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
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
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
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
clearly extant in Scripture His 2d Reason and exception to the Argument is that with us the word elder signifies both the preaching and ruling elder and that he can upon as good and better ground say that it signifies the Bishop the Minister both being elders but of different dogrees Ans. 1. When he shall make as evident from Scripture the Diocesian Bishopes distinction from and Superiority unto the Pastor or presbyter-Presbyter-Bishop or Minister of a congregation as we have shown the superiority of the preaching elder abovâ—…â—…he ruleing elder and the distinction of the one from the other then his parallel will pass current but till then it is a meer non-sequitur The Scripture clearly distinguishes as we have seen the elder that rules only and the elder that both laboures in the word and doctrine and rules also clearlydiversifying the offices and allowing honour to the one above the other Now let this or any thing like this be shown as to the Diocesian Bishop and Presbyter-Bishop where will this Informer point us to such a distinction of Bishops their office and honour as there is here of the elders Nay since in all directions as to peoples obedience to Pastors their is not the least intimation of his supposed different degrees of pastours we strongly con the contrare So that we inferr the distinction betwixt the preaching and ruleing elder from the Scriptures clear specifying of different offices Acts and degrees of honour accordingly among elders but the sucks out of his fingers the different degrees of Pastors and the distinction of the Bishop from the Presbyter without the least Scripture-warrand 2. He grossly belies our princples and the truth when he maks his Presbyterian doubter alledge That the word elder signifies no more but a Minister of a particular congregation which he forged to bring in and give some colour unto this his 2d Answer or reason But saltem mendacem opportet esse memorem A liar they say should have a good memory He be contradicts himself while suggesting in the objection that we hold that elder signifies no morethen a Pastour yet telling us for his answer that we hold the Word elder to signify sometimes the preaching sometimes the ruleing elder It is enough for our purpose that neither the word Bishop nor Presbyter doe signify any ordinary standing Church officer higher then a Pastor or Minister of the gospel labouring in the word doctrine whither indiscriminatim or in fixt particular congregations in the Apostolick â—…s we need not determin as to our defence here anâ—… untill he prove that either of the names doe signifie a higher ordinary officer which will be ad calendas Graecas the argument stands good against him We may here mind this Informer that hereafter he alledges that 2 Tim. 4. The Deaconta or Diaconship is in a general sense attribut to Timothy ane Evangelist yet he would reject it as ane absurd inference to conclude from this that there are different degries of deacons allowed or appointed in Scripture Which notwithstanding is his own consequence here and the strength of his answer to the premised Argument As for what he adds That Bishops were afterwards sometimes called Presbyters of their Churches thogh unquestionably Bishops in his sense in rembemberance of the indifferencie of the names in the times of the new Testament though they were ordinarly called Bishops We say it is certane that the first supposed Bishops named in the pretended Catalogues from the Apostles and Evangelists of which afterward were meer Presbyters and if they were called Presbyters in rememberance of the new Testament tymes the more guilty were they who afterward made the word Bishop contrare unto the new Testament times and language the Characteristick of ane office Superior to a Pastor or Presbyter and the rather in that whereas the word Presbyter or elder is severall times assumed by the Apostles in a general sense the word Episcopus or Bishop alwayes denots ane ordinary Pastor if we except that Episcopatus in Act 1. Which our translators on the Margin renders office or charge in a general sense so that when Prelats ambitious invention was upon the wheel it seems they should rather have appropriat to themselves the word Presbyter or elder a fit designation for Fathers of the Church as this man calls them The doubter nixt offers ane Argument against prelacie from Philip. 1. where the Apostle speaks of Bishops in the plural number in that Church who were only Ministers since there could not be many Bishops over Ministers in that â—…nChurch we shall take up here with this hint of argument only adding that by confession of Prelatists there was never in one city more then one Bishop even when the inhabitants were all professed Christians much more here where the generalitie of the inhabitants were Heathens and the Christians but a small remnant So that the Apostles saluting here the â—…ishops in the plurall number Bishops of that one Church of Philippi and contradistinguishing them from the Deacons whom he immediatly subjoyns to them he must needs be understood of the Pastoures and Presbyters as the highest ordinary officers of that Church To answer this Argument the Insormer hathgathered together several scrapes and some very odd and inconsistent notions 1. He tells us that Ambrose takes these Bishops not to be the Bishops at Philippi but certan Bishops present with Paul when he wrote in whose name he writs to the Philippians joyning them with himself But this gloss as it is cross to the current of expositores so to common sense Paul who only was the Spirit of Gods penman joyns here Timothie with himself in the inscription as in severall other Epistles and having taken to himself and Timothie the designation of Servants of Christ he doth nixt after this description of himself and Timothie according to his usual Methode describe these to whom he writes viz. to all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons viz there at Philippi not with Paul they being ranked among these to whom he writes who are contradistinguished from Paul and Timothy the directors of the Epistle and supposed to be with these saints at Philipp Otherwayes there is no sense in the Text to read it thus Paul and Timothius to the saints at Philippi with the Bishops with Paul Had the Apostle joyned them with himself as he doth Timothy in the inscription they would have been mentioned in that branch of the verse together with him and not cast after the adress and the description of these to whom he writes The Apostle in Gal. 1. After he hath described and asserted his Apostolick authoritie he nixt adds and all the brethren that are with me to the Churches of Galatia Thus he takes in many with himself in this inscription before he describe these to whom the Epistle is addressed And should not these supposed eminent Bishops have been after this manner joyned with
him Besids will any say that the Deacons joyned with these Bishops in the period of this verse were not at Philippi or belonging to that Church but with Paul But they are mean men and their credit needed not to be saved by such a conceit as this All the fear of that Father was â—…east these Bishops at Philippi be found meer Presbyters of that Church And how to ward off this blow hoc opus hic labor ese Well what further answers he He tells us nixt That others think they were Bishops of theChurches about conveened at Philippie which Paul knowing of salutes them with the Church Since he first salutes the Saints as intending mainely to write to them and then the Bishops So wee see the Prelatists saile every point of the compasse to save the credit of these Bishops If Bishops cannot be gotten sett beside the chaire with Paul when addressing the Epistle this gloss standing clearely antipod to the Text the nixt shift is rather then these Bishops be degraded to meer Presbyters to send for some other Bishops to Philippi at this tyme of Paules Writing that this casual Mustere of Bishops of other Churches may warde off the deadly blow which the cause will gett by seating all these Bishops at Philippie as officers of that Chuch and to compass this designe they must be but occasionally saluted here and not as fixed members or officers thereof upon the Apostles Information comeing to late to his ears from our Informer and his fellows that there were several Magnates there besides the ordinary Presbyters at Philippi But which also odd they must become so humble as to fall behind the Saints the persons mainely written to Had our Informer left out this clause which notwithstanding his answer did require Our Prelats Parliaments order Who are before because behind the most would have saved their reputation still But many of the Ancients are more ingenuous Thodoret confesses that Presbyters are here understood because their could not be many Bishops in one-city on Philip. 1. Oecumenius on Philip. 1. Tells us That we are not so to understand it as if there were many Bishops in one citty but that the Apostle calls the Presbyters Bishops Chrisost. ibid. acknowledges That they were Presbyters who were called thus because the names were then common and the Bishop himself was called Deacon and that the distinction of names came afterward This conjecture is sib to that other shift to take off the strength of our argument from Act. 20. viz. That these Elders were not Church Officers of Ephesus onely but the Bishops of all Asia mett together at Ephesus and sent for by Paul from thence least if the Episcopal authority be found seated in these Elders of Ephesus at Pauls last farewel it breake the Diocesian Prelat all in peeces But as it is well replyed that since Paul sent to Ephesus for the Elders of the Church it is a groundless conjecture to call them any other Elders then of that Church to which he sent and that there is no hint in the text of any other Elders there at that time So this fancie is as fond when applyed to this passage and may receave the same reply What shaddow of proof can be produced that therewere any other Officers there at this time then the Bishops or Ministers of this Church And what Logick I pray or sense is there in this inference that because the Apostle first salutes all the Saints or the Church collective in bulke and then the Church Officers Bishops and Deacons or the Church representative in special that therefore he salutes these Church Officers as casually there and not as Officers of that Church Beside had the Apostle saluted them as casually present they would have been saluted with every Saint in Christ Chap. 4 21. rather then in the inscription The English Annotations thus sense it That by the Bishops and Deacons we are to understand the whole Ministery at Philippi consisting of Presbyters to whom the government of the Church was committed and Deacons who not only had the care of the poor but also assisted the Ministers in their Ecclesiastick function But our Informer hath a third Answer wherein He grants that these Bishops and Deacons were Officers of this Church and askes where were the ruling Elders here and if we say they are included in the word Bishop then he tells us that upon better ground he can affirme that Bishops here signifies both the superiour Bishop and the ordinary Minister who may be called Bishop as well as Epaphroditus is called ane Apostle Answ. 1. Our Argument from this place and such like beside the Scriptures silence as to the Diocesian Bishop is That the Scripture Bishop doth therein stand so described and qualified that it is impossibe to understand him of any other officer then a meer Presbyter which is most manifast here It being impossible that a multiplicity of Bishopes could be at Philippi as is universally acknowledged And if he grant that these Bishops were officers of that Church in Philippi he must either say they were meer Preebyters which is all wee seek and the yeelding of his cause or he must prove that either here or els where the word Episcopus or Bishop designes the diocesian Bishop and place a multiplicity of such Bishops here against the old Cannons particularly that of Nice But 2. As to what he sayes of the ruleing elders it is utterly impertinent and answered already We proved the ruling elders office as distinct from the preaching elder by clear Scripture grounds and did shew that the Scripture points out two sorts of elders giving them both this generall name of elder then distinguishing them into such as rule and such as labour in the word and doctrine But this Informer will never prove that Episcopus or Bishop designes two sorts of Pastors a higher and a lower or that there is any difference of degrees in the pastoral office So that he cannot include here his Superior imaginarie Bishop of whose office the Scripture is utterly silent As we may the elder in the Bishop And till he make the Diocessian Prelat appear in Scripture we must still hold that when Ministers are called Bishops they get the proper specifick designation and characteristick of their office are not called â—…o in a general figurative sense or Catachrestice as Epaphroditus is called the Philippians Apostle or messenger But how viz. their messenger sent to Paul who ministered to his wants Phil. 2 25. So 2 Cor. 8. v. 23. Titus and others are called the Apostles and messengers of the Corinthianes viz as it is there inumar in that bussines of the collection for the Saincts at Jerusalem for which end they were sent to the Corinthians So the Spirit of God in Scripture both in holding out the distince office of Apostle properly so called for I hope our Informer will not upon this ground make different degrees of Apostles as he doth of Pastors
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
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
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
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
