Church matters Hence it is evident that this Author is obliged if he would answer his undertaking in pleading for the present Prelacie not only to evince the warrantablenes of the Diocesian Bishop in all his pretended spiritual power over Church Judicatories But likewaves of the Erastianbishop deriving all his Authoritie from the Civil Magistrat Wee shall then befor wee come to examine his pleading upon this Head offer I. Some Arguments against our Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church-officer and shall shew his office to be contrare to Scripture 2. As ane Erastian Prelat deryving all his spiritual power from the Magistrat I. As a pretended Church officer the Diocesian Bishop is contrare to Scripture in many respects I. In narrowing and restricting the Scripture term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to ane office and officer distinct from and Superior to a Presbyter or Pastor For since the Spirit of God in Scripture appropriats this term to Presbyters and consequentlie the work and office therin imported Tit. 1 5 7. Act. 20 28. 1 Pet. 5 2. 3. Sure it must be ane anti-Scriptural and Sacrilegius robbing of Presbyters of their right and due designation to make this proper and peculiar to a Diocesian Bishop onlie as the Characteristick of his office Episcopal men themselves and this Author particularely doe acknowledge this term to be in Scripture applyed to Presbyters Let them then shew a reason why they have made it peculiar to a Prelat as distinct from Presbyters Or let them shew where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denots such ane officer as they have shappen out viz. A diocesian Prelat having sole power of ordination and jurisdiction over a wholl diocess with a negative voice and a sole decisive suffrage in the Church Judicatories thereof Should they appropriat the term Pastor or Minister to a diocesian Prelat onlie Who would not call this ane Anti-scriptural usurpation of the Presbyters due And why also shall it not be thought such ane usurpation when they appropriat the term Episcopus or Bishop to such a pretended distinct officer Since this term is as much given to Presbyters in Scripture as the terme of Pastor or Minister Judicious Calvin hath some remarkable passages to this purpose in his Comentaries On Tit 1 7. Having observed that Bishops and Presbyters are all one He calls the appropriating of the name Bishop to the Prelat a profane boldnes and ane abrogating of the holy Ghosts language Abrogato Spiritus Sansti sermone usus hominum arbitrio inductus praevaluit nomen officii quod Deus in commune omnibus dederat in unum transferri reliquis spoliatis injurium est absurdum Deinde sic pervertere Spiritus sancti linguam nimis profana audaciae est Act. 20 28. He collects the identitie of the name office of Bishop Presbiter from the elders being called Bishops And having observed the same on Philip. 1. And that after the name Bishop became peculiare to one He adds id tamen ex hominum consuetudine natum est Scripturae autoritate minime nititur Telling us that under this pretext of giving the name to one ane unlawful dominion was brought in But of this againe II. The office hereby designed doth alwayes relate to the Flock and hath them for its immediat object and Correlat as much as the word Pastor The Bishops of Ephesus were made by the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the flock of God whom they were to feed Whereas our supposed Diocesian Episcopus or Bishop His office and inscection relates immediatly to the wholl Pastores of his diocess who are alse much his flock and the object of his oversight care direction correction and censure as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or layetie Peter bids the Episcopountes feed the flock act the Bishops over them But our diocesian Prelat pretends to feed and rule the Pastores themselves The Scripture Bishop is Populi Pastor but the Diocesian Prelat is Pastor Pastorum Presbiter Presbiterorum And therfor is ane Antiscriptural Monster III. The Diocesian Prelat usurpes and takes from Presbiters that authoritie allowed them of God in his Word For both power of ordination and jurisdiction is soly and properlie in the Diocesian Prelat according to Episcopal men and likewise according to our Lawes As we saw above in the act anent Prelacy For according thereto the Prelat is a Superior ordinar Church officer above Presbyters he is sole as to ordination may doe it alone and assumes Presbiters onelie proforma Which no more lessens his Principalitie and Supereminencie in this pointe then a Prince in assumeing Counsellors saith Dounam Def. lib 5 Cap. 7. weakens his princely power and authoritie Presbyters exercise all their Acts of the power of order in a dependance upon him he only is the proper Pastor of the diocess as shall be afterward cleared Presbiters are but his substitutes and helpers They are likwayes Subject to him as their proper Sole judge and censurer by Ecclesiastick censures of suspension deposition excommunication the decisive power in Church judicatories is properlie his For the most unanimous Acts and conclusions of the diocesian Synod falls unders his cognisance to be ratified or Cassat at his pleasure He is the Sine quo non and hath a Negative voice in the judicatories the law allowing his Presbiters only to give him advice Nay and not that either unles he judge them of known layaltie and prudence Now in all these he usurps over Presbiters authoritie allowed them of God For I. Wee find the Scripture atributes the power of order jurisdiction equalie to all Presbiters who have both keys of doctrine discipline given them immediatlie by Christ. In that I. They are command 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5. 28. Act. 20. 2. which comprehends the authoritie and exercise of both the keys of doctrine and discipline 2. In all commands relating to the exercise of this power ther is not the least hint of ane equalitie among them which were very cross to the Lords Scope if the Diocesian Prelats Superioritie were allowed and appointed The Presbiters or Bishops of Ephesus and those of the Churches which Peter writs unto are commanded to feed and rule jointlie equallie and with the same authoritie but non of them in dependance upon and deryving a precarious authoritie from another in feeding and ruleing 3. In all the commands relating to peoples Subjection obedience to Church Rulers in the exercise of their power their is not the least hint of disparitie among these Rulers 1 Thess. 5 12. People are commanded to obey them that labour among them and are over them in the Lord and to esteem them highly And Hebr. 13 17. They are commanded to obey them who have the rule over them and watch for their Soules but nothing of a special degrie of obedience to this supposed highest supereminent watch man is heard of in these or any
is the Presbiteries forensicall Act in ordination of Timothie To what end must the Corinth Church Officers Meet together and authoritatively and joyntlie punish or censur the incestuous man Wher is that pleasing of the Apostles and elders as the foundation of the Synodical decree and letter together with it seemed good to the HolyGhost and to us And to us Mett with one accord Wher is I say this joynt decisive power of Church Judicatories thus clearly held out in the premised Scriptures if the Act and Ecclesiastick decision thereof be soly the Prelats sic â—…olo sie jubeo masked with advice of Presbyters of whose advice he may make what use he pleases and with a simple nego make their judgment and suffrage evanish into smoake 3. This power of the Prelats cuts of from Ministers one half of their authoritie and commission receaved in their ordination They are made therein as is clear in Scripture our adversaries grant it Rulers Governours Overseers Pastors Stewards in the Church Have both the Shepherds bagg staff the key of doctrine and the key of discipline intrusted to them By what warrand then must they give up all their power in government their decisive suffrage in Church Judicatories unto the domineering Prelat and as to spiritual power in Church Judicarories become meer Ciphers They watch and rule as they that must give account of all their administration to Christ. Peter exhorts the Elders suteablie to exercise their Episcopal Authority over the flock that they may get the Crown from the chief Shepherd Stewards of God especially must be faithful and imploy well all their Talents receaved from the great Master that they may get his approbation and reward as faithful Servants The Elders of Ephesus were obtested by Paul to take heed to themselves and to all the flock over which they were made Bishops by the Holy Ghost to feed and rule the Church which God hath purchased with his blood Now all thes exhortations directed to Ministers are to no purpose if they have no inherent immediat Rule essentially included in their office And to be exercised accordingly but must only preach as a Diocesian Prelats Deputes and be in the exercise of their ruling governing power absolutly subject to him and at his disposal Finally This usurped authoritie in the Prelat sets him above the reach of all censure by Church Indicatories So that though Ministers are absolutly and at his beck censurable by and subject to him both as to their doctrine conversation and discipline and every one of them thus censurable and jointly yet this hie Pop who judges All will be judged by none himself Either as to his Doctrine Life or Government Some have said of the Prince that though major singulis yet he is minor universis less then the whole body of the people though greater then every one aparte But the Prelat exercises a greater principalitie in Church Judicatories is therein major universis greater then the whole meeting so that thogh he can stop the Votes and Censures of the whole Synod yet they cannot either by suffrage or censure in the least put a check to him in any of His most wicked Acts or Antichristian Exorbitances Now how contrary this is to Scriptur any may judge The Prophets after their prophesying must be judged by the rest as to their doctrine 1 Cor. 14 29 Ergo a fortiori much more as to their conversation government are lyable to be judged and consequentlie censured if deserving it For he were a great Critick that would distinguish these so as those who have power to judge have no power to censure or pass sentence upon their judging And this is founded upon a general comprehensive ground viz. the Spirits of the Prophets that is the gifts and exercises of the Ministery in all Church Officers without exception are subject to the Prophets viz. to their disquisition and censure in any peece of their work or official Acts. Now unles our Prelats would deny themselves to be Prophets and Ministers or the Presbyters to be Prophets they must acknowledge this subjection to their censure enjoyned in the Scripture premised and consequently that their exeeming themselves from the same is an anti-scriptural usurpation I remember while a writting that proposing once this Argument to ane Episcopal Clergie man I enquired to what Church Judicatorie in Scotland was Mr Sharp subject as to either his life or doctrine He answered that he was subject to a general Counsell and this was very apposit and consequenter to their principles So that our Prelats at least the two Arch are in no fear but of a general Council if the Court froune not In our Act of Parliament touching the mould of our National Synod the Primat is the essential President sine quo non and so is sure enough from being censured there so are the rest of the Prelats as to all their Synods according to our Lawes But what think these exleges Episcopi or hie Court Prelats of such a humble Bishop as the Apostle Paul who had hands laid upon him and was authoritativelie sent out by that Presbitery of Prophets and teachers at Antioch Act. 13. together with Barnabas about ane eminent Gospel-Legation and was by the same Church and Presbytery sent together with Barnabas and certain other commissioners of the Churches to that Synod at Jerusalem Act. 15. Why did not Paul make use of his Negative voice and command them all silence in this debate How comes it that his hie Bishop subjects himself to the authoritative blessing and mission of some pettie Prophets and teachers Ane amazeing looking glass this is no doubt to our aspyreing Prelats 4. The holding of the Diocesian Prelat and obtruding him upon the Church as ane ordinary Church officer distinct from and superior to Presbiters doth many wayes Impeach Christs Kingly office as head and law giveâ—… of his Church whose faithfulnes above that of Moses who ordered according to the Patern shewed upon the Mount the least pine of the Tabernacle must needs reach the appointment of the officers offices qualifications work and gifts of these officers who are to officiat in his house as our Confession of Faith and Catechisim doe assert For according to our Prelatical Clergie and according to the Lawes the Prelat hath a distinct Work from that of a Presbiter viz. to govern a diocess he hath the Actus primus of a State ruler to sitt in Council or Parliament Nixt he hath a distinct solemne Consecration or inauguration to his Office And 3. Must needs be supposed to have likwise distinct qualifications and Gifts from those of a preaching Presbiter conferred by this solemne imposition of hands and blessing at his Consecration wherby he must be supposed to have a superior distinct mission and to be in all the forementioned particulars distinct from and superior to a Presbiter Now if non of all these points of his superioritie can
and Euangelists as the extraordinary New Testament Officers whose proper formal Office died with them and admits of no succession for thus they ordinarily defyne the Apostles that they were Christs immediatly called and extraornarily gifted universal Ambassadours sent out to lay every where the foundation of the Gospel Church and to plant the Gospel government therein Particularly Polanus in his Syntagma reckens up these as their extraordinary expired prerogatives to which we will find this Informer in parte give assent 1. Their immediat institution by Christ. 2. Their immediat mission to teach Paul had his from heaven 3. Their universal legation to found and plant Churches throw the world 2 Cor. 11 28. 4. It s visible badge viz. the conferring of the Spirit by the laying on of hands 5. Their extraordinary authority beyond any of their Successors as being set over the whole Church c. Hence all the ingredients of their formal Office as such must needs be expired And no Church Officer can be said to succeed them therein Their Call was immediat sure non can succeed them in that Their special or proper work was to plant Churches and the Gospel-government in them and set up their Officers of all which Churches they were Ministers in actu exercits sure no Church Officer could succeed them in this Their Qualifications as such Ambassadours were correspondent to this great work viz. their gifts of miracles gifts of tongues Prophesie infallibility in Doctrin Sure now can pretend to succeed them in this Nixt for the Euangelists their Office was equally extraordinary it consisting in a planetary motion from place to place to water where the Apostles planted to bring reports of the Churches state to the Apostles and commissions from the Apostles to them Their various motions pro re nata upon down even after these Epistles wherein they are supposed to have receaved their Episcopal charge were written to them and the Scriptures absolut silence as to their ever returning to these Churches againe besides the Apostle Pauls shewing expresly in these Epistles their occasional transient employment in this places and express recalling of them therefrom to the further prosecution of their extraordinary employment and in these very Epistles identifying the Office of the Bishop and Elder All these clear grounds I say do evidently demonstrat that the work and office of Timothy and Titus as Euangelists is expired and cannot be pretended unto by any ordinary Church Officer it being an appendix as it were of the Apostolick charge and supposing its exercise and existance and the Churches then infant state and condition Now to make these high and extraordinary functions ordinary and thus confound the two together must be a very gross usurpation 2. Hence it is manifest that the Episcopal function as above described in the quality and mould of the Diocesian Bishop will never be found in these extraordinary functions either formaliter or eminenter and consequently it must be a gross belying of the Spirit of God to pretend this in the assuming of this usurped Office First The Episcopal Office will not be found in that of the Apostles or Euangelists formaliter For these were universal unfixed Officers set over no particular Church or Diocess But were pro re nata to officiat to the whole Church as being the Apostles especially Officers thereof in actu exercito Nixt the Episcopal function is not included in these Offices eminenter or in the ordinary power whiâ—… the Apostles or Euangelists exercised or transmitte 〈◊〉 the Church And that for these Reasons 1. Neitâ—… the Apostles nor Euangelists in respect of their perpetâ—… ordinary Ministerial authority transmitted by them in 〈◊〉 Church did exercise Superiority Episcopal over other Ministers but as to the perpetual Pastoral Charge they held them their equals and in the ordinary power of government as wee saw above in the Apostles practise in ordination and Jurisdiction amongst Churches constitut and farr less can we suppose that the Euangelists were in such Churches to exercise any single or Episcopal preheminence in government For it were strange if Timothy who was ordained by a Presbytrye wherein Paul himself was present should notwithstanding usurpe preheminence over a Presbytery though inferior to ane Apostle And that whereas Presbyters did concurr pari passu with a whole Presbytery of Apostles in every peece of a judicial Act and decree yet that ane Euangelist inferior to any of the Apostles should take Episcopal preheminence over a Presbytery 2. The Apostles planted no such ordinary Officers in the Church as had that Episcopal Power therefore the Episcopal Power was not transmitted by them in the Church And by further consequence it is not included in their Office eminenter For it is evident that in the first plantation of the Churches they fixed Presbyters or Pastors as their immediat Successor's in the Ministerial power and likewise in their last farewel's into Churches they committed unto these Pastors the ordinary power of government without the least hint of a Super-institution of any officer of a higher order Act. 20 28 29. Compared with 25. 1 Pet. 5 2 3. with 2 Pet. 1 14 3. It was in respect of Paules ordinary Ministerial power and in that Capacitie that he had hands laid upon him by that Presbytety at Antioch and was sent out with other commissioners to that Synod at Jerusalem by them which looked like a humble submission pro tanto unto them and is far from the Episcopal preheminence since the Prelats dissoune all Subjection to the Prophes in greater or lesser assemblies 4. The Prelats authority is this he is upon the mater the only proper Pastor of the Diocess whose Episcopal inspection reaches Pastores and flocks both as is above cleared He is the fountaine from whom the power of order and Jurisdiction in the wholl Diocess is deryved and the exercise of both depends upon his Lordly disposal Now this is contrare both to the Apostles and Evangelists their ordinary and extraordinary power contrare to its very nature in universum their office being a declarative executive Ministerie onlie And Dominion or Lordship being discharged to all Apostles and all Church Officers whatsoever Hence in the 3d. place This Episcopal pretence aâ—…nt the derivation of their Lordly grandour from the Apostolick Office fastens a grosse charge of unfaithfulness upon them 1. In assuming a power in its nature distinct from what there Lord allowed and enjoyned them viz. a Lordly dominion not a ministerial Stewardshipe service only such a dominion as Princes of the gentiles exercise even to have the actus primus of a civil Lord-peer yea Chieff-peer or Parliament man 2. In debaseing and Straitening their Apostolick Inspection and carrying ane Office incompatible with it and thus unfaithfully tearing out a parte of their commission For in becoming Diocesian Bishops they should be fixed to particular diocesses and therin exercise ane ordinary fixed poever wheras their commission was to
he that cannot distinguish this from accnstant official medling as a civil Iudge and constituent Member in civil Indicatories is very blinde And as stupid that man were who could not distinguish this from the privat domestick care mentioned 1 Tim. 5 8. Which is a part of that Eiconomie founded uonp the Law of nature and competent to a Minister as a Master of the Family who is to govern and rule his house under that notion Yet we must here tell him that Gods allowing the Minister his honorarium or maintenance is for this very end that he may not by any overstretch of the domestick case be taken off from his holy imployment Here we shall offer to this Informers grave judgment the Reasons of the Assembly 1638. Sess 25. against the civil Offices of Ministers 1. Christs notable example Luk. 12 14. Refusing to deal in a civil cause Ministers are his Ambassadours sent by him as he was by the Father Joh. 20 21. Joh. 8. He would not sentence that woman who deserved death 2. Civil Rule is discharged to Apostles Matth. 20 v. 25 26. not only Supreme which is competent to Princes but subordinat also Citing that passage of Bernard to Eugenius Lib 2. Apostolis interdicitur dominatus ergo tu tihi usurpare aude aut dominans Apostolatum aut Apostolicus dominatum Dominion is discharged to Apostles Go thou therefore and dare to usurp to thy self whither the Apostleship if holding a civil dominion or being Apostolick a civil dominion Where theyrefute the ordinary Episcopal Popish evasion as to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. That Ministers having given up their names to this holy warfare they ought not to be involved in things of this life as the law denyes this to souldiers C. d. Lib 2. T it 13 So the Apostolick law 2 Tim. 2 04. This work tobe heavier then that any man can be sufficient for it alone 2 Cor. 2 16. Hence Ministers are called watchmen labourers souldiers fishers c. 4. The Apostles for all their extraordinarie gifts were not fit for serving tables and preaching the word both Act 6. although these were both ecclesiastick functiones therefore farr lesse can any Minister now assume both ecclesiastick and civil offices Gregorie the 1. cited by Gratianin Decreto dist 89 Cap. Singula proves that two ecclesiastick offices are not to be committed to one from that place of the Apostle Rom. 12 6 7. As it is unbeseeming that in mans bodie one member should Act the part of another The 6th of the Canons called Apostolick appoints that the Bishop or Presbyter assuming civil places be deposed which will make fearfull Massâ—…cre among our Prelats that day the Parliament rides so Can. 81 and 83. Cyprian lib 1 Epist. 9. sayes that long before It was appointed in a Councel of Bishopes that none appoint in his Testament one of the Clergie a Tutor or Curator Quando singuli divino sacerdotio honorati non nisi altari sacrificiis precibus orationi vacare debent Since every one honoured with the divine priesthood ought not to attend but to the Altar and Sacrifices to prayer and preaching for it s written no man that warrs c. Clemens the 1. whom many make Bishop of Rome and out of whose writings the defect of ecclesiastick history after the Actes of the Apostles they affirme must be made up in the Epistle to James the brother of the Lord whom they make a Bishop hath these words neque judicem aut cognitorem secularium negotiorum te ordinare vult Christus ne praefocatus presentibus hominum curis non possis verbo Dei vacare secundum veritatis regulam secernere bonos a malis impietatis tibi crimen est neglectis verbi Dei studiis sollicitudines suscipere seculares That is neither will Christ ordaine thee a judge and arbiter of civill affaires lest being involved in the present cares of men thou be not able to attend the word of God and according to the rule of verity to separat the good from the evill It blotts thee with the Crime of impietie to take up secular cares neglecting the Studjes of the word of God Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais cited by lipsius in politicis said that it is unlawfull to joyne the Civill power with the priesthood-nam hoc esset miscere non miscenda hoc est Sacris civiliaconfuâ—…dere For this were to mix together things which cannot be mixed that is to confound Civill maters with Sacred See severall others cited by the assembly and recorded in the Historiamotuum pag. 283 284. Where there is ane Answer to the objection drawen from Augustins practise and from that of 1. Cor. 6. 4. The informer comes nixt page 5. to his defence of the Episcopall office it self But still goes on in the mist of confused generalls never condescending upon the nature power and extent of the diocesian Bishopes office as it is now established by law However let us remember that our present prelat is according to our law Ane ordinary Church officer assuming the government of some Hundereds of Congregations as monopolized in him and conveyed according to his pleasur unto the Ministers therof Having sole power in ordination and jurisdiction and a negative voice in Church judicatories whose proper worke is Ruleing only not feeding by doctrine This is the Bishop which all his pleading must be commensurat unto else He but beats the Air. 1. The Doubter alleages The unlawfullnes of the Episcopall office for want of ane expresse warrand for it in the word To which He answers By granting that this will prove it to be not simply necessare but not unlawfall since it may be lawfull and expedient as falling under some generall as the command of decencie and order will warr and a Moderator and Clerke although this be no where commanded That many learned men have thought prelacie lawfull though not commanded nor warranted by any particular Scripture precedent nor yet prohibited but left to Christian prudence at it is found expedient and conduceing to the good of the Church To which I answer 1. He grosly mistaks the Import of these relatives a command and the necessitie of a thing flowing therefrom when restricting it to ane expresse warrand or command there being many things necessarie necessitate precepti which have no expresse warrand or command Divines doe tell us that Scripture commands are either immediat or mediat the immediat are either explicit or in expresse terms enjoyning a thing as honour thy father and thy mother or implicit holding out either that which is comprehended in the command as suetable midses leading to the dueties enjoyned or deduced by consequence from what is expressed As Ministers preaching is deduced by consequence from the command thereanent which the Apostles gotâ—… the Circumstances of the command pointing out this to be a perpetuall duetie of Church officers Againe 2. There are divine commands which are mediat
flock as this man himself pleads both these grounds hold out their equality among themselves and inferrs a discharge of inequality This Informers likewayes would remarke that the Spirit of God here commands Presbyters to act the Bishopes thus indentifying the Bishop and Prisbyter but without Lording it over Gods heritage the prohibition not to Lord it is remarkably joyned with the command to Act the Bishop And referring their office to the flock he must confess the Apostle acknowledged no Bishops whose inspection was over Pastours themselves Thus we see hisanswer to the Argument against Prelacy from this Text is contrare unto the scope and sense of the Words yea and inconsistent with it self CHAP. X. The Informers answers to our Argument from Act. 20. and from Tit. 1 5 7. Philip. 1 1. Ephes. 4 11. For the identitie of Bishop Presbyter win nowed the insufficiencie and inconsistencie thereof together with his begging of the question discovered and these texts at some length improven against him THE Doubter in the nixt place objects That in the new Testament Bishop and Presbyter signifie one and the same office bearer that in Act. 20 the elders in the 17. v. are called Bishops in the 28. v. So in Tit. 1 5 7. And therefor Bishop and elder are the same in Scriptur and the word elder signifies no more then a Minister of a particular Congregation Heer he touches a parte but not the strength of our argument from these texts We argue not meerly from the Samenes of the Names but the identitie of all the essentiales of the office Duties and Qualifications of the office bearer expressed by these names when applyed to ane ordinarie office bearer Particularly f. om Act. 20. We draw forth these weapons 1. The Apostle speaking to the elders tells them that the holy ghost had made them Bishopes over the flock shewing that the Scriptur Bishop set up by the holy ghost is the Minister or elder who feeds and rules over the flock 2. The Apostle gives them not only the Name of Bishop but also the thing commanding these elders or Ministers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which takes in all the power of order and jurisdiction and whatever the Diocesian Bishop may pretend unto 3. Which is very remarbable he gives this Charge so these elders befor Timothy who was now present with the Apostle and after the first Epistle was written to him for it was writtin when Paul was at Macedonia and after this Paul haveing Timothy with him came to Miletum and gave the elders of Ephesus this charge Finallie This was Pauls last charge to them for they were never to see his face more So that we have here a pattern of the mould of the Gospel-Church in relation to Government as this great Apostle of the Gentiles left it and consequentlie as all the rest left it which is convinceingly apparent by comparing this with the parallel 1 Pet. 5. compared with 2 Pet. 1 14. Hence we exterminat the Diocefian Prelat thus 1. The Holy Ghosts Bishops were Ministers which he set up to feed and rule the flock immediatly These and these only the Apostle and the Apostolick Church knew therefore he dissownes the Prelat who pretends to be set over some hundreds of Pastoures and flocks and is bound to feed no flocke himself 2. These who watch over the flocks immediatly and only have all the Episcopal power both the key of doctrine and Government committed to them by the holy Ghost Therefore the Diocesian Prelat taking and arrogating to himself the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction and leaving Presbyters nothing but the Doctrinal key as his deputies while he himself preaches to no flock is ane Antiscriptural Sacrilegious robber 3. The elders or Pastoures of Ephesus got all Episcopal authority as to order and jurisdiction committed to them by Paul as the Holy ghosts Bishops the highest ordinarie officers of that Church in the presence of Timothie without the least hint of any interest that Timothie had in or over them as their Bishope or Overseer therein or the least hint of any direction anent their dutie to Timothie as in that Capacitie and this after he had gotten all his directions in the 1. Epistle written to him And therefore Timothie was never set up as a Diocesian Prelat over that Church as this Informer would perswade and the inspection which he is supposed to have in that Epistle was occasional transient and extraordinarie and by conseguence layes no ground for Prelacie Finallie Paules directions here were his last and farewel directions therefore this Church was to continue thus governed by these elders or Bishops in common and the Prelatists Plea that the Apostles set up Presbyters at first keeping the reyns of Government in their own hands till towardes the end of their life and then sett up Prelats over these Presbyters is here convict of falshood since neither Paul nor Peter the great Apostle of the Gentiles or the great Apostle of the Circumcision doe in the least hint any such Super-institution but both of them in their last directions to the Churches commit the wholl power both of order and jurisdiction to the Pastoures of the flocks in common as the only Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost From 1 Tim. 1 5 7. The great Argument is not only from the promiscuouse use of the Name Bishop Presbyter but from the forme and mould of the Apostles reasoning which inferres not onely the identitie of names but of the office also For the Apostle shewing Titus how the elders are to be qualified gives this reasone for a Bishop must he blameles This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or causal For expressing the knot and connexion of the Apostles argument or reason doth clearly Import that the office expressed by both these words is one and the same for there is neither sound matter or forme in such reasoning as this Presbiters must be so and so qualified because a Bishop of a Superior order and degree must be so qualified So that from hence it is evident that the elder is the Bishop vice versa and that no higher Bishopes were by the Apostles constitut in the Churches Here then as in the preceeding text we have not only Bishops and elders getting the same designation by the Holyghost who knew best the nature of the things themselves and how to express himself thereanent but likewayes the same qualifications work and office and so the office is supposed to be every way one and the same Now let us hear what he sayes to the argument He grants that the two words oftentimes doe point out one and the same officer but denyes that the officer meaned by these words is never understood above the degree of ane ordinarie Minister Or that the word Presbiter or elder signifies only the Minister of a single Congregation no more The insufficiencie and prevarication of which answer euidently appears
among other corruptions and since he drawes his first instance of the Levits subordination from Exod 6. before that tribe was set apart at all to the Holy Ministery that passage at least and as I said in the judgment of some its parallels also aftermentioned by him doe speak of the Civil Government and subordi nation of the Levites in that capacitie and that any of their Chief rulers are by the Greeks termed Episcopus is a very poor argument to conclude their Ecclesiastick rule it being notourly known that the best Greek Authores put his designation upon Civil Governoures This subordination among the Levites in Exod. 6 15. is unquestionably civil upon the ground assigned And numb 3. It is evident that the heads and princes of Families are numbered And accordingly the heads and Chief of the families 1 Chron. 24. and in Neh 11 14. He that is set over the priests is the son of one of the great men Haggedolim or eminent in paris and place as many take it 1 Chron. 24 4. before the division and order is set down it s said there were more Chief men found of the sones of Eleazar then of the sones of â—…thamar c. all which doth much plead forthis assertion but we need not be peremptor in pressing this since the weight of our answer lies not upon it Our Informer comes nixt to his New Testament proofes for Bishops and produces first the superiority of the twelve Apostles above the seventy Disciples Where 1. Wee see He is still in the clouds of a general superiority which is farr from the Prince-like Arbitrary and Erastian superioritie of the Diocesian Prelat now existent and whom he undertakes to plead for which this Informer Had he intended to have informed right should have condescended upon Had the Apostles such a superioritie over the seventy Disciples Were they subject to the Apostles as their Rectors and judges Did the Apostles as our Prelats assume a Sole Decisive conclusive suffrage and a negative voice over Church Judicatories notwithstanding of their extraordinary and high prerogatives Did we not see the contrary exemplified in that meeting of Apostles with ordinary Ministers Act. 15 Had the seventy onely a derived precarius Ministry under the twelve Apostles as their Vicars Substitutes in their Ministration Had they no Interest in the Church-Government but upon the Apostles meer pleasure As Curats are now in all these respects subject to their Prelats Had not the seventy their mission their institution immediatly from Christ as well as the Apostles themselves Were they not consequently to exercise their Ministery upon this ground without such a servil dependance upon the twelve as Prelats doe arrogat to themselves ane arbitrary principality over Ministers Were the twelve to rule only and to committ the preaching worke to the seventy as their deputes as our Prelats now doe Or were they not rather to help forward the great harvest and the work of the Ministery together with the Apostles themselves So that this Informer will never find the least shaddow of ane Episcopall superiority here But 2. Granting that the Apostles were officers in asuperiour degree to the seventy which is the utmost Conclusion which he can draw from Scripture how will this infer a superiority among officers of the same degree We grant the Apostles were superior to Evangelists they againe to Pastoures Ergo one Pastour may be a diocesian Prelat over hunderds of other Pastours is a consequence known to no logick Christ appointed both extraordinary and ordinarie officers in their severall degrees as Apostles Evangelists Pastours Ergo he appointed different degrees of Pastours hath no connexion imaginable 3. Tht basis of his argument lyes in this that the Prelats are immediat successours of the Apostles in their degree of superiority to the seventy Disciples and Pastours come after the seventy in their supposed subjection and are not the Apostles immediat successours in the ordinary Ministery but this as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the quesitum or question must be proved not begged and supposed by him We did already evince the contrary viz That the Pastour to whom is committed the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments and both the keys immediatly from the Apostles are the highest ordinary officers and the Apostles immediat successorus as to both order and Jurisdictione But the doubter and I object furder that the Apostles superioritie over the seventie was extraordinary personall temporarie and to cease with themselves In answer to this He grants that in some things their priviledges were extraordinary and to cease with themselves such as their immediat cas ling their sending to all nations their infallibility gifts of tongues or whatever was necessary for the first founding of the obristian Châ—…rch but in other things wherein they were superior to other Ministers their power was not extraordinary and temporarie but still to be continued such as ordination of Ministers and governeing them by ecclesiastick authority in which power the Bishops succeeds them who are the children in stead of the Fathers as Augustin applies that of Psal. 45 v. 19. Ans. 1. Then it seems that with him the Episcopal office properly succeeds to that of the Apostles and is a continuation of their power in ordination and jurisdiction over Pastours which contradicts his second answer to our Argument from Ephes. 4 viz that Bishops in that place may be comprehended under the the office of Pastours teachers For here he makes their office the same with that of the Apostles as importing ane authority in ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors and teachers and so he should have said rather that it is comprehended under the Apostolick office 2. He yet againe contradicts himself in this answer whill granting that whatsoever was necessary for the first planting of the Christian Church is a priviledge ceased with the Apostles and yet making their power of ordination of Ministers and in governing them to be still necessary he must understand it as performed and done by them since therein he imagins the pattern of episcopall power to ly For other wayes the Presbyterians doe hold and prove that ordination by the Presbytery and Government by Presbyters collegiatly is still continued and necessarie This he will not allow and so must understand it of the manner wherein the Apostles performed this at first Now I say their Apostolick power in ordination and Government as exercised by them at first was necessarie for the first founding of the Church For 1. Their power of ordination was of equal limits and extent with their mission to all nations Goe disciple all nations I hope he will grant was extraordinary as being necessary for the first founding of the churches Ergo say I. so was their power in ordination and Government of Ministers since it was of a like nature and of the same extent for to what ever nations they were sent together a Church therein there they were to ordaine Ministers
governe them by ecclesiastick Discipline which he makes to be the Bishops office 2. Their sole power in ordination and Government here supposed by him did certainly presuppose the Christian Church in fieri whereof they were to be founders First They were as Christs immediat extraordinary Ambassadours to convert and bring in Churches then to plant officers the Gospel Government in them Now who will say but this power was necessary for the first planting of the Churches and so comes under the Character of these things which this man acknowledges to be expired Surely where no other officers were to concurre the Apostles of necessity behooved to ordaine solely and their Apostolick Inspection over them did necessarly depend upon and flow from their Apostolick extraordinary mission and infalibilitie So that this power in so fare as Episcopall like was indispensibly needful for the first founding of the Churches and consequently must be expired by his own confession the nature and exercise of this power supposeing and requiring their peculiar mission infallibilitie and gifts of tongues which are acknowledged by this man to be expired privileges necessary ry onely at that time Moreover the Apostles power in ordination and government did include extraordinary miraculous rodes and censurs a power in coerceing the rebellious thus Peter stroke Ananias and Sapphira dead for their lying which was a fearful Apostolick Censure put forth by his Apostolick authoritie at that time Paul stroke Elimas the sorcerer blind for withstanding the truth besides their power in ordination at that time included their miraculous conferring of the Spirit by the Imposition of hands 2 Tim. 1 6 Act. 19 1 2 6. Now all these Apostolick priviledges which this man must needs acknowledge upon his own ground to be expired and extraordinarie being necessarily included in essential unto the Apostolick power the nature and exercise thereof must be expired also Wee shall offer here to the Informer a distinction of the learned Iunius who in his answer to Bellarmins argument for the Apostles Episcopal singular power from that word Shall I come to you with a rod distinguishes the ordinary and extraordinary rod secundum illam c. de Concil lib. 2. Cap. 16. that is according to the commone ordinary rode Peter was a fellow Presbyter 1 Pet. 5. But according to the singular and extraordinary he stroke dead Ananias and Sapphira In respect of this commonrode saith he Paul saith 1 Cor 5. You being gathered together with my Spirit in the name of our Lord Jesus but as to this singular one he saith Shall I come to you with arode 1 Cor 4 21 this common rode he denyes to have him in the hand of any one man whither Apostle or other or that they had any sole or singular preheminence in Churches constitute And this cutts the winde pype of our Informers topick and argument here for the prelats power Which leads to a 3d. Answer 3 We proved already that the Apostles exercised no singular Episcopal preheminence in Churches constitut and what they did in churches not as yet constitut and infieri is not to the purpose by his own confession since it falles in among those things necessary for the first planting of the Churches which priviledges the acknowledges are gone That the Apostles exercised no such single preheminence in churches constitut is abundantly cleared in the 2. Argument against Episcopacie where we shewed that neither in ordination nor excommunication nor in Ministerial decision of controversies the Apostles assumed ane Episcopal power in Churches constitut but had the ordinary Church-officers Presbyterialy concurring with them Wee likwayes proved in the 8. Argument that the Episcopal power is neither formaliter nor eminenter contained in the Apostles authority but is inconsistent there with and contrary therunto there sole directive corrective power over the diocess as being the proper sole pastoures thereof their sole decisive suffrage and Lordly dominion over Church-judicatories besides their civil rule like that of the princes of the gentiles rendering our prelats power ex sua natura in universum different from the very nature of the Apostles authority and the authority of a Gospel Ministery altogether and consequently it could not be transmitted by the Apostles to the Church as any peece of the Gospel Church Government and by further consequence they are none of the Fathers or Children whom the true church or the Apostles brought forth but the Spritus brood of Satanical Antichristian pride As for what he addes of the Fathers making Bishops Successours to the Apostles Iunius will tell him De cler cap 14. Not. 15. That this is not to be understood of a Succession from Christs institutionquia nunquam instituit Christus ut Apostolis secundum gradum in ecclesia succederetur because Christ never appointed Successors to the Apostles in the Church according to degree And that the fathers understood it of a succession ex simili non ex pari a succession of similitude not of paritie and of a similitude secundum quid or imaginary according as Prelats were then moulded CHAP. X. The Informers great argument for Prelacy from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus Their Episcopal office disproved from the office of Evangelist ascribed expresly to the one and by good consequence to the other from many circumstances of the sacred text and the judgement of Interpreters The Informers pleadings from there power in ordination and jurisdiction supposed in the precepts addressed to them there anent from the necessity of this power the concernment of of after-ages therein c examined The unsoundenes and inconsistency of his arguing and answers upon this head several wayes discovered THe Informer presents unto us Nixt the pretended Episcopacy of Tymothy and Titus at Ephesus and crete and the Douhter alledging that Paul calls all the Miniters at Ephesus and crete Bishops He rejoynes That Tymoth and Titus were Bishops as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop was afterward taken that is had a power in ordination and Iurisdiction over and above inferiour Ministers This argument from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus as also the nixt taken from the supposed Episcopal power of the seven Asian Angels hath been so fully answered and baffled by many That it is a wonder how he hath the confidence to repone to us these oft sodden coleworts We gave already a hint in the St Aâ—…gument of the acknowledged extraordinary function of Tymothy and Titus which is abundantly cleared by many from their unfixed motion and officiating their occasional transient imployment in these places Paules actual revocation of them both there from the condition of these Churches as being but in fieri as to their organick settlement and constitution Particularly that their power in ordination and Jurisdiction was not episcopall I prove from these grounds 1. In Churches already constitut this Authority was not solely resident in Tymothy and Titus Falluntur qui putant saith Calvin Instit lib
4. Cap. 3. c. that is they are mistaken who judge either Timothy at Ephesus or Titus at crete to have exercised any impite or Dominion to dispose of things each at his own pleasure they were set over the people no word of their being set over Ministers to go before them in good and wholsome Counsells in relation to the placeing of Ministers not that they might doe as they pleased excluding others Since Paul himself neither imposed hands nor did excommunicat alone and since as I said above a wholl colledge or Presbytery of Apostles acted nothing pro imperio but in Churches constitut had elders going along with them in all that Sinodal procedour Act 15. Farrless would Timothy and Titus assume this episcopal preheminence who were inferiour to any of the Apostles therefore their power in this was not episcopall 2. That authoritie which was intrusted to the elders and Ministers in commone was not intrusted to any one officer such as Timothie But so it is that after the Church of Ephesus was exedified and compleated in its organick being and after Timothy had gotten his charge as to ordination and Jurisdiction in Ephesus Paul committed the wholl episcopal power to the elders as is said before Timothies face in his last farewell Act. 20. therefore he intrusted him with no episcopall preheminence in or over that Church when compleated in its organick being 3. They whose power stands so circumstantiat as to ordination and jurisdiction over these Churches that it excluds Episcopale preheminence properly and formally such their power in ordination and jurisdiction cannot be prelatical nor ground ane argument for prelacie but such is the power of Timothie and Titus For 1. As Diocesian Bishops they ought to have been determinatly and designedly set and fixed there as the officers of these Churches but the contrary appears in the text I befought the to abide at Ephesus and againe I left thee at Crete and to set in order things that are wanting which words point at ane occasional transient employment there not a fixed instalement 2. In these Epistles they are both Called back without the least intimation of their returneing 3. If their power was Episcopall and ordinary then in the apostles prescriptions and rules anent their Successours their power and authority ought to have been described and rules given touching the gifts Call ordination c. of the diocesian Bishop but the Apostle prescribes no rules for any officer higher then a Pastour supposes still that he is the highest ordinary officer in all his directions as to Church government 4. Add to this That Paul never calls Timothy or Titus Bishops though frequently making mention of them but Ministers Souldiers of Christ workmen the Churches messengers c. 1. Tim. 4. 6. 2. Tim. 2. 3. and 15. 2. Cor. 8. Supposing them his attendants in his Apostolick function Their accompanying Paul in his Travells is largely described by the divines at the I le of wight 1. Timothy is found at Berea with Paul Act. 17. 14. then at Athens 15. Thence Paul sends him to Thessalonica 1. Thess. 3. 1. Then havâ—…ig been at Macedonia with Paul he came to him to Corinth Act. 18. 5. Then he is with him at Ephesus and thence sent into Macedonia Act. 19. 22. Whither Paul went after him and was by him accompanied into Asia Act. 20. 4. He is with him at Troas 5. v. and at Miletum 17. v. where Paul gave the elders his last charge as the Bishopes of that Church And after this he is found either in journeys or absent from Ephesus Forafter he is found a prisoner with Paul at Rome being mentioned as his companion in these epistles written while Paul was at Rome as that to the philippians Philip. 1. to philemon 1. 1. and to the colloss 1. 2. and he is never found againe at Ephesus neer the end of the Apostles pilgrimage he is sent for to Rome So Titus is found at Ierusalem befor he came to Crete Gal. 1. 2. thence is sent for to Nicopolis Tit. 3. 12. then to Corinth then he is expected at Troas 2. Cor. 2. 12. and meets with Paul in Macedonia 2. Cor. 7. 6. whence he is sent againe to Corinth 2. Cor. 8. 6. after this neer the time of paules death is found at Rome from whence he went not to Crete but unto Dalmatia 2. Tim. 4. 10. And after this is not heard of in Scripture So that from their various journeys the order of them the time spent in them the nature of their employment which was to be the Apostles Copartners in their Apostolick function and negotiat the affaires of the Churches where the Apostles traveled and the Sciptures silence touching their being Beshops of any one Church These divines conclude that they could not be diocesian Bishops Others doe remarke severale other pregnant Circumstances in the sacred text specially relating to Timothy which doe evince him to be neither Bishop at all nor particularly at Ephesus in the prelatical sense As 1. That paul stirres him up to diligence upon this motive that thus he shall be agood minister of Christ not a Bishop of Christ 1. Tim. 4. 6. He was therefore a Minister Bishop but nothing else 2. That when Paul wrote this first epistle to him he was but newly entered into the ministery 1. Tim. 1. 3. with Act. 16. 1. 2. 3. c. And Paul will not have a Novice to be a Bishop 3. He is commandes to intreat elders as Fathers 4. To Honour them doubly that rule well therefore he was not to be a Father over these elders 5. That he had his gift by the laying one of the hands of the presbysery which could not be ane episcopall function 6. That Paul appointes him to reside there only untill his owne return from Macedonia to instruct the people for someshorte time until he came to him againe 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. 7. That assoone as Paul came from Macedonia to Ephesus he sent Timothie into Achaia himself staying at Ephesus and Asia for a season Act. 19. 22. to 40. v. and from thence he returned to Macedonia and through it unto Asia accompanied with Timothy and others after which we never read that he returned to Ephesus 8. That Timothie was sent to many churches to confirme and strengthen them as to Macedonia Act. 19. 22. To Thessalonica 1. Thess. 1. 2. 3. To philippi chap. 2. 19. 20. but never to Ephesus after his first departure 9. That though he is joyned with Paul in the Inscription of some Epistles Collos. 1. philip 1. and frequent mention is made of him in the epistles to severall Churches 1. Cor. 4. 17. Philip. 2. 19. 20. 1. Thess. 3. 2. 6. Hebr. 13. 23. Yet there is altum silentium of him in the Epistles to the Ephesians his own supposed diocess 10. That Paul laid hands upon the disciples who were ordained in that church after his supposed episcopacie That as Timothie was sent
to him but also the wholl Episcopal charge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed and rule as the Holy Ghosts Bishops set over the same which comprehends both ordination and jurisdiction But what sayes he to this Argument 1 It may be he was not â—…et settled Bishop as Gerard thinks But sure he had all the 〈◊〉 as Bishop which the first Epistle afoords him from which this man derives his Episcopacy and power in ordination and jurisdiction and if for all these â—…ur Informer will grant that he might have been not â—…s yet Bishop but ane Evangelist Then 1. he must acknowledge that all his pleading for his Episcopac in the nixt pages from the power he is supposed 〈◊〉 have in the first epistle is but a beating of the aire an impertinent since it might be Antecedaneous to hâ—… Episcopacie and by the Informers confession he migâ—… have had yet no more Episcopal relation to the Church then any who was never Bishop there Hencâ—… 2. Not being yet Bishop but ane Evangelist still aâ—… Gerard takes him in a traveling posture up and down with the Apostle as also Bishop Hall Downam and Hooker acknowledge him I wonder how this man wil sustean his denyal that he was ane Evangelist in the proper and strict sense such as his was Sure if this his supposition or may be will hold good timothies office as sucâ—… ane Evangelist was to cease in the Church as he expresseth it and Pauls bidding him doe the work of ane Evangelist sufficiently Unbishops him at least pro tunc which notwithstanding we heard him deny 2. He tell us that Irenaeus who lived not long after the Apostles thinks there were Asian Bishops mingled with the elders of Ephesus and with Timothie their Bishop to whom in common Paul made that exhortation comprehending the Bishops under the name of elders as Apostles were sometymes called Ans. We may be much in love with this scripture in the present debate since it forces adversaries upon such simple incoherent shifts First it may be he was not yet made Bishop then least that concession prove too gripping there must be other Bishops of Asia minglcd with these elders and Timothie of necessitie must be now Bishop or hardly well after and their own Bishop and the extraneous ones must be all shuffled up unde the name of elders and exhorted in common a he shifts the argument from Philip. 1. But thâ—… text it self sufficiently discovers the folly of this pooâ—… shift For 1. Paul called the elders from Ephesus anâ—… the elders of the Church there not imaginary elders or Bishops from other places 2. He sent for the elders of the Church in the singular number not of the Churches and so all he sent for had a particular relation to that Church for had there been elders of other Churches there It would have been expressed elders of the Churches If other elders or Bishops of Asia had been there they would have receaved the Scripture denomination of provincial Churches which are expressed in the plural So we read of Churches of Asia Revel 1 II. Churches of Iudea Gal. 1 22. Next This answer still supposes The existence of the diocesian Bishop over Presbyters at that time which is a poor begging of the question Wee prove from this and such like texts that the Bishops of Asia and Ephesus were meer Pastours who had in Common the Epicopal charge over the Church and that the Holy Ghost set up these and none else Infine This is but a meer shift in the Iudgment of Chrysostom Hierom Theodoret and the Current of Interpreters who take these elders for meer Presbyters and is contrare to the Syriack translation which reads it Presbyteros ecclesiae Ephesinae So the Concilium Aquisgravense But now comes his proofe of Timothie and Titus their Episcopacie from these Epistles His first Reason in general is That in these Epistles more fully then any where else in the new Testament Paul gives direction to Timothie and Titus how to carry in ordination and jurisdiction which Two comprehends the Episcopall office Ans. 1. With him there is a possibilitie or may be that forall these directions Timothy and Titus were evangelists still and not yet Bishops and so these directions might be given to them as extraordinary officers who according to him were to cease and consequently though comprehensive of the Episcopal office yet the office might cease with their persons as exercised in that manner and the power of ordination and jurisdiction be deryved to different recipients to be exercised in another maner viz by presbyters in common 2. By what consequence will he infer ane Episcopall authority and inspection from the Apostles prescribing rules to them anent ordination and jurisdiction May not all Ministers be herin directed as well as Timothy and Titus or will his giving directions to them in this poynt infer their sole and singular authority therein Surely not at all in Churches constitute and as for what they did in the frameing and constitution of Churches yet in fieri as to their organick being is not to the purpose 3. We did shew above that the prelats power and their way as to ordination and jurisdiction is in its very nature different from that which either Apostle or Evangilist exercised as being a dominion and arbitrary power yea including in it a civil dominion and derived from the civil Magistrat None of which can be said of any authority which Timothy and Titus are here supposed to have In a word as it is clear that the elders of Ephesus at Paul's last farewell were intrusted with the whole power of ordination and jurisdiction and as the Episcopi were commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed and rule with out any respect to Timothy which clearly demonstrats that he and consequenly Titus had no Episcopal power of ordination and jurisdiction over these Churches established in their persons by any prescriptions here delivered So it is as evident that the same prescriptions might be delivered to any Moderator of a Synod or vnto a transiently visiting Minister though even in relation to a province which being necessarly to be understod Salvo jure Ecclesiae would import no Episcopall or sole authority and thus the case is here But what were these directions importing this power He instances 1. In the qualifications which they must require in such as were to be ordained-not suddenly to lay on hands which respects ordination next the rules anent government how to rebuke offenders not to receave ane accusation but before two or three witnesses how to deal with heretikes c. Ans. 1. These Apostolik directions in point of Government are good excellent but how doth he prove that the adressing of these directions to Timothie will infer his Sole and single authority in all these so as to seclude Presbyters from their share therein And if he prove not this it will say nothing to evince ane Episcopal authority What if such directions
use in after ages But are they therefore to be imitated and retained What will he say to the Papists pleading for the anoinâ—… of the sick upon the Apostle James his precept let the elders anoint the sicke with oile and pary this is ane Act enjoyned to ordinary officers viz to elders and joyned with with prayer a constant standing dutie and he will not say that this Apostolick precept is to be ex punged as useles What must we therefore retean anointing would he not in this case distinguish betwixt that which is a constant dutie and a temporarie concomitant and appendix Acted not the Apostles extraordinarely in their very preaching both as to its extent its confirmation by miracles their gifts of tongues and are not the Acts of preaching and baptizing of constant use in the Church Must not this Informer grant that these Apostolick Acts of preaaching and baptizing are perpetual though the mould and maner is extraordinary and gone in so far as their extraordinary Apostolick power interposed therein Thus the Acts of ordination and jurisdiction are moral but the modusrei is extraordinary in so farr as their Evangelistik authority and special legation interposed therein He must either acquiesc in this and acknowledge this his argueing Sophistick and pueril or he will contradict what he said before anent the Apostles extraordinary Priviledges which are gone with them viz infaillibilitie their immediat call sending to all nations and what else was necessary for the first founding of the Church Now is not that which was thus necessary of perpetual use Are we not built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Are not the ordinances and Ministery receaved from them of perpetuall use And their most extraordinary Acts if we mean it of improvement Nay did not the new-Testament Church receave the Law of God and ordinances from the Jewes Must we therefore Judaize 2. How will he prove that the asserting that any officer hath ane extraordinary authority conversant about such ane Act will give ground to say that the Act it self is extraordinary or the ordinance touched by that Act expyred Will his asserting that the Apostles exercised ane extraordinary authority which is now ceased in their preaching unfixedly by ane immediat call and confirming their doctrine with miracles and strange tongues give ground to conclude that the ordinances of preaching and baptizing are expired also I trow he will not grant this How then will our asserting that Timothy and Titus put forth ane extraordinary Evangelistick authority in ordination and jurisdiction infer that the Acts of ordination and jurisdiction or these ordinances themselves are expired can he not distinguish betwixt the power it self and the different subject and manner of its exercise ordinary or extraordinary can he not see in Scripture ane extraordinary power derived and cut out in a succession of different and ordinary channels and diverslie exercised Sayes he not that the Apostles had ane extraordinary power of both ordination and jurisdiction and both the keyes But I trow he asserts that there are different recipients who bring down ane ordinary power by succession Some Prelats forsooth have the key of Governmant others viz Presbyters have preaching for their work but no rule properly And sayes he not that the extensive authority in which the Apostles exercised their Ministry is gone and a limited ordinary Ministry derived from them If the extraordinary Mission of twelve Apostles hath derived from it a Ministery and ecclesiastick authority spread throw all Church-officers in the world who succeed them not into the same office let this Informer shew me why may not Timothies Evangelistick extraordinary power in ordination and jurisdiction be deryved by and seatted in a Presbytery though the Evangelistick Office is extraordinary and as such not succeeded unto The service and worke of teaching and governing to continue in all times doth not render the Apostolick mission or commission ordinarie nor infer their being succeded in idem officium eundem gradum the ordinary power being institut and settled in the hands of ordinary officers by a new warrand and commission according to the Scripture rules of ordination The office of Moses was not rendered ordinary because many works of Government exercised by him were recommitted to the Elders of Israel and so the case is here The Evangelists extraordinary office and commission necessary as that of the Apostles for the first founding of the Churches and watering and building them up in their organick being for settling all their ordinary officers is changed into the Presbytery their ordinary Collegiat power of ordination jurisdiction which we find was in the Apostolick Churches exercised and even in this of Ephesus His 2d Reason to prove them Bishops is Because their commission at Ephesus Crete was nâ—…t voyded upon the first settling of Ministers in those places therefore their office was to be constant since if meerly as Evangelists they were to settle a Church there then they were to give place to the Presbytery when some Ministers were ordained but they did not so â—…itus needed not ordain Elders in every city if some few ordained might ordain the rest Ans. 1. This is a poor argument and hath no twist of a connexion their commission at these places was not voyded upon the first settleing of Ministers ergo they were not extraordinary officers but had a standing Episcopacie there which is a meer rope of sand The Apostles office and commission was not voyded over all Churches when settled Ergo they had no extraordinary inspection office or commission towards all these Churches What consequence is here So may it be said of these Vicarious Apostles their commission to these or other Churches could not be voided or expired though they were never so much settled but they were prore nata to visite and water all the Churches and bring Apostolick instructions to them and reports from them anent their case We have proved that Timothie and Titus exercised their extraordinary office and commission towards many other Churches after their return from these of Ephesus Crete so that their commission towards these or other Churches could be no more voided whil the Apostles Imployed them therin then their office Besid this Informer should advert that Timothy is left To charge some that they teach no other doctrine which was a commission beyond the meer settling of Ministers and supposing some already settled 2. Will he say that Timothy and Titus were ordinary standing officers or Bishops over these severall Churches where they might reside some time and have Imployment therin even after they had officers of their own did they not visite and water many other Churches were they therefore their Bishops if so he must quickly transport them to be Bishops of other Churches after they were Bishops here exalt them to metropolitan's as some of the ancients make them 3. Their Evangelistik inspection direction and assistence even after
some ordinary officers were settled could no more prejudge the ordinary power and authority of these officers then the Apostles extraordinary inspection and infallible universal directive power could prejudge the Churches ordinary authority in ordination and jurisdiction The Apostles power which could not be voyded nor expyre whil they were alive being Cumulative unto but not privative of the Churches ordinary power so it is here I would ask our Informer was Pauls apostolick commission to Crete and Ephesus voyded after Bishops were set up there Nay he will not say it But did this Null the Episcopall power of Timothy and Titus over these Churches I trow not Well no more could Timothys extraordinary inspection make voyd the ordinary power of presbyters 4. We told him already that how long soever Timothy and Titus were resident there they were to doe nothing pro imperio and were not to lord it over the presbyters 5. Although elders once ordained have power to ordaine others yet the bene esse did call for the Inspection and direction of such highely gifted and extraordinary officers herein as these were And Moreover in that Infant-state of the Church Apostolick precepts and rules in reference to Church government and the exercise of both the keyes were to be delivered by these extraordinary officers consequently might call for protract their continuanc therein even after ordinary officers were ordained Infine He cannot deny but that the Apostle recalled both Timothy and Titus from these places to the further prosecution of their employment in other Churches and that their transient imployment therein is held out after their return from Ephesus and Cret as likwayes their occasionall employment in both these places which will in so farr voyd their commission in relation to them as clearly to refuâ—… the supposed episcopal ordinary charge which he alledges they exercised Next from the Authores of jus divinum Minist evangel concluding against the peoples power of ordination upon Timothy and Titus being left at these places to ordaine elders The Informer inferrs against them thus why was Timothy or Titus left to ordaine elders after some were ordained by Paul If Ministers so ordained could ordaine the rest and after some were ardained by Timothy and Titus they were left still upon that imployment I answer his inference touches not these Reverend authors in the least The ordaineing of elders in relation to the beue esse even after some elders were there and the furder directing and compleating of these Churches in their members and officers did require ane Evangelistick inspection though the ordinarie power of ordaineing remained with the ordinary elders and Church officers as the scripture doth clearly hold out Paul haveing after committed to the elders of this Church of Ephesus the whol power of government But the scripture gives not the least hint of the peoples power to ordaine but attributs this still to Church officers as proper to them So that this Inference stands good in the generall though some were converted to Christianity there yet they could not ordaine officers but Church officers were sent upon that Imployment ergo Church officers must ordaine and not the people but the speciall inference will not hold ergo Biohops must only ordaine for the reasons already given no more then from Paules ordaining the first elders it will follow ergo Paul or ane Apostle only must ordaine which is a Consequence our Informer dare not admitt else he will contradict himself It is a good consequence Paul a Church officer preached and baptized ergo none but Church officers must preach and baptize but ergo none but ane Apostle must preach and baptize is bad logick So his inference is neither logicall nor theological His 3d. Reason to prove Timothy a Bishop is taken from Pauls solemne Charge 1. Tim. 6. 13. to keep what he had commanded him till the appearing of Iesus Christ. That presbyterians particularly jus divinum Minist pag. 74. hold these Directions to be for all ages of the Church making them paralleel with Matth. 28. 20. anent Christs promised presence to the end and 1 Tim. 5. 7 21. Anent Pauls Charge to observe these things Whence he concludes that they were to have successors in their office and were not extraordinary officers since these divines say page 160. That Apostolick examples in things necessary for the good of the Church and which cary a perpetuall equiry and reason in them have the force of a rule and the Apostles setting Timothy and Titus over these Churches is ane example Apostolick for the good of the Church and hath a perpetuall reason and equitie in it Ans. 1. Wee have made it appear that no directions given to Timothy will amount to demonstrat any episcopall dominion over this Church and that he had no sole or arbitrary power either in ordination or jurisdiction consequently that the charge of keeping that which was commanded him will Import inferr no keeping of ane Episcopall charge 2. Wee have also shewed what a bad consequence it is to argue from the perpetual use of precepts or directions given to extraordinary officers in relation to extraordinary acts towards the Churches imitating of these acts and retaineing these expired functions which is palpably a non-sequitur as this man can not deny else he will swallow horrid absurdities Every thing which is for our constant use and Improvement is not likwayes for our Imitation Againe 3. I would ask this Informer if the Command 1. Tim. 6. 13. joyned with the promise Matth. 28. 20. Will not reach and include every peece of the Apostolik and evangelistik office Sure he cannot deny this and yet he acknowledges there were severall peeces of their work temporary and expyred Will he dare to say that what the apostle commanded Timothy in this Epistle was confined within Ephesus or reached him only as oversieing that Church and not in relation to his Evangilistick office throw all the Churches and that the promise Matth. 28. did not reach the most extraordinary Apostolick Acts So that himself must distinguish unless he be inconsistent with himself betwixt what is moral and extraordinary in this command and charge and accordingly reached by the promise 4. His citation from the Ius divin Minist c Cuts the throate of his cause for argueing thus against privat persons intrudeing into the ministry That the scripture layes down rules for calling men to that office they instance in the qualifications of the person Citeing 1. Tim. 3. 2 3. anent the properties of the scripture Bishop or presbyter Then they add That the Scripture directs as to the maner of his calling viz who are to ordaine how hee is to be ordained citeing 1. Tim. 4. 14. viz that the presbytery is to ordaine and ordaine by the laying on of hands adding that these directions are for all ages and citeing â—…1 Tim. 6 13 14. Now if these perpetuall directions for all ages be touching no other Bishops but
these in 1 Tim. 3 1. And anent ordination by the hands of the Presbytery surely those are Presbyterial not Episcopal directions and doe palpably exclude Timothyâ—…s standing Episcopacy So that he did not well to raise this Ghost Next ane Apostolical example for the good of the Church is not that which they hold to have the force of a rule as the Informer belies them but ane example in things necessary for the good of the Church And as this so the next citation out of that book burnes his fingers For the authores having cited 2. Tim. 2 2 In order to their scope of pleading for ordination as a perpetuall standing ordinance Timothy being in that place enjoyned to commit those things which he had heard from Paul to faithfull men who shall be able to teach oâ—…hers They infer 1. A necessity of setting apart some to be teachers in Christs Church 2. The qualifications of such viz they must be faithfull men and able to teach 3. That Timothy is enjoyned to committ what he had heard to faithful men which they understand of ordination of ministers that there might be a perpetuall succession of teachers And comparing it with the former citation it appears that they hold these precepts to import the deryvation of the ordinary power of teaching and Government to ordinary Ministers And when the Anti-Ministeriall party object that these are but examples which doe not amount to make up a rule they give this answer that Apostolick examples in things necessary for the Church and which have a perpetuall reason and equity in them have the force of a rule now this example is anent the committing of ane ordinary power of ordination and jurisdiction to faithfull Ministers and teachers which quit justles out the prelatical power For since they hold Timothy's singular way in this as ane Evangelist was to cease which they must needs doe upon the forementioned ground the Presbyterial and the singular power being inconsistent in the same subject they must needs place this Evangelistick power among these examples which doe not obleidge and it is ordination it self and its continuance in this manner by ordinary teachers which they expresly plead for as the Apostolick example which hath a perpetual reason and equity and the force of a rule not Timothies singular power herin which they hold to be expired So that the Informers assumption viz That Timothies Evangelistick Inspection by the Apostles apointment over this Church as also that of Titus is such ane exemple as hath a perpetuall reason and equity in it He might have found to be rejected by these divines had he read that peece attentivly as no way following from yea contrare unto their assertion and it is still left at hâ—…s door to prove and make good His Last Reason to prove the Episcopacy of Timothy and Tâ—…us is taken from Testimonies That Polycrates and Eusebius affirme Timothy to have been Bishop of Ephesus That Leontius Bish os Magnesià in the generall Council of Calcedem Act 11. points out a Series of Tuentie Seven Bishops in Ephesus from Timothy c Ans Since the scriptures doe clearly hold out his extraordinary Evangilistâ—…k function and there is nothing therein which can in the least infer his having ane ordinary episcopall power The Informers pleading upon this head being found frivolous and leaning upon that known fallacy viz to argue from The singularity of ane extraordinary officer to the Singularity of ane ordinary perpetuall officer in Church government which will as well set up upon the ground of the Apostles universall inspection patriarchs or popes as prelats Surely the improper styles and designations which the Ancients put upon Timothy or Titus who spoke in the language of their owne times is a very insignificant proof to Counter ballance Scripture light in this mater Tertullians saying cited by park l 2. C 7. is here remarkable Si constat id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio id ab initio quod ab Apostolis c that is truest which is first that is first which is from the beginning that is from the beginning which is from the Apostles Their opinions who call them Bishops are for most part borrowed from Eusebius of whose hallucinations Scaliger gives large prooses and yet all that he sayes is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is reported and this report he had from a fabulus Clemens The ancients likewayes call the Apostles themselves Bishops peter of Rome James of Jerusalem Yea Theodoret Calls Timothy and Titus Apostles of Asia and crete which the Informer will not justifie Yea some call them Motropolitanes Arch Bishops patriarchs and this because saith Walo Messalinus they did these Acts which afterward by human Custome were appropriat to Bishops which saith he they did as Evangelists as one of them is expressly called As for jerom it is certain that he both mantaines and proves the Bishop and elder to be one in Scripture when disputing that point in his Commentar upon Titus and therefore when at any time he gives these evangelists such appellations he doth it allusively and improperly according to the degenerat custome of his time As for the Catalogues of Bishops from Scriptur times they are found to terminat upon Apostles or Evangelists as that of Ierusalem comes up to Iames the Apostle that of Antioch to peter So that of Rome to peter and Paul that of Alexandria unto mark c Now they were not ordinary officers nor succeeded in eundum gradum And besid there are ecclesiastick customes traced up by some to the Apostolick tymes which not with standing are acknowledged not to be of divine oppointment Some first Bishops were but primi presbiteri as we shall after shew How lost they the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction which their first founders had in so short a time This sole power in ordination and jurisdiction which our prelats now acclaime and this man pleads for will not be found till Three hundred years after Christ if at all then The gross mistak of many ancients in their constituting of Bishops appears in this instance That many fathers affirm peter to have been Bishop of Rome and to have continued Bishop there for many years Yet Marsilius patavinus pars 2. c 16. Carolus Molinaeus Scen Consult franc contr abusus c Paparum proves by scripture and reason that peter was never at Rome In a word the ancients call them â—…shops as likwayes Apostles such not properly saith Bucer de Gub Eccles p. 432. So fox Act mon p. 11465 but in a large or general appellation because they first preached the gospel to these Churches and to this end To prove a perpetuall succession of sound preachers and sound doctrine in those particular Churches from the Apostles tyme to their own nameing the eminentest Ministers for parts and gifts the Bishops of these Churches which Method scope of Catalogues appears by Irenaeus Tertullian cited by
