as have formally Church power authority But the serious pondering of these six things will cleare that notwithstanding thereof they are bound to look upon themselves as Ministers so not only may but ought to exerce their Ministery as God shall put opportunity in their hands 1. Submission unto such a sentence would be an acknowledging of the prelate of his power this is contrary to their oath covenant Such officers as prelats were cast out of that Church abjured now submission unto their sentence would be an expresse owneing of them acknowledging them to be really cloathed with Church power particularly with power over preaching presbyters so they should acknowledge another officer in the Church then Christ hath instituted which no true Christian ought to do If the 〈◊〉 should take upon him to depose or suspend any Gospell Minister would not that Minister acknowledge the power of the Pope if upon the receiving of such a sentence he should leave off the exercise of his Ministery And when the civil Magistrat taketh upon him to depose a Minister immediatly if that Minister should upon such a sentence be silent submit would he not thereby acknowledge that the Magistrat had power to depose Ministers formally Sure none could doubt of this So then it is beyond all question that to submit unto such a sentence would be a clear acknowledging of their power this is diametrically opposite unto an endeavour to extirpat them 2. If it were lawfull to submit unto their sentence it were undoubtedly lawfull to compeer before their court 〈◊〉 before a lawfull court answere unto any accusation given in against them for if one may acknowledge the lawfulnesse of the sentence of such a court they may also acknowledge it lawfull to answere before them so lawfull to owne them as a lawfull court Now seing conscientious Ministers could not have clearnesse to compeer before the prelat or his Synod when summoned can it be expected that they should counter-act their own testimony condemne themselves by submitting unto their sentence 3. Such a submission would prove very stumbling unto the godly for 1. It would encourage them to owne the prelats as lawfull Church officers to compeer before them to obey their acts so to owne acknowledge them as lawfully impowered for if they be owned acknowledged in one particular why not in all 2. it would wronge the peace of the godly who have hitherâ—…ill keeped a distance give a check unto their conscientious walk ing when they should see ministers submitting to their sentence as to the sentence of any uncontroverted lawfull Church judicature 4. Who ever condemne this non-submission sure such as of late thought they could not in conscience submit also all such as did approve them in that particular unto the sentence of deposition or suspension passed against them by a controverted assembly because they looked upon it as no lawfull Generall assembly being not lawfully constituted cannot condemne this but according to their principles must preach for no doubt the power of prelats is much more to be questioned then the power of such assemblies even many who will stand to the justifying of that assembly will never justifie the power of prelats therefore it cannot but be expected that such as thoughte the sentence of that controverted assembly null should now look on the sentence of a prelat as null and of no effect and therefore as little if not lesse to be regairded submitted unto 5. Beyond all question it is a sentence proceeding from such as have no power therefore ought not in conscience to be submitted unto A minister who is called of God must not lay aside his office or the exercise of his office power upon every man's desire But if he be exauctorated at all it must be by such as have lawfull authoritie for that effect unto whom he is bound in conscience to subjecte himself And so he shall have peace though the sentence be passed clave errante unjustly There will no man quite any of his goods upon a sentence comeing from an incompetent judge And shall a Minister quite with his Ministerie which should be dearer unto him then any thing else upon a sentence proceeding from an incompetent judge ora privat person this in reason cannot be expected 6. If so be they should submit unto this sentence account themselves no Ministers It would follow that though the prelats were all away they might not preach nor exerce any ministeriall Act untill a Church judicature would take off the sentence againe then not only they
year 1649. cannot altogether be condemned partly because then the evill of it was not so fully seen perceived partly because that evill had not been reformed there was no other way of entry practised oâ—… practicable by law so though they might groan under that burden yet they could noâ—… get it helped so their fault was lesse then the fault of such would be who have now seen this evill reformed have seen or at least might have seen the evill of it have been called orderly duely conforme to the way of Election set down in the new testament for imitation how great should the guilt of such be if they should now againe lick up that voâ—…ite submit unto that yoke More may be said for the justifying of those who submit unto a yoke under which they were borne from which neither they nor their forefathers were delivered then of those who have been delivered yet consent againe to goe under the yoke thereby do betray the precious interests of Christ's Church with the rown hands wreeth that yoke