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-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
governe them by ecclesiastick Discipline which he makes to be the Bishops office 2. Their sole power in ordination and Government here supposed by him did certainly presuppose the Christian Church in fieri whereof they were to be founders First They were as Christs immediat extraordinary Ambassadours to convert and bring in Churches then to plant officers the Gospel Government in them Now who will say but this power was necessary for the first planting of the Churches and so comes under the Character of these things which this man acknowledges to be expired Surely where no other officers were to concurre the Apostles of necessity behooved to ordaine solely and their Apostolick Inspection over them did necessarly depend upon and flow from their Apostolick extraordinary mission and infalibilitie So that this power in so fare as Episcopall like was indispensibly needful for the first founding of the Churches and consequently must be expired by his own confession the nature and exercise of this power supposeing and requiring their peculiar mission infallibilitie and gifts of tongues which are acknowledged by this man to be expired privileges necessary ry onely at that time Moreover the Apostles power in ordination and government did include extraordinary miraculous rodes and censurs a power in coerceing the rebellious thus Peter stroke Ananias and Sapphira dead for their lying which was a fearful Apostolick Censure put forth by his Apostolick authoritie at that time Paul stroke Elimas the sorcerer blind for withstanding the truth besides their power in ordination at that time included their miraculous conferring of the Spirit by the Imposition of hands 2 Tim. 1 6 Act. 19 1 2 6. Now all these Apostolick priviledges which this man must needs acknowledge upon his own ground to be expired and extraordinarie being necessarily included in essential unto the Apostolick power the nature and exercise thereof must be expired also Wee shall offer here to the Informer a distinction of the learned Iunius who in his answer to Bellarmins argument for the Apostles Episcopal singular power from that word Shall I come to you with a rod distinguishes the ordinary and extraordinary rod secundum illam c. de Concil lib. 2. Cap. 16. that is according to the commone ordinary rode Peter was a fellow Presbyter 1 Pet. 5. But according to the singular and extraordinary he stroke dead Ananias and Sapphira In respect of this commonrode saith he Paul saith 1 Cor 5. You being gathered together with my Spirit in the name of our Lord Jesus but as to this singular one he saith Shall I come to you with arode 1 Cor 4 21 this common rode he denyes to have him in the hand of any one man whither Apostle or other or that they had any sole or singular preheminence in Churches constitute And this cutts the winde pype of our Informers topick and argument here for the prelats power Which leads to a 3d. Answer 3 We proved already that the Apostles exercised no singular Episcopal preheminence in Churches constitut and what they did in churches not as yet constitut and infieri is not to the purpose by his own confession since it falles in among those things necessary for the first planting of the Churches which priviledges the acknowledges are gone That the Apostles exercised no such single preheminence in churches constitut is abundantly cleared in the 2. Argument against Episcopacie where we shewed that neither in ordination nor excommunication nor in Ministerial decision of controversies the Apostles assumed ane Episcopal power in Churches constitut but had the ordinary Church-officers Presbyterialy concurring with them Wee likwayes proved in the 8. Argument that the Episcopal power is neither formaliter nor eminenter contained in the Apostles authority but is inconsistent there with and contrary therunto there sole directive corrective power over the diocess as being the proper sole pastoures thereof their sole decisive suffrage and Lordly dominion over Church-judicatories besides their civil rule like that of the princes of the gentiles rendering our prelats power ex sua natura in universum different from the very nature of the Apostles authority and the authority of a Gospel Ministery altogether and consequently it could not be transmitted by the Apostles to the Church as any peece of the Gospel Church Government and by further consequence they are none of the Fathers or Children whom the true church or the Apostles brought forth but the Spritus brood of Satanical Antichristian pride As for what he addes of the Fathers making Bishops Successours to the Apostles Iunius will tell him De cler cap 14. Not. 15. That this is not to be understood of a Succession from Christs institutionquia nunquam instituit Christus ut Apostolis secundum gradum in ecclesia succederetur because Christ never appointed Successors to the Apostles in the Church according to degree And that the fathers understood it of a succession ex simili non ex pari a succession of similitude not of paritie and of a similitude secundum quid or imaginary according as Prelats were then moulded CHAP. X. The Informers great argument for Prelacy from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus Their Episcopal office disproved from the office of Evangelist ascribed expresly to the one and by good consequence to the other from many circumstances of the sacred text and the judgement of Interpreters The Informers pleadings from there power in ordination and jurisdiction supposed in the precepts addressed to them there anent from the necessity of this power the concernment of of after-ages therein c examined The unsoundenes and inconsistency of his arguing and answers upon this head several wayes discovered THe Informer presents unto us Nixt the pretended Episcopacy of Tymothy and Titus at Ephesus and crete and the Douhter alledging that Paul calls all the Miniters at Ephesus and crete Bishops He rejoynes That Tymoth and Titus were Bishops as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop was afterward taken that is had a power in ordination and Iurisdiction over and above inferiour Ministers This argument from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus as also the nixt taken from the supposed Episcopal power of the seven Asian Angels hath been so fully answered and baffled by many That it is a wonder how he hath the confidence to repone to us these oft sodden coleworts We gave already a hint in the St Aâ—…gument of the acknowledged extraordinary function of Tymothy and Titus which is abundantly cleared by many from their unfixed motion and officiating their occasional transient imployment in these places Paules actual revocation of them both there from the condition of these Churches as being but in fieri as to their organick settlement and constitution Particularly that their power in ordination and Jurisdiction was not episcopall I prove from these grounds 1. In Churches already constitut this Authority was not solely resident in Tymothy and Titus Falluntur qui putant saith Calvin Instit lib
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
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
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
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-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
preaches not is worthy of double honour for living well which will make very harsh sense Some understand this ruleing elder of the Deacon but the Deacon is no where called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or elder his work being to help to distribut not to rule 1 Cor. 12 28. Rom. 12 8 Some would being in under this Ruler The ancient Superannuat Bishop But this gloss will in honour preferr unto him the diligent preaching Minister which will wound their cause to death Some by the Ruler will have such understood as did administer Sacraments but preached not But Paul knew non of these non preaching or seldom-preaching Ministers far less would he allow them a double honoure who rather deserved the contrary Paul will have all Ministers apt to teach and able to convince Some by the ruling elder would have Inferior Magistrats understood who were appointed for ending civil Striffes but the Apostle is here prescrybing rules to Church office bearers not civile rulers and teaching Timothy how to cary in the Church Againe they had then no Christian civil Magistrats as all doe grant and for their going to Heathens to compose their civil differences Paul himself dissallowes it 1 Cor 6. Some againe will have the laboring in the word doctrine to be nothing else but ane explanation of rulcing well but this inadvertant gloss will set asyde My Lord Bishop as no good ruler Againe as is said the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here or the word especially is discriminating and