his argument is that one is named though many are spoken to and where many Presbyters are supposed to be as at Ephesus who threfore must needs be a Bishop but this ground will not hold good Because 1. This is no more then what is suitable unto the stile of this book which is by mistick visional representations to include many individuals as one singular So all the individuals of the Church both members and officers are represented by one candlestick and why not also all the Ministers by one angel which is a terme that of it self and in this place imports no jurisdiction properly but is immediatly referred to the qualities of Ministers above expressed 2. This is also suitable to the stile of this book as it is epistolar the addresse may be to one but it will give no Authority to that one over the rest no more then ane addresse from the King to a speaker of the Parliament will give to that person jurisdiction and authority over them Or then our Lords saying to Peter only expressly not to the rest of his fellow disciples I will give unto thee the keyes c. Will conclude that he was Prince or primat over the Apostles and that they had not equal authority with him in the use of the keyes Our Informer and his fellows here doe justifie the Papists pleading for the Pope 3. This is suitable unto Scripture prophetick writings and to this book as such to represent many individuals by one singular The four beasts and twentie four Elders are not four individuall persons or twentie four single Elders The singular names of Woman Beast Whoor Dragon signifie a collection of many individuales So the one Spirit of God is called the seven Spirits in the 1 Chap With reference to his manifold operations Dan. 8 20. One Ram signifies many Kings of the Medes and Persians He that will not hearken to the Priest Deutr. 17 12. That is the Priests in the plurall So the Priests lips should keep knowledge and the Law is to be sought at his mouth Mal. 2 7. That is the Priests Blessed is that servant whom his Lord c. that is those servants Particularly as to this term Angel It is said Psal. 34. That the Angel of the Lord encamps about the Godly that is many Angels 4. It is suitable to Scripture and to this book To represent ane indefinet number by a definit Thus all Judas Adversaries are represented by the four hoâ—…es Zachr 1 18. All the Godly and the ungodly are represented by the five wise and the five foolish Virgines Matth. 25. and in the 8. Chap of this book The Seven Angels standing befor God represent all the Angels Foâ—… in the 7 Chap Mention is made of all the Angels who doe thus stand So we are to understand with the same indefinitnes ofttimes the Septenary number as the Seven pillars which wisdom hewes out Prov. 2. The seven Pastours or shepherds Mic. 5. The Seven eyes Zachr 3. And in this very book the Seven condlesticks Lamps and vials Revel 4 5 15 5. As wee find the scripture and this same Apostle first naming a multitud and then contracting it into a singular as 2 Joh. 2. many deceavers are come into the world then this is a deceaver and ane Antichrist And sometimes the individual in one sentence turned into a multitud as 1. Tim. 2 15 Shee shall be saved that is the woman bearing Children if they abide in faith and Charity that is such women in General as Beza tells us all writers doe take it So it is as certain that this single Angel is turned into many in one and the same Epistle in this book and spoken to in the plural as when it is said Revel 2. 24. to you and to the rest in Thyatira and in Revel 2 10. we find John changing in one sentence the singular Angel into a multitude fear none of these things which thow shal suffer Behold the devil shal cast some of you into prison that yee may be tryed c. as in 2 â—…oh 2 He changes many into One Finaly Wee have proved that the Scripture allowes of no Angels standing-Standing-Church officers or Bishops above the Pastours or Presbyters who have in Scripture the whol Episcopall power given them So that whatever this Informer shall produce as the Characteristick of this Angel we find it applicable to Presbyters 1. Is it the work of this Angel to preach and baptize This Commission he will grant belongs to all Pastours 2. Is it the power of ordination The Scripture shewes us that this is Seated in a Presbytery 1. Tim. 4 14. with Act. 22 5. Luk. 22 66. Matth. 18 17. Or 3. Is it the ruling Governeing power Surely all Ministers are such Angels All that watch for the peoples soules have a joynt rule over them Hebr. 13. 17. And therefor none can challenge it solely to himself In the Church of Thessalonica the laboures in the word and doctrine joytlie and indiscriminatim fed joyntlie censured and admonished and were joyntly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Rulers to whom consequently the people were indiscriminatim or with out any difference of one of them from another to submitt themselves 1 Thess. 5. 12. There was therefore no sole Angel or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ruler but this Prostasia or ruleing power was in many So was it with the Church of Ephesus Act. 20. So with these elders or Bishops 1. Pet 5. And we offer to this or any mans serious thoughts whither it be suiteable to divine rules to cross so many clear Scriptures upon the ground of a metaphorial mistick expression and to expone them in that sense rather then to explaine the Metaphor and mistick expression by plaine Scriptures And whiâ—…her it be not more suiteable to understand the Angel of Ephesus of the Ministers to whom in a plaine Scripture the whole Government is found intrusted rather then to expound that plaine text Act. 20 by a Metaphor and contrary to that plain text to set up one Angel or Diocesian Bishop over that Church with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction But the Doubter objects what have been saying viz That the Angel is to be taken collectively and not for one single person but for all the Ministers To which in a peece of petulant folly he Answers That he hath oft wondered at this reply that it seems this Scripture pinches us sore when we flie to such a shift That Scultetus a learned Protestant affirms that the most learned interpreters understand the Angel thus and that without offering violence to the Text it cannot be otherwayes understood Ans. 1. We hope is evident from what is said that the most native scriptural acception is to take the Angel collectively To which we may adde that although the Lord Jesus the best interpreter of these Angels doth expound the Seven candlsticks to be the Seven Churches yet in expounding the Seven Starrs he losses the number of
opposition to prelacy So the Confession of the French Church Credimus veram Ecclesiam c We believe that the true Church ought to be governed by that policy which Christ hath ordained viz that there be Pastours Presbyters or Elders and Deacons And again we believe that all true pastours wherever they be are endued with equal and the same power under one head and Bishop Christ Iesus which strikes our Diocesian and Erastian frame of government starke dead Which is seconded thus by the Belgick Confess Art 30. All Christs Ministers of the word of God have the same and equal power and authority as being all Ministers of that only universall head and Bishop Christ. To thesewe might adde many other Testimonies of reformed divines as Calvin Piscator Marlâ—…rat on 1. Tim 4. 14. Tit. 1. 3. Zanch. de Statu Pâ—…ccat and Legal in 4tum praecep Chemnitius Loc. Com. Part. 3. de Eccles. Cap. 4. Exam. Concil Trid. part 2. de Sacram. ordinis pag. 224 225. proving also that Election and vocation of Ministers belongs to the whole Church Antonius Sadael Resp. ad repetita Turriani Sophismata par 2. loâ—… 12. Beza de divers Ministrorum gradibus Iunius Controv. 5. l. c 3. N 3. Chamierus Panstratia Cathol Tom 2. de Occum Pontis Cap 6. A 3d. Great point of Presbyterian Government in opposition to prelacie is the peoples interest in the election and call of Ministers And for this there is as full a consent of divines and Churches both ancient and Modern Severall of the forementioned Confessions clears this the peoples election and call being taken in together with Presbyters ordination Cyprian Epist. 68. is full to this purpose Plebs ipsa maxime habet potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi quod ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere ut Sacerdos sub omnium oculis plebe presente deligatur dignus atque idoneus publicâ—… judicio ac Testimonio comprobetur That is The people themselves have Chiefly the power either of Electing worthy priests or refusing the unworthy which mater we see even of it self to descend from the divine authority that the priest be set apart under the eyes of all in the peoples presence and as worthy and qualified be approved by a publick judgment and Testimony So lib 1. Epist 4. is full for the Churches libertie and right in elections The 4t Council of Carthage Can. 22. Requires to the admission of every Clergy man civium assensum testimonium convenientiam The consent of the citzens their testimonie and agreement Socrat l. 4. c. 25. sayes that Ambrose was chosen Bishop of Millan by the uniform voice of the Church In the pretended Apostolick but truely old constitutions of Clement lib. 8. cap. 4. The Bishop who must be ordained is appointed in all things to be unblameable chosen by all the people unto whom let the people being assembled on the Lords day N. B. with the Presbytery and the Bishops there present give their consent And a Bishop askes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbytery the peopleâ—… if they desire such a man to be set over them The Helvetick confession told us that the right choosing of Ministers is by consent of the Church So the Belgick confession tells us that Ministers Elders and Deacons are to be advanced to their office by the lawfull election of the Church Greg. Nazian orat 31. commends Athanasius his calling as being after the Apostolical example 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the suffrage of all the people Blondel clears this from a large consent of antiquitie page 379. to 473. And this is cleared also by a large consent of protestant divines Luther de potest Papae Calvin on Act. 6 3. Beza confess Cap. 5. Art 35. Musculus in Loc. com Zanch. on 4t com Junius Animadvers on Bellarm Controv. 5. l. c. 7. Cartwright on Act. 14. v. 23. Wallaeus Bullinger Wittaker See Mr Gilesp Misc. quest pag 18 19. Our first book of Discipline appoints to the people their votes and suffrage in election of Ministers in the 4t head And the 2d book Cap 3. discharges any to intrude contrary to the will of the congregation or without the voice of the eldership A 4t Essential point of Presbyterian Government in opposition to Prelacie is in relation to the office of the ruleing elder as appointed by Christ. This we cleared from Scripture and there is as cleare a consent of antiquitie for it and of modern reformed Churches and divines exhibited by our writers For this Ignatius Epist ad Trallianos ad initium pag. 66. edit oxon An. 1644. is cited Likewise Baronius in his Annals Anno 103. in the Gesta purgationis Caeciliani Felicis Tertul. Apolog. Advers gentes Cap. 39. Origen ontra Celsum lib. 3. Cyprian Epist. 36. Optatus lib. 1. pag. 41. edit paris An. 1631. Ambrose comment on 1 Tim. 5 1. And for modern writers Whittaker contra Duraeum lib 9. Sect. 47. Thorndicks discourse of religious assemblies cap. 4. pag. 117. Rivet Cathol Orthodox Tract 2. quest 22 Sect. 4 Finally Presbyterian Government as it stands in opposition to the present Prelacie in its Erastian mould and maintaines a spirituall authoritie in the hands of Church officers distinct from and independent upon the civill powers of the world hath as full a consent of the learned As Erastianism was first hatched by Thomas Erastus Physician in Heidleberg about the year 1568. And much catched up and pleaded for by Arminians since so it hath been impugned by a full consent of reformed divines who have fully proved it to be contrary to the rules of Church Government set down in the Scripture both in the old and new Testament and utterly eversive of the Gospel Ministrie and Church The eminent divines who have written against it are Beza who encounters with Erastus himself upon this point Zachriasursin Wallaeus Helmichius Triglandus Dr Revius Dr Voetius Appollonius and many others Especially the famous and learned Mr Gillespy in that elaborat peice entituled Aarons rod blossoming wherein the consent of the ancient and modern Church as to this great point of truth is exhibit See 2. book 1 Cap. pâ—…g 167. Now from all that is said Whither Presbyterian Government hath not the patronage of the purest Scripture antiquity and a full consent of the after purer times and of reformed Churches and divines in all the forementioned points of its opposition to the Prelacie now established Both in holding 1. The identity of Bishop and Presbyter as to name and things 2. Presbyters right of ordination and Jurisdiction 3. The peoples interest in the Election and call o. Ministers 4. The ruleing Elders office 5. The Churches intrinsick power of Government I leave to the Impartiall to judge And consequently of the vanity of this new Dialoguist His pleading upon this point A Confutation Of the Second DIALOGUE Anent the Covenants Against EPISCOPACIE Wherein the Informers reasonings against the
then established in all its previledges which clearly excludes the episcopacy formerly existent therein And the extirpation and reformation ingadged to in the 2d Art must relate to the then existent Prelacy in England and Ireland and that by way of mids leading unto and for execution of the ends of preserving our own established reformation engadged unto in the first Article 2. We said already that our Parliament did rescind all acts against our episcopacy together with the solemne league and restore Prelats to the sole possession of Church Government under the King declaring clearly that the preservation engadged unto in the first article cannot consist with our Prelacie Again as this duty of extirpation is engadged unto in so far as is necessary in order to the preserving of our own established reformation by this Church principally vowed and intended so that clause in the end of the 2d Article viz. to extirpate whatsoever is found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness amounts both as to us and England to such an extensive engadgement in opposition to Prelacie that it totally excludes it even in our adversaries mould under this formalis ratio as thus opposit to sound doctrine c. Which hath been cleared upon the first Dialogue Next will this man deny that these officers Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Chapters c. are not in themselves and simply abjured in that 2d article or that the Presbyterians in England would not disowne them as inconsistent with the Covenant Sayes he not that it is only a fixed presidency of order which they are for and is this all that Arch-Bishops and Diocesian Bishops do possess have we not in Scotland Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans and are we not engadged to extirpat these in the 2d article how then can he say that it is only that complex frame with all these officers which we are oblidged against Do not two remarkable clauses contradict this gloss I we engadgeto extirpate all Ecclesiastick officers depending on that Hierarchie what is it only all in bulk and not all and every one this were equivalent to such a wilde assertion as if one should say that after the enumeration of these evills schism heresie profannesse which are thus Summed up whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness this engadgement did only relate to all these evills complexly and not to every one sigilatim or apart 2. Whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine in our principles is there abjured as I said but such are Bishops Arch-Bishops and I adde whatsoever is inconsistent with our established reformation and with Presbyterian government is also here formally abjured In the 3d place Timorcus is clearly against our Informer for in explaining what is that prelacy which is abjured he distinguisheth a Prelacie of jurisdiction and of meer order The prelacie of jurisdiction he saith is twofold the first is whereby the Bishop hath sole power of ordination and jurisdiction such as is our prelacy now in Scotland in which government Timorcus saith that Ministers do meet with the Bishop only ex abundanti to give him advice which is all that our Curats are allowed by law as is said above and scarce that The 2d sort of prelacie he calls paternall wherein the colledge of Presbyters have a constant Prelate or President who must concurre with them ordinarly in ordination and acts of jurisdiction He interprets the Covenant expresly to strick against the Prelate with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction which prelacy he calls Popish even though the Bishop admit Presbyters to concurre with him in ordination and government Now let this man say since Timorcus whom he will not assert that these others divines do contradict in this point together with the parliament of England according to Timorcus do disowne such a prelacie as is here described and interpret the Covenant obligation as reaching the extirpation thereof doth not this articlé of extirpation according to their sense clearly reach and cut off the present prelacie of diocesian Bishops and Arch-Bishops obtruded upon this Church can he deny that they have the sole power of ordination jurisdiction that all the power which Curats have according to our Law is to give the Bishops advice yea and not that either unlesse he judge them to be persons of Known loyaltie and Prudence And surely if this precedency of meer order here exprest be the only primitive Episcopacie it is far short of what our Informer pleads for and will never come up to justifie the prelacie now existent And if in the sense of Timorcus and the other divines mentioned and in the sense of the imposers of that oath the extirpation engadged unto cuts off whatsoever is beyond this precedency of meer order it is incontrovertibly clear that even in their sense the prelacie now existent is abjured That Mr. Crofton and the Presbyterian Covenanting partie in England according to him are not reconcilable to our prelacie nor the Covenant in their sense appears evidently by his pleadings for the Covenant against the Oxford men and others In his Analepsis pag. 74. 75. he mentions a breviary of reasons to prove that the prelatical government in its formality is a plaine and clear papacie and that a Diocesan Bishop and ane universal Metropolitan or Pope differ only in degree and limites not in kind citing and approving of Salmasius and Beza's calling episcopacie a step to the papacy so that the very office of a diocesian Bishop as such is as unlawfull as the Papacie in Mr Croftons judgment it being with him a part thereof Again pag. 78. whereas the Oxford men plead that they cannot swear against episcopall government which they conceive to be of divine or apostolick institution he chargth them and Dr Gauden with sophistick concealment of the ratioformalis objecti and not describing of episcopall government And tells him that episcopall government may denominat a government communi concilio Presbyterorum with a Moderator or Chaireman ordinis causa which he sayes is of divine institution and exemplified act 20. where Bishop and Presbyteter are terms synonimous denominating persons invested with the same office and authority This he sayes the Covenant strikes not against and the prelacie which is abjured he describes to be a government wherein one person is advanced into a distinct order of Ministrie above other Ministers and is invested with Prince-like power over them enjoying an authority peculiar to him eo nomine as Bishop of sole ordination and jurisdiction unto whom all other his fellow Ministers are subject and must swear obedience to him c. I wonder if our Informer will deny this to be the characteristick of our present Prelats or affirme that they possess no more authority in Church judicatories but a meer precedency ordins causa which is all the Episcopacy which Mr Crofton holds that the Scripture and the Covenant according therunto will allow Thereafter pag. 72. He tells these Masters that Christ
gave his Disciples charge that they should not affect superiority one over another or princely power over Gods heritagâ—… and puts them to prove that the office of the Ministry may in ordination be divided or that there are more orders of the Ministry then one which our Informer still begs a supposition of viz. Bishop or Presbyter or more officers in the Church then Elders and Deacons appointed by Christ or his Apostles by their apostolick authority That the Presbyter in whom are required the same qualifications to whom is to be yeelded the same obedience subjection andrespect who recives the same ordination and is charged with the same duty and invested with the same power of feeding and governing the Church of God with the Bishop and none other is an order distinct from and subject to the Bishop to be ruled by him and not to exercise his office but by the Bishops licence and that the Presbyter must swear obedience to the Bishop as his ordinary Which are the grand postulata and topicks of all this mans reasoning in point of prelacy The autitheses of which tenets we see Mr Crofton most evidently maintaines as the sense of the Covenant in point of episcopacy he further describes pag 80. and 81. the prelacy covenanted against and anent which he challengeth these Masters proof of a jus divinum to be such wherein one Minister or Bishop doth stand charged with all the congregatious and pastors of a Countie or many Counties making one diâ—…cess who is by office bound to a pastoral correction and government of them that these Bishops may be subject to one Metropolitan Church and Archbishop to whom they shall swear obedience adding that if the Word of God conclude such superiority over the Church in one Kingdom it will conclude a Catholick superiority over the universall Church and advance the Pope as warrantably above the Archbishops as the Archbishops are above the Bishops and the Bishops above the Presbyters these not being differences of kind but degree Adding further that no more is pleaded for Prelats divine or Apostolick right in the Church of England but what is pleaded by Bellarmine the Council of Trent for she Papacie Now from what is said I darre referre it is this Informer himself whither Mr Crofton doth not clearly disowne all the essentialls of our present prelacy and hold it to be abjured in the Covenant the office of our present Bishops and Arch-Bishops being incontravertibly such as he here describes And whither Mr Crofton holds not our prelacy arch-prelacy and metropolitan primacy to stand upon the same basis with the papacy and to be equally with it excentrick to the Scriptures and that he esteems consequently the Bishops and Arch-Bishops which I hope he will not deny to be abjurd in the Covenant to depend as such upon the Pope as a part of his hierarchy Next pag. 81 he sayes that it is not the first sort of episcopall government formerly described wherein all Ministers are invested with equal power and auhority or dignity are all of the same order and governe by common counsel but the specificall prelacy last described which presumes it self to be a Hierarchie So that with Mr Crofton our present prelacie falls within the denomination of the Hierarchy abjured in the solemne league and of the Popes wicked Hierarchie abjured in the nationall Covenant for he tells us in the preceeding page that none can deny that a quantenus ad omne c. He tells them moreover in that same pag. that had he lived in the Churches of Ephesus Antioch Phillippi Creet or the seven Churches of Asia invested with the same ministeriall authority which he then enjoyned he might have stood up a Peer to any Bishops therein so that he esteemed no Bishop there but Presbyters Besides pag. 82. he cites severall writers to prove that the authority and distinction of Episcopall and Archiepiscopall chaires metropolitan primacies owe their institution to the Church of Rome or politick constitutions of Princes He tells us pag. 84. out of Cartwright and Whittaker that the Church in respect of Christ its head not his vicar or superiority of single prelats is a monarchy in respect of the ancients and pastors that governe in common all the Presbytrie with like authority among themselves not a superiority over them it is an Aristocracie and in respect the people are not excluded but have their interest it is a Democracy The inserted parentheses are Mr Croftons and let any judge whither he assert not with these authors a Presbyterian frame of government opposit to diocesian Bishops and Arch-Bishops In his Analepsis in answer to Dr Gauden pag. 2. he charges him as before the Oxford men with an uncertain proposall of the object and the ratio formalis of the Covenant obligation as to prelacy under the general terme of Episcopacie therein also lasâ—…ing our Informer for the same laxness and ambiguity telling them that by good demonstration Bishop and Presbyter have been asserted to be synonimous titles of Church officers and are found to have been so used in the primitive times of the Church and of the Fathers adding that the government of the Church by its Ministers in their severall assemblies with a Moderator Ordinis causa to dispose and regulat what belongs to order is the primitive episcopacie which he grants to the Doctor that the Covenant will not strike against then pag. 3. and 4. he describes the Episcopacy which the Covenant strikes against And pag. 5. summeth it up thus that the Covenant cannot be accomplisht by the removal of Prelats pride c. Whilst the Preeminence prerogative Paternal power and juridicall authority assumed by them as distinct from and above all other Ministers of the gospel as the only immediat successors of the Apostles So our Informer makes them c. are continued What will this Oedipus answer to Croftons assertion Have not our Prelats this preeminence above Presbyters as a distinct order from them and have they not a juridicall authority over them by our law and practise and his pleading too doth not Mr Crofton in terminis assert that the Covenant obligation can never be satisfied untill such be removed are they no more in Church judicatores but Moderators and Chairemen set up Ordinis causa to order the actions of the meeting doth not our law give them a negative voice in the meeting and alloweth Presbyters only to give them advice if their Lordships do judge them prudent and loyall Again wheras the Dr pag. 18. did conclude that the Hierarchy being dead must rise in another qualitie Mr Crofton tells him pag. 6. That if it arise according to the Covenant it must be in the establishment of Congregational Classical Provincial and National Assemblies or Synods of Church officers Communi consilio Presbyterorum this phrase of Jerome he frequentlie useth to debate and determine the affaires of the Church and Exercise all acts of discipline and Ecclesiastick power
Ministers intrusion is from parish to parish over the Labours of all the Ministers of Scotland whereas Conformists intrusion if it be so is but over one parish Ans. We told him before that Presbyterian Ministers notwithstanding the prelats violence and usurpation are Ministers of this Church of Scotland continuing still in that relation to her So that the present presecution and violence as well as backsliding of the Prelatick schismaticks and Innovators warrands their more enlarged officiating by the same grounds upon which the presecute officers of the Church of Jerusalem went every where preâ—…ching the gospel and on the same ground that Ministers enlarged officiating in the time of our Reformation was warranted to which this case of defection is parallel and correspondent So that their ministerial obligation and the many scripture commands as to diligence in their testimony Being by the present state of our Church extended to their officiating in this manner their Ministry is no Intrusion but the Lawfull exercise of their office received from the great shephered nor is it upon the flocks who are under a tye and relation to the present Incumbents as their pastours but toward poor starved flocks committed to wolves who destroy but feed not and the Curats pretended Ministry being neither of Christ nor for him is still an usurpation though over the smallest flock so that his Instance of the pyrats word to Alexander and citation of the Apostle's caveat Rom 2. 21. is extra oleâ—… and reaches himself a rebounding stroke For who I pray have usurped the name and authority of this Church and endeavoured to have it compleatly moulded in their way and to extirpat all faithfull Ministers and professors within the Nation is it not 14 usurping Prelats and their underlings this is a robbery indeed and with a witness Now follows another argument of his Doubter that Episcopal Ministers are abjured as depending upon the hierarchy and therefore cannot be heard without breach of the Oath In what respects the owning of Conformists especially as that practice is now circumstantiat is a breach of Covenant we have cleard above and need not again repeat it He answers 1. That Ministers are not mentioned in that article But if they depend upon that Ecclesiastical hierarchy as Church Officers why are they not mentioned Next it s enough for our purpose that the owning of their Ministry as depending upon prelats is in this our case abjured 2. He tellsus that dependance on that hierarchy doth suppose and is to be understood of a hierarchy made up of all the officers enumerate in that Article as the English Presbyterians sense it which hierarchy we have not in Scotland This conceit I have already confuted and proved that beside this Article we are by the first bound to preserve the establisht Reformation and Government of this Church and to adhere to all that enter into this Oath in the pursuing of its ends and not to suffer our selves to be withdrawen from this Reformation and our union therein by terrour or persuasion is an obligation lying upon us in the 6. Article which doth abundantly as we have said reach the disowning of Conformists In the next place he tells us that to binde our selves to disowne Ministers depending upon Bishops is to binde our selves to sin I Answer whatever may be said of such an engadgement simpliciter and absolutly considered yet certainly to engadge our selves against the reintroduction of Prelacy into a pure Church reformed from it and against all dependers upon and promoters of that Interest in such a Church in the capacity of Church officers and eatenus as promoting and depending upon it is both a lawfull and necessary engadgment necessarly flowing from dependent upon the abjuration of prelacie it self That Ministers tho faulty may be heard will as we have oft demonstrate nothing help his conclusion Since he can not deny that their faultiness in some cases may barr their being heard as he supposes Presbyterian Ministers faults puts a Lawfull stop in the way of people's hearing them Then he tells us that he hath showen episcopacy to be a Lawfull government which none might Lawfully adjure for this we referr the Reader to what is answered on the first Dialogue where we have proven the contrary and that it is a government contrary to the word of God which therefore we were obliged to abjure Lastly he tells us that by this exposition of the 2. Article we were bound not to owne Ministers who were in office at the taking of the Covenant but to extirpat them since they depended upon Bishops as to their ordination still even after they had taken the Covenant unless they renounced their ordination received from Bishops and had been ordained a new by meer Presbyters which they thought themselves not bound to do by the Covenant or they were Ministers without a true ordination all that time and then all their Ministerial Acts were null since they proceeded from that ordination And yet he sayes we never serupled to hear such Ministers notwithstanding of this dependance upon Bishops in part if they disowne Bishops for the future Ans. What a silly knack is it which all this tatle is founded upon viz. Ministers who received ane ordination from Bishops or Bishops with Presbyters in a Church upon which they had usurped are still to be lookt upon as Ministers depending upon Bishops even after Prelacy is abolished and Presbyterian Government established in that Church So poor a notion that I am sure the least reflection may discover its vanity ordination being Gods ordinance and appointment and the Bishop qua Presbyter being vested with a power in it ordination by the Bishop with Presbyters tho maim'd in respect of the Bishop's arrogated power which is a corruption adhering to it cannot by any good consequence be said to depend in its esse or nature upon the Prelat and far less in operari or esse after that corruption is removed and abjured and Presbyterian Government set up Doth a souldier or Officers commission or Military power slow still from a Colonel after he is disbanded Nay this is too gross inadvertency Were Zuinglius Luther and other of our Reformers dependents upon the papacy or popish Prelats after their cleaving to and embracing the Reformation Do not all our divines distinguish the essentials of their ordination from these corruptions adhering to it and assert that they had a Ministry Lawfull for substance and an ordination to their Ministry tho coming to them through that impure channell This man Justifies the Pope's plea where is your Ministry saith he and the Romanists you have no Ministry but what you have from us do not our Divines tell them that the Ministry and ordination it self being Gods institution we have them from the Lord now restored and recovered from their corruptions and are not dependers upon them for our Ministry did all our Reformers Ministerial acts flow from the pope or papal ordination
judge in matters of faith and practice not Custome and Antiquity Ibid. The Informers reasoning on this head reduced to a formal syllogism The Major proposition the Informer though oblidged offers no proof of It is scannd and likewayes the assumption and the unsoundnesse of both discovered Page 192 193 194 195 196. The Informers Arguments from the Catalogues of Bishops largely scannd and the insufficicy thereof discovered in the Judgement of sound divines Several things do invalidat Eusebius Testimony page 197 198 199 200 201 202. That the first purest Church was governed by Presbyters without Bishops Jeroms Testimony in his commentary upon Titus and the Epistle to Evagrius for the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter and a Presbyteriall Government in the Apostolick times largely vindicated from the exceptions of this Informer which are discovered to offer violence to Jeromes Words to be inconsistentent with themselves and contrary to that sense of Jeromes Testimony which is exhibit by learned Protestant divines yea some adversarys themselves Page 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 316 217 218 219 220 221 222 Chap. 14 misprinted Chap. 13 page 223. The difference betwixt our present Prelacy and the ancient Episcopacy stated and evinced in many points Such as 1 The power of ordination and Iurisdiction above Presbyters cleared in several particulars And from the Testimony of the Ancients and eminent Protestant divines Chrysostomes Testimony on 1 Tim. I. Homely II. explaind 2. That they were set up by the Presbyters free choice and election Proved from Antiquity 3. In referenâ—… to the peoples Interest in their choyce 4. That they could not ordain alone 5. That they did not invade Presbyters decisive suffrage Cleared also from Antiquity page 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231. 6. In the point of their ciuil state-offices which is proved to be contrary to the canons called Apostolick other canons of ancient Councills 7. That metropolitan Primacy is a stranger to antiquity also cleared 8. So likewayes Erastian Prelacy page 232 233 234. 9. Our Prelats exclusion of the ruling elder from Church Indicatories crosses Antiquity 10. Their large and Provincial inspection 11. Their laying aside the preaching of the Gospell renders them Monsters to pure Antiquity and exposes them to the censure of Ancient Canons page 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242. 12. In their fastuous pomp and sumptuous grandeur ibid. Chap. 15 misprinted Chap. 14. page 243 The Informers pretended Testimonyes out of Calvin Beza Blondell c. For Episcopacy examined Their Anti-episcopall Judgement cleard from their ings particularly Calvines from his Commentariâ—… upon the controverted Scriptures in this point severall passages of his Institutions and Commentaries vindicated page 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251. As also of some Epistles page 252 253 254. As also of Beza page 255 256 257 258 259 360. The Informers two absurdities which by way of 〈◊〉 Dilemma he offers unto us from our assertion of the unalterablenesse of Presbyterian Government and our concession of a Proâ—…stos early brought in scannd and retorted upon himself Page 260 261 262 263. Some passages of Blondel vindicated and of Chamier and Moulin page 264 265 266 267 268. misprinted 236 the Authors of jus divinum Ministerii anglicani vindicated at some length and in special from imputations of a contradiction imposed upon them by the Informer page 269 270 271 272 273 274 misprinted 237 238 262 263 264 a passage of Bucer vindicate ibid. Chap. 16. misprinted 15. page 275. misprinted 265. Severall Testimonyes of the fathers offered by Mr Durham in his commentary upon the revelation for evincing the identity of Angel Bishop and Presbyter vindicated from the exceptions of the Informer his Exception to Mr Durhames testimony of Augustine examined as likewayes to that of Ambrose and Chrysostome Page 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 misprinted 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 the Informers inconsistences noted page 281 282 283 misprinted 271 272 273. Chap. 17. misprinted 16. page 284. misprinted 274. The Harmonious consent of ancient fathers modern divines and confessions of reformed Churches for Presbyterian Government in its essential points of difference from Prelacy exhibit 1. That there is no diffence betwixt a bishop and Presbyter Iure divino Page 285 286 287 misprinted 275 276 277. 2. In their point of ordination jurisdiction that these are not in the hand of a single prelat but that Presbyters have essentiall joint-interest therein page 288 289 290 misprinted 278 279 280. 3. In point of the peoples interest in the election and call of Ministers Page 290 291 misprinted 280 281 4. In relation to the ruling elder as appointed by Christ. Page 292 misprinted 282 5. As it stands in opposition to Erastian principles and the present prelacy in that respect and maintains a spirituall Authority in the hands of Church officers distinct from independent upon the civil powers of the world ibid. SECOND PART Chap. 1. pag. 2. A Twofold state of the question proposed the one touching the abjuration of this Prelacy in either or both Covenants the other concerning the obligation of these Oaths against it That prelacy is abjured in the national Covenant proved from severall clauses of it page 3 4 5 6 That it is also abjured in the solemn league and Covenant proved from several passages thereof and the then state of our Church page page 7 8 9 10. The standing force of these Oaths upon the present and succeeding generations proved 1. from their nature and essenc page 11 12 13. 2. From the subject they affect 3. Their matter and object 4. Their end and scope and even as to Presbyterian Government page 13 14. Chap. 2. page 16 The Informers Arguments against abjuration of Prelacy in the National Covenant Some reasons of his against an Oath in general or this Oaths obligation upon the posterity weighed page 16 17 18 19 20 Mr Croftons Testimony in his Analepsis for the obligation of the Covenant upon the posterity page 21 22. The Informers reasons against the abjuration of prelacy in the National Covenant examined The Author of the Apologetical relation vindicated together with the Assembly 1638. page 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41. Chap. 3. page 42. The Abjuration of Prelacy in the solemne league and Covenant vindicat from the exceptions of the Informer The Informer alledges it is only the English Prelacy that the Covenant oblidges against how im pertinently cleared page 43 44 45. That Timorcus affords no help to him in this answer cleard ibid. Nor Mr Crofton which is also cleard page 46 47 48 49 50. From several passages of Mr Crofton in his Analepsis The Covenant excludes our Prelacy and oblidges to Presbyterian Government in his principles proved ibid. His objection anent the sense of the 2 Article offered by the Parliament of England Answered As also his Exceptions to our Argument taken from
do destroy that distinctione Mr Gillespie Eng Pop Cerem Ames Consc Lib 5. Cap. 11. Mr Durham on Scandal part 3. Chap 1 discover the futility of his doctrine on this head page 139 140 141 142 143 144. The Doubters Argument for presbyterian Ministers preaching in the manner contraverted taken from Christ and his Apostles preaching in the fields and houses The Informers general answer anent Christs not separating people from the Synagogue weighed and found frivolous page 145 146 147. Some special reasons wherefore our Lord did not separate the people from the Synagogue ibid. The special grounds of our Lords practice offred by him to enervat our Argument considered and Answered Such as his bringing in the doctrine of the Gospell as the Messiah his being head of the whole Church page 148 149 150 151. What actions of our Lord were mitable Rules hereanent allowed by sound divines applyed to the case and practice controverted That the law allowes the gospell to be preached purely and faithfully by some though granted to the Informer will help him nothing ibid. The Informers answers and exceptions to our argument from Acts 14 19. examined His answer from the Apostles extraordinary callfrilous as also from the tendency of the rulers prohibition to silence gospell page 152 153 154 155. His reasoning upon Solomons thrusting out Abiathar from the priesthood examined as also his citation of Bezaes letter to the Non-Conformists in England Page 156 157. Chap 6. page 159. The nature of Presbyterian Ministers relation to this Church and their call to officiate therein vindicat from the Informers simple cavils Mr Rutherfoord and Mr Durhames acknowledgement that a Minister isnotmade a Catholick Minister of the Catholick Church but by his ordination restricted to a flock will not help the Informer which is cleard in six points page 159 160 161 162 His Dilemma which he offers to us viz. that our call to preach is either ordinary or extraorninary answered retorted upon him His Cavills in relationall to the Acts of Councils condemning this encroachment as he calls it and the Doctors of Aberdeen their charging Presbyterian Ministers therewith repelled ibid. His charge anent our ordaining others to perpetuat our Schisme a manifest groundlesse calumny page 163 164. His passage cited out of Mr Baxters preface to the cure of Church divisions answered page 165 as also his 5 healing advices to his half-proselyted Doubter page 65 166 167 168 169 170. Mr Baxters rules in his cure of Church divisions which he after commends unto us shortly viewed their impertinency to his purpose discovered page 171 172 173. 174. his testimonies out of the jus divinum Ministerii anglicani and of Mr Rutherfoord in his due right of Presbytery anent unwarrantable separation in sufficient to bear the weight of his conclusion The difference between the case they speake to and our case cleared in 4. Considerations page 175 176 177. His citations from the first author particularly considered and their insufficiency to bear the weight of his conclusion discovered page 178 179 180 181 The citations of Mr Rutherford particularly examined in so faâ—… relating to his scope page 182 183 184 185 186 187. In his citations from both these authors and arguing therefrom he is found inconsistent with himself to walk upon groundlesse suppositions and lyable to a manifest retorsion ibid. The Informer drawes out no conclusion upon these citations save this general one at the close viz That real much lesse supposed corruptions in the Worship or administrators will not warrand separation The impertinency of this position to help him cleard ibid. He pleads for retractions and presents at the close a character of Schisme which is retorted against him page 187 188. Chap 7. misprinted Chap 6. page 189. Animadversions upon the Informers preface and title page prefixed to this Pamphlet He pretendes conscience a design of union in this undertaking how unsoundly discovered page 189 190. 191. His Testimonies out of Zanchy and Blondel to evince their approbation of Prelacy left by him untranslated though he pretends for the advantadge of the English reader to translate all other testimonies answered A Confutation Of the First DIALOGUE Upon the point Of EPISCOPACIE Wherein it is demonstrat that the Episcopacie now existent both in its Diocesian Erastian cutt is contrare to the Scripture to the first and purer Antiquitie the Doctrine and Confessions of Reformed Churches sound Divines And the Informers Reasonings for it from Scripture Antiquitie are weighed and found wanting CHAP. I. That the Prelat now established in this Church is both Diocesian and Erastian cleared The Informer is engaged to defend both A twofold State of the Question propounded accordingly Some Arguments from Scripture against the Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church-officer Such as 1. Perverting the Scriptural term Episcopus commune to all Pastors in appropriating it to a Prelat 2. Making it relate to Pastors which hath the flock for its immediat object 3. Invading nulling the Authority allowed unto Presbyters which is demonstrat at large 4. Impeaching Christs Kingly office as Head of his Church and the perfection of his Word in obtruding ane Officer upon the Church of a different moold from those described and allowed by him THE state of the first Question in the first Conference is whither the Episcopacie now established by Law in Scotland be warranted or condemned by the Word of God For clearing this it must be understood what that Prelacie is which is now existent and which this Author pretends is consonant to Scripture and Antiquitie As to matter of fact it is undenyable 1. That the Parliament 1662. did expresly raze Presbyterian government in all its preexistent Courts Judicatories and Privileges declaring it voide and expired 2. They did Redintegrat the Bishops to their Episcopal function presidencie in the Church power of ordination and censures and all Church discipline to be performed by them with advice only and of such of the Clergie only as they shall find they themselves being judges of knowne Loyaltie and prudence And they redintegrat them to all the pretended Privileges possessed be them in Anno 1637. What time their power was at the greatest height Since of themselves they framed the Book of Canons which doth establish their sole power and dominion over all Church Judicatories razing classical Presbyteries and Parochial Sessions and drew up the Liturgie and Book of Ordination without the least shaddow of advice from this Church Threatning even excommunication against the opposers of that course 3. It is also evident that all this Power and Authoritie of our Prelats is fountained in derived from and referable unto the Supremacie As is evident by the Act restoring Prelacie after the declaration of the Supremacie as his Majesties Commissioners in the exercise of his Ecclesiastick Government and in the administration of all their pretended spiritual Authoritie as accountable to him their Head and supreme Legislator in all
any judge 2. The Diocesian Prelat debases and tramples upon this noble work in that be makes it in all the Pastores of the Dioces to depend upon his Lordly disposal and the authoritie thereof to be deryved from him as the sole proper Pastor of all the Diocess whose deputs the preachers are in this work although himself is obleiged to feed no flock 3 He maks these high and noble Acts of the power of order preaching and administration of Sacraments a lower and subordinat work and office to the work and office of ruleing only which is his Characteristick whereby he holds himself Superior to all the preachers of the Diocess whereas the Scriptur doeth as we heard appropriat the highest honour to the labourer in the word and doctrine as the nobler employment and office above the Ruler only 6. In this the Diocesian Prelats office is contrare unto and reprobat by the Scriptur in that by Apocriphal Antiscriptural new invented Degrees and orders It diversities and cutts asunder what God hes made one and the same I mean the Pastoral Office and by consequence other offices mentioned in Scripture as that of Prophets Evangelists Deacons non of which offices admites of Subordinat Spheeres and degrees but all the persons that are Intrusted with these offices are of the same degree and authority therin by the Word of God No Evangelist Prophet or Apostle is found of a Superior office or order to other Apostles Evangelists c. Whence comes this diversity then in the Pastoral office that one Pastor must have a Lordly Dominion over some hundreds of his fellowes If it be said that the Episcopal office succeeds that of the Apostles or Evangelists besides that wee shall disprove this afterward and shew that these offices taken formaliter as superior to that of the Pastor are expyred as sound Divines doe almost universally grant I answer that most if not all Prelatists ancient and modern doe hold the Diocesian Prelat to be no officer Specifially distinct from the Presbyter or Pastor but only gradually distinct as being a Pastor with a more amply extended authority for order of Government Mr Burnet in his pretended vindication of the present Prelacie 4t Conference pag. 310 311. tells us that he is not clear anent the notion as he calls it of the distinct offices of Bishop and Presbyter and akonowledges the Presbyter to be of the hiest office in the Church telling us that the Prelat is but a different degree in the same office Although in this he and the rest doe speak most inconsequently the forementioned ingredients of the Prelatical function being such as doe certanly amount to make up a new species of ane office such as a different work consecration or ordination the actus primus of a State Ruler different qualifications by consequence above and beyond these of a Presbyter The diversitie of these distinguishes the Scripture offices of Apostles Evangelists c. which Paul setts in several Classes as first and second 1 Cor. 12 28. Mr Burnet his reason is the same with that of others herine viz the Pastors authority to administer the word Sacraments which are the highest acts of the power of order He tells us that since the Sacramental actions are the highest of sacred performances he cannot but acknowlege that such as are impowered for them must be of the hiest office in the Church now I say since they will needs have the Diocesian Bishop to be only a different degree of the Presbyterat or Pastoral office they cannot with any shaddow of reason make him Successor to the Evangelists or Apostles in their formal office which they will not dare to affirm to be only a different degree of the Presbyterat or Pastores office and will affirme it to have been specifically distinct from the same The Ancients and Schoolemen held that the Pastor in his ordination receaved the same Power of Government that the Prelat hath but that the Prelat is the primus Presbyter who hath the raines of all the exercise in his hand But how cross is this to Scripture that any Church officer hath a power and authoriritie which he cannot exercise To whomsoever God hath given the power he hath certainlie commanded the exercise of it and particularly Pastores or Presbyters are as we have heard enixely commanded to exercise all their Pastoral authority and power as they shall answer to their great Master Besyds if the Pastoral office or its official power of order and jurisdiction may be warrantably thus divided and cutt out in Shreeds and parcells and divyded among different recipients then it were lawful to divyde preaching and administration of the Sacraments so as one Presbyter notwithstanding of his authority and mission in relation to both word and Sacraments receaved in his ordination might have preaching only allowed to him but no administration of Sacraments Another might be allowed to administer Sacraments but not to preach One Presbyter upon the pretence of order or union pretences are never wanting to humane inventions might be sett a part and authorised to Baptise all the Children in a wholl Province doing nothing else of the Pastoral Office And this power by the same authority might be taken from all the Pastoures of the Province Sure all would acknowledge this to be a most wicked divyding and diversifieing what God the conjoyned And such is this Prelatical divyding of the Pastoral charge in relation to order and jurisdiction or the keys of Doctrine Government the power wherof the Pastor receaves intirely in his ordination as well as the Authority of administrating Sacraments 7. In this the Diocesian Bishop is contrare to Scripture In that his Office is in many respects cross to the very nature of the Gospel-Church Government and is ane Office which the man that exercises cannot but in so farr cease to be a Gospel Church-ruler Which I prove thus 1. Since all authority in the Diocess as to either the Word or Disciplin is deryved from the Bishop as its proper fountaine and subject this power of the Bishop is properlie and of its own nature not a Gospel Ministery But a dominion and principalitie discharged to Church Officers of what ever sorte whose authority is not a despotick nomothetick or architectonick power but a Ministerial Stewardship only Matth. 20 v 25 26. 2 Cor. 1 24. 1 Cor. 4 D. 1 Pet. 5 2 3. 3 Epist. John 9. The work of all Church Officers is called a Ministery Pastours Doctores yea Apostles Evangelists were appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the worke of the Ministery Ephes. 4 12. 2 Cor. 4 v. 5. Paul calls himself a fellow servant with Epaphras Collos. 17. with Tichicus Collos. 4 7. And calls Ministers his fellow-souldiers and fellow-labores Philip. 4. 3 -2 25-Rom 16 3 -2 The Bishops power inverts Christs rule as to the gradation in point of censures and appealls which is from one one to more from the lesser number to the greater from
primacy or ecclesiastick Monarchy even as abstracted from his civill Dominion is not here discharged And if it be as all our divines assert it is then our Lord understood another sort of abuse of power then invadeing a Dominium civile even all despotick or Lordly power whither civill or pretended ecclesiastick in Church officers Besids if he discharged Lordly power he discharged that which Peter discharged 1 Pet. 5. Even to Lord over Gods heritage What will he dare to say that it is only a civill Lordship which is there discharged not rather ane ecclesiastick dominion Which bath Gods heritage or Church for its object And if so then the Prelats Dominion is expresly stricken against since as we have above cleared his power is a meer despotick Lordship or rule For to be the proper object fountaine of all ecclesiástick authority in the Diocess to have sole power in ordination jurisdiction the sole decisive suffrage in Judicatories is either a despotick Dominion and Lordship or it is nothing and if the Churches power is of another nature then this civill Dominion as this man tells us of what nature is it Only of another nature because it touches spiritual objects Then for any thing that is here forbidden a papall ecclesiastick monarchy is never touched Or is it of another nature because in it self Steward-like and Ministerial not despotick or Princely like that of the Magistrat which is the sense of all sound divines and must be his too if he speak sense then who sees not that the power of the Prince-or Lord-Prelat is most formally discharged It being evidently of this nature Yet againe it is in this apparent that he shiftes and shuffles the question and its terms here anent the power of the Prelat and the power discharged in this text For in saying in the beginning of his Answer that Christ discharges that kind Dominion of onely which civil Princes exercise he must needes be supposed to contradistingush from this ane ecclesiastick Dominion which is allowed yet when he speaks of this he alters the terms telling us that the Churches power is of another nature he should have said the Churches reserved Dominion if he had spoken consequently as that other kind of Dominion which he allowes and by the consequence of his discourse holds that the Text will allow In a word that all sort of Dominion whither pretended ecclesiastick or civil is here discharged to Church officers and consequently his offering violence to the Text is apparent from the context two wayes 1. In that the strife among the Apoles flowing from this desire of unlawful greatnes and which drew forth this exhortation and prohibition under debate was not about a civill despotick rule properly or onely but anent a Lordship chief rule in the Church and in matters ecclesiastick under Christ as their head So that though the Lord exemplified the greatnes which he discharged them in that of earthly princes there being no other then existent and apparent yet it was not this primarily but ane ecclesiastick Lordship or dominion which he strycks against Since he is directing them both negatively and positively anent the nature And exercise of their spiritual and ecclesiastick Authority and Rule 2. The positive parte of his injunction touching a Ministerial service or humble Ministery excludes all sort of dominion in what ever sense it can be taken and not a civill dominion onely Our Informer tells us nixt That sundrie interpreters interpret Christs words as discharging only Tyranny such as earthly Princes exercise And in this he Informers us right Onely he should have been so ingenuus as to tell us that they are interpreters beyond our line that is popish interpreters for this is directly Bellarmins shift to which since he stands here upon the same ground with him I shall return learned Whittakers interpretation and answer which hitherto I believe hath passed current with all sound Protestants Christ sets before them the example of the Kings of the Gentiles not to the end they may flie ambition on'y as this man shifts it but to let them understand that they have nothing to doe with a kingly rule For saith he though the words translated exercise dominion or authority which Matthew maks use of doeth sometimes signifie immoderat dominion yet Luke Omitts the preposition in both these Words But so it is that the simple verb is attribut to these who obtaine power and dominion not to these who insolently and tyrannically overerule for all those who among the gentiles obtained principality did not reigne tyrannically or unjustly nay the Clemency of many such and their justice is praised Thus he de pontif Quest 1. To which I may add that our Lord speakes of such Princes as were called Benefactoers or gracious Lords a very unsuiteable designation for Tyrannes How easie is it from the Informer reasoning here and with his net to fish out a papacy That which the Apostles here desired was in it self lawful and the fault was onely in the ambitious desire as it was with diotrephes who desired a lawful preexistent office This he clearly asserts I subsum But that which they desired and were striving about was a primacie or papacie Ergo that office is lawfull in it self The pope will thank our Informer for this The nixt text objected by the doubter is that pregnant passage 1 Pet. 5 3. Be not Lords over Gods heritage And from this he maks him mutter out this slender argument is not superiority among Church men there clearly forbidden Still we see our Informer keeps him under the covert of his own groundless supposition that we doe from this and such like texts Impugne Superiority among Church men as he terms it whereas wee allow as he cannot but know with all sound divines and scripture it self superiour and inferiour degrees among Church officers And he cannot shew that any Presbyterian did ever draw forth from this text such ane insignificant notion as this against Prelacy But hee behoved to make the knot easy since himself must loose it Our Argument from this text is this That the Apostle here injoyneing Ministers their duty both negativil and positively he first dehorts from evills they are lyable unto such as heart reluctancy at their laborius employment covetusness and usurpation or Lordship and Dominion whither over their fellowes which Dietrephes affected or over the people by taking ane arbitrarie masterly imperious way with them or a way of force and rigoure as these reptehended Ezek. 34 4. He nixt positively exhortes them to lead or rule in a holy exemplarie Shepherd-like Method expressing the word of grace in their practise Now I say from this genuine sense and scope of the place wee argue against Prelacie thus 1. The Apostle exhorts these elders or Ministers as their fellow-elder supposeing them his immediat Successors in the highest Spheere of ane ordinarie Ministery for he supposes them to have non higher over them now when he
For 1. He grants that these two words Bishop and elder signifies one and the same officer oftentimes supposeing that sometimes they express diverse officers but where can he shew us that the word Episcopus signifies one officer and Preshiter another when the Spirit of God is pointing out therby the Churches standing Officers and Ministers and not when either the one or the other is in a generall sense applyed to ane Apostle 2. The state of the Question is whither the scriptur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 designe a higher ordinary officer then a Presbyter And this Informer should have adverted that the drift of the argument from the texts mentioned is to prove the Apostles promiscuous use of these words in describing the office of the highest ordinary office bearers in the Church Moreover the Diocesian Episcopus is ane ordinary officer haveing the inspection over some handereds of flocks and the sole power of jurisdiction and ordination in the diocesse is by him held to be ane officer of Gods appointment by this designation of Bishop as the Characteristick of his office is distinguished from Pastoures or elders Now if presbyterians doe prove that wherever the word Bishop is used to point at ane ordinary standing officer in the Church it imports a pastor or presbyter no higher officer they sufficiently over throw the diocesian Episcopus or Bishop of his mould as having no scripture warrand And if he grant that in the forementioned Scriptures other passages where the word Bishop is used to point at a necessarie standing Church officer it signifieth no higher officer then ane elder or ordinarie Minister he grants enough against himself all that the presbiterians desire for there from it followes necessarly that their diocesian Episcopus or Bishop contradistinct from superior to the preaching presbyter is apochriphal antiscripturall Since the preaching presbyter Bishop are the same ordinarie highest officer in all the Holy Ghosts expressions theranent 3. Whereas he denyes that we con prove That the officer meaned by these words is never understood of any above the degree of ane ordinary minister Let him add this necessary limitation when the words are applyed to designe ane ordinary standing officer which he must admit if he speak to purpose and the proofe is very easy since the forementioned Texts and all the parallels where elder or Bishop is thus used doe evince it Again 4. Since this Informer with his followes have diversified the Bishop from the elder in the manner above exprest we challing him as the affirmer to shew in all the new Testament where the officer meaned by this Word Episcopus or Bishop when pointing at ane ordinary standing officer in the Church is to be understood of any above the degree of a Presbyter or Pastor of a congregation This lyes upon him to mak good else if Episcopuss denotte only a Presbyter sure the cause of the Diocesian Prelat is lost He fortifies his answer with two Reasons 1. We find the name elder given to the Apostles themselves 1 Pet 5 1. Iohn 2. 1. Epist. 3 1. And if Apostles be called elders why not also Bishops Ans 1. The pointe debeateable is whether the word Bishop and elder doe Import the same officer when applyed to a constant standing officer in the Church His Presbyterian doubter offers the forementioned Texts to prove this and he answers That one of these names are sometimes attribut to ane extraordinary officer whose formal office is ceased Now how impertinent this is to the pointe and Queston let any judge To prove that Episcopus or Bishop imports ane ordinary standing officer above a Presbyter and that the Word Bishop and Presbyter signify not the same ordinary officer because sometimes the Word elder may be applyed to ane Apostle is a consequence as we use so say a baculo ad angulum and known to no logik 2. We told him already that we prove enough against him when we prove that the Scripture-Episcopus or Bishop is never found to Import any ordinary officer above the Presbyter and that the Office Work Qualifications Duties of these officers as ordinary standing officers are one and the same 3. The Instance of the Apostles assumeing the name of elder doth in this further appear to be ane impertinent exception to the Argument adduced in that the office of ane Apostle is in Scripture both by a proper name work qualification call c. diversified and distinguished from that of ane ordinary elder so that though in a general sense the Apostles be called elders their Specifick difference from the ordinary elder is apparent But this Informer will never shew the least vestigies of the Diocesian Bishops distinction from the preaching elder or Presbyter in any of these respects And therefore his reason added here viz. The Bishop may be called ane elder as well as ane Apostle and yet be ane officer superior to him is a begging of the Question since he cannot shew that there is a higher ordinary officer then a Pastor or Presbyter appointed in the Word nor can he shew any designation qualification work or ordination of his Diocesian Bishop as distinguished from the Presbyter by the Prelatists And therefore the Apostles being called elders can no more ground a distinction betwixt the Bishop and the elder then betwixt the Pastor and the elder whom he acknowledges to be one and the same or betwixt the Minister and the elder I suppose one should alledge the Pastor to be a higher officer then the preaching elder and Presbyter notwithstanding that in Scripture their names and qualifications are one as of the Bishop and Presbyter and should ground his opinion on this Informers reason here viz. that though the two words are promiscuosly used often times of the same officer yet the officer meaned by one of these may be somtimes understood of one above the degree of ane ordinary Minister what will he say to his own reason pleading for this foolish distinction Would he not say that the Apostle and elder are elsewhere clearly distinguished on Scripture not the Pastour and the elder which answer he must here bestow upon himself Sure this man will not deny but that the various Church officers both ordinary and extraordinary have their proper formall office is deciphered and distinguished from other offices and officers As Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and particularly he will not deny that there is such ane ordinary Church officer as the Pastor or Presbyter distinguished by his proper designation from others notwithstanding that the Apostles took this name in a general sense So that from this it followes that if the Bishops proper designation work ordination qualifications as distinct from a Presbyter cannot be produced he must be alwayes understood in that sense viz. ane ordinary Pastour and no more And not as the Apostles when termed elders whose distinct Superior office and proportioned designation is
gratis asserted and worse proved Learned Calvin upon the place tells us That his Deaconship was a temporal and transient function then expired because otherwayes it had no been free to him to leave Jerusalem and go to cesaria And that he is not here proposed as a voluntar deserter of his office but as one who had a more excellent office intrusted to him Which two grounds will put faire to prove that he was not a deacon still Then he adds Evangilistae meo judiciointer Apostolos doctores medii erant munus enim obibant Apostolis proximum ut passim Evangelium praedicarent nec praeficerentur certae Stationi That is Evangelists were sett in the middle betwixt Apostles and Doctours had ane office nixt to that of the Apostles and Doctours had ane office nixt to that of the Apostles that they might every where preach the gospell and were not fixed to any Station He gives this reason of his description of the Evangelist Because Ephes. 4. the Apostle describing the order of the Church doth in such manner substitut them to Apostles as he shews that they had a more inlarged office of teaching intrusted to them then to Pastours whose worke was tyed to certain places Hence he concludes that Philips deaconship at Jerusalem was onely temporall And for some time there exercised by him and that he was afterby the Church assumed to be ane Evangelist In which words wee see 1. He doth upon weightie grounds prove him to have been no Deacon at that time wherein he is called ane Evangelist 2. That he was ane Evangilist in the strict and proper sense as it is taken Eph. 4. 3. That Evangelists are officers above ordinarie teachers or pastours and in this distinct from them in the judgement of this great divine that they were fixed to no certan charge as they but as being nixt Apostles had ane indefinit unfixed Ministery all which is cross to this mans blunt confused discourse of this mater and cutts the sinews of Timothy's supposed Episcopacy Lastlie Where he affirms that ordination and jurisdiction were no proper worke of ane Evangelist but preaching and spreading the Gospell 1. I urge him thus if preaching and spreading the gospel was the characteristick of the Evangelist He must mean it in a more extensive way then ordinary Pastours if he speak sense then sure he cannot deny but that Timothy thus preached and spread the gospel as the Apostles Coajutor in many Churches as is cleared above Whence it followes by his own Confession 1. That Timothy's office was extraordinary and is ceased for he affirmes that the office of ane Evangelist whom he calls extraordinary was to cease in the Church 2. That he had no Episcopall authority in ordination and jurisdiction He being ane Evangelist in a sense beyond any ordinary preacher and upon the other hand ordination and jurisdiction by his confession not being his proper worke who is ane Evangilist So that Pauls calling him ane Evangelist must lay him by from being a Prelat and consequently all the Informers pleading from his supposed power in ordination and jurisdiction in the 1. Epistle written to him is frivolous and vaine For in his sense he could not Act both the worke of evangelist and Prelat these being according to his pleading inconsistent But nixt the wonder is how this man comes to divide preaching and spreading of the gospell from the power of ordination jurisdiction since he cannot but acknowledge that the Apostles did both these and affirms that their office was episcopal as we heard above And after he will tell us that Catalogues of Bishops are drawen from the Apostles and by Ierom from marke the Evangelist who was Bishop of Alexandria Then it seems this power in ordination wherein with him the Chief part of my Lord Bishops office lyes was very well consistent with both the Apostles and Evangelists their unfixed inlarged preaching and spreading of the gospell The Apostles unfixed preaching spreading of the gospell sure he will not deny nor can he deny to marke the Evangelists office in the strictest sense he can imagine so that both are with him compatible Thus we see in withstanding the truth hee is still in the briers of Contradictiones The Doubter excepts aganist his reason That philip might be both a deacon and Evangilist To which he answers That by the same Reason Timothie and Titus might be both Bishops and Evangelists I answer 1. We have showen already That philip ceased to be a deacon at Jerusalem when he became ane Evangelist 2. Supposing he were yet the Informers answer and parallel is naught For 1. Philipes becoming ane Evangelist was ane advancement to a higher office holding still ane inferiour which is eminenter included in it as he will grant but making ane Evangelist a Bishop is a degrading of a high extraordinary superiour officer to ane ordinary inferiour 2. As ane Evangilist properly so called his work was to preach and spread the gospel unfixedly as a Bishop his work he will say was ordination and jurisdiction which Two we heard him affirme to be incompatible Besides in separating the power of ordination and jurisdiction from the Evangelistick office he is contradicted by Saravia who in many places mantaines the contrary degrad cap. 1. and Cap. 16. and cap. 23 And here I shall shew our Informer how he hath run cross to his great Master in his glosses upon several of these Texts under debate that it may appear what babellike builders our prelates Advocates are Upon that passage Matth. 20 I finde he is a little more ingenuous then this is Disciple and plainely speakes out what he but mutters exam tract de episc tripl quest 1. pag 70. after he hath repeated that Text with its parallel in Luke he adds Ex his verbis quaero num cuiquam sano videri possit D. Iesum sustulisse aut prohibuisse primatum aut principatum non potius docuisse quid eum deceat qui in Ecclesia primus princeps futurus erat c that is From these Wordes I demand whither any that is sound can judge that the Lord Iesus did take away primaci and principality and did not rather teach what becomes him who was to be first and Prince in the Church and thereafter he tells us that Christ by his own example did shew what sort of primaci it is that the allowes in his Church so that he doth in downright express terms plead for a supreme patriarch or pope representing Christs pritcipality over the Church what harmony this keeps with the judgment of protestant divines upon that passage any may judge The Informers holdes That there was to be no inequality of power among the 12 Apostles although he is not consistent with himself in this as is already observed but Saravia runs so far cross to him in this assertion that he mantaines a primaci of power among them That the Bishops saluted with
were adressed to a Moderator would that infer his Authoritie over the Synod Nay since a Presbytry laid on hand 's upon Timothy himself Since the Presbyters of this Church of Ephesus had the Episcopal power in Common committed to them as the Holy Ghosts Bishops Since the Corinth-Presbytery did excommunicat the incestuous we may clearly infer that these directions though immediatly addressed to Timothy yet belonged to Presbyters of that and Other Churches as well as him 2. Supposing that this adress will give him a speciall Interest herein yet how will the Informer prove that it respects Timothy any other way and in any other Capacity then of ane Euangelist which he sayes it might be he yet was and not a Bishop He dissallowes not of Gerards opinion who sayes that he was not yet made Bishop Now if these Rules were to be observed by him and this his supposed singular Authority exercised as ane Evangelist whose office was to cease It will plead nothing for the Episcopal power Surely upon our supposition that he was a fellow-helper and assistant of Paul in his Apostolik function and had a transient occasional Imployment here as is clearely held out in the Text these rules are very suitable unto him in that capacity Besids these Directions are for instruction of every man of God or Minister in point of Church-Government 2. Tim. 3 16. 1 Tim. 4. 6 But doth not give them Episopal power Or will he say that every man hath the formal office or place in the nature whereof he is instructed The dedication of a book to a man anent rules of kingly Government will not make the man or suppose him either King or Governour In the 3d. place As to these Directions themselves particularly as to Timothies direction as to laying on of hands 't is Answered that laying on of hands in ordination is found in Scripture a Presbyterial Acte competent to meer Presbyters which as I said they exercised upon Timothy himself though Paul was present 1 Tim 4 14. 2 Tim. 1. 5. And therefor Timothy could have no single or Episcopal authority therein in Churches Constitute So that the precept directs Presbyters as well as him in that point Nay this addressed direction mainly respected them as the proper subject of this power and the Presbytery received their lesson here not to lay on hands suddenly rather then Timothy Nixt As for his Authority and directions anent rebuking and Censures I answ That neither can this be Timothy's sole prerogative for either it is meaned of a Privat rebuke and this every Christian hath authority in Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour and not suffer sin upon him Levit. 19 17. Prov. 9 8. Or of a ministerial rebuke and this is competent to every Minister of the word Isa. 58 1. 2 Tim. 41 2. Tiâ—… 1 13. 2 Sam. 12 8. And besides Institutions and reproofs of Church officers will not prove a fixed Episcopal power Prophets rebuked but had no jurisdiction over Priests nor Paul over Peter though he reproved him As for that which he particularly mentions about receiving ane accusation against ane Elder It is answered That this also belongs to the official juridical power of Elders since Ruling Government attribute to them in Scripture doth necessarily import ane authority to receive accusations and correct delinquents by reproofs and censures Matth. 8 16. 17. There is ane accusation to be delated ecclesiae to the Church or the juridical Court not to one Prelat as is above cleared and therefore the direction anent the receiving of the accusation respects them who were to judge upon it and not the Prelat Compare this with 1 Cor. 5 4 5. The Presbyters must meet together to rebuke the Incestuous there and they that are Spiritual must restore the delinquent Gal. 6 1. The Church officers or Ministers of Thessalonica must note and admonish authoritatively the disobedient Brother 2 Thess. 3 14 15. To which I may add that as upon the one hand Timothy is forbidden to rebuke ane elder and positively enjoyned doubly to honour them when faithful So the receiving ane accusation is no more then that which every privat Christian and Minister is capable of even against the superiour whither in state or age in relation to admonition Counsel or Comfort accordingly Levit. 19 17. Gal. 6 1 2 Joh. 10 11. None in whatever capacity are exeemed from this precept not to receive accusations lightly Hence the 4th Council of Carthage cited by Blond Apol. Sect. 4 enacted That no Bishop should hear ane accusation without the Clergie and that without their assent the sentence should be voyd where was the negative voyce here Whittaker thus answers the Popish pleading upon this text and our Informers too controv 4. Quest. 1. Cap. 2. That Timothy is commanded not rashly to receive ane accusation proves not that he had dominion over Elders which according to the Apostles minde is to bring a crime to the Church to bring the guilty into judgement openly to reprove which not only superiors may doe but also equals and inferiors In the Roman Republick the Kings did not only judge the people but also the Senators and patricii and certainly it seems not that Timothy had such a â—…sistory and Court as was afterward appointed to Bishops in the Church what this authority was may be understood by that which followes those that sin rebuke before all which equals also may doe Thus bishops heretofore if any elder or Bishop had ane ill report referred it to the eeclesiastick Senat or Synod and condemned him if he seemed worthy by a publick judgement that is did either suspend excommunicat or remove him the Bishop condemneing nocent elders or deacons not by his authority alone but with the judgment of the Church and clergie in case of appeals even to the Metropolitan he could doe nothing without the Synod what they did was ratified The same is the answer of Bucer de vt usu Sacr. Minister Willet Sinops Papis Contr. 5 Ques 3 part 3 In the appeudix Eucer de Gub. pag. 300. to 398. The Informer tells us in the next place that these directions concern after ages and are of ordinary use and therefore they cannot be extraordinary officers in these Acts that in calling Timothy and Titus extraordinary officers in these Acts we lead the way to their errour who call ordination and jurisdiction extraordinary Answ. As we have proved that none of these directions will infer in Timothy ane Episcopal Power properly such but that any power he had above Presbyters was by his special Evangelistick Legation so the concernment of after ages in these directions and their being of constant use is a pitiful argument to prove the continuanc of the power in that manner Are not all the old Testament precepts anent the antiquated ceremonies all the acts directions given to extraordinary officers both under the Old and New Testament of perpetual
