notwithstanding what is said of Hierarchical and Prelatical men is more lawful and valid then ordination by non-officers for the Prelates were Preshyters and so more enabled by the word to ordain then any non-Presbyters Prelacy though an humane Institution did no more annihilate their being Presbyters then Pharrisaism did the Jewish Priesthood and they did ordain as Presbyters for Bishops and Presbyters are but made one order by the very Papists which also judg that if a Deacon should be made Bishop par saltum he hath no power to ordain Presbyters and although the Prelates partly through their own usurpation partly through the sloth or Pusillanimity of the Presbyters partly by law and cannon were invested with too much power yet they did not ordain Presbyters without the assistance of other Elders and their ordination comes neerer to the Scripture-way of ordination by the Presbytery then ordination by non-Elders especially by one can do and is by the Scripture-rules by the present Parliament as formerly also by the reformed Churches and godly non-conformists notwithstanding their opposition to Prelacy judged valid and not to be changed for any popular ordination When the Church was in the wilderness when Antichrist most reigned and raged God did preserve some foundamental Doctrines and the essence of Baptism and Ministry and they that is her Pastors did feed her there Rev. 12.6 14. before there was any Popular ordination If you deny these things shew the contrary of them CHAP. XIX Of the Churches power to Censure her officers from Col. 4.17 Sect. 1. VVHen I alledg that the Church of Coloss had other Elders besides Archippus You reply p. 58. 1. What officers there were therein and with that Church appears not 2. Though they had officers yet the command is directed to the Church without express consideration of any officers amongst them and the brethren are not excluded from joyning with the officers in that which is commanded Col. 4.17 Rejoyn 1. You dare not say there was no ruling nor preaching Elders besides Archippus though you seem to argue that there was not It may be Philemon to whom Paul writes as to a fellow labourer was there seeing Onesimus his servant is said to be one of the Colossians Col. 4.9 Epaphras was also an officer though absent v. 12. If they had no officers with them but Archippus which is not credible yet Tychicus a Minister and Onesimus might from Paul joyn with the Church in that admonition 2. I might as wel say it doth not appear that Archippus was of the Church of Coloss for the Apostle seems to have done with the Colossians only wils them to salute them in Laodicea and Nymphas who its like was a Laodecean and then to cause this Epistle to be read in the Church of Laodicea and read the Epistle from Laodicea and say to Archippus who as one writes was Bishop or Pastor of Laodicea and not unlikely that a cold Church might have a cold Minister nor unagreeable to the context But it is as probable that Philemon and he were joint Pastors or Coloss Phil. 1.1 Bullinger saith that Philemon was Bishop or Pastor of Coloss and then it is probable Archippus was his partner But if it be denyed that Philemon was of Coloss it wil hardly be proved that Archippus was 3. If there be not express consideration of officers yet an implicite consideration may serve the turn 4. That brethren in their sphere may joyn with the officers is not questioned but that the brethren of a Church distinct from Elders have power to censure their Elders I deny 1. Elders have authority but such brethren have none as you acknowledg now that they which have no authority should have power to censure such as have authority is a strange and new tenet 2. The Apostle which doth all things fitly directs Timothy about receiving accusations against Elders but he doth not direct any brethren in that matter Now every Apostle as also Timothy and Titus were as it were an Eldership of the Churches extraordinarily combined in one man 3. When the Prophets speak by two or three the other Prophets not the body of the people were appointed to judgâ—â—â— and in that sense as wel as in any other The Spirit of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets 4. The power of ordaining and making Elders is not in hands of Non-Elders therefore jurisdiction over Elders to to censure depose excomunicate them is not in their hands Sect. 2. I answer Paul bids Timothy fulfil his Ministry 2. Tim. 4.5 This doth not suppose Timothy to be faulty or to be under censure and it may be Archippus Pauls fellowlaborer was not faulty and then this admonition was no censure and therefore it is alledged to no purpose You Reply p. 58. 