about the neck of the Church under which she had been groaning many a year before It will be objected againe That they have already the consent of the people being called by them before so the Churches liberties are preserved their entry is valid enough Ans. It is true they have had the call of the people but that will not make their complyance with this course of defection the lesse sinfull but rather the more for by their taking presentations now they do upon the matter declare that they were not duely called before and so they condemne the way of entry by election as not lawfull say that the way of entry by presentations from patrons is the only lawfull way for the patrons presentation is not cumulative unto but privative destructive of the peoples liberty of free election because where patrons do presente the peoples suffrages are never asked where people have power to elect patrons have no place to present so that the one destroyeth the other therefore if any who have been called by the people freely chosen should now take presentations it would import that in their judgment they were never duely called till now this were to annull their former election which they had from the people Next which was to them of greater moment they could not with freedome of conscience goe to the prelate seek collation for these reasoneâ—… 1. Because there is no warâ—…and in all the word of God for any such thing no command for it no precedent or example of it Christian Ministers must walke by the â—…ule of the word now the scripture sheweth no difference betwixt a call a mission but both are one Rom. 1 1. Luk. 6 13. Act. 15 25. their ministry being a work 1 Thes. 5 12 13. 1 Tim. 5 17. 1 Cor. 3 6 7 8 9 10. 2 Câ—…r 6 1. they called workmen Mat. 9 37 38. stewards 1 Cor. 4 1. Wachmen Ezek. 3 2. Isa. 52 8. Shepâ—…erds Ephes. 4 11. Oversâ—…ers the like 〈◊〉 1 5 7. Act. 20 28. Heb. 13 17. Act. 15 22. their very câ—…ll conferreth the power layeth an expresse obligation on them to performe the work otherwise by their call ordination they should only receive a disposition for the work See much more to this purpose in Voetij desperata causa papatus against jansen the papist lib. 2. Sect. 2. Cap. 17. 2. By this meanes they should have condemned themselves as not being lawfull ministers before or at least not such ministers as might lawfully exerce the office of a minister 3. They should in effect have annulled the ordination which they had by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery because by their deed they should have said that not withstanding of that ordination they had no power to exercise the office thus 4. They should have mocked this ordinance of Iesuâ—… Christ of solemne setting apart one for the work of the ministry by saying in effect that it is but a meer blinde for notwithstanding that one be solemnely ordained by the presbytery according to the primitive paterne yet the persone ordained must have his recourse unto another in a superiour order for liberty to put in exercise what he hath gotten in potentia or in Actu signato the like whereof cannot be showne in all the scriptures where read we that ever any who was ordained by a presbytery might not exerce the office without a new license from some other to what end serveth ordination if it be not for seting of one apart for the work That office or power is a cyphre altogether uselesse which cannot be exercised is not like an office or power granted by Iesus Christ. 5. By this meanes they should fully acknowlege the power authority of prelates over presbyters so subscribe unto their jurisdiction acknowledge them to be lawfull officers of Christ's house upon that account submit unto them which were poynt blancke coâ—…ary to their vow Covenant It is objected against this by the author of the seasonable case pag. 15. That thereverend persones instructed by law to call for that promise from ministers do not search into mens apprehensions concerning the grounds of their power all they seek of them is obedience to them in things lawfull and honest as being presently in power being by law ordinary overseers of the ministry in their duties and chief ordainers of them who enter into the ministery Ans. There is enough here to deterre any from this bussinesse for 1. There is no warrand in the word to owne them as chief ordainers there are no chief inferiour ordainers mentioned in the word this then must be a fiction a humane invention which no minister must acknowledge for all must goe to the law to the testimony 2. nor is there any such power known to appertain to any man to be an overseer of the ministry It is true the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets but there is no warrand for a Bishop over Bishops or for such an officer as is to oversee the ministers No officers must be owned in Christ's house but such as are of Christ's own appoyntment 3. And any other law cannot be owned in those matters Though the law of the land should give to any such a power subjects are not for that obliged to acknowledge approve of them as such The municipall lawes of a land will not warrand any new office or officer in Christ's house It appertaineth alone to Christ as King head of his owne house Church to institute his officers And it is a fearfull incroaching upon the privileges of the crowne of Christ for any state or potentate to take upon them to appoynt such offices officers as Christ hath not appoynted Therefore whether those persones reverend or irreverend all