by the ancients But if he had offered us Testimonys speaking of sole power of these Bishops in ordination and Iurisdiction leaving nothing to Presbyters but the key of doctrine of Bishops with a negative voice in judicatories haveing sole Dominion over a diocess the only proper Pastoures thereof and Prelats of Erastus his Cutt Then I should confess there were early such Bishops as he pleads for and we should acknowledge their power to be a commentary upon the Scriptures he pleads from But with this proviso that he could quiparat them with their first progenitours and shew us these priviledges in the scripture-Escutciones of their founders But till then I thinke our conviction must be suspended That Presbyters have the key of Doctrine he will not deny That they have the power of ordination and jurisdiction and that key likewayes entrusted to them hath been proved from Scripture 1. Tim. 4. 14. Luk. 22. 66. Act. 20 28. 1. Pet. 5 2 1. Cor 5. 5. Now let him say did these first succeeding Bishops in their supposed diocesses alwayes take this power in ordination and jurisdiction from the first Scripture Bishops and stood invested therwith in after tymes How then comes jerom to say That even in his time elders were subject to the Bishop only by Custome not by Dispensation from the Lord. In his Coment on Tit and on Isa. 3. That they had even in his time a caetus presbiterorum a meeting or Court of Presbyters and ane Apostolick senat How comes a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbytery to be mentioned Councancyr Can. 18. How comes Ambrose a father of the Church upon Ephes. 4. to assert That after the Church was enlarged Cepit alio ordine Gubernari It began to be governed after another maner then at first and that non per omnia conveniunt c. That the Government then in the Church was not every way suitable to the Apostles appointment me thinkes these assertions might convince the Informer of the folly of this argument But 2. What if some of these first successours be found but meer Constant moderators What is then become of his Series of a Succession of Diocesian Bishops from Timothy and Titus and the Asian Angels saith not jerom ad Evagrium Alexandriae Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu Collocatum Episcopum nominabant c That the Bishop at Alexandria was only a Presbyter Chosen to preside c. Ambrose sayes that this distinction betaixt Bishop and Presbyter cam in by Counsâ—…l Cubi prius therefor he holds it was not derived from divine 〈◊〉 and therein gives the lie to our Informer for that he sayes was different from their present custome Augustin Epist 10. sayes with jerom that by Custome of the Church Episcopatus was Major presbyterio the Episcopacy was greater then the presbyterat How comes â—…irmilianus apud Cypr. ep 78. to assert that the presbyters possident ordinandi potestatem posseses the power of ordination and these presbyters he calls praepositi the presidents or rulers Ierom sayes quid facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus quod nonfacit presbiter what does the Bishop except ordination which the presbyter doth not yet even in this presbyters then concurred with them and shared in that power Saith not Chrisost upon 1. Tim inter Episcopum et presbyterum interest ferme nihil-between the Bishop and presbyter there is almost no difference As for his lines of Succession they will say nothing untill he prove these Bishops to be Episcopos principes Prince-or Lord Bishops and nor Episcopos presides or Moderator Bishops which will be a hard task since he must answer Blondel who largely proves that before the year 140 there was not a Bishop over presbyters even the Constant president far from the power of the present diocesâ—…an Policarp himself his supposed Bishop of Smyrna makes but Two orders of Ministery Bishops and 〈◊〉 in his Epistle to the Philippians Dr. Reynolds in his conference with Hart proves that the first Bishop who came in after the Apostles was nothing but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moderator of the presbytery In a word as many learned men doe prove the discrepancy of the ancients among themselves and their variety of names and speech in relation to these first supposed Bishops and that several authores are Spurius and counterfit who are Brought in to give Testimony in this point So it is certain that this man and his fellowes in pleading thus for Timothies Episcopacy doe put the blott of dread full Apostacy upon him in making him fall as the Angel of Ephesus is charged from his first love so that if they will not runn on this inconvenience and stage this eminent Saint for such ane Apostat contrary to the Scripture account of him they must wholly quit this plea. As for what he adds of Several writers acknowledging the Angel a Single person we have shown how vaine a reason this is to prove his point But the Doubter objects to some purpose that Beza and others might take the Angel to be but Moderator To this he answers that the Angel must needs be a Bishop because he is cheifely commended or discomended as haveing a cheif hand in what was right or amiss in these Churches That the power found in Timothy and Titus proves it was so with these Angels That Beza sayes these Angels power was more eminent then the rest of their fellowes Ans. 1. As for Beza its true he expones the Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the president but adds Sed hinc statui episcopalis ille gradus c that is But that Episcopal degree which was after ward by human invention brought into the Church of God nether certainly can nor ought to be hence concluded nay not so much as the office of a perpetual president should be of necessity as the thence ariseing oligarchical tyrranny let our Informer marke this whose head is the Antichristian beast now at length with the most certan ruine not of the Church only but of the world also maks manifest And this also is all which Dr. Reynolds acknowledges Now I think he will find no advantage nor credit here to his Diocesian Bishop since Beza maks him but a human invention yea and the poysonous egg out of which Antichrist was hatched 2 As for his Reason That this Angel is chefly reproved or commended as haveing the Chief hand in what was right or amisse He must prove before this Reason wil pass current that one single person is Chiefly reproved or commended and likewayes that his having the commendation or reproofe adressed to him will evince a Chief authority or Chief hand as he calls it in government Wee told him that in Beza's and Dr. Reynolds judgment the Angel is only the preses Morâ—…derator receaving the Epistle or address Now will ane Epistle containing commendations or reproofes of a Synod and addressed to the Moderator make him Chief as to what is commended or taxed in
is not one with himself in it acknowledges that the Lord discharged all inequality and especially a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or primat among the Apoles and therefore why his scoler John censured not likewayes a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or primacy affecting Minister seeking the same principality over his Brethren or fellow Ministers which our Lord discharged among the Disciples will puzell him to shew the disparity Surely when our Lord said It shall not be so among you and when he discharged a protos or Chief among the Disciples recomending to the desirer of this to be their servant over whom this was affected he spoke to them as Ministers and in that capacitie and therefore discharges this among all Ministers For aquatenus ad omne I wonder if this man will say that if any of the Seventy Disciples had affected to be a protos over the rest our Lord would not have given them the same injunction Or if he will say that they did not hold themselves concerned in the same rule and the prohibition which the Disciples here got Surely he cannot deny this and therfore it is Certan that John discharhes the very protos or prostacy self for what reason will it he invent wherefor a preeminence or primacy should be disgarged to the Apostles and allowed among the Seventy who he thinks represents the Pastours or any Inferiour order of Church officers Besides what was it which Peter discharged to these Bishops 1 Pet. 5. Was it not a preeminence or masterly primacy and to be a protos learned he not this prohibition of his Lord and will it not be a Critical distinction to distinguish lordship from preeminence Now the first we find universally discharged to Pastours even over the flockâ—… as this man acknowledges and therefore why this preeminence is not likwise in it self and simply stricken against will be Impossible to shew the disparity I must presume that the Apostle understood the sence of this prohibition of his Lord much better then our Informer and we see he applyes to inferiour Pastours and Bishops that which was discharged to himself and the rest of his fellow disciples And as I said befor if none of these scripture-Bishops were to lord it over the flock farr less over their fellowes So that to be a protos or Chief over them was inhibit as by the lord befor so by the Apostle here and consequently this lover of preeminence is simply condemned The Inglish Annot make the two places of Peter John parallel the same evill to be discharged in both So doe the dutch annot expressing that which diotrephes sought in the Apostle Peters terms of lording it over his brethren Now I hope he will not say that when Peter discharges Ministers to be lords over Gods Heritage he discharged only ane ambitious affectation and Supposed a laâ—…ll Lordship over the flockâ—… abstracting from this ambitious affectation Surely then this Prohibition of the Apostle Iohn where Diotrephes is supposed to be practising what is by Peter discharged can admit of no such evasion either unless he would make these Apostles to interfer together in this matter for it were strange clashing of weapones and contradiction of the tongues and pens of these Apostles if Peter should discharge all Lording even over the flocks in any Pastour and yet Iohn should allow unto a Pastour a preeminence and primacy both over the flocks and his fellow Ministers and labourers with him in the Lords vineyeard Infine If to be a primat or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a lawfull office to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or lover of it which is all that the word will Import could deserve no censure The Informer knowes who said He that desires the office of a Bishop desires a good work but our Lord who spoke this by the pen of Paul said also himself immediatly to the Apostles by the Apostle Iohn in this place he that desires to be a protos or Chief must quite that desire Hence these are different objects of desire to be a scripture Bishop and a protos or primat To affect the office of a scriptur Bishop and a primacy are Antipods so that it was not a lawfull nor consequently praeexistent office in the Church allowed by Iohn which this man desired and therefore he is simply condemned by the Apostle both as to the desire it self and the object of it Hee who thus affects to be first deserves to be called least in the Kingdome of God and who thus exalt themselves shall be abased To all which I might add that diotrephes Imperious lordly carriage in casting out and censureing and not admitting into this Church such as the Apostle appointed to be therein receaved is a lively effigies of anâ—… Episcopal primacy or preeminence and of that arbitrary prelacy that sole power in ordination and censures which this Informer pleads for Against which disorderlines of this early primat the Apostles threatning of his holy censure is a thunder-clapp which may terrifie all who carry this usurped office and may make his Supposed Angels or Prelats for this their aspyreing fear the stroake and punishment of those Angels who keeped not their first estate but left their own habitation I shall dimiss the Informers last argument with one remarke further which is this if the affecting to be a protos or Chief tainted the Apostles themselves while the Christian Church was in its first Infancy if in Pauls time the mistery of Iniquity and of propry was working the monstrous embrio of a papacy and consequently of a Prelacy If peter found it needfull to disscharge Covetousnes and lordship to ministers If the holy Apostle John was contradicted and counteracted by ane aspiring primat Surely we need not wonder at that universal Change of the Apostolick Holy humble Church Disciplin and parity among Ministers which overspread the Christian Church not long therafter And to our prelatists ordinary question When began the Change of preshyterian parity among Ministes Wee may answer That the bitter â—…ootes of a Primacy or prelacy were sprouting in the Apostles times and therefore it is no strange thing that this destroying weed grew up so quickly thereafter the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or evill one did quickly sow his Cocle among the wheat and blew up this fire of ambition primacy pride and his own proper sin till it came to the flam first of a human proftasie then of a Hierarchy and unto the Culmen or tope of a chief universal primacy at last For that which he adds of Blondel his granting That diotrephes sought to be first Presbyter such a president as had authority over the rest Surely none who haâ—…e read Blondel can but acknowledge that he distinguishes all along the Presbyters set over others from the Episcopus divine jure institutus So in his 1 2 3. and 4t Arguments page 190 191 192 193 c. So that he maks the very constant fixed president much more
affectation of primacy began in the Apostles owne time and therefore we need not wonder that it spread shortly thereafter Ierome tells us that this change was Paulatim by degrees and upon specious pretences of order and union and therefore it is no wonder that this monster in its nature and dreadfull effects was not seen at first His 4t Reason is That Ierom makes this change to have been for remedy of Schism and it is absurd to say that the Government of the Apostles was lyable to this evil But this inconvenience is salved if we say that the Apostles for preventing Schisme which parity breeds set up Bishops over Presbyters Ans. 1. To begin at his last part he eschews not this inconvenienc himself for he makes the Apostles to have Governed the first Curches Episcopaly keeping the Episcopall reyns of Government stil in their owne hand in Ieroms sense till their absene and Schism procured that change which Ierom speaks of So that with him the root of Schism was sown in that Church which they Governed Episcopally the Presbyters with him ab initio yea first or last not haveing a power of ordination and jurisdiction and he maks jerome to reflect upon the Apostles as if they had bettered Christs appointment as to Government I pray him how grew up the Corinth Scism while Paul acted the Bishop over that Church as he and the rest of hisparty doe plead The men of his way say that the Apostles keept the reyns of Government in their own hand until they were about to die before wich time there were schimes in their Churches Did not the Apostles foresee this and if the Apostolick Episcapacy was by lyable to schismes much more that of their substituts 2. It is too gross ane Inferenc to say that Because Ierome holdes that for preventing schismes which were at that time the Government was changed therefore Ierome charges it upon the Apostles Government he may as well say that a mans asserting Corruptions to be in the Church will infer his imputing them to the ordinances Was there nor discord among the disciples under Christs own immediat Government but did that reflect upon his Holy Government that this recorded Did not Paul and Barnabas divid part asunder but did Luke in relating this Charge it upon the holy Apostolick Government 3. The absurd reflexion upon the Apostles Government which he speaks of lyes upon his party and these who first brought in and now after its evil effects are discovered uphold this hierarchy which is so crosse to the Apostolick parity Ierom sayes they brought in this imparity for remedy of schisme but leaves the charge of reflecting upon the Apostolick government upon the Authores of this innovation and upon its promoters still it mustly His 5t Reason is That Ierom in his writtings derives Episcopacy as high as from the Apostles making Iames Bishop of Ierusalem Titus of Crete Mark of Alexandria and Bishops Presbyters and Deacons to be that which Aaron and the levites were in the old Testament Then he adds that if we make him contradict himself it must be with advantage to Bishops Ans. Wee have heard already that it is past doubt with many godly learned that the Fathers used the terme Bishop in a various and general sense and spoke of the Apostles and of extraordinary officers after the mode and custome of their own times wherein these offices and designations were prevalent It is this Informer who puts a contradiction upon Ierome while he maks him assert Episcopacy to be set up by the Apostles upon occasion of the Corinth Schism in contradiction to his Scriptur proofes of the parity of Bishop and Presbyter from the Apostles doctrine and brings him in here as asserting the Apostles to have been formaly Bishops from the begining Wheras our answer hath none of these inconveniences and tho it were granted that it is the true Ierome who asserts this of the Apostlés which we put this Informer to prove yet we accommodat this with his other doctrine by what is said of the aequivocall sense of the word Aaron and the Levits authority might in Ieroms judgement be as to Church government in general derived in the nâ—…w Testament and also as to a distinction of Church officers therein But if he should alledge that Ierom assimilats here the one government and the other he will mak him plead for a gospell Aaron and pope In a word Ieroms judgement as to the divine right of Presbyterian parity being so clear and by him founded upon the Apostles writings ought to preponderat any other general or ambiguous expressions anent Bishops and as a rule to expound the same in the sense most suitable unto this his judgement especialy since the Fathers usage of speech as to Bishops is thus general and ambiguous as is said But the Doubter objects to purpose That Ierom letts the Bishops know that they have their power more by Custom then by divine right To this the Informer repones his recocted crambe againe viz Ierom speaks of the power which Bishops in his time were invested with beyond the first Bishops And that Ierom in that same Epistle expones Consuetudo or Custom by Apostolical tradition That if we understand him of Consuetudo or custom after the Apostles this will fastten upon him a contradiction That he sayes of the first Bishops who governed by commoune Council with the Presbyters that they differed onely from them in ordination but of these in his owne time ad unum omnis cura delata the wole charge was put upon one Ans. As for this conceit of Ieromes distinguishing here onely Bishops of his own time from these of the Apostles time we have confuted it already and shown its absurdity and that it is most crosse to Ieroms scope and words who proves a compleat parity among Ministers and ane identity of Bishop and Presbyter in Name and thing all alongst the Apostles times and writings even to Iohn the surviver of all the Apostles So that it is most absurd to fancy him to speak of Bishops in the Apostles timet The Informer offers but a gross distortion of his words for he sayes of the Bishop who differed only in ordination from Presbyters quid facit what doth the Bishop except ordination c in the present time but of these who have all the Care he sayes Paulatim ad unum cura delata the wholl care was put upon one in the preterit time pointing out these who came in upon that schism which with the Informer was in the Apostles time The objection tells him that Ierom applyes the Bishops mould whom this man calls first Bishops to his owne time when he sayes what doth the Bishop except ordination c And haveing proved Bishopes and Presbyters to be all one he sayes Sciant that is let the present Bishops know that they have their power more by Custom then divine appointment 2. As for Ieroms expounding Consuetudo or Custome by
in decretis caus 16. Quest. 1 cap. shewes that Ecclesia habet senatum Presbyterorum c That the Church hath a senat of Presbyters without whose counsel the Bishop can doe nothing 2. We heard that these Ancient Bishops were sett up by the Presbyters as their fixed Moderator and had all their Episcopall power from their free choice and election And that any prerogative which they had over Presbyters they ascribe it to Custom and to the Presbyters own choic consuetudini non dominicae dispositionis veritati to Custom not the truth of divine appointment as Ierome speakes Irenaeus who lived ann 180 lib 4. cap. 43 tells us that we must adher to those Presbyters qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis acceperunt Who have succession from the Apostles and together with the succession of Episcopacy have the gift of verity Ambrose in cap 4. Ephes. affirmes that non per omnia conveniunt c. the government in his time agreed not in al points with scripture he means it of any excrescent power which the Bishop then had above Presbyters And Augustine ascribes al his difference from Ierom who was a Presbyter unto Ecclesiae usus the Churches Custome and grantes that in this onely Episcopatus Presbyterio major est the Episcopacy is greater then the Presbyterat Tom. 2. operum Epist. 19. ad Hieron And Ierome holds in his Epistle to Evagrius Primatum hunc Episcoporum Alexandriae Primum caepisse c. That this primacy of Bishops began first at Alexandria and post-mortem Marcae Evangelistae after the death of mark the Evangelist And thus gives the lie to our Informer who would make us believe that it came from Markes personal practise and appointment while a live he tels us also that it was paulatim by â—…ent degrees that omnis sollicitudo ad unum delata The episcopall care was put upon on Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 15. calls it civitatis consuetudinem a custome whâ—…ch prevailed with other cites 't is remarkable that by Ephiphanius confession Haeres 87. non habuit Alexandrie duos episcopos ut aliae urbes Alexandria had not two Bishopes as other cities But the Informer wil not dare to say that our Prelats now have their power by Presbyters election as these ancient Bishopes 3. It is also clear that in these first times when the Episcopus praeses was set up and for some ages afterward not only the Presbyters but the people also had a great interest in their choice Cyprian epist. 68. speaking of the choice of Bishops sayes That plebâ—… maxime habet potestatem the people have mainely a power and that plebe presente that is in the peoples presence they were set up Which he sayes was a power they had descending upon them de divina auctoritate that is from the divine Authority And this had the approbation of ane African Synod consulted by the Churches of Spaine as to Election Athanas epist. ad Orthodox condemned the comeing in of a Bishop without the peoples consent as a breach not only of ane Ecclesiastick constitution but ane Apostolick precept See Smect page 26. proveing this at large that Bishops were elected by the people Cyprian lib. 1. Epist. 4. nomine Synodi africanae videmus de divina authoritate descendere ut sacer dos plebe presente sub omnium oculis deligatur c. That the Priest was chosen under the eyes of all the people being present and approved as fitt and worthy by a publick Testimony This he sayes we see descends from divine Authoritie ibid diligenter de traditione divina Apostolica traditione tenendum est quod apud nos fere per provincias universas tenetur ut episcopus deligatar plebi cui ordinatur presente c. That it was to to be held from the divine and apostolick tradition as almost through all provinces it was observed that that the Bishop was chosen in the peoples presence over whom he was ordained c. He testifies that thus Cornelius was chosen Bishop of Rome lib. 4 epist. 2. Grat. dist 62. Can nulla ratio fuit ut inter episcopos habeantur qui nec a clero sunt electi nec a plebibus sunt expetiti No reason permitts that they should be holden Bishops who are neither chosen by the clergy nor desired by the people So Ambrose was chosen by the citticens of Millan Flavianus by those of Antioch Chrisostom by the Constantinâ—…politans This Custome was so rooted that when Emperors afterward obtruded Bishops without the previus election of the clergie and people the most famous Bishops much stomached it Ubi ille Canon saith Athanasius Epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes ut a pallatio mittatur is qui futurus est Episcopus Where is that canon That he who is to be Bishop should be sent from the court Let our court prelats mark this And our curats answere this quere Now I hope our Informer will not alledge that the people have any the least Interest in the choise of our Prelats so that they are but novell none of the ancient Bishops in this point 4. Non of the first Bishops could ordaine alone This is beyond debate as to the first Episcopus preses But even in after times also when Bishops power was farther advanced they could not thus ordaine That their power of ordination was not singular appeares from the 4th Councel of Carthage Can. 22 which decrees that the Bishopes ordain not without the Clergy and Can. 3. they are not to impose handes without them The Presbyters in Cyprians time had the power bartisandi of baptizing manum imponendi or of laying on hands ordinandi that is of ordaining epist. 78. and in Egypt in absence of the Bishop they ordained alone see Smect p. 27. upon this ground Ambrose said that betwixt the Bishop and presbyter there is almost no difference Now have not our prelats power to ordaine alone and have they not de facto frequently done so so that upon this account also they are new minted Gentlemen 5. The power and Government of the ancient Bishops in Church judicatories was not sole and singular as that of our prelats nor did they invad or inhanse their decisive conclusive suffrage as they doe who are Princes in all the present Church meetinges which must only give them advice and not that unless this high priest judge them of known loyaltie and prudence and may doe with their advice what he pleases Wheras Cyprian Epist. 6. and 28 professes that he neither could nor would doe any thing without the Clergie And the 4â—… councill of carthage condemnes the Bishops decision unless fortified by the sentence of the Clergie Can. 23. where was the negative voice here see Ruffin hist. lib. 10. Cap. 9. Smectim proves from Canons of ancient Councills the Fathers That neither 1. In censuring presbyters Nor 2. In judgeing of the conversation or crimes of Church members Nor 3. In
and attendants although a great Bishop is highly condemned as exposeing our faith to envy and hatred Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 29. The Canon of the 4 Councell of carthage insert by Gratian in the body of the decree distinct 41. provides that Episcopus non longe ab ecclesia hospitiolum vil emsupellectilem c. That the Bishop have his little manse not far from the Church that he have meane houshold stuffe c. Et dignitatis suae Authoritatem fide meritis quaerat and purchase Authority to his office or dignity by faith and good works Sozom. lib 6. Cap 16. Relats of Basilius Magnus Bishop of Caesaria that he answered the Imperours praefect who threatned the Confiscation of his goods thus Horum nihil me Cruciari potest equidem opes non habeo preterquam laceram vestem Paucos libros None of these things can torment me truely I have no goods but a torne garment and some books See the historia motuum page 143. to 174. Now from all that is said I think common ingenuity will acknowledge and this Informer himself if he be not ane utter stranger to it that our present Episcopacy is as far discrepant from that of the Ancient Christian Church as east from west and by consequence that this pleading from the ancient prostasie or even the after Bishops to legittimat and patronize our present prelacy is a most gross nonsequitur and notorius fallacy CHAP. XIV The Informers pretended Testimonies out of Calvine Beza Blondel c. For Episcopacy Examined Their anti-Episcopall judgment cleared from their writings The Informer crosses Bishop Spotswood and Tilen His two absurdities which by way of Dilemma he offers to us from our assertion of the unalterablees of Presbyterian Government our concession of a Proestos early brought in Scanned retorted upon himself The Authores of jus divinum Ministerii Evangelici vindicated at some length WHereas the Informer is bold to affirme that Calvinâ—… Beza Blondel and other eminent divines who have written against Episcopacy are reconcilable to it yea to a hierarchy of the highest stamp Wee answer 1. The full and harmanious consent of Ancient and modern divines and reformed Churches for that which we plead for in point of Church-Government shall be exhibit in the last Chapter 2. As for Calvin's judgment in relation to Presbyterian Government It is so fully known to the world in his writings that we think there needs no more to put a brand of impudence upon any then to deny it And we doe appeal to his judicious commentes upon all the controverted places of the new Testament betwixt them and us wherein all that we plead for either as to the identity of Bishop and Presbyter in name and thing the Presbyteryes power in ordination and jurisdiction the extraordinary Evangelistick Power of Timothy and Titus the divine right of the ruling elder the peoples right in the call of Ministers the unlawfulness of Prelats sole power and dominion over their brethren the unwarrantablenes of Ministers state offices c is clearly asserted Let any consult him upon Matth. 18. 17. Matth 21 22. Luk. 22 25. Act. 6 2 3 4. Act. 14 23. Act. 20 17 28 29 30. 1. Cor. 5. 1 Cor. 12. 28. with Rom. 12 6 7. 2 Cor. 2 6 7. Eph 4 11 12. 1 Thess. 5 12 13. 2 Thess. 3 14. Heb. 13 7 17. 1 Tim. 1 3. c. and 4 14. 2 Tim 2 4 2 Tim. 1 6. Tit. 1 6 7. c. and such like places where he will be found to give sentence for us against the Prelatik party and expounding them just as we doe 3. These adversaries doe grant that the Government in this Church which famous Mr. Knox owned and all his dayes contended for was Presbyterial Government And it is as well knowne and acknowledged by themselves that he had the sense and judgment both of Calvin and Beza in that great bussiness Spotswood in his history tells us that John Knox framed our rules of disciplin in imitation of what he had Seen at Geneva Tilen in his petulant piece intituled Paraensis ad Scotos Genevensis discipline Zelotas makes this undenyable He calls Calvin and Beza all along our Masters and alledges that we can hear of nothing but out of their scool c. But that they owned Presbyterian Government as the onely Government appointed in the house of God he never took the confidence or had the forehead to deny When John Knox was desired by some to write to Calvin and others about a certain difficulty he answered that he came not here without all their Iudgments in what he had done and that they might think him unconstant in writting for a resolution in that matter Now John Knox look't upon Episcopocy as a limb of Antichrists Hierarchie and as haveing aliquid commumune cum Anti Christo. Something in it common with Antichrist So that what the Informer mentions of Measson and Bish Andrews their asserting of Calvin and Beza's Episcopall Government at Geneva and their preeminencie in ordination and jurisdiction is a gross calumny The eminent parts of these famous divines might make their judgement have great influence in determining others but that either Calvin or Beza did ever incroach upon the decisive power of their fellow Presbyters or acted any thing pro imperio or solely is a calumny which any who ever read their lives can sufficiently disprove Their laboures and practise as well as their writings was for mantaineing the due right of Presbyterian Government against enemies of all sortes In the life of Galleaceus Caracciolus It is reported That Calvin being consulted by him in a case of conscience requireing secrecy in a great measure would give him no determinat answer tho a ruleing elder in that Church without consulting his Brethren As for that which the Informer cites out of Calvines Inflit. l. 4. c. 4. Sect. 2. where He acknowledges that Jerom teaches that the proestos is ane ancient institution and that he repeats what Jerome sayes a Marco c. It s a pitiful proofe to conclud therupon that Calvin acknowledges diocesian Prelats as Ancient as Mark. For Calvine knew well that Jerome speaks but of the proestos first set up and the Informer hath not proved that either Calvin or Jerom gave their approbation to the setting of him up And for what he adds That Calvin sayes ne ex equalitate ut fieri solet dissidiâ—… orirenter That they were set up least from equality discord should arise as usuallie there doth granting that he acknowledges they were more then meer Moderators that is fixed Moderators What then Are our Prelats no more Or will his acknowledgment of the factum prove his acknowledment of the jus and though mans corruption abuse parity to discord what then our corruption will abuse the best ordinance of God As for what he cites from Instit. l. 4. c. 5. Sect. 11. Our Informer hath not proved That Calvin by Episcopi and
is It is not permitted to Titus pleasure to doe all things alone and impose upon the Churches what Bishops he pleased but he only bides him oversee the Elections as Moderator Paralleling this with Act. 14. 23. where he saith that Paul and Barnabas acted not soli pro imperio that is solely and imperiously to put Pastores upon the people who were not expetiti or electi desired and chosen but only probatos cognitos men approved and known Now let this man say himself doth not Calvin here clearely assert our principles and kill the diocesian Prelat with the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction So that nothing can be hence Inferred but that Church consistories were not then without order and that one did praeside among them for Calvine sayeth on the 7. verse porro locus hic abunde docet nullum esse Presbyteri Episcopi discrimen And he who praesided here was Titus whose Episcopacy we have aboundantly disproved As for that which he tells us Calvin adds that one was in authority over the rest at that time ergo what Had not Paul Barnabas Titus ane extraordinary authority commission for he sayes tunc or at that time wherein these offices did exist but will any think that Calvin could mean a Diocesian Prelats ordinary power which immediatly befor he was disputing against from the text He adds presently nihil tamen hoc ad prophanum tirannicum collationum morem This hath nothing to doe with the profane and tyrranicall Custome of Collations longe enim diversa fuit Apostolorum ratio for the Apostles case and ground was far different from this As for that which he addes of Calvins letters to a Bishop in the Church of Rome anent Episcopacy it self as being of God I can appeall this mans conscience if Calvin thought the Episcopall hierarchie with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction far less the popish hierarchy to be of God and whither he doth not in his Commentaries Particularlie in the places cited speak against the diocisian Prelat as such Besides we shall here tell the Informer that this passage which he cites as in the volume of his opuscul a page 72 upon a search of two several editions hath not been found As for his letter to the King of Pole approveing all the degrees of the hierarchie it is so grosly contrary to Calvins principles and writings that the Informer must excuse us not to take it upon trust from him Especially since he exhibits no part of that letter For his letter to the Duke of Somer set citted by Durel and the more to be suspected as coming from the hands of such ane enemy to his principles anent some fantastick ones fludiing to bring in confusion under the name of the gospell we think it a fantastick inferenc of our Informer to conclude therupon that he calls the asserters of Presbyterian governement such Although in that Epistle there is no express advice to remove Episcopacy what then there is no express advice for removing severall other Corruptions But the Consequence that therefore Calvine did not disowne these Corruptions the Informer himself will grant to be a gross non sequitur And some Considerationes of prudence might move to wave the express touching upon this head at that season when light was but dawning as to a Doctrinall reformation and the scales of the gross cimmerian darkness of popery were but begining to fall off from the eyes of that people Yet when the Informer shall peruse that Epistle again he will find that Calvine Leaves it not altogether untouched when heuseth these wordes habeat sane hoc locum In rebus istius vitae atqui alia prorsus est ratio regiminis Ecclesiae quod spirituale est in quo nihil non ad Dei verbum exigi fas est non est inquam penes ullum mortalem quicquam hic aliis dare aut in illorum gratiam deflectere that is let this truely have place in affaeires of this life but the Church Government which is spirituall is of a far other nature wherin there is nothing but what most be brought unto the touchstone of the word of God here I say it is not in the power of any mortall to gratify any thing unto others or to decline for their favour A passage which compared to Calviâ—…s principles in point of Church Government doth fully Antidot the Informers waspish extraction from this Epistle For his treatise to the Emperor Charles the 5i anent imbracing of a hierarchy tyed by a brotherly society among Bishops and by the bond of truth and united only to Christ I see nothing discrepant in it to Calvines or Presbyterian principles If Hierarchie be rightly taken and for this if their be indeed such a passage whereof I have no certainty I think we can in no reason suppose Calvine to owne the popish Government even as abstracted from false doctrine since he holds the very Diocesian Bishop to be contrary to the Apostolick Government far more the Hierarchy will any man say that Calvin did owne all the Locuâ—…s of the profane popish orders which are parts of this Hierachy so that Calvin by hierarchy and spirituale regimen doth indigitat the most simple and primitive Episcopacy which the fathers speake of and withall since the embracing of the gospell simplicity and truth which Calvin there desires as he sayes would quickly sned off all Luxuriant branches of humane invention in point of Government and like wayes since Calvin ownes the Church Government set down in Scripture as our pattern which doth as much reprobat the popish hierarchy as the doctrine therein set down doth their errors all this will preponderat towards Calvins meaning only a gospell Ministery which is equally distinct from Bishops in the popish and prelaticall mould As for the difference betwixt the primitive and popish Episcopacy I think there is indeed a great difference we have proved our present hierarchy to be as much different from it and soom what more if its erastian mould be taken in as the Informer must The treatise to Charles the fifth entituled de necessitate reformanda Ecclesia is so Generally cited by the informer without quoting either page or section that himself seemes half convinced of the Impertinency therof For Saravia his asserting that he defended Calvins opinion against Beza he said in this as in the rest more then he could prove For what he adds of Hooker and Durel who assert That Presbytery was settled at Geneva because another Bishop could not be gotten after the popish was away and that it was settled not out of a dislike to the hierarchie but because they were in ane equality and stood so being bent on reforming the doctrine I Answer His Authores in this assertion stand upon a very slippery and sandie fundation What Were there no able men to be Bishop after the popish Bishop was gone and had they not leasure sufficient to doe this
fixed prostasie and after he hath Confirmed this he addes in the next sect Cum itaque Collegium id est ordinatus ratione utentium caetus fine ordine nec institui nec Conservari nec agere nec agi amplius dicam nec cogitari potest aequabilis inter ejusdem muneris Consortes ac sese honore mutuo praevenientes sanctos paritas divina propemodum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commune Consilium in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nequaquam degenerabant stabant enim aequo in eodem gradu ordine jure omnes sed suo quisque loco erantque in familiâ quaque Ecclesiasticâ post primo genitum secundo tertio c. Geniti qui majorem natufratrem secundum Patrem caelestem colebant eique nec ambienti nec poscenti invidioso nunc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In singulis communis regiminis actibus jure volentes cedebant acprimas ubique partes deferebant ut si quando novus Cooptandus esset Collega Cleri totius jam consistentis plebisque Consentientibus suffragiis judicio Comprobatis N. B. totius Presbyterii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praeunte tamen ac reliquorum nomine solemnia benedictionum verba pronunciante promotione antiquissimo in possessionem muneris mitteretur priorum per Consecrationem quoddamodo filius factus qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratione aequo cum aliis omnibus jure licet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frater erat ubi vero quaestionis in Ecclesiae regimine quicquam emergeret consultantium in commune fratrum disceptationibus quasi naturae jure favore omnium firmato praeesset Senior non gradu alio major N. B. non nativa gradus communis potestate potior sed adventitiâ ob aetatis meritum delegata superior Which is this in summ that though the colledg of the ordained were all alike as to their official power yet least their joynt councel should fall under anarchical confusion the first ordained minister although of the same degree juridical power with his colleagues had a sort of veneration and precendency as to some acts but stille in their name by their consent who were his brethren Which will reach a patrociny to the diocesian Erastian Prelat with his sole power of ordination and jurisdiction his negative voice in Church judicatories and his delegation of Ecclesiastick power to the whole synod his civil state office c. When east and west shal meet together Then he addes Hanc originalem Ecclesiasticae politiae formam sub Apostolorum oculis natam non immerito putavit Hilarius quid enim pietati naturae rationibusque dictamini consonum magis quam ut priorum canitiem reverenter habeant aetate posteriores fac tamen Apostolis non modo nonimprobantibus sed palam laudantibus ortam ego sane libere ab initio observatam Christianisque sive ab Apostolis sive ab eorum discipulis traditam sed ut mutabilem pro usu arbitrio Ecclesiae mutandam prout in causa consimili piae memoriae Crakanthorpus sensit crediderim In which passage he pleades onely for this fixed moderatour and doth not positivly assert the Apostolik institution for it but comes neer Bezaes expressiones in reference to the Episcopus humanus As for Blondels confessing this primus Presbyter to have had authority with his precedency as the Informer is bold to assert he had done well to point us to the place where these wordes are found quis enim praesidentiamsine authoritate somniet for upon search they are not found but it seems the Informer puts this sense upon his words which follow these cited above ac forte consistorialium omnium qui Pastorum Ecclesias quasque in commune regentium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 urgent calculos evertit quod ab ipsa Apostolorum aetate collegii cujusque Presbyterialis singulare quoddam caput fuit Qui vero an nostrum ullus synedrium sibi N. B. vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hactenus somniavit an non eodem inter nos jure modoque vel per vices pares inter compares vel delegata a paribus ad tempus potestate praesunt quo inter christianismi primordia aeâ—…o honoris inter conseniores primas fuit Where he denyes that this singular head of the consistory or moderator his power did justle with or evert the common votes or Episcopacy of the Pastoures and consequently their joynt Presbyterial government because the consistory or meeting could neither be without a head or mouth nor have many heads which he assimilates to the then power of their moderators chosen from among his equals and co-presbyters either by turns or a delegated power of presidency for some time The Informers citation of Chamier p. 35. acknowledging from the beginning a primus Presbyter with a nova potestas and jurisdictio ne esset Episcopatus mere titulus Or a first Presbyter with a new power and jurisdiction c. Burns his fingers and rebounds a deadly blow upon himself for in calling this jurisdiction and power Nova or new he makes it later then the first scripture patent anent that Presbyters Authority which was the same with that of his Brethren before this humane supperadded power And consequently he must look upon him onely as Beza's humane Bishop supposing ane anterior divine Bishop which is the Pastour or Minister And here again the Informer puts us to tell him that this his citation of Chamier attributinge a new jurisdiction from the beginning to the primus Presbyter or first Minister is so general without pointing at either book or page that it seemes he resolved that in this as in other passages none should trace him to know whither he cited true or false However the place he means is lib. 10. de oecum pont c. 5. Where Chamier grants primum Presbyterum accepisse novam potestatem that the first Presbyter receaved a new power But that it was so from the beginning is our Informers incrusted eekement which as in another passage of Blondell we must suppose his lyncian eyes discovered in some written copy of Chamier which the printer was so uncivil as not to put in because this our great doubt-resolver was not overseer at the presse Any who looketh upon that chapter may discover that Chamiers scope is to prove that ab initio regimen Ecclesiae fuit Aristocraticum that from the beginning the Church government was Aristocracy and that the disparity which after came in use was ane innovation As for what he adds of Moulin pag. 76. If he hold The Episcopall power in ordination to be among these things which though in the Apostles time yet were alterable He may be probably supposed to include it among the Apostles extraordinary expired prerogatives which this man must acknowledge will lay no foundation for prelacy As for Stillingfleet we are not concerned in his principles or any debat betuixt him them For that which he
solemnlie consecrat by their fellowes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to their new episcopall order In a word we heard from Cassander that the Canonists and Theologues who dispute this Question doe both accord that as to a jus divinum or divine right there is no difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter either in order or degree And so though it were granted which yet the Informer himself dare not positively assert that the Fathers tossed this question it will nothing help him nor prejudge Mr Durhams quotation which speaks of a jus divinum As for what he adds That the Fathers cited by Medina might hold the same notion Let him hear how Bellarmin no friend to Presbyterian Government represents his assertion de Cler. Cap 15. Michael Medina lib. 1. De sacrorum hominum origine eminentia Cap. 5. Affirmat sanctum Hieronimum idem omnino cum Aerianis sensisse neque solum Hieronimum in ea haeresi fuisse sed etiam Ambrosium Sedulium Primasium Chrysostomum Theodoretum Oecumenium Theophylactum atque ita inquit Medina isti viri alioqui Sanctissimi Sacrarum Scripturarum consultissimi quorum tamen sententiam prius in Aerio deinde in Waldensibus postremo in Joanne Wickleffo damnavit ecclesia That is Michael Medina in the first book concerning the originall and eminencie of sacred men 5. Chap. Affirms that St Jerome was every way of the same judgment with the Aerians And that not only Jerome was in that Heresie But also Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostom Theodoret Oecomenius and Theophylact And thus saith Medina these men otherwayes most godly and most expert in the holie Scrptures whose judgment notwithstanding the Church condemned first in Aerius Next in the Waldeneses And lastly in Iohn Wickleff Let our Informer note here 1. That it is beyond debate with Bellarmin that with Medina at least all these Fathers were Aerians 2. That his holy Catholick Church of Rome is the grand condemner of this Heresie 3. That this is one of the Heresies of the old Waldenses these famous witnesses against Antichrist And of John Wickleff and such like eminent reformers Afterward he adds That in Jerome and these Greek Fathers that opinion was of old dissembled out of reverence to them But contrarily in the Hereticks alwayes condemned So we see the Presbyterian Principles are with him one of the Heresies of Protestants Peter Swav in the History of the Council of Trent pag. 664. edit Francfort relates That when the Authoritie of Ierom and Augustin was brought to prove episcopacie to be but ane Ecclesiastick constitution Michael Medina answered That it was no wonder that Jerom Augustin and others of the Fathers fell into that heresie not having throughly searched the matter that he maintained pro virili this to be their opinion Finallie to make these Fathers one with themselves whom this man enforceth in his next passages cited page 71 72. Anent the derivation of Episcopacie from the Apostles and higher to speak palpable contradictions we must say with Whittaker that they call the Apostles so because they did that upon the matter which Bishops then did And because their power quadam similitudine or by a certain similitude or likenesse as Junius expresseth it was like to that of these extraordinarie Church officers whom notwithstanding they could not succeed in the same office nor could these Fathers think so upon the grounds formerly mentioned Tilen in his Specul Antichr ortum aperiens Aphoris 88. Tells us that episcopos Presbyteros re nomine eosdem fuisse non Hieronimus solum in 1. Tim. 3. Sed etiam scriptura perspicue docet Tit. 1. Act. 20. Phil. 1. Proinde humani instituti sive positivi ut vocant juris est illa sub diversis nominibus munerum distinctio That Bishops and Presbyters were the same in name and thing or office Not only Jerome on 1. Tim. 3. But the Scripture also doth evidently teach Tit. 1. Act. 20. Phil. 1. And therefore that distinction of the offices under diverse names is of human institution as they call it or of positive right A fitt looking-glasse this had no doubt been to the same Tilen when he wrote his paraenesis and changed his note And likwise it is a fitt looking glasse for this Informer CHAP. XVI The harmonius consent of ancient Fathers Modern divines and confessions of Reformed Churches for Presbyterian Government in all its essentiall points of difference from Prelacie is exhibit IT is clear that Presbyterian Government the pure ancient and genuine Government of this Church in every essentiall ingredient of it as it stands in opposition to prelacie is approved by such a consent of antiquity and modern diuines that it would take up almost as much roome as this Informers pamphlet to reckon up their names That we may present them in 〈◊〉 compendious view take it thus 1. That jure divino there is no difference betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter hath a very large consent of antiquitie collected by many of the learned whose testimonies we may see in Bishop Jewel against Hardin edit Ann. 1570. p. 243. And Reynolds in the forementioned Epistle at large cited Petries Hist. part 3. p 469 470 471. Where there is exhibit a full consent both of the Greek and Latin Fathers for this point of truth The Doctor in his conference with Hart holds That the president chosen out at first to moderat is be whom afterwards the Fathers called Bishop and that the name Bishop common to all Ministers was by them thus appropriat to this president Next for modern writers the same Dr Reynolds tells us in the formentioned Epistle that those who have laboured about the reforming of the Church these 500 Years have taught that all Pastours be they intituled Bishops or Priests have equall authoritie and power by Gods word Citing the Waldenses in Aen. Silv. hift of Bohem. Chap. 35. Pich Hierarch Ecclesiast lib. 2. Cap 10. Marsil Patavin Defens pacis part 2. Cap. 15. Wickleff in Thom. Waldens Doct. Fil. Tom. 1. lib 2. Cap 60. and Tom 2. cap 7. And his Schollers Husse and the Hussits Aeneas Silvius Loccit Luther Advers falso nomin Scot Epise adversus Papat Rom. Calv. in Epist. ad Phil. Tit. 1. Erentius Apolog. Confess Wittenberg Cap. 21 Bulinger Decad. 5. Serm 3. Musculus Loc. Com Tit de Ministerio Verbi Then he adds Jewel Pilkington Dr. Humphrey in Campian Duraeum Jesuit Part. 2. Raâ—… 3. Whittak ad rationes Campian 6. Confut Durae lik 6. Mr Bradfoord Lambert Fox Act. Mon. Fulk Ansr. to the Rhemeflits To these may be added Cartwright against the Rhemists Bishop Bilson himself against Seminartes lib. 1. p 318. Bishop Morton in his Catholick Apologie Part. 1. Cap. 33. Erasmus upon 1 Tim. 4. To which add that in the Oâ—…cumenick Counâ—…les of Constance Basile it was concluded that Presbyters should have decisive suffrage in Councils as well as Bishops because that by the Law of God Bishops were not greater then
abjuration of the present Episcopacie in the National and Solemne League and Covenant and the obligation of these oaths in opposition thereunto are examined CHAP. I. Atwofold state of the Question proposed the one touching the abjuration of this Prelacie in either or both these Covenants the other concerning the obligation of these oathts against it That Prelacie is abjured in the National and Solemne League and Covenant proved at large And arguments offered to evince their oblidging force upon the present and succeeding generations THE state of the Question in the Second Dialogue is twofold 1. Whither the Prelacie now established by Law in this Church be abjured in the national and solemne league and Covenant 2. Upon supposition that it is abjured in both the one and the other whither the obligation of these Oaths stands against it yea or not Wee shall a litle touch For the 1. Our National Covenant sworne by King Iames in the the year 1580 and by the Estates of this land and many times thereafter solemnlie and universally renewed both by our Church and State doth clearly exclude Prelacie The passages thereof pleaded against Prelacie and wherein our obligation lyes are these 1. In General wee professe to believe the word of God to be the onlie rule the Gospel contained therein to be Gods undoubted truth as then received in this Land maintained by sundrie reformed Kirks States chiefly by our own Whereupon we renounce all contrary doctrine and especially all kind of Papistrie in generall particular heads as confuted by the word of God and rejected by the Kirk of Scotland 2. After a large enumeration of many points of poprie disowned upon this ground and vowed against as contrary unto the word of God and the gospel of Salvation contained therein Wee renounce the Popes worldly monarchie and wicked Hierarchie and whatever hath been brought into this Church without or against the word of God 3. Wee vow to joyne our selves to this reformed Kirke in Doctrine faith religion Discipline Swearing by the great name of God to continue in obedience to the doctrine and Discipline of this Kirke and upon our Eternall perill to maintaine and defend the same according to our vocation and power all the dayes of our life Now the obligation of this engadgement against prelacie is evident these wayes 1. All doctrines contrary unto or beside the word of God are here rejected and disowned All doctrines contrary to the simplicity of the Gospel recived and believed by the Church of Scotland and whatever hath been brought into this Church without or against Gods Word But so it is that the present hierarchy is contrary unto the Word of God both in its Diocesiâ—… and Erastian mould as hath been proved at large And we heard that this Church of Scotland since it received Christianity did stand for a long time under Presbyterian Government and untill Palladius was sent unto us from Pope Celestine never knew a Prelat Ergo Prelacie in its Diocesian Erastian mould is here abjured 2. Our Prelacie is condemned in that clause of the Popes wicked hierarchie whereby the Prelatick Government is most clearly pointed at which is evident thus 1. That the Government of the popish Church is prelaticall this man will not deny it is by Arch-Bishops Bishops Primats Deans c and it being distinct from his Monarchie for else the naming of his worldly monarchie had been enough and moreover it being ranked among these things which are brought into the Church against the Word of God and into this Church against her pure Doctrine which was clearly the sense of it that assemblies and the body of this Protestant Church entertained assemblies declaring that the Word Bishop was not to be taken as in time of Papistrie And Iohn Knox whose sense and Judgement herein was certanlie retained and upon all occasions manifested by our Reformers accounting Prelacie to have quid commune cum Antichristo Ergo Prelacie is here vowed against simpliciter and in it self considered 2. If he grant a hierarchie to be here abjured sure it must be abjured with the rest of the corruptions enumerat in that large list of them exhibited in this Oath Now these are abjured in themselves simpliciter as contrary unto the Word of God and the doctrine of this Kirke ergo So must a prelacie or hierarchie be in its self abjured under the same formalis ratio as thus brought in whither by the Pope or any other 3. This hierarchie is supposed in this Oath to be contrary unto the Discipline of this Church as well as the popish Doctrine is therein supposed contrarie to her pure Doctrine Now as we shall shew the Discipline which this Church then owned was Presbyterian So that that Discipline or Hierarchie which stands in opposition to Presbyterian Government is here abjured but so it is that prelacie ex se sua natura stands thus opposit unto it ergo by the hierarchie all prelacy is abjured 3. Prelacy is abjured in that clause where we professe to joyne our selves to this reformed Kirk in her Discipline as well as her Doctrine and vow and sweare adherence unto both Now that the Discipline then owned by this Church was Presbyterian Government or discipline Is evident these wayes 1. Discipline by generall assemblies and Synods having compleat parity of all Ministers with a joynt decisive suffrage is Presbyterian Discipline but this was that Discipline owned by our Church For her first Nationall Assembly compleatly Presbyterial in its mould was in the Year 1560. After which time untill 1580 When this Covenant was sworne there were many assemblies exercising their power 2 That is presbyterian Discipline which did judicially condemne prelacie as having no warrand in the Word and ownes no Church officers as lawfull but pastours Doctors Elders and Deacons But so it is that this was the judiciall decision of our generall assemblies long before this Covenant for the first book of discipline containing the Basis of presbyterian Government was approved and subscribed by this Church in the year 1560. And the Second book of discipline in Anno 1578. Which two books compleatly overthrow Prelacie layes down a mould of Presbyterian government And therafter in the assembly at Dundie Anno. 1580. Sess. 4. The office of a Prelat was particularly condemned by a solemne act and abolished as unlawfull and void of Scripture warrand ordaining under paine of excommunication such as brooked the said office to lay it aside as ane office to which they are not called of God and cease from preaching and administring Sacraments under hazard of the same Censure or using the office of a Pastour till they receive admission de novo from the generall assemblie Now in the nationall covenant this existent discipline being sworne to be maintained who can say but that Prelacie is most formallie abjured therein Especially if it be considered that in the same year 1580 This national covenant was sworn at which timethese
Principles Doctrine practice are point blank contrary therunto is not 2. It supposed that there is no lawfull use of ordinances among Presbyterian Ministers as persons who have no Lawfull call to officiat in this case Hence this man pleads for disowning them universally and absolutely but we affirm they are Ministers standing in that relation to this Church and under the obligation of Christs comand to officiat which Conformists have not yet disproved 4. He supposes that every thing which may be expedient as to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and order of a Church when enjoyning her full peacable constitution will equally oblidge in her broken and persecute condition when a prevailing backsliding party is in her bosome Now scripture and reasen will disprove this circumstances of order must give place to important duties in extreme necessity as this is the scattered officers of the Church of Jerusalem went every where preaching the gospel Act. 8 so did Ministers in the beginning of the Reformation 4. It is supposed that our change is only as to government and such only as was in King Iames time both which we have showen to be false 5. He takes for granted that their personal faults who are conformists and a supposed pullution of the worship therby is our ground of non-union and that our granting them to have the essence of a Ministeriall call and that their scandals will not pollute the worship will infer the hearing of them in this our case which is also false For even upon this supposition we are not bound to owne them no more then ane ingraind Schismatick obtruded forcibly by a party of the congregation upon the rest of the people might be ownd on this ground 6 This man begs the question in supposing that the constitution and frame of the Prelacy now establish't is the same with that of the ancient Church for he often tels us that we would have separat from the ancient Church upon the same grounds for which we disown Conformists Whereas we have shewed the difference of our prelacy from theirs in many points That our prelats both as Diocesian Erastian are wholly discrepant from the ancient Bishops 7. He takes it for granted that Ministers who disown this course of backsliding their relation to their flocks is cut off in the present posture of our Church and that the Prelats and their substituts the Curats are the onely proper representative Church of Scotland who accordingly have onely the lawfull power and exercise of the keyes as to either admission or censure of Ministers A principle alwayes disowned by our Church See Protesters no subverters pag. 96. Rutherfoords due right of Presbyt pag. 430. 431. Altare Damasc. pag. 23. 8. He supposes that its unlawfull in this our case to officiat renâ—…tente Magistratâ—… that this very violence and the present Lawes will render Ministers officiating unwarrantable pag. 205. which is a great mistake for the Magistrat cannot loose from the pastoral relation which he gave not ejusdem est constituere destituere Aâ—…esmedull cap. 30. thes 14. And hence the Ministers relation to the Church Nationall stands tho he restrain the exercise thereof in any one place and consequent ly the tyes and commands to officiat so that disobeying the Magistrats command not to officiat is no disobedience to his lawful authority Nay Apollonius thinks that the divine relation of a Minister to this Church tho banisht from his native country doth stand Ius Majestatis circasacra part 1. pag. 331. 9. He still supposes that what will not exse or of it self plead for disowning the hearing of the gospel or of a Minister simpliciter will plead nothing in this our case for disowning Conformists The mans weakness personal faults not lecturing c. are not of themselves sufficient to cut us off from hearing absolutely But tho this be granted we have the pure genuine Church of Scotland and her faithful Ministry to adhere unto and over and above these grounds mentiond conformists schismatick practice and corrupt Doctrine to lay to their charge which will make this ground in our case very weighty and preponderating and this the Informer himself must grant for he will not say that such like pretences or arguments in our case were valid as to the owning of Nonconformists and desâ—…rting of Curats Moreover he will grant that Presbyterian Ministers might Lawfully be heard if Conformists were not standing in their way Now so the case is in relation to Presbyterian Ministers pleading for that none of these things which he mentions were valid to infer peoples disowning of Conformists were there no other Ministers in Scotland and if this Church had universally both Ministers and people faln into this couâ—…se of backsliding will be readily granted But without any advantage to his cause as is evident To these many discoveries of his begging the question in this debate our plea and arguments will be clearer if we add a short view of our suppositions in this case and question Such as 1. our principle of the unlawfulness of prelacie 2. The binding force of our covenants 3. Our Churches divine tight to her Reformation and priviledges once establisht 4. that this is a case both of defection and persecution 5. of competition betwixt Ministers professours contending for our Reformation and a party of backsliders overturning it 6. The tendency of this course of Prelatick defection to raze our Reformation and that if not prevented it will end in propery 7. That Presbyterian Ministers relation to this Church and their obligation to duty founded upon that relation is not extinguished but subsists notwithstanding of the present violence and persecution which they with their weeping mother are exposed unto Having premised these things from what is said we may draw forth at length the great state of the question thus whether when the Reformation of a National Church in Doctrine worship discipline and government is by a backsliding party overturnd and a course-carryed on to raze it God having left a considerable body of Ministers professours who stand in opposition to that course and are in their capacities testifying against it are these Ministers and professors who preach and hear in opposition to that course or the complying Ministry and hearers the scismaticks This being clearly the state of this question we shall offer these arguments to fortifie our principle of disowning conformists in this our case and denying a subjection to them as the Ministers of this Church and adherence to Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry and acquit this principle and practise from the Informers charge of sinfull separation 1. Whoever of the two partiss adhere unto the true genuine Church owning her constitutions authoritie and priviledges its certain the contrary party must be the schismaticks here it must be seen who are the first departers who have first broken the hedge who have first disownd and opposed the Covenants the Government the sound and
call from Christ to preach in his name and so were not to be discharged by any power on earth Ans. 1. That the Apostles answer suites our case will be apparent when it s considered that our answer and Apology which we offer to our adversaries who do now accuse and persecute us upon this ground is one with theirs their grounds in their answer compared with the context are that they are Christs Ministers and witnesses employed about the great gospel message cloathed with his authority and under the obligation of Christs commands lying upon them Now will not this quadrat with our case as to the substance of this answer dare he say that the Magistrats Laws can exauctorat a Minister of the gospel or take away that ministerial authority which he received from Christ might not thus the ministry be put out of the world Dare he deny that he is a minister still notwithstanding of the Laws restraint and standing under a ministerial Relation to the Church as the Apostles were and under commands and obligations consequently in order to the exercise of the ministry can the Rulers meer prohibition loose either ministers their relation pastoral or the obligations flowing therefrom 2. Altho the call of the Apostles was immediat and extraordinary yet this will not prove that their answer will not suite the ordinary and mediat call in such a case as theirs when a minister is under a legal prohibition to preach for first we do not find that the Apostles did plead their extraordinary or immediat call mainly or only if at all in this case but their ministerial gospel call and message quatalis the authority of the one and the weight and importance of the other in relation to all Ministers are constant moral grounds bearing the conclusion of the same duty and apology as to them since the substance of this Apostolick apology lyes in this that they were Christs Ministers cloathed with his commission to preach the gospel which any faithfull Minister may plead in such a case 2. Tho their call was immediat and extraordinary upon which ground they were singularly out of the reach of the Rulers restraint as to their ministry yet they were so likewise as Christs messengers and ministers simply in a general sense for majus 〈◊〉 minus c. 3. As the Apostles had their power immediatly from Christ and not from the Rulers which is the great ground why they could not be Lawfully prohibit to preach and would not submit their ministerial authority its acts and exercise to the Rulers disposal especially the gospel-message being of so great importance so there is derived from them a ministerial authority in the Church independent in its nature and exercise upon the magistrat as theirs was tho the Apostles as I said had singular prerogatives beyond ordinary ministers and in that respect were singularly beyond the reach of their restaint Now this authority was exercised by the Church renitente Magistratu for several generations upon the same ground of this independent spiritual power and the weight of the gospel-message which the Apostles did here plead The Informer answers aly that this prohibition tended to the absolute supressing of the gospel and there was then no other way for propagating it through the world but by their preaching but now tho some be silenced others are allowed to preach Ans. 1. This piece of the apology for not obeying the Rulers mandat is of his bold putting in but nothing of it is in the text viz. that there were no others to preach the gospel but they Their Apology as I said is drawn from their authority and message simply 2 I ask him could any one of the Apostles have submitted to this prohibition upon an insinuation or assurance that the Magistrat would not hinder others to promote the gospel if they could not then he must grant that this anwer is naught that the Apostles refused because the prohibition tended to suppress the gospel For the gospel was preacht and propagat though one of them was a little after taken oft the stage if he say that any one or more of the Apostles would have submitted to the prohibition upon thir terms then 1. He contradicts his first answer that their extraordinary immediat call could not be discharged by any power on earth and 2. He charges them with unfaithfulness to Christ in laying up his talents and laying by his work upon mens command not to preach Sure Christs command and commission tyed all his Apostles conjunctly and severally Paul said too to me if I preach not the gospel and one Apostles diligence could not loose the obligation of the other and excuse his negligence 3. We have proved that there is no warrand from God for Rulers their immediat arbitrary discharging Christs Ambassadours to officiat and consequently faithfull Ministers are not obliged to obeye And upon the same ground that one apostle could not warrantably suffer the Magistrat to impose a silence upon him be cause others were permitted to preach It s unlawfull for ordinary Ministers to be silent because others are preaching and much more when those who are preaching are declaring themselves unfaithfull and destroying but not feeding So that our Informer doth but mock God if not blaspheme while blessing him that authority is opposit to our disorders not to the gospel The Doubter next asks him if the King and Laws can silence a Minister that he shall not preach the gospel He should have added by his own proper elicite acts as King or Magistrat or formally and immediatly But this man must still shrewd himself in the mist and clouds of deceitful generals and mould our arguments in his own disguise that his simple evasions may appear answers Well what sayes he to this doubt His answer is I ommit his insignificant reflection that Solomon thrust out Abiathar from the priesthood 1 Kings 2. 27. which was a restraining his priestly power as to its actual exercise to which he was bound to submit so a King may discharge a Minister to exercise his Ministry within his dominions which he must not counteract suppose he think the King and law wrongs him especially when others do preach tho he be silent Ans. This reason and instance is a baculo ad angulum Solomon punisht Abiathar civilly for a capital treasonable crime which deserved death telling him as the text saith that he was a man of death or one who deserved capital punishment according to the nature of the hebrew phrase which sentence of death Solomon upon the grounds mentioned in that passage did change into a sentence of banishment and by this civil punishment did consequenter put him from the exercise of his priestly office which he could not in that case perform Ergo he formally and immediatly deposed him and the civil magistrat may so immediatly and formally depose ministers this is a consequence utterly unknown to all rules of Logick or solid divinity The Instance
of Presbyterians may be admited to judge Ans. How he hath fastned this charge of Schismatick principles and practices upon Presbyterian Ministers and Professors I leave it to the Impartiall to Judge from what is here replyed And how far any thing which he hath affered either from Scripture or the principles of Presbyterians is from reaching the conclusion which he aims at in these trifling Dialogues which all who are conscientious are we hope shy this rejoynder and a respect to truth and dutie sufficiently antidoted against and the learned as well as conscientious may wonder at such prodigiously bold ignorance 4. He wonders that so many of good note and not of the comons only are drinking in the principles of Brounists which have been zealously disputed against by old nonconformists Ans. How hâ—… hath made good this charge I refer it to the persusall of what is here replyed and how far the pleadings of these Non-conformists whom he mentions are from helping his cause I must here add that its astoninishing to find this man pretending a principle of conscience for this undertaking when his conscience could not but tell him that both upon the poynt of Episcopacie the Covenants and separation also he might have found all and more then he hath said fully answered and that he pitifully snakes away from our arguments dar not propose them in there genuin strength Nay he doth not so much as offer fairly to state the question in any of these three great points which he pretends to inform us about but confusedly shuffles them up for his own advantadge And upon the point of the Covenant obligation he poorly followes the arguments of the Seasonable case and some hints from the Surveyer without so much as offring any return unto what the Apologist hath long since repelyd unto them If this was conscientious dealing let any Judge and yet he is not ashamed to tell the world that because Episcopacie and the covenants are by people made the great grounds of separating therefore he premised his two dialogues concerning Episcopacie and the Covenants to shew what a sandy ground they are for separation if prelacie be found at least Lawfull and the Covenants in evry case not obligatorie whereas he hath offered nothing either to prove prelacie lawful or the Covenant not obligatorie but what is by severall of the godly learned abundantly answered and fully bafled sevrall of which viz. the Apollogist and jus divinum Ministery Anglican he seems to have had before him in writeing these Dialogues and yet nather doth he touch the answers of the Apologist to his arguments anent the Covenant nor dar he scan the pungent arguments of the London Ministers against prelacie and likwise there answers to sevrall things which he has offered for it and particularly there learned Appendix in the poynt of Antiquitie which cuts the sinnews of all his tedious legend of testimonies he durst not medle with Beside It wold seem he hath seen Smectymnus upon this subject whose learned confutation of the Episcopall plea as well from scripture as antiquity he passes over sicco pede And as for Erastian prelacie he offers not a jot indefence of it though his conscience could tell him that this is one main poynt of our plea against him So that suppose Episcopacie were in its self found Lawfull as he sayes yet if Erastian Episcopacie be found unlawfull his cause and pleading is lame and lost After this he would amuse his reader with a testimonie of Zanchie and another of Blondell which parts the hoofs of his page first as for Zanchie he cites a passage of his Obser in suam ipsius confessionem cap. 25. aphor 10. 11. wherein he saves first his faith is simply built upon the word of God Next In some measure upon the commun consent of the antient Catholick Church and that he beleeves what has been defyned by holy fathers gathered together in the name of the Lord citra ullam Scripturae contradictionem that these things are from the Spirit of though not of the same authoritie with Scripture then he adds that nothing is more certain from counsells Histories and writeings of the Fathers then these orders of Ministers of which he has been speaking to have been received into the Church with her intire consent and what is he to condemn what the whole Church has aproved I answer beside that he should have set doun these gradus Ministrorum which Zanchius speaks of that his reader might have known what these degrees were or whither they were prelatick degrees or not which no doubt he would have done had he not found that this would have marred his intent for which cause he doth not so much as offer to English any part of this or of the ensuing testimony we say first that any who knowes Zanchies learning and what the voice of the first and pure antiquity is and how far from giving a testimony to the present Diocesian much less the Erastian prelat of whom none can without extrem impudence assert that Zanchie is speaking will esteem this perswasion that the prelacy now existant with us hath the universall consent of all histories councills and fathers to be as far from the thoughts of Zanchie as its necessary to prove his poynt 2. Zanchise ayes his faith simply and mainly leans upon the word of God and so whatever the word is found to condemn as we have proved it doth the present prelacie in many respects Zanchie will make no bones to condemn it likwise own it who will The next passage he cites is of Blondell Apoll. pag. 193. who asserts that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belongs absolutly to the government of the Church and it s anext 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the maner order of its government which the Church alwayes thought permitted to her arbitrement Nather must we think every thing unlawful which humane custom of professors hath brought into the use of divine things That in such things christian prudence must act its part that no Church must be drawen into ane example that from the generall precept 〈◊〉 Cor. 14 40 the Church hath full power to follow what is more decent and commodious Ans. 1. We have before cleard that with Blondell their diocesian Prelat stands absolutly condemned in scripture and in his principles is diametrally opposit to the divine Scripture Bishop which evidently concludes his condemning the present Episcopacie with sole power of ordination and Jurisdiction much more the Erastian prelat altering fundamentally the government it self which he dar not say that Blondell ever dreamed of So that though we should grant because of this testimonie that Blondell will befound to admitt a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and constant Moderator which Its well knowen is the outmost length he goes and that the Churches example and practice here anent may be variable it falls utterly short of reaching the lest patrociny to his cause 2. he cites 1 Cor 14. 40.