c 24. not 1. acknowledges that De Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primordijs nihil ex Scriptura imâ—…ne ex patribus quidem qui ante Synodum nicenum floruerunt quicquam certi demonstrari potest That nothing certanly can be made appear concerning the beginings of the Church of Alexandria from Scriptur no not from the Fathers who florished before the council of Nice Baronius Anno. 44. 11 42. saith cum Apostolorum nomine tam facta quam scripta reperiantur esse suppositia c. Since there are suppositious both words and Acts under the Apostles name since what is related by true writers remaines not incorrupt it may make one dispair to reach that is true and cerâ—…in So much is the great popish historian forced to confess The Informer should likewise have done well to have put into the mouth of his doubter Joseph Scalliger his grave difficulty about the succession of the Bishops of the Church of Jerusalem Related by Didocl Cap 4 p. 123. Wherin he proves Eusebius relation to be contrary to our Lords prophecy anent the destruction of Jerusalem and to Josephus his History To this I add that he will find many learned men doe hold that the first successors after the Apostles in these supposed Catalogues were meer Presbyters who according as they were more eminent in the Churches and consequently their memories referved therein whose Natales as Iunius speaks that is their dayes of banishment martyrdome or death were keept in the Churches records accordingly they were cull'd out by the Fathers to fill up these Catalogues though they were contemporary those they named Bishops in conformity to their own times For this I recomend Franciscus Iunius his learned discourse to this purpose Cont. 3 l. 2 c. 5. not 18 errori causam prebuit c the cause of the error he means in those contradictory confused Catalogues of Bishops was that there were many Bishops or Presbyters at once appoyinted by be Apostles in the Churches c. It s then evident which is the Collection of Diocl. upon what is premised 1. That the Ancientes without examination having from their progenitors receaved many fabulous stories delivered to the posterity such thinges as can neither be reconciled to Scripture nor with themselves 2. That they might fill up their Tables of Bishops and conforme the first ages to their own they culld out the most famous Minister for zeal piety c and put them into their Catalogués 3. Whom they thus put in they called them Bishopes in conformity to their own times though they were meer Presbyters For as we saw upon Phil. 1. himself acknowledges that the Fathers used the names indifferently So by this time wee suppose it is convinceingly evident that ouâ—… Informers great argument from his Testimonies is lost There is a great consent of the learned in this that for the first purest age the Church was governed by Presbyters without Bishopsblondel Apol Sect 3 p 3 14. 3 5 p. 308 378. Shewes the consent of the learned heerin For this Church of Scotland we have the Testimony of Ioanes Major de Cest. Scot l. 2. of Fordon Scoto-chronicon lib. 3. Shap. 8. likwise of Blond Sect. 3. All shewing that this nation haveing imbraced the Christian faith Anno. 79. till the year 430. When the pope sent Palladius as our first Bishop was governed only by Presbyters with out Bishopes so that we had our union to the see of Rome together with Prelacy Clemens of the first century in his Epistle to the Philippians maks but two orders of Ministery Bishops and deacons these only he sayes the Apostle set up to propogat the ordinances to believers And this to be a remedy to end all contests about Episcopacy page 57. c. The same we heard of policarp in his Epistle to the Philippianes we heard of Augustins Testimony Epist. 19. to Jerom. Dr. Reynolds in his Epist. to Sr Francis Knolls cites Chrysostom Ierom Ambrose Augustin Theodoret and many others ancient and modern to prove that in Scripture Bishop and Presbyter are all one Jeroms Testimony upon Titus is famous for this point who assertes and proves at large from Philip. 1. Act. 20. Hebr. 13 17. 1 Pet. 5. That by Gods appointment and in first Apostolick times afterward the government was by Presbyters communi concilio Presbyterorum by the common councel of Presbyters that by divine appointment Bishops Presbyters are one that the difference betwixt them had no better ground then contudo or Custom That divisions by Satans instinct occasioned the difference afterward made betwixt Bishop and Presbyter That their equality was not his privat Judgement but a Scripture truth The same he hath in his Epistle to Evagrius But now let us hear what ouâ—… Informer hath Scraped together from his masters Saravia Dounam Tilen c. To infringe this Testimony 1. He â—…ayes That Ierom speaks onely of the first gospel times when mentioning the identity of Bishop and Presbyter when the Apostles did by their own presence industry Supply the rowme of Bishops but as they began to fail by death or their bussines called them elswhere and upon the Churches inlargement the Schisme that arose upon the Presbyters equality Bishops were set up over Presbyters This he proves because jerom sayes that from Mark the Evangelist The Presbyters choosed out one and called him Bishop even to the Bishops heraclius and Dionisius but Mark died before Peter and Paul Then he compleans of Smectimmuus as dealling defectively in leaving out this in their Citation And of Mr. Durham on the Revel paâ—… 225. and thatMr Durham takes no notice of jeroms similitud in speaking of this Election of Presbyters in relation to their Bishop viz As the army doth choose the Emperor Thus far we have our Informers first great defence Which brings to minde a remarkable saying of Marcus Anton. De Dom. De repub Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 3. Numb 46. Sunt qui Hieronimum in rectam sententiam vel invitum velint trahere ille tamen dum consuetudini Sole ecclaesiasticae ecclaesiaeque humano decreto tribuit quod ab Apostolis jure divino est factitatum aliquantum certe deflexit neque in hoc aut excusari potest aut in alium contrarium sensum trahi verba ejus neque aliam Sententiam neque defensionen neque excusationem admittentia sunt haec in Epist. ad Titum c Some would he saith draw jerom to a contrary minde against his will but whil he doth ascribe only to Ecclesiastick Custome and the Churches human deccree what was done by divine right he went out of the way and in this he cannot be excused nor can his words admitt of any other sense or meaneing So much was this mans ingenuity beyond that of our Informer But to the point I Ans. 1. Wee have nothing here but the old Song which hath been answered by many Iunius decler c. 15. Not. 16. tells him That tria distinguit tempora
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
proposition of their appendix he might have seen this objection fully removed For therein they make good from many places of Irenaeus which were tedious here to transcribe that by Bishops he understood meer Presbyters and not Bishops distinct from Presbyters From which places of Irenaeus they collect 1. That he calls Presbyters Successors of the Apostles 2. That he calls them Bishops 3. That he holds the Apostolick doctrine to be derived by their succession 4. That what in one place he sayes of Bishops the same he sayes elswhere of Presbyters which sense and account of him they back with pregnant Testimonies of Dr. Reynolds Whittaker other learned protestant divines and lights in that Church And in proposition 7. anent the pretended Succession of Prelats from the Apostolick times they cleare it that these Successions are drawen from meer Presbyters viz the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Minister first ordained as among the Athenians their were 9. Archontes or Chief Rulers equall in Authority yet the Succession of Governours in Athens was derived from one of them who was the first Archoâ—… ut compendiosior ac minus impedita esset temporum enumeratio that the Calculation of times might not be hindered but be the more compendious 4. He sayes it is more likly that Ierom was deceaved If we understand him to speak of Bishops who were introduced after the Apostles times then Eusebius or Irenaeus who lived before Ans. That Eusebius was deceaved is not only alleadged but proven by the learned and Ierom proving so clearlie from Scripture the identity of Bishop and Presbyter both in name and thing doth convincing lie inferr that the Bishops set over Presbyters are discrepant from the scripture pattern That Irenaeus by Bishops understood these first Moderators is made good from his writings Next wheras these reverend authores pag. 114 115. say that Irenaeus by Bishops meaned Presbyters and page 65. That the Fathers spoke of Church officers of former times after the stile of their owne and that the Bishops in the Catalogues are onlie the first ordained Presbyters for the more expedit reckoning this man thinks these Answers inconsistent Because 1. they say that Eusebius Irenaeus were deceaved when they spoke of Bishops And Next that by Bishops Irenaeus meaned only Presbyters Ans. Had the Informer attended better the places he points at he would have keepd off this fantastick reflection For they shew that these first Proestotes or Moderators who were in themselves and upon the Mater meere Presbyters were by former times and writers presented under ane Episcopal notion and the power of Bishops then prevalent unto Eusebius and Irenaeus whom Eusebius especially too credulously following in his Character and accounts of them occasioned the deceaving of others and that he and Irenaeus speaking of them in that manner and stile in the Catalogues might deceave others by naming them so who were upon the mater meer Presbyters whom the succeeding writers following as they shew out of Iunius Contr. 2. Ch 5. not 18. and fancying to themselves such Bishops as then had obtained fell into these snares of tradition because they supposed that according to the Custome of their times there could be but one Bishop in a Church at the same time And to cleare it that the persons whom Irenaeus speaks of were upon the mater Presbyters in answer to that objection from Irenaeus lib 3. Cap 3. where Bishops are named as set up by the Apostles They answer that the word Bishop hath a various acceptation and that Irenaeus names Anicetus Higinus Pius Presbyters of the Church of Rome the words being then promiscuouslie used So that whatever impression Irenaeus might have of them according to the language and Custome of the time yet upon the matter they were Presbyters only and therefore they put the Episcopall partie to prove that those whom they named Bishops were veri nominis Episcopi or Hierarchicall Bishops They doe not speak so much of the Impression which Irenaeus or Eusebius had of them as of the true nature and State of these Church-officers whom according to the Custome of their times they call Bishops By Irenaeus his calling them sometimes Presbyters according to the promiscuous use of the names even handed down to him they prove that his expressing them under ane Episcopall notion then receaved or any such impression of them which he might entertaine was wrong since according to the scripture language the Bishop and Presbyter imports no other office then a Pastour What inconsistency will our Informer shew in this that Irenaeus and others were deceaved in representing the first Proestotes under ane Episcopall notion upon a Credulous report from their forefathers and yet that the persons whom they thus represented were upon the mater Presbyters As for what he adds p. 102 from Bucer de animarum cura anent a Proestos or the Election and ordination of one who went before the rest and had the Episcopal Ministerie in the Chief degree even in the times of the Apostles by the Testimony of Tertullian Cyprian Irenaeus Eusebius ancienter then Ierom Wee say that any who knowes Bucers judgment in Church government and are acquaint with his writings theranent will acknowledge that the Proestos is the utmost length he goes as to Episcopacy and a Proestos during life hath no doubt something of ane Episcopal Ministerie and is above his Brethren and we are to expone his summus gradus or Chief degree by the word praecipue or Chiefly that goes before Who will doubt but the constant fixed Proestos is in so farr set over the rest But here we must minde the Informer of Two things 1. That this Proestos chosen by the Presbytery is as we said farr short of the Diocesian Prelat who owns no Presbyters in his election hath ane arbitrary power over them 2. That it being thus defacto is farr from amounting to a proof of the jus and who will say that Bucer could take the Apostle James to be formalie Bishop of Ierusalem or chosen to be a fixed Moderator by Presbyters whose Apostolick office both Bucer and the Informer will acknowledge to have reached the whole world in relation to the watering planting of Churches Next if these words will plead for a Hierarchie even in the Apostles times and that Bucer took upon the Testimonie of Tertullian Irenaeus c the Apostle James and others for Hierarchicall Bishops surely he was oblidged to have taken notice of Ieroms proofs for the parity of Bishops Presbyters in the Apostles times which since he doth not it s most probable that he means to assert the factum only of exalting Presbyters to such a degree at that time but not the jus as is said else I see no consistencie in the words if he reckon the Apostle James in this account For he sayes Apostolorum temporibus unus ex Presbyteris electus That in the Apostles times one was chosen from among the Presbyters
r. no such delegation p. 231. l. 17. r. the present prince-like power of our Prelates as Diocesian B. farre less their Erastian usurpations p. 237 l. 8 9 c. r. the ancient Bishops were not all sett over whole provinces but city by city for the most part yea several cities had more who certainly were not Bishops in that sense wherein we heard Theodoret and Oecomenâ—…us denyes a multiplicity of Bishops in one city which also proves a great variety in the Moold and denomination of Bishops spoken of by the fathers p. 238. l. 23 r. sett aside separat and suspended So p. 239 l. 2 p. 247 l. 11 r. a preaching Presbyter or Pastor l. 35 r. Sect. Iâ—… p. 250. l. 9. must begin thus Besides what can he inferre from Calvin's assertion of the precedency of one at that tyme had not Paul c. p. 251 the Parenthesis l. 5 6 7. r. thus no lesse foolishly then maliciously here improven by Durel no friend to his principles p. 252 the penult line must be contiguous with the preceeding and run thus besids that this treatise intituled c. p. 258 l. 15 and l. 19 of pag. 259 are to be joyned as contiguous p. 261. l. 17. after Government adde and received and submitted to our Churches pure constitution in point of doctrine and worship p. 262 l. 25 r. which as early crept into the Church as the prelacy he pleads for yea much more early p. 263 l. 33 34 35 r thus nor hath the Informer proved that this Proestos cast in the moold of the present Episcopacie which he pleads for was allowed of Blondel since he holds it to be cross to the divine pattern and from Scripture disputes against it p. 238 l. 21 r. from the tymes of the Apostles and appointed by them p. 262 from l. 22 to l. 29 r. thus presented under an Episcopal notion to Eusebius and the Power of Bishops which then had obtained whom he too credulously following in his Character and accounts of them and as Irenaeus also doth calling them Bishops in the Catalogues might deceive others in nameing them so p. 263 from l. 9 to 11 read what ever impression of them Irenaeus might be supposed to have upon the ground of his expressions of them or might thereby beget in others because of the language and custome of their time yet c. from l. 14 to 16 r. the nature and state of these Church-officers whom termeing Bishops they were supposed to be such as had then obtained l. 18 to 25. r. thus in that Irenaeus calls them Presbyters according to the promiscuous use of the names Bishop and Presbyter in his tyme they prove that these expressions of them which seem to savour of an Episcopal notion or what impression he might have or others take from him was a mistake since according to the Scripture language c. l. 26 to 32 r. that what impression Irenaeus might possibly have of the first moderators or what Episcopal notion Eusebius might present them under upon his credulous reports taken up upon trust as he sayes himself from his forefathers were a mistake and this because the persones whom they thus represented and of whom they meaned and speake were upon thematter meer Presbyters p. 264 l. 21 r. next if the Informer will strain these words to plead for his hierarchie even in the Apostles tyme and will affirme that Bucer c. l. 25 r. he must needs grant that Bucer was obleidged to take notice c. l. 30 r. els there will be no consistencie in the words if Bucer reckon c. p. 271 l. 5 6 r. but as the Informer will finde it hard to prove thisdistinction of the schools to be as ancient as these fathers so though it were granted that it was it is certain that what gradual difference they admitt betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter they found it c. p. 281 l. 3 r. collected by one under the name of Clemens 2d Part. p. 5 l. r r haveing no tincture of Prelacie but intirely Presbyterial in its mold members according to the then degrees and State of our Reformation p. 23 l. 7. after Seasonable case r. and himself in objecting the same afterward p. 69. p 29 l. 8 r. in their nature and originally flowes from the Pope p. 64 l. 30 after Government adde whatever defection or liberty of glossing any of them might fall into or plead for p. 76 l. penult read prael 3 parag 9. p. 78 l. 3 r. of all Oaths of this nature p. 82 l. 3 4 5 r. Not to detain the Informer in tasking him to prove that this Statute as not being judicial but moral doth belong unto the Christian Church l. 28 29 r. this divine frame of Presbyterian Government which both as to its courts and officers comprehends the substantials of Government p. 83 l. 15 r. prael 3 parag 9 10 l. 23 r. prael 7 Parag. 