discretive distinguishing one thing from another not explaining one thing by another If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were thus sensed what odd work would it make in other places 1 Tim. 4 10. Who is the Saviour of all men especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them that believe This gloss will sense it thus the Saviour of all men greatly believing Others yet by labouring in the word and doctrine will have a higher degree of labouring as to diligence understood yet so as both branches speak of labouring in the word and doctrin But as the Leyden Professoures doe well answer this will allow double honour to the less-labouring or lazie elder who deserves rather a double rebuke the Lord requiring the the utmost faithful diligence of all labourers in his vineyarde Besides that this gloss justles out and makes Superfluous that clause of the verse viz in the word and doctrine which according to this exposition should either have been totally omitted or added unto both the branches of this sentence Some to escape the dint of this text invent yet another Shift all Sort of Rulers whither civil ecclesiastick or domestical are worthy of double honour so they sense the first branch and say they this General proposition the Apostle might premise to enforce the honour he enjoyns to the labourer in the word c. But the context fully rejects this gloss since the Apostle speaks not generally of Rulers but of elders that rule well and of such elders and rulers to all which he allowes double honour So that this gloss will mak pitiful work both in allowing the Churches honorarium double honour or honourable maintinance to domestick Rulers and likewayes will allow more honourable maintinance to Ministers then Magistrats Some woulde by the labourer in word and Doctrine as distinct from the ruling elder take in transient visiting Presbyters distinct from fixed preaches but where will they shew us any such who were not Evangelists Wee find that meer ordinary Presbyters were ordained for several cities and places as there peculiar charges whom they were fixedly to feed Act. 14 23. Tit. 1 5. Act. 20 28. But where find they such Presbyters as had no fixed charge Neither can Evangelists be meaned as Dr Burnet would gladely shift it in his first Dialogues the Apostle all along speaking of ordinary preaching Presbyters These and several such like exceptions the evidence of this text hath long since refuted So that we may conclude solidely from what is said the divine right of this Church officer and by consequence the horride Sacriledge and usurpation of Prelacie in robbing Christs Church of the same And likewise the Babilonish confusion which this Antichristian Hierarchie hath introduced into our Church both in divyding and maiming the Pastoral office in bringing in offices which the Great Shepherd hath not allowed and in excluding and thursting our offices and officers which the hath ordained upon which grounds and upon all the preceeding wee hope we may now safely conclude the Diocesian Prelat existing among us to be a plant which the father never planted and consequently as a poisonus weed to be rooted up CHAP. V. That the present Prelacie is grosse Erastianisme Some Arguments against it under that notion It excludes and denies all Church Government in the hands of Church officers distinct from the civil contrar to the Churches priviledge both under the Old and New Testament which is demonstrat at large Is in many points ane Incroachment upon the liberties of the Gospel-Church and upon Christs mediatorie authority over the same HAving thus farr impugned the Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church officer Wee shall nixt offer some Arguments against him in his Erastian Mould as deriving all his power from the civil Magistrat Althogh the office of the Diocesian Bishop were acknowledged warrantable yet this will help nothing the Erastian Prelat these being very distinct theams and questions What is that Species of Church Government allowed and commanded in Scriptnre and whither there be any inherent Church Government allowed her distinct from that of the Civil Magistrat and whither Church officers or the Civil Magistrat be the proper Subject therof that the Present Prelacie is gross Erastianisme is manifest for after all Church Judicatories were in Anno 16 62. discharged untill they were authorized by the Bishops nominat by his Majestie the disposal of the Government is declared to be the Crown-right and inherent pâ—…rpetual prerogative and thereupon the Bishops are restored not only to their civil dignities but to their Episcopal function presidencie in the Church and over all Church discipline c. And it is expresly declared that there is no Church power jurisdiction or Government in the Church office bearers or meetings but what depends upon and is subordinat unto the Supremacie and is authorized by the Bishops who are declared accountable to his Majestie for their administration In the Act for the National Synod the constituent members thereof the maters to be treated of the authorizing of the constitutions as Church Canons is soly in the Civil Magistrat there work being only to give advice to him without any decisive inherent suffrage By vertew of which Ecclesiastick Supremacie his Majesty puts excommunication and Spiritual censures and consequently the power of the keys into the hands of persons meerly civil in the Act for the high commission Hence it is aparent that his Majesty as the fountaine of all Church Government impartes this
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
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
Hieronimus Primum quo Ecclesiae communi presbyterorum concilio gubernabantur Secundum quo studia in religione facta sunt ac dictum est in populis ac non corinthisolum c nam quum primum illa corinthi dicerentur adhuc communi presbyterorum concilio ecclesiae gubernabantur ut patet ex icor 5. 2. cor 1. tertium demum quo unus de presbyteris electus caeteris fuit superpositus Atque haec singula tempora suam ut cum vulgo loquar latitudinem habuerunt Ierom distinguishes Three periods of time 1. When the Church was governed by the Common Council of presbyters The 2d Wherin there were divisions in religion and it was said among the people not at Corinth onely I am of Paul c for when these things were said at Corinth the Church saith he was as yet governed with the Common Council of presbyters as it appears 1. Cor. 5. and 2 Cor. 1. The 3d. and last wherin one chosen out from among the presbyters was set over the rest And every one of these times saith he that I may speak with the vulgar hade their own latitud here in this one judicious account of this learned author our Informer might have seen his error and the violence which he offers to jerome words for jerom drawes his proofes for the first period from many texts of Scripture from Phil. 1. Act 20. c when Paul took his last farewell of that Church never to see their faces more Yea he drawes his proofes from John the Surviver of all the Apostles for the identity of Bishops and Presbyters and in relation to the Churches being governed by their Common Councill And as to the choise of the constant president he addes quod autem postea unus electus that their was one afterward chosen to preside for the remedie of Schism c and to be Episcopus preses this period he fixes after Iohns time and so after all the Apostles 2. Wheras the Informâ—…r following Downam defens lib. 4. cap 3. Sect 10. alledges That the Presbyters in jeromes senc did in the beginning of the gospel govern the Churches Modo privato in a privat way in foro conscientiae feeding with the word and Sacrament the Apostles themselves by thâ—…r own presenc supplying the roume of Bishops and that thereafter Bishops were set up by them to prevent schism among Presbyters I answer He will assoone squize water from a flint as this meaneing out of jeroms words Fori jerom speaks of a frame of government yea a divine frame which postea and Paulatim afterward and by degrees came to be altered and changed but this privat government of Presbyters in foro interno was never changed 2. jerom in speaking of that government which was afterward changed and by degrees proves its divine right from many scriptures as a Dispâ—…sitio divina or a divine appointment Now I beseech him did the Apostles first practise a divine fâ—…ame of Government and then changed it into a human custome which is the Character that jerom puts upon the Episcopacy which afterward came in will any of common sense or discretion say so Far less so learned a man as Ierome was 3. If the Apostles themselves did supply the roum of Bishops before the change which Jerome speaks of then Ierome could not say of that period of time before the change that communi consilio Presbyterorum ecclesiae gubernabantur the Churches were governed by the common Council of Presbyters but according