warrand Scotland their joyning with England against the common enemy Yea nature hath taught heathens to prevent their own ruine destruction by joyneing their forces with other nieghbours against one who designed nothing but the promoteing of his Empire Thus the Romans warred against Philip left Greece being subdued he should make warre against them Thus the Lacedamoniam warred against the Olyâ—…hii diverse other instances might be given 3. Scotland England used to joyne together before to enter in a league with other princes for the defence of the protestant religion as Anno 1586. againe 1587. 1588. they draw up a league among themselves But it will be replyed that this was with the consent of the supreme Magistrat Ans. True but the want of this consent will not make such aideing and supplying unlawfull so long as the law of nature is to the fore obligeing every man to defend his neighbour and are not Scotland England near nieghbours being in one Island under one King Neither did they waite for the consent of Scotlands supreme Magistrat when they helped them first against the French next against a faction of papists within their own bosome and therefore Scotland should not now waite for the consent of England's King when they were to help them against a popish and prelaticall faction Nor needed Scotland waite for the consent of their own supreme Magistrat because as the law of nature doth oblige every one to defend himself by force of armes against an army of bloody enemies though the King should not consent as shall be showne hereafter so the law of nature will warrand any to defend their brother though the King should not consent especially seing therby they are but defending themselves against such an enemy as would next fall on them 4. The law of God will warrand this communion of saints Prov. 24 11 12. the commendable practice of those who helped David 1. Chron 12 18. 1. Sam. 22 2. Seventhly nor was there ground for condemning the lands renewing of the nationall Covenant Anno 1638. 1639. Because 1. There is no absolute necessitie for asking obtaineing the Kings consent to the same as if a Kingdom once sworne obliged in covenant with God might not renew the same obligation as oft as they thought fit There is no such necessity of having his Maj. expresse consent approbation either to the first making or to the renewing of the same with God as shall be more fully showne hereafter There is no law of God for this 2. Nor is there any municipall law inhibiteing the renewing of that covenant Yea that warrand by which all the land took it at the first viz the King 's his councell's command to Ministers to put their parishoners to take it severall acts of Generall Assemblies stand still in force accordingly in each universitie the Covenant was renewed yearly 3. Moreover the Generall Assembly Anno 1639. enjoyned by ecclesiastical authority the subscription of the same the Assembly presented a supplication unto the privie Councell desireing their ordinance for the subscription of the same by all the subjects of the Kingdome this was granted Agust 30. Anno 1640. the parliament by their act 5. did ratifie the act of the Generall Assembly their supplication the act of Councill thereupon which act of Parliament was approved by the King in the large treaty thereafter by his personall presence at the next session of Parliament where all was ratified So that this deed of renewing the Nationall Covenant wanted nothing either in poynt of law or conscience to make it lawfull therefore it had been unlawfull to have taken such an oath as would have imported the condemning of that deed Eightly nor was there ground for condemning the Church Assemblies at which the King's commissioner was not present or which wanted his speciall approbation 1. Because there is no warrand in the word of God clearing this necessity but much to the contrary 2 No munipiall law of the land is against such meetings because the act 1584. Was taken away rescinded anno 1592. since that time there is no lawanulling all Assemblies which want his Maj. approbation consent 3. It was never either the profession or the practice of that Church as is clear by what is said Sect. 1. It will be a fitter place to speak to this when the ecclesiasticke part of the oath is spoken to which shall be done Sect. 12. SECTION XI The former purpose further prosecuted the lawfulness of Scotlands defensive warre demonstrated THere are other two Particulars or rather one for they are much to one purpose which virtually would have been condemned by the taking of this oath thus explained as to its civill part viz Scotland their riseing in armes in their owne defence against the King's armies of papists malignants their seizing on the castles which within their owne bosome were threatening their ruine when garisoned with adversaries These must now be spoken to and so Ninthly There is no ground to condemne that defensive warre Though much hath been said by court parasites others who were ambitious of gaine preferment to exaggerat aggraige that supposed crime thereby to make them their cause odious to all the World yet rationall indifferent persones will after serious pondering of a few particulars forbear to passe any rash sentence Much hath been already said in the defence of that bussinesse by the author of Lex Rex more then ever could or will be answered And therefore that book behoved to be answered by a fiery fagot by Mr Prins soveraigne power of