anent alterable circumstances of order and decency about which the Churches exercise of Christian prudence is convérsant so that he must understand what he pleads for to be of that nature but we have shewed upon the first Dialogue how far its contrary to Scripture reason to include a diocesian Bishop or Arch bishop within the compass of decencie and order there commanded since decencie and order points only at circumstances of actions already commanded and circumstances commun to civil and sacred things And this according to the generall rules of the word so that none can think Blondell so sottish as to take in among these the Diocesian or Erastian Bishop and Arch-Bishop 3. Since the profest scope of Blondells learned Appology is to plead for sententia Hieronomi which is that in Apostolick times communi concilio presbyterorum Ecelesiae gubernabantur surely whatever Blondell may admitt as to the Churches libertie in relation to a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the admission of the diocesian prelate with sole power of ordination and Jurisdiction which this man pleads for and much more the Erastian prelate would evert both his hypothesis and scope Again he dare not deny that with Blondell the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Ministeriall scripturall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyterat so that what he calls the modus rei cannot in its self and consequently in Blondells meaning be supposed such a modus rei as destroyes the thing it self the subject which it affects as certainly by the Diocesian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much more the Erastian doth the very substantialls of Presbyters divine power which this learned author is in that piece pleading for And in a word I dare pose this Informer whither Blondell would not have thought a national Churches liberty in this point of Custome or alterable circumstances of decencie and order even tho we should grant that he puts Episcopacy among these is tyed up and restrained by sacred solemn Oaths and vowes universally taken on against the same so that his cause is never a whit bettered by these blind Testimonies which as is said he he durst not translate as he professeth to doe in the rest of his citations for the advantage of the unlearned The assertion after subjovned by him viz. that the unlawfulness of Episcopacie was questioned by none of the ancients except Aerius and rarely by any of the modern except some of our British divines that antient and modern divines think that prelacie was the primitive Government left by the Apostles we have proved to be a manifest untruth Specially when applyed to the prelacy existant with us and that it is the consentient judgment of the far greatest part both of ancient and modern that there is no difference jure divino betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter And that our Prelats now in Scotland are as far different from the antient Bishops as east from West so that no patrocinie can be drawen from the one to the other That Blondell professes to vindicat Jerom from that which he calls Aerianism who will believe taking Aerius opinion to be for the premised Identitie of Bishop and Presbyter since we have made it appear by Testimonies of the learned that both Greek and Latine Fathers held this same opinion with Aerius How he hath proved Episcopacie to be the Government which hath best warrand in the word and hath continued without interruption for many years we refer it to the reader to judge by what is above replyed wherein we have made it appear that as his pretended Scripture proofs for prelacy and his answers to our Arguments against it are most frivolous so none of his pretended Testimonies from antiquitie doe reach his conclusion nor any shadow of a patrocinie for our present Prelat now established whom we have fully disproved from Scripture both in his diocesian and Erastian mould What poor shaddowes for proofs doth this man grasp at Blondell thought the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lawful and its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to belong to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and good order Ergo he pleaded for the Diocesian Bishop with sole power of ordination and Jurisdiction and a Bishop deriving all his power from the civil Magistrat as immediatly subject unto him which is a very antilogical proof and a meer rop of sand Lastly he mainly commends to his reader this Dialogue anent separation wherein he sayes all the reasons brought for it are propounded and answered without passion which doth but alienat the minds Ans. How poorly this man hath answered the true grounds of disowning conformists or rather past them over and how pityfully he all along begs the question in supposing what he hath to prove we hope is made sufficiently appear to the Judicious and impartiall As for passion its true there is less of this in his Pamphlet then in some other of this stamp which his fellowes have flung out among the people yet he hath his signal flashes of it in Iustifying Dr Burnets parallel of nonconformists with Scribes and Pharisees and in calling them as great and causeless Schismaticks as ever the Church had in any age nay in his grosse malitious reflecting upon the sufferings of poor Innocents in this land telling us under the covert of Cyprians words that their in expiable sin of discord is not purged by their sufferings that forsaking Christs Church they cannot be martyres nor reign with him which with what a tincture of malice it presents its self let any judge His conferences he sayes do bring water to quenchour flames but they bring rather fewel to the fire and wood and hay to uphold Babell The Rabbies whom he pleads for have kindled our flames and the best way to quench them Is to put these incendiaries to the door Next he cites the preface of the Syntag. Confess edit Genev. wherin the Church of Scotland is commended for her unity as well as purity of Doctrine and then he cryes out O how have we lost our good name and the staff of bonds is broken in the midst of us but he should have been so ingenuous as to have told us that we are in the preface of that Syntagma commended for our reformed Presbyterian discipline as the great bond and cement of our unity and the guard of our pure doctrine and who have broken this bond and sacred hedge I need not tell him and what hath been the distress confusion and desolation of our Church since it was broken every one now sees so that he might lament the loss of our good name upon this ground and especially of our Integrity where he a true son and watchmen of this Church The consequences of our sad divisions through the violence and Schismatick intrusion of abjured perjured Prelats and their underlings have indeed hazarded the standing of Christs Kingdome among us according to that of Mark 3. 24. And the biting devouring wolves the Prelats for whom he pleads have hazarded
themselves into which wee hopâ—… will be aboundantly clear to the understanding peruser of what I have offered upon that head and the state of the question as It is exhibited how clear and full our confessions and principles are in asserting the due right of Magistracy as well as of a true Gospel Ministry and how harmoniously wee join to the confessions of all the Reformed Churches herein is sufficiently notour to the unbyassed and judicious and consequently that no precipitations or strayings from the scripture path upon these heads can be charged upon our cause and principles Great and manifold have been the assaults of Satan upon this poor Church and reproaches of that grand accuser of the brethren upon our Reformation and the faithful promoters thereof And the plowers have long plowed upon her back and enemyes of all sorts have many time afflicted her from her youth O that our provoked jealous God would shew us wherefore he contends and give both Ministers and People a heart-affecting sight and sense of the true grounds of this controversy and shew unto us our transgressions wherein wee have exceeded and provoked him thus to lengthen out our desolation that he would excite Ministers to make full proof of their ministry and open up to them an effectual door and engadge his people to a due and suitable subjection to their Ministry that this word might run swiftly and this sword of the Lord eut the cords of the wicked that wee were all excited to encompase his throne with strong crying and tears in order to the returning of the Ecclipsed departing glory that this great Shepherd Israel would shew himself the only wise of God and the only Potentate in dissappointing and crushing the crafty cruel stratagems and designes of Satan now acting both the roaring lyon and subtile old Serpent and of his grand Lieutenant Antichrist and his Artizans That this our Isle upon which the â—…ay-spring from on high did early shinâ—… and which did early wait for his Lawâ—… who is Zions great Lawgiver was recâ—… vered from Popish darknesse and froâ—… decayes after the times of Reformation may have a restoring healing visit and being made a maried land may be upon this ground a land of desires That Christs Tabernacle now fallen down may be rear'd up according to the pattern and planted among us untill his glotious appearance to accomplish his Churches warfare and to make up his jewells This is the Expectation of the prisoners of hope and in this expectation let us turn in to the strong hold even to his name which is a strong tower and go on in his strentgh keeping his good way which hath alwayes been strenth unto the upright Let us contend for the faith once delivered to the saints and be stedfast unmoveable alwayes abounding in the work of the Lord since he comes quickly who is our head and judge and his reward is with him so that neither our labour nor suffering shall be in vain in the Lord. The Contents FIRST PART Chap. 1. page 2. THat the prelat now established in this Church is both Diocesian and Erastian cleared By the present standing acts hereanent page 2 3. A twofold state of the question proponed accordingly Arguments from Scripture against the Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church officer such as 1. appropriating the term Episcopus common to all Pastors to a Prelat The absu diâ—…y of this discovered Calvines remarkeable Testimony on Titus 1 7. page 4. 2 making it relate to Pastors which hath the flock for its immediat object Cleared from 1 Pet. 5 3. Invading and nulling the Authority allowed to Presbyters The matter of fact cleared from the principles of Prelatists and the absurdity hereof from severall Scripture grounds page 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. 4. Impeaching Christs Kingly office as head of his Church and the perfection of his word in obtruding an officer on his Church of a different mould from those described and allowed by him cleared from the nature of the prelats office and some Scripture grounds page 13 14 15. Chap. 2. page 16. Some more Arguments against the Diocesian Prelat that his office debases the acts and exercise of the power of order cleared from the matter of fact and Severall Scripture grounds page 16 17 18. It maimes and diversifies the Pastorall office by Anti-Scripturall new invented degrees thereof cleared at large page 19 〈◊〉 His office many wayes contrare to thevery nature 〈◊〉 the gospell Church Government cleard also at largâ—… from the nature of the Prelats office and several Scripture grounds page 21 22 23 24. Cap. 3 page 25. The Diocesian Bishops office debases extraordinary offices in consounding them with ordinary cleared from the Scripture-account of these extraordinary offices and the nature of the Prelats office according to the principles and pleading of the Episcopall party Pag 25 26 27 28 29. 30. The derivation of the Prelats office from the Apostolical Authority and the power of Timothy and Titus loaded with absurdities ibid. Chap. 4. page 30. The Diocesian Prelats office takes away the peoples right to call their Pastor This right proved from Scripture and divine reason page 31 32 33. It excludes the office of the ruling elder proved from the practice of Prelatists as likewayes the preceeding charge the divine right of this office proved from several Scripture grounds especially 1 Tim. 5 17. And some chief exceptions of the prelatick party examined Page 34 35 36 37 38. Chap. 5. page 39. That the present Prelacy is grosse Erastianisme proved from the matter of fact some Arguments against it under that notion It excludes and denyes all Church Government in the hands of Church officers distinct from the civill contrary to the Churches priviledge both under the Old and New Testament which is demonstrat at large Page 41 42 43 44 Is in many points ane incroachment upon the liberties of the gospel Church and upon Christs mediatory Authority over the same which is cleared page 45 46. Chap. 6 page 47. Erastianisme denyes the compleat constitution of the Apostolick Church in point of Government Removes the Scripture land marks set to distinguish the civil and Ecclesiastick powers which is cleared in several points page 47 48 49 50. It is lyable to great absurdities ibid. Chap. 7. pag. 51. The Informers shifting and obscuring the true state of the question anent Episcopacy and flinching from the point debateable discovered several wayes page 52 53 He declines a direct pleading for the Prelats civill offices yet offers some arguments in defence thereof wherin his prevarication and contradiction to himself is made appear His pretended Scripture Arguments from the Instances of Eli and Samuel and the Priests concurrence in that Court 11 Numb to fortify the Prelats civil state offices ad examined page 54 55 56 57 58 59. He is contradicted by interpreters in this point Antiquity full and clear against him The grounds of the Assembly 1638 Sess. 25. Against the
civill offices of Ministers page 63 64. The Informers endeavours to bring in the Diocesian Bishop under that command of decency and order as lawfull though not commanded and necessary That the Bishop cannot he warranted on this ground but must as a supposed Church officer instruct his institution and mission from Scripture cleared from several Scripture grounds and the acknowledgment of some adversaries page 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73. Chap. 8. page 73. misprinted Chap. 9. The Informer undertakes to answer the Arguments of Presbyterians against Episcopacy his answers to our Arguments from Matth. 22 25 26. Wherin having misrepresented it he is notwithstanding forced to embrace the evasions of Papists falls in diverse inconsistencies and walks crosse to the sence of sound divines upon this Text Yea of some of the ancients which cleard at large page 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82. his answer to our Argument from 1 Pet. 5 3. Wherein he also offers violence to the text and joines issue with the Papists his evasions examined and this Text as also the preceding Improven against him page 84 85 86 87 88. Chap. 9. misprinted Chap. 10. page 88. The Informers Answers to our Argument from acts 20. and Titus 1 5 7. These Texts emproven against him and his answers fully examined page 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96. His answers to our Argument from Philip. 1 1. His absurd and inconsistent shifts discovered and confuted page 98 99 100 101 102. Arnoldus and Chamier do classe him with the Papists in his answers to this text he walks crosse to the Dutch and English Annotations and to Calvin page 103 104 105. His answers to our Argument from Ephes. 4 〈◊〉 Examined page 106 107 108. Chap. 10. misprinted Chap. 12. page 109. The Informer offers Scripture warrand for Bishops His Argument from the Government of the Church under the old Testament the subordination of the Priests and Levites The remoteness and absurdity of his consequence anent the lawfulnesse of the present diocesian Erastian Prelats office asit is deduced from this principle discovered several wayes page 110 111 112. That there is no image of our Prelacy in the Jewish Church Government cleared The Informer walks crosse to Iunius yea Bishop Bilson himself and in the series of his reasoning introduces a pope into the Christian Church page 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120. His Argument from the Apostles superiority to the 70 disciples examined He begs the question in supposing Prelats to succeed the Apostles immediately and Pastors the 70 Disciples and from a superiority among officers of different kindes groundlesly concludes a superiority among officers of the same kind No Image of our prelacy in the Apostles superiority over other Church officers page 121 122 123 124 125 126. Chap. 11. misprinted Chap. 10. page 127. The Informers great Argument for Prelacy from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus Their Episcopall office disproved from the office of Evangelist ascribed expresly to the one and by good consequence to the other from many circumstances of the sacred text and the judgment of interpreters page 128 129 misprinted 127 130 misprinted 128 131. misprinted 129. The Informers answers anent the strict and large sense of an Evangelist his reasons of deny 〈◊〉 to Timothy the Evangelistick office in a strict sense 〈◊〉 amined and found inconsistent with themselves aâ—… contrare to Scripture 132 misprinted 130 13â—… misprinted 131 134 misprinted 132 135 misprinted 133 136 misprinted 134 137 misprinted 135 138 misprinted 136 he denies the poweâ—… in ordination and Jurisdiction to be the proper work of an Evangelist How absurdly and inconsistently page 139 140 misprinted 137 138 his contradiction to Saravia discovered in severall points page 141 142 misprinted 139 140 143 misprinted 151 His answer to the Doubters Argument anent Timotheus his not being fixed at Ephesus but occasionally left there examined as also his answer to that Exception of the Doubter anent Pauls giving the Episcopal charge to the elders of Ephesus not to Timothy our Informer pityfully bruilied with this Text page 144 145 146 147 148 misprinted 142 143 144 145 146 he walks crosse to Bishop Hal Dounham and Hooker to Chrysostome Jerome Theodorus His grounds upon which he pleads for Timothy and Titus their Episcopal power particularly examined the first taken from Pauls giving direction to Timothy and Titus how to cary in ordination and Iurisdiction generally examined page 149 150 misprinted 146 147 his arguing from these directions particularly examined anent their not laying on of hands suddenly anent rebuke and censures page 151 152 misprinted 148 149 the Informers next Argument from the concernment of after ages in these rulers That neither this nor the adressing of these rulers to the Evangelists will affoord any help unto him cleared The London Ministers vindicat That Timothy and Titus power at Ephesus and Crete was not voided after some elders were ordained there a sandy foundation to support their Episcopacy The Informer is pityfully in the bryars in answering his Doubâ—…ers exception anent Timothies ordination by the laying on 〈◊〉 the hands of the Presbytery The practice of after ages a ground to support the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169. misprinted 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166. Chap. 12. misprinted Chap. 11. according to the misprinted Method which shall be followed hereafter except in some few pages page 167. The Informers pleadings for Prelacy from the seven Asian Angells discussed That the stile of prophetick writings and of this book do strongly conclude a collectivesense in the term Angel proved by several Arguments page 168 169 170. Whatever he can alledge is the Characteristick of this angel proved to be in Scripture apropriat to Ministers page 171. Many divines ancient and modern for the collective sense of the Word Angel yea some episcopal men themselves page 172 173. The admitting of the Angel to be one single person will nothing help the Informer page 173 174. His answer to the exception from Rev. 2 24. examined Ibid. His Argument from the pretended Testimonies of the ancients and the Catalogues of succeeding Bishops examined Page 175 176 177 178. The addressing of the Epistle to the Angel Will not help him as neither Doctor Reynolds nor Beza their taking the Angel for a single person Page 178 179 180 181 The Informers new Argument for prelacy taken for Diotrephes his love of preheminence wherein he embraces Bellarmines evasions and offers violence to this and parallel texts page 181 182 183 184 185 186 187. Chap 13. misprinted Chap. 12. page 187. The Informers appeal to Antiquity in the point of Episcopacy That Antiquity is not the Judge in this debate although he could instruct the matter of fact proved Page 188 189 190 191. The Scripture even by the Confession of the Fathers the only
such like precepts And no wonder for thes simple Gospel times knew no Bishops who watched not over Soules and laboured in the word and doctrine When the Apostle Peter commands Christians to obey civil Rulers He distinguishs the King as Supeream and Governours sent by him that a Chief subjection may be yeelded to the one and a subordinat to the other But nothing of this is heard of in enjoining peoples subjection to Ministers Ane honour must be allowed by Timothey by the people of God consequentlie to elders that rule weil yea and a double honor but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especialy to those that labour in the Word and Doctrine The Apostle in stating a distinction in the degries of honour allowed to elders and in this different character of the one from the other diversifies elders higher lower Now by the same reason upon which Divines doe rationaly build this conclusion it must be granted that the enjoyning obedience to all Pastores promiscuusly and without any Note of distinction will inferr their equal office and authoritie And by the same reason that the Apostle added this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or especialy in this place he should have added in these or some such comands relating to the peoples obedience a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or especialy to distinguish the Diocesian Prelat from other Pastores and expressed it thus esteem them all highly obey them be subject to them that teach and watch over you All your Pastors but especially the Supereminent Pastor or Bishop who hath the cheifinspection and from whom all the rest derive their authoritie Likwayes in enjoining the pastoral duties he should have been especially noticed who had the cheif hand and authoritie therin which is a Topick improven by this informer but nothing of this is seen in Scripture as shall be after more fully cleared 4. Wee find accordinglie A practical Equalitie among Pastores or Bishops in the exercise of this governing power abundantlie held out and exemplified in Scripture The judging and censuring of the incestuous man is by the Apostle enjoyned to the Church Officers or Ministers of Corinth joyntlie 1 Cor. 5. Chap. compared with 2 Cor. 2. Chap. The Apostle all along supposeth ane inherent authority in these Ministers to put forth this grand juridical Forensical Act â—…ydes them for so long neglecting it and shewes its object viz. This person under the formalis ratio of wicked or scandalus Again he shews its nature to be Ajudging or puting from among them and delivering to Satan upon this judging previous thereunto He also shews that this authoritie touches all Church Members not them that are without whom God judgeth but those that are within Now as hee supposes I say ane authority of this Nature and extent inherent in these Church officers so he speaks to them indefinitly and universally all along which were very cross to his Scope If he had set up or allovved the Diocesian Prelat whose sole prerogative this were And the inflicted Censur he calls with the samine indefinitnes A punishment inflicted by many who accordingly are commanded with the same indefinitnes or universality of expression To receave absolve him upon his repentance The exercise of the binding and â—…owsing power being in the representative juridicall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church to whom scandales must be delated and to whom the promise of ratification of her juricall Acts in Heaven is made Matth. 18 17. Besids we find the exercise of ordination in a Presbitry 1 Tim. 4 14. And that even in relation to ane Evangelist Timothy The Presbitry here must be a juridicall Senat and meeting for the Office can lay on no hands And ordination is ane hie authoritative juridicall Act. Pauls presence and laying on of hands together with them confirmes their authoritie as being cumulative thereto not privative therof even as his countenanceing of or concurring with our Adversaries pretended Diocesian Prelat let us suppose it in his Act of ordination would not infringe his pretended right herein Ergo. By their own Confession and by paritie of reason it cannot infringe or Impeach this power which is attributed to the Presbitery Had the Apostle in stead of Presbyterie put in Prâ—…at and expressed it thus By the laying on of the hands of A Bishop or Diecesian-Bishop I suppose our Adversaries would have thought the Episcopal power of ordination invincibly demonstrat ther from notwithstanding of Pauls saying 2 Tim 1 6. By the laying on of my hands viz together with the Bishop Pauls extraordinare Apostolicall imposition of hands being no white derogatorie unto the supposed Episcopal ordinarie power now verte tabulas the Apostle sayes by the laying on of the handes of the Presbitry Ergo the ordinary and equal power of Pastores and its equal exercise in ordination is herin convincingly made out Nixt The Prelats monopolizing thus in himself the decisive suffrage of Judicatories is cross many wayes to Scripture For I Its a stepping up in a peice of Diotrephese-lik or rather papal-pride above the Apostles themselves who in Churches constitut did alwayes take alongst with them the advice consent and authoritative concurrence of ordinary Ministers and Elders in Government As is evinced in the premised Scriptures wherin it is convinceingly clear that Paul though ane Apostle of all the Churches indewed with extraordinarie unconfined inspection over the same and Pastor thereof in actu exercito having extraordinary Miracolous-gifts being the Master Builder and Spiritual Father who by the Gospel had begotten both Pastores and flocks of many Churches Yet would neither excommunicat the incestuous Corinthian alone but put it upon the Church Officers as their duty to doe it by a judicial decisive joynt suffrage Nor yet did he exclud the presbyters in ordaining even ane Evangilist but took in their judicial and presbyterial concurrence And in Act. 15. In that meeting or Counsel at Jerusalem where was a wholl Colledge or Presbitery of Apostles and mett about ane Act or decision of a high Nature wherein was put forth both Adegmatick critick diatactick authority or power in relation to the clearing of that great pointe of truth anent the abrogation of the Mosaicall ceremonies and censuring the opposers of Paul and Barnabas herin who had disturbed the Churches and belied the Apostles Doctrine And accordingly in order to the restoring and establishing truth and order in these disturbed Churches The ordinary Ministers or elders concurr with the Apostles in every step viz In the conferrence disquisition the authoritative decision the drawing forth of the sentence and decree the sending out of the decreeing and censuring Epistle the imposeing of the decrie upon the Churches to observe and keep the same c. 2. This cutts the throate of that juridical forensical joynt decision of Church Judicatories which the Scriptur doth so clearly hold forth Where is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the censureing juridiall court drawing sorth a joynt decision or censure Wher
be found in Scripture this Officer patched up thereof must either be unwarrantable or Christ the Churches head and lawgiver his Lawes and rules in point of Church Government and in relation to the duties gifts ordination and work of Church Officers are not full and perfect but mank and deficient as to such ane eminent Church Officer And where is then the perfection of his word and Testament to make not only the ordinarie Christian but even the mà n of God the Minister of God perfect and throughly furnished to every good work That non of all the formentioned particulars as to this Officer distinct from and superior to a Presbiter can be found in Scripture but are contrarie therunto I prove thus 1. The Scriptur mentions no name qualification work dutie or ordination of any or dinary Church Officer superior to presbiters and which are not likewayes appropriat to them who are called Rulers Governours Bishops and both ordination and Jurisdiction ar apropriat to them in a perfect paritie 1 Thess. 5 12. with 17. v. and 1 Tim. 5 17. Hebr. 13. v. 7 17. 1 Cor. 5 13. 1 Tim. 4 14. 3 Epist. Ioh. 9. v. 2. In all the Holy Ghost his purposed recitalls of ordinarie Church officers and purposed declaration of their gifts and duties ther is not the least hint of the premised ingredients of the office of this supposed Diocesian Bishop as thus distinct from and Superior to Presbiters 1 Cor. 12 28. Eph. 4 11 12. Rom. 12. 7 8. In these places wee have besyds the Apostles Prophets Evangelists whose Office as extraordinaire is ceased Pastores Elders Deacons But no hint of the Office name qualifications or Mission of ane ordinarie Church Officer Superior to the Pastor is either heire or in any Scripture else which notwithstanding is express as to the Office and qualifications even of the Deacon the lowest Officer Strange the server of Tables his Office and ordination clearlie set down in Scriptur And yet Altum silentium as to either name Office or ordination of the Diocesian Bishop If the argument of our divines be good from hence against the Pope because not mentioned in these Catalogues of Church Officers Ergo a pari It must hold good against the Prelat And as to that that the Prelat hath the Actus Signatus of a State Ruler how cross this is to Scripture we may after shew Sure since Christ set all these his Officers in the Church and commands them diligentlie to wait upon and attend their work and Ministery therein He never made or allowed them to bee State Rulers CHAP. II. Some more Arguments against the Diecesian Prelat That his office debases the Acts and exercise of the power of order cleared It maims and diversisies the Pastoral office by anti-scriptural now invented degrees thereof His office many wayes contrare to the very nature of the Gospel-Church-Government THe Diocesian Bishop his office is in this contrare to the Word of God V. In that it Debases the highest Acts and exercise of the power of order in a Gospel Ministery For all do grant preaching of the Word and the Administration of the Sacraments and Seals of the Covenant of grace to be such So that he who can do thes Acts hath the badge of the highest Ministerial Authority as ane ordinarie Church Officer these being among the most emnient Acts of the Apostles there office and Authoritie Go teach baptize c. They must have some to serve Tables that they may give themselves continually to the Ministery of the Word Timothy our prelatical mens Supposed-Bishop must preach the Word and be instant in season out of season reprove rebuke exhort with all long suffering and Doctrine 2 Tim. 4 1 2. The great Apostle of the Gentiles who had the care of all the Churches coming upon him and therin a great ruleing work Yet pronunces a woe upon himself if he preach not the Gospel 1 Cor. 9 28. And he tells us this was a speciall trust committed to him In this he admires the rich grace of God that he was putt into the Ministery and honoured to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ. Peter that great Apostle of the circumcision when by the Lord restored to his office and encouraged to its exercise by a Threefold renovation of his Mission is thryce enjoyned as the great badge of his love to his Master to feed his Lambes and Sheep Accordingly the Scripture Bishop must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apt to teach and he that teacheth by office scilicet must waite upon teaching and the wise and faithful Steward appointed by the Lord to give the children their meat in dew Season must be found So doeing when the Lord comes to reckon with him and not lay up this noble Talent in a Napkine To this the key of diseiplin is inferior and Subordinat as themean to its end the higher honour above ruleing only being allowed to the labourer in the word doctrine 1 Tim. 5 17. This being clear I say the office of the Diocesian Bishop debases and tramples upon these highe and noble Acts of a Pastor and consequently upon the premised Scriptures asserting the same and that in these wayes I. In that the quondam Presbyter only when made a Prelat leaves off The feeding of the flock and layes by the preaching talent the Church wher he did preach or officiat it may be shall never see or hear him againe but is ipso facto voyde to be possed by another nor by his now-office is he oblidged to preach or Minister the Sacraments any more at all these petty peeces of work being below his new Lordship Trew he may preach if he please and at the Church wher he reseeds but that is per accidens ex abundanti and out of courtesie but by his office Qua Prelat he is bound to preach no more to any frock nor is he in the least judged faultie or deficient in his Episcopal office if he be wholly silent Nay in England preaching Prelats have been highely upbraided and reproached by their fellowes and called preaching Cox Combes Wee all know what ane odd peece of work Mr Lightoun's preaching was esteemed by the generalitie of the Prelatick partie when he turned Prelat Now let any of commune Reason or ingenuity judge what ane office that must be which putts a Minister intrusted with the Lords great commission to preach the Gospel under pretence of advancement to a higher Sphere in the Ministery to lay by this work which is the noblest and highest of the Ministerial Authoritie wherin the Apostles themselves mainely laboured and gloried as the most noble meane of the conversion of Sonles and consequentlie of the glorie of Christ therin Nay to lay by this noble work under pretence of new burdene of Government Wheras the Apostles who had the wholl Churches to plant and Govern most enixely plyed this work still If this man become not a dumb dog and a sloathfull unprofiteable servant let
the Presbytery to the Synod as from the Presbytery at Antioch to the Synod at Jerusalem Not to any one Apostle Pop or Prelat Whereas the last appeal and reference in this Diocesian Mould is to the Bishop Our Lords rule is this in relation to the removeing of Scandales First tell the offending Brother Alone then take two or three more then if he be farder contumacious tell the Church the greater embodied court or Judicatorie who have the official power of binding or lowseing He bidds not toll it uni to one but unitati a multitud gathered into one for so the Greek word doth necessarly Import whereas in the Diocesian sea the gradation is from many to one Prelat whose sole prerogative this highest censure is And with Prelatists the rule runns thus tell two or three lastlie and finallie one Lord-Bishop Which is point blank contrare to the Scripture rule 3. The Diocesion Bishops power and Ministerial Pastoral pretended duties as Diocesian Bishop are such as falls within he compass of no command and which it is impossible to performe according to Scripture rules which I prove thus 1. The Prelat according to their principles is the proper Pastor of the whole Diocess for he being peculiarly Bishop of it and consecrat in order to his Episcopal inspection over the same for to the participation of his power office denoted by this term Bishop of Edinburgh c. He admitts non in the diocess it being the characteristick of his Superioritie over Presbyters withall it including the wholl Ecclesiastick Authority both of order and Jurisdiction with in the Diocess It followes of necessity that he is the sole and proper Pastor thereof according to this mould of Government Now it being so let it be considered 1. That the trew Scripture etimon of Episcopus or Bishop imports all the Pastorall duties of feeding and ruling and layes aâ—…e obligation upon the person under this relation and cloathed with this Office to perform all these duties accordingly to these to whom he stands in that relation 2 That its impossible the Bishop can feed Rule Oversee and perform the Pastoral duties unto and watch for the souls of all that large flock in which some hundereds of painful Pastores will find their hands full of work So that the Bishop assumes a charge which it is impossible he can dischag or perform 3. The Scripture allowes no Derivation or Deputation of the Pastores work and Office to which he is called of God unto other subserviant Officers Because God intrusts no man with any peece of Stewardship in his Family but what he must both oversie and execut immediatly by himself and is likewayes disposed and enabled to manage and overtake God still conjoyneing the Office gifts and call together for every peece of his work Which the man that is intrusted with and called unto must himself immediatly waite upon and attend Rom. 12. 7. and not intrust it to others for him Hence 4. By clear consequence it followes that the Diocesian Bishopes work qua talis is such as he can neither mannage nor hath warrand from the great Shepherd to exercise or assume In the 4t Place the present Diocesian Bishop is a Person who is authorised to sitt in Parliament Council and other civil Judicatories as a constituent member therof For they are restored to their places in Parliament civil pretended dignities which places they aâ—… by there Office bound to manage as civil Rulers But so it is that all civill dominion Magistraticall Rule is expresly prohibit to Church Rulers so that the Church Officer who is installed in these Offices falls from Heaven to Earth The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them and they that are great exercise authotie upon them but it shall not be so among you Matth. 20 25 26. This charge our Lord gave to his Apostles and their Successors Pastores or Bishops who are here forbidden all civill rule or Magistracy the nature wherof is properly a Dominion and thus distinct toto coelo from the nature of Ecclesiastick Offices which is a Ministerial service or stewardship only All our divines impugne from this text the popes civil Dominion and the amphibius civily ruleing or domineering Prelat falls under the lash thereof Non who goe Christs errands and his warrfare must be inâ—…angled with these things that are temporal The Minister must waite upon his Ministrie So the civil Magistrat is Gods Minister in civiles attending Continually upon this employment Rom. 13 4 6. Now those being in their nature so disparat employments and both requireing a constant waiting and attendance he is a strange man That can be called and sufficient for both Who is sufficient for these things said the great and highly gifted Paul speaking of his Ministerial employments Are our Prelats beyond his sufficiencie who can act the Pastor of a wholl Diocess and guide State affaires too Christs Kingdome is not of this World and so are not its Officers the weapons of whose warrfare must not be carnal Who made me a judge said the great Shepherd himself when desired but to giue a deciding advice in a civil cause Luk 12 14. Where is there any thing like the work or qualifications of the Magistrat in all the New Testament Rules and instructions anent the work Office and call of Church Officers CHAP. III. The Diocesian Bishops Office debases extraoadinarie Offices in confounding them with the ordinary That Timothy and Titus power layes no foundation for Prelacy cleared at large The derivation of Prelacie from them loaded with gross absurdites VIII THe Diocesian Bishops Office is in this contrare unto the word in that It debases the Apostolical and Euangelistick Offices and confounds the ordinarie extraordinarie functions administrations which Scripture Reason all sound Divines doe diversifie distinguish The Prelats Advocats this new informer particularly pleads for and derives the Episcopal preheminence from the office and inspection of the Apstles and Euangelists whom they affirme to have been properly formally Bishops in the sense they take the Diocesian Bishop and that the formal power and offices which they exercised are to be continued still in the Church That Timothy was formally constitut Bishop of Ephesus Titus of Crete Iames of Ierusalem And that the Prelats office is the same and properly Succeeds them and is as it were A continuation of their office in a formal sense Timothy's authority is is one maine ground which the Episcopal men at the Isle of Wight and this Auther also do plead to legittimat the Prelats office This being clear I say this pretended Mould of the Diocesian Bishops Office and Authority is lyable to the charge censure of debasing these holy extraordinarie functions and confounding them with the ordinary which I prove thus 1. All sound protestant Divines do harmoniously assert the extraordinary nature of the Apostolick office as such and likewayes of the Euangelists reckening the Apostles Prophets
this especially to whom a people doe intrust their soules direction and guidance If in any thing a Christian must Act in Faith and not give up his perswasion to ane implicit conduct and thus become a servant of men sure it must be in a mater ofso great weight as this is If Christs sheep have this for their Character that they knowe the voice of the trew Shepherd from the voice of the hyreling and stranger from whom they will flie Joh. 10 4 5. Sure their knowlege and consent must interveen in order to their acceptance of and subjecton to their Shepherd If they must not belive every Spirit buttry the Spirits sure this caution and tryal must be especially allowed in this case that they admitt not a false Prophet instead of a trew So then the Episcopal Government is in this as in other pointes chargeable with antichristian and anti-scriptural tyrannie over Christs flockes 10. The Episcopal Government is in this contrare unto the Word of God viz. In denying and cutting off from his administration and the totall laying asyde of a singularely usefull Church officer appointed by Christ in his House viz the ruleing elder That Government which denies and layes aside any of the great Master of the vine yeard his servants and officers whom he hath authorized and appointed must needs be highly derogatorie to his glory and contrare to his word But such is Prelacie The Prelats are like that sloathfull wicked servant who smites and beats away there fellow-servants while they eat and drink with the drunken That Prelats disoun and exclude this officer is evident both from their principles and practise They all deny the divine warrand of this Church officer And where Prelacy is established he is excluded from Presbyteries and Synodes and upon the mater also from the congregation For they deny and exclude all decisive suffrage there and take away all Authority of congregational elderships as we seen Now that this ruleing elder distinct from both the preaching Presbyter and Deacon Is appointed by God our Divines have made good from severall Scriptur grounds Such as 1. From Rom. 12 6 7. Where among severall other Church officers which the Apostle doth enumerat there is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or he that ruleth Here is ane ordinary Ruler distinct from all other Rulers and Church officers the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Rule and authoritative power Againe he is ranked among ordinarie Officers and so must needs be ane ordinary standing officer yet stands distinguished from other ordinary officers haveing both a distinct name from all the rest likewayes a distinct worke as being diversified from the teacher the exhorter and the giver And moreover a peculiar direction as have likewise all the rest So that from the circumstances of this place the divine right of this officer is clearly demonstrate Nixt That passage is pertinently improven for this purpose 1 Cor. 12 28. Where we read of helps Governments under distinct paragraphes clearly pointing out ordinary Governing Church officers distinct from the elders that preach and the Deacon and all other Church Governoures whatsoever They cannot be Governoures in the General for what doth this among a particula enumeration of officers These are distinct from helps distinct from the teaching elder for he is already mentioned in this same vers So here is a Rule and Government distinct from all governoures either civil or ecclesiastick except this ruleing elder yet set by God in the Church under the new Testament But the third and most pregnant passage from which our divines doe demonstrat the divine right of this Church officer is that of the 1 Tim. 5 17. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially they who labour in the word and Doctrine Here is a ruleing Church officer distinct from the preaching elder For here is a general elders Nixt we have two distinct branches of these elders viz the ruleing elder and the elder that both rules and laboures in the word and Doctrine in the word as the Pastor In the Doctrine as the teacher Again they are diversified in two distinct participles and epithets ruling is made the marke and characterick of the one viz Ruling only And both Ruleing and teaching is made the marke of the other whereby they are distinguished in their nature and office But in the 3d. place the forementioned distinction eminently appears in the discretive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially which is set betwixt these two kynds of elders intimating that as there were some of these ruling elders who did labour in the word and Doctrin so there were others who did Rule and not labour in the Word Both were worthy of double honour but especially the labourer in the word over and above this ruling And to this purpose it is well observed that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially is allwayes in the new Testament made use of to distinguish one thing from another As when it is said Gal. 6 10. Let us doe good to all men but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expecially to these of the houshold of faith hereby distinguishing soom that were of the houshold of faith and some that were not In which sense it is also used Phil. 4 22. and 1 Tim. 5 8 This precept saith Pâ—…scator Anal in Locum he first illustrats by a distribution and comparison of things different and unlike for he distinguishes elders into those who were sett over Ecclesiastick Disciplin yet so asthey did not publickly teach those who did teach also Wherein he clearly gives sentence for us against the Prelatick partie in this point Wee may hence Collect that ther were two sortes of elders at that time saith Calvin on 1 Tim. 5 17. For all were not ordained to teach for the words doc manifestly hold forth that some had governed well and faithfully to whom notwithstanding the office of teaching was not committed And trewly from among the people their were grave and good men chosen and approved who did together with Pastores by commune Councell authority administer Church Government and were in some sort censors for correcting of manners which oustome Ambrose compleans to have worme out of use by the negligence or rather the pryde of teachers while they covet to rule alone The pregnancy of this Scripture tramples into the dust the pitiful evasiones of all the Prelatists in denying the divine right of this officer Some of which we shall here take notice of and the confutation of the same offered by our divines upon this point Some by Ruleing well will have living well to be understood But the Apostle is speaking of the office of ruling in a Church officer ruling over others not of ruling over a mans â—…eif in a privat capacitie Neither is the Churches Honorarium double honour double maintinance due to living well as here it is allowed to ruling well And this will say that the Minister that
preaches not is worthy of double honour for living well which will make very harsh sense Some understand this ruleing elder of the Deacon but the Deacon is no where called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or elder his work being to help to distribut not to rule 1 Cor. 12 28. Rom. 12 8 Some would being in under this Ruler The ancient Superannuat Bishop But this gloss will in honour preferr unto him the diligent preaching Minister which will wound their cause to death Some by the Ruler will have such understood as did administer Sacraments but preached not But Paul knew non of these non preaching or seldom-preaching Ministers far less would he allow them a double honoure who rather deserved the contrary Paul will have all Ministers apt to teach and able to convince Some by the ruling elder would have Inferior Magistrats understood who were appointed for ending civil Striffes but the Apostle is here prescrybing rules to Church office bearers not civile rulers and teaching Timothy how to cary in the Church Againe they had then no Christian civil Magistrats as all doe grant and for their going to Heathens to compose their civil differences Paul himself dissallowes it 1 Cor 6. Some againe will have the laboring in the word doctrine to be nothing else but ane explanation of rulcing well but this inadvertant gloss will set asyde My Lord Bishop as no good ruler Againe as is said the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here or the word especially is discriminating and discretive distinguishing one thing from another not explaining one thing by another If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were thus sensed what odd work would it make in other places 1 Tim. 4 10. Who is the Saviour of all men especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them that believe This gloss will sense it thus the Saviour of all men greatly believing Others yet by labouring in the word and doctrine will have a higher degree of labouring as to diligence understood yet so as both branches speak of labouring in the word and doctrin But as the Leyden Professoures doe well answer this will allow double honour to the less-labouring or lazie elder who deserves rather a double rebuke the Lord requiring the the utmost faithful diligence of all labourers in his vineyarde Besides that this gloss justles out and makes Superfluous that clause of the verse viz in the word and doctrine which according to this exposition should either have been totally omitted or added unto both the branches of this sentence Some to escape the dint of this text invent yet another Shift all Sort of Rulers whither civil ecclesiastick or domestical are worthy of double honour so they sense the first branch and say they this General proposition the Apostle might premise to enforce the honour he enjoyns to the labourer in the word c. But the context fully rejects this gloss since the Apostle speaks not generally of Rulers but of elders that rule well and of such elders and rulers to all which he allowes double honour So that this gloss will mak pitiful work both in allowing the Churches honorarium double honour or honourable maintinance to domestick Rulers and likewayes will allow more honourable maintinance to Ministers then Magistrats Some woulde by the labourer in word and Doctrine as distinct from the ruling elder take in transient visiting Presbyters distinct from fixed preaches but where will they shew us any such who were not Evangelists Wee find that meer ordinary Presbyters were ordained for several cities and places as there peculiar charges whom they were fixedly to feed Act. 14 23. Tit. 1 5. Act. 20 28. But where find they such Presbyters as had no fixed charge Neither can Evangelists be meaned as Dr Burnet would gladely shift it in his first Dialogues the Apostle all along speaking of ordinary preaching Presbyters These and several such like exceptions the evidence of this text hath long since refuted So that we may conclude solidely from what is said the divine right of this Church officer and by consequence the horride Sacriledge and usurpation of Prelacie in robbing Christs Church of the same And likewise the Babilonish confusion which this Antichristian Hierarchie hath introduced into our Church both in divyding and maiming the Pastoral office in bringing in offices which the Great Shepherd hath not allowed and in excluding and thursting our offices and officers which the hath ordained upon which grounds and upon all the preceeding wee hope we may now safely conclude the Diocesian Prelat existing among us to be a plant which the father never planted and consequently as a poisonus weed to be rooted up CHAP. V. That the present Prelacie is grosse Erastianisme Some Arguments against it under that notion It excludes and denies all Church Government in the hands of Church officers distinct from the civil contrar to the Churches priviledge both under the Old and New Testament which is demonstrat at large Is in many points ane Incroachment upon the liberties of the gospel-Gospel-Church and upon Christs mediatorie authority over the same HAving thus farr impugned the Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church officer Wee shall nixt offer some Arguments against him in his Erastian Mould as deriving all his power from the civil Magistrat Althogh the office of the Diocesian Bishop were acknowledged warrantable yet this will help nothing the Erastian Prelat these being very distinct theams and questions What is that Species of Church Government allowed and commanded in Scriptnre and whither there be any inherent Church Government allowed her distinct from that of the Civil Magistrat and whither Church officers or the Civil Magistrat be the proper Subject therof that the Present Prelacie is gross Erastianisme is manifest for after all Church Judicatories were in Anno 16 62. discharged untill they were authorized by the Bishops nominat by his Majestie the disposal of the Government is declared to be the Crown-right and inherent pâ—…rpetual prerogative and thereupon the Bishops are restored not only to their civil dignities but to their Episcopal function presidencie in the Church and over all Church discipline c. And it is expresly declared that there is no Church power jurisdiction or Government in the Church office bearers or meetings but what depends upon and is subordinat unto the Supremacie and is authorized by the Bishops who are declared accountable to his Majestie for their administration In the Act for the National Synod the constituent members thereof the maters to be treated of the authorizing of the constitutions as Church Canons is soly in the Civil Magistrat there work being only to give advice to him without any decisive inherent suffrage By vertew of which Ecclesiastick Supremacie his Majesty puts excommunication and Spiritual censures and consequently the power of the keys into the hands of persons meerly civil in the Act for the high commission Hence it is aparent that his Majesty as the fountaine of all Church Government impartes this
Authority to such as he pleases and the Bishops are nothing else but his Majesties Commisioners in the exercise of that Ecclesiastick Power which is originally in himself Now that this Erastian Prelacie or Church Government is a stranger to the Scripture is many wayes evident 1. This Erastian Prelacie Denyes all Church Government in the hands of Church officers distinct from civil Magistrace which is ane error fully confuted and largely bafled by all who have written against Erastus and his followers and is contrare many wayes to Scripture I. To that distinction betwixt the Ecclesiastick and civil Sanbedrin under the Old Testameet asserted and cleared by many Scripture Arguments by our divines paraicularly Mr Gillespie in the Aarons rode I. From the institution of that Court of elders supposed in Exod. 24. Who were not those elders chosen for the government of the Commonwealth Numb 11. For this was done at Sinai shortly after they came out of Egypt But on the 20 day Of the 2d Moneth in the 2d Year they tooke their journey from Sinai to the â—…dernes of Paran Numbr 10. 11 12. And there pitched when the Seventie elders were chosen to relieve Moses They were not the judges chosen by advyce of Iethro for he came not to Moses till the end of the first year or the begining of the Second after they came out of Egypt Nor could they be judges who judged befor he came for he observed that the burdine lay upon Moses alone So they must needs have been Ecclesiastick Rulers under the presidencie of Aarone and Hur. vers 14. Who were called up as the representatives of the Church of Israel after the Judicial lawes were given Chap. 22. 23. In this 24. Chapter there is a transition to the Ceremonial lawes concerning the worship of God and the Structur of the Tabernacle Deutr. 17. 8 9 10. All grant there a Supream Court of judges therfor also the text must be granted to hold forth a Supreme Ecclesiastick Court For it caryes the authority sentence of the priests as hie as the authority sentence of the judges that in adisjunctive way as Two distinct powers each binding respective in their oun proper Sphere 3. From these judges officers 1. Chr. 23. 4 26 29. Supposed set to their work when the Levits were divyded to there Charge who were not tyed to service attendances in the Temple but to judge give sentence concerning the law its meaning and this saith the text over Israel coming to them from any of the cities of the land 4. From Jehoshaphats reformation 2. Chron. 19. 8 10 11. Who restoring the government of the Church did sett in Ierusalem levits priests Chieff of the Fathers of Israel for the judgment of the Lord for controversies Here is 1. A Court of priests Levits with power of Suffrage thus consisting of Ecclesiastick membres 2. In Ecclesiastick matters Maters of the Lord distinct from Maters of the King 3. For ane Ecclesiastick end viz. to warne that they trespasse not not only against one another but against the Lord. 4. All causes of their Brethren that dwelt in the Cities were to come to them unto Jerusalem 5. They have Ane Ecclesiastick Moderator or president Amariah the chieff priest over them in all Maters of the Lord â—…istinct as is said from Maters of the King These many such Arguments are made use of by him others To clear this poynt of the Two distinct Sanhedrins which fully overthrowes this Erastian Confusion of these two powers governments 2. This fountaining of all Church power in the civil and denying of Church government in the hands of Church officers distinct from the Civil government is Cross to that distinction of the Gospel Church her government from that of the Civil power wich is clearly held out in the new Testament Wherin it is evident 1. That the visible Church is Christ the Mediator his visible kingdome as Mediator And so its Officers Lawes Censures falls with in the compasse of his Mediatorie appointment and inspection Matth. 16. 19. 28. 29. Joh. 18. 36. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11 12. 2. That the gospel Church was Compleated in her being essence both as to Rulers Ruled Members officers and in rules directions for the exercise of her government accordingly when no Magistrat was so much as a member of her 3 That in all the precepts anent the exercise of this power it is enjoyned to the Church to these Church officers as such with the same freedome independancy upon the Civil power as at the first without the least restriction limitation in case of the Magistrats becoming Christian All the grounds made use of in pressing the exercise of this power being moral perpetual respecting the Church her condition as a Church whither the Magistrat be friend or enemie In the 2d Place This Erastian prelatick mould of government brings in many grosse encroachments upon the liberties of the gospell Church As 1. Denying her liberty to exercise her power Key of Censure without the Magistrat Contrare to all the New Testament instances of the exercise therof with out him 2. Introduceing a dominion arbitrary power upon all her government Contrare to her liberty the very nature of her government which is a Ministerial Stewardship not a dominion for thus the Church is the proper object of the Magistrats dominion that being the Nature of his power Rom. 13. And the present prelatick Church ounes the Supreme Civil governoure as her Chieff Church officerer 3. Giving to the Magistrat qua talis for this power in Church matters is by Prelats and their adherents aknowledged to be a perpetual Croun-right the proper Sole decisive suffrage in all causes falling under Ecclesiastick cognisance for Prelatists onely meet to advise him in there Suprem Court or national Synod according to the forementioned Act. Now this Cutts off all Church judicatories ther decisive suffrage as Church judicatories which as is cleared above they did fully at first exercise of themselves without the Magistrat 4. This mould will make the Civil Magistrat the proper immediat subject of the Keys and Impartes all Church government to One who as such is not so much as a Church member and impowers him to give out this supposed fountaine power to no Church members or to here enemies at his pleasure As his Majesty gives to persons Civil the power of excomunication Yea it gives him a power by his oun proper clicite acts to dispense all her external government as the law terms it which if we look upon it as including all externall ordinances contradistinct from the internal government of the inward man the Church invisible will necessarely import include the exercise of both the Keys all the external dogmaticke diatactick Critick authority power intrusted to the Church representative Which is a meer
Civil papacie the grossest of usurpations which the Church can be exposed unto as shall be afterward touched Finally This will inferr that Children Heathens yea women may be chieff Church officers and heads of the Church too since they may possesse the Crown of these Kingdoms to which this Headship and Supremacy is annexed But of this also againe 3. This Erastian government is a gross encroachment upon Christs prerogative over his Church And that in these wayes 1. In assumeing a power over the Church which is proper to Christ only I mean a Magisterial architectonick power That this is assumed by this Erastian mould of government is evident He who can dispose of government and governoures of the Church arbitrarly and dispose of all Church meetings and Church maters as he pleases and thinks fitt Hath certanly this power but that this Magisterial architectonick power and dominion over the Church is Christs Sole prerogative is abundantly clear by manifold plaine positive Scripture assertions To Christ is all power given in Heaven and Earth Matth. 28. 18. And he as Mediator is given to be head over all things to the Church Ephes. 1. 21 22. To hâ—…m is all judgement over her committed John 5. 22. Hee it is also who possesses these high tittles to be the Governoure over his Church by way of eminencie Matth. 2. 6. That great shepherd of the sheep Hebr. 13. 20. the shepherd and Bishop of Soules 1. Pet. 2. 25. Hee is that one Master over all Church officers who are but Brethren Matth. 23. 8 10. To us there is but One Lord Iesus 1. Cor. 8. 6. Hee it is to whom onely the imperiall acts of power are ascribed as the giving of lawes to his Church the gospel precepts are his law Gal. 6. 2. Hee it is who gave commandments to his Apostles Act. 1. 2. there is but one law giver who can save and destroy Jam. 4. 12. The Lord is our judge the Lord is our lawgiver or Statute maker the Lord is our King I say 33 22. He it is who Constitutes her ordinances preaching of the word Matth. 10. 7. 1. Cor. 1. 17. administration of the Sacraments as of baptisme John 1. 33. the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 11. 20. dispensing of Censures Matth. 16. 29. Hee it is who appointes his Officers Prophets Pastores Teachers Ephes. 4. 11 12. 1. Cor. 12 28. In his name onely all ordinances are dispensed Not in the name of Magistrats or of any Mortall The Apostles spake and taught in the name of Jesus Act. 4. 17 18. In his name we are to Ask Joh. 14. 13 14. In his name onely Ministers are to preach and baptize Matth. 28. 18 19. 2. Cor. 5. 20. In his name onely they are to Censure to deliver to Satan 1 Cor. 5. 4. In his name only Church assemblies are to be gathered which seems the Smallest Act. Matth. 18 20. See jus divinum Regim Eccles Appollon Revius c. 2. This Erastian government incroaches upon Christs prerogatives In taking and using the Keys against Christs donation and authoritie Christ is the only Lord giver of both the Keys and all their power But in this Usurped power the Kevs are 1. Divyded against his prescription who gave both the Keys of Doctrine and Discipline joyntly to the proper recipients theâ—…of viz. Church officers Matth. 16. 19. This Erastian government â—…ches away One Key viz. of government from such to whom Christ the great Master of the House hath Intrusted both Christ in this donation of the Keys making no mention of the Civil Rulers but only of Church Officers then appointed who were distinct from the Magistrat Hence 2. The Key of disciplin is taken and used against his mynde by these to whom he hath not Intrusted it which is a great encroachement upon his authoritie In the 3d. place this Erastian government encroaches upon Christs authoritie over his Church In superadding Ane officer to theseChurch officers institut and appointed by him For in all the Scripture rolls of Christs Church officers the Civil Rulers are not found Eph. 4. 10 11. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 6. 7 8. 4. This encroachment appeares in making Church officers as such imediatly subject to the Magistrat in all their Spirituall administration which is a hie Censure of the Primitive exercise of this power independantly as we shal shew 5 In exeeming him from all Spiritual subjection unto and censure by Church Rulers For where â—…pray shal we find the Magistrat excepted and the hiâ—…herCivil powers if within the Church from Christs lawes and rules anent subjection to Church censures and to his Spiritual office bearers intrusted therewith CHAP. VI. Erastianism denyes the compleat constitution of the Apostolick Church in point of Government Removes the Scriptur Land-markes set to distinguish the Civil and Ecclesiastick Powers which is cleared in several points It is lyable to great absurdities IN the 4th place This Erastian Government presumes to impeach the primitive Apostolick Church her compleat constitution and faithfulness of Administration in relation to Government and makes here to have had but a defective maimed constitution and authority thereanent while the exercise of the civil power in her was wanting Which charges a gross deficiency upon Christs prescriptions in relation to her Lawes and Officers Which are found in Scripture very full and suited to her state and condition in all times until all the Elect be made up and here warfare is accomplished and consequently it impeaches Christs saithfulness and authority as Mediatour whose proper work this holy constitution is 5. This Erastian Prelacy takes away all the Scripture Landmarks and Limits which are fixed therien by God to distinguish the Civil and Ecclesiastick Powers and Governments and makes them every way the same in all things wherein Scripture and Reason do distinguish them both as to their Nature and Acts and likewayes as to their Causes 1. As to their Nature this Erastian Government doth confound them 1. In that it makes the Church and Commonwealth the Political and Ecclesiastical Societies one and the same which are formally distinct It being a visible profession that make a Church member and outward habitation and subjection to the civil power that makes a Subject Which may be where there is no profession and consequently no Church-membership For in this mould the Kings Government Civil is Church Government for it is his Government as King in which capacity this Ecclesiastick Supremacy is his prerogative and his Ecclesiastick Government is also Civil Government for it is his Government as the Supream Civil Magistrat And thus the Church respected by his government is the Common-wealth vice versa 2. This confounds the Officers of Church and State which the Scriptur doth aboundantly distinguish For as is said The Church had all her Officers of Christs appointment when no Magistrat was a Member thereof and on the other hand Common-wealths had all their civil Rulers before they became Churches But in this Erastian
Prelacy this order is confounded The chief Officers of this Church are the Magistrats Commissioners to Church and State whereas Church Officers are given by Christ as Mediatour to his Church as a Church 1 Cor. 12 Ver. 28. 3. The actings of civil and Ecclesiastick authority are thus confounded Spiritual church Rulers Act onely in Spiritual matters by Gods appointment and civil Rulers there immediat proper Acts are only in matters Civil But here Church Officers are Parliament Commissioners and civil Rulers in the high commission do excommunicat Againe in the 2. place This Erastian Prelacy confounds these two powers in their causes which are wholly diverse 1. The efficient cause is diverse God as Creator is Author of Magistracy Rom. 13. But Christ as Mediatour appoints Church Government Matt. 28 18. But here the Magistrat qua talis is a suprem Church Ruler And thus is supposed to have his power from Christ as Mediator and Head of his Church Which is ane opinion fully confuted by those who havewritten against Erastus particularly Mr Gillespie in the Aarons Rod. 2. They differ in the material cause the matter on which the two powers do act are diverse Ecclesiastick power doth act in the exercise of the Keys the administration of the Word and Sacraments having this for its proper Object and matter The civil power consists in the civil and secular Sword the one reaches the inward the othere the outward man But in this Erastian Prelacye the Sword and Keys are made one promiscuously used and put into the same hands 3. The two powers differ in their formal cause the civil power is put forth in political punishments the Ecclesiastick in spiritual censures But here the same power is the first Radix and Fountaine of Spirituall Censures and Civil punishments and gives them their formal essence and being as such Finalie The proper immediat end of Civil power is the Temporal External political peace of the commonwealth Rom. 13. 1 2. 3. But the proper end ofEcclesiastick power Is the Churches Spiriual good and edification as such Matth. 18. 15. 1 Cor. 5. 5. 2. Cor. 10. 8. and 13. 10. But here the Magistrat quatalis being the Churches head these ends are Confounded These and several such like arguments are made use of by our writers against Erastus which doe fully evince the unlawfulnes of this Erastian prelacie Whosoever shal peruse Apollonius His jus Majest Circ Sacr the jus Div regim Eccles the Aarons rod wallaeus against Vtenbog and such like will find this abundantly clear To shâ—…t up all with One word more Ther are these 3. horride absurdities in relation to Church government which the premised mould of this Erastian prelacie will necessarly inferr 1. That a man may be borne not only a Church member but a Chief Church Ruler Nay that a Heathen and a man that never professed the true religion but lives and dies ane ingraind enemie to it and so hath neither mater nor forme of Church membership may be a Chieff Church officer For his Majesties present authoritie herine acknowledged by our prelats and which is the Fountaine of their power is the proper Croune dignitie of all that ever shall possesse and wear it and so here is a monstrous Church officer who 1. hath no qualifications of any Church officer whom ever Christ appointed 2. A Church officer who is not Set in the Church which is the essential marke of all Church officers 1. Cor. 12 28. for that supposes he must be a Church member A 2d absurditie is this That Children and women who may have a lawfull lineal right to the Croun may be Church officers Yea the Fountaine of our prelats authority and of all their Underâ—…ings and the chieff governoure of this Church and thus they who are forbidden so much as to speak in the Church shall be Chieff Church Rulers and likewayes such as have not the use of Reason 1. Tim. 3 5. 1. Cor. 14. 34 35. A 3d. absurditie is That the Church government upon earth may be Monarchical and that One man may be her Supream head legislator And architectonick Monarch and Ruler for aquatenus ad omne valet consequentia Upon the same ground that the Suprem Civil Ruler is Chieff head and Ruler over the Church in his dominions the Church in all other places being a body of the same nature Should the Christian Church be contracted within his dominions he were her Supreme universall head And it were so if his Civil dominion should be extended over all the Churches By this same reason of his headship over One he may be head over all and exercise ane arbitrary at least a legislative power over all her ordinances and officers And if this will not Clearly set the popes Treeple Croun upon his head and disowne all that ever the protestant Churches have writen and acted against his blasphemous Supremacie let common discretion judge Ambrose Epist 33. ad valentinianum imperatorem Saith noli gravare imperator ut putes in ea quae divina sunt aliquod imperiale jus habere opliticorum tibi munerum jus concessum est non Sacrorum Grieve not O Emperour so as to think that you have any Imperial authority over these things which are divine the right or authority of politicall offices is committed unto thee but not of Sacred CHAP. VII The Informers deceitfull shifting and obscuring the true State of the Question anent Episcopacie and flinching from the point debatable discovered Severall wayes He declines a direct pleading for prelats civil offices Yet offers some arguments defence therof Wherin his prevarication and Contradiction to himself is made appear TO come now to examine what this new Dialogist hath produced in defence of the present prelacie established amongst us And to examine his answers to our plea against it We shall not stand upon the trifling debate about the personal good qualities of some that have been prelats with which Hee prefaces this Dialogue it being altogether extrinsick to the Question anent the lawfulnes of the office it self And would be no argument in our case against him as this man cannot but acknowledge else Hee must give up the cause upon his concession of the Unquestionable eminent pietie and integritie of many burning and Shining lights who have been the Lords Constant witnesses against prelacie That which is here mainely considerable Is his prevarication in Stating the Question anent prelacie viz. Whither the ancient Bishopes had a Superioritie over other Ministers wherin he utterly â—…ches away from the pointe debeatable 1. In making this the State of the Question what Bishopes were in the primitive Church wheras the true State of our Question is whither the prelat now existent in this Church be a Scripture Bishop and consonant therunto Or ane officer appointed by Christ in his house Yea or not And not whither there have been Bishops or such as we now have in the ancient Church The Question is not of the mater of