to this gloss of his words before the change the Government was episcopall But so it is that jerom sayes idem episcopus Presbyter the Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same by divine right and that before the change which came in by a human custome which he distinguishes from that dispositio divinâ—… or divine frame which first took place the Presbyters Governed theChurches by common Counsel according to divine appoiniment 4. If the Apostles upon their with drawing or the increase of Churches set up Prelats let the Informer shew me why and how Ierom could draw his proof for the identy of Bishopes and Presbyters from Act. 20. Where Paul was taking his last farewell of the Churches was he to supply the roume of a Bishop by his presence with them when never to see their faces more how could Ierome plead for the divine right of Presbyters Episcopal Scriptural GospelGovernment from Paules calling them Bishops at his last farewell and committing the whollGovernment to them if this had been his meaning Besides were not the Churches increased aâ—… this time why then were noâ—… Bishops set up since this man holds the increase of Churches to have grounded such a necessity of Prelacy Nay since Jerom drawes his proofes against the Prelats divine right from the 1 Pet. 5 And from John could he suppose that this was but the beginning while the Apostles had the power still in their own hand Againe our Informer would doe well to resolve this doubt how Jerom could call a Government which he asserts to be brought in by the Apostles according to Gods appointment a human custome opposite to the Lords appointment Or how could this answer Jeroms scope to prove Presbyters to be one with Bishops to say that the Apostles first governend them episcopally themselves and then set up Bishops over them And how will he make this corresâ—…ond with what Jerom sayes as to the originall of this change viz. the studia in religione or factions in Religion Will the Informer say which is his own argument afterward that the Apostles immediat episcopall Government had influenc upon this Schism Was not likwayes the Schism at Corinth from which this man drawes the change in Jeroms sense long before severall of Jeroms proofes from 1 Pet. 5 Act. 20 And from John for the divine warrand of this common Government of Presbyters And was this the change which Ierom speaks of as toto orbe decretum postea or a change afterward through the World Appage inneptias 3. As for what he adds That Ierom drawes the Alexandrian Episcopacy from Marke which he compleans that Mr. Durhame and Smectimmuus take no notice of Ans. Wee have showen already that it is not worth the noticeing in this matter and any notice can be taken of it makes rather against him then for him for if Marke was ane Evangelist in the strict sense as Ierom calls him he doeth as chamier answers Bellarmin in this point cut him of from the Series of Bishops properly so called The Informer must grant this or contradict what he said before of the inconsistency of these offices in a strict senc in on and the same person for he said nothing against this consequenc Timothie is called ane Evangilist in astrict sense ergo He could not be a Bishop Now I say Ierom calls Marke ane Evangilist for he tells us that a Marco evangelista from Marks the Evangilist the Presbyters at Alexandria set up one
to preside Ergo he speaks exclusively and cannot put Mark among the series of them for Mark was ane officer of a higher nature Moreover the Informer tells us that Mark died before Peter and Paul hence I infer against him ergo Ierom could not reckon Mark among these Bishops of Alexandria for Ierom drawes his proofes for the Presbyters divin right of governing in Common from Act. 20. phil 1. 1. Pet. 5. And from Iohn the last of the Apostles and maks this divine Presbyterial government run along all the Apostles time and tells us that the Bishops who were set up came in by custome and afterward and by degrees when it was toto orbe decretum decreed through the world to put the power upon one ergo these Bishops of Alexandria behooved to be sett up long after Mark was in his grave according to jeroms calculation And wheras he compleans that Mr Durhame leaves out that Clause Where jerom maks use of a simile anent the armies choosing ane Emperor That he may make the Bishops power when brought in as little as can be It s answered that passage will as little help him as the other for jeromes scope is to shew That the Bishops first rise and power over Presbyters was by their own free election not by divine disposition as the Army chooses the Generall Now no simile must be strained and hold in every poynt else it were not a simile Scripturparables themselves mast not be strained beyond the scop And besides jerome cannot be supposed to give at that time even de sacto far less jure divino an Imperial or Lordly power to these Presbyters thus chosen out by their brethren and made Bishops over them unless he would Cross his own doctrine since he maks this choic and Election of the Episcopusâ—…reses to be the humâ—…n Custome posterior unto and different from the divine appointment of governing in a parity which first took place Likewayes jerom sayes in his own time quid facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter What doth the Bishop except ordination which the Presbyters doth not So that they had not then arrived at any imperiall power And because this man tells us even ad nauseam of this passage a Marko Evangilista I will turn here the weapons point upon him and demand Since Ierome make these Alexandrian Bishops from Mark to have been sett up by Presbyters free election how comes the Prelats he pleads for to be Elected and set up at Court while the poor Creatures the Curats over whom they are set to play the little emperoures have no more Interest as to their choice and Election then the silliest Monck in choosing the pope I add here that this supposition of his that Ierom holds the Apostles to have supplied the Bishops rowme for a time though no fixed ordinary Bishops untill the Churches growth and their necessary absence did necessitat to set them up for preventing schism will Crosse what himself and Downam also doe plead defens l. 4. c. 5. Sect. 3. If at least they will not make Ierome oddly to contradict himself viz. that Ierom in Catal. Scrip. Eccles holds that Iames immediatly after the Lords suffering was Constitut Bishop of Ierusalem Besids that neither of them will prove that to be the true jerom But now the Informer will resolve the great doubt against what he hath said viz. That Ierome proves from Scriptur Bishop and Presbyter to be all one and that schismes by Satans instinct gave occasion to change the government from the Common Council of Presbyters to another mould of setting up one over the rest to whom the whole Care should belong c. To which he answers that Ierom speaks of the power which Bishops in his time had come unto beyond what the first Bishops had viz. That at the first Presbyters had a hand in government but after omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum de lata that is the wholl care was put upon the Bishop But if we take Ierom to speak of the first introduction of Bishops then he must be understood as speaking of the Apostles own times Ans. 1. Upon this ground the Informer must grant that in Ieroms sense Bishops who only in ordination were superior to Presbyters had a greater power then the Bishops first set up by the Apostles which will clearly exclud his diocesian Prelats who have sole power in ordination and jurisdiction as no divine Bishops And Next it will follow that the ishopes set up a Marco or after Mark were meer presidents or Moderators since they were less in power then these Bishops who onely in ordination differed from Presbyters So we see the rebound of this answer will strik his cause dead And he must feel another rebound of his own blow as to his Complaint of our leaving out what maks against us in Ieroms words For I ask why he leaâ—…es out here Ieroms scripture proofes evincing that Bishops Presbyters are one jure divino Why leaves he out Ieroms Collection upon all these scriptures which runes along the through Apostolick age viz. That the Bishops are more by Custom then by any true dispensation from the Lord set over Presbyters for although he after bringes in this as ane objection yet it ought to have been set downe here as the main conclusion of Ieromes arguing and his testimony is very blunt without it Again how comes he thus to disguise what Ierome sayes of Presbyters governeing Communi Councilio or by common Councill as if it Imported no more then haveing a hand in government which he maks Compatible with prelacy wheras Ierom maks it distinct from and anterior unto even the first human prostasy Beside their governeing Communi Concilio Imports particularly their joynt decisive suffrage in government which he doth but meanly express by their governing in Common 2. What a rediculous conceit is this That Ierom speaks of the power of Bishops in his time beyond the first Bishops Ierom speaking of Presbyters expressly as contradistinct from Bishops and of the Presbiters existent in the Apostolick Churches while the Apostles were alive as himself just now explained iâ—… in saying that the Apostles by their presenc and industry supplied the want of Bishops over these Presbyters So that he compares not the Bishops in his time with the first Bishops who came in by Custome but these human Bishops who thus came in with the first scripture Bishops we know not wher to find this versatil proteus in his answers here and may truely alleadge that this Testimony pinches him and his fellowes Next will he stand to this exposition of Ieroms words which he here offers viz That the first Bishops admitted Presbyters to governe with them and the after Bishops in Ieroms time governed alone Then he must grant that the first and second Bishops were of very different cutts and so he breaks his Argument from the Catalogues all in peeces and must grant that the word