6 p. 92 l. 27 r. but such cannot be the Infâ—…rmers meaning in this place nor will his moold of arguing admitt thereof p. 98 l. 14r a matter not only of it self indifferent but a domestick and private concerne l. 22. after gratis dicta r. Besides upon the supposal that the matter of both Oaths is alike or equal and that the matter of the Covenant is indifferent the parallel will not hold as to a dispensation with the matter of the one and the other p. 101 l. 11 after obligation adde for whither we conclude the lawfulness of the matter of this Oath from its conform 〈◊〉 to the divine positive Law or from the overuling of this positive precept in this case by a Superiour moral command all is one as to our defence and argument for the Covenant from this text p. 115 l. 18 r. The Informer hath not reconc led this either with the command or with the promise c. p. 117. l. 15 6 7 r. Sure in his opinion their offer of a league if strangers admitted a demurr and if Canaanites their offering to admitt of terms of peace might have stopt this question even though inhabitants of Canaan c. l. 11 r. So their first offer was a ground of peace if strangers l. 13 r. especially these continued demurrs and renewed interrogatures recorded in this contexture are considerable if we consider what is observed by learned interpreters from v. 8. that they sought peace c. l. 17 and when r. for when Par. 3. p. 35 l 32 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 45 l. 28 r. Presbyterian Government and the establisht Reformation of this Church p. 47 l. 28 r. the work of the Reformation then establisht p. 50 l. 3. for pamphlet r. Dialogue p. 54 l. ult r. and such things as upon our and the Scripture grounds which the Informer cannot disprove do immediatly in a moral sense dispose c p 56 l 33 r besides that as to the maine of this Character they are all such as we have cleared
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
comming mediatly from God but immediatly from men by a determination of the generall divine principle and ane application therof to particulares which they illustrat by that passage where Paul sayes to the rest speak I not the Lord applying Gods generall command anent divorce to the Corinthians particular case There are likewise mediat accidental commands deduced from Gods generall Rule upon rare transient occasiones yet necessitating to such a determination So the abstaining from blood and thinges strangled was enjoyned Act. 15. to the gentiles and as necessarie upon the ground of Charitie when the use grew scandalus although the law hereanent was abrogat as being originallie Ceremoniall Hence we may Inferr that this Informer in denying the necessitie of what is commanded only under some generall head Cutts of from the Categorie of things necessarie all the duties in the decalogue which are subserviant to the duties expressly named and thus destroyes the Spirituality and extent of the law acknowledged by all divines yea Cuts off all necessarie Scripture consequences and duties founded therupon as Ministers preaching the gospell administring the Seales Infant baptism womens receaving the Sacrament the Christian Sabbath c. But to come neerer him in the Nixt place I suppose this man will not deny That there are many things sufficiently discharged and consequently unlawfull by Scripture rule because theyare not commanded either mediatly or immediatly and that all ordinances of worship Sacraments and the substantialls of government also doe require clear divine commands and institutions by the acknowledgement of all protestant divines So that the not commanding of any part or supposed ingredient therof is a sufficient discharge discovering the thing superadded to be sinfull Not that which seems good unto thee shalt thoudoe to the Lord thy God but what He hath commanded thou shalt add nothing thereunto nor diminish from it adde thou not to his words lest He reprove thee and thou be found a liar In vaine they doe worship me teaching for doctrines the commandements of men See deut 4. 2. prov 30. 6. rev 22. 18. deut 12. 32. Isay. 29 13. These Scriptures do clearly fortifie this principle Otherwayes if he deny this He will open a door to all popish superstition yea deny the very definition of it assigned by all sound divines in calling it ane opposite extrem in the excess to true religion adding to Gods worship beyonde what is commanded Our Lord reprehended the pharisees their washing of hands befor dinner a decent ceremonie in it self as simply unlawfull when they made it a point of Religion Because it was beyond the command That text Isay. 29 13. In vaine they worhsip me teaching for doctrinés the commandements of men is applyed in this case unto them Our answer to the Papists demand Where finde we their bastardSacraments and other Superstitiones discharged is That they are discharged as sinfull in Gods worship because not commanded Should they rejoyne with this man that this will prove them to be not simpy necessarie but not unlawfull upon the ground which He alleages let him conjectur what his answer would be and correct himself For the substantials of government He cannot but grant that they fall under the same consideration It being most certain and universally acknowleged that the Scripture layes down rules as to the excercise of both Keyes of Order and jurisdiction the officers and censures of the Church Nay himself asserts page 118. That the substantials of government and policie of the Church are utterly necessarie and unalterable Now it being thus the Question is whither the diocesian Bishop or Episcopal government be among those things which must either have a clear Scripture institution or warrand or else is to be rejected as sinfull and unlawfull That the diocesian Bishop is such I prove it thus the Bishop which He pleads for is supposed by him to be a Church officer distinct from and Superior to a Pastour or presbyter haveing a distinct worke ordination and qualifications Therfore say I Hee must either have clear warrand or institution in the word or Hee is unlawfull The consequence leans upon these clear Scripture grounds 1. This officer cannot but fall in among the substantials of government wherin the Scripture is full and perfect as himself acknowleges So as to make even the man of God perfect It is full in setting down all administrations relating so the Key of order as prayer and thanksgiveing 1. Tim. 2. 1 2. 1. Cor. 14. 14 15. Singing of Psalmes preaching of the word publick reading of it and Cathechiseing falls within the compasse of Christs commands and regulations Collos. 3. 16. 1. Cor. 14. 15 16. Ephes. 5. 19. 2. Cor. 3. 14. Matth. 28. 19 20. 2. Tim. 4. 2. Hebr. 6. 1 2. So doth the administration of Sacraments Baptisme and the Lords Supper Matth. 28. 18 19. 1. Cor. 11. 23. And as these administrations of the Key of Order so all the administrations relating to the Key of jurisdiction or discipline falls under Christs clear institutions Such as Ordination Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 4. 14. The dogmatick power as to Ministeriall judgeing of doctrine Act. 15. The critick power as to the publick rebuke and purging out of the Scandalous and receaving of the penitent Matth. 18. 15 16. 1. Thess. 5. 14. Compared with Matth. 16. 19. John 20. 21. So the diatactick power in relation to Ritualls and and alterable Circumstances is clearly asserted and rules laid downe anent its exercise 1 Cor. 14. And as the administrations ordinances and acts of Church government So the administratores officers yea and Courtes falls under clear Scripture warrands and institutiones Pastoures Doctores Elders Deacons their severall works the greater and lesser Church judicatories have their clear warrand 1. Tim. 4. 14. Matth. 18. 17. Act. 15. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. Now let this Informer shew me a reasone of this distinctnes If not to point out all the substantialls of government and if it be lawfull to add any new officers or administrations or ordinances to these expressly warranted He dare not say but is unlawfull therfore say I upon the same ground that hee shall acknowledge this to be unlawfull this eminent officer the Bishop or Arch-Bishop must either produce his warrand and institution among the forementioned Rules or he must be holden unlawfull 2. The Scripture coming this length in the forementioned condescendencie in point of Church government as to Ordinances Officers Lawes Censures Courtes c it must needs amount to determin Some species of government and presbitery and Episcopacie being of contrary moulds it must needs appointe and authorize the One and discharge the other For all Church offices and officers have a positive institution 1. Cor. 12. 28. God hath sett c. Ephes. 4. 11. God hath given c. Rom. 12. 6 7. The office not given is not a gift of grace And surely the command not to add to the word includes a command
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-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
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
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
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
episcopus or Bishop is variously used by the ancients And that our present Lord-prelats can receave no Pratrociny from Bishops of the first ages wherein Presbyters governed by common Council and had a decisive sufferage in Government whereas the Prelats now are beyond what their predecessors had come unto even in Ieroms time For then except ordination the Bishop did nothing beyond what the Presbyter might doe whereas our present Prelats are sole both in ordination and Jurisdiction and assume a negative voice in Church Judicatories Yea a decisive suffrage in Parliament which he dare not say that any of these Bishops did ever pretend unto Well But if we shall say that Ierom speaks of the first introduction of Bishops into the Church then he tells us Ierom must understand it of the Apostles times What means he by the first introduction of Bishops Can he give the least shaddow of reason for it that Ierom speakes of any other introduction then that introduction of human custom which he distinguishes from the divine appointment of Presbyterian paritie But how proves he That Ierom maks Bishopes to have been introduced in the times of the Apostles yet I must tell him by the way that introduceing them in the times of the Apostles is one thing by the Apostles is anotherthing Diotrephes sought his primacy in Iohns time but was disowned by him therin So that if we can prove that what jerom cites for the parity of Bishops Presbyters jure divino will conclud the point these Bishops are in themselves in jeroms judgement condemned by the Apostles his 1. Reason is That jerom makes the thing which gave occasion to this Introducing of Bishops to be the peoples saying Iam of Paul and I of Apollo and this was the Schism spoken of I Cor. I. But this notion of Saravia and others he might have found long since answered Ieromes scop is evidently to prove that by Scripture warrand Bishop and Presbyter are all one wich he clears by many Scripture Testimonyes even to Iohns time and therefore he could not be so brutish as to make this Schism at Corinth the occasion of the Change so long before Johns Testimony yea before Paules farewell Sermon to the Elders of Ephesus from which he drawes another of his proofes But he speakes of a human Custom comeing in Paulatim postea peece and peece and by degres long after these times and but alludes unto that Division I Cor. I. Expressing it in the Apostles words not of their times for the Apostles never appointed this prelatik excrescent power of Bishops over Presbyters as a remedy of Schisme among all their prescriptions of the Cure of this evill Rom. 16. 7. I Cor. 3 3. 