fact but of the right yea and the divine right of the present prelats in relation to their power 2. In stating the difference betwixt the Bishop he pleads for and the Pastor Hee Smoothes it over in this general whither there have been such Bishopes as have had a Superioritie over ordinarie Ministers but doth not explaine what that Superioritie is which he pleads for whither of order or jurisdiction or both whither specificall or graduall Whither a Superiority of meer presidencie or of principality The Episcopus preses and princeps sharing in this general name Dolus latet in generalibus Since there have been various Superiorities de facto He should have particularized that Superiority which He undertaks to defend 3. His Doubter suggesting that they were not Lord Bishopes He must needs make him referr to 1. Pet. 5. 3. Discharging to Lord it over Gods heritage But how poor is his evasion from and solution of this difficultie in starting this notion whither there have been De facto Bishops with a Superioritie over Presbiters Or Bishops who had Civill dignities in ancient times The pinch of this debate lying in this whither the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or Lorship discharged in that Scripture will not stryke against such a Superiority or dominion whither in Ecclesiastick or Civil rule as our prelats now assume and not what sort of Superiority in Ecclesiastick or Civill government prelats have formerly had The present prelat existent in Scotland having such a dominion over Church Judicatories and likwayes in Civils as is above exprest and derving all his power from the Magistrat in Ecclesiastick as well as in Civil rule He should have Stated his Question thus distinctly and then fenced for his great Diana But the man probably found this a taske which be durst not undertake which appears immediatly after in his declining the debate anent the Bishopes Civil rule telling us That he will make it none of his worke to debate with us their acting in Civil affairs Sometimes But 1. Since he undertaks the patrocinie and defence of Episcopacie now established among us And in his preface professes it his designe to prove it lawfull and therby to take off one of our arguments for withdrawing from Conformists And it being likewayes Certaine that the present prelats are Civil rulers He must either undertake this debate or acknowledge them unlawfull pro tanto at least And that he proves but a maimed pleader for their present office and falls short of a great part of his designe in this pamphlet 2. He pitifully Snakes away from this debate also in minâ—…hing their State-medling thus viz. Their acting in Civil affaires Sometimes which may be said of any man or Minister His rare transient occasional accidentall or privat actings and even in domestick affairs But cannot this man distinguish betuixt this and a Stated official acting 〈◊〉 constituent and constant members of Civill judicatories as prelats are according to our lawes and that even ex natura officij as they are prelats Sure he cannot distinguish the Mountaine from the Molchill that cannot see a difference betuixt these Either this Informer must account the prelats present State actings lawful or not If He account them lawfull then He falls under a Three fold premunire in this point 1. In deâ—…lyning the defence of one of the prelats Unquestionable legal privileges disouned by presbyterians and by him esteemed lawfull notwithstanding of his undertakeing to plead for them 2. In Undertaking only tos plead for their acting Sometimes which as I said i far from the point and matter of fact which he must defend 3. In confessing at the foot of the page That Church men should not needlesslie or of Choice intangle themselves in these incumberances wherin he palpablie contradicts himself as to his Scope For doe not our prelats of most free choice and deliberatly assume State Imployments Or are their shoulders burdened against their will with these State honoures Besydes He cites 2. Tim. 2. 4. In acknowledging this intanglement in wordly affaires to be unlawfull in Church men The text sayes no man that warreth entangleth himself in affaires of this life Now if this text discharge universally and absolutly a Ministers intanglement in wordly affaires How comes he to foist in his limitation of needlesly or of Choice where is this limitation in the text If all intanglements or in cumberances as such be unlawfull as is here expressly asserted as being inconsistant with the nature and importance of the Ministers Spirituall function which requires the greatest abstractednes from all worldly things and the mans constant waiting upon and giving himself wholly unto the things of God Then surely whither he intangle himself by choice or not it is still ane intanglement and consequently sinful his acting deliberatly is butane agravation Againe since He maks ane intanglement Of choice to be a needles intanglement and consequently sinful He must needs acknowledge that such is the present prelatick medling which as is said He cannot deny to be most deliberat and of choice But nixt If He account our prelats State-actings unlawfull Then 1. Why doth He not interminis acknowledge so much and not lisp it half out 2. Why doth He alleadge something from Scripture precedents to prove it warrantable But Let us hear his Scripture arguments wherby He would prove this State acting lawfull His first Reason is That the jewish Sanhedrin made up of the Sevinty elders Moses assistants in Civill government did consist partly of priests where 1. Wee see He overstraines his point and overstretches himself in his pretended proofe for the These he undertaks to prove is That Church men may act in State matters though not of Choice and so that it be Sometimes only which he cannot but distinguish from a Constant official medling if he speak sense And to prove this He brings ane instance of priests under the old Testament-dispensation their being constituent members of a civil court Now how doe these quadrat Were not these priests to act deliberatly and of Choice If this prove any thing at all it will prove that Ministers as being such members may deliberatly and of choyce involve themselves in Civill affairs which this man holds to be discharged 2. Tim. 2. 4. And so this Reason because proving too much and beyond his assertion proves just nothing 2. As we cleared above the difference betuixt the Civil and Ecclesiastick Sanhedrin and that those Sevinty mentioned in the 11. Numbr who were chosen for the government of the Commonwealth are distinct from those mentioned Exod. 24. Who were Ecclesiastick and not Civil officers So it is more then this Informer hath offered proof of that there were priests in that Civil Court since as is said the Two Sanhedrins Civil and Ecclesiastick did consist of distinct members and there was not one Sanhedrin only as this man seems to suppose But 3. Though the concurrence of some preists in that Civill Court were granted
not to add new spirituall officers who must have a new work c. And the Bishops authority must either be comprehended among the rules anent these officers enumerat and the exercise of their power or he is anâ—… apocriphal officer and unlawfull Or he must say we may add new officers and offices and institutions in poynt of government to these contained in Scripture and so our divines argument against the pope from the Scriptures silence anent him in its enumeration of officers is naught 3. Christ exercising ane external visible kingdom over his Church visible and all Church officers and their administrations being in his name and authoritis as is above cleared every Church officers mission and warrand must be found in his word other wâ—…yes he runs unsent and cannot expect his blessing all that come be for him and anticipat his call are theeves and robbers 4. All Christs officers and their gifts are Christs royall and mediatorie donations to his Church and by him peculiarly set and authorized therein Ephes. 4. 〈◊〉 7 8. c 1. Cor. 12. 28. He as the great Master of the house gives all his Stewards their Keys their Orders Now how Christ the king and head of his Church his donation his commission his giving his Keyes Should be instructed other wayes then by his clear warrands and institutiones in his word and Testament I would gladly learne of this Informer Is there any officer of State any subordinat Magistrat allowed in a kingdome which hath not the clear warrand of the lawes Surely not and so the case is here Finallie The ground and reasone which he builds this shifting evasion upon viz. That many things are not otherwayes commanded then under some generall as that all things be done decently or to edification instancing in the moderator and Clerk of a meeting of Ministers is very poor For since the authority which God gave Paul was to edification all ordinances which have the most clear institution must be thus qualified and to this end that which is not Otherwayes commanded then under this generall must needs be the alterable circumstances only commone to Civill and Sacred actions and such as supposes the thing it self cloathed with these circumstances to be that which is to be done and by consequence falling Hactenus under the Compasse of a command or institution for it is these only which are left to the regulation of Christian prudence according to the generall rules of the word But as we have above cleared such ane eminent Church officer as the Bishop is supposed to be or any Church officer can be no such circumstance but is such a substantiall point of government as requires a clear and positive warrand or else must be holden unlawfull and this he must acknowledge or contradict himself for He dare not say but that Church officers are other wayes commanded then under this generall and himself alledges the prelats divine institution so He can be none of these things which hath only this generall warrand Besides I would know if He will say that this officer the prelat must be sett up and Act with decencie and order surely He will not deny this If then the prelat himself is but a peece of decentie and order as being only commanded under that notion and a species under that generall then he sayes that order and decencie must be managed cloathed with order and decencie which will be very hard to reconceale to sense or He must say that the prelat must act with disorder and confusion or to evit these rockes that the prelat must be warranted under another notion then that of a circumstance of meer order and so must have a particular warrand His instance of the Moderator and Clerk is very foolish the Clerk not being necessarly a Church officer and the Moderator no distinct Church officer from the rest of the members and so is utterly Impertinent to this pointe and question anent a Church officer distinct from and Superior to a presbiter whither he ought to have a particular Scripture warrand Besides that the same divine warrand that a judiciall procedor by disquisition votes and suffrage hath and is exemplified in that Synod Act. 15. this being the necessary frame of judicatories as such and consequently of all Church judicatories the moderator hath the same foundation of his office but He will never let us see a shaddow of this for the prelat Now to shew what good Harmonie this Informer keeps in this point with some chieff men of his way others also let us hear what they hold Institutum Apostolorum de regimine Ecclesiastico ea gubernationis ratio quae aetate Apostolorum fuit c. The Apostles appointment as to Church government and that way and method of government which was in their time is perpetuall and can no more be changed then the priesthood of Aaron could saith Saravia con tra bezam Whitaker controv 4. Quest 1. Cap. 9. Tells us That the Church must not be governed-vt humano ingenio arriserit as pleases mens fancie sed ut Christo Ecclesiae domino so lique principi placet But as it pleases Christ her only head and Lord. Hence he concludes that the forms which He hath institut must be held fast as the best Matth. Sutliv de Pontif Roman lib. 1 Cap. 1. Answering Bellarmins argument from Civil to Ecclesiastick Monarchie tells him that-sicut unus Ecclesiae summus princeps c As thereis one chieff Prince of the Church so there is one true essential forme therof differing from the various moulds of commone wealthes that as she hath but one head so but one frame of policie which those who resyle from Christi leges transgrediuntur-they transgress the lawes of Christ and blotts her true government Field of the Church lib 5. Cap 45. Argues thus against the popes temporal power that among men non hath power of chaingeing any thing but he alone to whom in an eminent degree it belongs and from whom it is originally derived but to govern the Church as such is not eminently in the Magistrat It is a Bad omen cespitare in limine our informer we see in his first answer to his doupter is so anhappie as therin to justle with soom chieff champions of his cause CHAP. IX The Informer undertakes to answer the Arguments of Presbyterians against Episcopacy His answers to our Argumets from Matth. 20 25 26. and Petr. 5 3. Examined at large The genuine strength and nerves of our reasoning upon these Texts which he dare not medle with His answers found inconsistent with themselves the same with Papists answers for the papacie and contrare to the sense of sound divines THe doubter in the nixt place alleages Prelacy to the forbidden and therefore unlawful bringing for proof Matth. 20 25 26 27 28. And the Argument from this text he makes his poor doubter slenderly and curtly to represent thus That Christ forbids any of his
disciples to he greater then another This passage with its parallel Luk. 22 25. Is much scanned betwixt the Papists and us in relation to the popes Dominion and as it striks clearly against Prelacy so Papists and Prelats doe as clearly joyne issue in their answers In both passages it is apparent that upon occasion of a sinfull and ambitious emulation à mong the Disciples which of them should be greatest our Lord did sharpely reprehend them dischargeing them expresly the Lordly grandour of Earthly Rulers or Princes and to exercise Lordsnipe or Dominion over one another commending instead thereof and in opposition thereto a humble Ministerial service and spiritual diligence in their spiritual stewardship or Ministery pressing both from his own exemplary humility in his converse with them Now our Argument against Prelacy is very strong from this text and hath these Nerves 1. The Lord most expresly discharges Superiority and inferiority among officers of the same kinde Non are greater then another in their office no Apostle above another but a compleat parity in their official power is here holden out ergo by necessary consequence he commands a parity among Pastoures and discharges superior and inferior degrees among them 2. Whatever priority of order among officers of different kindes be allowed yet he discharges Dominion or principalitie in any of them all masterly power such as is allowed in civil Government there being but one Master or Lord over the Church and all Ministers being Brethren This is clear in that he mentions the civil Lordshipe of Rulers who are called benefactors in exemplyfiing what he discharges them and likewayes in opposition therunto commends a humble Ministerial service not a sort of warrantable Dominion as that parallel 1 Pet. 5 3. Makes it evident So that he gives two deadly blowes here to the Diocesian Lord Prelat 1. In that he makes himself a higher order and degree of the Pastorall office whereas the Lord discharges this among officers of the same kinde 2. In Lording it over his brethren other Pastoures both in a pretended spiritual capacitie arrogating to himself a sole power in ordination and jurisdiction and a masterly power and principality over Church judicatories as is cleared above and likewayes in his assumeing the Earthly Lordship place and grandoure of civil Magistrates which is here expresly discharged This being premised let us hear what this new Advocat sayes to this Text. 1. He tels us that It is a great mistake to think that all superiority among Church men is here forbidden which he fortifies 1. With this Reason that the twelve though equall among themselves yet were superior to the seventy Disciples who were also sent to preach this He proves because Matthias who was chosen to succeed Judas in the Apostleship was one of them Ans. 1. It is here convincingly apparent that this man shiftes but dare not grapple with this Scripture and the argument drawn from it while he shuffles in this glosse and mistake which is his own not oures viz that all superioritie is here discharged among Church men as our inference or medium ágainst prelacie from this text as is evident from what is said We grant with all sound divines that among Church men or Church officers there are superior and inferior degrees First Apostles secondarly Prophets c. But we say that hereby superiority among these of the same degree is forbidden and likwayes principalitie and lordship in any of them of whatever order or degree over another So that we are not concerned to enquire whither the Apostles were Superior to the seventy Disciples or whither they were sent to preach and not rather as some doe judge intrusted with a transient mission to prepare our Lords access to those places whither he was to come with out any formall Ministeral mission above ordinarie Disciples Only I must say his proofe of this Superiority of the Twelve above the Seventie is very odd viz. Matthias was chosen ane Apostle though one of the Sevintie Now to give Scripture light and proofe of this topick both branches of this assertion must be proved from Scripture not only that Matthias was chosen in Judas roome but also and mainely that he was one of the Seventie wherof the Scripture is utterly silent and instead of Scripture proof of this wee must take Clemens and Dorotheus their Said so which maks up a heterogenious proofe like the feet and toes made of iron and clay 2. He tells us That ambition and not inequality is here discharged This ane old shift of Bellarm and the Papists we say that both ambition the root and principle of this desire and the thing it self which was the object of this ambitious desire viz. Dominion Principality and Lordship one over another is here forbidden Subordinata non pugnant 't is strang sottishnes in this man to imagin that ambition the inward principle of this unlawful primacie or inequalitie should be forbidden onely and not the inequalitie or primacie it self the outward act and accomplishment of this ambition Bellarm answer to our divines argument against the popes Supremacie from the text is that dominion is no here discharged but rather supposed and that it is only such ane ambitious lust of overruling as is among the Kings of the Gentiles that is forbidden Whittaker de Pontif Cap 1. Answers him that this dominion it self not the ambitious affectation only is discharged Bernard writing to Eugenius expounding this passage that of 1. Pet. 5. Understands them both as striking against dominion and enjoyning a Ministeriall care in opposition therunto Dominion saith hee is discharged and Ministery is enjoyned So at length he concludes after severall things to this purpose Thus Bernard clearly teaches saith Whittak de Pontif Quest 1. that humilitie is not required in dominion as our Informer distinguishes with Bellarm but dominion it self is discharged But Bellarmin admitts to play the Lords if they be modest and humble in their dominion Christus de re ipsa c. saith Iunius de pontif lib 1. Christ said of the thing it self they exercise dominion but he spake not of the maner they exercise dominion after this or that maner they exercise dominion saith he but not so yee that is yee shall not exercise dominion it is a plaine denyal of the thing proposed So we see his shift here as to prelacie is the same with that of the Papists in defending the papacie But his Reason of this his glosse must be considered viz. Because otherwayes our Lords argument taken from his own example v. 28. Would not suite his purpose since he was in power and authoritie above the Twelve Ans. Not to stay here to tell him that this defence and gloss will equally serve the popes turne and bear the blow of this text off his head in Correspondance with Bellarmins Notion above touched Our Lords scope in proposeing his own example is to antidot their inward pride the root of their desire of
this dominion and powerfully to commend to them humility and low lines as the most excellent remedy therof And his argument runns a fortiori thus If I your Lord and Master be as on that serves and am such a pattern of selfdenial and humility among you much more ought you to studie humility and to guard against all usurped authority and dominion over on another who are fellow Disciples and servants So he reasoned Joh 13. If I your Lord master have washed your feet you viz much more as being equalls ought also to wash one anothers feet so that which he imagines doth mak Christs argument not sute well maksit the more forcible suite the better 2. He here contradicts himself while making the argument from Christs example v. 28. to suite the discharge of ambition only not of inequality the terms in which he impertinently states the difference and opposition as to what is discharged and not discharged for he grants there was to be no inequalitie among the Apostles and when he thus limites his general answer that all supeiroritie among Church men is not here discharged he grants that some superioritie viz among the Apostles themselves was discharged and consequently discharged upon this motive Christs own example How then I pray will he make this argument from Christs example who was in dominion and principality above the Twelve and their and all the Churches monarch and head suite his purpose of discharging Inequality Superioritie or primacie among the Apostles His reason he explaines thus further that taking Christ onely to speak against ambition or a sinful desire of superoritie which was Diotrephes fault the reason from his own example suites well who though above all yet was a pattern to all in humility Ans. 1. Wee have heard that Christs argument suites best in the sense we have propounded which is the sense of all sound divines 2. If it was only a sinful desire of a superioritie in it self lawful such as he sayes Diotrephes had how rationally we shall after see which our Lord dehorted from by his own example then all our divines have mist the marke in pleading from this text against the object of this desire not the sinful maner of desiring only and the Papists gloss holds good against them viz that Christs example will plead only against ambition 3. Our Informer yet againe falleth here into a twosold contradiction 1. He makes the Superiority the object of this ambitious desire to be in it self lawful and their fault only to lie in the ambitious or sinful desire yet in answer to the nixt obiection he grants that Christ discharged dominium civile despoticum Now he must either say that this was the object of their desire consequently that it was sinful in the object or else that our Lords discourse and exhortation was not to the purpose Againe this domineum civile despoticum is more then a meer superioritie But 2. the superioritie here discharged was among the Apostles themselves this was the object of their desire the ambitions question and debate was which of them should be greatest and highest above all the rest Now he grants that there was to be no superioritie far less principality among them How then can he say that Christ discharged only ane ambitious affectation of a superioritie in it self lawful such as Diotrephes had whom we will find him after assert to have endeavoured to put himself into a lawful pre-existent office Surely if there was to be no inequality among them their desire of inequality was most sinful in the object upon that very ground Againe he grants that Christ speaks to the Twelve and likwayes cannot deny but clearly insinuates a concession with the text that the Apostles were striveing about inequality which he acknowledges was unlawful in them yet in the second answer he will not have this discharged which how inconsistent it is let any judge Beside since Christ spoke this to the twelve among whom there was to be no inequality in respect of power as he sayes consequently discharged this since he is rebuking them for striving about a primacy the highest degree of inequality in respect of power how absurd nonsensical is his 2d answer which denies that Christ discharged inequality could Christ discharge them an inequality of the highest pitch and yet not discharge inequality Or could all inequality in respect of power be unlawful among them and yet not be discharged when our Lord discharged a primacy of power he will prove a strang critick if he distinguish these He tells us lastly here that humility imparity can well consist But can humility a forbidden imparity consist can humility in a Churchman Dominium civile and despoticum consist Both which he acknowledges were discharged to the Apostles here So he insinuats that their desired imparity was still lawful in it self since it may be possessed even humbly thus heaps up inconsistencies He objects to himself That Christ in denying to them the Dominion of the Princes of the gentiles discharged all superiority among Church men To which he answers That he onely discharges Dominium civile despoticum a princely Lordly power such as they exercise but the power of the Church is of another nature Ans. 1. Not to meedle with his makeing Dominium civile and despoticum adequat termes there being a Dominium politicum ordinately contradistinguished from despoticum which is also a Dominium civile He grants here that it was more then a simple desire of a lawful superiority which the Apostles were tainted with forgeting what he said immediatly before Nixt if Christ discharged this civil Lordly power to Churchmen he discharged them to be Parliaments Lords and to hold civil state offices contrare to what he pleades from the instances of the Priests Numb II. and from Eli Samuel and so he must grant the new Testament Church and its dispensation to be in this different from the old since he acknowledges that Church power was here allowed the Apostles and their successors and civill power discharged Thus our Informer must grant that Christ did here rid marches betwixt these things which he before confounded and their Erastian Prelacy confounds Again this is the very shift of Bellarmin to save the popes supremacie The Lord saith he In forbidding them to rule as the Princes of the Gentiles signified they were to rule but not after that manner viz. Ecclesiastically So he thinks it touches not the popes Ecclesiastick supremacy and the Informer in this stryks hands with him For if our Lord discharged only here that kind of Dominion as he sayes But allowed a Church power or dominion of another nature surely for anything that is here discharged ane Ecclesiastick pop or patriarch his mytrestands sure and is never touched by any prohibition which the Disciples here got against the sense and pleading of all Protestants Moreover will this Informer adventur to say that the popes
and likewayes in the very manner of these designations and their circumstances when atribut to such inferiour officers doth state the distinction betwixt them and ane Apostle in his proper acception clearly holding out that they had neither name nor thing of the apostolick office properly so called but that Ministers are so improperly only called Bishops He will never prove But now what is his last shift It maybe saith he their were no Bishops settled as yet at Philippie so it may very well be But our Informer here supposes two things in Question which he will prove ad calendas graecas 1. That their were Bishops superiour in office degree to Presbyters appointedby the Apostles The first and second Answer tells us of Bishops he means diocesian Bishops either with Paul when he wrot to Philippi Or come from their diocesses forsooth and present accidentally there And haveing told us that the diocesian Bishops were among the rest of the Presbyters Bishops in his third answer His last shift is that they were not it may be yet sett up at Philippy But remark that as all these proteus like shifts and answers contradicts one another So they all lean upon this Egyptian reed that the Diocesian Bishop is ane officer divinely appointed and then existant Now how impertinent dealing this is let any judge We prove from this and many such like texts that the scripture Bishop is a meer presbyter they in all there answers doe coyne glosses of these Texts which doe suppose the Jus existence of the diocesian prelat which is the very quaesitum the thing in Question 2. He supposes that the Bishop over presbyters the Chimaera of his own braine though he was not settled at this tyme yet was to be Settled afterward at Philippi But how proves he that the Apostle was to setle after ward such a prelat there This is another of their shifts that the Apostles first sett up prebyters keeping still the government of the Churches in their oun hand till at last towards their end they sett up prelats committing the government to them But how doth he or they prove this after-institution of the diocesian Bishop we have already abundantly evinced the Contrary both that the presbyters were the highest ordinary officers established by the Apostles that without any such fancied reserve as this is the wholl power both of order jurisdiction was committed to them exercised by them supposed by the Apostles to continow so in their last farewelles to the Churches and therfor may conclude that the Bishops of Philippi were meer presbyters and that Paul acknowledged knew no other Arnold in his Lux in Tinebr on Act. 20. 17. He called the elders c. represents the Orthodox opinion thus Episcopos Presbyteros c. That Bishops and Presbyters are not names of diverse gifts in the Church but of one and the same office because they who are here called Presbyters verse 28. are called Bishops The Papists object saith he as this Informer that in these times the names were common but yet the office of Bishops and Presbyters diverse he answers 1. This is to affirme not to prove 2. When offices are distinct there also the names are diverse 3. there was one office both of Bishops and Presbyters viz. the office of teaching 4. Upon the Papists supposition there can and ought to be only one Bishop in one city but so it is that there were here many therefore Bishops signifie Presbyters Thus Arnold classes our Informer among the Papists in this point and represents our principles as the Orthodox principles of the Protestant Churches and so in several other passages as we may after shew Chamier de Oecum Pontif lib. 10. cap. 3. Haveing represented the Papists glosses upon Matth. 20 -25 the Kings of the Gentils c. the same with our Informers viz. That our Lord discharged only that sort of Tyrannical Domination haveing answered and confuted them as we heard Iunius and Whittaker did before and haveing prefixed to the 7. chap. this cirle An jure divino c. Whether the Bishop be greater than the Presbyter by divine right he represents the affirmative answer as Bellarmins together with his arguments and confuts them and haveing proved Presbyters power in ordination from their imposeing of hands upon Timothy he afterward confuts the Papists this Informers pretences for Prelacy from the Government of the jewish Church the Apostles Superiority to the seventy disciples and adducing Bellarmin's argument from this passage act 20 28. to prove that the Holy Ghost sett up Bishops he answers thus locus exactis alienus est c. that place of the acts is impertinently cited for from thence it is evident that Bishops and Presbyters are the same Witnes Ierom. and others for they whom Luke before called elders or Presbyters of the Church those Paul afterward affirmes to have been made Bishops by the Spirit and indeed for feeding and as the latine Interpreter for governing the Church So we see Chamier classeth also our Informer among the Papists in those his prelatick principles and glosses upon those Scriptures Calvin upon Tit. 1 7. Collects the identity of Bishop and Presbyter from the Apostle's calling them Bishops who were before called Presbyters and as we heard above reprehends upon this ground the distinction placed betwixt them as profane and anti-scriptural The same he inferrs upon Act. 20. where the Presbyters of Ephesus are called Bishops makeing our Informer's great topick anent the calling of such Ministers Bishops qui primas tenebant in singulis civitatibus or had a precedency in every city a corruption and sin of those times The Dutch annot on Act. 20 28. observe that those termed Bishops in this verse being called elders in the 17. verse it doth then appear that in the Holy Scripture there is no difference made betwixt elders and Bishops referring us to Phil. 1. 1. verse upon whch passage they assert the same thing and especially from the plurality of such Bishops in one and the same Church conclude this referring us to 1 Tim. 3. 1. verse and Tit. 1 chap. 5 7 v. upon which places they obserue that by Bishops and Elders one kinde of Ministry is signified viz. the labourers in the word and doctrine citeing 1 Tim. 5 17. 2 Pet. 5 1 2. and from the Apostles description of the Bishop in the 1 Tim. 3. they conclude that by Bishop we are to understand all teachers of the Church without difference referring again to the forementioned places The english annot expresse the same sense of these places under debate and upon Acts 11. 30 v. adduce both fathers and councells to prove this point The Nixt Scripture argument which the Doubter bings against prelacie and the Last too is taken from Ephes. 4. 11. where the Apostle reckons up Church officers makes no mention of Bishops Our argument from the Scripture enumeration of Church officers here and
and himself also THE Doubter over come by this Informers mighty Answers forsooth Confesseth Episcopacie not to be unlawful and only pleads that it may become inexpedient and a better put in its place Whereupon he promises That if we will not stand out against light he will let us see warrand in the word for Bishops and so he may easily doe But the Bishop he must let us see the warrand for is the Diocesian Erastian Bishop haveing sole power in ordination and jurisdiction bound to preach to no flock and deriving all his power from the civil Magistrat Now when he hath given us Scripture warrand for such ane ordinary Church-officer as is of this mould under the new Testament erit mihi magnus Apollo Wee see he still walks in darknes as to the State of the Question and dare not exhibit to us the mould of the present Bishop now existent when he offers to produce Scripture warrands for him His 1. Warrand is that under the old Testament setting aside the hie Priest who was a Typ of Christ there was a subordination among the rest of the Priests mention being made of chief Priests 2 King 19 2. Ezr 8 29. c. Matth. 2 3. Act. 19 14. And over these againe a chief priest under the hiest preist who only was Typical since two hie priests are sometimes mentioned Luc. 3 2 So there was a subordination among the Levites Exod. 6 2. Numb 3 18 19. with 24. 30. v. Neh. 11 22. One is set over the Levites called by the Greek Episcopus and another over the Priests v 14. From all which places he concluds That subordination among Churchmen is no such odious thing as some believe Ansr. 〈◊〉 If this be all the Conclusion which this man drawes out against us from the premised trite argument of Bellarmin and others viz. that there is a subordination among Church men It will never help him nor wound our cause in the least for as we grant without the least preiudice thereunto that there is a subordination both of Courts and Church-officers under the new Testament Pastours being above ruleing elders and they aboue Deacons Presbyteries also being above Kirk Sessions Synods above Presbyteries National assemblies above Synods as the jewes had there Supreme Sanhedrin Exod. 24. 2 Chron 19. And also betwixt the Sanhedrin and Synagogue a middle Ecclesiastick Court called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Preâ—…bytery Luk. 22 66. Act. 22. 5. and also their least Sinagogue-Iudicatorie wherein was both ruleing and censures Act. 26 11. Compared with Act. 9 1 2. And with Mark 5 35 36. Act. 18 8. Answerable to our Kirk Sessions which is largely demonstrat by Mr Gillespie Aar rod. lib. 1. Cap. 3. pag. 8. to 38. As this I say is clear so it is evident that it is much more then a meer subordination of Courts or officers which he most prove if he will conclude any thing to purpose against us viz The Prelats sole decisive power and negative voice in judicatories and their deryvation of all their authority from the Magistrat as his deputs in their administration Now from the subordination of Courts or officers mentioned under the old dispensation to conclude the lawfulness of a Prelat a pretended Minister of the new Testament his taking from other Ministers all the power of Government contrary to our Lords express command his laying aside the preaching Talent and giving up all the ecclesiastick authority which he pretendes unto to one who is not Qua talis so much as a Church member is a wide and wilde conclusion yet that this is the conclusion which he must infer to prove his point is beyond all Question 2. Giveing not granting to him that there was under the old dispensation such a Hierarchy as he pleades for and such a difference of degrees among Church officers as he represents how will he prove this consequence that the Government of the Church under the New Testament must be thus moulded and have the same degrees of Ministers as the Jewes had of Priests and Levits this Connexion he supposes here and offers afterward some smatterings in proof thereof but with what success we shall see with in a little Will he say that it is lawful to bring into the christian Church every point of the jewish policy Bilson ane English Bishop even in pleading for Prelacie will give him the lie if he say so and shew him the disparitie betwixt their Church government and oures Perp Gov. Chap. 2. for the tribe of Levi saith he was neither subjected to the Government of another tribe nor without manifest confusion could it want all Government wherefore as all the rest so this tribe also had its proper Magistrats to wit it s Pinces Elders judges c. He adds that the Jewes Law contained in the books of Moses comprehended the mould of their civill Government and the Priests and Levits being most skilful in this knowledge we need not wonder that they were placed in the same benches with the judges this we offer to our Informers observation to snew how this Bishop Pulles his care in argueing from the Priests sitting in civill courts numb 11 To Justifie our Prelats civill rule but now to our purpose in relation to Church government he adds further that the offices of the Sanctuarie and rites and ceremonies of the Sacrifices from which all the other tribes except the Levites were restrained were not of one kinde So that it needs be no wonder that these degrees of the administrators were distinguished according to the diversitie of offices and services But in the Church of Christ the Word and Sacraments concredited to all Ministers without distinction as they are of one kinde neither admitts any difference of administration or celebration so neither doe they require different degrees of Ministers Thus he Sure had our Informer listened unto this information of this Father of the Church as he speaks he would have spared this Argument as not worth the repeating The Ministry of the Levites who served in the sojourneing Tabernacle is compared to warrfare Numb 4. Because of the Militarie order which the Priests and Levits observed in their externall Ministry Where there was one common Temple a common Ministry of the priesthood a thousand administrators in every family the twenty four families who served each their week in the Temple being called courses by Luke stationes by the Talmudists the term being borrowed from warrfare as Scaliger observes in Canonibus isagogicis it is no strange thing if in this Ministry and Priesthood their were such degrees of administrators but the Prieststood being changed there is made of necessity a change of the law saith the Apostle Hebr. 7 12. And the policie suitable to the state of that Church must by necessary consequence be changed also 3. The antecedent of the Argument from that policie will be a harder taske then he imagines and this Informer would be quite out if put to draw
to confirme Instruct and Comfort other Churches as Philippi Troas So Paul writes to him 2 Tim. 4. 12. that Tychicus was for this same end sent to Ephesus and that he wrote the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians from Rome whom the Apostle chap. 6. 21. v. of the Epistle directed to that church sent to them as a faith full Minister who therefore lookes liker their Bishop then Timothie That the same is supposable of Titus is also apparent both in that he is called as Timothy not Bishop but Pauls fellow helper and that concerning the Corinthians not the Cretians and likewayes in that he is imployed to the church in corinth after he was left by Paul at crete as his fellow helper in that church 2. Cor. 2. 13. and was fixed to no one place of residence That being charged to come to Paul at Nicopolis his stay is found very short at Crete so that after half a years residence there he was sent to Corinth and Dalmatia c. But the Doubter acknowledging Timothy and Titus their power over Ministers at Ephesus and crete since they are taught how to ordaine them what qualifications are requisite how to proceed in their tryalls and censures alledges that this they had as evangelists companiones to the Apostles in their laboures and as appointed to settle and water these Churches which they had planted In what respect these things are attribute to these Church officers will be after examined when we shall consider how our informer pleads for their episcopall power upon these grounds But to this exception of the Doubter he answers That this supposes them to be extraordinarie officers whose office was not to continue in the Church And the Doubter affirmeing this Because Timothy is called ane Evangelist 2. Tim. 4. 5. and that therefore he could not be a Bishop To this our Informer Rejoynes That in a large sense he was ane Evangelist or a preacher of the gospell but that he was ane Evangelist in astrict sense can no mor be proved from that scripture then that he was a deacon Because the Apostle in that same place sayes fulfill thy deaconship as the Greek signifies Or that Philip was ane extraordinary evangelist because he is called ane evangelist Act. 2. 8. for he was a deacon Act. 6. and Act. 8. 5. did preach the gospell but was not therefore one of these extraordinary evangelists whose office was to cease in the Church And Finallie He tells us that ordination and jurisdiction is properly no worke of ane Evangelist but rather preaching and spreading the gospell Ans. 1. This man casts up but a mist of Insignificant words in this distinction whereby he endeavoures to elude so clear a scripture Timothies Evangelistick office wee see is a gripping argument which our Informer would faine Elude but with what success shall presently appear He grantes he was ane Evangelist in a large sense or a preacher but not in the strict sense but what that strict sense is in which he denyes Timothy to be ane Evangelist he doth not clear and so his strict sense is left without sense and his distinction must flie with one wing He knew that his assigneing ane explication of his strict sense would have so palpably included Timothy that his evasion would be presently shut up therefore he left the other branch of his distinction a meer mute under the clouds and gives us a distinction which stands upon one leg 2. If he will take Eusebius sense Hist. lib. 3. cap. 33. oâ—… 37. with some he will tell him that this title is taken but two wayes either for such as wrote the Gospel in which sence we grant that none of them were Evangelists or such as taught the Gospel and these againe were either such as had ordinary places or gifts or whose plaees and giftes were extraordinary that is who were not settled upon any one charge but were Apostolorum vice having a vicarius care of all the Churches as the Apostles had the principal care The Evangelists as Ambrose phrases it did Evangelizar sine Cathedra or preached without a fixed charge Here by the way I cannot but admire the inconsistant subtilty may I call it so of Saravia de divers grand minist cap. 6. who in answer to Beza pleading that the appellation of Evangelist is given not to every on who preached but to the Apostles temporary coadjutors in watring the Churches not yet fully constitut c. tells him that Apostolus nunquam Timotheum Euangelistae nomine compellat That the Apostle no where puts the Title of Evangelist upon Timothy and that this title was given to none but Philip. Yet immediatly addes-Evangelistae nomen non nego Timotheo quem Paulus Evangelistae â—…pus sacere jubet I deny not the name of Evangelist to Timothy whom the Apostle bides do the work of ane Evangelist If he deny not this name to him and the thing therein imported how can he quanel the Apostles not putting this title upon him or deny him the title and the peculiar office therein imported Calvin takes the word hereto Import that special extraordinary office mentioned Ephes. 4. Now that Timothy was such ane Evangelist is already fully proved and by consequence that the objection stands untouched and unanswered by him viz. That he was ane unfixed extraordinarie officer and not to continue and therefore any authority which he is supposed to have over this Church layes no foundation of Prelacie For he sayes nothing to this consequence but admitts it upon the supposition that Timothy was ane Evangelist in a strict sense and ane extraordinary officer Cartwright answering the Rhemises upon this place takes it in the strict sense mentioned telling the Jesuites that Paules calling Timothy once ane Evangelist hath more pith in it then all denominations of Pishop that others can give him 3. The Informers reason of denying the special office of Evangelist to be here imported viz That he might be as well called a Deacon as being enjoyned to fulfull his Miuistery or Deaconship in the Greek is very poor For 1. It being clear that the Scripture holdes out such ane office as that of Evangelist specifically distinct fromother offices Ephes. 4. as this man acknowledges and it being equally certain that this or any other office and relation hath a work and dutie proper andpeculiar therunto and likewayes that the office layes ane obligation upon the person who carryes it to perform the duties thereof And Finallie Jt being evidently the Apostles Scope from the consideration of the office to exhort to the duties suitable thereunto its destrable by its own light that Timothy is here stirred up to the duties of that peculiar station office which we have proved he sustained thereforit cannot be understood of a general Ministery or service Will any doubt what the sense of such phrases is do thework of a parent do the work of a Master do the work of a Pastour
who knowes what the office and relation of a parent master and Minister is and that this phrase importes this precept enjoynes the duties proper to such relations and offices So the case is here which none will doubt of but this Informer who starts needles doubts when he cannot answer his presbyterian Doubter 2. The Deacons office haveing in Scripture its limites drawn the circumstances of the place where the word Diaconia stands discovers when we are to take it in a generall sense and when this inferiour officer is pointed out So it were absurd when Archippus is bidden fullfill his Ministery or when the Apostle calls himself a Minister to imagine that the proper formall office of Deacon is ascribed to the one or the other But the service there meaned is ane Apostolicall and Pastorall service not the service of Tables Now fulfill or make full proofe of thy Ministery as our Translatores doe weill render it giveing the deacon a peculiar Inglish terme according to the greek sound of the word to avoide confusion is exigeticall the Ministery he is to fulfill is his Evangelistick Ministery the latter expounds the former so that in the very phrase it self the evangelistick office is asserted and the deaconship denyed The phrafe of Evangelist especially the workof ane Evangelist determins his peculiar office there being no other Evangelists in the scripture sense but either those that wrote or published the gospell in that extraordinary way and Timothy being clearly one of such it must needs import the Evangelist in a peculiar sense and is distinct from the generall phrase of Ministery in the latter branch of the words which stands limited and restricted by the first part as Isaid Again since he includes in the generall terme Episeopus his diocesian Bishop as distinct from a presbyter in philip 1. and Act. 20. Wee may with farr better evidence take in the peculiar evangelist here the office properly taken being both a scripture office and likewayes so clearly applicable to the person to whom this precept is given non of which he can say in his case Moreover I wonder whither he would admitt this his gloss if this phrase were directed to a Pastour as it is here to Timothy doe the worke of a Pastour make full proofe of thy Ministery would he think this a good argument or reason to deny him to be a Pastour because the latter branch of the sentence expresses a deaconship Sure he would not or had the Apostie expressed the first branch of the precept thus doe the worke of a â—…ishop would he have taken this answer from us that Timothy might be as well proved a deacon from that place Sure he would here tel us that thâ—… fiâ—… râ—…trictive phrase determines the subsequent generall one and that different offices may well share in generall names 3. The phrase of doeing the worke of ane Evangelist if we compare scripture with it self will appear upon Two grounds to import a peculiar Evangelist 1. Such a sense must needs be admitted in paralleel phrases where the Syntax and construction is like â—…o this As the signes of ane Apostle 2 Cor. 12 12. commands of Apostles 2 Pet. 3 2 foundation of Apostles Ephes 2 20. who will deny but that the word Apostle is here peculiarly designeing the office why not also the workeof aneEvangelist especially it being his scope to stirr up Timothy to diligence from the consideration of the office and others to the greater reverence of him 2 The terme of Evangilist occuring only thrice in the new Testament viz Act. 21. 8 Ephes 4. 11. and in this place under debate since the first Two places doe â—…yond all question speak oâ—… the Evangelist in a strict and proper sense hâ—… I pray why doth it change its signification here Extraordinary functions communicats with inferiour offices in the general names as when the Apostles are called pres byters in a general designatione but extraordinary names are not made use of to point at ordinary functions at least when the office is so distinctly pointed at as in this place 4. He stumbleth yet againe here into a materiall contradiction whil telling us That Timothy was ane evangelist in a large sense that is One who proached the Gospel which he contradistinguishes from ane Evangelist in a strict sense denying Timothy to be such and that strictly termed Evangelist had it for his work to preach and spread the Gospell as he seems to insinuat in the close of his answer if at least he mean it of his strictly called evangelist for his way of expressing it is very indistinct But however he will not say that Timothy was no otherwayes ane Evangelist then in the sense wherein any ordinary Minister is such And if he understand him to be ane Evangelist as haveing a more large unfixed or universal office of preaching the gospel with extraordinary gifts and as coajutor of the Apostles as Hooker himself together with Eusebius do take it as being thus contradistinct from writers of the Gospel how comes he onely to acknowleâ—… hâ—… ane Evangelist in a general sense as a preacher of the Gospel simply I would know what this Informer calls ane Evangelist in a strict sense sure he will not say that it is meerly preaching the Gospel which makes up this office for that he makes the large sense is it preaching and spreading the gospell with extraordinary gifts ad unfixedly as he seems to insinuat by making this the proper worke of ane Evangelist then surely he will not deny but this was Timothy's worke and so he must be ane Evangelist in the strict sense against what he first asserts He acknowledges the ordinary Evangelists or preachers were to preach and spread the Gospell within their Sphere and so the strict Evangelist must be distinguished from them by unfixed preaching and spreading the Gospell which besides what is mentioned will bring a new inconvenienc upon our Informer and dash him against his principle of fixing Timothy Bishop of Ephesus Yet againe though Philip preached the Gospell upon the dispersion and spread it unfixedly yet he denyes him to be one of these extraordinary Evangelists whose office was to cease So that he doth as to this distinguish preaching and spreading the Gospell from the proper worke and characteristick of the Evangelist strictly taken Thus it is hard to know what he calls ane Evangelist or how he understands it For neither will he admitt power in ordination and jurisdiction to be ane ingredient in this office and thus it is neither fixed nor unfixed preaching or government either that with him will make up this office properly taken if we consider the whole structure of his reasoning 5. As for what he sayes of philip That it will not follow he was ane extraordinary Evangelist though termed ane Evangelist since he was a Deacon I answer that Philip was not ane Evangelist properly so called is by him poorly and
the deacons Phil 1. were meer Presbyters he is forced to acknowledge and so condemnes our Informers shifts about Extraneus Bishops accidently there or with the Apostle himself or that the Diocesian is included in the word Bishop in epistola ad Philippenses salutem dicit Episcopis diaconis unde quemadmodum intelligitur Philippensium ecclesiam habuisse Presbyteros diacâ—…nos c. de Grad Cap 8. In the Epistle to the Philippians Paul salutes the Bishops and deacones hence as we are given to understand that the Church of the Philippians had Presbyters and Deacons c. Again the Informer layes aside the Highpreist as a type of Christ when he pleads for prelacie from the Jewish Church-government But in this Saravia gives him the lie for t He holds the inferiour priests to have been in there administration types of Christ as well as the high priest And 2. That the Government whether of the inferiour or high priests is not abolished as typical de honor praes prysb deb cap 10 de Divers grad Miniser cap 14. Besides the Informer holds that that place 2 Tim. 2 4. Commandes Churchmen to be as Abstract as possible from publik civil imployments and not intangle themselves therein But Saravia adstricts the affairs of this life spoken of in that Scripture unto the endeavours which belonges to the nourishment and mantainance of this life and holds that it doth not at all speak of nor discharge Churchmens holding of publick state imployments under Princes He minces not the matter as this man Vitae negotia saith he sunt ea quibus quae ad hujus vitae victum pertinent comparantur non quae sunt principis aut civitatis publica And de â—…on praesul Presbit deb he praefixes this title unto Cap 26. As that which he undertakes to prove Idem Homo tanquam episcopus curam ecclesiae Domino Iesu fidem ac obsequium regi tanquam ipsius beneficiarius reddere potest That the same man may perform his duety to Christ as a Bishop and attend the Church and also render faith and obedience to the King as his vassal c. The doubter nixt excepts to better purpose That they could not be Bishops because they were not settled at these places especially Timothy had he been Bishop at Ephesus he had been fixed to his charge but he was left only there upon occasional imployment and for a season 1 Tim. 1 3. To this he answers 1. That they were rare and singular persons usefull for the Apostle at that time and therefore it is no wonder that they were called from their particular charge when the Churches good required it Philip. 2 19 20 2 Cor. 8 23. As with us a Minister may be called from his charge for a season when the good of the Church else where requires it To which I rejoyne 1. This answer supposes the thing in Question viz That Timothie and Titus were once fixed as Bishops in these Churches But the ground of the exception is That because their occasionall transient Imployment in these places is so clear expresse therefor they were never fixed to these Churches as their particular charge but had it for their charge to water all the Churches which the Apostles planted and attend their planetarie motion from Church to Church So that they cannot be in their worke and duty paralleled to a Pastours transient Imployment from his particular charge for the Churches greater good whose fixed charge is supposed But we have proved that Timothie and Titus their ordinarie Imployment was this transient and unfixed Ministery which is clearly holden out in scriptur both befor and after their officiating in these Churches 2 It is also cleared above that as the scripture is utterly silent of their return to these Churches againe after Pauls recaling them from the same and after their transient Imployment therein So we have made it likewayes appear that they did officiat thereafter in many other Churches performing to them the same duties of Evangelists as in Ephesus and crete And that in Ephesus elders were called Bishops and had the whole Episcopal charge before Timothie committed to them in paules last farewell In a word it can never be made good that any who were fixed to particular charges did so travell up and down as these Evangilists are proved to have done Againe he tâ—…lls us That Gerard thinks they were first Evangelists then made Bishops by Paul at Ephesus and Crete Ans. If he think so too he must quite all his plea for their Episcopacie from these Epistles for Paul calls Timothy to doe the worke of ane Evangelist here and Titus worke was the same And he must understand this in the strict sense if he offet Gerards exception to any purpose which according to him secludes power in ordination and jurisdiction So that a worke and office being enjoyned Timothy in this Epistle which hath nothing to doe with ordination and iurisdiction he was not yet made a Bishop and if not yet it will be hard to find out his commission and patent afterward in scripture since he was in perpetual evangilistick Imployments and sure if Paul ever designed him Bishop over Ephesus he would not have called the elders of Ephesus Bishopes befor Timothy in his last farewell We heard Saravia plead that Paul intitles not Timothy an Evangelist non compellat nomine Evangelistae how did he not see that that Paul numquam compellat nomine episcopi never puts upon Timothy or Titus the title or name of a Bishope neither in the inscriptiones of the Epistles writen to them nor in any place of these Epistles or else where in scripture nor injoynes any of them to do the work of Bishop As he injoynes one of them expresly to do the work of ane Evangelist And since the Apostle disertis verbis in 〈◊〉 these elders of Ephesus Bishops and to use Saravia's phrase compellat nomine Episcoporum and that with the signal emphasis of being made Bishops by the Holy Ghost his reason from epiâ—…hets and compellations will the more strongely evinc them to be such 2. This is a great degrading of ane Evangelist and derogatorie to his high function to make him a Bishop The Councel of Chaldecon judges it sacrilegious to degrade a Bishop to a Presbyter such must he acknowledge this degrading to be and therefore that being once Evangelists of necessity they behoved to continue so Next the Doubter objects what we have been saying that Paul gave to the elders of Ephesus the Charge not to Timothy which he would not have done had he been Bishop since it is probable he was present at this time for v. 4. He was in Pauls companie Here he gingerly nibbles at this Argument least it prick him omitting these pregnant circumstances of the context 1. That this was Pauls last and farewell exhortation 2. That he not only gives these elders the Charge over that Church before Timothy and not
Miâ—…prin un Bish of Tim and Tit p. 34. The Doubter objects against Timothies Episc. That he was ordained by the layingon of the hands of the presbytery 1. Tim 4. 14. and therefore could not be a Bishop Since a Presbytery which is a company of Ministers cannot make a Bishop To this the Informer returns 1. That Calvin thinks that by presbytery is meaned the office I answer Suppose Calvin think so what will that say to the argument it self Againe Calvine upon the place doth not wholly dissoun the ordinary comment which takes the presbytery for a company of elders but thinks it may well sustean Presbiterium qui hio saith he Collectivum nomen esse putant pro collegio presbiterorum positum recte Sentiunt meo judicio Such as esteem the presbitery here to be a collective word put for the assembly of elders doe rightly judge in my judgement Besids that the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyterie especially as it stands here constructed cannot in any tollerable sense import the office for the office hath no hands to lay on 2 The Informer flies to his old shift of shâ—…uding the diocesian Bishops under the lapp of these presbyters which he tells us we need not think strange of since he hath shewed that the Apostles are called elders or presbyters Ans. Wee have already disproved what he alledges from the Apostles being called elders in agenerall sense here as befor he but begges the Question in supposing his imaginary different degrees of preaching presbyters or Pastours to be at this tyme existent which untill he make it appear from Scripture is as easily denyed by us as affirmed by him What a pitiful cause must that be which needs the support of such vaine shifts In phil 1. and Act. 20. Bishops diocesian Bishops must be set up among the presbyters So here they must be brought into this presbytery whereas the very Question is anent the being and existence of any such Bishops at all at this tyme. Next If hi-man were posed upon it why he maks the presbyters here to be of his imagined hiest class of diocesian Bishops and not also in all placâ—…s where they are mentioned as Dr. Hamon doth And how it comes that there were so many Bishops so early here befor Ephesus Crete and other Churches had even his inferiour elders or ordinary Ministers He could give no answer but what would render him rediculous in his running the Circlestick and begging the Question Besides Timothy was yet no Bishop for he was advanced to this office when set over Ephesus in the Informers judgement and he was now only with him a sort of unfixed preacher of the gospell or ane Evangelist in his large sense And Hooker sayes the Evangelists were presbyters of prime sufficiency assumed by the Apostles to attend them This resolver will have him to be no other wayes ane Evangelist then Philip who he supposes was still a deacon when so termed Thus it evidently appears that Timothy according to him and upon the sequel of that answer receaved at the utmost but a meer presbyterat in his ordination and then I wonder what needs a number of Bishops be mustered together for ordaining him Might not Paul and the Inferiour presbyters ordaine such ane one Thus we see he is still inconsistent what himself in all his shifts But he hath a 3d. Answer taken from the laying on of pauls hands mentioned 2. Tim. 1. 6 which he sayes gave the substance of the ordination although the presbyters might share in the Ceremonial pare of is Ans 1. If it were denyed that the Apostle 2. Tim. 1. 6 affirmes That Timothy was ordained by the laying one of his hands since hementiones onely the gift conferred by the laying on of his handes which Paul might confer upon him antecedaniously to his ordination since he laid on hands in order to gifts of the Spirit abstracting from ordination as other Apostles did Act. 8. 17. And also because the different maner of expression in 2. Tâ—…m 1. 6. and 1. Tim. 4. 14. viz 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the one place and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other diversifies the conferring of gifts and the ordination or at least wil plead that Pauls laying on of hands was in order to the Conferring of the gifts and not necessarie for the ordination it self which he receaved intirely by the laying on of the presbyteryes hands even supposeing that they were both contemporarie If I say Some presbyterian Doubter should suggest these difficulties to our Informer he would be puzled to come liquide off with this his answer Surely the Charisma the gift is a differing thing from the office And the Apostles laying on of hands as ane Apostle being in a speciall way in order to the end mentioned thouh contemporarie with the presbytryes action yet migâ—…t be temporary and expired 2. What Calls he the cemonial part distinguished from that substantial pat of his ordination which Paul gave which he admitts the presbyters unto if we will Nay Sir we will not 't is known your party are much in love with ceremonies and we quite them unto you where they want substance Was it the Ceremonial part to lay on hands Then I would propose to our Informer 1. That since this was neither in order to the gifts which Paul gave nor any part of the sacred authority and mission as a Church officer which Paul only gave according to him what signified their laying on of handes at all Was it only to signifie their consent Where can he shew in all the scriptures where laying on of hands is mentioned that it Imports onely consent and not authoritie this Ceremonie borrowed from the old Testament doth alwayes present a badge of ane Authoritative blessing flowing from Prophets Patriarchs and others to which though there were many assenters yet none of these assenters laid on hands Next since this Ceremonie was used by our Lord towards his Apostles and thereafter by them and particularly in this work withall since it must needs Import here a solemne blessing of a setting apart unto God and sending out into his vineyeard the person thus ordained not to debate whither this Ceremonie be of the essence of ordination as some judge yea or not let our Informer shew me why it may not upon all these grounds be looked upon as a badge of Ministerial authority and supposing this authority inherent in the presbyters I would ask him 3. Since Paul commended the whol official power of ordination jurisdiction to the presbyters Act. 20. Peter 1. Epist. 5. Ch Imputs ane 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or actuall exercise of Episcopall authority to the elders who were as himself acknowledges set over the flocks onely and so none of his imaginary Prelat elders With what sense or reason can he or anyelse say that they could not share in the substantials of ordination many no doubt concurred with the publick blessing
at Timothies ordination for I suppose it was done in the view and presen ce of the assembly But did any of them lay on hands Besyds we might here tell him that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presbytery doth alwayes Import a juridicall authoritative Court so the word is taken Luk. 22. 66. and Act. 22. 5. As likewayes the word presbyter Imports ane officer cloathed with authority so that this Court of elders must needs have ane interest in much more then the rituales of ordination His Last Exception is That upon our supposition That Timothy was ane extraordinary officer and Evangelist he could not be ordained by ordinary inferiour officers or Ministers Ans. 1. As some say of the Prince that though Major Singulis greater then every single person yet he is Minor universis lesse then the whol body so it may be said that though Timothy as ane Evangelist were superiour to any meer elder yet ane eldership the juridical Court the Church representative might be above him if at least such a superiority was here necessary else let him say whither the Prophets at Antioch were in Capacity to Impose hands upon Paul and Barnabas and send them out upon a gospel legation Himself is bound to answer this whither these Inferiour officers in that act were greater then he yea or not and how these ordinary officers and teachers could authoritatively bless and lay hands upon ane Apostle And when he hath cleared this he will easily exped our difficulty in this point 2. Though it were granted that a presbytery consisting of meer ordinary officers could not ordain ane Evangelist yet I hope he will grant that a presbytery where such a one as paul was might doe it who as ane Apostle might ordaine alone If he say what is then become of our presbyterial ordination which we draw from this text I answer it is much confirmed but not weakened by what is said for if the Apostle Paul took along in this high Act the ordination even of ane Evangelist the authoritative concurrenc of a Presbytery therefore much more doth this power of ordination belong to the Presbytery now in relation to ordinary Church officers or fellow Presbyters when the office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased 3. If the ground and topick of our Informer's argument They who ordaine must be greater then he who is ordained were denied he would be more puzeled to make it good then he Imagines Because 1. The blessing in ordination being only ministerial and instrumental by way of service but not by ane original primative authority as a learned man distinguishes here God and Christ alone ordaining thus whose servants and Ministers both the ordained and ordainers are Ephes. 4 11 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Matth. 9 37 38. 2 Cor 4 5. 1 Cor. 3 5. 21 22. Act. 13 1 6. The ordination will no more infer a superiority over the ordained then peoples blessing of God will make them greater then Hee Jacobes blessing of Pharaoh will make him greater then Pharaoh the peoples blessing of Solomon greater then Solomon The Kings Acturney saith he who drawes the noble-man or officer of state His patent and commission is not greater then hee But the King who is the original of temporall honour So Ministers in this work doe only draw out the Kings patent and apply it but Christ only is the original proper ordainer As for that text Hebr. 7 7. He sayes iâ—… is meaned of Christ himself who by Melchisedeck his type blessed Abraham by his own inherent authority and power 2. Admitting that the ordainers behoved to be greater then the ordained before the ordination is execut yet it will not necessarly follow that they must be still greater after the ordination is past finished the very end of it being to conferr upon the ordained a like Ministery with that which themselves have Hee instances Matthias and Paul who were inferiour to the Apostles before they were called and ordained But being called they became equal with other Apostles in Apostolick power dignity degree c. Wee might exemplitie this in other instances if intending to Press it As the armie Creats the Emperor which of the two is greater Three Bishops creat a Metropolitan the Council of Cardinals a pope c. But enough is said to rectifie our Informer's thoughts of Timothy and Titus and so we proceed unto hâ—…s next Argument CHAP. XI The Informers pleadings for Prelacy from the seven Asian Angels discussed That the stile of Prophetick writinges and of this book doe strongely conclud a collective sence of the term Angel fully proved The admitting the Angel to be a single person will not help the Informer his reasonings from the pretended Catalogues of succeeding Bishopes in these Churches frivolous and vain as also his new Argument taken from diotrephes's love of preeminence wherein he imbraces Bellarmins evasiones and offers violence to this and parallel Texts OUR Informers next great Argument for Prelacy is taken from the seven Asian Angels Revel 23. Whom he holds to be Diocesian Bishops Because though there were many Ministers at Ephesus Act. 20. Yet when that Church long after this is written to and when increased there is but one Angel addressed and commended or blamed according to what was well or amisse in the Church And in all the rest whatever is commended or discommended is directed to one Angel who by his place and authority was mainely concerned therein Ans This man if he had been so ingenuous and seen in this debate as he would appear might have found all this and much more then he hath offered fully removed and answered by many Godly learned But they must still tell over and over their old baffled arguments to which satisfying answers have bein often returned But to the point the weaknes of this proofe is many wayes evident 1. It is grounded upon a Misterious Metaphorick terme of Angel and starrs Revel 1 20. the mistery of the Sevenstarrs so must the expression of Angel be likwayes a part of this mistery The Maxim is known â—…heologia Symbolica non est argumentativa Far less can this be rationally opposed unto so many pregnant clear scriptures as are produced for Presbyterian Government Besides that the word Bishop is no where in Johns writings made use of who calls himself a Presbyter and never mentions superiority of one Presbyter over another but in condemneing Diotrephes He calls Christ the word and the Sabbath the Lords day these are expressions not found before in Scripture Surely he should have made mention of a new office as well as of a new phrase had any such thing as a Bishop been allowed by him Besides the Metaphorical terms of Starrs or Angels doe import the qualities of light heavenlines of frame c which are proper and suiteble to all Ministers of the Gospel and therefore they cannot ground the peculiar preheminence of a Bishop over many Ministers 2. The great topick of