1 Expositors do judge him faulty as Zanchy 2 There is a difference between Make full proof of thy Ministery which respects persons himself and others And fulfill thy ministry which respects the work it self in the duties of it 3. It is one thing when the Apostle a superior writing to a person and inferiour gives him good Councel and amongst other things injoyns him to make full proof of his ministery and another thing when he writes to a people without any occasion and without mingling it with other exhortations of like nature and excites them in an abrupt manner to say to Archippus see to the ministry of the former there are many patterns which imply not faultiness 1 Pet. 5.1 2 3. Tit. 2. ult for the latter where is there a parallel place therefore there is a strong presumption that Archippus whom the people ordinarily must heare in silence are now put upon it to admonish him was not faulty Congregationall way justified p. 7. You argue thus Paul bids Timothy fulfill his ministry 2 Tim. 4.5 yet this doth not suppose Timothy to be faulty and then this admonition was no censure and thence you infer therefore it s alledged to no purpose it had bin more tolerable if you had said therefore it may be it is alledged to no purpose Rejoynd 1. My meaning is plainly this It may be Archippus was not faulty and then viz. if he was not faulty this was no censure and if this was no censure it is alledged to no purpose These are hypotheticall propositions and are not grounded upon a possibility but upon supposall of Archippus his faultlesness and that being supposed they are not onely tolerable but justifiable without it may be 2. The authority of Zanchy you do not much regard nor any other humane authority which is not to your mind you know well if matters between us should be put to the arbitrement of Commentators they would not cast them on your side 3. Notwithstanding your criticall difference of the Greek words our translators conceived that fulfil or make full proof are either of them consistent with the Originall therefore they put one in the text the other in the margent 4. Was it not
taken it includes both 2. The word Church in Acts 20. is but distinguished only from Elders not from all the officers and from feeding not ruling Elders for that the ruling Elders are said to be made Bishops by the holy Ghost is not probable 3. Phil. 1.1 wil prove that there were Saints in Philippi distinct from Bishops and Deacons but not that they were a Church without them much less that they were a Church properly so called Lastly If you can shew by Scripture that any company of people without officers did or ought to exercise church-Church-power or that they might receive in or cast out members our of the Church it shal suffice we wil not contend about names nor wil the name of the Church avail if this power cannot be proved by Scripture CHAP. XVI Of Election of Ministers and other officers Sect. 1. Reply p. 47. THe Position saith not that a particular Congregation hath full and free power without seeking the help of advise and direction of a Synod Classis or Presbytery but without the authoritative help thereof Rejoyn 1. Then you allow both that there should be Synods Classes and Presbyteries and that they should be advised with about election prove you that any Congregation did ask or seek the direction or advice of any Synod Classis or Presbytery in election of officers which you press as a duty and holy ordinance and I will shew you that they used authoritative help of a Synod Classis c. 2. I approve your approbation of Mr Cottons modesty in not taking on him hastily to censure the many notable presidents of ancient and latter Synods which have put forth the acts of power in ordination c. Which Author though he speak not expresly of election yet if acts of power may be put forth in another Congregation in one thing they may be put out in another 3. When I say we hold it a priviledg of the people especially if they proceed wisely and piously to elect their officers 1. You vainly ask Reply p. 47. What people Is it a people-priviledg or a Church-previledg to choose Ecclesiastical officers R. You are too willing to contend Scripture warrants me to cal un-officed men Church-members or others by the name of people Heb. 7.5 and your selves p. 59. yea in the last line of this very page use the same word in the same sense which you quarrel at that a Church viz. a company of people knit together by express publick covenant or agreement hath the only power of choosing officers I put you to prove 4. You ask What if they do not proceed wisely and piously is their priviledg lost Would it then be no injury to intrude any officer on them Is the priviledge of a Church-officer or Master of a family lost if he use it not wisely and piously Must they not be directed and exhorted to use it rightly and the priviledg remaine still with him we have Junius of our mand Rejoyn Then I conceive the Presbyters ought to keep the charge of the Lord