Parliaments c. a book published by authority of Parliament never answered to this day And therefore there will not be a necessity of insisting much on it here only a short hint at some particulars will suffice 1. In point of conscience it will be hard to prove that the power of warre resideth only in the King that he only beareth the sword For 1. Rom. 13. The sword is given to all Magistrats for the Apostle there speaketh of heigher powers indefinitely in the plurall number without specifying any kinde it is certaine Rome had not two or moâ—… Kings at once And if the Apostle had intended only Nero he would have designed him in the singular number He speaketh of powers that are of God are ordained of God this agreeth to Inferiour Magistrats who are God's Deputies judge for him as well as others 2 Chron 19 v. 6 7. Deut. 1 v. 16. Numb 11 16 17. He speaketh of Rulers this name agreeth to inferiour Magistrats as may be seen Exod. 18 v. 21 22 25 26. 16 22. 34 31. 2 King 10 1. 1 Chron. 12 v. 14. 26 32. He speaketh of such as must not be resisted but subjected unto Peter sheweth who these are 1 Peter 2 v. 13 14. even
the duties of the one as well as for the duties of the other And every Presbyter hath the Ius to both as well in actu secundo as in actu primo judicious Vâ—…etius Polit. Eccl. Pag. 224. Quaest. 15. doth abundantly cleare this particular shewing that such a delegation is not lawfull out of Mat. 18 18. 16 18. 1 Cor. 5. Act. 20 28. 1 Tim. 5 17. 1 Thes. 5 12. 1 Pet. 5 1 2. comp with 1 Tim. 3 5. Ioh. 20 20. 1 Tim. 3. 4 13 14. 2 Tim. 2 2. 4 2. Tit. 1 3 5 7 8. Whatever may be done in case of necessity for dispatching of some particular Act which is transient And how or what way the limitation exercise of the power of jurisdiction belongeth to the Church in common more then the limitation exercise of the power of order is not yet clearly demonstrated by any thing which Mr Stillingfleet hath said And it is known that Prelats arrogat to themselves a speciall or sole interest in the power of order as well as in the power of jurisdiction therefore they stile themselves the only Pastors of the Dioecies say that the Presbyters are but their Substitutes Vicars And it is certane that they assume to themselves the sole power of ordination And though here in this place which is now under consideration Mr Stillingfleet is pleased to rancke up ordination under the power of jurisdiction yet else where viz. Pag. 273. he sayeth that The collation of orders doth come from the power of order not meerly from the power of jurisdiction 8. How cometh the Christian Magistrat in here to appoynt the constant limitation exercise of the power committed by Christ unto Church Officers This is a very great power granted unto the civill Magistrat some warrand would be seen for it But this is not the proper place to examine his notions concerning the power of the civill Magistrat in Church matters Enough of this observation Obs. 5. With Presbyterians the practice of the Apostles of the Churches in their dayes following their appoyntment command is of much weight It is true their examples as examples do not binde But when the Lord hath sent them forth for this end errand to plante Churches to ordaine new offices officers immediatly under him and to appoynt unto these officers their proper work to show them how what way they should goe about their work when in all things they delivered nothing to the Church but what they received of the Lord 1 Cor. 11 23. as Tertull. said de praeser adv haereses Apostoli nihil ex suo arbitrio elegerunt quod inducerent sed acceptam à Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus assignaverunt Sure then their practice example ought to be followed Seing they were sent forth for this end especially viz. to reforme setle Churches in doctrine worship discipline governement according to a new Gospell modell can any think that we are not obliged to follow their practices It it true there can be no duty without a law making it a duty But Christ's sending them forth for this end giving them a speciall commission for this work sending them forth as the Father sent him breathing the Holy Ghost upon them commanding them Math. 28 v. 19 20. To goe teach all Nations all things which he had commanded them Act. 1 2 3. Speaking to them of the things pertainting to the Kingdome of God By which sayeth Calvin on the place Is signified that Christ would not goe away till first he had seen to the governement of the Church carry a law in their bosome say that their example is obligeing And when there is a law or warrand for following such an example it is but in vaine to dispute whether it be the example which bindeth or the rule making it our duty to follow such an example But moreover he will grant that examples in actions that are morall naturall are obligeing whether as examples or by reason of the morality of the action needeth not be anxiously enquired after will not actions done by them upon morall grounds that are of perpetuall concernement become actions morall naturall so obligeing Is not their example in observing the first day Sabbath obligeing And why He sayes because there was a morall law standing in force concerning the observation of one day in Seven Why then shall not their example in observing such or such a forme of governement be obligeing seing there was a morall law standing in force concerning the governement of the Church in generall Is there any rule extant making their example in the one case