11 18. Moreover famous whietaker will tell him that this remedie is worse then the disease The mistery of iniquity was then working the Apostles therefore would not lay a step under Anti-Christs foot to get in to his Chair Besides these factions in religion were not at Corinth onlie Iunius de cler Cap. 15. not 16. will Informe him that jerom asserts not that it was said at Corinth I am of Paul c. But among the people c. malum non Corinthi solum c. It was a Publick evill Paul himself prescrybed no such remedy saith he unto the Corinthians and afterward Not. 17. Jerom saith after it was said among the people he saith not that this human Prostasia began at that tyme viz of the schism but after that time Compare it with Wittaker de pont Q. 1. c. 3. Sect 29. he saith not it was decreed by the Apostles that one Presbyter should be set over the rest this he sayes was by the Churches Castome not the Apostles decree Then he adds Ierom viz Let the Bishops know that it is rather by Custome then the divine appointment that they are set over Presbyters Had the Apostles changed the first order and set Bishops over Presbyters and forbidden the Churches to be governed by the Cammon Council of Presbyters truly that had been the Lords appointment because proceeding from the Apostles of Christ unless we will ascrib to Custom not to divine appointment what they decreed But the Apostles being alive there was nothing changed in that order for this Epistle was written when Paul was in Mac donia c. Let our Informer read this learned author who at large will cure his error in this poynt if it be not incurable Wheras he adds That Ieromâ—… comment upon Tit. I. Imports only his opinion anent the Community of names of Bishop and Presbyter not of their office at that time I beseech him what will this say to Ieromes scope which is to prove Presbyters superiority to Deacons for the deacons name was in a generall sense attribut both to Apostles and to the Evangelist Timothey as himself pleads Besides what signifies Ieroms in ferenc from all his Citations viz That Bishops had not their superiority over Presbiters by divine appointment If only a communitie of names was his proofe from these texts The Informers 2 Reason to prove that Ierom makes Bishops to be introduced in the times of the Apostles is That had the decree wich Ierome speaks of been after the Apostles it would have been extant in antiquity where and in what Council it took place but this is not found Ans Ierome by toto orbe decretum or prospiciente concilio cannot mean any formal Council either in the Apostles times or afterward But the meaning is that when through the world it was said among the people I am of Paul c. It was decreed among the people or in and among particular Churches through the whole word that is distrâ—…butively though all places of the world not representatively in any aecumenick Council of the whole world Decreed through the whole word is all one with Decreed by the whole world which is distributily to be taken Ieroms words convince this for the Councils decree representing the world would be all at once but Ierom sayes this Chance came not in Simul Semel but paulatim ly degrees And that the Prostasia came in by Custome which points at a graduall comeing in Besides the Apostles changing the first mould of government to prevent Scism will say they made themselves wiser then the Lord. His 3 Reason is That this will suppose the worlds universal defection from the Apostolick Government against which there is no footstep of a Testimony Ans. we We have seen as he cannot deny as great and more sudden changes of the divine institutions exemplified in Scripture and that ane universall defection hath been through the Christian world from both the Apostolick Doctrine and Government he will not deny and many Testimonies there might have been against this though they have not come to our hands He knowes how our divines answer such a Question of the Papists as to the beginnings of their Corruptions and their universall spread Moreover this mistery of Iniquity and
calls ane evasion Anent the alteration of some things in the Apostolick Church As wee disowne Stillingfleet in making the frame of government which the Apostles established in the Church versatile various or alterable So we disowne this Informer in resolving it solely upon the Churches decision what Apostolick practises are imitable or morall and what not A dangerous popish principle and wherein he will be found inconsistent with himself But for the apostolick government by the Common Concell of Presbyters wee hold it morall and perpetual upon the same grounds of the Churches union and edification which himself doth plead As for the shifts and bad issues which he alleadges Presbyterian writters are driven unto Neither he nor any of his party can make it appear but his own pitifull shifts and of others of his way in pleading for this Hierarchy wee hope by this time are sufficiently apparent As for Durells offer To get Episcopacy ane approbation from all forraigne divines we lett it pass as a peice of prelatick pageantry fitt to fill pamphlets Ad pompam non ad pugnam quid tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu Durel and the Informer cannot stand befor their evidences who have made the Contrary appear For what he adds anent our Superintendents as haveing upon the matter ane Episcopal power I referr him to the defence of the Epistle of Philadelphus against Spotswoods Calumnies printed at the end of Didoclavius page 30 31. Where he will find the difference betuixt them and Prelats cleared and stated in 12. Particulars to his Conviction unless he hath resolved Ne si persuaseris persuaderis So that worthy Mr. Knox gave no patrocinie to prelacy in Countenancing the admission of Superintendents How he hath deryved his Prelacie from Scripture and through antiquitie to reformed times Churches in their confessions Let the impartial judge by what I have answered from the beginning As for the Authors of jus divinum Minist Anglic Their proof of the identitie of Bishop and Presbyter at length cleared from Fathers Schoolemen reformed divines even from Episcopall divines in England the Informer had done better not to mention that peice then to have made such a simple insipid returne Anent the Scoolmens notione whither Episcopacy be a different order from Presbytery or a different degree of the same order for though this were granted that the scoole-men tost such a question dare he say that the Ancient Fathers both greek and latine and late reformed divines cited in that learned peice in their clear and positive assertions of the parity of Bishop Presbyter jure divino intertained any such notion as this Againe had he been so ingenuus and true to the learned authores of that peice and unto himself â—…s he ought to have been he might have found cited therein a passage of Cassander in his book of Consulâ—… Artic. 14 Which breaks this his answer all in peices and because his squeemish eyes lookt asquint upon it I shall here sett it downe that it may appear what a great charge this is which he brings against these divines An Episcopaâ—…us inter ordines ecclesiasticos ponendus sit inter theologos canoniâ—…as non convenit convenit autem inter ownes in Apostolorum aetate inter episcopos presbyteros nullum discrimen fuisse sed post modum schismatis evitandi causa episcopum Presbyteris fuisse praepositum c That is Whither Episcopacy is to be placed among the Ecclesiastick orders It is not agreed between the Theologues Canonists but it is agreed among all that in the Apostles age there was no difference between Bishops Presbyters but afterward upon the ground of eviting Schisme the Bishop was set ever Presbyters c. Now whither these disputants did agree That alwayes from the Apostles time there were Bishops distinct from Presbyters as this Informer is not ashamed to affirme Let the greatest adversarie judge by this account of such ane impartiall witnes How could he say that these Fathers might be of this mind and likwayes these later divines that alwayes from the Apostles there were Bishops set over Presbyters What a selfcontradicting tenet is this for any rationall man to intertaine viz Bishops and Presbyters re nomine in name and thing the same in the Apostles times and in their doctrine and yet that Bishops were set over Presbyters by the Apostles and distinct from them in their times What will he make of all Ierome Scripture proofes through the Apostles times and writings anent this compleat parity of Bishops and Presbyters of the saying of Ambrose That Non per omnia conveniunt seripta Apostolorum ordinationi quae nunâ—… est in Ecclesia The writtings of the Apostles agreeâ—… not in every thing with the ordinance or appointment he means of government which is now in the Church What will he make of Bishop Iewel telling Harding in his defence against him That in calling it a haerefie to affirme Bishops and Presbyters to be one He reflects upon Ierome and other Fathers whom he cites against him yea upon the Apostle Paul and makes him also a Haeretick What will he make of that assertion of Beza Episcopus papam peperit The Bishop brought forth the Pope Of Whittaker That the setting up the Prelat yea the first proestos or president to prevent Schisme was a remedy worse then the disease Now if he will reconcile these sayings and assertions with their holding Bishops distinct from Presbyters to have been in and from the times of the Apostles he will prove a wonderfull Oedipus But our Informer hath not yet done with these Authors and hath another reflection upon them anent what they say page 64. That Eusebius and Iraeneus were deceaved themselves deceaved others he tells us 1. They are hard put to it when seeking to relieve themselves by discrediting these authores But this man is hard put to it if he deny that which is so Notoâ—…ly true made good by so many of the learned Were Iunius and Scalliger who are approved herein by Dr Reynolds hard put to it who demonstrats Eusebius gross errors mistakes 2. He sayes Though in some things Eusebius was mistaken most he be so in every point wherin he maks Bishops superior to Presbyters drawes their succession from the Apostles Ans. For the Catalogues of Bishops from the Apostles we spoke to it already and for Eusebius speaking alwayes in that straine the reverend authors of that peece with others doe tell the Informer that all that Eusebius sayes is that it is reported that his learned censurer Scalliger maks it appear that he read ancient histories parum attente not attentivly that he takes his measures in this point his relations upon trust from Clemens fabulus Hegesippus not extant 3. The Informer thinks it strange that they can suppose Irenaeus Iohns contemporarie and disciple to be deceaved as to Church government Answer Had he but looked upon the 4.
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
of Prelacy in Scotland and for Englands reserving I have told him that what ever glosses any may put upon that 2d article yet if the generall clauses and expressions mentioned will exclude all kinde of prelacie their glosses will not comport with the simplicity and genuin sense of the oath and therfor are not to be admitted Since if it can be made good from the scripture that all kinde of prelacy is unlawfull dissonant to the divine rule and repugnant to the power of godliness the oath doth most clearly strike against it Mr Crofton pag. 110. in answer to the Author whom he calls Dr Featly's ghost objecting that in the Covenant the Church of Scotland is set before the Church of England tells him that it is in relation to different acts the Reformed Religion of Scotland to be preserved of England to be Reformed that it is no Solecism to put the factum before the fieri to sweare the preservation of good acquired before ane endeavour to obtain the same or better to prefix the pattern to that which is to be therunto conformed He adds that his Antagonist hath little reason to grudge that Scotland should be propounded as a pattern of Reformation to England since Beda reports that this nation did as first communicat the science of divine knowledge without grudge or envy unto the people of England citing his Eccles. hist. gent. Ang. lib. 5. cap. 23. Hence he infers that it is no folecisin to propound us as a pattern of Reformation who had first obtained it and from whom Christianity it selfe was ar first transmitted to them Here let out Informer informe himself first that in the sense of the English Presbyterians the preserving of our establisht Reformation is that article wherin our obligation to Presbyterian government is properly included and that the article of Reformation yet in fieri relates properly to England 2. That they state a distinction betwixt preserving and reforming as distinct acts the one relating to our Reformation in Scotland already obtaind the other to that in England yet in fieri wherin they check this mans blunt measuring our obligation against prelacie first and principally by the second article and his denying our obligation to preserve Pretbyterian government containd in the first and his blunt confounding the obligation of the two articles to give some shadduw of his fancyed contradiction which he would fasten upon us viz. That we are bound against all Episcopacie in the first article and yet the second can admit of some For as we have before answered so Mr Crofton tells him here again that the acts and objects are different The preserving of the Reformation government and discipline of this Church which we see he holds to be Ptesbyterian government according to our two books of discipline and opposit to diocesan prelacie as such is a different act and object from these of extirpating Prelacie out of the Church of England And thirdly that with Mr Crofton and the English Presbyterians it is no such paradox as this man afterwards endeavours to perswade us that the Covenant obligeth them to Reforme England according to our pattern which we see they hold to be the Scripture pattern For Mr Crofton tells his Adversary that our factum was to be their Fieri and our acquired good in point of government the measure of their good to be obtaind and that the good they were to obtain according to the Covenant was the same with ours and tells him in terminis and expresly that our pattern is in the first article prefixed to which they are to be conformed From what we have said out of Mr Crofton touching his sense of the Covenant and the sense of the English Presbyterians who adhere thereunto it is evident that it strikes against all prelacy including the priority and power of diocesan Bishops and Arch-Bishops That prelacy disputed against by Gerson Bucer in his dissertations de Gub. eccl Didoclavius in his Altare Damascenum Cartwrights Exceptions Paul Baines his Diocesans tryall Smectymnuus Mr Pryn in his publick and positive challenge for thâ—… unbishopâ—…g of Timothy and Titus cited by Crofton pag. 83. as unanswerable pieces Yea all Bishops whose office and authority is such as Mr Crofton to use his own expression might not stand up a Peer to them in officiall power tho a simple Presbyter so that our Informer is quite out in telling us that in their sense the Covenant is reconcilable to our prelacy and strikes only against that of England Again Mr Crofton in the Analepsis pag. 129. answering the charge of Ambiguity put upon that clause of the best reformed Churches tells the Masters of Oxford that the sense is in endeavouring the reformation of England the word of God shall be our rule and the best reformed Churches our pattern Wherein he clearly asserts with us that the obligation of the Covenant reaches the extirpation of whatever Prelacie is found contrary to the Word of God But so it is that the Apostolick Churches as we shall finde Mr Crofton here assert owned no Bishops but such as he might stand up a Peer unto so that the Scripture rule and by consequence the Covenant according thereunto strikes against and cuts of all Prelacy of Diocesian Bish of whatever Goverment doth admitt of any Church officers above Presbyters And in his sense they are oblidged to reduce Englands prelacy or hierarchy to a compleat presbyterian parity The Scripture makes with Mr Crofton the Bishop and presbyter meerly Synonima So that no prelacy wherein a distinction is admitted can consist with the Covenant in his judgment nor can any glossings of men prejudge this rule and the obligation resulting from this clause to extirpate Prelacy foot and branch Our Informer might have seen this his notion further refuted by the Author of that peice intituled The case of the accommodation examined pag. 39. 40. who shews that in so farre as England had attained we might close with them in a particular Oath for extirpating an evill discovered and yet for a further advance rest upon the more general tyes so surely cautioned till God should give further light so that the engadgement of both parties expresly only to extirpat that species did no way hinder the setting up of Presbyterian Government and rejecting of all prelacy to be Covenanted unto under the General provisions That it was aggreeable to truth and righteousness for us to concurre with that Church convinced of evills but not so enlightened as to remedies in Covenanting against the evills in particular and also to endeavour a reformation according to the Word of God and by vertue of this general oblidgement become bound to make a more exact search anent the lawfullnes or unlawfullness of things not so fully clear in the time of entering into the Oath and after the discovery to reject what seemed tolerable So that no hesitation among them doth hinder England and Scotlands respective obligations to extirpate all episcopacy as contrary