all that Synodall assembly or Church Surely not at all The Moderator may be a man as little concerned therein and possibly less then any of the meeting Or will the Kings Message or Charge to a parliament adressed to the speaker containing reproofes and commendationes of that great body and assembly fix the guilt or commendation principally upon the speaker or president He will not say it As for Timothy and Titus we have proved that they had no such power as he pretends and that their inspection was extraordinary and Evangelistick which cannot with any shew of reason be said of these Seven Angels As for Beza his acknowledgment of a more eminent Authority in government which these single persons had this man cannot with any shew of reason alledge Beza to understand thereby any other thing beyond the eminency of his Episcopus divinus which with Beza is the Pastour among whom jure divino he will not aâ—…mit so much as a perpetual president far less a Bishop for the perpetual president or Moderator is with Beza the Episcopus humanus which he distinginshes from the divine or scripture Bishop and the diocesian prelat pleaded for by this Informer who hath the Chief and sole power in ordination and jurisdiction is the Satanical Bishop In his Treatise de triplici Episcopatu So that Beza cannot Imput to these single persons any authority over their brethren or ascribe to them any other eminency then what the eminency of a Moderatorship will give If Beza doe not compare them with the Elders of the Inferior sort who rule only as some would readily admit who take these Churches to be Congregational As for Mede it is no great matter whither he take the Angels Collectivly or for Single persons if he Imput not to these Asian Angels ane Episcopal Authority which this Informer proves not in telling us Thaâ—… the Tuentie four Angels about the Thron doe with him represent the Bishops unless he can shew that he means his Diocesian Bishops for he may mean the Bishops indefinitely according to the genuine scripture acceptation He holds there are Seven Bishops of Asia here only written unto where are the Tuentie four Bishops if Mr Mede take them in his sense As for Mr. Brightman his exponeing ordinarly the Angel of a single person as the Informer alleadges Let us hear Brightman himself To the Angel c. The Epistles are intituled saith he one by one to the Pastours Becaus the safety of the Congregation depends upon the soundnes of the Pastours for there was not one Angel alone at Ephesus but many Neither yet any prince among these as is manifast by Paul who to Miletum sent for the Elders or Bishops of Ephesus adding that nothing is spoken of their obedience to any one Chief Bishop That a Prince hood came after the Apostles and was not yet borne save only that Diotrephes gave some shew of it hence he concluds thus therefore under the name of one Angel the Epistle is written to the whol order of Pastours c And by this account of Brightmans acceâ—…tation of the word Angel Let any judge of our Informers fidelity But now comes his last Argument for Episcopacy which surprises not only his Doubter but I believe Most if not all else who have seen it taken from Diotrephes his loveing to have the preeminence 3. Joh. 9. who he sayes ambitiously loved to be first and to have the Chief place and that this ambition only John speaks against he adds that ane office may be good and lawfull though ane ambitions seeking of it be sinfull That Beza renders it qui primatum ambit that our Inference of the unlawfulnes of the office he aimed at will not follow from his seeking of this chief place but rather that their was such ane office at this time in the Church and now void into which he meaned to put himself or had already done so out of ane ambitious desire to be great which was a sinful end that he looked after himself not the good of the Church Ans. 't is long since we had this answer and gloss from Romanists though not as ane argument Wee see popri and prelacy in despight of all conâ—…radiction will strick hands When Luk. 22. Touching our Lords forbidding a Dominion or primacy among his Disciples is objected to Bellarmin he resolves it just as this resolver viz. That the Lord rather institut and established a primacy in the Church then removed it And commanded his vicar to preside but not as the Heathen who seek themselves and their own glory and commodity de Pontif Ques 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Yee shall not rule as the Princes of the Gentiles saith he Imports that he admitts one to preside but not after that manner He presses the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a Prince or Captaine just as this man doth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or loving of preeminence to shew that such a Prince or primat was designed de Pontif. Lib 1. Ch. 9. Thus the Papists glosse generally the Text under debate Tilen in his Not. 67. answering him That if it were so then Christ rather inflamed then quenched their ambitious thoughts which they â—…hil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or loving preeminence intertained makes this sin of diotrephes the same with theires which the Lord reprehended viz. A sinful desire of ane unlawfull forbidden primacy Adding That the Lord said not he who by my appointment shall be Chiefâ—… but he who from his sinfull desire would be Chieff Bellarmin and the Papists fine notions and old exploded evasions we see stands these men in much stead And doe furnish usefull materials to dress up Prelatick pamphlets But what will this man say Will he indeed owne this popish Argument and answer upon Luk 22. Which the topick of his argument here will necessarly inferr Was their a lawfull primacy supposed among the Apostles the ambitious desire only forbidden Bellarmin presses that ane exorbitant dominion or tyrannicall only was forbidden since the Princes of the Gentiles are mentioned which this man also taks hold of which seems to put a restricton upon that prohibition but there is no such restriction in this place under debate So that he is cut off from Bellarmins evasion We heard before he admitted a lawfull Church Dominion as not discharged in Luk. 22. And here he admitts a lawfull primacy over this Church and in his pretended antiquity we will find him not to diâ—…owne a Chief patriarch if not directly to plead for him And then I see not why he may not take in the High Priest into his old Testament Argument in relation to a morall standing primacy in Church-Government and merite a coâ—…l in some Popish order â—…r it be long Now it is evident that the Apostle simply dissounes this lover of preeminence and censures him upon the account of the preeminence he desired And the Informer himself though as I observed before he
such a president or primat as diotrephes affected to be distinct from the Divinely appointed Bishop And therefore whatever he might suppose to be creeping in at that tyme he must needs upon this ground interpret it to be a recesse from the divine appointment and in so far a Corruption As for what our Informer repeats here againe ad nauseam That Bishops were immediatly the Church before all the Apostles were gone and imediatly after which is a commentary upon Timothy and Titus and the Asian Angels and Diotrephes I answer I beleive indeed as to his last instance that there were Diotrephesies earely enugh and Beza's Episcopus humanus or fixed president but that there was either in the Apostles time or ane hundered years and more afterward I speak far within compass his Diocesian Prelat with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction in a Diocess he will assoone joyn the poles together as prove it by any faithful and authentick Testimony CHAP. XII The Informers appeal to antiquity in the point of Episcopacy That antiquity is at most testis facti but not judex veri may witness matter of fact but is no judge of what is right therein proved from the Testimony of Scripture and the fathers The Informer's reasoning on this head reduced to a formal Syllogisme and discussed That in the first purest age the Church was governd by Presbyters withtout Bishopes proved by Testimonys of the fathers particularly of Ierome His Testimony at Large vindicated from the exceptiones of the Informer OUr Informer hath by this time got out of the straites of his Scripture Arguments for prelacy and his pretended replyes to Scripture arguments against them Wherin we have seen how pittifully he lies been Bruillied in his endeavours to put the fairding of some Scripture Characters upon this Monster The Diocesian Prelat Now he wil lanch out in to the vast Ocean of Antiquity wherein he supposes and not altogother amisse that this Leviathan can swim much better And therefore he fills up the Third part of the pamplet with a tedious legend of human Testimonyes in relation to Bishops But in this his argueing from antiquity he playes the same petty Sophister as in his pretended Scripture proofes For he is still pleading for a versatil Chimaera of his own braine and dare not state the Question as to the Prelat now existent in his Diocesian and erastian mould like to whom if he will shew me but one Prelat among all his ragged Testimonies I will yeeld the Cause to him So that we are not concened in his Testimonies They being all Mute or Ambiguous as to our debate Wee shall therefore proceed to Consider the substantials of his Argument on this head and add some Chapters which will be found abundantly to cutt the sinneâ—…es of his reasoning from pretended Testimonies of the Fathers and vindicat our Cause even in point of Antiquity 〈◊〉 I Suppose this man if he will not renounce his protestant profession cannot but grant that it is not Antiquity as he call it or human Testimonies but the Scriptures of truth which most judge in this debate So that I hop I may suppose that he lookes upon his Antiquitity as ane accessorie appendix onely to his Scripture arguments and that the Scripture is not for him but against him I hope it is conuincingly apparent from that is said above we must to the law and the Testimony in this and all other points of faith Antiquity without the first Scripture antiquity deserves not the name Id adulterum quod posterius id verum quod pri nium said Tertullian That is adulterat which is Last and trere which is first I am the way the truth and the Life said Christ but not I am Custome And Cyprian tells us that Consuetudo sins veritate est vetusias erroris Antiquity without truth is but a mouldy error Our Lord himself rejected this argument it was said of old and apposes unto it but I say Well may we then oppose the Scripture sayings to our Informer's it was said of old and by our Lords warrand reject his pretences from Antiquity to warrand any thing which the word condemnes and for this we have good warrand of antiquity it self for the fathers universaly doe hold that onelie the Scriptures must judge in points of faith Sunt libri Dominici quorum authoritati utrique consentimus utrique credimus there being in them all things to be believed and practised utrique servimus ibi quaeramus ecclesiam ibi discutiamus causam nostram is great Augustins advice The books of the Lord are they to whose Authority we both consent which we both beleive To which we both submit There let us seek the Church There let us discusse our Cause Jerom on Chap. 23 of Matth. tells us quod de scripturis authoritatem non habet eaedem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur That which derives not its authority from Scripture the contemneing of it is as ready as the proof is offered and on the 1. Chap. of Hag Quae absque athoritate Testimoniis scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit Gladius Dei Such things as men of there own accord find out forge upon pretence of Apostolick tradition with out the authority and Testimonies of Scriptures the sword of God strikes throw the same Besides this discovers the plea from Antiquity to be very Impertiment in this debate Because the Question betwixt us is not defacto but de jure not what sort of Bishops have been as to matter of fact introduced into the Church of old or of late but by what warrand and right they have possessed their places We alledge and prove that the present Prelat now existent stands condemned by Christ the great lawgiver his rules in point of Church Government set down in his Testament Now to answer this Charge with humane Testimonies as to Custom or practise of the Church even granting that his Testimonies did prove the matter of fact viz That our present Prelat is exemplified in the ancient Bishops what is it but to oppose humane corruption to Gods ordinance The practise of men to Gods rule and mens Testimonies who are liars to the divine Oracles of the God of truth This man thinkes it a Herculean argument when he drawes his human Testimonies as to prelacy neer the Apostles time as if he had travelled to Hercules pillars and wonders how we can suppose that the Church could so soon alter the divine institutions But I pray how long was it after Gods Holy law was proclaimed from heaven by his own terrible voice that the wholl Church of Israel together with Aaron himself set up and worshiped the golden Calf contrary unto the very express letter of the Second command Now suppose that idolatry several hundered years afterward had pleaded this Antiquity or ancient Custome of the Church of Israel after frequently imitated and which had its plausible pretexts of intention to
worship God for the seasi was proclaimed to Iehova and to have a visible signe of his presence Wil the Informer say that this had been a good argument to warrand the breach of the Second command though this Practise was but fourty dayes younger then the promulgation if self So the case is here Though he could shew us human clear Testimonies nay more even Scripture Testimonies as to the factum that the diocesian yea and Erastian Prelat had been existent and set up in some Churches in the Apostles own time yet if we can from our Lord and his Apostles doctrine and practise prove this officer to be a plant not of a divine plantation and contrary to the divine institutiones He must needs grant that though esteemed golden it ought to be Nehushtan rejected and pluckt up by the roots The Papists who hold the Scriptures to be but a half-rule made up by traditions yet will not dare to own professedly at least any principle or practise condemned in the Word suppose he could bring thousands of Testimonies from ancient writers touching his Prelat he pleads for they are but hâ—…man Testimonies and therefore cannot beget a divine faith which is founded upon the word only Surge veritas ipsa Scripturas tuas inter retare quam câ—…nsuetudo non nooit nam si nosset non-esset saith Tertullian Arise o truth it self and expone they Scriptures which custome hath not known for had it known them it had not been The Informer's Testimonies may induce to believe that there were Bishops in the Church but whither the office which these Bishops are supposed to hold be of God yea or not this queston must be brought to a higher tribunall and Gods Oracles must determine therein before the Conscience can be satisfied as to the owning of such a Church officer And if God dissowne him I may be ane Athanasius contra orbem in withstanding him It being still certain that these human witnesses are testesfacti at most but not judices veri recti Attesters of matters of fact but not judges of what is right and equal therein Thus we have seen that though all our Informers pleading from antiquity were granted his cause profliga by Scripture weapons lyes grovelling in the dust wheras he alleadges Testimonies as to the existence of Prelats in the Christian Church neer the Apostles times or contemporary with them that Catalogues of a Succession of Prelats down from Apostles and Evangilists have been keept in Churches which he thinkes speakes convincingly for the Episcopacy of Timothie and Titus c. I Ans. Although this be the very Marrow and strength of all his argument from Antiquity yet when tryed it will be found many wayes defective and unsound For clearing whereof I shall offer some things both to the Major and assumtion of this argument which will be found quite to breake the force of al his pretences this way For thus the argument must run If Diocesian Bishops by the Testimonies of the ancient fathers did exist in the primitive times and Catalogues of them are drawn by these ancients from Apostles and Euangilists then I must believe these Bishops to be of divine institution but thus it is by the Testimony of the ancient fathers Ergo I must believe Diocesian Bishopes to be of divine institution Now this being the argument in its genuine strength this pitifull pleader offers not a jott in proofe of the major proposition whose connexion he cannot but know the we all deny All that he offers is in proofe of the assumption which is also denved will be found very maimed I. To the Major I say that it is of very dangerous consequence to make that which men call antiquity or ancient custome the infallible rule and commentary as to the nature and office of Church officers mentioned in Scriptur Because 1. If mens practise must be the key and comment in this case so as we must not contradict or counteract it then why may not also human practise and profession of succeding ages determine as to every Scripture truth and duty therein held out 2. This were to set up a higher rule and tribunal then the Scriptures and to make our faith to stand in mans wisdome not in Gods and to make the Scriptures of a privat interpretation as if the Prophecy had come by the will of man For if I must believe no otherwayes anent the Scriptures relating to the offices of Timothy and Titus then according to the practise of supposed Bishops their successores and that they held no other offices but such as these supposed successores are said to have had then the Custome and practise of fallible men becomes to me the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ratio a priori and the chief ground why I believe these Scriptures to have such a sense and no other and so I give men a dominion over my faith and my faith herein resolves ultimatly into a human practise and Testimony of fallible men which is a principle no protestant will allow Next as to the asumption of the argument I would demand of this informer how I must be infallibly assured anent this universal judgment and practise of the ancient Church and of this true succession and how he will instruct the universal harmonius judgement of all the ancient Fathers in this great point viz. That such prelates as we have now were the first recipients of the ordinary power of government from the Apostles and Evangelists as their only immediat ordinary successors The topick of our Informers argument doth suppose the certanty of this mater of fact But to clear this will be found a hard peece of work Because 1. It is certan that many of the ancients wrote nothing many of their writings are lost many writings going under their name are counterfit most especially to this debate It were possibly none of the hardest Tasks to discover some writings here cited to be meer countersites How shall I know that the Testimonies of those who have written are not contradicted in this point by such men of their times who either have not written or whose writings are perished 2. There are many things which the Ancients speak of as derived from the Apostles and have had ane universal consent as farr as the knowledge thereof hath come to us which are acknowledged to be contrary to the word of God and the Apostolick doctrine as the error anent the vision of God that the Saincts sie not his face till the last day the error of free will which until Augustin opposed it was universally receaved the Millenary error anent Christs personall reigne upon the Earth a Thousand years called by Lactantius the doctrine of the holy prophets and christian wisdome which christians follow Iustin Martyr holds them to be no christians that dissown this and this is owned as ane Apostolick tradition So childrens partaking of the Lords supper and the necessity of baptisme was by Augustin
tradition which from the Apostles is preserved by Succession of Presbyters in the Churches They will alledge that they are more wise then the Apostles themselves or these Presbyters dare this man say that Irenaeus meaned that it was only a Succession of Bishops in these Churches who keep that Apostolick truth That Presbyters are successoures of Apostles properly and immediatly in the power of the keyes is evident by a full Testimony of ancient fathers â—…gnatius about whom our Informer makes a great bustle in several places of his Pamplet in the Epistle ad Trallianos calles the caetum Presbyterorum the Assembly of Presbyters Conâ—…unctionem Apostolerum Christi a meeting of Apostles of Christ. â—…rinaus lib 4. Cap. 43 holds Presbyteros in Ecclesia ab Apostolis successionem habere that Presbyters in the Church have there succession from the Apostles Cyprian lib. 4. epistol 9. asserts omnes praepositos vicaria ordinatione Apostolis succedere that all overseers so he calls Presbyters succeeds the Apostles by a vicarious ordination Ierome on 2. Chap. of mica cited by Cratian in decretis distinct 5. cap speaking of himself a Presbyter saith si in Apostolorum loco simus non solum sermonem eorum imitemur c. If we be in the Apostles place let us not onely imitat there doctrine but also their conversation Augustin serm 36. to the fratres in Eremo and these too Preâ—…byters call them sal terrae Apostolorum successores the salt of the earth and the Apostles successours 2. As it is certan that these Catalogue-drawers did not understand veri nominis epâ—…copos or diocesian Bishops properly suoh thogh speaking after the manner of their times they gave them all one name So it is equally certain that the Testimoyns out of which these Catalogues are patchâ—…d up are most inconsistent and contradictory to one another as the divines at the I le of Wight and many learned men have made appear and still the nearer the Apostles times the Catalogues are the more darke and various They make Peter Bishops of Rome a fable contradicted by many of the learned proved to be such but whither Clemens was first or Third and who or in that order next after Succeed them whither Linus or Anacletus is never yet cleared Some make Titus Bishop of Crete some Archbishop Some Bishop of Dalmatia Timothy and John are made by many Bishops at the same time Some say Policarp was first Bishop of Smyrna Some make him succeed one Bucolus some make Aristo first Some give Alexandria one Bishop some tuo at once See appendix to jus divin min. Evangel And wheras our Informer replyes that notwithstanding of this yet all agree that a Succession of Bishops was and that these different relations cannot impeach the certainty of the Succession it self no more then difference about the Succession of princes will invalidat the certainty of the History I answer if he could prove that they understood Bishops properly so called or his diocesians in all these Catalogues of Succession this evasion might have some Shew of truth but it is certain that they did not Patres cum Iacobum Episcopum vocant c. the Fathers saith Whittak de pontif quest 2. c. 15 se 2. When they call James Bishop or Peter take not the name of Bishop properly but they call them Bishops of these Churches wherein they stayed for some time and againe if spoken of a Bishop properly its absurd to say the Apostles were Bishopes fore he that is properly a Bishop cannot be ane Apostle Because the Bishop is set only over one Church but the Apostles were founders and overseers of many Churches After he tells us that non procul distat ab insania c. it differs little from madnes to say that Peter or any other Apostles were Bishopes And to this purpose he speaks afterwards at large Q 3. c 3. Sect 9. proveing this from the unfixed extraordinary nature of their message or mission who were to follow the Spirits conduct towards all places whither they were called Which argument reaches evangelists upon the same ground So that Whitaker will send our Informer to Bedlam if he mend not this information and revocke not this principle anent the Episcopacy of Apostles and Evangelists and the Succession of Bishops from them The learned Iunius also Contr 3. lib 1. cap. 23. not 3. mantaines ane aequivocall acceptation of the word Bishop in this matter so that his paralleel holds not as to a difference about the Succession of Kings when a Monarchy all aâ—…e Supposed such but here the difference and equivocation is as to the authority of these Succeeding Bishops When he shall read Scallig Animadvers 277. The Informer may possibly suspect Hegesippus his naration anent James yet jerom and Eusebius depend upon him Scalliger holds Clemens Romanus to be no better likwayes jerom Catol Scrip is a Counterfit not the true jerom since he mentions pope hilary who lived long after jerom was in his grave And wheras the Informer maks a great outcry of jerom that jerom begins at the Evangelist Mark in the Alexandrian Catalogue which our wâ—…itters leave out in their citations its easily answered that it needs not be putt in since the Author sayes A marko from or after him the Presbyters choosed out one whom they made president wherein it s evident that he speaks of this custom after Mark and excluding him who was ane Evangelist before and needed not be set up by the Presbiters And surely if the first Bishop was ane Evangelist the rest were very heterogenious to their first pattern Besides in that jerom sayes Presbitiri a marco unum ex se electum c. Hee clerly insinuats that it was the Presbyters thereafter no Mark that it for if by Marks Apointment these Bishops wereset up he could not attribute it to the Presbyters etion Should one say in Scotia a regimine presbit Anno. 62. Episcopi introducti Ergo ab isto regimine introducti were â—…t not a bad consequence Here I will offer to him the remarke of a learned author Repl to Dun 143. anent the Circle which he and his fellowes doe ryde in this argument Timothy and Titus c. had ane Episcopal authority why because their authority was not Evangelistick Why so because it was not to die with them why that Because it was ordinary and perpetually necessary And how is that proved Because if the Apostles being alive they behooved to instruct Timothy and Titus with Episcopal authority much more being dead this was necessary to the Churches But when it is inquired how this Episcopal authority is proved it is fairely assumed againe as if it were granted that the Apostles made them Bishops of Ephesus and Crete So the last medium is still that which is in Question Let him ponder also what Didocl p. 125. and 139 hath produced anent the confusion and contradictions in this Alexandrian Succession Tilen himself de pontif l. 1.
Hieronimus Primum quo Ecclesiae communi presbyterorum concilio gubernabantur Secundum quo studia in religione facta sunt ac dictum est in populis ac non corinthisolum c nam quum primum illa corinthi dicerentur adhuc communi presbyterorum concilio ecclesiae gubernabantur ut patet ex icor 5. 2. cor 1. tertium demum quo unus de presbyteris electus caeteris fuit superpositus Atque haec singula tempora suam ut cum vulgo loquar latitudinem habuerunt Ierom distinguishes Three periods of time 1. When the Church was governed by the Common Council of presbyters The 2d Wherin there were divisions in religion and it was said among the people not at Corinth onely I am of Paul c for when these things were said at Corinth the Church saith he was as yet governed with the Common Council of presbyters as it appears 1. Cor. 5. and 2 Cor. 1. The 3d. and last wherin one chosen out from among the presbyters was set over the rest And every one of these times saith he that I may speak with the vulgar hade their own latitud here in this one judicious account of this learned author our Informer might have seen his error and the violence which he offers to jerome words for jerom drawes his proofes for the first period from many texts of Scripture from Phil. 1. Act 20. c when Paul took his last farewell of that Church never to see their faces more Yea he drawes his proofes from John the Surviver of all the Apostles for the identity of Bishops and Presbyters and in relation to the Churches being governed by their Common Councill And as to the choise of the constant president he addes quod autem postea unus electus that their was one afterward chosen to preside for the remedie of Schism c and to be Episcopus preses this period he fixes after Iohns time and so after all the Apostles 2. Wheras the Informâ—…r following Downam defens lib. 4. cap 3. Sect 10. alledges That the Presbyters in jeromes senc did in the beginning of the gospel govern the Churches Modo privato in a privat way in foro conscientiae feeding with the word and Sacrament the Apostles themselves by thâ—…r own presenc supplying the roume of Bishops and that thereafter Bishops were set up by them to prevent schism among Presbyters I answer He will assoone squize water from a flint as this meaneing out of jeroms words Fori jerom speaks of a frame of government yea a divine frame which postea and Paulatim afterward and by degrees came to be altered and changed but this privat government of Presbyters in foro interno was never changed 2. jerom in speaking of that government which was afterward changed and by degrees proves its divine right from many scriptures as a Dispâ—…sitio divina or a divine appointment Now I beseech him did the Apostles first practise a divine fâ—…ame of Government and then changed it into a human custome which is the Character that jerom puts upon the Episcopacy which afterward came in will any of common sense or discretion say so Far less so learned a man as Ierome was 3. If the Apostles themselves did supply the roum of Bishops before the change which Jerome speaks of then Ierome could not say of that period of time before the change that communi consilio Presbyterorum ecclesiae gubernabantur the Churches were governed by the common Council of Presbyters but according to this gloss of his words before the change the Government was episcopall But so it is that jerom sayes idem episcopus Presbyter the Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same by divine right and that before the change which came in by a human custome which he distinguishes from that dispositio divinâ—… or divine frame which first took place the Presbyters Governed theChurches by common Counsel according to divine appoiniment 4. If the Apostles upon their with drawing or the increase of Churches set up Prelats let the Informer shew me why and how Ierom could draw his proof for the identy of Bishopes and Presbyters from Act. 20. Where Paul was taking his last farewell of the Churches was he to supply the roume of a Bishop by his presence with them when never to see their faces more how could Ierome plead for the divine right of Presbyters Episcopal Scriptural GospelGovernment from Paules calling them Bishops at his last farewell and committing the whollGovernment to them if this had been his meaning Besides were not the Churches increased aâ—… this time why then were noâ—… Bishops set up since this man holds the increase of Churches to have grounded such a necessity of Prelacy Nay since Jerom drawes his proofes against the Prelats divine right from the 1 Pet. 5 And from John could he suppose that this was but the beginning while the Apostles had the power still in their own hand Againe our Informer would doe well to resolve this doubt how Jerom could call a Government which he asserts to be brought in by the Apostles according to Gods appointment a human custome opposite to the Lords appointment Or how could this answer Jeroms scope to prove Presbyters to be one with Bishops to say that the Apostles first governend them episcopally themselves and then set up Bishops over them And how will he make this corresâ—…ond with what Jerom sayes as to the originall of this change viz. the studia in religione or factions in Religion Will the Informer say which is his own argument afterward that the Apostles immediat episcopall Government had influenc upon this Schism Was not likwayes the Schism at Corinth from which this man drawes the change in Jeroms sense long before severall of Jeroms proofes from 1 Pet. 5 Act. 20 And from John for the divine warrand of this common Government of Presbyters And was this the change which Ierom speaks of as toto orbe decretum postea or a change afterward through the World Appage inneptias 3. As for what he adds That Ierom drawes the Alexandrian Episcopacy from Marke which he compleans that Mr. Durhame and Smectimmuus take no notice of Ans. Wee have showen already that it is not worth the noticeing in this matter and any notice can be taken of it makes rather against him then for him for if Marke was ane Evangelist in the strict sense as Ierom calls him he doeth as chamier answers Bellarmin in this point cut him of from the Series of Bishops properly so called The Informer must grant this or contradict what he said before of the inconsistency of these offices in a strict senc in on and the same person for he said nothing against this consequenc Timothie is called ane Evangilist in astrict sense ergo He could not be a Bishop Now I say Ierom calls Marke ane Evangilist for he tells us that a Marco evangelista from Marks the Evangilist the Presbyters at Alexandria set up one
to preside Ergo he speaks exclusively and cannot put Mark among the series of them for Mark was ane officer of a higher nature Moreover the Informer tells us that Mark died before Peter and Paul hence I infer against him ergo Ierom could not reckon Mark among these Bishops of Alexandria for Ierom drawes his proofes for the Presbyters divin right of governing in Common from Act. 20. phil 1. 1. Pet. 5. And from Iohn the last of the Apostles and maks this divine Presbyterial government run along all the Apostles time and tells us that the Bishops who were set up came in by custome and afterward and by degrees when it was toto orbe decretum decreed through the world to put the power upon one ergo these Bishops of Alexandria behooved to be sett up long after Mark was in his grave according to jeroms calculation And wheras he compleans that Mr Durhame leaves out that Clause Where jerom maks use of a simile anent the armies choosing ane Emperor That he may make the Bishops power when brought in as little as can be It s answered that passage will as little help him as the other for jeromes scope is to shew That the Bishops first rise and power over Presbyters was by their own free election not by divine disposition as the Army chooses the Generall Now no simile must be strained and hold in every poynt else it were not a simile Scripturparables themselves mast not be strained beyond the scop And besides jerome cannot be supposed to give at that time even de sacto far less jure divino an Imperial or Lordly power to these Presbyters thus chosen out by their brethren and made Bishops over them unless he would Cross his own doctrine since he maks this choic and Election of the Episcopusâ—…reses to be the humâ—…n Custome posterior unto and different from the divine appointment of governing in a parity which first took place Likewayes jerom sayes in his own time quid facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter What doth the Bishop except ordination which the Presbyters doth not So that they had not then arrived at any imperiall power And because this man tells us even ad nauseam of this passage a Marko Evangilista I will turn here the weapons point upon him and demand Since Ierome make these Alexandrian Bishops from Mark to have been sett up by Presbyters free election how comes the Prelats he pleads for to be Elected and set up at Court while the poor Creatures the Curats over whom they are set to play the little emperoures have no more Interest as to their choice and Election then the silliest Monck in choosing the pope I add here that this supposition of his that Ierom holds the Apostles to have supplied the Bishops rowme for a time though no fixed ordinary Bishops untill the Churches growth and their necessary absence did necessitat to set them up for preventing schism will Crosse what himself and Downam also doe plead defens l. 4. c. 5. Sect. 3. If at least they will not make Ierome oddly to contradict himself viz. that Ierom in Catal. Scrip. Eccles holds that Iames immediatly after the Lords suffering was Constitut Bishop of Ierusalem Besids that neither of them will prove that to be the true jerom But now the Informer will resolve the great doubt against what he hath said viz. That Ierome proves from Scriptur Bishop and Presbyter to be all one and that schismes by Satans instinct gave occasion to change the government from the Common Council of Presbyters to another mould of setting up one over the rest to whom the whole Care should belong c. To which he answers that Ierom speaks of the power which Bishops in his time had come unto beyond what the first Bishops had viz. That at the first Presbyters had a hand in government but after omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum de lata that is the wholl care was put upon the Bishop But if we take Ierom to speak of the first introduction of Bishops then he must be understood as speaking of the Apostles own times Ans. 1. Upon this ground the Informer must grant that in Ieroms sense Bishops who only in ordination were superior to Presbyters had a greater power then the Bishops first set up by the Apostles which will clearly exclud his diocesian Prelats who have sole power in ordination and jurisdiction as no divine Bishops And Next it will follow that the ishopes set up a Marco or after Mark were meer presidents or Moderators since they were less in power then these Bishops who onely in ordination differed from Presbyters So we see the rebound of this answer will strik his cause dead And he must feel another rebound of his own blow as to his Complaint of our leaving out what maks against us in Ieroms words For I ask why he leaâ—…es out here Ieroms scripture proofes evincing that Bishops Presbyters are one jure divino Why leaves he out Ieroms Collection upon all these scriptures which runes along the through Apostolick age viz. That the Bishops are more by Custom then by any true dispensation from the Lord set over Presbyters for although he after bringes in this as ane objection yet it ought to have been set downe here as the main conclusion of Ieromes arguing and his testimony is very blunt without it Again how comes he thus to disguise what Ierome sayes of Presbyters governeing Communi Councilio or by common Councill as if it Imported no more then haveing a hand in government which he maks Compatible with prelacy wheras Ierom maks it distinct from and anterior unto even the first human prostasy Beside their governeing Communi Concilio Imports particularly their joynt decisive suffrage in government which he doth but meanly express by their governing in Common 2. What a rediculous conceit is this That Ierom speaks of the power of Bishops in his time beyond the first Bishops Ierom speaking of Presbyters expressly as contradistinct from Bishops and of the Presbiters existent in the Apostolick Churches while the Apostles were alive as himself just now explained iâ—… in saying that the Apostles by their presenc and industry supplied the want of Bishops over these Presbyters So that he compares not the Bishops in his time with the first Bishops who came in by Custome but these human Bishops who thus came in with the first scripture Bishops we know not wher to find this versatil proteus in his answers here and may truely alleadge that this Testimony pinches him and his fellowes Next will he stand to this exposition of Ieroms words which he here offers viz That the first Bishops admitted Presbyters to governe with them and the after Bishops in Ieroms time governed alone Then he must grant that the first and second Bishops were of very different cutts and so he breaks his Argument from the Catalogues all in peeces and must grant that the word
Apostolick tradition it receaves the same answer with what is said as to his calling Apostles Bishops For with Ierome Apostolick tradition and Ecclesiastick Custom are all one as that instance clears anent the observation of lent which he calls Apostolica traditio or Apostolick tradition writing to Marcellus and yet writing against the Luciferians he calls it Ecclesiae consuetudo oâ—… a Custom of the Church therefore by Apostolick tradition he meaned not Apostolick appointment for this were ane implicantia in terminus a flat contradiction since he denyes this to these Bishops but only Ecclesiastick Custom upon which he sayes their office was founded The Informers 2d Answer o this exception is with Davenant That by truâ—…h of divine appointinent Ierom meaned Christs express command by Custom the Apostles practise begun by them and after continued For proveing this he adduces the Instance now given anent Ieroms making Apostolick tradition and Ecclesiastick Custome all one Hence he thus senses the words That Bishops were brought into the Church not by Christs express command but by a Custom introduced by the Apostles into the Church and continued in their Successors Ans. 1. This fine conceit maks Ierom reflect oddly upon the Apostles as if they taught one thing and practised another for Ierome proves from their writings that all along they make Bishops and Presbyters one Now if they in practice set up Bishops distinct from Presbyters what Harmony makes this 2. He thus maks him reflect upon Christs express command in relation to government as if it were altered and opon his government Apostolick in saying that it was the ground of schismes How will this man guard against this which he imputed to us before 3. What will Davenant or he make of these Three periods of time in Ieroms discourse observed by learned Iunius and others to clear his words 1. Presbyters and Bishops all one and governing by Common Council all the Apostles time 2. Scismes arising 3. Paulatim and postea in process of time and by degrees a new mould of government projected and immutata ratio the order changed as Ambrose saith to the same purpose Now this glosse of his words will make the Apostolick government and practise not only the rise of scismes but to be Changed for a change its sure Ierom speaks of from the first order of government appointed by the Apostles and making yet the Apostles practise in government to continue the answer contradicts it self as well as Ierome As for the instance adduced it cannot quadrat here in this place when Ierom opposes thâ—… consuetudo or Custom unto disposition of divine truth for the Apostles practise seconded by their Doctrin as the Informer holdeth that both will patroniz prelacy is most formaly a divine appointment and their giveing unto the Churches what they receaved of Lord in their commission and therefore cannot with any shew of Reason be apposed unto a divine appointment as Ierome opposes this Consuetudo or Custom In Fine How wil Davenant or he separat and distinguish that which Jerome cites Act. 20. for the parity of Bishop or Presbyter and to prove Presbyters their common joynt government viz That Paul gave the whol Episcopal Charge to these elders in his last farewell as the Holy Ghosts Bishops not noticing Timothy in the thing How will hee I say distinguish this from ane Apostolick practice and a practice to be continued So that here was in Ieroms sense a Presbyterian practice of this great Apostle a practice founding that Government and to be continued so But the Informer dismisses this discourse of Ierom with some remarkes The 1 is That he speaks at least of ane Apostolick right as in many other his writings in relation to prelacy Ans. wee have proved that Ieroms words in these Tuo places mentioned the clearest account of his judgement in this mater since he is disputing this point ex professo doe evince the contrary his 2. Remark is That suppose he makes Bishops laiter then the Apostles yet he maks them needful to prevent Schism Ans. Ierom onely Narrats rem Gestam or the mater of fact viz. The ground that moved to bring them in but gives not his approbation of it Besides the Informer would take home his own argument here and bewar of making Ierom reflect upon the Apostolick Government and contradict himself in approving of a government as a remedy of schism which he disputs against from Scripture His 3d. Note is That Ierom submitted to Episcopacy and that Mr. Durham sayes that Aerius was condemned for brangling this order to the hazard of union Ans. Ieroms keeping fellowship wiâ—…h the visible Church in his time tainted with this Corruption and which was but then are embrio of that grown Monster now among us is a poor argument to plead for the best and purest and in so far the most considerable part â—…f Minsters and professoâ—…s in this Church heir complying with a Scismatick backslyding parâ—…y introducing this Corruption after it hath been universaly cast out and vowed against and the same may be said of Aerius Neither contradict wee Ierom in this for he maks not prelacy necessary for keeping out shisme as we have alteady told him and we heard that learned Whittaker calls it a remedy worse then the Disease Before â—…e can mke either Ieroms practise heranent or Mr. Durhams assertion as to Aerius bear any conclusion against us he must prove that the prelatick party are the onely visible organick Church of Scotland else Ieroms practise will fortify more the Presbyterians plea against him for breaking down the wall of Gods house and seperating from the Presbyterian Government of this nationall Church But of this when we come to examine the third Dialogue CHAP. XIII The difference betwixt our present Prelacy and the Ancient Episcopacy stated and evinced in 12. Instances Hence all the Informers pleadings from Antiquity for our Prelats is found a beating of the Aire and impertinent ALthough this Informer would make the world believe that our Prelacy is nothing discrepant from that of the ancient Bishops yet there are many remarkable differences betwixt the one and the other which renders all his pretences from antiquity meer words and winde 1. In general its clear from a great consent of the learned that the Bishop who first came in after the Apostolick age was nothing but Episcopus preses or Moderator and had no power of ordination and Iurisdiction above Presbyters This Moderator fixedly set up durante vita during life And Indued with a higher honour upon this ground is Beza's Episcopus humanus or human Bishop whom he distinguishes from the divine Bishop of Gods appointment Ambrose in his time acknowledges on 1 Tim. 3. That Bishops and Presbyters had the same essentiall office and ordination Dr Reynolds in his conference with Hart proves that at first the Moderator or president among Ministers in their meetings is he whom the Ancients in after times called Bishop So he holds
that the Bishop at his first rise was only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator of the Presbytery Blondel at large mantains the same only he holds that the next in degree succeeded him when dead Hence Musculus after he hath from the texts alledged by Jerome proved that Bishop and Presbyter are all one adds That thereafter Ambition begetting strifes about precedencie one was set up to be Moderator in a fixed orb And least our Informer or any else alleadge that prelacy therefore is necessary to prevent Schisme This eminent light of the reformed Church adds but whither that device of man profited the Church or no the times after could better judge and that the effects issueing upon it dicovered that it was not the Spirit of God his remedy to take away Schisme but Satans project to destroy a faithfull Ministery The same saith Sadael viz that this difference betwixt Bishops and Ministers which was introduced to remedie Schisme opened a gap to ambition So Dr Whittaker haveing out of Jerome shewed That faction occasioned the change of the Ancient Apostolick parity among Ministers adds That many wise and godly men have judged the change and remedy more pernicious then the disease it self which though at first it did not appear yet experience after proved that it brought the Antichristian yoake upon the neck of the Church See the appendix to jus divin Minist Evangel In which Testimonies of these great men we may observe two things 1. That they admitt the first Bishops to have been nothing else but fixed Moderators 2 That even this much they doe condemne as a deviation from the first appointment and as that which gave a rise to the Antichristian Tyranny Now the difference and disproportion betwixt this fixed Moderator and our present diocesian erastian prelat is so plaine and obvious that nothing further needs be said to clear it Therefore his Argument from the Catalogues and those early first Bishops who tooke place in the Church is pitifully claudicant as to a conclusion of the ancient Churches approbation of our Prelats To clear it further its evident if we lay weight upon the Judgement of the ancient Bishopes themselves in point of Church Government that 1 They held not their consecration or ordination to be distinct from that of Presbyters Episcopi Presbyteri una eadem est ordinatio That the Bishop and Presbyter have one and the same ordination we heard is Ambrose assertion 2. No delegation of externall jurisdiction to Presbyters was acknowledged by the ancients As it is by our new hierachical pleaders The Prelatists hold that the Bishop is properly the Pastour of the whole diocess and that all the Ministers thereof have but a derived precarius Ministry under him so Dâ—…wn defens lib 2. c. 4. p. 67. Field of the Church 56. c. 27 Sarav de trip epis p 87. Spalaâ—… l. 2. c. 9 Num. 15. and yet Ambrose on 1 Tim. 5 And Chrisostom Hom. 17 on Matthew calleth Presbyters expresly Christi vicarios Christs vicars Cyprian lib. 4. Epist. 8. sayes Dominum sacerdâ—…tes in sua ecclesia c. That the Lord condescended to elect constitut to himself Priests in his Church 3. The Ancients held that the power of externall jurisdiction was common with Bishops and Presbyters Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians Calls the Presbyters senatum Dei Gods Court or Senat. Et non consiliarios solum sed assessores Episcopi not Councellours only as are our Curats and scarse that but the Bishops assessors Irenaeus lib. 4. Cap 44. Calls them Principes Princes or Chieff Augustin Serm 86. Calls the Brethren ineremo Patronos rectores terrae Patrones and Rectors of the Earth Chrisostom expressly shews on 1. Tim. 1 Hom 11. Ecclesijs praesidisse sicut Episcopi c That they presided over the Churches as the Bishops and receaved together with them the office of teaching and governing the Church The homily begines thus postquam de Episcopis dixit eosque formavit quidnam illos habere conveniat a quo item abstinere necesse sit dictans ommisso interim Presbyterorum ordine ad diaconos transiit Cur id quaeso quia scilicet inter Episcopum atque Presbyterum interest ferme nihil quippe Presbyteris Ecclesiae cura permissa est quae de Episcopis dixit â—…ea etiam Presbyteris congruunt that is after he hath spoken of Bishopes and formed them injoyning what thinges it becomes them to have and from what it is necessary they should abstain omitting the mean whil the order of Presbyters he passes over to deacones Why so I pray even because that betuixt a Bishope and Presbyter there is almost no difference Because unto Presbyters also the care of the Church is allowed and what he said before concerning Bishopes the same thinges also do agree to Presbyters I know he addes sola quippe ordinatione superiores illi sunt atque hoc tantum plus quam Presbyteri habere videntur That the Bishopes only in ordination are superiour to Presbyters according to the latin interpretation followed by Dounam and Bilson and by Bellarmin before them But the more learned interpreters have observed that the greeke will bear a farr other sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sola enim suffragatione horum ascenderunt atque hoc solo videntur Presbyteris injuriam facere that is that onely by the Presbyters suffrage they have ascended viz to this power and in this onely they seem to do injury to Presbyters The learned Iunius de cleric cap. 7. not 611. tels us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic Presbyterorum non Episcoporum quod si 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est ordinatio ergo Presbyterorum est ordinatio The hand suffrage is here the Presbyters but if it be meaned of ordination then ordination belonges to them And having proved this construction sence of the greeke from Suidas he shewes that Chrisost. places not the difference in ordination betuixt the Bishop and Presbyter but in this that the Bishopes ascendunt supra Presbyteros in gradum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doe ascend into there degree of Episcopacy above the Presbyters although because they stepp up by their suffrage they seem to wrong them when they assume any power to themselves who upon the ground of order not of power saith he are set over them by there owne suffrag He also tels Bellarm. de cleric ca. 15. not 29. That granting his sence of Chrysost. Wordes yet the Bishop ordained onely signo sermone declaring the sacred institution or inauguration of the person ordained but not ordinatione veritatis or by the true ordination which that signe represented Some add that if Chrisost. be thus understood in the sence of Bellarm. and his Episcopal sectators he did not rightly expound his text while distinguishing that which he acknowledges the Apostle makes one theâ—… same Ierome tels us of their common Government of the Churches together with the Bishops from whom Gratian
excommunication nor receaving of penitents Bishops could doe any thing without presbyters And that there was no delegation of their power Downam himself confesses in reference to Ambrose time and long after it So that for 400 Years our prelats present Prince like power was not known in the Church The ancient Bishops made themselves sole in no pointe of ecclesiastick disciplin as our prelats who have excommunicat alone Tertull. Apoleget shews that the exhortations castigations and censuradivina the divine censure among which he takes in excommunication were performed by the probati quique seniores all the approved elders Befor him Iraenus haeres lib 4 cap. 44. Will have these Presbyters obeyed Qui successionem habent ab Apostolis have succession from the Apostles And that ad correctionem aliorum for censure of others as well as for sound doctrine Basilius magnus Archiepisc. Caesariens affirms that jus ligendi solvendi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex aequo omnibus pastoribus doctoribus c. That the power of binding and lowsing is equally and together given by Christ to all Pastours and Doctors Which even Lombard denieth not sentent lib 4. dist 19. It is also demonstrated that elaborat piece that the oath ex officio is a Monster to Antiquity 6. Our Prelats Civil State offices are also a Monster to pure antiquity as they are Croâ—…se to our Churches Authority who in her general assemblie hath condemned this Assemb 38. sess 25. The forsaid author proves this also at large to whom we refer the Reader So that our Informer must acknowledge that our Prelats in this point also are different from the Ancients Whosoever shal peruse the Canones called Apostolick and of ancient councels will find Bishopes medling in state-affairs and especialy their holding of state offices so harmoniusly condemned that its a wonder that any who pretends to the knowledge of antiquity and to plead for prelacy upon this ground should have the considenc to justify it The 6. canon of those called Apostolick passes the sentence of deposition upon bishops who assume secular imployments Episcopus vel Presbyter vel diaconus seculares curas ne suscipiat alioqui deponatur Balsamon upon this canon referrs us to 13. cap. 8. Tit. Where there is exhibit a full collection of canons to this purpose The 81 canon diximus non oportere Episcopum vel Presbyterum seipsum ad publicas administrationes demittere sed in Ecclesiasticis negotiis versari Vel ergo ita facere persuadeatur vel deponâ—…tur That is we have appointed that a Bishop or Presbyter must not stoop to or debase himself with publick that is civil administrationes or offices let him therfor be either perswaded so to do or let him be deposed â—…alsamon upon this canon observing that it lenifies the first referrs to XVI Canon Carth. Syn. Again Canon 83. runes thus Episcopus vel Presbyter vel diaconus exercitui vacans utraque obtinere volens remanum scilicet magistratum Sacerdotalem administrationem deponatur quae sunt enim caesaris Caesari quae sunt Dei Deo That is a â—…ishop or Presbyter or deacon who bears office in an armâ—… and will needs hold both offices to wit the Roman magistracy and the sacerdotal administration or ministry let him be deposed for â—…uch things as belong to Caesar must be rendred to Caesar and the things that are Gods unto God Balsamon upon this canon referrs us to VII Can. chalced syn tales saith he anathemate ferientem si non penitentiam agant Which strickes them with anathema the last extremest curse or ex communication who assume military imployments and repent not And having moved ane objection whether the formentioned clause cesset vel deponatur let him leave off this office or let him be deposed is here also to be understood he tels us in the close of his answer that omnia publica eandem rationem habent that al publick civil offices fals under the same consideration as thus discharged And begins his gloss upon this canon thuâ—… diversi canones Apostolici prohibuerunt sacris initiatos publica negotia administrare That is diverse Apostolick canones have forbidden such as are entred into sacred functiones to handle or administer publick or civil affaires In the beginning of his gloss upon the 6 canon he represents thus the crime of church officers holding of civil places which is censured therin De hominibus consecratis qui seculares servitutes exercent c concerning men consecrat to god who exercise wordly slaveries such a Character do the Canons put upon our Prelates state offices That VII Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon puts the formentioned censur upon such as secularia negotia exercent divinum ministerium negligentes who manadge wordly places and offices neglecting the divin ministry The XVI Canon of the second Council of Nice forbidding Bishops or presbyters to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 actores or procurators doth it upon this ground debent enim ad id quod scripium est respicere nemo Deo militans seipsum implicat secularibus negotiis For they ought to take heed to that which is written no man warring for god or who is his souldier should involve himself in secular affaires see Balsamon comment in Canon Apost concil patrum in Photii nomo can pag. mihi 39 108 127 178 167 319. Whenc we may collect 1. how constant and sever the ancients were in their censour of this guilt 2. That they held this to be a debasing of the holy ministry to which the pastor or Bishop most give himself 3. That upon the ground of that gospel precept 2. tim 2 4. No man that warreth intangleth himself With the affaires of this life and that other ground of giving Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods they do condemne not military imployments only in a Pastor or Bishop or taking farms as our Informer would make us believe but also also all secular and civil offices without exception 4. That they held the sacred function of the ministry to be utterly inconsistant with publick civil imployments And the civil office of a state-ruler incompatible with the ministerial office in one and the same persone since they are opposed contradistinguished as thus inconsistant in the forementioned Canones and the grounds thereof So that there is not a shaddow of defence for prelates state offices Whil these Canones do sit in judgement especialy the scripture grounds hinted therein and many others which have been adduced 7. What ever generall expressions of the ancients he may plead yet is it not certain that in the first pure ages even after the Episcopus humanus and the fixed presidents were set up the archbishops primats metropolitanes were Monsters and unknowne yea even the diocesian mould and cast of Churches let any peruse Mr Bains his diocesians tryall tryall against Downam and this will be convincingly clear 8. Where will the Informer shew us our erastian prelacy
in all his antiquity A prelâ—…y deryoing all its power both of ordination and Jurisdiction absolutly from the civill Magistrat having no intrinsick spirituall authority and in all its administeration acting by way of deputation and commission from the Magistrat as accountable to him in every piece thereof immediatly and solely as other inferiour civil Governours Dar he say that these Bishops in the first ages exercised not ane inherent Ecclesiastick spiritual power distinct from and independant upon the Magistrat Was all their meetings and all matters cognoscible in them given up to be pro libitu disposed of by any Prince or potentat whither heathen or Christian Did not all Ministers and Bishops of these times exercise ane Ecclesiastick independant authority as being totally distinct from and not a part of the civill Government Was ever there Erastian Government heard of in the Christian World till Thomas Erastus of Heidleberge brotched it And hath it not since that time been Impugned by the most famous lights of the reformed Churches as contrary to the Rules of the Gospell Church Government So that our Informer must acknowledge the present Ecclesiasticocivil or linsy-wolsy-Prelacy to be a speckled bird of new fashioned coloures never before seen to which he will not find a paralleel among all the Fathers or Bishops of former ages 9. Let me add how will our Informer make it appear That in the first purer ages any of the ancient Bishops did deny wholly exclud ruling elders from Church Iudieatories We have proved this officer to be juris divini from Scripture And the full consent of Antiquity also of reformed divines is abundantlie clear exhibit by many of the learned for the divine right of this officer Ambrose is brought in compleaning of the disuse of these officers on 1 Tim. 5. As a devation from the Scripture-patern proceeding from the pride negligence of Doctors Origin his Testimonie lib 3. contr Celsum is remarkable who shewes that among the more polite hearers who were above the Catechumenists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Non nulli praepositi sunt qui in vitam mores eorem qui admittuntur inquirunt ut qui turpia committunt eos communi caetu interdicant qui vero ab istis abborrent ex animo complext meliores quotidie reddant There are some set over the rest who inquires into the life and manners of those who are admitted that such as committ these things that are vile they may discharge them from the publick assembly and embracing from their heart such as are farr from these things they may render them every day better Here are censurers of manners found in the ancient Church though not Ministers and designed and constitut to their work with authority in their hand to interdict the scandalous and what are these but ruling elders So Augustin Epist. 137. writeing to his Charge directs it thus dilectis sratrbus clero Senioribus universae plebi Eccleâ—…ae hippo ensis To the beloved brethren the Clergie the elders and the wholl people of the Church of Hippo. So Contr. Crese Gramattic omnes vos Episcopi Presbyteri diaconi Siniores Scitis All you ' Bishops Presbyters deacons and elders doe know Here are Tuo sorts of elders mentioned in one comma who can be nothing else but ruling elders For the same purpose the learned in handling this theam doe cite Barronius Ann 103. Where he enumerats Episcopi Presbyteri diaconi Seniores Bishops Presbyters Deacons Elders So also Tertullian Apolleget adversus gentes c. 39. Cyprian Epist. 39. Optatus lib. 1. p. 41. and many others See assertion of the government of the Church of Scotland Christoph justell observ not in Cod. Can. Eccles. affric p. 110 111. jus divinum Regim Eccles. Smectim c 10. The Ancient Bishops were not set over whole provinces but city by city for most part yea severall Cities had more which sayes they were not at all Bishops properly Clemens in Constit. l. 7. c. 46. shews that Evodius and Ignatius had at once the Episcopacy over the Church of Antioch and what was this but a meer Collegiat Ministery Council African Cap. 21. appoints that to examine the cause of a Presbyter sex Episcopl ex vicinis locis adjungerentur 6 Bishops from neighbouring places be adjoyned Poor dorps had their Bishops as is clear in History Nazianzon a little towne neer Caesarea yet was all the Episcopall See of Gregory Nazianzen In Chrysostoms time the diocess contained but one citie Homil. 3. in acta nonne terr arum orbis imperium tenet imperator c. doth not the Emperour saith he Govern the World but this man is a Bishop only of one city Sozom. Hist. Bcclesiast lib. 7. cap. 19. Tells us that he found with the Arabians and those of Cyprus Bishops in little Dorps 11. The Ancient Bishops placed preaching among the chief partes of their office and were not idle drones as ours are Theophilact on 1 Tim. 3. tells us that docendi officium omnium precipue ut insit episcopis est necesse that the office of preaching which is the chieff of all others its necessarie that the Bishop be indewed with it As ours Court-prelats so our non-preaching Prelats are strangers unto and condemned by the ancient Canons Photii Nomocan tit 8. cap 12. de Episcopis qui non convertunt haereticos de Episcopis clericis qui non docent populum he presents and digests the Canons against Bishops and clergy men who convert not haeretiks and teach not the people some of these Canones are as followes The 58. canon of those called Apostolick runes thus Episcopus vel Presbyter qui cleri vel populi curam non gerit eos piet atem non docet segregetur si in socordia perseveret deponatur The Bishop or Presbyter who takes no care of the people or clergy and teaches them not piety let him be set aside and if he continue in his folly let him be deposed Balsamon upon this Canon tells us that Episcopalis dignitas in docendo consistit omnis Episcopus debet docere populum pia dogmata c The Episcopal dignity consists in teaching and every Bishop ought to teach the people holy statutes for the Bishop is for this end established to attend the people c therafter he shewes that the presbyters ought to be so imployed quia etiam prope Episcopos sedent in superioribus cathedris because they sit beside the Bishops in the higher seats they were not then the prelats underlinges as our curats are now hence he concludes that the Bishop or priest who neglected this duety were to be set aside and if continuing to be deposed The 36. of these Canons puts this censour upon the Bishop who neglects this duty Si quis ordinatus Episcopus non suscipiat ministerium curam sibi commissam sit segregatus c That the ordained Bishop shal be set asid sured who goes not
paraeciarum rectorcs doth understand diverse Church officers of Gods appointment as he distinguishes the Bishop and Presbyter That Calvin did not acknowledge the Episcopus distinct from the paraeciae rector his comment on Tit. 1 7. makes it evident For a Bishop c. locus hic abunde docet nullum esse episcopi Presbyteri discrimen quia nunc secundâ—… nomine promiscue appellat quos prius vocavit Presbyteros Imo idem prosequens argumentum utrumque nomen indifferenter eodem sensu usurpat quemadmodum Hieronimus tum hoc loco tum in Epistola ad Evagrium annotavit Atque hinc perspicere licet quanto plus delatum hominum placitis fuerit quam decebat qui abrogato Spiritus Sancti Sermone usus hominum arbitrio inductus praevaluit That is This place abundantly shewes that there is no difference betuixt a Bishop and Presbyter because now again he promiscuusly calls them by the seccond mane whom befor he called Presbyters nay prosecuting the same argument he maks use of both the names indifferently in the same sense as also Ierom both in this place and in his Epistle to Evagrius hath observed And hence we may perceive how much hath been ascribed to mens pleasure inventiones more then did become because ane use brought in at mens pleasure hath prevaled while the language of the holy ghost is laid aside and after he hath spoken of the first Moderators earlie brought in he adds verum nomen officij N. B. quod Deus in communi nibus dederat in unum solum transferri reliquis spoiliatis injurium est absurdum deinde sic preveâ—…tere Spiritus sancti linguam ut nobis eaedem voces aliud quam volueâ—… 〈◊〉 significent nimis profanae audaciae est That is But that the name of the office which God gave in common to all should be transferred to one only robbing the rest thereof is injurious and absurd More over to pervert thus the language of the holy ghost that the same words should signifie another thing then he pleased is too profane boldnes Thus Calvin puts this censure upon our Informer in making the name Bishop signifie any more then a Presbyter And upon Act. 20. 28. De voce Episcopi hic notandum omnes Ephesinos Presbyteros sic vocari indifferenter unde colligimus Secundum Scripturae usum nihil a Presbyteris differre Episcopos That is Concerning the name of Bishop we must observe this that all the Presbyters in Ephesus are so called indifferently hence we conclud that according to the scripture language Bishops doe nothing differ from Presbyters Now let any judge if Calvine make not the Name and thing of the scripture Bishop proper to every Minister of a parish and if he judged a Diocesian Bishop thus differenced from the parish Minister to be a warrantable office which he holds to be so crosse to Scripture So that in the passage which this man hath above cited he would have all Bishops contending for and reteaning the true scripture function for none else he can call eximium munus or ane excellent gift So that those of these places will help our Informer The Context and tenour of that 4 chapter obliedgeth as to think that this is really the meaning that whatever titles these Ancients used yet they designed not thereby to wrong that Presbyteriall Government grounded upon Scripture which Calvin is there defending And moreover even straniing that place Chap. 5. par 11. to the out most advantage it will Inferr nothing but this that Bishops and Parishpriests in those dayes had the essence of the Pastorall office which is not denyed or that their Pastorall acts when rightly performed were valid The Pastorall office Calvin cals pium eximium munus as the ensuing words doe convince As for his citation from Sect 13. it were very absurd to think that Calvine by the heirarchy which the Fathers commend as handed down from the Apostles should understand the prelatick hierarchy which this man pleads for Since 1. Many Fathers as Ierome never saw such a hierarchy set up but by Bishops understand either the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at first set up or the Bishops of whom we now heard who governed with Presbyters joyntly and had no sole power in ordination and jurisdiction 2. Calvin speaks of the Fathers commending a Hierarchy not like the papall but he tells not what his judgement of that hierarchie is 3. How could Calvin commend a hierarchie such as the Informer pleads for or so much as acknowledge it as handed doun from the Apostles who shews from their Doctrine that they owned no Bishop higher then a Presbyter as is clear from what is said To which we may add Calvins words on Philip 1. Episcopi nomen omnibus ministris est commune Sunt igitur synonâ—…ma Episcopus Pastor Postea invaluit usus ut quem suo collegio praeficiebant in Singulis Ecclesijs Presbyteri Episcopus vocaretur Solus Id tamen ex hominum consuetudine natum est scripturae authoritate minime nititur That is the name of Bishop is common to all Ministers Bishop and Presbyter then are one and the same Afterward the Custome prevailed to call the Minister whom the Presbyters set over their meeting in evry church the Bishops only but this had its rise from mens Custome but is not at all grounded on the Authority of Scripture And after he hath spoken of the advantage of one to preside for orders sake he adds this limitation de Singulis corporibus loquor non de totis provincijs c I speak of single incorperations not of whole provinces adding prestaret spiritum Sanctum linguarum autorem in loquendo sequi quam formas loquendi ab ipso positas in deterius mutare nam ex corrupta verbi Significatione hoc malifecutuâ—… est quod per inde ac si non essent omnes Presbyteri collegae N. B. adeandem vocati functionem unus sibi pretextu noâ—…ae appellationis dominium â—…n alios arripuit That is it were better in our speech to follow the holy ghost the author of languages then to change into the worse the forms of speaking set downe by him For from this abused signification of the word this evill hath followed that as if all Presbyters were not Colleagues called to the same function one hath usurped to himself a dominion over the rest under pretext of this new appellation As for what he objects p. 78. from Calvin upon Tit. 1. 5. That unus authoritate praeest c I Ansr. After he hath said that every city had severall Presbyters and asserted that there are Two sorts of elders and that these elders were the Bishops appointed to teach He moves ane objection Had Titus this Princely power and alone and answers Non permitti arbitrio titi ut unus possit omnia quos voluerit Episcopos Ecclesiis imponat sed tantum jubet ut electionibus praefit tonquam Moderator That