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
Apostolick tradition it receaves the same answer with what is said as to his calling Apostles Bishops For with Ierome Apostolick tradition and Ecclesiastick Custom are all one as that instance clears anent the observation of lent which he calls Apostolica traditio or Apostolick tradition writing to Marcellus and yet writing against the Luciferians he calls it Ecclesiae consuetudo oâ—… a Custom of the Church therefore by Apostolick tradition he meaned not Apostolick appointment for this were ane implicantia in terminus a flat contradiction since he denyes this to these Bishops but only Ecclesiastick Custom upon which he sayes their office was founded The Informers 2d Answer o this exception is with Davenant That by truâ—…h of divine appointinent Ierom meaned Christs express command by Custom the Apostles practise begun by them and after continued For proveing this he adduces the Instance now given anent Ieroms making Apostolick tradition and Ecclesiastick Custome all one Hence he thus senses the words That Bishops were brought into the Church not by Christs express command but by a Custom introduced by the Apostles into the Church and continued in their Successors Ans. 1. This fine conceit maks Ierom reflect oddly upon the Apostles as if they taught one thing and practised another for Ierome proves from their writings that all along they make Bishops and Presbyters one Now if they in practice set up Bishops distinct from Presbyters what Harmony makes this 2. He thus maks him reflect upon Christs express command in relation to government as if it were altered and opon his government Apostolick in saying that it was the ground of schismes How will this man guard against this which he imputed to us before 3. What will Davenant or he make of these Three periods of time in Ieroms discourse observed by learned Iunius and others to clear his words 1. Presbyters and Bishops all one and governing by Common Council all the Apostles time 2. Scismes arising 3. Paulatim and postea in process of time and by degrees a new mould of government projected and immutata ratio the order changed as Ambrose saith to the same purpose Now this glosse of his words will make the Apostolick government and practise not only the rise of scismes but to be Changed for a change its sure Ierom speaks of from the first order of government appointed by the Apostles and making yet the Apostles practise in government to continue the answer contradicts it self as well as Ierome As for the instance adduced it cannot quadrat here in this place when Ierom opposes thâ—… consuetudo or Custom unto disposition of divine truth for the Apostles practise seconded by their Doctrin as the Informer holdeth that both will patroniz prelacy is most formaly a divine appointment and their giveing unto the Churches what they receaved of Lord in their commission and therefore cannot with any shew of Reason be apposed unto a divine appointment as Ierome opposes this Consuetudo or Custom In Fine How wil Davenant or he separat and distinguish that which Jerome cites Act. 20. for the parity of Bishop or Presbyter and to prove Presbyters their common joynt government viz That Paul gave the whol Episcopal Charge to these elders in his last farewell as the Holy Ghosts Bishops not noticing Timothy in the thing How will hee I say distinguish this from ane Apostolick practice and a practice to be continued So that here was in Ieroms sense a Presbyterian practice of this great Apostle a practice founding that Government and to be continued so But the Informer dismisses this discourse of Ierom with some remarkes The 1 is That he speaks at least of ane Apostolick right as in many other his writings in relation to prelacy Ans. wee have proved that Ieroms words in these Tuo places mentioned the clearest account of his judgement in this mater since he is disputing this point ex professo doe evince the contrary his 2. Remark is That suppose he makes Bishops laiter then the Apostles yet he maks them needful to prevent Schism Ans. Ierom onely Narrats rem Gestam or the mater of fact viz. The ground that moved to bring them in but gives not his approbation of it Besides the Informer would take home his own argument here and bewar of making Ierom reflect upon the Apostolick Government and contradict himself in approving of a government as a remedy of schism which he disputs against from Scripture His 3d. Note is That Ierom submitted to Episcopacy and that Mr. Durham sayes that Aerius was condemned for brangling this order to the hazard of union Ans. Ieroms keeping fellowship wiâ—…h the visible Church in his time tainted with this Corruption and which was but then are embrio of that grown Monster now among us is a poor argument to plead for the best and purest and in so far the most considerable part â—…f Minsters and professoâ—…s in this Church heir complying with a Scismatick backslyding parâ—…y introducing this Corruption after it hath been universaly cast out and vowed against and the same may be said of Aerius Neither contradict wee Ierom in this for he maks not prelacy necessary for keeping out shisme as we have alteady told him and we heard that learned Whittaker calls it a remedy worse then the Disease Before â—…e can mke either Ieroms practise heranent or Mr. Durhams assertion as to Aerius bear any conclusion against us he must prove that the prelatick party are the onely visible organick Church of Scotland else Ieroms practise will fortify more the Presbyterians plea against him for breaking down the wall of Gods house and seperating from the Presbyterian Government of this nationall Church But of this when we come to examine the third Dialogue CHAP. XIII The difference betwixt our present Prelacy and the Ancient Episcopacy stated and evinced in 12. Instances Hence all the Informers pleadings from Antiquity for our Prelats is found a beating of the Aire and impertinent ALthough this Informer would make the world believe that our Prelacy is nothing discrepant from that of the ancient Bishops yet there are many remarkable differences betwixt the one and the other which renders all his pretences from antiquity meer words and winde 1. In general its clear from a great consent of the learned that the Bishop who first came in after the Apostolick age was nothing but Episcopus preses or Moderator and had no power of ordination and Iurisdiction above Presbyters This Moderator fixedly set up durante vita during life And Indued with a higher honour upon this ground is Beza's Episcopus humanus or human Bishop whom he distinguishes from the divine Bishop of Gods appointment Ambrose in his time acknowledges on 1 Tim. 3. That Bishops and Presbyters had the same essentiall office and ordination Dr Reynolds in his conference with Hart proves that at first the Moderator or president among Ministers in their meetings is he whom the Ancients in after times called Bishop So he holds
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
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
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