Reformation whereof these points mentioned are one main piece rather then such as have turn'd aside to this course of perjurious defection Sure our obligations mentioned do every way include Presbyterian Ministers exclude Conformists Presbyterian Ministers are maintaining the peoples right and liberty to call their pastour Conformists are selling away this peice of her reformation liberty and thus crossing the scripture-pattern the first are adhering to this Churches vowes and people are obliged to owne these Ministers that are pursuing the ends the other are casting them away c. Again 3. all the motives mentioned in the premised act of parliament and in our Churches publick acts in opposition to patronages and prelatick usurpations in a Ministers entry are still binding and in force according to our principles as the Informer will not for very shame deny and he must admit this supposition since in this point he professeth to argue against us upon our own principles and so what did then engadge to restore this peice of our Churches libertie and Reformation the same doth now bind to adhere therunto and consequently to owne the Ministers that contend for this Reformation rather then the backsliders and deserters thereof 4. This man dare not assert that the granting conformists to have the essence of a Ministerial call will in every case infer the conclusion of hearing them or that the granting a Minister to have this is the only adequat ground which will in all circumstantiat cases make hearing necessary For 1. What if he be violently obtruded by a part of the congregation upon the previously call'd Minister his labours to whom the people stand oblig'd to adhere Again 2. What if he be promoting a Schismatick course setting up an altar against an altar as some of these men tell us in their Pamphlets will a people cross their principles as to his having the essence of a Ministeriall call if they refuse to follow him in that Schismatick course Nay he will not say it 3. What will our Informer answer to Presbyterian Ministers plea for peoples adherence to them upon their lawful call mission and entry to their charges will this infer a necessity of the people's owning them and deserting conformists If it will not as he must here say or yeeld the cause then he must confess that acknowledgment of the essence of Curats call will not absulutely plead for hearing them untill before the Scripture barr and by the constitutions and reformation of this Church they can prove their claim to be better then that of Presbyterian Ministers to officiat as her true Pastours which will be ad Kalendas Graecas whatever he can pretend here as to disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their administrations notwithstanding of their having a lawfull call and pastoral relation to this Church will be easily retorted upon himself and abundantly counterballanced by that which in the case of conformists may be pleaded to supersede and stop the peoples owning of them in this circumstantiat posture of our Church So that the state of the question here being this whether Ministers ordained by Bishops and presented by Patrons or those who are ordained by the Presbytry and called by the people have best right to officiat in this Church as her Pastours according to the Scripture rule her reformation and principles and to be own'd or disownd by the people accordingly The decision will be very easy and favourable to Presbyterian Ministers and exclusive of all his fraternity And whatever he doth here alledge anent Pâ—…esbyterian Ministers schism intrusion or disorder will be easily retorted upon himself reputando rem in universum ab initio Or tracing matters to their true originals But now what sayes our Informer to this argument of his Doubter as he slenderly propones it to make it foordable 1. He tells us that sundry whom we refuse to hear entred by the peoples call But tho it were granted that such might be heard who are but a few how will this plead for all the rest and loose his Doubters argument as to them 2. we told him that it s not the want of the peoples call simply and abstractedly from the circumstances of our case that we ground upon in disowning them no more then it is Presbyterian Ministers want of an Episcopal ordination which he pleads simply as the ground of disowning them But our ground is their standing all of them in a direct stated opposition to the Reformation union and order of this Church and driving on an interest and design tending to overturn it and by consequence being lyable to her highest censures and likewise their persecuting and opposing faithful Ministers contending for her Reformation 3. All those who he alledges entered by the peoples call havng by their conformity to this Prelacy and Erastianism disowned their first entry in this manner and obtained presentation from Patrons and collation from prelats according to their new acts and orders are now of the same stamp with the rest as to their principles and carriage and consequently the peoples disowning them upon the fore-mentioned grounds in this our case falls under the same obligations with their disowning others and the rather because their apostacy is an aggravation of their guilt But now what sayes our Informer to this text Acts. 14. 23. which is brought by his Doubter to prove the peoples right in the election of Pastours He grants that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is borrowed from the custom used in some of the ancient Greek states where the people signifyed their election of Magistrats by the stretching forth of their hands because the word so signifies Well what then hath he to quarrell at in this argument for the peoples right in the call of Ministers from this text 1. He tells us that Doctor Hamond and other Criticks shew that the word is oftenused by writters to express the action of one single person as it s taken by Luke Acts 10. 41. Speaking of Gods chusing or appointing So that the word is not necessarly to be understâ—…od of the action of many chsiung by snffrages Ans. That the Greek Word in its ordinary and constant acceptation doth import and is made use of to signify a chusing by suffrages and lifting up or extending the hands Presbyterian Writers have proven from a full consent of Criticks Interpreters and the best Greeck authors The Syriack version shewes that the word is not to be understood of the Apostles ordination of Elders but of the Churches election of Elders in rendering the text thus Moreover they made to themselves that is the disciples mentioned in the former verse made to themselves for such as were made were not Elders or Ministers to Paul Barnabas but to the multitude of the disciples in every Church while they were fasting with them praying commending them c. Which election could not be but after the Grecian form by the Churches lifting up or stretching out of
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
Presbyter l. 30. r. the same highest ordinary officer l. 37. r. preaching Presbyter So p. 94. l. 5 and 7. and 19. So p. 95 l. 5 9. p. 97. l. 5 r. preaching Presbyters or Pastors So l. ult and p. 99. l. 4 16 26. So p. 101 l. 14 and 18. l. 34. r. that the Pastoral office admitts of different orders p. 102 l. 28. r. preaching Presbyters So. p. 103 l. 6. 21 and 28. So also p. 104. l. 23. p. 111 l. 30 r. Such different orders of Church officers l. 34. r. different orders p. 120. l. 14. r. his fancied Ecclesiastick Officers specifically different p. 122 l. 8 r. of a Superiour order and function l. 11 r. of the same function l. 16 r. Several functions l. 18 r. different functions p. 124 l. 24. r. as appearing to the Informer Episcopal like p. 131. l. 13. r. thus or of the Scripture sense imbraced by our divines viz. for the Apostles extraordinary unfixt assistants in their Ministry So Calvin on the place Bucan loc 47. de Minist Muscuius loc de minist verb. pag. 362. c. and the latter part of his Answer seems to admitt this l 21. r. which the Informer will easily grant is not that strict proper sense of the Evangelist supposed either in his doubters objection or his answer p. 133. l. 31 32 33. r. Thus in the Scripture proper sense but those that preach the Gospel in that extraordinary way above exprest for as for those that wrote the Gospel the Informer will not say they are intended here and although such may be in part called Evangelists upon this ground as Marke Luk Sensu Augustiore as Bucan expresseth it ubi supra yet this is not acknowledged to be the proper and adequate â—…round of this office and denomination as contradistinguished in Scripture from Apostles two Apostles themselves Matthew and Iohn being such Evangelists p. 139 l. 33 34. r. So that he doth in these words clearly plead c. l. ult unto p. 140. l 6. after among them adde if we consider the intire Series of his reasoning not only from Christs primacy and Supremacy as exemplified in the Aposties whatever he doth inconsistently here adde as to the division of this princehood among them since thus the Apostle John was sole primate over the Church when the rest were gone but also from the morall standing Authority of the Jewish Pâ—…hood and such a single Supremacy of the High-Priest which he denyes to be typicall but of constant use in Government and his express asserting thâ—… equality of the same Ministry may admit of inequality consequently principality or primacy as he expresseth it in Government Thus he de divers grad â—…p 14. pag. 145. l. 16. r. Had in a prefect parity and in common so pag. 147. l 13. p. 148. l. 31. after elder adde takeing it in an authoritative juridical sense as competent to Church officers p 149. l. 13. after accuse adde taken generally and in its full latitude p. 152. l. 21. After properly adde and immediatly intrusted to them p. 157. l. 12. r. will the Informer deny that in his sense or of these divines these precepts 1 Tim. 6 13. and 1 Tim. 5. 21. Joyned with the promise mentioned will not reach and include every peice of the Apostolick and Evangelistick office respective p 158. l. 10. r. is not that which simply and absolutely in it self considered they hold to have the force of a rule p. 162. line 10. r. different offices and functions 25 r. before Ephesus Crete and other Churches were settled in their organick being and their ordinary and inferour elders p. 164. l. 13. r. is mentioned in such ane act of Solemn blessing thus circumstantiate both as to its subject and object as this p. 176. misprinted 149. r. From the first Scripture Bishops or preaching Presbyters p. 177. l. 30 31. r. That this Episcopal power over Presbyters though farre from the Diocesian Bishops power was not till the year 140. p. 190. l. 18. r. Aaron himself mediatly at least and upon the matter p. 194 l. 12. r. Hanmer p. 197. l 13. r and expound thy Scriptures which custome hath not known c. Disowning thus all customary or traditionall innovations p. 200. l. 27. r. from Mark the Presbyters l. 29. r. speaking of this custome he excludes him p. 201. l. 2 r. thus to the Presbyters election as their act simply but would have plainely asserted that it was by Mark 's appointment the simple observing of this practice or custome observing it by his appointment being quize distinct things beside that we shall after shew that Jerom never intended to assert any such thing p. 203. l. 16. r. The Church in this Nation p. 207. l. 7. r. Common counsell or in a joint parity and equality so l. 1â—… ibiâ—…m after 4 figure r. if in Jerom's sense the Apostles c p. 208. l. 3. r. preaching Presbyters From l. 11 to 17. r. thus can he make it appear that the Schisme in Corinth from which he drawes the change in Jeroms sense was anterior to his proofs from 1 Pet. 5. and Acts. 20. Much more his proof from John for the divine warrand of this intire parity and common joynt Government of Presbyters or that this Schisme was not attended with such absence of the Apostle as he supposes did influence this new Episcopall Government in Jeroms sense p. 209. l. 1. After the word nature adde besides that the passage it self will never prove either Marks practice or appointment in relation to this supposed Bishop as is said p. â—…11 l. 11. r. Upon the ground of this first evasion and glosse l. 20 r which in the two collated passages of Jerome 212 l. 5. r. that the Apostles in Jeroms sense did l 24. r. by common counsel or in a compleat parity thus also p. 214 l. 24 p. 213. l. 22 r. preaching Presbyters p. 216 l. 29 30 to 32 after Jerome speaks of r. thus So that this Schisme was bred while there was no Presbyterian parity to breed it He tells us that in Jeroms sense the Corinth Schisme gave a rise to this change while Paul was present in Spirit and Governing them Episcopally for he will not say that he let go his reighns of Government upon every personal absence and therefore it took its original according to his pleading from the Apostolick Episcopacie p. 220 from l. 33 to p. 221 r. he makes him reflect upon Christs immediate commands and institutions in point of Government whereof severals can be produced in the Evangelick History as if they were not only altered but stated in-opposition to the Apostles institutions and practice therein For Jerom doth thus clearly oppose to one another the Dispositio Divina and Ecclesiae usus or custome in this passage as two contrary and inconsistent things thus he also reflects upon Christs institutions as at first practised by the Apostles before this change p. 225. l. 17.