argument as signifing any thing against us Since the retortion thereof is so manifest and therefore nothing he hath said will impeach Calvine and Beza's impugning of Episcopacy whose impugnations of it will stand to all generations Moreover in this citation of that epist. to Bishop Grindal the Informer hath sued off the half of the sentence viz quod tu igitur coram istam quorundam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tamdiu pertulisti reverende vir ineo sane insigne patientiae ac lenitatis Christianae specimen dedisti quo majori c. and neer the close of the same letter Beza faithfully adviseth as the fittest remedy for removing offences ut in legitimo caetu ex uno Dei verbo abolitis semel papisticae tyrannidis vestigiis ea constituatur administrandae Ecclesiae ratio non quae huic vel illi adlubescat non quae veteri aut recenti consuetudine sed quae firmo verbi Dei fundamento superstructae piorum Conscientiis fatisfaciat in eternum perseveret that is that in a lawfull A ssembly from the Word of God onely all the footsteps of popish Tyranny being once abolished that Method of Church Government be established not which shall please this or that person not which is founded upon new or old Custom or the wisdom of the flesh but which being built upon the sure foundation of the word of God may satisfie the consciences of the godly and endure for ever Which rule and mould of Bishops would no doubt cashier and raze to the foundation the diocesian Erastian prelate whom he pleades for yea all the Prelates in Brittain For what he adds p. 87. It may be easily and without prejudice to our cause granted that God by his providence had made him a Iudge The Informer will not owne such ane Atheisticall principle as to deny that the Bishops civil government in England or pretended Ecclesiastick is not the object of divine providence or be so brutish as to conclude Gods approbation of usurping Tyrannes from his permissive providence in reference to their tyranny or usurpation else he will for ever destroy his loyalty and fealty either to the King or his Lordbishop That passage of Calvins letter to Cardinal Sadolet after citedby him p. 88. though admitted is a poor proof that he held Church Government to be alterable Certainly Calvin held the scripture parity to be the most ancient Government Vetustissimae Ecclesiae or of the most ancient Church for such no doubt he held the Apostolick Church to be Beside wee must tell him that this passage upon search is not found and as it is here expressed is very insignificant since by Vetus Ecclesia he may understand the Church after the Apostles time which early began to Corrupt the Government As for Salmasius his retracting his opinion as to Church Government it will no more Impeach the truth it self which he asserts then any other mans defection will weaken the sound Doctrine which he once held Would the Informer take this argument from the Papists if they should plead from the retractiones of protestants and from their writing for popery that the protestant Doctrine were not sound would he not say that their first practise or writings for truth will stand good and witnesse against them in their defection Though it may be a question whither that retraction be reall or not which Durel mentions and the Informer out of him p. 89. Especially this being another of our Informers mute citations which he keeps as he doth the state of the questions in these Dialogues under the Clouds pointing us to no page in that Answer of Salmasius to Milton We will not here stand to shew how that Salmasius eyes were blinded with Court-gifts and pensions having receaved no small summe from King Charles the second for his encouragement to that worke and several learned divines who best knew him think his literature more Considerable then his divinity was solid As for that place of Salmasius in his Walo Mess. c. 4. p. 253. cited page 90. the Intire sentence is Epistolae illae viz quae Ignatii dicuntur natae suppositae videntur circa initium aut medium secundi saeculi quo tempore primus singularis Episcopatus supra Presbyteratum Introductus fuit Whatever time this was it appears by what followes that place in Salmasius that about this time Church power began exceedingly to be Corrupted and Bishops exalted almost to ane equality with Christ and men began to plead a jus divinum for them for Ignatius In Epistola ad Trallenses asserts Episcopum venerandum esse sicut Christum quemadmodum Apostoli praeceperunt that the Bishops must be had in veneration as Christ as the Apostles have commanded and he cites the Apostles words but such as do no where occurr in our Bibles And certanly if there be no more truth in that relation anent his retraction mentioned by that author then their is soliditie in that ground of it which he alledges it is not worth the noticing For the confusions in England cannot with any shew of Reason be charged upon Presbyteriall Government which was never yet settled there And this Informer dare not deny the blest effects of truth and unity godlines which it hath had in this land as is acknowledged by Churches abroad and particularly in that passage of the Syntagma confessionum which he cites in the last dialogue If Blondel in callng Episcopacy most ancient doth except the more ancient Apostolick times which he pleads as exemplifying Presbyterian parity he gives it but the spurious after-birth of humane antiquity The same we say as to his passage cited out of Moulin p. 90. and if something of the humane proestos were granted to have creeped in ere Iohn went oft the stage will that commend it any more then that mistery of Iniquity and love of preeminence which the Scripture assures us was in Paules time and his Surely by no meanes Besides we must here again tell our Informer that this Citation out of Moulen is among the rest of his Mutes since he hath neither noted booke nor page But now from our opinion of the unalterablenes of Presbyterian government and our acknowledgment of the bringing in of a Proestos so early the Informer will involve us he sayes in one of Two great absurdities Parturiunt montes What are these the 1. is That that generation who lived shortly after Iohn was altogether ignorant of Christ and his Apostles minde anent Presbyterian parity else they would not have adventured to change the government But this absurdity is easily discussed for it lights equally upon the Instance already given of Israells defection in worshipping the golden Calf fourtie dayes sooner then 40. years or more after the holy patterne of doctrine shewed them upon the mount How often doe we find suddener changes in scripture of the divine Institutions How quickly after Ioshua and the elders did all Israell depart from Gods way and ordinances How quickly
did they relapse after deliverances both in the times of the Kings and of the judges yea and after solemne vowes of Reformation How quickly after Hezekias death did they turne aside How quickly after Josiahs death How quickly after Solomons death did Rehoboam forsake the law of God and all Israell with him I think these scripture instances of as universal far greater defections then this was anent the proestos might have made this man ashamed to bring this as ane absurditie Now what will he say to his own Question here I it possible is it probable that Gods Israell could be ignorant of his minde and adventure so quickly to change his ordinances Heard not all the Churche of Israel Gods voice from mount Sinai Had not these departers afterward known or seen his eminent seers heard his word and seen his works Could they be altogether ignorant of his minde who thus suddenly departed from him How could they then adventure to make such a change Alace What a poor querist is this I think indeed He and his party have given the Instance in our generation that such a sudden defectione is both possible and probable Was ever a nation more solemnlie and universallie ingaged unto God and had seen more of his greatnes power and glorie then wee did in the late worke of reformation How long is it since Scotland not onely knew and imbraced Presbyterian Government but also solemnlie vowed to mantaine it But he knowes how universally this work and cause of God is now rejected his Covenant abjured and disowned And the Informer himself who for what I know might have seen our first beautifull house is pleading for this perjurius change of Gods ordinances and lawes and breaking his everlasting Covenant Read he never the 106. Psal. 7. vers They provocked him at the sea even the red sea and vers 11. The waters covered their enemies and there was not one of them left Then believed they his words they sang his praise they soon frogat his works they waited not fr his counsell The Informer bluntly supposes ane impossibility of a peoples crossing light in apostazing changes and that all that generation most needs give a formall consent to this change of government in order to its introduction both which are groundless suppositions and they render this horne of his Dilemma very pointlesse Besides this change as we said before was but small at the first onelie a fixed Moderator and far from his Prelacy which even in Ieroms time was but come the length of taking from Presbyters ordination or rather the rituall part of it And the change had plausible pretexts of order and union as every innovation hath its own pretences besides that this change was not all at once but by degrees Wee must also here tell him that the same very suggestion is his 3d. Reason to prove Ieroms bringing in Bishops in the Apostles time and so a nauseating repitition But if we decline this absurdity the next he thinks is worse viz That that generation went over the belly of light in changing the Government and conspired against Christ and his Apostles Government and none are found testifying against it Answer 1. This absurdity doth like wayes fall upon the former Scripture instances of greater and more sudden and as universal defections of the Church of Israel What will he say to these questions in relation thereunto Were all ignorant Did all sin against light and adventure presumptuously to change the divine ordinances And as for a Testimony against these evills the Informer himself and his party for all their clamoures against us falls under ane obligation to answer this in relation to many corruptions and erroures which as early creept into the Church as Prelacy Wherof we gave Instances already and no Testimonies are recorded against them He seems to have forgot or to be ignorant of our divines answer to this argument of Papists calling for our producing of Testimonies against such and such evills or dating their first rise viz. That there might be tho we have not known them and that it is bad arguing from the defect of the History or the darknes of the first original of such a corruption to deny the plaine mater of fact and the corruption itself to be such How many Thousand eminent persons and acts of these times which we told him the learned doe acknowledge to be very dark as to matter of fact have never come to our knowledge And since we have often told him from Ierom that this change was lent and by considerable degrees and intervalles of time and Method of its procedor some might be overtaken with weaknes others puffed up with ambition and upon this ground the one might endeavour the other give way to this change especially its first degrees being small in respect of what followed Knowes not this man that the evill one sowes his tares while men sleep And this hierarchie being as in its nature so in its rise a Mystery Mystery of Iniquity Mystery Babylon Yea and a Mystery which was working long before this change even in Pauls time upon all these grounds his absurdity evanishes and reflects a greater absurdity upon himself who would have us shut our eyes against Scripture light upon such pretences as these rather embrace 2 corruption contrary unto it then acknowledge that the Church did erre We know very well what a wicket this notion hath opened for obtruding and retaining popish innovations and these men are fast warping in to that Method As for that which he adds of Blondel p. 94 who asserts that the Presbyters made him proestos or fixed Moderator who was first ordained Wee told him already that this fixed president tho a deviation from the Scripture rule yet is farre from the diocesian Prelats sole power in ordination and Jurisdiction So that his confidence some will be apt to say impudence is strange in calling this a power episcopall now existent since notwithstanding all its after growth it was not in Ieromes time come the length of our present Hierachical power of Prelats by many dayes journey Neither is it probable that Blondel could suppose this to be allowed of John which he holds to be crosse to the divine pattern As for Blond Apol pag 25. the Informer hath been mistaken in this citation no such words being found in that place But in page 52. after that he hath abundantly proven this thesis initio Presbyter Episcopus synonyma fuerunt that in the beginning Bishop and Presbyter were one and the same he begins the next sect thus Ubicumque Primum nascente Chistianismo Presbyterorum aggregari Collegium caepit Antiquissimum rectius Antiquissimo inter Collegas Primatus Contigit ut concessus totius Caput fratrumque tandem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jure quodam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fieret Which onely a mounts to thus much that first a moderator among ministers being established grew by peecmeal to a
Now surely the Apostle James was not of the Presbyters meerly or chosen from among them But to undeceave our Informer as to Bucers judgment in this point and to fortify the answer adduced I shall present unto him that which Bucer asserts De Gub Eccles p 432. viz That the Fathers call these first Proestotes or Moderators yea even the Apostles themselves Bishops N. B. in a large generall appellation Becaus they first preached the gospell to those Churches and that to prove a succession of the true doctrine they named the most eminent Ministers the Bishops to shew that there was in these Churches a Constant tract from the Apostles both of sound doctrine faithfull teachers thereof Eminent I say for gifts and zeale or suffering for the gospell N. B. not in any Episcopall authoritie except what was in that prostasie often mentioned Now whither Bucer was for ane Episcopacy in the highest degree even in the Apostles time and the Episcopacy of Iames Let any judge And whither or not this Informer hath acquitt prelacie of being both a groundlesse and godlesse usurpation in Gods Church as his now prosyleted Doubter sayes he was taught to call it the appeal is likwayes made to the judicious and impartiall to judge from what is offered from the begining hereanent CHAP. XV. Mr Durhams citations of the Fathers for evincing the identity of Angel Bishop and Presbyter vindicat from the exceptions of this Informer Mr Durhame in his excellent commentary upon the revelation pag. 223. having gone throw the Epistles and embraced the sylleptick sense and acceptation of the word Angel presents in a digression several weighty and unanswerable arguments both from these Epistles and parallel texts to prove the identity of angel Bishop and Presbyter Which this Informer passes over sicco pede finding them no doubt pills of too hard a digestion for his stomack But Mr. Durham adding to his scriptureproofes of this important truth Several clear testimonys of most eminent Ancient fathers asserting the very same thing then Seria res agitur with our Informer and he bestirrs himself amain to take these weapons out of Mr Durhams hand offering several exceptions against his testimonys which in vindication of the memory of so great a Seer from this pampleters imputations and for the more full confirmation of this truth we shal now examine and repell Mr Durhame sayes That not only Ierome but likewise others of the Ancients such as Augustin Ambrose Chrysostom were of Aerius minde hereanent To this he answers That Mr Durhame brings this as Medina's assertion as he is cited by Bellarmin But knowes he not that Medina is cited for this by many others as Dr Reynolds particularly And likewise why would he not examine these Ancients cited by Medina and examine what truth is in his citations if he intended to repell this Testimony Well but what sayes our Informer to these Testimonies offered by Mr Durhame He answers 1. That though these fathers be of Ieroms minde iâ—…is nâ—… great prejudice that will hence ensue to Bishops as he hatâ—… already cleared Ans. We have made it appear thaâ—… Ierome makes the first Bishops meere fixed Moderators and likewise ane humane invention or custom discrepant from ihe first divine Bishops who are proved by him to be in Scripture the same with Presbyters And iâ—… this be no prejudice to his Diocesian Prelat with sole power of ordination and Iurisdiction let any judge 2. The Informer wonders how Mr Durhame coulâ—… cite Augustiâ—… as of Aerius minde since Augustine hold him to be erroneous upon this ground Haeres 53. Aâ—…s Why doth he not answer to that passage of Augustiâ—… cited by Mr. Durhame as he pretends to answer to somâ—… of the rest of these fathers What sayes he to Augustinâ—… words are they not his Or doe they not clearly assert the identity of Bishop Presbyter To say that Augustin accounted Aerius a heretick for this while he offers not to remove Augustins cleare assertion of the same thing is but to sett him by the ears with himself not to answer his Testimony Next as for Augustin's accounting Aerius a heretick for this he should know that the learned doe Consent that Augustin in this followes Epiphanius who first imputed heresie to Aerius and made but very simple-insipid answers to Aerius arguments for his opinion And moreover that Augustin relates his opinion anent the parity of Bishop and Presbyter or rather his denying that their ought to be ane Ecclesiastick constitution anent their difference as that which Epiphanius put among the roll of heresies himself not positively determining that this was a heresie For as is consented unto by the learned and particularly by Dr. Reinolds in his letter to Sir Francis Knolls touching Dr. Bancrofts Sermon about the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter Augustin aknowledges himself ignorant how farr the definition of heresie doth extend He enumerats the heresies which he found noted by other writers but applyes not the definition of heresie to every one of them Far lesse could he doe so in this point which was his own judgement as the passage cited by Mr. Durham doth evince That Ierom and Augustin were of Aerius minde as to Bishops is the judgment of very many sane cum Aerio sensit Hieronimus saith Whittak Contr. 4. Q. 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 30. Ierom truely was of Aerius minde on which ground we need care the less that Aerius is so oft objected to us by blockish men See how rude Whittaker is again to our Informer Saravia himself de Grad cap. 23. acknowledges that Ierom dissented from Epiphanius in this Dr. Reynolds in that Epistle to Knolls about Bancrofts Sermon asserting with the Informer That Aerius was for his opinion condemned of heresie by the whole Church proves from Ierom and other writters who were contemporarie with Epiphanius or flourished after him That Augustin Presents that assertion anent the identite of Bishop and Presbyter aâ—… hereticall only as he found it related by Epiphanius wheras himself knew not how farr the name of heresie was to be extended as he testefys in his preface concerning heresies But that Augustin himself was of the judgement that by divine right there is no difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter he proves from his words Epist. 19. he cites also Iewell against Harding the jesuit asserting likwise with the Informer that Aerius was condemned for his opinion as a heretick who proves that Jerome Augustin Ambrose were of the same minde Thus wee see Augustin made in this point consistent with Ierome also with himself whom this man makes to speake contradictions so as he may come faire off 3. He answers That Ambrose and Chrysostoms Testimony will not come Mr. Durhams length Becaus Though Ambrose or one Hilary sayes that Episcopi Presbyteri una est ordinatio that they are both priests yet the Bishop is the first So that every Priest is not a Bishop for the Bishop is the first priest
Ans. The Informer hath left out wittily whither honestly or not let others judge in his translation of this sentence the inference which Ambrose Drawes from this identity of the office viz that they have both one ordination He maks the office one and the ordination one consequently and gives this reason why they have one ordination viz because every one of them is a priest or Minister uterque enim Sacerdos sath he Their ordination is terminat upon and relative unto one and the same office Now what greater length would he have Ambrose assertion come then this That there is no diffâ—…rent ordination of the Bishop and Presbyter and consequently no officiall differences doth he not plead for ane officiall specifick difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter Makes he not the Bishops succeed the Apostles and Evangelists in their officiall power and the Presbyters to come after the Seventy Disciples or meer ordinary Pastoures Are their not many essential differences which this mans principles the present practise fixes betwixt the Bishop Presbyter wherof we have spoken above How can Ambrose then assert that they have the same office and ordination Where is the Consecration Where is the Bishops sole power in ordination and jurisdiction Where is his negative voice among the Presbyters making them in all their officiall power certain deputs under him if their office be one and their ordination the same with his 2. As for the difference here assigned viz That the Bishop is the first priest and that every Presbyter is not a Bishop in Ambrose sense this will nothing help our Informer Becaus 1. This is fitly applicable to the Proestos then in use yea to the Moderator of a Synod who as such hath a sort of Prostasie while the Synod sits and every Minister is not Moderator though the Moderator be no more then a Minister in his officiall power nay this is applicable to the least accidentall difference Imaginable Every man is not white or black yet every such is a man Every Parliament man is not speaker though the speaker is a Parliament man only as to his authority Blondel his first ordained Minister who with him is the first Bishop or Proestos hath this properlie applicable unto him 2. He must be minded that Ambrose sayes when speaking of the Scriptur parity of Bishops and Presbyters non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolorum ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia That the writings of the Apostles did not in every point agree to the order which was then in the Church Now this preter scripturall or new order of government what is it but that anent the primus or first among the Presbyters so that this very primus or prostasie tho farr from the present Hierarchie of our Prelats as is said yet comes after the scripture appointment with Ambrose and is unlike to that paritie betwixt Bishop Presbyter which is therein held forth The Informer Next offers something in answer to Chrisostoms Testimony who asserts That almost there is no difference betwix a Bishop and Presbyter And his great Answer is That notwithstanding these Fathers acknowledge a difference and themselves were Bishops Ans. If the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter come to a ferme nihil or almost none Surely it decays and is ready to vanish away And what this difference is and wherein placed we have already heard and surely that prostasie in Chrysostoms time behoved to be very in considerable since it came to make upno greater difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter then a ferme nihil upon the borders of a non ens As for what he sayes of their being Bishops themselves I answer they are the more impartiall witnesses in this mater They tell us oft that Ierome was a Presbyter and therefore no friend to Bishops Now here is a Testimonie of eminent Bishops for this very truth which Ierom asserts and which this man would make us believe was condemned as a Heresie And surelie we are more tender of their reputation who interpret any Prostasie or Episcopacie which they held to be according to this their judgement anent Episcopacie and assert that what overplus of power they had or might possibly exercise beyond that of a Presbyter was by them lookt upon as founded on Ecclesiastick Custome or Ecclesiae usus As Augustin speaks but not to flow from a divine right Then this Informer and his fellowes who make them maintaine one thing and practise another yea and contradict themselves so grossly in maintaining as high a jus divinum as Apostolick doctrine and practise in relation to the Hierarchicall Bishop and yet assert a ferme nihil as to the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter But the Informer adds That they might think Bispop and Presbyter to differ Gradu not ordine in degree not in order which is still a debate in the Schools Ans. This assertion is so improbable that he dare but lisp it out and faintly asserts it with a might be But sure he must needs acknowledge this distinction of the Schooles to be much later then these Fathers and any graduall difference which they place betwixt Bishop and Presbyter it is clear that they found it upon Ecclesiastick Custome as we heard both Ierome Augustin and Ambrose assert But how long will this man involve himself in contradictions and these Fathers also Told he us not page 15. That Augustin upon Psal 45 16. affirms That the Bishops are properly the Successors of the Apostles unto their office And saith he not immediatly thereafter That Ambrose upon 1 Cor. 12 28. affirms of the Apostles first named in that Classe of Church officers that ipsi sunt Episcopi firmante illud Petro episcopatum ejus accipiat alter That the Apostles are the Bishops by Peters assertion let another take his Bisheprick Tells he us not likewise here that Augustin makes James the first Bishop of Ierusalem and Peter the first Bishop of Rome Tells he us not that they transmitted ane Episcopall power in that traine of Successors proved by Catalogues of Bishops Did we not hear him plead that the seventy Disciples placed in ane inferiour orb to the Twelve Apostles are properlie succceded by Presbyters that Matthias behoved to be ordained ane Apostle tho one of the Seventy disciples is his great argument to prove this Now I beseech him per omnes musas will he say that Apostles and Presbyters differ only ordine and not gradu in order not in degree or that these fathers doe hold this opinion how come their successors then to coalesce into one after such a manner as to differ only in a ferme nihil or almost nothing Saith not Ambrose Episcopi Presbyteri una est ordinatio the Bishop and Presbyter have the same ordination But the Informer will not adventure to say that the Apostle and Presbyter have one ordination For Matthias one of the Seventy must be solemnlie by God ordained ane Apostle And the Prelats must be
they and it is expreslie given them Act. 15. 23. To which we may add the Concil Aquisgravense sub Ludovico Pio Imperatore 1. Anno 816. Which approved it for sound divinity out of Scripture that Bishops and Presbyters are equal bringing the same texts that Aerius doth To these mentioned the learned Reynolds doth add the common judgement of Reformed Churches viz. Helvetia Savoy France Scotland Germanie Hungary Poland the Low Countries citing the harmonie of Confessions Yea their own Church of England Chap II. of the harmonie Therafter he learnedly refutes our Informer as to what he sayes anent Ieroms so often repeated a Marco Evangelista shewing both by the decree of the 4t Council of Carthage Cap 3. Anent Presbyters interest in ordination which saith he proves that the Bishops ordained not then alone in all places although Ierom sayes quid facit excepta ordinatione c and by Ieroms proving Bishops and Presbyters to be all one in scripture and even in the right of ordination 1. Tim. 4. 14. That Ierom could not mean Bishops in Alexandria to have had that Episcopall power since Mark about which the question is Where also he vindicats Calvin Jnstit 〈◊〉 4. c 4. Sect 2. cited by Bancroft as likwayes by our Dialogist here as consenting to the establishment of ane Episcopacie since Mark at Alexandria He saith That Calvin having showen that Ministers choose out one to preside to whom especially they gave the name of Bishop Shews that notwithstanding this Bishop was not above them in honour and dignitie that he should rule over them but was appointed only to ask the votes to direct and admonish and see that performed which was agreed upon by their common consent And having declared that Ierom shews this to have been in by the consent of men upon Tit. 1. He adds that the same Ierom other where shews how ancient ane order in the Church it was even from Marks time to Heraclius c In which words of Calvin saith the Doctor seeing that the order of the Church which he mentions hath evident relation to that before described and that in the describing of it he had said The Bishop was not so above the rest in honour that he had rule over them It followes that Mr. Calvin doth not so much as seem to confess upon Ieroms report that ever since Marks time Bishops have had a ruling superioritie over the Clergie A contradictorie Conclusion to that of our Informer The Doctor proceeds thus Wherfore to use no more proofe in a thing manifest which else might be easily proved more at large out of Ierom and Mr. Calvin both it is certain that neither of them doth affirme that Bishops so long time have had such a superioritie as Dr. Bancroft seems to father upon them To all this adde that Dr. Holland the Kings professor in Oxford at ane Act Iully 9. 1608. Concluded against Mr Lanes question an Episcopatus sit ordo distinctús a Presbyteratu eoque superior jure divino That is whither Episcopacie be a distinct order from the Presbyterat superiour thereunto by divine right That the affirmative was most false against the Scriptures Fathers the doctrin of the Church of England yea the very Schoolmen themselves Lombard Thomas Bonaventur A 2d Essentiall point of Presbyterian government in opposition to Prelacie is in the mater of ordination and jurisdiction viz that these are not in the hand of any single Prelat but that Presbyters have ane essentiall joynt interest therin And this also hath a large Consent and Testimonie of the learned both ancient and Modern For this the 4t Council of Carthage is adduced Can. 5. and the Councils of Constance and Basile anent Presbyters decisive suffrages in Council Cyprian Epist. 33. and 78. Council of Antioch Canâ—… 10. of Aneyra Can. 13. Ruffins hist. lib. 10. Cap. 9. Sozom l. 2. c. 23. and many such Smectim pag. 28 29 30 31. cites many Testimonies for this See Blondel Apol. Sect. 3. pag. 120. to 130. Prins un-Bish of Timothie and Titus from pag. 52. to 83. Where the full Consent of reformed divines is adduced such as Ioannes Luckawits in his confession of the Taborits against Rokenzana Cap 13. the Waldâ—…nses and Taborits apud Fox acts Monum p. 210. Illyric Catol testiumveritatis Tit. Waldenses 455. Melanchton Arg. Respons par 7. De Potest Episcopi Arg. 2. Hiperius on 1. Tim. 4. 14. Hemmingius ibid. Gerardus Loc. Theol. de Ministerio Ecclesiastico proves this at large Peizelius Arg. Resp. Par. 7. de Ordin Ministrorum in Arg. 1. Musculus Loc Com. de Ministerio verbi Mornâ—…y Lord of Pless de Eccles. Cap 11. Nay Canonists and Schoolmen themselves Summa angelica ordo Sect 13. and Innocentius there cited Filiuâ—…ius Iesuit de Casibus Consc. Par. 1. Tract 9. Alexander Alensis Sum. Theol. par 4. Quest. 9. M. 5. Artic. 1. Cajetan on 1. Tim. 4. 14. and many others Likwise it is made good that the Bishops swallowing up this power of Presbyters and reserving it only to himself comes from Popish Authority Leo primus Epist. â—…8 on complaints of unlawfull ordinations writing to the German and French Bishops reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops and among the rest Presbyterorum diaconorum consecratio the consecration of Presbyters and deacons Then adds quae omnia solis deberi summis pontificibus authoritate Canonum praecipitur That is All which things are commanded to be reserved to the cheife priests by the Authority of the Canons For this see also Rabanus Maurus de Instit. Clericorum l. 1. c. 6. And to this truth of Presbyters power in ordination the Confessions of reformed Churches gives a harmonious echo The latter confession of Helvetia Harmon of Confess Chap. 11. pag 232. asserts That the holy function of the Ministery is givinâ—… the laying on of the hands of Presbyters no word of Pre lats hands So the 18. Chap pag. 236. they are to be ordained by publick prayer and laying on of hands which power they say is the same and alike in all citing that passage Luke 10. he that will be great among yow let him be your servant So Act. 15. and Ierom on Tit. 1. therfor say they let no man forbid that we return to the old appointment of God so they call the Presbyterian way of ordination and rather receive it then the Custome devised by men So they call the Episcopall Method Thus the Confession of Bohem. Chap. 9. Harm Sect 11 pag. 246. 247. after setting down the qualifications of Ministers As to ordination they say that after prayer and fasting they are to be confirmed and approved of the Elders by the laying on of their hands So the Confess Sax Chap 12. Harm Conf par 2. affirme that it belongs to Ministers of the word to ordaine Ministers lawfullie elected and called Where we have asserted both the Presbyters power in ordination and the peoples interest in the Call of Pastors in
things were so fresh recent 3. That discipline which the takers and framers of this covâ—…nant at the taking of it and in pursuance of its ends did carry on and establish that discipline it must needs include and engadge unto in their sense but that was Presbyterian-government For to omit many preceeding discoveries heirof mentioned in the Apology in the year 1580. The assemblie after their judiciall declarator that Prelacie is contrary to the word of God sent Commissioners to the King to desire the establishment of the book of policie by ane Act of Council untill a parliament were conveened and what this book of policie contained we did already hint Then in this same year the national covenant and confession is sworn by the King and Council In the assemblie 1581. it is subscribed by all the members and the Act of the Assemblie at Dundie explained And it was again judicially declared that the Church did thereby wholly Condemne the estate of Bishops as they were in Scotland At which very Nick of time the Confession of faith Sworn before in the year 1580. is presented to the assemblie by the King and Council Together with his Letter to Noblemen and Gentlemen for erecting Presbyteries Compleatly through the nation and dissolving Prelacies all the three viz both the King the Estates and the assemblie fully agreeing in this judgement as to Church government and this oath for its maintenance And according to this joynt authoritative determination of Church and State Presbyteries were erected Likwise in this assemblie according to the forsaid joynt conclusion the Second book of discipline containing the mould of Presbyterial Government and likewise this National Covenant and oath for its perservation are as the two great Charters of our Churches government and liberties insert into the Churches records ad futuram rei memoriam And that posterity might not be ignorant of the discipline sworn in that covenant Upon which and many such like grounds the Assemblie 1638 did again judicially declare this sense of this National Oath which accordingly was received with ane expresse application to prelacy and the other Corruptions attending it and taken by the whole land with a full concurrence of the civil Sanction and authoritie Anno. 1640. The 2d Great engadgement pleaded against prelacie is that of the Solemne League and covenant Wherin we vow the preservation of the reformed religion of the Church of Scotland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and government according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed Churches In the Second Article Wee sweare the extirpation of poprie and prelacie Arch-Bishops Bishops their Chancellours and Commissaries c. And all Ecclesiasticall officers depending on that Hierarchie of whatever is found contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of godliness Which engadgement hath been likwise taken by all rancks by Parliaments Assemblies and the body of the people Now that the Prelacie at this time established is abjured in this engadgement is these wayes Evident 1. Prelacie being razed in Anno. 1638. according to our national covenant and ane engadgement being framed of adherence to the Religion established in Doctrine worship discipline and Government in opposition unto all innovations formerly introduced and upon both grounds Presbyterian government in its exact paritie being sett up and judicially enacted both by Assemblie and parliament that the Solemne league must needs strike against Prelacie is in this apparent because this league is clearlie referable to the great ends of the national covenant as it stood then established explained and Sworne by this whole nation and therfor is ane accessorie engadgement commensurat unto and to be explained by the preceeding and consequently none can doubt that it strikes against prelacie and engadgeth to Presbyterian government who knowes how former engadgements stood 2. The preservation of the Doctrine worship Discipline and goverment then existent in Scotland referring to the then establishment therof in opposition to the former prelacie and all its corruptions It s evident that all sort of prelacie whatever corruption in Government is inconsistent with Presbyterian simplicity and parity is here abjured and covenanted against As we engadge the preservation of the Doctrine and worship as then reformed from Prelatick innovations so likewise we sweare to preserve our Churches ancient and pure discipline as it stood then recovered from prelatick encroachments That discipline government is here sworne unto as the discipline and government of the Church of Scotland which the Church and State of Scotland at this time established and owned But so it is that that was Presbyterian government then fully ratified both by Church and State Ergo the preservation of Presbyterian government is sworne and by further consequence that government which was by Church and state extirpate as abjured in the nationall covenant and contrary unto this Presbyterian frame was likwise abjured and covenanted against in this league But such was prelacie Bishops Arch-Bishops c ergo Again 3. The great ground upon which our adversaries deny the national Covenant to strike against prelacie is that they hold that the then existent discipline to which in that Oath we vow adherence as the discipline of this Church was not Presbyterian government that King Iames did not own it Ergo by ane argument a contrariis and ad hominem since its undenyable with them that de facto Presbyterian government was now enacted ratified established and sett up both by Assemblies and King and Parliament that goverment we must stand oblidged unto by the solemn league as the reformed discipline and government of this Church and contrarily that government which was then de facto by assemblies King and Parliament razed as inconsistent with Presbyterian government and as abjured in the nationall Covenant that government wee cannot deny but the solemne league stricks against But so it is that prelacie was at this time razed by Assemblies King and Parliament as inconsistent with the nationall covenant and Presbyterian government then established ergo this solemne league stricks against Prelacie 4. The word preserve here used and the expression of common enemies cleares this further preserving â—…relates to that which one is in possession of the common enemies of this possession in the sense of all both Imposers and engadgers are the Prelats and their Malignant Agents so that the holding fast of what was attained in point of reformation c Presbyterian government in all its established priviledges against Prelats Prelacie and all the incroachements thereof is here most evidently engadged unto 5. That engadgement and oath which they who have set up prelacie in our Church did Cassat and remove as inconsistent therewith that must needs by their own confession strike against it but so it is that our Parliament and Rulers did wholly Cassat this solemne league in order to the establishing of Prelacie Ergo by their own confession it strikes against it They cassat the nationall covenant
God all duties we are tyed to in his holy law 4. They are universall engadgements all were given up to God in them representatives and members of Church and state 5. perpetuall and reall as that betwixt David and Ionathan 2. Sam 9 7 21 7. That betwixt Ioshua and the Gibeonites Ioshua 9 18 19. And that Covenant Dent 29 14 15. Secondly the binding force of theseengadgements appears in the subject they affect as first our Church in her representatives and in their most publick capacity the solemne assemblies in both nations 2. State representatives Parliaments thus all assurances are given that either civil or Ecclesiastick lawes can affoord and the publick faith of Church state is plighted with inviolable tyes So that they must stand while we have a Church or state in Scotland both as men and as Christians as mmbers of Church State under either a rereligious or civill consideration we stand hereby inviolably engadged and not only representatives but the incorporation of Church and State are under the same Thirdly their binding force appears in the matter and Object 1. The immediatformall object is the Word of God the Truths and duties therein contained and whatever is contrary to sound doctrine and the power of Godlinesse under that formalis ratio is here abjured the eternall Truth of the Gospell as holden out in the Word and received in this and reformed Kirks being the grand rule in this engadgement whatsoever is approved by it is embraced and what is condemned by it is rejected under that notion 2. The more remote or materiall Object are the publick necessary great and important Truths and duties therein enumerat both of the 1 and 2 Table and the errours and sins therein abjured To the observation faith and obedience of the one and abhorrencie of the other under the formentioned consideration as either consonant unto or dissonant from Gods eternall Word and truth we stand perpetually and inviolably oblidged So that this Oath hath ane objective as well as subjective necessity contained therein a necessity of the matter in its own nature prior to the engadgement as well as a necessity of performance flowing from the engadgement it self which may take place in things indifferent Finaly the constantly obliging ends and scope of these engadgments joyned with the importance of the Matter subservient to these ends further discover their inviolable obligaions There is here both necessitas precepti necessitas medij finis The matter sworne to be performed falls under divine precepts the sins and evills abjured falls under divine prohibitions and these engadgements are both in respect of the matter it self and as to the professed scope of the swearers and engadgers levelled at continually obliging ends such as Gods glory the advancing of Christs Kingdom the publick good of Church and State the preservation and propagation of publick and personall reformation truth unity c. Now both these Oaths and Covenants are professedly entered into as perpetual engadgements and in order to these great ends for ever to be promoted as their tenor clearly holds out If any say what is all to the speciall obligation for Presbyterian Government and in opposition to Prelacieâ—… the Oath may be temporary or cassat and made void as to that point though there be never so great duties otherwayes engadged unto therin Ans This particular engadgement in relation to the maintenance of Presbyterian Government and in opposition to Prelacie runs along in the forementioned particulars 1. It falls under the obligation of the Oath vow promise and Covenant and under the forementioned qualifications of solemnity universality and importance Again 2. the publick faith of Church and State reaches this most evidently and is engadged for it And 3. as Gods great ordinance holden out in his Word Presbyterian Government falls within the compass of the object of these Oaths and under that consideration is sworne to be maintained and Prelacie as contrary therunto is abjured which contrariety hath been already cleaed Again Presbyterian Government is here engadged unto as subservient to these great ends mentioned and Prelacie is abjured as hindering the same as both the Word of God and experience hath convincingly discovered CHAP. II. The Informers arguments against the abjuration of Prelacy in the nationall Covenant fully examined Some reasons of his against an Oath in generall or this Oaths obligation upon the posterity weighed The Apologeticall narration and the Assembly 1638 vindicated WE come now to examine what this new absolver or pretended doubt-resolver hath presented to us against the oblidging force of these great engadgments The defence which he hath patcht up out of the survey of Naphtali and that pamphlet called the seasonable case consists of 2. parts 1. He denys that the bond of either the national or solemne league and Covenant doth strike against the present Prelacie 2. Upon supposall that the solemne league and Covenant doth strike against it he denys its obligation In both points we shall examine his grounds and trace his Method I the doubter alledges that Prelates are abjured in the Covenant so that none may warrantably owne the Ministry of such as preach under them as being perjured To this consequence he repones nothing but seems to admitt it and therefore we need not speak unto it Only he quarrells with the antecedent tells us that we would act more Christian Like if we were sparing in judging another mans servants who stand or fall to their own Master But the judging there forbidden being a rash felfish judging of others in things indifferent as meats or drinks and as Calvin paraphraseth the words de hominium factis pronunciare extra verbum Dei de factis aliorum non licet statuere secundum nostram ipsius estimationem sed ex verbo Dei That we are not to judge of mens practises by our own opinion but according to the rule of the Word and not without its limits Telling us further that Iudicium quod a verbo sumitur neque humanum est neque alienum that it is no human privat judgement which is drawn from the Scriptures the impertinent application of this passage premised Scripture to our case which is a practicall disowning of palpable perjury and turning away from such whose instruction causeth to erre from the words of knowledge is obviously evident This is no judging without Gods word but according to it to say that perjury is perjury sin is sin Our Informer by this new knack would take away all christian judgement of discretion yea by this his wide glosse all judiciall decisions whither civill or ecclesiastik Besides is not his pamphlet a judging of another mans servants Ministers and people as schismaticks and what not for disowning Curats upon the forementioned grounds Doth he not and all his party judge despise and persecute the people God for that which he calls indifferent and a disputable point at the foot of the page But to
worshipping of Images c. Doth this man think that these Reformers would have admitted such corruptions presented under another notion then the Popes authority and obtruded by this Argument that their dependance upon him being broken off they were no more to be accounted his corruptions or that they would have embraced extreme unction or some other of his Sacraments and the inferiour orders of Lectors Acoluthi Exorcists c upon some other consideration then his Sacraments or orders surely he dare not assert this and so the case is here 2. As for his reason that otherwise all Ministers and Deacons should be abjured It is very impertinent Because 1. Ministers and Deacons are officers of divine appointment so that the abuse being removed this divine officer stands but prelacie is exse or of it self contrary to the word of God as we have proved 2. The Hierarchie is abjured in that Covenant as contrary to the then discipline of this Church but so are not Presbyters and Deacons 3. We have proved that the Hierarchie and the speciall prerogatives which prelates arrogate to themselves ar originaly papal and they in a speciall manner are looked upon by him as his creatures 4. as the Papacy cannot subsist without prelacie and any otherwayes then upon its shoulders so neirher prelacie nor the Papacy can consist with Presbyterian government and Presbyters divine right and power The Doubter next objects that all Bishops depend on the Pope citing Appol pag. 395. And that therefor all Episcopacy is abjured in this oath He answers the Apologie sayes they depend upon the Pope in esse operari but asks how he proves it and tells us that to say it is so because the Pope acknowledges they depend upon him alone is a poor because evident to any ordinary capacity resolving this upon the Popes ipse dixit like a Papist and gives the Papists that advantage over Protestant Churches that a Bishop depends upon the Popes supremacie now and from the beginning wherein he saith protestants do oppose the Pope and prove that his supremacy was contradicted by Councils and Fathers Anf The silly Impertinency of this new agent of the tottering cause is here very evident in thus reflecting upon that Author whose answers to these poor arguments of the Seasonable case he dare not touch For that Pamphleter alleging that Prelates are not abjured in that Covenant but as they depend on the Pope as it abjures the five bastard Sacraments as he makes them Sacraments and that therefor the corruptions only of these offices which flow from him are abjured and as a part of his blasphemous priesthood The Apollogist taking this concession inferrs thereupon That if these offices be abjured as a part of his Hierarchie and as confirmed by and depending upon him then Prelates are abjured who depend upon him in esse operári The Prelate as such being no officer of divine appointment as the Presbyter and deacon which if they were then this Casuists argument would hold good that we were to remove the corruption and retain the institution and ordinance of God But since we do suppose the office itâ—…self to be a corruption and he hath not proved the contrary his paralled as to the bastard Sacraments is naught And to clear this matter of fact that they are a part of the Popes hierarchie by the Popes acknowledgement that Author cites Peter-Suave in his history of the council of Trent where the Pope would not have it determined whither Prelats were Iuris Divini lest they should not depend upon him after this as formerlie Now the question here being whether the Pope lookt upon Prelates as a part of his hierarchie as in the capacity of Prelates in order to the clearing of this other question depending betwixt this reverend author and the Author of the Seasenable case viz. whither our Reformers intended to abjure Prelats in that Covenant as a part of the Popes hierarchie To clear this matter of fact what could be more pertinent then the Popes own acknowledgement and judiciall declarator that de facto they depend upon him and areowned as parts of his hierarchie is in this convincingly apparent That de jure they have no divine warrand this author supposed it as his principle the contrary wherof neither that Pamphleter nor any other hath proved So that the Popes ipse dixit in this is sufficient to prove this matter of fact That he made not the Popes ipse dixit the rule to decide whither this officer be juris divini or not is in this convincingly evident and by consequence this mans obvious folly in imputing to him such ane assertion that he grants that if this Casuist had proved the Prelate to be juris divini and institute by Christ or his Apostles then the abjuring of the Popes wicked Hierarchie would import only the abjuring of the corruption of this officer whose lawfull office might be still retained but this casuist taking this for granted that he is so institute and reasoning upon that supposition the author had good ground until his Antagonist as the affirmer shouldpro vehis supposition to hold fast his own principle viz that the prelats Episcopal being is papal which is cleared by many of the Learned from convincing Testimonies Let this Resolver read Leo epist. 86. and Swave Tom. 4. pag. 465. of the Council of Trent sess 23. cap. 4. de Sacram. ordinis where Anathema is pronounced upon any that denyes Prelates power of ordination c. over Presbyters I suppose he were alleging against a Papist that some of the Popish orders are essential pieces of his hierarchie and should prove it by the Popes acknowledgment and constitutions would he think the Papists rejoynder good ergo ye owne the Popes authority and make his ipse dixit judge Say it were a question anent ths Acoluthi or Exorcists c. Whither they are a part of the Popes Hierarchie would he not think the Popes acknowledgment and owning them for such to be a sufficient argument to prove this Since he supposeth and rationally that they have no other right either in esse or operari Do not all our divines draw Arguments from the Pope and his councils acknowledgment to prove their owning of many corruptions and that they are properly theirs But do they justifie the Popes Ipse dixit in proving this or in this method of arguing since they do suppose aliunde that they have no divine right as the Apologist in the point of prelacie rationally doth 2. as for what he adds of protestant Churchet or Prelates their opposing the Popes pretended right and Supremacy hereanent we say that they impugne his supremacy best who lay an axe to its root prelacie And to grant that prelacy is of its self a part of his Hierarchie will no more justify his supremacy then Pauls saying that the mysterie of iniquity was working in his time would do it And al tho the first Proestotes or Bishops did not
each having a Prefident to propone questions gather suffrages c. and no more Which mould of government whither it would not smooth our prelacie to a compleat Presbyterian parity let the Informer himself judge It is incontrovertibly clear from these passages of Crofton that even in their sense whom our Informer alleges to stand on his side the present prelacie is abjured Finally as for the authors after cited and that declaration of the sense of the 2d article which he mentions we say as it is not clear nay the contrary is evident that such proposals in explication of that article were either mad or approven by all or the soundest Presbyterians there present so it is al 's evident that if prelacy even as by them reserved be found contrary to sound droctrine and the power of godliness that article of extiâ—…pation doth most clearly and formally reach it Neither are we so much concerned in the problemarick glossings or disputes of any persons in England they not having tendered that oath unto us as in the obligation of this oath and that of the Nationall Covenant lying upon us to preserve our reformation as it stood then establisht Moreover this man would take Dr Sandersons advice here that an oath being stricti juris the meaning is to be kept when clear from the words but if it be doubtfull every one is to take care that they indulge not their own affections and inclinations or give way to too large a license of glossing to the end they may with more ease loose themselves from the obligation or give such a sense to others or take it to themselves as the unconcernd do see that the words will not bear both for fear of perjury and ensnaring of others Thus he de jur prom praelect 2. parag 9. The Doubter objects next that we are not concerned in the parliament of England sense but in the sense of the Church and state of Scotland who imposed the oath and meant it against all sort of prelacie To this he answers that it being a common league of the three Kingdoms the meaning must be determined by all the three and that Timorcus shews that the Parliament of England their sense mas with concnrrence of our Commissiners Ans. 1. We have already made it good that giving the Informer the advantage of the sense of the 2d article which he alledges it will notwithstanding clearly exclude our present prelacy Timorcus telling us expresly pag. 16. that the Covenant aperily oblidges against Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans c. which termes he sayes are lyable to no ambiguity and particularly against all such exercise of prelacie as is by one single person arrogating to himself sole and single power in ordination and jurisdiction Darre this man deny that our present prelates have this legall prerogative expresly allowed them by our lawes is not all Church government to be managed by them with advice only of such of the Clergie as their Lordships forsooth shall judge loyall so that the prelacie which Timorcus and the English are for is point blanck cross to the present hierarchie and the three nations sense of that article will as we have proved never be reconciled to his sense and pleading in this point 2. We told him also that it is not the 2d Art Whereby mostly or principally our obligation against prelacy is to be measured it being that which relates especially to England where Prelacy was then existent and whatever sense any there do put upon that Article yet they never offered to put any glosses upon our great engadgement to preserve our reformation then established and never imagned nor offered the least limitation of our obligations both by the National Covenant as then particularly applyed against prelacie and likewise our obligation in the first part and article of the League to preserve our establisht reformation in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government which consequently stands inviolable according to its native and necessary meaning in contradiction to our Prelacie or any Prelacie whatsoever as he dar not deny that this Church and Nation at the imposing did understand the same Our Informer permits now his Doubter to tell him that we are engadged to preserve the Government of the Church of Scotland which was Presbyterian and that therefor in the 2d article we swear against all kinde of Prelacie Prelacie and Presbytery being inconsistent To this he answers that if we are in the 1. Article bound to maintain Presbyterie and in the 2d left at libertie for some kinde of Prelacy and with all if Presbyterie and Prelacie be inconsistent then we have sworne contradictions viz to admit of no kinde of Prelacie and yet admit of some kinde of it Ans. 1. He hath it yet to prove that either we or England are left to a latitude according to the Genuine sense of that Article as to any prelacy or whatever government else is inconsistent with Presbyterian Government because 1 the generall oblidgements to endeavour a reformation according to the Word of God and to extirpat what ever is found contrarie to sound Doctrine and the power of Godliness will as I have said necessarily import both as to us them ane engadgement against all kind of Prelacy under this notion and upon this ground 2. As for Englands reserving a latitude for a proestos which he here alledges Timorcus will tell us out of Doctor Sanderson of this rule as to the interpretation of promissory Oaths that tho it s granted that promissory imposed Oaths must be interpret according to the sense of Imposers as our private Oaths according to our sense yet both these rules are to be limited so that neither our private sense of our spontaneous Oaths nor yet the sense of those who impose Oaths upon others must be other then will comport with the just signification of the words and phrases in the Oath vow or Covenant for this were to destroy saith he the simplicity necessary to every Oath and indeed not to interpret but to coin ane Oath or new obligation Now the obligation of both Nations in this Oath is to endeavour reformation according to the Word of God and to extirpat whatever is contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of godliness If therefore a fixt Moderator or any supposed moderat mould of Prelacy be found contrary thereunto no mans glossings whatsoever can according to this necessary rule prejudge the native import signification and extent of these generall clauses In the 2d place his contradiction here imputed to us is but his owne airie imagination for it is not ad idem and eodem modo Wherein he imagineth the contradiction to lye Our duty to preserve and our obligation thereanent being relative to the establisht Government of the Church of Scotland and the extirpation engadged unto being relative to another nation and Church wherein that species of Prelacy particularized in the Article was existent so that there is no liberty left for any kinde
goes upon this supposition he should have travelled to Utopia with this resolution since we do suppose and have proven Prelacie to be unlawfull and so are not in the least concerned in what he saith upon this point Since he is still arguing ex ignoratione elenchi But let us see how he will absolve us upon this supposition which he must in pity be gratified with before he can draw forth his weapons Our Informer still stricks hand with the Seasonable case and the Surveyer telling us first that the oath ceases to bind if the thing sworn against be a matter wherein our superiours have power to command us they by their authority given them of God may require obedience of us in any thing lawfull and so may in that particular command us to do or use what we have sworn against it being a thing in it self lawfull and in this case our oath ceases to binde Ans. this simple notion by our Informer poorly propounded hath no taste in it and cannot reach our case even though he had won over that insuperable mountain of the unlawfullness of prelacy and had proven or his adversary had granted it to be indifferent for 1. his supposition runs thus That episcopacy is indifferent to be used in the Church or not as it shall be found expedient Now I beseech him who is the proper judge what frame of Church government best sutes her condition is not the Church representative to whom is intrusted the power of the keys by what warrand will he bring in the Magistrate primo instanti to alter and set up Church government as he thinks fit even granting it were indifferent he sought at first but a grant that prelacy was indifferent but ere he can produce one reason for his point he must have a further grant of Erastianisme and that the Magistrate is the proper competent immediat judge in matters ecclesiastick Who can stope the mouth of this hungry cause of his that must have multiplied concessions of the adversary and yet cannot subsist but starves with its own weakness when all is done For 2dly although this were also granted what will he say in this case wherein the superiour hath bound and engadged himselfe with the same Oaths vows and bonds that the subject is tyed with and hath solemnly vowed to God against such a frame of Government Sure this will tye up his hands if we may beleeve the maxime asserted by Dr Sanderson and other Casuists that juramentum tollit libertatem even in a thing indifferent Had we not the ratification of the Nationall Covenant with the band and explication against the Scots Prelacie in plain Parliament by King Charles the first under his hand writing 1641 Did not the King who now is in the Year 1650 and 51 swear and subscribe both this oath and the solemn league and Covenant and gave all imaginable assurances for upholding Presbyterian Government and in opposition to Prelacy suppose he had power to command in this matter sure his commanding power is tyed up when he hath vowed and Open'd his mouth unto God and lifted up his hand to the most high That Prelacy shall never be allow'd within his dominions far less commanded Whatever power God hath given to Magistrates over their subjects sure he hath given them no power to loose themselves from his oath and vow upon them is Thirdly it is too laxe a principle to hold that in every thing in it self indifferent the Magistrates power reaches to supercede or loose the obligation of an oath or vow of the subject For a subjects freedome and liberty as in that capacity and the Magistrats authority being coordinate as the subjects liberty must not justle with the Magistrat's lawfull Command suited to the ends of government so neither must the Command of the Magistrate incroach upon this reserved liberty of the subject who hath many things in his own power and without the reach of any lawfull command of the Migistrate A Subject and a slave are quite distinct things God restrained set bounds to the power of Kings and Magistrates whom he set over his people so that they might not command such and such things Therefor in what things soever the exercise of a subjects liberty crosses not the designe and end of the Magistrates power exprest in Scripture his vow is without the reach of the Magistrates suspending or loosing power Naboth would not give Ahab his Vineyard no not for money What if a man in a parentall capacity interpose a vow as to his childe in reference to some occupation or inheritance which are supposed before thâ—…s vow to be things indifferent Sure the Magistrates suspending power will not reach this vow This will be clear if it be considered That the preservation of the Subjectes liberty is one of the great ends of the Magistates Authority The Second case wherein the Informer tellsus that ane Oath in things indifferent binds noâ—… is when the thing sworn is so altered in its nature that it becomes sinfull and cannot be lawfully performed He tells us that Casuists say That cessat juramenti obligatio cum res non permanent in eodem statu Ans. This other case generally byhim propounded here shall be considered spoken to when we shall see how hereafter he explaines and applyes it Therefore we shall in this place dismiss it with one word That Prelacy is now the same and worse thn formerly And therfor the premised maxime cannot reach his Conclusion in the least His Third case wherein he tells us that the Oath in things indifferent ceaseth to bind is when it is impeditivum majoris boni which he sayes the Seasonable case and the survey of Naphtali do apply to this Oath And how he applyes it we shall after hear He tells us they do prove that supposing Episcopacie lawfull though iâ—… were meant in the Covenant none should think themselves bound to stand out against it our Superiours having commanded us to obey and submit to that government And that he solidly repells what is brought by the Apologie or Naphtali to the contrary But how insignificantly either he or these new Casuists do loose the Covenant upon this Pretence hath already in part and shall yet further appear What a laxe Adiaphorist is this who by his new divinity first takes this great duty of vowing or swearing quite away For no Oaths must be pleaded in things necessary in this man's judgment They canno in things that are sinfull or unlawfull have place and so all the subject thereof must be things lawfull and for this there needs no more to make all Oaths and vows evanish but a command from the superiour and then they are gone Secondly he makes the Magistrat's posteriour and supervenient command noâ—…only loose all his subjects from the obligation of what is lawfully sworn but also himself from his personall Oath Though he hath sworn and vowed never so deeply he hath no more to do but to make
a Law against it and then the Oath as impeditivum boni ceasethto bind either himselfe or his subjects Thirdly he makes all the reserved liberty of the subject which Government is for preservation of a meer nullity and Chimaera so as this liberty it selfe or any vow or Oath in things which are properly within it's sphere evanishes at every arbitrary command of the powers Hence a subjects liberty resolves into a meer nothing or slavery Fourthly thus the Judgement of all Churches in Brittain and Ireland under this Oath must in relation to the expediency of this supposed lawfull Episcopacy and its present suitableness to her edification be at the meer beck of this arbitrary command of the civill power as the sole and proper judge of this matter And so First the Magistrate is not only the immediatjudge of all ecclesiastick Government or what is most suitable to the Churches State and edification in point of Government But 2dly all judgement of discretion is taken away from the people of God in relation to this matter of so high importance and their acting in faith consequently in this supposed obedience So that men are made absolutly Lords over their consciences Yea 3dly all regard to the eshewing the offence of the weak and the Scripture Rules in relation to their scandal and stumbling are made void the meer command of the powers determining that matter in the principles of this Informer Yea Moreover all our Christian libetry in things indifferent which Christ hath purchased with his precious blood and which we are commanded so much to hold fast is close swallowed up so that both judgement practise in matters wherein God hath given a liberty are tyed unto and only regulable by the arbitrary command of the powers And what monstruous absurdities these are the meanest capacity may judge As for what he adds here that an Oath about matters not sinfull is alwayes to be understood with this restriction so long as lawfully I may which the matter thereof requires because the taker is under prior and greater obligations viz obedience to his superiour and the like then that of the Oath in a thing indifferent and therefor when the prior obligation crosseth this latter of the Oath its obligation must cease Ans. This prior obligation the Informer makes relative to the Magistrats command interposing which according to his laxe and unrestricted supposalls makes all Oaths no stronger then a threed touched with the fire and when applyed to our case is utterly impertinent because first there are things in their own nature indifferent yet within the sphere of the subjects reserved liberty and Consequently not within the reach of any lawfull command of the Magistrat nor of any anterior obligation to that of the Oath by further consequence and that the matters in debate are not such he hath not proved 2ly The Magistrate himselfe hath by his own Oath in this case superseded and tyed up any right of commanding which the Informer may suppose he had 3ly upon both these grounds the performance of this great engadgement can never justle with any lawfull command of the Magistrat And by further Consequence 4ly There is no greater or prior obligation in this case lying upon the Swearer from the Magistrat's right to breake or cut short the obligation of this vow All which is yet further convincingly clear if it be considered that this great supposition of the lawfulnes or Indifferency of Prelacy which is the grand Topick bearing the weight of his Argumentation is but begged by him and as an almes given by his Adversary But the contrariety of Episcopacy to the Scripture which we have alreadie proved being once supposed it followes that there is an obligation Prior to all Oaths lying both upon King and subjects for it's Extirpation but which is much more strengthened by the Supervenient Oaths and vows of God upon them for this great end The Informer adds further that our obligation to our Superiours is Gods tye our Oath a knot of our own casting and that when two duties at once seeme to require performance and we cannot get them both satisfyed the lesser should give way to the greater Ans. 1. The same God who hath enjoyn'd obedience to Rulers hath reserved the subjects liberty and Christian liberty and by his authority salv'd and authorized Oaths and vows which are within the compass of that reserv'd liberty so the last knot is of Gods casting as well as the first And such Alexander-like absolvers or Cutters as our Informer and his fellowes will find that they are hewing at divine cords when the curse due to perjury shall enter into their houses and soules if they repent not 2ly Hence in this case and question under debate our obedience to the Magistrat especially upon our true supposition of the unlawfullness of Prelacy and of the Oath against it lying upon the Magistrat himself is sinfull and so the comparison is betwixt duty and sin not a greater and lesser duty which this man must grant is ever to be preferred And besides the Informers supposition that this Oath is a meer voluntary deed of our own which had so full a ratification of the Magistrates Authority is among the rest of his gratis supposita and Beggings of the question which we must send back to him with a lash untill it be return'd with a due Testimonall of better proof then of his Ipse dixit 3ly Even upon his own supposition Dr Sanderson will tell him that any law made against an Oath which is but spontaneous if the law be alternative to obey or suffer the Oath will bind against the active part and oblige not to obey the power in that supervenient command or Law which is contrary even to the privat spontaneous Oath de Iur Promis Prel Sect. 9. But a fortiori much more will this oblige not to obey that Law if the Oath be not only spontaneous but hath been fortifyed by the Legislative power yea and vow of the Superior himself who Pretends to loose it by his after-Law 4ly Whereas he alledges Gods putting us under the commands of the powers in this case and his freind Dr Burnet in this Argument tells us that our Oath being a voluntary deed of our own as he gratis supposeth with the Informer cannot prejudge the commands of our superiours which are Gods own immediat commands They should know as Timorcus long since Informed them Chap. 6. sect 35. That the Topick of this Argument being The dominion of the superiour over the Inferiour if the command or Law be the exercise of a dominion in things wherin he hath no dominion the Oath will bind against such lawes This man and his fellows are still talking of the prior obligation of obedience to the Magistrat but they must know that the Magistrats dominion in this point must be instructed by a Patent from God the supreme Legislator before we can acknowledge it And if our Oath interferre with the exercise