gave his Disciples charge that they should not affect superiority one over another or princely power over Gods heritagâ—… and puts them to prove that the office of the Ministry may in ordination be divided or that there are more orders of the Ministry then one which our Informer still begs a supposition of viz. Bishop or Presbyter or more officers in the Church then Elders and Deacons appointed by Christ or his Apostles by their apostolick authority That the Presbyter in whom are required the same qualifications to whom is to be yeelded the same obedience subjection andrespect who recives the same ordination and is charged with the same duty and invested with the same power of feeding and governing the Church of God with the Bishop and none other is an order distinct from and subject to the Bishop to be ruled by him and not to exercise his office but by the Bishops licence and that the Presbyter must swear obedience to the Bishop as his ordinary Which are the grand postulata and topicks of all this mans reasoning in point of prelacy The autitheses of which tenets we see Mr Crofton most evidently maintaines as the sense of the Covenant in point of episcopacy he further describes pag 80. and 81. the prelacy covenanted against and anent which he challengeth these Masters proof of a jus divinum to be such wherein one Minister or Bishop doth stand charged with all the congregatious and pastors of a Countie or many Counties making one diâ—…cess who is by office bound to a pastoral correction and government of them that these Bishops may be subject to one Metropolitan Church and Archbishop to whom they shall swear obedience adding that if the Word of God conclude such superiority over the Church in one Kingdom it will conclude a Catholick superiority over the universall Church and advance the Pope as warrantably above the Archbishops as the Archbishops are above the Bishops and the Bishops above the Presbyters these not being differences of kind but degree Adding further that no more is pleaded for Prelats divine or Apostolick right in the Church of England but what is pleaded by Bellarmine the Council of Trent for she Papacie Now from what is said I darre referre it is this Informer himself whither Mr Crofton doth not clearly disowne all the essentialls of our present prelacy and hold it to be abjured in the Covenant the office of our present Bishops and Arch-Bishops being incontravertibly such as he here describes And whither Mr Crofton holds not our prelacy arch-prelacy and metropolitan primacy to stand upon the same basis with the papacy and to be equally with it excentrick to the Scriptures and that he esteems consequently the Bishops and Arch-Bishops which I hope he will not deny to be abjurd in the Covenant to depend as such upon the Pope as a part of his hierarchy Next pag. 81 he sayes that it is not the first sort of episcopall government formerly described wherein all Ministers are invested with equal power and auhority or dignity are all of the same order and governe by common counsel but the specificall prelacy last described which presumes it self to be a Hierarchie So that with Mr Crofton our present prelacie falls within the denomination of the Hierarchy abjured in the solemne league and of the Popes wicked Hierarchie abjured in the nationall Covenant for he tells us in the preceeding page that none can deny that a quantenus ad omne c. He tells them moreover in that same pag. that had he lived in the Churches of Ephesus Antioch Phillippi Creet or the seven Churches of Asia invested with the same ministeriall authority which he then enjoyned he might have stood up a Peer to any Bishops therein so that he esteemed no Bishop there but Presbyters Besides pag. 82. he cites severall writers to prove that the authority and distinction of Episcopall and Archiepiscopall chaires metropolitan primacies owe their institution to the Church of Rome or politick constitutions of Princes He tells us pag. 84. out of Cartwright and Whittaker that the Church in respect of Christ its head not his vicar or superiority of single prelats is a monarchy in respect of the ancients and pastors that governe in common all the Presbytrie with like authority among themselves not a superiority over them it is an Aristocracie and in respect the people are not excluded but have their interest it is a Democracy The inserted parentheses are Mr Croftons and let any judge whither he assert not with these authors a Presbyterian frame of government opposit to diocesian Bishops and Arch-Bishops In his Analepsis in answer to Dr Gauden pag. 2. he charges him as before the Oxford men with an uncertain proposall of the object and the ratio formalis of the Covenant obligation as to prelacy under the general terme of Episcopacie therein also lasâ—…ing our Informer for the same laxness and ambiguity telling them that by good demonstration Bishop and Presbyter have been asserted to be synonimous titles of Church officers and are found to have been so used in the primitive times of the Church and of the Fathers adding that the government of the Church by its Ministers in their severall assemblies with a Moderator Ordinis causa to dispose and regulat what belongs to order is the primitive episcopacie which he grants to the Doctor that the Covenant will not strike against then pag. 3. and 4. he describes the Episcopacy which the Covenant strikes against And pag. 5. summeth it up thus that the Covenant cannot be accomplisht by the removal of Prelats pride c. Whilst the Preeminence prerogative Paternal power and juridicall authority assumed by them as distinct from and above all other Ministers of the gospel as the only immediat successors of the Apostles So our Informer makes them c. are continued What will this Oedipus answer to Croftons assertion Have not our Prelats this preeminence above Presbyters as a distinct order from them and have they not a juridicall authority over them by our law and practise and his pleading too doth not Mr Crofton in terminis assert that the Covenant obligation can never be satisfied untill such be removed are they no more in Church judicatores but Moderators and Chairemen set up Ordinis causa to order the actions of the meeting doth not our law give them a negative voice in the meeting and alloweth Presbyters only to give them advice if their Lordships do judge them prudent and loyall Again wheras the Dr pag. 18. did conclude that the Hierarchy being dead must rise in another qualitie Mr Crofton tells him pag. 6. That if it arise according to the Covenant it must be in the establishment of Congregational Classical Provincial and National Assemblies or Synods of Church officers Communi consilio Presbyterorum this phrase of Jerome he frequentlie useth to debate and determine the affaires of the Church and Exercise all acts of discipline and Ecclesiastick power
judge in matters of faith and practice not Custome and Antiquity Ibid. The Informers reasoning on this head reduced to a formal syllogism The Major proposition the Informer though oblidged offers no proof of It is scannd and likewayes the assumption and the unsoundnesse of both discovered Page 192 193 194 195 196. The Informers Arguments from the Catalogues of Bishops largely scannd and the insufficicy thereof discovered in the Judgement of sound divines Several things do invalidat Eusebius Testimony page 197 198 199 200 201 202. That the first purest Church was governed by Presbyters without Bishops Jeroms Testimony in his commentary upon Titus and the Epistle to Evagrius for the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter and a Presbyteriall Government in the Apostolick times largely vindicated from the exceptions of this Informer which are discovered to offer violence to Jeromes Words to be inconsistentent with themselves and contrary to that sense of Jeromes Testimony which is exhibit by learned Protestant divines yea some adversarys themselves Page 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 316 217 218 219 220 221 222 Chap. 14 misprinted Chap. 13 page 223. The difference betwixt our present Prelacy and the ancient Episcopacy stated and evinced in many points Such as 1 The power of ordination and Iurisdiction above Presbyters cleared in several particulars And from the Testimony of the Ancients and eminent Protestant divines Chrysostomes Testimony on 1 Tim. I. Homely II. explaind 2. That they were set up by the Presbyters free choice and election Proved from Antiquity 3. In referenâ—… to the peoples Interest in their choyce 4. That they could not ordain alone 5. That they did not invade Presbyters decisive suffrage Cleared also from Antiquity page 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231. 6. In the point of their ciuil state-offices which is proved to be contrary to the canons called Apostolick other canons of ancient Councills 7. That metropolitan Primacy is a stranger to antiquity also cleared 8. So likewayes Erastian Prelacy page 232 233 234. 9. Our Prelats exclusion of the ruling elder from Church Indicatories crosses Antiquity 10. Their large and Provincial inspection 11. Their laying aside the preaching of the Gospell renders them Monsters to pure Antiquity and exposes them to the censure of Ancient Canons page 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242. 