and not to ordain hastily though the people should elect suddenly 1 Tim. 5.22 Least they should be partakers of other mens sins viz. of that unwise and ungodly Election 2. A master of a family may rule his house so unwisely and impiously that his priviledge of Governing it yea his liberty and his life may by the Magistrate be taken away from him A Church officer your selves assert may be censured yea deposed for unwise and ungodly managing his trust 3. Your selves hold not I suppose that it is the priviledge of the people to have an unwise and ungodly election confirmed but rather an injury to them 4. The Church of Boston in New England did chuse or would have chosen a notorious familist to have been co-teacher with Mr C. would you have the Elders to have ordeined him or the Synod to have approved him 5. If you grant that whensoever a people do chuse unwisely and ungodlity the Presbytery or Synod should oppose and refuse to ordain them and that without such ordination they may not lawfully officiate it is enough as to my present purpose and this at least if not more you seem to grant by equalling the case of a Church mis-electing to the case of a Mr of a family or a Church-officer mis-governing both which may loose their priviledg and power by a. busing it especially for a time til they be more wise Sect 2. I ingenuously confess I have always and stil do in my opinion and practise propend that people should elect their Minister they being thereby engaged the more to love and obey him and his cal to them made more unquestionable yet the Scriptures you bring though as I conceive as perument as any other and your defence of them upon the matter as strong as the cause wil suffer are unsatisfactory to me To your first text I answered that it is likely that Assembly was not a body politick but occasional only no part of Church-government being as yet on foot here were not all but some of the sounder members of the Jewish Church and they had no commission to separate from the Jews before Act. 2.44 The company was not without Elders The Apostles if not the 70 were present all the Churches and Elders that were at that time in the world were present in respect whereof it may be called an acumenical councel The Apostles being Elders of all Churches rather then a particular Congregation If there had been any more Elders and Churches they must have convened upon that occasion to choose an Apostle who is a Pastor of all Churches The choise was limied by the Apostle Peter 1. To the persons present 2. To those that had accompanied the Apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went and out amongst them and by God the director of the lot to whom properly the election of an Apostle doth belong to Matthias You reply p. 48.1 There is a contradiction if they were but the sounder parts of the Jewsh Church then they were not a Christian Church and if no Christian Church how were the Apostles Elders of it how was it an â—cumenical Councel the Churches and Elders in all the world being present Rejoyn I do not at all contradict my self for 1. To he Christian and to be the sounder members of the Jewish Church was then all one 2. The Apostles being members of the then Iewish Church hinders not but that they might be Elders of all the Churches in the world as Christ was a member of the Jewish Church yet head of the whole Church Christian or Jewish in several respects 3. If you wil have it to be a Christian Church as you affirm it was liker to a general Councel then a particular Congregation You further reply 1. Is there not some mistake in point of truth There were added to them 3000 souls to them to whom To those who were yet members of the Iewish Church then these
offender yet he might be judged by a Provinciall for this is one benefit of combination of Churches or National Assembly or if there were a universall councell all Christians should be subject to its Ecelesiasticall power whether Members of a particular Congregation or no and may be excommunicated upon just occasion not onely out of particular Congregations if they be Members of them but out of the Church universal for though it might be doubted to what Church this or that man doth belong yet it can scarce bee doubted in what province in what Nation an offender doth reside and to which he by right doth belong The Church of Ephesus is commended for trying the false Apostles which did not acknowledge themselves Members of that Church for this had been inconsistent with the aime of Apostleship else grievous Wolves false Teachers might have crept in amongst them and drawne Disciples after them to Blasphemie Idolatrie c. without blame CHAP. XXVI Of the Authority of Elders WHen I say though Elders bee not Lords over Gods heritage yet they are Leaders and Guides yea Shepeards Rulers Overseers Bishops