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
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
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-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
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
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
may merite for this from the Pope yet Royalists will allow him none If in a matter so plain and evident it were needfull to adduc testimonies of writers and commentators as this informer doth to no purpose how harmonious would their consent appear unto this truth The English Annot in their preface upon the book of judges will tell him that the judges were not ordinary Magistrats but extraordinarly called of God in times of great extremity c. And in their preface on the first book of Samuel they shew that it containes rhe History of the two last judges Eli and Samuel and of Saul the first King of Israel And upon that place Chap. 7 15 16. Anent Samuels judging of Israel notwithstanding of his being lent to the Lord from his birth 1 Chap. 28. They will Inform this informer thatas thiswas the jurisdictionof a judge whichGod called him unto all the time of saul so he was quo bound by his Mothers vow Chap. 1. Whereby he was devoted to the service of the sanctuary to continue his residence there both because God had forsaken it for the sins of the Priests and also because the Lord himselfhad taken him off from that levitical service and called him to another imployment namely to be a holy Prophet and a judge over his people which places he could not discharge if he had been confined to a settled place The du ch Annot in the argument of the book of judges describe them to be such persons not who administred the ordinary function of judges among the people as the Word is other where taken but whom God now and then as the state of Israel required sometimes out of on tribe sometimes out of another extraordinarly raised called and with his Spirit of wisdome and couradge endewed c. In the argument of the first book of Samuel they shew that therin is described the Government of Samuel as judge over Israel c So that until our Informer shall instruct the Prelats extraordinary call from God and also their extraordinary enduements for civil Government these instances of Eli and Samuel will not in the Judgment of these divines afford them the least shaddow of warrand for there civil offices So this man may be ashamed that he ever mentioned such an argument Finally That Hee is in the breers of a contradiction here is as is hinted evident in that to prove that Church men should not ofChoice medle inCivil affaires he gives this reason for no man that warreth intangleth himself with the affaires of this life 2. Tim. 2. 4. Now if this for or illative here signifie any thing and be not nonsense this He must be supposed to hold that this text forbids Church men all deliberat medling in Civil affaires But will He dare to say that Samuel and Eli their judging of Israel was not deliberat and of Choice Ergo It was sinfull by this rule Yet he pleads for its imitablenes as lawfull though a deliberat involving themselves in Civil government yea a Supreme rule and thus holds it not cross to this gospell precept So that to escape this Scylla or Charybdis He hath no imaginable refuge but one viz. To assert with us their extraordinarie Calling for what they did and that singular old Testament-dispensation under which they stood But then He must quit his plea for prelats civil Imployments from this Instance and confesse it to be inconcludent But for the new Testament times he tells us How much Bishops were employed in Civill affairs when Emperours became Christian as Smectymnuus confesses But 1. Since he pretends Scripture Instances under the old Testament his new Testament Instance is very apochryphal and heterogeneus therunto being of Bishops medling three or four hundered years after the Canon of the Scripture was closed Humano Capiti cervicem pingere equinam But his new Testament precept 2. Tim. 2. 4. Chased away the Instance of Bishops medling in civill affaires Three or four Hundred years forward Nixt I would know whither our Informer holds these Bishops medling in Secular affairs to be lawfull or unlawfull Iflawfull and consisting with their Calling which He would seem to insinuat in telling us that Saravia defends at large even simply and absolutly Church mens medling in state affaires Why then doth he tell us in the nixt page That the fathers compleaned of this as aburden Sure they were very froward to fret under a peece of lawfull imployment If it was unlawfull or a deliberat sinfull intanglement why obtruds he it upon us as a regular precedent And what will Smectymnuus acknowledgment of the factum import to infert His or Our acknowledgment of the jus He tells us likwayes That ancient Councells upon the ground mentioned 2. Tim. 2. 4. of a Ministers sinfull intanglement discharged them to follow Militarie imployments or to take ferms c. Hence I inferr then these Councels held that deliberat medling in state affaires â—…or worldly incumberances is inconsistent with a Ministers calling and a sinfull intanglement discharged in that text for since they discharged Militarie employments and ferms upon this ground they doe consequently discharge all such Intanglement For a quatenus ad omne c. This he cannot but grant And from hence I infer two things against him 1. He setts these Councils by the eares with his Scriptur instances For since they condemne these formentioned civil employments upon that ground 2 Tim. 2 4. As a sinful intanglement in a Church officer 3 he must either say that they condemned these old-Testament Instances of the Priests of Samuel and Eli as sinful Or else acknowledge that they held them with us to be extraordinary and no regular precedents 2. It will hence follow that these Councils doe condemne Saravia who he tells us doth at some length defind Church mens acting in State assaires And Saravia condemnes and disputs against these Councils and then it will be a pussing problem to him to which of them he will adhere in this contest since he holds with these councels upon that ground 2 Tim. 2 v. 4. the unlawfulness of Ministers deliberat involving themselves in civil affaires it seems be quites there great Advocat Saravia and all his pleading upon this point For he tells us of no limitation in Saravia his pleading for Ministers meddling in State affaires As for what followes in this page he obscures and shifts the point here inquestion in saying That it is hard to call it simply unlawful and in every case to medle in these things We know there is a lawful Concional medling also in way of Ministerial advice unto the Magistrat in order to the satisfaction of his conscience the Ministerial direction whereof is the Pastours work at whose mouth Gods mynd must be sought and likewayes by way of ministerial testimonie against what is sinful in state Rulers which is all that our principles do own as to Ministers interposing in state affaires in our late times but
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
was shortly to put off his Tabernacle 2. He enjoyns them to feed and take the oversight or exercise Episcopal authoritie over the flock as Paul did likewayes the Presbyters or elders of Ephesus in his last farewel Act. 20. a scrybing a compleat Episcopal authoritie to them both as to jurisdiction and ordination 3. Yet he discharges any of them to Lord it over Gods heritage commending instead thereof ane exemplarie humble service or ministery Hence wee inferr against the Diocesian Prelat 1 That there is no higher officer then a Presbyter left by the Apostles as their ordinary Successor since the Apostle as their follow Presbiter exhorts themas the highest ordinary officers and therfor the Prelat pretending to be ane higher ordinary officer is Apocriphal 2. All Episcopali authority is in Presbyters both as to ordination and Jurisdiction and they have both name and thing of a Scripture Bishop and therefore the Prelat arrogating this name solely to himself all the Episcopal power of ordinationand Jurisdiction as his solely and denying it to Presbyters is ane Anti-scripturall Monster Since these Presbyters had this in a compleat parity 3. Non of these Elders must exercise a masterly power and dominion over the flocks therefore the Lord Prelats imperious Lordly power is palpably condemned which he exercises over both Pastores and flocks Now this being our argument from this text let any man judge of this Informer ingenuity while representing it in such a disguise that he may seem able to grapple with it Whereas we shall find that his answers to his Argument presented thus in its genuine strength are like the conflict betwixt the giant and pigmee But what sayes he to the Argument as in his own mould 1. He answers That superiority among Churchmen is not discharged By Churchmen if he understand in General Church officers though the terme be some what odd we shall easily Admitt that this Text discharges not superior and inferior degrees among them but this will nothing help his cause as is evident If he mean superiority among preaching Presbyters or Elders we have proved it to be here discharged since the Apostle attributes episcopal Authority to these elders in common and discharges Lordly preheminenc in any of them Well what is it that our Informer will admitt to be here discharged domineering and Tyranny saith he which may be the fault of ane ordinary Minister towards his flocke This is the old popish song made new again to which I repon two things 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is parallel with that of Matth. 20. and Luk. 22. Where peter learned the prohibition and as is said imports indeed Dominion but no Tyrannical domineering it being made use of by the seventy interpreters to express Dominion unquestionably lawful 2. The positive parte of the precept refutes this gloss he sayes not Not Tyrannically domineering but using Dominion moderatly which ought to have been the other alternative branch if this mans gloss were true and the Apostle had allowed a lawfull Lordshipe but He adds for the other branch in expressing what is injoyned being examples to the slock Injoyneing thus to feed by example and a humble Ministery And this is opposit to all Dominion and Lordship whatsoever and doth not discriminat only one Dominion from another which is also apparent in the alternative branche and positive precept of the above mentioned paralel texts Besides we might here tell him That the Episcopal preheminence being so many wayes cross to the Scripture rules in pointe of Government may be truely called a most TyrannicalDomineereing But the reasons of his gloss follows He tells us That this domineering and Tyranny may be the fault of ane ordinary Minister towards his flock and that the Apostle is not here speaking of Church mens carriage towards one another or of their equality or inequality among themselves but of their behaviour towards the people who are called the flock or Gods heritage Ans. This is a strange reason and very hard to comprehend only Tyrannical domineereing must be understood because it relates only to the flock Can there not be a Tyrannical domineering over the Clergy also And because the Apostle forbids to Lord it over the flock therefore he forbids not Dominion over the Clergy The quit contrare conclusion will better follow If the Apostle forbids them to Lord it over the flocks who were subject to them as their spiritual guides therefore a fortiori he much more forbids them to Lord it over their fellow Presbyters who were their equalls in this Spiritual trust and Authority over the flocks And if it be unlawful to play the Domineering Prelat over one poor flock it must be much more unlawfull to Act this Tyranny over some Hundreds of both pastores and flocks So that Ministers or if he will Churchmens carriage towards one another must be here clearly pointed out by a very necessary consequence from the less to the greater and the equality of Ministers in their spiritual Government and Rule by he same topick strongly inferred from this place It strange that the Apostle should discharge to Lord it over the flocks and yer allow a Lordship over both Clergy and flocks But another wonder is how he comes to excludMinisters from that tittle of Gods heritage which his party from whom our Informer here proves a separatist do often make peculiar unto Church Rulers one would thinke that they should have a special Interest and share in that which grounds this denomination Are they not the Lords purchase as well as the people Act. 20. Nay they are in a singular manner such and Christs glorie Are they not such as he will never cast off and alienat Psal. 94 14. They are the starrs which Christ holds in his right hand nay as being singularly dedicat to him they are singularly his as the Levits had the Lord for their Inheritance in a speciall way So they were singularly his set aparte for him beyond all the rest of the tribes And are not Ministers taken from among the people for his Priests and Levits And called therefore men of God stewards of God Ministers Servants Ambassadoures of Christ because of their singular relation to him And as this is a strong disswasive from Lording over the people that they are Gods heritage who therefore most not be the servants of meâ—… So upon the ground of Ministers speciall interest in this denomination the Apostles argument as to them is the more forcible Againe since he so expresly forbids any of these Pastoures to Lord it over Gods Heritage enjoyning them a humble exemplary Ministery and far less to exercise a Lordly Rule over one another he establishes by clear consequence as I hinted ane equality among them in their pastoral official power and authority Withall the Apostle speaking to them indefinitely in this precept without the least exception and reserve as to any one of them and making their episcopal inspection relate to the