obligeing not in the other If the Apostolicall practice in the one case make an Apostolicall tradition so a divine institution so will their practice do in the other case yea the examples of the Churches practise in the Apostles times hints from their writtings do sufficiently evidence an institution we read of elders in Ierusalem hence we saifly argue that they were ordained though we read not in terminis terminantibus of the manner how they were ordained sayeth one But he hath foure things to object against this ground taken from the practice of the Apostles though acted by the Spirit Part. 2. cap. 6. § 20. As 1. That the Apostles did many things without any intention of obligeing others as preaching without maintenance c. Ans. 1. The consequence is null Because they did many things without such an intention will it follow Ergo they did nothing with such an intention 2. The disput is about such actions as were done by them by vertue of their speciall office calling of which kinde this is none to preach at some Churches without wages 3. Yea this same action of preaching without wages is to be imitated in the like cases that is when Ministers have a competent livelyhood otherwise as Paul had who said he robed other Churches 1 Cor. 11 ver 8. when there is no other way to stope the mouthes of false teachers who thereby take occasion to hinder the good of the Gospell for this was the thing which moved Paul to take â—…o wages from Corinth That he might cut off occasion from them that desired occasion and these were the false Apostles 1 Cor. 11 v. 12 13. 2. He sayeth The Apostles did many things upon particular occasions emergencies circumstances which things so done cannot binde by vertue of their doing them any furder then a parity of reason doth conclude the same things to be done as Paul's celebat communitie of goods their preaching from house to house absteaning from blood c. Ans. this is still to argue a particulari because such such particular practices oblige not Ergo no practice obligeth is a weak consequence 2. Actions done upon particular occasions emergencies are of another nature then such actions as are done
of any change in the Apostle Paul's time for the author mentioneth here his Epistle to Timothy which was writen near to the end of his dayes 3. Though there had been some change alteration even in the Apostles dayes as to the manner of going about the work of preaching and baptizing these are all the particulars which the author mentioneth some order setled thereanent which had not been setled before what will this speak to the matter of Government which is the only thing now under debate will it follow that because there was a setled order condescended on in preaching and baptizeing which at sirst was not followed therefore the Apostles in some Churches erected presbyterian Government and in others Episcopall By what Medium will this consequence be proved 4. But how how shall it beleeved that things were better setled afterward then they were in the Apostles dayes or that the practice of after ages is as obligatory as the practice of the Apostles It is but a dream then to think that the Apostles did not observe any setled forme in Governing Churches but only Acted according to the principles of humane prudence according to the necessities occasions of the severall Churches which they had planted for neither this author nor any other which he hath cited to this effect doth prove it And though they should all say it we were not bound to beleeve them seing the law the testimony showeth the contrary as may be seen in the writings of such as plead for Presbyterian Governement where they shew that the Church of Ierusalem Ephesus others were Governed by the common consent of Presbyters that the manner of the governement of all Gospell Churches mentioned in the new Testament was uniforme But he hath another thing to say against the practice of the Apostles viz. That we cannot have that certainety of Apostolicall practice which is necessary to constitute a divine right This notion he prosecuteth at great length Chap. 6. as a ground thereunto he Prefixeth § 4. That the Apostles in the forming of Churches did observe the customes of the jewish synagogue And thereupon proceedeth to cleare both what the Governement of the jewish synagogues was how the forme set up in the Christian Church did correspond thereunto all which concerneth the bussinesse in hand litle or nothing there fore may be passed seing it is not very materiall to consider whether or not jewish synagogues were so Governed whether or not the Apostles did follow that copy for that which is now sought for is such a Government as was practised by the Apostles instituted as the forme of Church Government which was to continue such a Governement as had the stamp of divine authority or of a divine institution But now no jewish Governement as such could have this but only such a Governement as these by their practice did institute who were thereunto appoynted of God extraordinarily called qualified And moreover if the jewish Synagogues were Governed uniformly if the Apostles did set up a Governement in the Gospell Churches in a way correspondent there unto It will inevitably follow that the Apostles did take an uniforme way in setling the Governement of all the Churches this crosseth what he said of late confirmeth what was Answered But leaving this The proposition now under consideration is a question of fact the certanety of which