Governours and not onely Presidents of the Congregation Moderators of her actions or as the fore-men of the Iury you thinke your felves wronged and expresse your selves to grant that Elders dos rule as Stewards as Captaines as Guides or Leaders and his grant is large enough for Stewards and Captaines may take or put out Servants and Souldiers without the others of the family or company intermedling by way of Power therein yet I could have wished you had shewed what more Power then of a Moderator or President of a Synod or foreman of a Iury or Speaker of a Parliament House practically you give the Elders in election of Officers receiving in of Members or casting them out or other acts which are properly act of Discipline and Government for a Moderator may put matters to Vote open the doores of speech or silence advise or councell the Assemblie pronounce the sentence keep order c. But why do I put you upon this you say they rule as Stewards and Captains yea as Guides and Leaders which Titles in Scripture Phrase in which I presume you speak doe signifie the Power of civill Magistrates Act. 23.24 Mat. 27.2 and indeed Presbyterian Government in this sense in opposition to Praelaticall and Popular Government you cannot deny seeing the Scripture saith they have the Rule they feede and governe the flock Heb. 13.7 17.1 Tim. 5.17.1 Pet. 5.2 Acts 20.17 28. The Keyes which in the Notion of them doe carry Power and Authoritie properly so called are committed to them Matth. 16.19 and Power to remit and retain sins Joh. 20.28 and they are over the People in the Lord 1 Thes 5.12 and the Titles which are given to civill Magistrates at least to subordinate ones are given to the Elders of the Church and they as you say afterwards are Governours to the Church in the descending line of Power though thy be but Ministeriall Governours in an ascending line that leads to Christ the only Monarch or supreme Governour of the Church Sect. 2. when I urge that Matth. 20.25 26. forbids Kingly or Lordly power in the Ministers of the Gospel for the two Apostles still dreaming of a Temporall Kingdome and being Kinsmen to Christ did expect some temporall honour and advancement Christ saith not there was inequality among the Priests of the Iewes or amongst the Priests of the Gentiles or between the Priests and the People but it shall not be so amongst you but very aptly and pertinently to their petition answereth the Princes of the Gentiles c. propounding himself verse 28 whose Kingdome is not of this world for an example to them yet had he no intent to equall them to himselfe in Church Power or other Ministers to the Apostles or the People to the Presbyters You say in your Reply p. 79. Admit that the Apostles were such babes as to imagine that Christ would lay downe his spirituall Kingdome and take up a temporal and that any or all of them desired an eminency one above an other therein yet it will not follow that Christ speakes nothing by way of reproofe of ambitious aspirings in the Spirituall but onely in the temporall Kingdome of Christ hee expresseth the disparity betwixt civill policies where one or more rule with Lordly Power and the rest are in subjection and Spirituall policies where Christ only rules with Lordly Power and one Apostle or Minister hath no Authoritie at all one over another but are fellow servants Rejoind 1. You must needs admit you cannot deny that they did still dream of a temporall Kingdome Matth. 20.21 Acts 1.6 2. The Apostles were not such babes as to imagine that Christ would would lay down his spirituall Kingdome over the soules and consciences of his People but they are babes that imagine as you intimate that hee could not take up a temporall Kingdome except hee did lay downe his spirituall Kingdome for spirituall and civil Government which were confihenti in the person of Moses Eli Samuel were much more consistent in the person of Christ God and Man 3. I said not that it will follow that Christ spake nothing by way of reproofe of ambitious aspirings in the spirituall Kingdome of Christ they may also bee included though ambition in civill matters be the thing here directly and principally intended and I hope the Reader by reading the whole answer in my book which is curtel'd in yours will understand me aright 4. Nor denied I that inequality of men of the same office may be here forbidden save only that reason and order if not Scripture do require presidencie moderatorship one Apostle is not to be above another Apostle one Elder as such above another Elder c. Yet you cannot deny that had Christs main scope been to forbid inequality of the Ministers of the Word an instance of the inequality of the Jewish and Gentilish Priests had been more pat then of the Gentile Princes 5. As our Saviours meaning was not to exclude the Apostles from being in