in the parallels 1. Cor. 12 28. Rom. 12 6 7 8 Is this That the Holy Ghost therein describing purposly the various kindes of Church officers and speaking of the office of the pastour makes no distinction of a higher and lower pastour nor gives the least hint of either Name or thing of a diocesian prelat although both ordinary and extraordinary officers be enumerat even the ruleing elder and the deacone from which silence of the Scriptur as to this imaginarie Bishop we conclud him to be no plant of the heavenly fathers planting by the same reason that our divines conclude the pope to be such To this our Informer answers 1. That it is ill reasoning that because such ane officer is not in such a particular place or enumeration that therefor he is no where to be found in scripture for how prove we that the Apostle intended in that place a cempleat enumeration Ans he is guilty of a palpable forgerie here whillmaking his Doubter instance in this place only as if we held that there is here a full enumeration wheras he cannot but know that presbyterians in this argument against prelats as also protestants in opposition to the papacie doe together with this passage joyn the parallels 1. Cor. 12 28. Rom. 12 16. In which places collated there is found a compleat enumeration of all Church officers ordinary or extraordinary and adiscoverie of their duties and gifts who are ordinary officers even of the very Deacon Lykwayes we take in with these Texts the several descriptions of ordinary officers and particularly of the Bishop his gifts and duties found in any other places of the new Testamament And since this Informer cannot deny the Apostles or rather the Spirit of God his intention of a full enumeration in these places Collated Such a full Catalogue of Church-officers being therein found our argument from the Scriptures utter silence of the Diocesian prelat in all these places stands firme by his own Confession until he shall disprove this silence and prove the Contrary 2. Wee might tell him also that upon his own ground even the Silence of this Text as to the Prelat will prove our point for it being upon the one hand the Apostles scop to enumerat the most illustrous excellent gifts and offices given by Christ to the Church for her grouth and edification as his royal Mediatorie Donations upon his ascention into heaven and upon the other hand the Apostle descending as low in his enumeration as the Pastor and teacher whom this man holds to be officers inferiour to the Diocesian Prelat Certainely upon both these grounds he would have mentioned him in order to this scope had such ane officer been allowed or apappointed And as for this Text it is enough if we prove that the Apostle intended therein though not a compleat enumeration of all yet of the most excellent functions and officers given by Christ to his Church amongst which the Diocesian Bishops office hath the prime place in this mans Judgement How then I pray can he be here ommitted and ane inferior officer named His 2d Answer is That Bishops are comprehended under pastoures and teachers Bishops being such though of a Superior degree to ordinary Pastoures Ans. first that Scripture Bishops are comprehended under the pastor and teacher is certan but that the Diocesian should be so is Impossible and by him gratis dictum For. 1. he cannot shew that in these enumerations the Superior officer gets the designation of the inferior now he holds the Diocesian Prelat to be ane office and order Superiour to the Pastor Nixt this were no proper enumeration as he acknowledges there is here of distinct officers offices if they had not all there proper distinct names and designations And since Apostles Evangelists Pastors are proper designations of distinct officers and offices why ought not the Diocesian Bishop to have had his proper epithet and to have come in between the Evangelist and the Pastor for this was his proper Classe as the higher Church officer Againe This answer and shift is the same with that of the Papists to save the pope for they answer our divines Argument from this Text that he is included in the office of the Apostle But as we tell them that according to there account and Character of him he ought to have had a more peculiar designation So we may say to this Informer here Besides may not Patriarches and all the rabble of the popes locusts have this pretended for them that they are included in some of these officers Sure we may in Charity suppose that if a Papist were pleading thus This man would tell him that it were no defence to shape out officers of their own devising then alledge they are included in some of these scripture designations which answer suites his own case Since he cannot make it appear that the Diocesian Bishop is appointed in Scripture And we have proved his office to be contrary unto it Lastly Hetels us That if we will have here ane perfect enumeration of all Church officers we must comprehend ruleing elders and deacons in some of these words and why may not he doe so with Bishops Ans. 1. We need not in order to our scope nor argument from this text alledge either a full enumeration of all officers or goe about to includ elder and Deacon under some of these words It being enough if wee con shew that the most eminent Church officers given for the Churches edification are here enumerat that the enumeration comes the length of ane officer inferior to the Prelat in this mans esteemâ—… down from ane Apostle which renders our Argument from this Text impregnable 2. If we should include the elder and Deacon in one of these words we should but include therein inferiour officers of divine appointment in the designation of Superior which he will acknowledge to be no unusual thing in Scripture But his including the Diocesian Bishop is both the including of a forged anti Scriptural officer of his own deviseing and likewayes if he includ him under the Pastor and teacher ane including and comprehending of a Superiour officer under the designation of ane inferiour both which differences doe cutt the sinnewes of Reason and answer CHAP. XII The Informer offers Scripture warrand for Bishops His Argument from the Government of the Church under the old Testament and from the Apostles superioritie to the seventie disciples examined The first Argument concludes a lawful subordination of Church-offiers in general but reaches no help to the Diocesian Erastian Bishop The second beggs the question in supposing Prelats to succeed the Apostles immediately and Pastoures the seventy 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 Iewish-Church-Government or in the Apostles superioritie above other Church-officers The Informer contradicts his fellowpleaders in this cause
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
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
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
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
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
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
and others owned as such a tradition lib 1. de pecc mer. Basil names four Apostolick traditions signeing with the cross praying to the east anointeing with oyle praying in the standing postur from Easter to whitsuntyd See the Appendix to jus divinum minise Evan prop. 2. The informer and his fellowes make a great bustle anent the condemneing of Aerius for holding that Bishops and presbyters are all one But Beza could have informed him de grad 346. that Epiphanius Haeres 75 imputs to him as great heresies these Tenets 1. That he held it unlawfull to offer and pray for the dead 2. That he held that Saincts departed were not to be invocat 3. That there were not fixed fast dayes to be keept 4. That the jewish pascal was not to be observed because ourpassover is already offered Now if our Informer condemne him for these also we weed care the lesse for his condemning him in the point of prelacy 3. It is certain that the account of the first times immediatly after the Apostles is as to mater of fact very dark uncertain consequently a very slippery rule Hegesi pus apud Euseb lib 3. Cap 28. tells us that immediatly after the Apostolick age was gone tunc impii erroris conspiratio per seductionem eorum qui alienam doctrinam trad ant initium caepit Then the conspiracy of wicked error but the seducings of those who delivered another doctrine took its begining Eusebius himself the prime writer from whom in a manner is the wholl of all that is delivered anent Church Government and Bishops and who presents these fragmens of writers out of which our episcopal men gaâ—…her up their proofes in the proem of his History acknowledges that he is in that worke entered into a dark desert therein he hath no footsteps of any goeing before him but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some litle occasions or some pitty narations which every one in their own time hath left and delivered let any read haumer ane Inglish Bishop his translation of Eusebius wherein this will be found very clear Scalliger prolegom in Chron. Euseb. Saith Intervallum illud ab ultimo capite actorum c. the nterval from he last chotter of the Acts of the Apostles until the midst of the reigne of Trajan in which tract Quadratus and a Ignatius flourished let our informer observe this as to Ignatius may be truly called with varrâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or obscur wherin nothinthat is certan hath come to our hand concerning the affairs of Christians except some very few things which the enemies of godlines carches up by the way such as Suetonius Cornelius Tacitus Plenius Cecilianus which gap that Eusebius might fill up he drew some things without discretion and choise out of the upotiposes or exemples of I know not what Clement for he is not that learned Clement who wrote the Stromataâ—…â—…nd out of the fyve books of hegesippus a writer no better Tilen himself a great pleader for the Episcopal cause yet tells us Contr 3 l. 2 c. 2 Not. 39. and c. 3. Note 6 That the history of these first times hath great blacks and gapes which the Spurius Clements and other writers of the same stamp filled up with petty fables drawen from their own braine That from the end of the acts of the Apostles until Traian's times thereis almost nothing extant which is certain hence he saith occasion was taken by men of bad dispositions to make hold to faine anything whom even the Apostles times wanted not Not to insist upon the many things written and observed of Eusebius which may invalidat the credit of his history and his many gross errors therein and in other poynts observed by Scalliger and others How fabulous is that history of Christes Epistle to Agbarus rejected even by pope Gelasius in a Councel of Seventy Bishops at room That which Philo the jew wrote of the Essae Ans a Sect among the jewes Eusebius affirms that he wrot it of Christian mmks which Scalliger shewes to be false out of Philo himself in elencho tribaeresii He proves peters crucifixion at Rome by a tomb proofe In the computation of times Scalliger observes his gross errors Nay which is more considerable he discovers gross ignorance of Scripture in saying that the Cephas reprehended by Paul was not the Apostle peter but another of the number of the Seventy disciples Besyds many things in his personall cariage and qualities which may weaken the Credit of his History as his presideing in the councel of Tyre against Athanasius and standing upon the Arrians side Scalliger in his Thesaurus temporum Animad p 268 Setts down the testimonies of the Ancients concerning his errors Arrianisme wherein some affirme that he died When he wrote the history he was ane Arian Moreover Admitt his Testimony were abeve all exception yet that his history hath been corrupted by some ignorant impostor is demonstrated from this by Didocl cap. 4. p. 119 that he maks mention of Sozomen who was born ane hundred years therafter Lastly As to the Catalogues of Bishopes which our Informer and his masters befor him exhibit to us from the Apostolick times he might have found them aboundantly invalidat by many of the learned whose judgement and Testimonys are collected by Didocl cap 4 p. 121 122 123 124 c. Which we may well challeng this man to answer Therefore we shall dismiss it with these observes 1. That Tertullian Irenaeus and others who make use of this Argument of Succession against hereticks designe only to shew a derivation of true doctrine from the Apostles against them and that the Church had the Traduoes Apostolici Seminis a derivation of the Apostles Doctrine but never meaned it of a Succession of men of the same office every way Tertullian saith Arise o truth and expone they Scriptures c. Irenâ—…us in his time speaking of this Succession from the Apostles pressing adherence to the truth which they delivered makes mention of Presbyters opportet adhaerere iis c We must adhere to them who keeps the Apostles doctrine and with the order of presbitery mentain the word And again therefore we must obey these presbiters who are in the Church who have their Succession from the Apostles as we have showen Then he adds qui cum Episcopatus Successione charisma veritatis certum Secundum placitum patris acceperunt That is who with the Succession of Episcopacy have receaved from the father the sure gift of truth thus he l. 4. c. 44. And because this Informer singes their old song who before him will still Shuffle in Bishops when the Ancients speak of Presbyters Let him remarke what he sayes lib 3. cap. 2. Speaking of the contumacy of the adversaries of truth quum autem ad eam iterim traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per Successiones presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos c But when wee apeall them again to that
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
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
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
after the doctrine was reformed Why lived they so long without a beloved hierarchy and which is yet more strange why Imployed they their pens and their paines so much for Presbyterian government and not rather for the hierarchy why were both Calvin and Beza so active in that which Iohn Knox did here in opposition to prelacy But stay hath not the Informer told us that Masone and Bishop Andrews doe assert That Calvin and Beza assumed ane Episcopall power at Geneva How comes Durel and Hooker then To suppose a compleat parity among the Ministers to havt begun and continued at Geneva for want of a Bishop foresooth He must grant that some of these accusers are ingrained liars and accusers of the brethren in this point So he must deliberat whither he will bestow this upon Mason and Bishop Andrews or Hooker and Durepl For what he adds of these that have written for Presbyterian government that they designed only to prove it lawfull it is a gross Calumny their designe is to prove it a divine frame of government appointed in the new Testament which I hope he will say is necessary as well as lawfull since Christ promises to the end his presence with those officers cloathed with his commission And him self holds that the end of that Government practised in the new Testament and its grounds are Moral and perpetual For Blondel his calling Episcopal preeminence an apostolical constitution which the Informer cites page 84. no such wordes being in the printed copy as he acknowledges who will be so foolishly credulous as to take it upon the Informer or Durells bare word that it was in the written on Unless we will admitt the Informer as the Papists doe by the Scriptures in their unwritten traditions to add his unprinted patchments to any author and thus to dispute pro libitu and make his weapons from testimonies of authors as once a certain Chiftain's sword is said to have done to wound and kill a great way before the point He distinguishes the Government he pleads for as divinitus institutus or of divine appointment from any other frame as humane only which will say that this divine institution must stand and all other frames of Government give place to it The same may be accomodat to that which he cites out of Beza pag 85. who looked upon the very Episcopus humanus as he calls him or the first proestos as the first rise of all the popish Hierarchie and mischeiffs That sentence of Beza de min. grad Cap. 21. pag. 343. stands Intirely thus imo Câ—…nctos sic id est Archiepiscopos Episcopos hodie appellâ—…tos modo sanctissimorum illorum Episcoporum meaning Timothy and Titus c whom Saravta termed Bishops Beza allowing the designation in a sound scripture sence exemplum imitentur tam misere deformatam domum Dei ad amussim ex verbi divini regula pro viribus inâ—…aurent ut Ecclesiae Christianae fidos pastores cur non agnoscamus observemus omni reverentia prosequamur Nedum ut quod falsissime impudentissime nonnulli nobis objiciuut euiquam uspiam Ecclesiae c. certainely there walking up to such rules and patterns as are here prescribed as the proviso's upon which Beza Proefesses to reverence and owne them would so sned off the Episcopal heteroclyt excrescencies of our diocesian Erastian Prelats and smooth them to the Scripture Episcopacy as quite to destroy their power and office pleaded for by this pamphleter As his acting so his writing for Presbyterian Government accordingly was not to prescribe his owne which Beza disclaimes but Gods example How will the Informer prove that Beza's denying his prescribing of their example of Church Government at Geneua meerly as such will infer his not commending a divine frame of Church Government This was not to prescribe his example simpliciter And how will he prove that Beza looked upon a Government which he held to be the egg from which Anti Christ sprung as Dei beneficentia or Gods beneficence He makes him a very gross ignoramus for what man of the meanest capacity would say so And if Beza held the first Episcopacie or proestos to be a recess from the divine institution he certainly condemned it in so far And the diocesian Prelat he holds to be Satanicall Therefore when he seems to condemne the desowning of all order of Bishops he must understand it of a condemning scripture order the beautiful subordination among Church officers or that divine order that is among them But here again I must needs take notice that in this passage of Beza in his dispute with Saravia the Informer hath sned off that which wounds his cause to death for the words following doe discover another ground of this distinction of Bishops from Presbyters viz Beza and Jeroms humane Custome then what the Informer would persuade For it followes immediatly neque hoc scelere tenentur qui de episcopalis muneris sive prostasias finibus regendis de discrimineinter ordinem gradum postulant ut ex verbo Dei decidatur Whence it is evident that he does not understand Bishops set over Presbyters to be Iure divino or speaks of them in this place As for the passages of Beza's letters to Bishop Whitegift and Grindal which the Informer after cites pag. â—…6 I say 1. That certainly Beza's principles so largely expressed from Scripture anent Church Government and the contrariety of the episcopus humanus or humane Bishop far more the Diocesian Satanical Bishop to the divine rule in his principles will necessarly infer that in this great mans Judgement none of these Prelats had qua tales or as such a lawfull spirituall authority from God 2. It is as certaine that all Beza's pleading and arguments strikes against the diocesian Prelat or Arch prelat as in that capacity and against this office and policy in it self abstracting from its union unto the pope so that he could own no authority that way committed to them of God 3. It followes that since he judged the episcopall hierarchy unlawfull he held the first parity unalterable since he pleades for it upon morall perpetuall Scripture grounds and institutions And by these his solid Scripture grounds when ex professo handling this point and theologically we are more to determine of his Judgement then by Missives Wherein the circumstances of time and severall exigences might engadge to some insinuations in point of a civill deference and respect But however that be we are to look unto intentio and natura operis in his writings or the native designe thereof rather then critically to scanne or straine every practical conformity or disconformity therunto And the Informers answer to what we offer anent the assertions of Bishop Mortoune Bilson Iewel who write for the parity of Bishop and Presbyters by divine right viz That they held the Episcopall office themselves charging them thus with a practical breach of their principles most make him retract 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