is doubted of as he allaidgeth viz what course the Apostles took in Governing Churches or after what manner did they setle a Governement among them The uncertanety of this matter of fact he thinketh to evince by three arguments The last of which viz the defectivenesse ambiguity partiality repugnancy of the records of the succeeding ages which should informâ—… 〈◊〉 what Apostolicall practice was which he prosecuteh largely satisfactorily From § 16. to § 19. may be passed as concerning the bussinesse in hand nothing as to Presbyteriaus for if they be not able to prove the practice of the Apostles out of the sacred write they dispaire as much as he can do of proving the same from humane records that for the same reasons which he there giveth But as for the other two reasons or grounds they must be examined The first then is this The equivalency of the names the doubtfulnesse of their signification by which this forme should be determined now there is a fourefold equivalency of names Bishop Presbyter 1. That both should signifie a Presbyter as Theodor in 1. Tim. 3. 1. 2. That both should signifie a Bishop 3. That both should signifie promiscuously some time a Bishop and sometime a Presbyter and. 4. That the name Bishop alwayes imports a singular Bishop but the name Presbyter doth promiscuously signifie both equivocall words can never of themselves determine what sensethey are to be taken in all that can be inferred from the promiscuous sense of the words is that they may be understood only in this sense but it must be proved that they can be understood in no other sense before any one particular forme of Governement as necessary can be inferred from the use of them Ans. 1. This is a ready way to cast all scripture as unable to determine any controversy for if adversaries may be beleeved all these passages which are made use of against them do carry another sense must be otherwise interpreted so all scripture must goe under the name of equivocall sentences must be laid aside 2. Presbyterians do not lay the stresse of their bussinesse upon the name They have other things whereby to prove their poynt then either the one name or the other And so this doth not concerne them much 3. The question betuixt Presbyterians their adversaries is this whether there be such an officer as a prelat having superiority of jurisdiction over Presbyters people sole power of ordination instituted by Christ or not not whether these two words signifie one thing or another for it is granted by all the Episcopall party except one who in his Annot on act 11. sayeth that there is no evidence whereby these inferiour presbyters may appear to have been brought in the Church so early That there were presbyters ordained in the Apostles dayes and all the question is concerning bishops as distinct from presbyters whether or not they were ordained Presbyterian divines do demonstrat that even in those places where the name Bishop is no such officer can be understood As to that which some fathers say who writting some centuries of yeers after the Apostles dayes speaking of the state of the Church in the Apostles dayes after the forme manner in their times concerning the promiscuous use of the two names it doth no way wrong the cause in hand untill it be proved that there was indeed such an officer in rerum natura this is not yet done 4. Whatever these names may signifie is not
in all ages who through persecution being thrust from one place went preached the gospell in another both in the time of the first ten persecutions through occasion of which the Gospell was spread far thorow the world at severall times since The honest servants of Christ in Queen Mary her dayes went abroad preaching the Gospell So did the zealous servants of Christ in Scotland when banished or compelled to flee preach in England â—…rance Holland without any new ordination or any thing like it 7. There is some necessitie lying upon them to preach as occasion offereth that they may not stumble the poor ignorent people who upon their silence are ready to think that the civil Magistrat hath power to depose Ministers formally And therefore if there were no more but this it were enough to provoke them to preach that the world might see that they put a difference betwixt the power of the Magistrat the power of the Church And that when they submit unto the Magistrat keeping within the compasse of his calling exerciseing that power which formally agreeth to him though he should mistake as to the application They will not submit any further to the wronging of the privileges of the Church And so will let the world see that they are still Ministers of the Gospell though banished from their particular flocks 8. Their silence in such a case would be stumbling unto others who look upon it as an evidence of fainting fear in them who dar not open their mouth nor appear for Christ speak to the edification encouragement of sufferers least it offend the Magistrat And when such are so faint-hearted how doth it discourage others strongly prevaile with some to goe over the belly of their own light conscience yea moreover it hardeneth the wicked in their evil courses encourageth them to persecute more more when they see such fainting discouragment among the followers of Christ. So then when these particulars are considered It will be found that such Ministers do but their duty that they would come short in their duty if they did not so preach the Gospell If it be Objected here That to preach