Ecclesiastical power above Elders Elders above Deacons and himself above all so neither was it his meaning to equalize believers in church-Church-power with their Presbyters or one Elder or the lesser part to many Elders or the major part and consequently he speaks nothing against Presbyterian government or the government of the Church by Presbyters 6. It may be said of Civil policies that one supreme Magistrate is not above another but they are all fellow-servants Lastly whereas you say pag. 80. That corruption of Church-Governours in an usurpation of Ecclesiastical domination is of more dangerous influence to the Church then if they should usurp some branches of Civil power I answer 1. What you can shew to be a corruption of Church-government an usurpation of exorbitant Ecclesiastical domination God forbid that we should not abominate it and I expect that you shall be as willing to
year or oftâ—er to consult and determine of the summe to be allowed for that yeare to their Ministers and to raise it Whether it may not be hence inferred that there is a way of setled and stinted maintenance in New-England for a year at least let the Reader judge I will not contend about it That the people in New-England when the work is done do consult and consider the Minister for the year past or that the Minister doth not know till the year be up what he must have in which respect the condition of the meanest servant is usually better then his is scarce agreeable I think to the letter of Mr. Welds words or to the practise of New-England where as Theodore de la Guard p. 39. saith They generally find and practise as the best way That the Ministers have seasonable and honourable maintenance and that certainly stated But our work is to find out the mind of God not of man CHAP. XXIII Of the distinction of Pastors and Teachers on EPHES. 4.11 WHen I say that Ephes 4.11 proves not that Teachers must be distinct from Pastors as Apostles are distinct from Evangelists you reply p. 70. You crosse the opinion of many Orthodox modern Writers whether you translate some Apostles or these Apostles the matter is not weighty nor are you advantaged by it The greater question is who these Teachers be and what their work is whether School-Doctors to train up Youth in the knowledge of Arts and Sciences especially of Divinity or Teachers of the whole Church and their work to doctrinate the Church by words of knowledge which seems more consonant to the Scripture And Zanchy Pareus Bucer and many others are of this judgement whose Reasons your selves in the Congregational way justified p. 9. thus abridge God gives distinct gifts to Pastors from those he gives to Teachers for to one is given a speciall faculty of Exhortation to the other a clearer understanding of doctrine and consequently they are distinct officers And you conclude your Reply p. 70. with these words So that if we do put any false glosse upon the Scriptures by misinterpreting of Ephes 4.11 yet more modest language had becommed you seeing such Reverend and learned men whom your self so much honour have gone before us in this exposition Rejoynd 1. The force of my argument to which you answer not at all was not as you would in both your books make the Reader to believe that the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was translated some or these but that the said article is not inserted between Pastor and Teacher as it is between every of the rest to shew that there is not the same distinction between them as between each two of the rest as appears plainly by my answer though you take no notice of it having fit occasion and being minded of it by me I would not so deal with you 2. That you have the authority of Zanchy and of some reverend men besides on your part in this Position I do not deny nor do I want such on my part but I would see with mine own eyes not other mens 3. To the reasons alledged as you say by Pareus and Bucer for the distinction of Pastors and Teachers from difference of gifts which is grounded on Rom. 12. I answer 1. It takes not away the exception made against the proof of this by Ephes 4.11 2. I suppose the Apostle did not intend no not in Rom. 12. though he might intend it there and yet Ephes 4.11 be impertinently alleadged for proof of it that each of those severall gifts should constitute a severall officer for then there should be seven officers in the Church viz. Prophets v. 6. Ministers and Teachers v. 7. Exhorters Givers Rulers Shewers of mercy v. 8. For all these are equally by the disjunctive particle Or severed one from another for it is not sufficiently cleared to me that Prophesie and Ministery or Ministery and Teaching or Teaching and Exhortation are in the Apostles sense all one or one the genus and the other the species And yet Mr. Gillespy hath done most learnedly accurately