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
proceed his Doubter alledging that all stand bound against Bishops in the Covenants which doe abjure them he cryes out at all Bound as a paradox and tells us that many Ministers and people never took it and asks if we think them bound Yes we think them bound as we do judge them bound in Gods covenant Deut 29. who were not there as well as these who were there young and old wives little ones from the hewer of wood to the drawer of water It seems this man either hath not read that chapt or understands not the import of nationall compacts even among nations themselves which do certainlie oblidge all members in the incorporation although not personally sworne by every individuall Will he say that no subject as a born subject oweth fealty and alledgeance to his Majestie but such as have personally sworn the oaths of supremacie or alledgeance If so then a man could not be guilty of treason which is certainly a breach of this fealty unlesse he had personally sworn which I know not who will assert But the doubter alledging That it obligeth even the posterity he tells us that this is a strange fancy Iuramentum being with casuists vinculum personale binding those that took it only that accordingly the Covenant sayes we every one for ourselves and not for our selves and others That the father who was against Bishops his swearing should not prelimit his sons judgement who is for them in a disputable point or oblidge him to act contrary to his judgment Ans 1. That there are covenants and oaths reall and hereditary as well as personal is evident in scripture and if this man were not more led by fancy then truth he would not deny it which is not only thus evident but acknowledged also by Casuists Was not that oath and Covenant Deut 29. made with them who were not there and belonging unto and by consequence engadging their seed for ever Deut 5 2 3. Moses tells the people emphatically that God made the Covenant with them who were then alive even that Covenant at Horeb though they were all near dead with whom it was made Neh 9. 38. all entred into Covenant but only some sealed it Was not that oath of Josephs brethren anent the carrying up of his bones from Egypt to Canaan the oath to the Gibeonites such as did reach and oblidge their posteritie So that oath betwixt David and Jonathan 2. Sam 9. 7. Now that the nature of this oath is such cannot be doubted it being about matters of perpetuall and everlasting importance which no time can alter evacuat or limit and having the publick faith of Church and state interposed therin by a vowand Covenant with God and man over and above the oath And likewise being in its nature promissory in relation to duties midses and ends perpetually necessary and oblidging it is palpably evident that it is reall and not personall only 2. For that expression every one for our selves it is very impertinently here alleadged to exclude the posterity for the end and motive of the oath before this is expressed to be the glory of God the advancement of Christs kingdome the happiness of the King and his posterity the true publick liberty safety of the kingdomes c. wherin every ones private state is included which of necessity includes the posterity and designes the obligation for them Next in the close of the first article the posterity is expresly taken in when the end and designe of the matters therin contained is said to be that we and our posterity after us may live in faith and love c And in the close of the 5. article we engadge to endeavour that the Kingdomes may remaine conjoined in a firme peace and union to all posterity and therefor his negative inference viz for our selves and not for our posterity is opposit unto the very sense scope and words of this oath so that this clause is cleary referable unto the various capacities conditions and relations wherein in order to the work of God the then engadgers stood 3. his notion about prelimiting the son by the fathers engadgement is a poore shift For this might be objected against any nationall mutuall compact in matters of a farr lower nature then this This might have been objected against Josuahs oath to the Gibeonites Might not the posterity look upon it as a disputable point to keep unto them and might not Zedekiahs posterity look on it as a disputable point to keep that oath of his to the king of Babylon I wonder if this man would think it ane unlawfull Covenant and vow to engadge for prelacie as now constitute and oblidge for our selves and posterity that it shall stand in this posture Sure he will not deny the warrantableness of this since he looks upon prelacie as the ancient apostolick frame owned by the primitive Church But shall the sons judgement who is other wayes minded be prelimited by the father or els must he act contrary to his judgement let the Informer see to this If he say it s not a disputable point to hold the present prelacie and that therefor the son is oblidged to informe his judgement and act rationally the obligation to the dutie carrying in its bosom a prior obligation to know it surely he must acknowledge that this is our case and answer as to the Covenant and that consequently his objection is naught and the horns of his horned argument are crooked so that it pushes us with neither of them We might also here tell him that a prelimitation as to practice in many things not indispensably necessary will fall under the fathers paternall power over Children witnesse that case of the Rechabites And that this will not in every thing inferre a prelimi tation in judgment as to the object simpliciter Nay who knows noâ—… that the great morall precept honour Thy Father and thy Mother imports a very extensive obligation upon Children as such in order to obedience to parents and gives unto parents a large and extensive authority hereanent But shall the son be prelimit in his judgment anent all these or act contrary to it so this objection in the Informers sense and according to his scope will blurre out a great part of the 5t Command But what needs more the matters here engadged unto are important truths and dutys not disputable points as he and the rest of his adiaphorist latitudinarian party would make them and therefor we are under perpetuall obligations to owne and mantaine the same But if this man will abide a quere here and a litle retortion of his notion further thinks he it not hard to prelimit the faithfull ministery and professors of this nation in their judgement about his disputable points of the present conformity by so many laws and acts or else oblidge them to act contrary to their judgement Sure fathers have at least as great if not a greater authority to limit their children then the Prelats
declare their own sense saith he which possibly was not right but how could they oblidge others to their sense who had taken it before the first imposers having given them no such power The Apollogist here told him that this assembly put no sense of their own upon any who took it either before or after but as the representatives of this Church gave a judiciall interpretation of it and by authentick evidences made it appear that this was the sense of the imposers and of the Church of Scotland when it was taken and that such as sware it before with an explicatory addition to forbear the approbation of prelacie untill the assembly should try whither it was abjured in that oath did consequently commit this unto and were accordingly depending upon the assembly to declare the meaning therof besides that the judicial interpretation of this nationall Church her oath did of right belong unto this her supreme judicatory as is said Here the Doubter objects that those who took the Covenant after it was thus sensed by the assembly have abjured Episcopacy To this he answeres that the assembly did intend to put no other sense upon it then the sense of the words and of the first imposers Very true but what then the first imposers having no such meaning sayth he as to abjure Episcopacie the assemblies ground failes and their posterior meaning could not bind against the first meaning This last is easily granted but the great pinch lyes in this how proves he that the first Imposers never meaned it against Episcopacie This he sayes is already shewed but where we must waite it seems for a new pamphlet to get an account of this great proofe The Doubter next alleadeth to purpose that we engadge our selves in that Covenant to adhere to this Church in doctrine faith religion and discipline and to continue in the doctrine and disciplin thereof which is Presbyterian discipline To this he answers That by discipline cannot he meant Presbyterian government Why so because saith he at the first imposing of the Covenant there was no such government in Scotland nor for a confiderable time after Ans. we have made it appear that Episcopacie was judicially declared unlawfull and that both the books of discipline were received which overthrow prelacie and asserts Presbyterian discipline before ever that Covenant was taken and that at the very time of taking it the old mould of prelacies were dissolved and Presbyteries erected both by the King and assembly But how proves our Informer that there was no such government in Scotland at that time because saith he the King for all Ministers essayes to introduce Presbytery yet owned Episcopacy But how proves he this that at the imposing of the Covenant he owned episcopacy did he not owne the assemblies power and the power of Synods presented he not to that assembly 1581 a plot of Presbytries and his letter enjoyning their erection to dissolve prelacies together with the subscribed Covenant how did this own episcopacy let Royalists take notice what an ingrained dissembler this man makes King James in saying that he still owned episcopacy when so palpably disowning it to the sense of all reasonable men And if king James came all this length as to the introducing of Presbytrie surely Ministers essayes with him for this end were very effectuall Besides it s a poor argument to prove that this protestant organick Church was not at that time owning Presbyterian government or exercising it and by consequence that the Discipline as then existent sworne to be mantained in that oath is not Presbyterian to say that king James owned episcopacie Nay in granting these essayes of Ministers for Presbytry he grants that Presbyterian government was owned For sute I am what was their sense and endeavours as to Presbyterian government from the beginning the same were the sense and endeavours of the body of this protestant Church But his 2d answer to the premised objection of his Doubter is ushered in with a thereforâ—… what next therefor the government meant in it must be Episcopacie if any particular mode of government be understood This is well stept out a piece beyond his Master the Seasonable case who hardly comes this length The man that will let us Episcopacie in this Church at that time as the Government imbracd by her must have odd prospectives and of a like quality with these of our Informer which have descryed Diocesian Bishops in Scripture We heard that the Seasonable case grants that Ministers then lookt on themselves as oblidged against episcopacie both by the nationall Covenant and by the word of God pray Sir be tender of these Ministers reputation were they so principled and still owning episcopacie too this is strange yea and owning it and promising to defend it in this Covenant Besides how will he reconcil our Churches labouring now against Bishops acknowledged by him pag. 118. with her practising Episcopacy which he asserts pag. 118. But his answer hath a proviso if any particular mode of government was understood But why will this latetudinarian Informer cast the mist of a hesitating if upon a clear and plaine truth strange Speaks not the Covenant of an existent frame of Government embraced by this Church What! Were they embracing a Proteus was it an existent individuum vagum or materia prima some Embryon that had received yet no forme But how proves he that Prelacie was sworne unto in that Oath Because saith he the Year after the King ratified the agreement at Leith in favours of Episcopacie This we heard before and did shew what an insignificant reason it is from King James practice a year after to inferre what is the sense and intendment of this Oath and the takers of it A topick and reason which none who are solid and rational will admitt Yet the Informer still beats upon this Anvill Besides the Apollogist tells him pag. 15. that this treaty at Leith anno 1571 was opposed and censured by the Nationall Assembly the very next year So that this national Church in her suprem judicatory gave no consent unto but opposed that treaty and whatever recesses from her Presbyterial Government were therin begun But this mans sqeemish eyes stil overlooks what he cannot answer Now remark our Informers profound and subtill reasoning in this point King James did not abjure episcopacy in the Nationall Covenant why so Because the next Year he acted for Episcopacie And when we allege that the Government to which that Covenant oblidgeth was Presbyterian Government which was then existent he tells us that the Government then existent was episcopall And when he is put to the proofe of this paradox against such clear evidences he just recurrs again and tells us for his proof that King James then acted for episcopacie fine circular reasoning this is and the Informer shall thus never want a Medium knows exactly to answer the solidest argument against-him with turning according to the Souldiers dialect asye
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-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
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