12. In their fastuous pomp and sumptuous grandeur ibid. Chap. 15 misprinted Chap. 14. page 243 The Informers pretended Testimonyes out of Calvin Beza Blondell c. For Episcopacy examined Their Anti-episcopall Judgement cleard from their ings particularly Calvines from his Commentariâ—… upon the controverted Scriptures in this point severall passages of his Institutions and Commentaries vindicated page 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251. As also of some Epistles page 252 253 254. As also of Beza page 255 256 257 258 259 360. The Informers two absurdities which by way of 〈◊〉 Dilemma he offers unto us from our assertion of the unalterablenesse of Presbyterian Government and our concession of a Proâ—…stos early brought in scannd and retorted upon himself Page 260 261 262 263. Some passages of Blondel vindicated and of Chamier and Moulin page 264 265 266 267 268. misprinted 236 the Authors of jus divinum Ministerii anglicani vindicated at some length and in special from imputations of a contradiction imposed upon them by the Informer page 269 270 271 272 273 274 misprinted 237 238 262 263 264 a passage of Bucer vindicate ibid. Chap. 16. misprinted 15. page 275. misprinted 265. Severall Testimonyes of the fathers offered by Mr Durham in his commentary upon the revelation for evincing the identity of Angel Bishop and Presbyter vindicated from the exceptions of the Informer his Exception to Mr Durhames testimony of Augustine examined as likewayes to that of Ambrose and Chrysostome Page 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 misprinted 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 the Informers inconsistences noted page 281 282 283 misprinted 271 272 273. Chap. 17. misprinted 16. page 284. misprinted 274. The Harmonious consent of ancient fathers modern divines and confessions of reformed Churches for Presbyterian Government in its essential points of difference from Prelacy exhibit 1. That there is no diffence betwixt a bishop and Presbyter Iure divino Page 285 286 287 misprinted 275 276 277. 2. In their point of ordination jurisdiction that these are not in the hand of a single prelat but that Presbyters have essentiall joint-interest therein page 288 289 290 misprinted 278 279 280. 3. In point of the peoples interest in the election and call of Ministers Page 290 291 misprinted 280 281 4. In relation to the ruling elder as appointed by Christ. Page 292 misprinted 282 5. As it stands in opposition to Erastian principles and the present prelacy in that respect and maintains a spirituall Authority in the hands of Church officers distinct from independent upon the civil powers of the world ibid. SECOND PART Chap. 1. pag. 2. A Twofold state of the question proposed the one touching the abjuration of this Prelacy in either or both Covenants the other concerning the obligation of these Oaths against it That prelacy is abjured in the national Covenant proved from severall clauses of it page 3 4 5 6 That it is also abjured in the solemn league and Covenant proved from several passages thereof and the then state of our Church page page 7 8 9 10. The standing force of these Oaths upon the present and succeeding generations proved 1. from their nature and essenc page 11 12 13. 2. From the subject they affect 3. Their matter and object 4. Their end and scope and even as to Presbyterian Government page 13 14. Chap. 2. page 16 The Informers Arguments against abjuration of Prelacy in the National Covenant Some reasons of his against an Oath in general or this Oaths obligation upon the posterity weighed page 16 17 18 19 20 Mr Croftons Testimony in his Analepsis for the obligation of the Covenant upon the posterity page 21 22. The Informers reasons against the abjuration of prelacy in the National Covenant examined The Author of the Apologetical relation vindicated together with the Assembly 1638. page 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41. Chap. 3. page 42. The Abjuration of Prelacy in the solemne league and Covenant vindicat from the exceptions of the Informer The Informer alledges it is only the English Prelacy that the Covenant oblidges against how im pertinently cleared page 43 44 45. That Timorcus affords no help to him in this answer cleard ibid. Nor Mr Crofton which is also cleard page 46 47 48 49 50. From several passages of Mr Crofton in his Analepsis The Covenant excludes our Prelacy and oblidges to Presbyterian Government in his principles proved ibid. His objection anent the sense of the 2 Article offered by the Parliament of England Answered As also his Exceptions to our Argument taken from
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
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
the Presbytery to the Synod as from the Presbytery at Antioch to the Synod at Jerusalem Not to any one Apostle Pop or Prelat Whereas the last appeal and reference in this Diocesian Mould is to the Bishop Our Lords rule is this in relation to the removeing of Scandales First tell the offending Brother Alone then take two or three more then if he be farder contumacious tell the Church the greater embodied court or Judicatorie who have the official power of binding or lowseing He bidds not toll it uni to one but unitati a multitud gathered into one for so the Greek word doth necessarly Import whereas in the Diocesian sea the gradation is from many to one Prelat whose sole prerogative this highest censure is And with Prelatists the rule runns thus tell two or three lastlie and finallie one Lord-Bishop Which is point blank contrare to the Scripture rule 3. The Diocesion Bishops power and Ministerial Pastoral pretended duties as Diocesian Bishop are such as falls within he compass of no command and which it is impossible to performe according to Scripture rules which I prove thus 1. The Prelat according to their principles is the proper Pastor of the whole Diocess for he being peculiarly Bishop of it and consecrat in order to his Episcopal inspection over the same for to the participation of his power office denoted by this term Bishop of Edinburgh c. He admitts non in the diocess it being the characteristick of his Superioritie over Presbyters withall it including the wholl Ecclesiastick Authority both of order and Jurisdiction with in the Diocess It followes of necessity that he is the sole and proper Pastor thereof according to this mould of Government Now it being so let it be considered 1. That the trew Scripture etimon of Episcopus or Bishop imports all the Pastorall duties of feeding and ruling and layes aâ—…e obligation upon the person under this relation and cloathed with this Office to perform all these duties accordingly to these to whom he stands in that relation 2 That its impossible the Bishop can feed Rule Oversee and perform the Pastoral duties unto and watch for the souls of all that large flock in which some hundereds of painful Pastores will find their hands full of work So that the Bishop assumes a charge which it is impossible he can dischag or perform 3. The Scripture allowes no Derivation or Deputation of the Pastores work and Office to which he is called of God unto other subserviant Officers Because God intrusts no man with any peece of Stewardship in his Family but what he must both oversie and execut immediatly by himself and is likewayes disposed and enabled to manage and overtake God still conjoyneing the Office gifts and call together for every peece of his work Which the man that is intrusted with and called unto must himself immediatly waite upon and attend Rom. 12. 7. and not intrust it to others for him Hence 4. By clear consequence it followes that the Diocesian Bishopes work qua talis is such as he can neither mannage nor hath warrand from the great Shepherd to exercise or assume In the 4t Place the present Diocesian Bishop is a Person who is authorised to sitt in Parliament Council and other civil Judicatories as a constituent member therof For they are restored to their places in Parliament civil pretended dignities which places they aâ—… by there Office bound to manage as civil Rulers But so it is that all civill dominion Magistraticall Rule is expresly prohibit to Church Rulers so that the Church Officer who is installed in these Offices falls from Heaven to Earth The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them and they that are great exercise authotie upon them but it shall not be so among you Matth. 