in such a disorderly way would be a breaking of the established order of the Church viz. a preaching within such a Bishops dioecy without his license so it would be a course not approved by the God of order It is Answered 1. That ceremonies or matters of mere order must be passed by in times of necessitie such as this is 2. Such an established order as tendeth to the ruine of religion is but iniquity established by law for that is not an order of God's appoyntment which is destructive to the maine bussinesse viz. the edification of souls therefore such an order which is to destruction not to edification is not to be regairded 3. Where is there any warrand for such an order or appoyntment in all the Gospell Did the Apostles ever aske liberty from the corrupt Clergy among the Iewes to preach Christ in such or such a place Where is there any warrant for such as are Ministers called of God ordaâ—…ned to suspend the exercise of that function till they have the license good will of a prelate This is that popish leaven which the former English Prelats had from Rome preaching the Gospell is immediatly commanded to all who are Ministers there is not the least syllabe for their going to a Bishop who is nothing else but a creature of man to seek license And certanely none can think that these Ministers might have gone to the prelat to obtaine liberty seing that would have been a cleare acknowledging of them their power contrare to their vow covenant So then it was better to take the way of the Apostles c to obey God rather then men to preach at God's command when man forbiddeth as well as to preach truth when man commandeth the contrary seing he hath no power from God for that effect more in the one case then in the other 2. It may be possibly further objected That how ever they remaine Ministers so may preach as they have a call yet to seek corners hideing places to preach in to separated congregations cannot be allowed in a constitute Church Ans. If they be Ministers of the gospell they may lawfully preach the gospell where God in his providence giveth them a call to preach 2. Since they cannot have liberty to preach the gospel in publick they may must do it in private when the necessity of the people calleth for it Christ his Apostles did not alwayes get the publick places to preach in but were content of privat roomes Many a time did Christ preach by the sides of mountaines by the sea side in such by-wayes And so did the Apostles Paul could get no better at Ephesus then the school of Tyrannus and two full yeers he preached in his own hired house at Rome Act. 28 30 31. therefore this practice of theirs cannot be condemned for 3. As the Church was then in fieri so is it now in a decaying condition therefore though it were granted which is not yet clearly proved that in a Church rightly constituted such private preachings were not lawfull yet when a Church is fallen from her right constitution is upon the decaying hand at without all doubt the Church of Scotland is this day many things may be allowed as they are in a time when the Church is but in fieri as to this particular in question a time of persecution as this is is alwayes excepted so that it is lawfull enough now so long as this persecution lasteth to preach the gospell in private when no liberty can be had to do it openly 4. These Ministers are gathering no separated congregations but only preaching to all who will come hear the word of truth in such quiet retired places where they may get it done most saifly may be most free from distraction trouble of their enemies who are waiting to finde them out that they may haile them to prisons Who then can condemne their cariage in this 3. If any should further object say That this would be an open contempt of the Magistrat's lawfull authority disobedience to his lawfull commands For though it be true that he cannot take away the office of a Minister or the power of order so degrade him yet he may take away the exercise of his Ministeriall function at least he may discharge the exercise of the same within any part of his Kingdome or dominions Ans. Whether there be such an expresse prohibition or not is not certanely known nor whether or not the objection doth suppone that the Magistrat's Act of banishing of them out of their own parishes or out of the bounds of their respective presbyteries doth include a discharge of exâ—…erceing the Ministeriall
was the elders of that Church unto which Paul Barnabas were sent Ver. 2. this was the Church of Ierusalem that they should goe up to Ierusalem to the Apostles and elders 2. When they came to Ierusalem they found the Apostles elders there present what could the Bishops of all Iudea be doing there at that time If it be said that they came together upon this solemne occasion How did they know of this occasion For the Apostles knew not of it themselves till the Commissioners from Antioch told them Ver. 5. That there were certane of the Sect of the Pharisees arisen which beleeved saying that it was needfull to be circumcised c. And then Ver. 6. The Apostles Elders came together for to consider of this matter He who can imagine that these Elders were the Bishops of the severall dioecies of Iudea may easily cast by the plainest fullest passages of Scripture that can be may imagine what he pleaseth But to put a close to this let that passage Act. 16 4. be considered where it is said They delivered them the decrees to be keeped which were ordained by