in that point 3. Difference of gifts without an institution from God cannot make a different office James and John it may be had a speciall gift of terrifying sinners and are called sonnes of thunder Mark 3 17. and Joses a speciall gift of comforting weak Saints and called the son of consolation Act. 4.36 Yet no man will upon this ground conclude them to be different officers one Pastor may be excellent in one gift another in another possibly some men may be excellent in both gifts Paraeus himself a little after the place by you cited saith The Apostles did excell in both gifts and they are indeed common parts of the Episcopal or Pastoral office and therefore are conjoyned 1 Cor. 14.4 And it is evident 1. That every Pastor should be apt to teach 1 Tim. 3.3 which word is of the same originall with this in Ephes 4.11 2. That Pastors are called Teachers the very word that is here 1 Cor. 12.28 which runs paralel with this Text may be well fetchr into explicate it and also in Isa 30.20 Act. 13.1 3. The Scripture doth ascribe the work of feeding with knowledge and understanding which upon supposall of the distinction of these officers is the work of the Teacher unto the Pastor Jer. 3.15 And lastly words joyned together by a conjunction copulative are often exegetical and explicative one of another as in the example produced by me 1 Pet. 2.25 And the Apostle purposely omits the distinguishing and dividing particle some inserting it between Apostles and Evangelists but not between Pastors or Shepherds for the word is the same with 1 Pet. 2.25 and Teachers where Teachers tels us what he means by Shepherds as Bishop doth expound Shepherd in the other place And there is no parallel in all the Scripture doth prove that And doth stand for Some From all which jointly considered I conclude That Ephes 4.11 is not sufficient pertinent and full of power to prove that Pastors and Teachers are by Gods institution distinct officers And your selves also seem so to think when you conclude your Reply p. 70. with these words So that if we do put a false glosse upon the Scripture by misinterpreting Ephes 4.11 c. CHAP. XXIV Whether every particular Assembly be Sion the place of Gods speciall presence Sect. 1. WHen I say that every particular Congregation is not Sion but one of the Assemblies of Sion Isa 4.5 That the Hebrewes which were divided into many Congregations are not said to be come to many mount Sions but to mount Sion Heb. 12. And that the Scripture warrants not the expression of an hundred or a thousand Sions You reply p. 71. That Sion was a mountain contiguous to Moriah upon which the Temple was built in which God vouchsafed a speciall presence and unto which the Tribes went up and by a metonymy is frequently
abhominate Anarchy which is far worse then tyranny These four or five years hath brought forth more blasphemies heresies errors schismes phrensies strong delusions proceeding from the spirit of lying and giddinesse then four or five Ages before And also that you should abhominate popular usurpation of Church-government which God did abhominate in Corah Dathan and Abiram and their congregation and did severely punish as also he did the men of Bethshemesh 1 King 6. for but looking into the Ark. 2. To say that Presbyteriall government implies usurpation of exorbitant ecclesiasticall domination is a bearing false witnesse against the Reformed churches of Scotland France Holland c. and tends to exasperate the Civil Magistrate against them as usurpers of undue power And the same may much more truly be said of Independnt churches Sect. 3. When I answer that Diotrophes being but one was liker to a Prelate then a Presbytery yet S. John doth not blame him simply for accepting or having preheminence or for taking upon him to answer in behalf of the Church to which S. John writ or for taking to him the power of commanding forbidding excommunicating but for loving preheminence as Mat. 23.6 7. for not receiving the Apostles and brethren and prohibiting what he should have required and encouraged and excommunicating such as were the best members of the Church You reply 1. p. 82. Brother a horse in the abstracted notion of unity being but one is liker a Prelate then a Presbytery which are many but Prelacie doth not consist in unity but in usurpation of undue unscripturall power over their brethren A Classicall Presbyterie may be as like to Diotrophes as a Prelate 't is alike if not equally Prelaticall when fourteen or fifteen exercise a Jurisdictional power over their brethren as when one man doth exercise it in two or three severall Counties Rejoynd What mean you Brother a horse It s well you said not an Asse Let us be grave and serious Though Prelacie do not consist in unity yet in a Prelate unity and usurpation meet together so they do not in an horse 2. Prelacie