20 25 26. This charge our Lord gave to his Apostles and their Successors Pastores or Bishops who are here forbidden all civill rule or Magistracy the nature wherof is properly a Dominion and thus distinct toto coelo from the nature of Ecclesiastick Offices which is a Ministerial service or stewardship only All our divines impugne from this text the popes civil Dominion and the amphibius civily ruleing or domineering Prelat falls under the lash thereof Non who goe Christs errands and his warrfare must be inâ—…angled with these things that are temporal The Minister must waite upon his Ministrie So the civil Magistrat is Gods Minister in civiles attending Continually upon this employment Rom. 13 4 6. Now those being in their nature so disparat employments and both requireing a constant waiting and attendance he is a strange man That can be called and sufficient for both Who is sufficient for these things said the great and highly gifted Paul speaking of his Ministerial employments Are our Prelats beyond his sufficiencie who can act the Pastor of a wholl Diocess and guide State affaires too Christs Kingdome is not of this World and so are not its Officers the weapons of whose warrfare must not be carnal Who made me a judge said the great Shepherd himself when desired but to giue a deciding advice in a civil cause Luk 12 14. Where is there any thing like the work or qualifications of the Magistrat in all the New Testament Rules and instructions anent the work Office and call of Church Officers CHAP. III. The Diocesian Bishops Office debases extraoadinarie Offices in confounding them with the ordinary That Timothy and Titus power layes no foundation for Prelacy cleared at large The derivation of Prelacie from them loaded with gross absurdites VIII THe Diocesian Bishops Office is in this contrare unto the word in that It debases the Apostolical and Euangelistick Offices and confounds the ordinarie extraordinarie functions administrations which Scripture Reason all sound Divines doe diversifie distinguish The Prelats Advocats this new informer particularly pleads for and derives the Episcopal preheminence from the office and inspection of the Apstles and Euangelists whom they affirme to have been properly formally Bishops in the sense they take the Diocesian Bishop and that the formal power and offices which they exercised are to be continued still in the Church That Timothy was formally constitut Bishop of Ephesus Titus of Crete Iames of Ierusalem And that the Prelats office is the same and properly Succeeds them and is as it were A continuation of their office in a formal sense Timothy's authority is is one maine ground which the Episcopal men at the Isle of Wight and this Auther also do plead to legittimat the Prelats office This being clear I say this pretended Mould of the Diocesian Bishops Office and Authority is lyable to the charge censure of debasing these holy extraordinarie functions and confounding them with the ordinary which I prove thus 1. All sound protestant Divines do harmoniously assert the extraordinary nature of the Apostolick office as such and likewayes of the Euangelists reckening the Apostles Prophets
he that cannot distinguish this from accnstant official medling as a civil Iudge and constituent Member in civil Indicatories is very blinde And as stupid that man were who could not distinguish this from the privat domestick care mentioned 1 Tim. 5 8. Which is a part of that Eiconomie founded uonp the Law of nature and competent to a Minister as a Master of the Family who is to govern and rule his house under that notion Yet we must here tell him that Gods allowing the Minister his honorarium or maintenance is for this very end that he may not by any overstretch of the domestick case be taken off from his holy imployment Here we shall offer to this Informers grave judgment the Reasons of the Assembly 1638. Sess 25. against the civil Offices of Ministers 1. Christs notable example Luk. 12 14. Refusing to deal in a civil cause Ministers are his Ambassadours sent by him as he was by the Father Joh. 20 21. Joh. 8. He would not sentence that woman who deserved death 2. Civil Rule is discharged to Apostles Matth. 20 v. 25 26. not only Supreme which is competent to Princes but subordinat also Citing that passage of Bernard to Eugenius Lib 2. Apostolis interdicitur dominatus ergo tu tihi usurpare aude aut dominans Apostolatum aut Apostolicus dominatum Dominion is discharged to Apostles Go thou therefore and dare to usurp to thy self whither the Apostleship if holding a civil dominion or being Apostolick a civil dominion Where theyrefute the ordinary Episcopal Popish evasion as to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. That Ministers having given up their names to this holy warfare they ought not to be involved in things of this life as the law denyes this to souldiers C. d. Lib 2. T it 13 So the Apostolick law 2 Tim. 2 04. This work tobe heavier then that any man can be sufficient for it alone 2 Cor. 2 16. Hence Ministers are called watchmen labourers souldiers fishers c. 4. The Apostles for all their extraordinarie gifts were not fit for serving tables and preaching the word both Act 6. although these were both ecclesiastick functiones therefore farr lesse can any Minister now assume both ecclesiastick and civil offices Gregorie the 1. cited by Gratianin Decreto dist 89 Cap. Singula proves that two ecclesiastick offices are not to be committed to one from that place of the Apostle Rom. 12 6 7. As it is unbeseeming that in mans bodie one member should Act the part of another The 6th of the Canons called Apostolick appoints that the Bishop or Presbyter assuming civil places be deposed which will make fearfull Massâ—…cre among our Prelats that day the Parliament rides so Can. 81 and 83. Cyprian lib 1 Epist. 9. sayes that long before It was appointed in a Councel of Bishopes that none appoint in his Testament one of the Clergie a Tutor or Curator Quando singuli divino sacerdotio honorati non nisi altari sacrificiis precibus orationi vacare debent Since every one honoured with the divine priesthood ought not to attend but to the Altar and Sacrifices to prayer and preaching for it s written no man that warrs c. Clemens the 1. whom many make Bishop of Rome and out of whose writings the defect of ecclesiastick history after the Actes of the Apostles they affirme must be made up in the Epistle to James the brother of the Lord whom they make a Bishop hath these words neque judicem aut cognitorem secularium negotiorum te ordinare vult Christus ne praefocatus presentibus hominum curis non possis verbo Dei vacare secundum veritatis regulam secernere bonos a malis impietatis tibi crimen est neglectis verbi Dei studiis sollicitudines suscipere seculares That is neither will Christ ordaine thee a judge and arbiter of civill affaires lest being involved in the present cares of men thou be not able to attend the word of God and according to the rule of verity to separat the good from the evill It blotts thee with the Crime of impietie to take up secular cares neglecting the Studjes of the word of God Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais cited by lipsius in politicis said that it is unlawfull to joyne the Civill power with the priesthood-nam hoc esset miscere non miscenda hoc est Sacris civiliaconfuâ—…dere For this were to mix together things which cannot be mixed that is to confound Civill maters with Sacred See severall others cited by the assembly and recorded in the Historiamotuum pag. 283 284. Where there is ane Answer to the objection drawen from Augustins practise and from that of 1. Cor. 6. 4. The informer comes nixt page 5. to his defence of the Episcopall office it self But still goes on in the mist of confused generalls never condescending upon the nature power and extent of the diocesian Bishopes office as it is now established by law However let us remember that our present prelat is according to our law Ane ordinary Church officer assuming the government of some Hundereds of Congregations as monopolized in him and conveyed according to his pleasur unto the Ministers therof Having sole power in ordination and jurisdiction and a negative voice in Church judicatories whose proper worke is Ruleing only not feeding by doctrine This is the Bishop which all his pleading must be commensurat unto else He but beats the Air. 1. The Doubter alleages The unlawfullnes of the Episcopall office for want of ane expresse warrand for it in the word To which He answers By granting that this will prove it to be not simply necessare but not unlawfall since it may be lawfull and expedient as falling under some generall as the command of decencie and order will warr and a Moderator and Clerke although this be no where commanded That many learned men have thought prelacie lawfull though not commanded nor warranted by any particular Scripture precedent nor yet prohibited but left to Christian prudence at it is found expedient and conduceing to the good of the Church To which I answer 1. He grosly mistaks the Import of these relatives a command and the necessitie of a thing flowing therefrom when restricting it to ane expresse warrand or command there being many things necessarie necessitate precepti which have no expresse warrand or command Divines doe tell us that Scripture commands are either immediat or mediat the immediat are either explicit or in expresse terms enjoyning a thing as honour thy father and thy mother or implicit holding out either that which is comprehended in the command as suetable midses leading to the dueties enjoyned or deduced by consequence from what is expressed As Ministers preaching is deduced by consequence from the command thereanent which the Apostles gotâ—… the Circumstances of the command pointing out this to be a perpetuall duetie of Church officers Againe 2. There are divine commands which are mediat