the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in Ierusalem or who belonged to the Church of Ierusalem or stayed there The third passage is Act. 21 11. of which he giveth the same dubious sense upon as little ground as before his conjectures may receive the same answers Only where he sayes They might be the Elders of the severall Churches of Iudea he seemeth to prevaricat for the poynt of difference is not betwixt Elders Elders But betwixt Elders Bishops betwixt the Elders of that particular Church of Ierusalem the severall Bishops of the dioecies of Iudea But it seemeth he blushed to name this once therefore thought it best to put in Elders but this was not faire dealing Neither is his conclusion faire when he sayeth There is no certainty of the Church of Jerusalem how that was governed whether by Apostles themselves or other unfixed Elders or only by James who exerced his Apostleshipe most there and thence is afterward called Bishop of Jerusalem For the question is not whether the Church of Ierusalem was governed by all the Apostles or only by one But whether by Presbyters in common or by one Bishop above distinct from Presbyters And by this conclusion he would seem to say that there were no Elders in Ierusalem at all no Governours there but Apostles one or moe Moreover it is sufficiently proved by the Presbyterian divines that the Apostles when acting in governement together with other Elders or Officers did not act as Apostles but as ordinary Officers And also that Iames did not govern the Church of Ierus alone as a Bishop The fourth passage which he citeth is Act. 14 23. upon which he sayeth That no more is imported but that no Church wanted an Elder but not that every Church had moe Elders Ans. whether was this single Presbyter a Prelate or not If not what is this to the present question The governement may be Presbyteriall where one Minister is fixed to one particular flock If he was a Prelat where were his Presbyters under him 2. It is true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will signify no more but Ecclesiaâ—…m Church Church but will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie no more but one Presbyter Had it been said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it might import but one Presbyter in one Church Or yet if it had been said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs import more Theodoret knew the import force of that phrase when he rendereth the like passage in Tit. thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Presbytery in each city The last passage which he citeth is Act. 20 17. There is no certainly sayeth he whether these elders came only from Ephesus or also from the severall Churches â—…f Asia about Ans. Upon what ground can he once think that the elders of Asia may be understood here He hath none other but this that it is said v. 18. that from the first day he came into Asia he had been with them at all seasons because he did not remaine all that time at Ephesus as appeareth Act. 19 20 22 26. But this cannot so much as ground a probability for it is certane the most part of his abode was at Ephesus for full two yeers three moneths are specified Act 19 8 10. the rest of the three yeers if there be not roâ—…ndatio numeri here he might now then have visited other parts have most of his residence at Ephesus heither reaching in the Synagogue nor in the School of Tyrannus where he had taught two yeers three moneths so granting that he might have made some visits unto the other parts of Asia durâ—…ing these Nine moneths yet he might well say to thâ—…se of Ephesus That from his first coming into Asia they had known after what manner he had been with them againe it will not hence follow that others then these of Ephesus were there more then from these words v. 25. Yâ—… all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdome of God it will follow that all the people he had preached unto both in Ephesus in other places of Asia minor Asia propria were present But whom can we expect to have been there except such only who were sent for viz the Elders of the Church of Ephesus therefore they are called the Elders of the Church not the elders of the Churches as they would have been called if the Elders of the Churches had been there present as we hear of the Churches of Iudea Galilee Samaria Act. 9 31. of the Churches of Galatia Gal. 1 2. Churches of Asia 1. Cor. 16. 19. of Maâ—…edonia 2 Cor. 8 1. of Syria Cylicia Act. 15 41. so would we hear of the Elders of the Churches of Asia But there is no such thing only there is mention made of the Elders of that one Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To conclude this himself sayeth cap. 7. § 2. pag. 349. That this flocke Church were the Christians of Ephesus that all these spoken to were such as had a pastorall charge of this one flock Thus it hath been showne how weak the ground is upon which Mr Sâ—…illing fleet walketh how litle reason he hath to conclude his notion from these passages which he hath mentioned furder the groundlesnesse of his conceite will appear if some two or three passages of scripture be but viewed which he hath passed by without once noticeing unto which the answers which he was pleased to give to others will not quadrate as 1. That place 1 Cor. 5. If any look thorow that epistle they shall easilie see that there were many preaching Presbysers in that one Church here Cap. 5. they are about a work of excommunication so are endued with episcopall power