flows not from the wife her donation nor the parents from the Children So that a parallel argument can hardly be drawen from the Power of husbands and parents supposed in this text in relation to Oaths and vows of the Children and wife to that of the Magistrat in relation to his subjects 2ly in the beginning of that Chap. the Lords way of Laying down this great Sanction touching vows seems to exclude the Magistrat from this absolving Power For after the propounding of the Law touching the keeping of voluntary Oaths and vows viz. that the person vowing shall not break nor profane his Word as the Hebrew signifies but do according to all that Proceeds out of his mouth 1. The Case of the wife and the Daughter not foris-familiat is Gods great and only exception exprest in the Text from his own rule and Law touching the strick observation of voluntarie Lawfull vows So that the rule and Law seems to reach all other Cases as to free vows except only this 2ly in the Beginning of the Chap. we find that Moses spoke this to the Rulers and heads of the tribes but the text is silent as to his applying of this exception anent the father and husbands Power in absolving vows unto these heads Rulers which should have been especially intimat to them Hence it may be probaby Concluded that the Rule and Law touching the observation of vows stands fast in all other Cases except these here expresly excluded by the Great Lawgiver So that ere his argument can reach us he most give in Sufficient proof that the Magistrat stands vested with this Power and falls within the Compass of this exception in relation to his subjects Not to detain him here in tasking him to prove that this Judicial statute as others of the like nature doth belong unto the Christian Chùrch But in the second place Granting that the Magistrat is here meant it will never speak home to his Point but much against him for 1. the dominion of the Superiour being the ground of this discharge wherin the husband and Parent have Power if the matter of our vow be found such as is excepted from the Magistrats dominion the Informer must grant that this text will not reach our Case And supposing the matter antecedaneously unto the vow to fall under divine Commands this is evident beyond exception But because he beggs our concession that it was before indifferent I adde if it be within the Limits of our reserved Libertie as free subjects or of our Christian Libertie it s still on both grounds beyond the reach of his dominion and consequently excluded from this exception and the vow must stand and oblidge according to the Grand precept here set down so that a hundred discharges of the Magistrat will never touch it We heard him acknowledge that by discipline of this Church in the nationall Covenant the substantialls of Government is understood and that consequently it binds therunto So he must acknowledge that our solemn Covenant will inviolably bind to this divine Frame of Government no earthlie power can loose therfrom no more then from Scripture institutions And Doctor Featlie acknowledgeth that people may Covenant without their Superiours to fulfill Gods Law Now give us all Scripture Church officers and their Rules of Government Prelacie shall be quickly gone So that upon his concession that the national or solemn league do reach the substantialls of Government or what is necessary for the ends of Government set down in Scripture it will amount to that which we plead for and he must grant it falls not under the Magistrats Dominion and that his argument from this text is lost 2dly this dissent which looses the vow must be both ane open dissent and also presentlie in the verie day he heares of it Qui sero se noluisse significat putandus est aliquando voluisse That is he that declares a late dissent may be presumed sometimes to have given his consent saith Dr Sand. de jur prom This he cannot say as to our King 3ly It most be constant the dissent suspending but not loosing the obligation The oblidging vertue being naturall and inseparable to the vow as Dr Sand. tells us de jur prom pag. 3. Sect. 10. when ever the consent comes the obligation returns Now have not our King and Rulers consented unto and ratefied all our vows both in the nationall and solemn league and Covenant 4ly This consent of the superiour once given can never he retracted by a dissent again Whither it be before or after he can never make it void as the Text doth clearlie hold out See Sand. 16. Prel 7. Sect. 6. Now have not both the nationall and solemn League the Consent vows of all our superiours ratifying the same So that this text every way pleads for the obligation therof for this their consent once given they can never revoke far less their Oath and vows but the vows of the inferiours are thereby rendered for ever valid as Casuists in setting down these rules doe grant so Aquinas Filucius Tract 25 cap. 9. Azor. Moral inst lib. 11. cap. 10. Sanches lib. 3. Cap. 9. Amesius cas lib. 4. cap. 22. Quest. 11. Sand. Juram Prom. Prel 4. Sect. 16. But the Doubter objecting this consent and ratification of our superiours which therefore they cannot make void He answers that by comparing the 12. and 15. verses it appears that after the husband hath by silence confirm'd his wifes vow yet he hath a power of voiding it again and she is exonered of her vow and bound to obey her husbands Commands Ans. Although this were granted as the Text stands in clear contradiction to it that the husband might null the vow after he hath confirmed it by a silence or tacit confirmation yet it will not follow that his nulling power will hold after he hath given not onlie a formall consent positive but also solemnlie vowed and bound his soule to the Lord in the same vow which is most evidentlie our case Have we not the solemn vows subscriptions and Oaths of both King and Rulers concurring with the vows of the subjects in this case How then shall they loose their own vows 2ly this wilde gloss is expresly cross to Dr Sanderson and other Casuists their sense of this case and text as we heard who hold that if once the superiour hath either tacitly or expressly precedaniously or subsequently consented he can never by his dissent again either discharge from the Oath or so much as suspend the obligation of it Dr. Sand. saith 16. Prel 7. Sect. 6. it s a true rule quod semel placuit amplius displicere non debet what once in this case hath pleas'd the superiour ought never to displease Gods Word declaring it established for ever If he hath consented saith the Dr either before or after be can never afterwards take away its obligation 3. He makes the text contradict it self for ver 7. upon
that Prelacy is condemned in the word and consequently the matter of these Oaths and likewise found contrary to the priviledges and reformation of this Church to maintain which the se Prelats themselves who exacted such Oaths stood engadged and such like grounds they prove them to be Materially sinfull iniquitatis vincula and from the beginning null or never obliging and do not pretend as he to loose from Oaths antecedently lawfull and binding Besides Prelats being removed this Oath supposing their existing power and office was ipso facto null and void as the souldiers military Oath to the captain upon the disbanding of the armie and so its root was plucked up Sublata causa tollitur effectus Sublato relato tollitur Correlatum So that he gets but a Wound to his cause in kicking thus against the pricks But he tells us that he will come yet nearer with an other argument and so he had need for the preceeding have never yet come near our cause nor his designe Well what is this Commissaries he saith were abjured in the Covenant as officers depending upon the abjured bierarchy yet we ownd them before Bishops were restored and why may not he the abjured Bishops also But will he suffer a Reverend father Bishop Lighton to answer for us and shew him the disparity of our Commissariot a meer civil administration influenced and authorized by superiour civil Governours as a part of the politicall constitution of the Kingdom with a Church office In his first letter anent the Accommodation printed in that piece entituled The case of the accommodation examined he will tell him that though we have the name of Commissaries yet they excercise not any part of Church discipline Which he sets down expresly to distinguish them from the Commissaries abjur'd in the 2d Article of the Covenant Now the difference of this owning our Commissaries in Scotland from owning and swearing fealty to the Bishop as a Church officer in all his Spirituall usurpations is so palpable that any may see the impertinency of this instance even in Bishop Lightons Judgement Moreover we abjure in the Covenant all Ecclesiastical officers depending upon that hierarchy But will he dare to say that the Commissary whose administration is properly Civil and when the Covenant was taken had not the least dependance upon a Prelat was an Eclesiastical officer depending upon that hierarchy Surely the meanest capacity may discover the vanity of this argument The Doubter objects this that the Commissaries did not then depend upon the Bishops and therfore might be ownd as not contrary to the Covenant To this he answers that upon this ground of a non-dependance upon Bishops we might have ownd a Dean at that time or a Bishop as having no dependance upon an Arch-bishop and that he cannot see why any member of the hierarchy under the highest might not have been owned and retaind on this ground as well as the Commissary Ans. The disparity is manifest to any of Common sense the Dean sua natura is an Ecclesiastick officer and the very office denotes a relation unto and Ecclesiastick dependance upon a prelat in spirituall administrations so that Prelacie being laid aside and the hierarchy smoothed to Presbyterian Parity and Government the Dean is a meer Chimaera and so is the diocesan Bishop and can no more subsist the basis and fountain of his very office qua talis or as such being removed and extinct But the Commissary a civil officer and Magistrat his administration of its own nature civill depends upon and is regulat by superiour civil Rulers and so in that case subsists intirely as a part of the civil Government where prelacie is abolished and can no more be scrupled at because a prelat did somtime usurpe an authority over that office then the office of the Lord high Chancellour or any other civil office of state and inferiour offices theron specially depending because somtime a Prelat was Chancellour and usurped authority in these matters ought to be disowned or scrupled at upon this account 2ly He sayes this answer comes near to what he said before anent the English divines who hold only that complex frame to be abjured in the 2d article which consists of all the officers there enumerat Ans. 1. It is more then he hath proved that the English divines do owne even sigillatim or apart all these officers or looke upon themselves as only obliged against that complex frame consisting of all the officers enumerat in that article We heard before out of Timorcus whom Bishop Lighton in that letter and the Informer himself cites as holding that our Prelacie is consistent with the Covenant and whom they appeal unto in this debate that they disowne all Prelacie where one single person exerciseth sole power in ordination and Jurisdiction all Prelacie beyond a Proestos and particularly the name and thing of Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Chapters Arch Deacons Timorcus in the 7. Chap. adds all Bishops not Chosen by the clergie and people all Bishops who act by Deans prebends and exercise their power by Chancellours Commissaries c. Doth not the article it self abjure all ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy So that though we did come near to what they say in this answer we come never a whit nearer him 2ly we told him already that the Commissaries office is properly Civil though usurped upon by the Prelat so that when purged from this usurpation and running in the channell of a meer civil administration influenced and authorized by Superiour civil Governours as a part of the political constitution of the kingdom it falls not within the compass of an Ecclesiastical officer depending on the hierarchy by his own Confession and Bishop Lightons How then was the owning of him before the introduction of Prelacie contrary unto the Covenant But because he suffered not his poor Doubter to tell him that the Commissary besides that in our late times he did not depend upon the Bishop is really and upon the matter with us a Civil not a Church officer he thinks to surprise him with a third answer That now the Comissaries do actually depend upon the Bishops yet we scruple not nor decline their Courts and authority and if we decline them not as according to our Principles we are oblidged how are we free of perjury and if we can acknowledge a Commissary notwithstanding the Covenant why may not he also a Bishop Ans. What poor tatle is this we told him already that the Commissariot is of it self a lawfull Civil administration not ane Ecclesiastical function and the prelats usurped authority cannot render this civill office unlawfull Wheras the dicoesan Bishops office is a pretended Ecclesiastical function and in its very nature a gross corruption and contrary to the word of God as is above cleared Which disparity is palpable to any that will but open their eyes Do we abjure any Civil courts or officers in that article are they not termd expresly
Ecclesiastical officers who are there abjured Nay doth not Timorcus tell us that in England the Commissaries exercise a power in Church discipline by a delegation from the Bishop And doth not Bishop Lighton deny this to be competent to our Commissaries here For in that passage of the letter now cited he sayes we have nothing but the name of Commissaries he means in respect of these in England who exercise ecclesiastical discipline under the Bishops Didoclavius pag. 458. Cites Cowellus in Interprete about the office of the Bishops Commissary in England speaking thus Commissarij vox Titulus est Ecclesiasticae Iurisdictionis saltem quousque commissio permittit in partibus Diocesios a primaria Civitate tam Longe dissitis ut Cancellarius subditos ad principale consistorium Episcopi citare non potest c. That is that Commissary in England is a title of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction so faras his commssion will allow in places which are so far remote from the cheif city of the diocess that the Chancellour without great molestation cannot cite them to the Bishops cheif court Didoclavius tells us ubi supra that according to the Statutes of England the Chancellour is the Bishops principal officiall the Commissary the Bishops foraneous officiall To conclude 1. The Bishops power as to Civills and their deputation of this their power to Chancellours is a most gross usurpation Contrary to the Scripture which forbids the Minister to entangle himself with things of this life Our Lord himself would not so much as be an arbiter in a civil Cause Paul speaking of the ministerial duties saith who is sufficient for these things The Apostles must Give themselves continually to the Word Cartwright against the Rhemists upon 2. of Tim. 2. 4. Proves that pure antiquitie Knew nothing of prelats thus medling citing Jerome super Sophon cap. 1. who expounds that place against Ministers medling in Secular affaires And Cyprian who applies this place against one who took upon him to be executor of a Testament Lib. 1. Epist. 9. concil Carthag 4. Cap. 20. Apostol can Can. 6. Seculares Curas non Suscipite Likewise Ambrose who affirmes that Worldly Government is the weakning of the priest Lib. 5. Epist. 33. Smectimnuus pag. 32. Sect. 10. cites concil Hispall 2. Cyprian Epist. 28. against this deputation of prelats power to Chancellours Commissaries c. and Brings in Bishop Dounham aknowledging Defens Lib. 1. that in Ambrose time and a good while after which was about the year 400. till presbyters were wholly neglected the Bishops had no ordinaries vicars Chancellours Commissaries that were not Clergie men But this restriction they affirme to be a meer blind and Challeng him to shew any such under-officers of Bishops in those times So that they hold this to be one main point of difference betwixt their Bishops and the primitive Bishops 2dly in England not only hath the Commissary a Civil administration under the Bishop but hath Likewise power of Spiritual censures and a great part of the Bishops ecclesiastical administration committed unto him both over Ministers and others such as suspension deposition excommunication See Didoclav pag. 464 465. de officialibus Cartwright 2. repl part 2. pag. 69. who shews that the prelats not only exercise Tyrrany themselves over the Church but bring it under subjection to their very Servants yea their Servants Servants such as Chancellours Commissaries c. 3ly it is clear that since the reformation we never had in Scotland such Commissaries but our Law and practice since that time and since Popish Prelacies were dissolved hath much reduced them to the state Quality of other civil officers whose administration of its own nature depends upon superiour civil officers For this we have as I said Bishop Lightons own Confession that we have but the name of Commissaries here who have nothing to do with Church discipline Only their civil power is invaded again by the Prelats 4ly B Lighton and this Informer do both plead that its only the officers enumerat in the 2d Article of the Covenant and the Commissaries as then moulded Existent in the Church of England that this Oath oblidges against And so according to their Principles and pleading our Commissary here so vastly discrepant from theirs falls not within the compass of the Covenant abjuration Hence finally the owning of the Commissary in his Lawfull civil administrations can be no acknowledgement either 1. of the English Commissaries Power which he hath not Nor 2dly of the Prelats usurpation upon this civil office no more then the simple using of our civil Laws and the ordinary civil courts during Cromwells usurpation was a homologating the wickedness therof which this man will not dare to assert An usurper may be in titulo and such submission and improvement of the civâ—…l power invaded by him as doth acknowledge the providentiall Title and his being possessed of the power de facto and having as they use to say jus in re or actual providential possession therof If there be no active concurrance towards his Establishment is as to civills free of any guilt of the usurpation and will import no acknowledgement of the usurper his Pretended jus Which is the Judgement of all sound divines and Casuists But the case is far different as to our Informers deriving his deputed Ecclesiastical Ministery or spiritual authority from the Bishop because 1. the Prelats office it self is a gross usurpation contrary to the Scripture so is not the Commissaries office 2dly the Pelats usurped possession of unlawfull power over the Church which is Christs Kingdom cannot give him so much as a providentiall Title and therfore all acknowledgement therof is unlawfull Thirdly his submission to prelacy as now it stands Circumstantiat is an acknowledgement both of the possession and jus which this man will not deny and this is far dictinct from an act which doth but indirectly acknowledge the usurpers possession So that his Conformity is ane express acknowledgement and owning of a gross encroachment upon Christs Kingdom his Church which is toto Coelo different from acknowledging a possession de facto of and a Providential title unto a part of the civil administration of the Kingdoms of the world which are mutable And as for a testimony against this usurpation I suppose that had the people of God disowned these civil courts upon this ground of the Covenant obligation his party for the preceeding reasons had signally cried out against it as an AnaBaptistical rejecting of Lawfull civil Government more then he doth upon this Pretence alledge a homologating of Prelacie in this acknowledgement But however we say that the people of God their notour and standing testimony against Prelacie it self as now Established doth sufficiently reach this among other its usurpations although this piece of civil Government be eatenus or in its own nature and as such owned as formerly But now our Informer charges us with another breach of Covenant upon the ground
of schisme which he sayes we are carrying on in opposition to the peace and liberty of this Church which Christ has bequeathed to her in legacie This heavy charge we would gladly know how he will instruct and because he cannot stay to discuss that point in this dialogue we will therfor supersed our enquiry here and pass over to his third dialogue and Examine therin the grounds of this accusation which we doubt not to discover to be as Irrational as these examined in the preceeding Dialogues A Confutation Of the Third DIALOGUE Upon the point Of SEPARATION Wherein upon exhibiting the true state of the Question the practise of adhering to Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry and denying of a subjection to Conformists as the lawful Pastours of this Church from vvhom Gods people are bound to receive the ordinances is vindicat from the charge of a sinfull Schismatick separation the true and solid grounds of this practise offered and the Informers arguments against it fully ansvver'd CHAP. I. The question stated and cleard from our Churches state before and since the introduction of Prelacy the different condition of Presbyterian Ministers and Conformists Separation in many cases not Schisme The Informers groundless suppositions Arguments presented and prosecuted at some length whereby this practise is acquit of the charge of a sinfull separation and discovered to fall under Scripture precepts and obligations as duty THE state of the Question in the third Dialogue is anent sinfull separation and Schism whether the people of God be guilty of it in adhering to such Ministers as contend for our Reformation rather then Curats or Conformists And whether they stand in this case of our Church oblig'd to adhere to the one or the other as their true Pastours from whom they are to receive the gospel ordinances and to whom they owe subjection reverence and obedience accordingly This state of the Question our Informer cannot in the least pick a quarrel at it being most suitable unto his pleading which is all along grounded upon this supposition that conformists do stand in a Ministerial relation to this Church and professours therein from which he concluds peoples obligation to adhere unto them as their only true and proper Pastours And in correspondence to this principle and inference doth universally and absolutely fasten the charge of intrusion and Schism upon Presbyterian Ministers and people as to their respective acts of preaching and hearing in their present state and circumstances So that if we can overturn this his grand topick fortify the antithesis therof he must grant that all his reasoning in this Dialogue falls to the ground For clearing this let us take a litle view first of our Church of Scotland her case at Prelacies introduction 2ly of her present case 3dly of the different grounds which the Presbyterian and Prelatick partie plead upon for the peoples adherence 4thly on whose side the separation stands Schism is a sinfull separation from a Church with whom in what acts we are bound to adhere So that when this Question is cleared who are that Church to which we stand under obligations to adhere it will go far to clear this debate First As to the state of our Church at Prelacies Introduction I shall lâ—…y down these three suppositions in relation to the matter of fact First that our Church from the infancie of her Reformation together with popry rejected Prelacy and in her National capacitie and in her supreme Judicatories disowned it as contrary to the Word of God as a piece of Antichrists wicked Hierarchy And in her National capacitie abjured the same often solemnly and universally This hath been already clear'd upon the preceeding Dialogue 2ly Presbyterian Government hath been look't on by our Church as the only Government of the Church appointed by Christ in Scripture and as the hedge of her reformed Doctrine Nay the owning of it hath been the great badge and Criterion to try her true members the subscribing the books of Discipline and the nationall Covenant of old and the solemn league of late with engadgements of adherence to Presbyterian Government have been the ordinary door of entry into her Ministry This as to mater of fact is clear and undeniable 3ly Our Church hath Judicially condemned Eâ—…astianisme and Ministers their state offices and appointed Judicially the censuring of the opposers of this her establishment as scandalows Assembly 38. Sess. 16 17. Confirmed and renewed in Assembly 39. So Assembly 40. Sess 5. In the 2d place as to our Church her present condition these things are clear and undeniable 1. That all the legall right of the late work of Reformation is removed in the act rescissory 2. Presbyterian Government is raz'd and the Church-Government monopliz'd in the Arch Bishops and Bishops obtruded upon this Church And the right and liberties of Presbyters and all our former Church-Judicatories is removed and taken away 3ly Ane arbitary and Erastian Prelacy is set up in opposition both unto our Churches intrinsick power of Government and likewise her particular frame of Presbyterian Government 4. All her vowes and great Oaths both in the National Covenant as explaind An. 1638. And in the solemn League against Prelacie and for maintaining her reformation are disown'd raz'd and cassat as far as legall enactings can reach 5. Ane express badâ—…e is appointed as to both Ministers and people their owning this course of defection and disowning the late reformation viz. ministers submitting to Erastianism and Prelacy and owning their new courts and peoples hearing their viâ—…ars and substitutes for the same scope in thâ—… rulers diclaird designe 6. Ministers betwixt three and four hundred disown and stand in opposition to this course and a great part and body of the professours of this Church have likewise disownd the same stood their ground Hence upon what is said it followes in the 7th place that ane ax is laid to the root of her reform'd Doctrine Worship and Government The great hedge thereof is removed viz her solemn vows and beside her doctrinall principles anent the Antichrist and his Hierarchy the Churches intrinsick power of Government Christian libertie the unlawfulness of significant ceremonies in Gods Worship her Doctrine anent Justification the Imperfection of obedience Christs certain determinat and full satisfaction for sinners in opposition to the Socinian and Arminian errors The morality of the Sabbath c. are opposed by this innovating prelatick partie And next for her Worship beside what corruptions are already introduced and others pleaded for as the perth Articles c. It is upon the matter subjected to mens arbitrary impositions And our National Covenant and Confâ—…ssion is disownd ae stricking against popish corruptions and also our late confession as asserting the above-mentioned Doctrine principles And for Government the Curats are meer slaves of Prelats in all their meetings by his negative voice and the Prelats themselves are but the Magistrats creatures And
other of mediat and ordinary by men the one pointing at ordination and appointing of the Apostles to their office in a general sense the other of the special or specifical mould of the call and election of Ministers 4. That this right and interest of the people in Ministers call as it is founded upon the ancient practice and unrepealed priviledge of Gods Church under the old Testament so it hath besides this and such like instances and exemplary recommendations of the new-testament a constant moral warrand of the peoples knowledge anent the case and behaviour of their spiritual guides His 3d answer to this text is That if we understand it of a hand suffrage we lose by it Why so because we give advantadge to the Independents for popular election of Ministers wherea we give this power not to all the people but to the session And he tells us that therefore understanding Presbyterians have forborn to pressthis text Ans. 1. We have proven that a congregational Eldership is Iuris divini that by consequence this election strictly taken must be their priviledge See 9 Argument against Prelacy on the 1. Dialogue Who these understanding Presbyterians are who do not understand this place as warranding the people's interest in the election call of Ministers the Informer hath not given us an account since his Doubter is none of them and if he mean the Authors of jus divinum Ministerii Evangelici he will finde that they do clearly assert this truth propos 1. so as it do not exclude the due right of Ministers herein See pag. 127. and 129. And the Assembly of divines in their directory for ordination of Ministers 4. Branch do require the people's consent and approbation as necessarily antecedaneous to the ordination Besides could the Informer be ignorant that there are several other weighty Scripture grounds arguments pleaded by our writters to fortify this right of the people why did he not then put these also into the mouth of his Doubter and give us an account of his own and his Episcopal Masters ' skill in dissolving them Moreover tho it were granted that all here did concurr in this suffrage where no Eldership was yet constitute as Mr Gillespy Judgeth probable miscell pag. 14. it will nothing infringe the power of the Eldership in Churches constitute there being a vast difference betwixt the modus rei in Churches constitute and these in fieri or that are to be constitute Again 2. We told him that the word imports a judicial suffrage by extending of hands and that in commitiis among courts senats and representatives of the people as in the Roman senate in which the Consuls presided And that among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Magistrat created by suffrages in the courts solemnly held for that purpose That the Roman senate did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Chrysostome saith which Doctor Potter expones made their Gods by suffrage Charity mistaken page 145. Again supposing Elderships here existent this phrase may be well referr'd to the people as importing their consent and approbation reserving still to the Eldership their Juridical suffrage and decisive vote in election Mr Gillespy ubi supra clears this shewing that in Athens it selfe the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they did but like well the persons nominated as when a Thesaurer offered some to be surety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom the people shall approve This he proves from Demosth. advers Timocr from which oration he makes it good that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Assembly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the court of Iudges are plainly distinguished so far that they might not be both upon one day and that tho the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet not they but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or judges did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordain or appoint a Magistrat In a word we give in this mater the Ministers call the suffrage and election to the Eldership I mean in a Church constitute and the consent which is distinct from the decisive voice as the learned acknowledge Gamachaeus in primam 2dae ouâ—… of Thomas quest 15 shewes this to the whole people and the formal authoritative mission and imposition of hands making the man a Minister and giving him the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who had it not before to the Presbytery according to the Scripture pattern which is toto coelo different from the Independents principles in this point If any object that the giving the suffrage and election of Ministers to the Eldership excluding the people makes the breach greater betwixt the Independents and us then needs it being sufficient to clear us from their principles that we allow not either to the Eldership or congregation the formal authoritative mission and imposition of hands And that our arguments upon this head seems to give to the people not onely consent but suffrage in election I shall desire first that Mr Gillespies answer be considered Miscell page 24. to an objection about our homologating with Independents in this point Who sayes that in this point of election we do not homologate with them who give to the collective body of the Church women and children under age onely excepted the power of decisive vote or suffrage in elections we give the vote onely to the Eldership or Church representative so that they carry along with them the consent of the major or better part of the congregation So that he makes the attributing of this decisive voice suffrage in elections unto the people to be down right Independency the march stone of their difference from us He tells us afterward that the consent and knowledge belongs to the whole Church without which Ministers may not be intruded the counsel and deliberation which is distinct from this consent to the ablest wisest of the congregation especially the Magistrates But he distinguishes from both these the decisive vote in Court or judicatory the formal consistorial determination in the case of election and this he sayes belongs onely unto and consists in the votes of the Eldership And that the Independents contrarily give the conference and deliberation to the Eldership as we use to do in Comittees but the decision to the whole Congregation Adding further that such as have written against Independents do thus state the difference betwixt them and us in this point viz. not whether matters of great importance and publick concernment ought to be determined with the peoples free consent for this we grant but whether the cause must be brought to the body of the Congregation to give their voices therin together with the officers of the Church citing Laget in his defence of Church-government chap. 1. and Mr Herle Prolocutor of the Assembly of Divines in that piece intituled the Independency on scriptures of the Independency of Churches page 3. where he sets down this forementioned consent to the Minister who is to
be chosen as that which we allow to the members of the congregation in common Adding further that Independents place the whole essence of a calling in election accounting ordination to be but a solemnizing of it wheras we place the potestative mission not in the Churches election but lawfull ordination So that in the judgement of these Divines the reserving to the Presbytry the formal authoritative mission is the not the sole point of difference betwixt the Independents and us nor can a man be cleard from Independent principles in their judgement who extends the decisive juridicalâ—… vote in election beyond the Eldership and gives this decisive suffrage strictly taken to the people Besides the absurd and dangerous consequences following upon this opinion allowing the formal juridical elective suffrage to the people are evident such as 1. That this goes in some respect beyond Independents opinion as to the peoples power in elective suffrage who though they give it to the collective body yet â—…with a restriction excluding women children and persons under age not to every individual 2. That this will inferr that every point of government and every cause relating immediatly to the congregation must be brought to the multitude or body of the people to give their voices therin together with the officers of the Church for upon the same ground that the elective suffrages belong to them so must every piece of government Now Mr Laget ubi supra expresly states this as the Independents principle and as that wherin they differ from us 3. This cuts off all right and power of a juridical eldership which is by our writters asserted and made good from the scriptures and makes all their authoritative decisive suffrages in this and other points of government in reference to the congregation an invasion of the peoples right and unlawfull usurpation of their power for if this formall decisive suffrage belong to all the collective body jure divino how can they give it away 4. This will by consequence bring the collective body to have their formal decisive juridical suffrage in superiour Church-judicatories Presbytries and synods in every point wherin the congregational eldership and session have an immediat interest Again since consent and knowledge is allowed by our writters to the whole congregation and deliberation and counsel to some eminent members the elderships elective suffrage which in their judgement is necessarly connected with this cannot be said to impeach the due right of the collective body of the congregation in this point unless as I said we step over the march-stone and bring in the whole collective body of the congregation to have a decisive suffrage in government In a word the scripture arguments and other grounds here hinted which do clearly conclude the people and congregations right as to a call in general will not infer that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belonges to every one of the people or the whole collective body so far as to import a formal decisive suffrage for it being the due right of the peoples representatives the Eldership in whose choise and election the people have a great Interest and to which they give a formal consent the congregation doth in and by them give their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or suffrage and what is proper to some part of this organick body the Church may be well said to be the due right and action of the whole in a general sense each part concurring suo modo A man is said to see though the eye onely be the proper organe of sight because the eye subsists in and with the body and cannot act without or separated from it So the people in a general sense and mediatly elect by the eldership the whole collective body concurring in what is proper to them herein We heard from MrGillespy ubi supra that among the Greeks the people in consenting to a choise of governours were said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that although upon the supposal of the divine right of a juridical eldership representing the congregation which right is abundantly proved from scripture the formal Cousistorial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by juridical suffrage belongs to them yet the whole collective body their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the manner formerly explained stands good His last answer is that if we think the peoples election sâ—… necessary that none can be a Minister without it then we null the ministry of the whole Christian world for above 1000 years upward and the Ministry of this Câ—…rch ever till the year 1649. For untill then patronages were not taken away Ans We have proved that the People's right in the call and election of Pastours is the pure Scripture pattern continued in the Church of God for diverse ages which is enough to prove that as it ought to be endeavoured after and established by Churches who would imitat this pattern of the Lords tabernacle shewed upon the mounâ—… So where it is obtained it ought to be held fast against any contraire innovations That the people's interest in the election and call of Ministers and teachers had place from the Apostles even unto his own time in a good measure may be proven besides what we have said already to clear this by a very unsuspect witness Marcus Antonius de dominis de Repub. Eccles lib. 1. cap. 22. Num. 10. he saith in electione ministrorum etiam Apostolorum tempore ipsorum instituto plebem totam multitudinem magnam habuisse partem And lib. 3. cap. 3. Num. 12. Iam vero post concilium Nicenum in electionibus eundem prorsus veterem morem perpetuo Ecclesiam ad nostra pene tempora servasse ut a clero populâ—… fieret ex patribus ac rebus gestis conciliis juribus ex Romanorum Pontificum attestationibus decretis jam sumo comprobandum That is that after the Council of Nice the same ancient custome was own'd to his times by the Church as to the peoples interest in this election and call of Ministers he undertakes to prove from the Fathers from history and Councils and Laws and the very decrees of Popes In the Council of Paris Anno 559. There was such a decree Quia in aliquibus crivitatibus consuetudo prisca negligitur c. Because the ancient Custome and decrees of the Canons are neglected in some cities they appoint the decrees of the Canons to be keept and the ancient Custom ut nullus civibus invitis ordinetur Episcopus nisi quem populi clericorum electio pleniâ—…ima quaesierit voluntate c. That none be ordained a Bishop without the will of the citizens but such onely whom the people and Clergy shall chuse with full consent That the people had a right to require call and elect their Pastour in the ancient Church Didoclav proves from the Example of Eradius Ambrose Flavianus Nectarius c. From pag. 3â—…6 to 331. shewing that Cyprian saith of Rabbinus that he was chosen Bishop
de universae fraternitatis suffragio lib. 1. Ep. 2. By the chose of the whole Brethren From the Epistle of the Council of Nice to those of Alexandria Lybia c. which is extant with Theodoret Hist. lib. 1. cap. 9. Where he shews that those who succeed in the room of the dead Prelat must upon these terms succeed si digni viderentur populus eligeret if they appear worthy and the people shall chuse That Chrysostom succeeded to Nectarius postquam in hoc Clerus populus suffragia sua contulissent after he was called and chosen by the Clergy and people Sozom. lib. 3. c. 8. That Evagrius was chosen suffragiis or by votes and suffrages Socrates lib. 6 cap. 13. That Augustine called again and again for the people's consent as to his successour Hic mihi vâ—…stra assentatione opus est Fâ—… 11. To which may be added a very impartial witness Bishop Bilson Perpetual Government Chap. 15. page 434. Where he shewes that the people had their right in chusing their Pastours Onely to prevent mistake upon these passages we would take notice that this suffrage here atribute generally and indiscriminatim to the people and clergy must be understood pro uniuscujusque modulo and according to every ones capacity for the reasons above rendred Since both Ministers right in ordination and also the right of a juridicall eldership in churches constitute in reference to the election of Ministers hath as we have shown a clear foundation in Scripture and antiquity But of this enough 2. We have also proven that we are not concerned nor in the least constrained by our principles and practice in this case to null a Church or Ministry where this call is wanting it being enough for us that the want of it is a corruption rendring a Ministry not so pure as it ought to be and that our case being a case of competition betwixt Ministers holding fast this piece of our Covenanted Reformation and a party of Schismatick Innovators opposing and rejecting it and turning back to the vomit of this and other corruptions after they have been seen cast out and vowed against We are upon the grounds of our Reformation and vows sufficiently warranted to leave these innovators and adhere to the faithfull Ministry 3. As we did shew that the granting of Curats their having the essence of a ministerial call will not infer our hearing and owning them in every case and especially in ours which himself must grant unless he fall in a palpable contradiction so it s more then he can prove that this Church of Scotland from its first beginning till 1649 had pratronages Which being founded on the Common law and several ages posterior to the pure Church in this Nation planted as we heard without Prelats by some of Johns Disciples how absurd is it to assert that it had Patronages from the beginning Finally whatever tollerance of these corruptions before they be removed may be pleaded for yet such as have embraced them now yea as a badge of owning this deformation of our once glorious Church are certainly to be disowned by all who would hold fast their integrity For what he adds anent our owning Presbyterian Ministers adhering to our Reformation tho they have been presented by Patrons It 's both impertinent to the point and already answered For it s not this simpliciter or only which we ground upon in this practice as is often said but the principles state practice and design of Conformists in this complex case Beside who sees not the difference betwixt a Minister owning the principles of our Reformation and disowning this with other corruptions although the times necessity did constrain to make use of patronages in their first entry when our Church was as yet groaning under this bondage and such as owne this corruption both in judgment and practice after it is rejected and the Church delivered from it yea and owne it as an express badge of Conformity to abjured Prelacy Sure they are very blind who see not the difference betwixt these The Doubter alleadges that patronages are abjured in the Covenant and the Informer desires to see in in what place But if he will open his eyes and but read either our National or solemn league he will easily see this for patronages being a popishcorruption contrary to the Word of God as we have proved it 's abjured among the rites or Customs brought into this Church without or against the word And likewise in being condemned in the 2. book of discipline to which we vow adherence as unto the discipline of this Church it must be in that respect also abjured And as contrary to sound doctrine the power of godliness and Government of this Church exprest in the 2. book of Discipline it is abjured in the solemn League wherein we likewise vow adherence to that discipline But saith he Since patronages were in use aster the Covenant why was not this breach discerned and was this Church perjured all that time Ans. The forecited act of Parliament shewes that this corruption had been long by this Church groan'd under and long before that time declared and testified against both in the 2. book of discipline and by assemblies thereafter and if the interposing of the civill Magistrat being necessary to remove this the Church still untill that time groan'd under this burden where can he fixe his challenge The next argument of his Doubter for not hearing Curats is that they are ordained by Bishops To which he answers 1. That all whom we refuse to hear were not ordained by Bishops He means those who were ordained by the Presbytery and have conformed Ans. 1. We have already told him that it is not the Episcopal ordination simply and abstractedly from our case which is our ground of not owning them but the Episcopal ordination of perjured intruders breaking our union and reformation and ejecting our faithfull Pastours and testified against by our presbyterian protestant Church which they have thus intruded upon 2. We have told him that the concession of their lawfull ordination for substance will no more plead for our owning them in this complex case then their concession of the lawfull ordination of Presbyterian ministers will infer an obligation upon Conformists to owne them which is a consequence that they all deny And that they must grant that owning of the episcopal ordination in this complex case is different from a simple owning of it in relation to hearing Even as Presbyterian ministers are acknowledged by conformists to have a lawfull ordination for substance whom notwithstanding they will not suffer the people to hear 3. Those who were so ordained and have conformed having as I said eatenus or in so far renounc'd their Presbyterial ordination and adhering to the prelatical as the more perfect this their disowning of our reformation especially aggreged by their perjury and apostacy puts them in the same yea a worse condition as to our hearing
emboldned to judge without ground and the person hindred to act in faith or induced to act against it c. So that to assert that the Magistrats command can invalidat these grounds and principles and render the action not sandaâ—…ous which is such otherwise is to give him a Dominion over the conscience and subject it immediatly and absolutly to his Laws which is a principle disowned by all Protestants Moreover the Informer himself defines the offence of the weak brother in things indifferent an emboldning him to sin contrary to his conscience or to judge that we sin when we sin not citing 1 Cor. 8. Rom. 14. Now if the action be upon this ground principle necessarily sinfull in its present circumstances how I pray can the Magistrats command render it not only Lawfull but necessary as he is bold to assert Can the Magistrat by his Law embolden a mans conscience to sin and yet neither the Magistrat sin himself nor the man sin in obeying him Amesius a better Casuist then he will tell him de Consc. lib. 5. cap. 11. Quest. 6. R. 6. that nulla authoritas humana vel tollere potest scandali rationem ab eo quod alias esset scandalum vel peccati rationem a scandalo dato That is no humane authority can take away the nature of scandal from that which otherwise were a scandal or the nature and cause of sin from scandal given And his ground is very considerable which doth confirme what I have now said Nullus enim homo saith he potest vel charitati conscientiis nostris imperare vel periculum scandali dati praestare That is for no man can put imperious commands either upon charity or our consciences or exeem from the hazard of scandal given But now to fortify this raw ignorant assertion as to scandal our Informer brings Act. 15. 28. these necessary things from which words of the councils sentence he drawes ane argument thus that though of themselves they were not necessary but somtimes indifferent yet by the Authority of the council they were made necessary for the good of the Church so he sayes obedience to authority preponderats the not giving offence as the greater duty of the two as divines and Casuists shew and in this case the man who thus obeyes gives no offence but doth duty and if any take it its causeless on his part and occasioned through the brothers weakness so that its scandalum acceptum non datum groundlesly taken but not given and when the Apostle forbids to use our liberty to the offence of the weak he speaks to those who were not determined by Authority Ans. What poor ignorant and incoherent reasoning is this 1. It s a strange sottish or rather popish Assertion that the necessary things Acts. 15. 28. were made so by the councils authority For the text is most express that the Apostles enjoyned this upon weighty scripture-grounds and what seemed good to the holy ghost speaking in the word as well as to them so that the holy ghosts grounds and commands touching the maintaining of love and union in the Church and the great rule of edification and not stumbling the weak Iews were the great and standing Scripture principles upon which this decree was grounded Now to shew how our Informer takes the papists here by the hand in this glosse let us hear Calvine upon the place praeter haec necessaria Hujus vocis praetextu superbe triumphant Papistae quasi hominibus liceat ferre leges quae necessitatem conscientiis imponant quia quod deccrnunt Apostoli necessario servandum esse pronuntiant i. e. the Papists triumph proudly upon pretext of â—…his this place as if men might make Laws imposing a necessity upon Consciences because what the Apostles decree they affirme must be necessarly kept Then he adds atqui expedita c. But the Answer is easy to such a foolish cavil so he censures our New Casuist and his fellowes in this point for this necessity was no longer vigent then there was hazard of dissolving union so to speak properly it was an accidental or extrinsick necessity which had place not in the thing it self but in guarding of offence which saith he is evident in the speedy laying aside of this decree Then he tells us that when the contention ceased Paul shewes that nothing is unclean and again establishes this liberty Rom. 14 14. And commands to eat freely what ever is sold. Adding that the papists in vain do snatch an occasion to bind consciences from this word and to conclude the Churches power to statute any thing beside the word of God Telling us further that from the word of God the Council drew this ground of exercising charity in matters indifferent Then saith he in summa the summ is if charity be the bond of perfection and the end of the Law if Gods command be that the faithfull study mutual unity and concord and that every one please his nighbour to edification none is so rude who may not perceive that what the Apostles here commanded is containd in the word of God And at the close he tells us Apostolâ—…s ex verbi Dei sinibus minime egredi That the Apostles would not step beyond the limits of the word of God But 2. This mans Babylonish tongue still wounds himself as well as the truth for 1. he acknowlegeth that what the Apostles here decreed was for the Good of the Church which if he understand any thing he must needs take it according to the grounds laid down in this disquisition specially that which the Apostle James proposes immediatly before his and the rest of ths Apostlee decision vers 21. viz. that Moses had in every city them that teach him being read every Sabath day So that it was needfull at that time upon the grounds of charity union and aedification to beat with the weak Jews in abstaining from these things discharged by Gods Law till the ceremonies were honourably buryed Hence it followes clearly that this abstinence was made necessary upon these weighty grounds at this time and not by the authority of the council only Neither was the matter enjoynd of a thing indifferent made necessary by their determination but upon these grounds and for the great end of the Churches good which he mentions this abstinence was at this time and in this case necessary And by the Apostles declared to be so upon divine warrand for what else will he make of that expression It seemed good to the Holy ghost Again Paul and the other Apostles had no power but to edification nor any dominion over the faith of Gods people and so acted nothing here pro arbitrio or imperio So that their sentence was only a declarator of Gods mindeanent that which was antecedaneously to their decree hic nnnc a necessary duty although we deny not that the Apostles decision was to have its own weight in determining the Churches obedience 2. He brings
backsliding in this case and especially the joyning to a backsliding party who are not the true Church is much different from adherence to a Church tho backslidden It s a far different case not to leave the communion of a Church because of some corruptions and not to joyn with an unsound party of a Church drawing back from her Reformation So that upon a due consideration of the matter of fact and Presbyterian principles its evident that these Testimonies do levell against Conformists 2. It s a far different case to owne the Ministry of a corrupt Church wherin prelacy is universally owned and wherein there hath been no other way of entry into the Ministry for many generations but by Prelacy and to owne a party of Schismatick Intruders introducing Prelacy over the belly of a Presbyterian Church and shutting out her faithfull Mininistry surely these Intruders are in this case the Brownists 3. It s a far different case to submit to a Ministry meerly Episcopal and to keep the Worship in a Church long under this Government and to submit to an Episcopal Erastian Ministry and a Church Government fundamentally corrupt deriving all its power from an Antichristian supremacy and meer civil papacy after it hath been eminently and universally disowned by that Church and vowed against Especially when a backsliding party only do thus usurp over the sound Ministry and have ejected them and this Erastian abomination is set up to raze this true spiritual Government of the Church once universally setled and owned 4. It s a far different case to submit to an Episcopal Ministry so far as pure while Episcopacy is universally ownd and no obligation is upon any to disowne it further then its own corruption in that case will amount to and infer and to owne and submit to an episcopal Erastian Government introduced by an Innovating party into a Presbyterian Church against her standing acts solemn Oaths and vows universally taken on by that Church against the same while a faithfull Ministry and the great part of the people are in Conscience of their vows contending against it Surely this superinduced obligation requires a higher degree of zeal against that defection and renders it the more hainous The high places permitted to David and Solomon before the Temple was built are censured in after times greater light and obligations do in this case cast the ballance These considerations do clearly repell any argument which he would draw from his citations to our case But now to view them The English Presbyterians in that piece do first assert page 10. that all in the same bounds most be under the care of the same Minister and that these limits ought not to be brangled Ans. This shall be easily accorded give us our beautifull Church-order and a lawfully called Ministry and this parochial order shall be observed and obeyed 2. page 11. A man under a wicked or Heretical Minister must remove his habitation rather then brangle parochial order Ans Then it follows in their principles that when the order and union of a Reformed Church is already brangled by Innovating Schismaticks whose wickedness and errors are palpable men may attend a more pure Ministry without Schism by clear consequence sure he is a loser by this 3. page 12. to appoint Elders in every Church and every city is all one and converts in the city must joyn with the congregation in Churchfellowship Ans. But what if a party in the city call themselves the Church shut out the true Minister and bring in one of their own must not the true converts own their first Minister and oppose these Innovators Surely this Testimony rebounds another blow upon our mis Informer 4. page 25. evil men defacto have been officers Hophni and Phineas Scribes and Pharisees whose Ministerial acts were not null and Christs commission authorized Judas Ans. This will as much plead for owning Presbyterian Ministers as Conformists And if he alleadge that they are disorderly Schismatical c. and therefore must not be ownd in this case I answer â—…he must prove this which he hath not yet done 2. He must acknowledge that the granting that the Ministerial acts of Church-officers are not null by their sins will not plead for hearing Ministers in every case untill aliunde and from other grounds our obligation to owne such men as our Ministers hic nunc be made good which he hath not yet done as to Curats Neither Hophni or Phineas nor the Scribes and Pharisees were rooting out the faithfull Ministry of the Church of the Jews who would not concurr in a course of defection after they had laid down a course to overturn the ordinances which is the case of Conformists in relation to us as is evident Again state the question so that Hophni and Phineas and the Pharisees Ministry could not be owned without partaking in their sin then this man must needs grant that Gods people were obliged to disowne them and had disowned them Now we have proven this to be our case as to the owning of Conformists 5. page 42 43. Israel is called the people of the Lord even after the Calves were set up at Dan and Bethel and Cajaphas was own'd as high priest though they came to the office by bribry and faction and the highpriest had an hand in crucifying Christ. Ans. The same reply and retortion recurs as formerly what will he say if we plead this for presbyterian Ministers whom he will not call worse then these mentioned nor will he say that our Presbyterian Church is worse then that Church So that he must grant this will not reach his conclusion till more be supposed and proved in this point Again tho God in his soveraign dispensation had not as yet cast off the ten tribes having a faithfull remnant among them yet I hope he will not from this plead for owning the Calves or the Priests Ministry whom Jeroboam had obtruded and set up contrary to Gods institution and for keeping up that wofull breach in Gods worship and in Israel which was therby promoted and this is a fit emblem of their Innovating prelatick Ministry Beside that the high priests were men in a considerable measure deciders and Interpreters of the civil Law and might in that respect be owned But however it is as we have said bad arguing from the comporting with corruptions in that old dispensation and Ministry especially when drawing near an end to the receiving of abjured corruptions into a Church which has been rid of them and from a non-separating in the first case to conclude against a non-union or non complyance in the second And thus neither will Pauls carriage toward the high prist Acts 23. plead for adhering to Curats upon the same grounds For he will not say that Paul understood not his office in a spiritual sense to be now expired and that he was not to be owned as a teacher who was every way destitute of the truth of the
Presbytry p. 131. l. 13. supple in the proper Scriptural senc l. 32. r. grad p. 137. l. 1. dele had ane office next to that of apostles and doctours p. 139. l. 20. r. his p. 140. l. 21. r. for p. 148. l. 12. r. supple Taking it in ane authoritative Juridical senc p. 150. l. penult r. pray p. 157. l. 14. dele apostolik and. p. 162. l. 27. r. circle stil. p. 163. l. 9. r. with l. ult r. ceremonial ibid. r. part p. 164. l. 31. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. dele ane p. 167. l. 5. r exemplify p. 170. l. 14. r. Prov. 9. p. 171. l. 14. r labourers l. ult add wee p. 174. l. 34. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 177. l. 10. r. ubi p. 177. l 31. for even r. except p. 178. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 183. l. 30. Ar. it self p. 186. l. 16. r. and pride l. penult add in p. 188. l. ult r. true p. 191. l. 30. r. profligat p. 195. l. 16. r. interval the l. 21. r. nothing p. 196. l. 3. r. bold p. 198. p. 199. l. 5. r. what p. 200. l. 2. dele message or l. 13. add in p. 201. l. 33 p. suppositia l. 33 r. suppositious l. ult what p. 203 l. 17. r. till 204. l. 6. r. consuetudo p. 206. l. 24. r. for 1. p. 211. l. 21. through the. p. 215. l. 25. r. distributively 217. l. 9 dele by l. 19. add is p. 219. l. 6. r. or p. 221. l. 24 add the. l. 25. r. opposed p. 222. l. 25. r. of p. 226 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 227 l. 12 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 229. l. 24. r. deligatur plebe p. 231 l. 30. r. ligandi l. ult in p. 236. 11. r. â—…rum p. 238 l. 26. r. fit segregatus l. 27. r. set aside or cesured p. 241 l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 25 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 142 l. 10. r. lowly p 143. l. 10. r. unalterablenes l. 19 r. harmonious p. 245 l. 7. r. commune p. 246. l. 28. r. name p. 247. l. 28. r. office ibid. r. none l. 30 r. us p. 252. l. 3. r. 5. l. 33. supple and besides l. 34 r. this ibid. supple which is p. 261. l. 28. r. forgat 29. r. for p. 261. l. 26. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 265. l. 10. dele as to soom acts p. 272. l. 6. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 281. l. 9. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Part. pag 2. l. 15. supple both p. 7. l. 24. supple anno 40. and 41. p. 24. l. 17. r. 1671. p. 62. l. 4. r. this p. 73. l. 2. r. then l. 20. r. cannot p. 99. l. 18. r. commissaries p. 117. l. 4. dele me p. 124. l. 4. r. consonant p. 132. l. 19. r. Diaeceseos l. 21. supple the. Part. 3. Pag. 2. l. 13. r. our l. 14. r. or p. 4. l. 29. r. declared p. 12. l. 13. supple and are p. 14. l. 28. r. doe p. 26 l. 15 supple ane p. 28 l. 28. r. and. p. 29 l. 16 r. of p. 35 l. 31 supple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 32. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 36 l. 1 r. motion p. 37 l. 28 r fourth p. 39 l. 32 r. constitution p. 40 l. 32 supple comparing this with what he pleads from the instance of Solomons deposing Abiathar p. 48 l. 9. r. by p. 53 l. 2. r. obligations p. 59 l 8 r. intrusion p. 61 l. 32 add therof p. 64 l. 27 r chousing p. 67 l. 15 r. petitio p. 69 l. 25 r. they p. 73 l. 32 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 78 l ult r. Sabinus p. 81 l. 15 r. the p. 83 l. penult r. relation p. 84 l. 15 r. no Bishop p. 90 l. 21. r. Priest l. 27 dele hearing of p. 28 dele and attending their Ministry as such 15. p. 94 l. 11 adde graceless men p. 95 l. 4 dele of p. 103 l. 18 r. ofl 23 r scruple p. 113 l. 1 r. supremacy p. 127 l. 28 r. inquies p. 130 l. ult r. calceorum p. 134 l. 12 r. another p. 138 l. 26 r. authority l. penult r. our p. 160 l. 1 add this p. 162 l. 27 r. Presbyterian p. 165 l. 17 r. they p. 167 l. 27 r. for or r. againe p. 168 l. r adde especially p. 170 l. 10 r. which notwithstanding is 179 l. 29 r. Magistrats p. 181 l. 12. r. a purer Church p. 183 l. 16 r. and which doth p. 186 l. 2 r. thousandes l. 16 r. this p. 190 l. 11. r. more then l. 28 r. offered p 162 l. 8 r. Smectymnuus p. p 162 l. 25 r. the Holy Spirit dele of ibid. p. pe command p. 76. l. 19. After Ambition r. The text being most expresse in it that the inequality which they were striveing about included a dominion and primacie p. 77. l. 13. after touched adde since our Lord was now exerciseing an absolute supremacie over his Church how then I pray will this argument taken from his example Suite his Scope purpose of dischargeing a Supremacie p. 79. l. 20. 21. r. thus did not Christ discharge ane inequality in dischargeing a primacie an inequality of the highest pitch p. 79 l. ult r. Seeming to make p. 80. l. ult After power adde to use his way of speaking p 81. l 20 r. and neither despotick nor princely p. 83. l. 28 29. r. That Church-officers are of superiour or inferiour orders or kinds p. 84. l 26. r. A preaching Presbyter or Pastor l. 31 32. r. Such Presbyters have the Scriptural Episcopal authority p 85. l. 17 r. Superiour and inferiour kindes or orders p. 87. l. 6 r. After Church rulers adde we all know how Prelatists and the popish Church apply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Clerus l. 9. after denomination adde considered in its true extent import p. 89. l. 5. r. To the highest ordinary office bearers intrusted with the Power of the keys l. 14 r. Whatever Power of order or jurisdiction the Scripture Bishop can lay claime unto p. 90 l. 1. r. The Scripture Episcopal Power l. 9 r. All this Episcopal Authority l. 25 r. Elders or Bishops in a perfect parity and in common So l. ult after flocks p. 91. l. 3. after Presbyters adde when applyed as is said to the highest ordinary officers entrusted with the Power of the keyes l 12 r. preaching Presbyters or Pastors So l. 18 l. 32. after elder adde he must understand the preaching elder or Pastor if he speak to the point l. ult and pag. 92. l. 1. r. When God is pointing out thereby the highest ordinary officer intrusted with the word and doctrine l. 5. r. preaching Presbyter l. 15 r. preaching elders l. 17. r. this highest ordinary standing officer often mentioned p. 92. l. 17. r. When the Word Bishop is applyed to the highest ordinary Church officer entrusted with the Power of the keyes l. 24. r. preaching elder or
Seven and calls them not the Seven Angels as he should have done according to this mans meaning but indefinitly the Angels of the Seven Churches from which it is convincingly apparent that though there were Seven Churches written unto yet there were not Seven diocesian Bishops according to the number of the Seven Angels but that all the Ministers or Angels are thus collectively understood And wheras this man professes in the deept of his witt for sooth to wonder at this answer and taks it to be a shift He should wonder at Augustin Homil. 21. upon this booke who thus taks it expounding the Angel of Thyatira the proepositi ecclesiarum the governoures of the Churches He should wonder at Aretas lib. 1. Cap 1 2 9 10. Wonder at Primasius in Apoc C 2. At Ambrosius Anbertus To 1 6 p 1. Anselm Pererius Victorinus Tirinus Haymo Beda perkings Fox in his Meditationes upon the Revel p 7 8 9 17. who cites also many Interpreters thus expounding him Yea more he wonders at King james and the Episcopal clergie in England under and by whom in the contents annexed to the Bibles of the last translation the contents in the 2. chap are represented what is to be written to the Angels that is to the Ministers of the Church of Ephesus Smyrna c Its pitie they had not this grave dictator to correct their mistake and to present them with his new spectacles to discover therewith the Bishop in these Epistles He should have wondered at Pilkington Bishop of Durham in his exposition upon Hag Chap. 1 v. 13. who expoundes the Angel thus collectivly See Gers. Buc. de Gub. Eccl. p. 1. 205 393 408 419 422 433. Now what pinched all these Authors to embrace this Silleptick exposition of the Angel As for Scultetus although a Protestant yet he is a high Prelatist and a partial witnes in this point cannot conterballance these Authores mentioned But next what wil our Informer gain though it were yeelded that this Angel is ane individual or single person Some learned men doe so take it as Beza and Reynolds who notwithstanding were far from thinking him a Prelat Because I. He may be the Angelus Preses or the moderatour Angel not the Angelus Princeps or Lord Angel yea and the Preses and Moderator for the time as a speaker in the Parliament Ephesus had many elders Act 20 27. 1 Tim. 5 17. of equal authority who were made Bishops and they are spoken to in the plural though the Angel is named in the singular number 2. This Angel is said to have no jurisdiction and superiority over the rest of the Ministers And we challeng our Informer to shew where this Angel is spoken unto with reference to Ministers as subject unto him which notwithstanding is his supposition petitio principii all along in this Argument 3. The Parochial and Diocesian division of Churches were long after this and not until 260. Years after Christ. 4. Nothing is required of this Angel but that which is the common duty of all Ministers Finally Suppose it were granted to him that a superiority were imported in nameing this Angel It may be a Superiority of Order Dignity or Gifts not of power and Jurisdiction But the Dcubter Object 's That Revel 2 24. Christ by Iohn speakes to the Angel in the plural or You ' and that therefore he means all the Ministâ—…rs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this he answers That Beza by this phrase understands the president and the company of Ministers with the rest of the people tabing the Angel still for a single person and hâ—…lds that more then the Angel are spoken unto He tells us that the words are ane Apostrophe wherein the speaker amplifies his speech turning it to some others then those who are first spoken unto Ans. 1. We have already shown that this and the other parallel phrase mentioned doe strongely plead for the Angels being understood Collectivly since the Lord makes a Plural of the singular Angel as 1 Tim. 2. 15. Shee shall be saved if they continue c. especially the above evinced equal power and authority of the Angels or Presbyters who where in these Churches being pondered Besids how doth this remove the objection that Beza understands it some other wayes then collectively what sayes that to the reason and argument it self But 2. If Beza understand by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or yow the moderator or president Angel with the rest of the Ministers wherein I pray is our argument infringed viz That this Angel is not a Diocesian Prelat since other Ministers are taken in with him here as of equall authority in this compellation In Beza's sense this is no other language then what might have been said or writen to a presbyterian Synod with its Moderator all being equally concerned therein and supposed equaly Angels in this Church And if this Cutt not the sinnews of this mans designe and argument here let any judge 3. Non can rationally call it a turneing of the speech to any other then such as were first speken to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But to yow I Say is a continuanc of the speech to the same persons with ane exegitick explication of the Angel by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or yow especially since they are distinguished from the rest or the ordinary Presessores by the Copulative and. In our ordinary language we usually reinforce our speech to the same persons and to the same purpose with ane emphatick I say as it is here Some Prelatists have a Knack which I wonder our Informer stumbled not upon in alledging that some copies leave out the Conjunction Reading it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to yow the rest in Thyatira making the terme yow all onewith the rest in Thyatira but the plaine reading of the 23. v. confutes this But that which the Informer thinkes should put it out of question wich us That these Angels were Diocesian Bishops Is the Testimonies of the Ancients who came immediatly after them and condescend upon some of their names Then he repeats to us againe the storie of Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus borne neer the Apostles times who numbers Seâ—…n of his Predecessours before him and tels us That Leontius Bishop of Magnesia Numbers Tuenty seven Bishops of Ephesus from Timothy That these Seven Bishops of Asia are at the Council of Neice designed by their styles Ephesus Smyrna c. That Eusebius Tertullian Irenaeus assert that Iohn made Policarp Bishop of Smyrna That he is thought to be the Angel to whom John wrote That Ignatius writes to him as such c. These he thinkes as acomment upon this and such like scriptures should convince us Ans. 1. He forgot one maine point of this argument from Antiquity before it convince us he must condescend upon the mould and power of the Bishops which these Ancienas speakes of he holds that the word Bishop is variously taken in Scripture and why not also