in the most usuall sense and in the sense of our Nationall Covenant is neerer to Monarchical then to Aristocratical government so also in the sense of the Reformed Churches and the old godly Nonconformists which did not esteem Presbyterian government to be Prelatical 3. You jump notably with the Malignants which say that a Parliament may be as tyrannicall as a King and when answer is made that it cannot be thought that a Community will destroy it self they reply Yes a Representative kingdome may endeavour to destroy the Collective and then the power is in the body of the people and you mutato nomine say little lesse And no wonder if you should as some do speak as expresly against representative Civil as Ecclesiastical judicatories seeing many Independents have the undoubted marks of reall malignancie upon them viz. they have as truly laboured to divide the Kingdomes to divide the King and his people to make divisions in Parliament City and Kingdome to nourish and foment those divisions to hinder help from Ireland to retard the work of Reformation as Canterbury and Strafford did to pick and pack Parliament-men for their purpose and to awe his Majesties liege people by an Army to the destruction both of priviledge of Parliament and liberty of the Subject 4. You told us p 47. That you did approve of Mr. Cottons modesty who would not hastily censure ancient and latter Synods for putting forth acts of power in Ordination and Excommunication Surely now you may say what I when I search and try my own wayes find cause to say Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor Is the preserving the government and discipline of Scotland preserving of Prelacie Is setting Presbyterian government the reviving of Prelacie Are all the Reformed churches all the old Nonconformists save you and the Brownists Anabaptists Familists Prelatical Are they covenanted against and ought each in his place endeavour their utter extirpation Doctor Ames saith The Reformed Churches of France have their association and combination without any Hierarchy Fresh suit against Cerem p. 91 Which is as much as to say without any Prelacie 5. May a Classical Presbyterie exercise undue unscripturall power over their brethren and in that capacity be as like to Diotrophes as a Prelate and may not a Congregation in that respect be as like to Diotrephes as a Classical Presbyterie for she may also exercise undue unscripturall power as the Church of Roterodam did in deposing her Minister and every Congregation doth that doth depute a Non-Elder to Ordain for the Scripture gives not a Church of believers that power and when a Non-Elder doth ordain a Pastor he is Prelatical in the highest degree For first one man ought not to ordain a Minister but a company 1 Tim. 4.14 Act. 13.1 2.2 They that ordain Elders should themselves be first ordained Elders which he is not Also when a Congregation without officers do exercise the power of the Keyes she is Prelatical yea super-Prelatical for the Prelate by office as a Presbyter hath some power of the Keyes which Non-Elders have not and the Prelate had Presbyters to assist in ordination of Ministers and to joyn in Imposition of hands which somtimes in Congregational churches is not observed 5. I need not tell you of some of N.E. which call their godly Ministers Baals Priests Popish factors Scribes Pharisees Legal preachers persecutors and the Church of Boston there the whore and strumpet of Boston as well as you call us Prelaticall Nor need I to tell you that extraordinary courses may be taken in extraordinary cases and that some things are necessary to be done when Reformation is in fieri that are not fit when it is in facto esse But I must needs minde you that I shewed in my Epistle before the Quares which you pretend to answer the differences between Prelatical and Presbyterian government which though you did not take so much notice of it as to transcribe it nor can the Reader of your books perceive that there was any such thing in it yet because it is safe for the Reader it shall not be tedious to me to repeat it for the further clearing of that Government from the aspersion of Prelacie In the Prelatical government the Prelate onely called and counted himself a Bishop a name common to Elders Act. 20.17.28 Tit. 1.5.7 he challenged Ecclesiastical jurisdiction above his fellow-Ministers to belong to him as a man of a higher rank challenged to one what doth belong to a Colledge did not associate Congregations but subjugate them to him and himself would be subject to no Presbytery he made the Cathedral and mother-Church superior in power to the rest but the Presbyterian way is a social way as between friends confederates brethren where all judge and all are judged all things done communi Presbyterorum consilio where no Congregation is above another