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
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
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
us the Image and lineaments of our present prelacie in the Jewish Church Government For 1. We cleared above that the Ecclesiastick Sanhedrin was distinct from the civil and that the priests had a distinct independent authority and ministery But the prelats derive all their spiritual authority from the Magistrat 2. He cannot shew that either the Highpriest or any inferiour priests had the sole decisive Suffrage in their ecclesiastick Courts or such a negative voice as the prelats exercise assumein their pretended Synods and presbyteries The learned Iunius will informe our Informer De Cler. Cap. 24 Not 13. That par consortium honoris potestatis fuit inter sacerdotes sed ordine impari qua familiarum qua temperis respectu Penes concessum sacerdotum ex lege fuit ordinaria jurisdictio ecclesiastica That is Among the priests there was a like participation of honour and power though in a different order partly in respect of families and partly in respect of times the ordinarie ecclesiastick jurisdiction belonged to the assemblie of the priests according to the Law Thus he Sure then it belonged not to the Highpriest alone farr less to any inferiour priests and therefore none of them all had our prelats negative voice in judicatories or a sole decisive Suffrage so that they were farr from our prelats principality as to directive and corrective power And therefore though we should grant that his argument will hold as to our being oblidged by the policie of the Jewes and to have the government of the Gospel Church this moulded yet our present hierarchie is so different from it that it will not help his cause in the least But the doubter objects that there ought not to be such a subordination under the new Testament To which he answers That the Old Testament-subordination being to maintaine order and unitie in the in the Church there is the same reason for it under the new and stronger because the Christian Church is of larger extent then the Iewish and the danger of schismes and the necessity of preventing them the greater And what better way for this then Gods way thus exemplary pointed out to us although the New Testament gave no other ground Gods own model being best for the Church I answ 1. He must plead for much more then a meer subordination of Officers if he speak to the point as is clear from that is said And his Doubter if he had dealt fairely should have objected that the New Testament Church ought not to have the same mould of government that the Jewish had and that there is a vast disparitie betwixt their prelatick Erastian Hierarchie and the Jewish Church-Government Both which grounds doe break the force of his argument But it is good that our Informer hath the doubters arguments and objections of his own moulding 2. Though he know reason of a subordination under the Old Testament he should have said of that particular mould of government which the Iewish Church had but his general one to maintaine order and union in Gods Church he should have said in that Church under that special dispensation yet we have showen him some Reasons of their particular policie which doe not reach us And shall onely resume to him that we have neither 1. Such a distinction of tribes Nor 2. A common Temple and common Ministry in one Temple for the universal or for any National Church as they Nor 3. Have we such types and shaddowes from which as upon the former grounds this mould of government did flow Nor 4. Such various sanctuarie offices and degrees and varieties of administrations requiring as Bishop Bilson hath told him such varietie and different degrees of Administratores the Word and Sacraments being concredited to all Ministers without distinction c. Besides hath not the Apostle in the forementioned passage Hebr. 7 12. Given this Informer a sufficient Reason why wee are not tyed to the same Policie viz because that the Priosthood is changed i. e. their particular frame of Church officers that therefore there is made a change of the Law that is of the legal ordinance both of worship Government 3. Darene say that Christs Church under the New Testament may have every mould of government which may be in it self or in respect of some circumstances commendable and subservient to these ends of order and union Where is Christs faithfulness as a Sone over his own house beyond that of Moses Where are all the New Testament prescriptions in point of government Officers Lawes Censures if the Church thereof like a Tabula rasa may have any government introduced into it which may be in its own time and place good and Ministers framed according to the Old Testament dispensation 4. How will our Informer extricat himself as to the Jewish High priest in maintaining this Answer to his doubter Was not his office a special mean of order and unitie in that Church and to prevent schisme s and divisions And is there not the same reason that the Christian Church should be thus kept from that evil by a supream Highpriest or bishop What better way for this then Gods owne way And what better pattern for modelling the New Testament-Church in point of her government then this pattern Surely the Pope will thank him for this I know he sets aside in contradiction to Saravia as I shall shew the Highpriest in his argument as a Type of Christ the man forsaw that this would cast his argument in to ane intire Popish mould but he is not so forseeing as to prevent his being snared by his own reason caught in the brieres of contradictions For 1. He dare not deny that this Officer was a singular Mean of their order and union Hence he must grant that his answer to the doubters objection is naught and that Gods way of preserving order and union in the New Testament Church is different from his way and the means of preverving it under the Old and that the Samenes of the end of Gods ordinances and institutiones under both dispensations will not plead for holding the same institutiones Was not order union and the edification of the Church the great end of all the Mosaical Ceremonies and Pedagogie Were not the Jewes for this great end of order and union to keep their solemne Feasts To go up to Jesusalem solemly and joynly three tymes in the year To have one common Temple one Altar c. And must therefore the Christian Church observe the same ordinances and institutions 2. How will he prove that the inferiour Priests were not Types of Christ as well as the Highpriest Dare he say that their praying for the people and their sacrificeing were not typical of Christs intercession and sacrifice as well as the praying and sacrificing of the High priest though not in the same degree of eminencie I grant that the Apostle Heb. 5. speaking of the authority and honour of Christs Priesthood presentes
4. Cap. 3. c. that is they are mistaken who judge either Timothy at Ephesus or Titus at crete to have exercised any impite or Dominion to dispose of things each at his own pleasure they were set over the people no word of their being set over Ministers to go before them in good and wholsome Counsells in relation to the placeing of Ministers not that they might doe as they pleased excluding others Since Paul himself neither imposed hands nor did excommunicat alone and since as I said above a wholl colledge or Presbytery of Apostles acted nothing pro imperio but in Churches constitut had elders going along with them in all that Sinodal procedour Act 15. Farrless would Timothy and Titus assume this episcopal preheminence who were inferiour to any of the Apostles therefore their power in this was not episcopall 2. That authoritie which was intrusted to the elders and Ministers in commone was not intrusted to any one officer such as Timothie But so it is that after the Church of Ephesus was exedified and compleated in its organick being and after Timothy had gotten his charge as to ordination and Jurisdiction in Ephesus Paul committed the wholl episcopal power to the elders as is said before Timothies face in his last farewell Act. 20. therefore he intrusted him with no episcopall preheminence in or over that Church when compleated in its organick being 3. They whose power stands so circumstantiat as to ordination and jurisdiction over these Churches that it excluds Episcopale preheminence properly and formally such their power in ordination and jurisdiction cannot be prelatical nor ground ane argument for prelacie but such is the power of Timothie and Titus For 1. As Diocesian Bishops they ought to have been determinatly and designedly set and fixed there as the officers of these Churches but the contrary appears in the text I befought the to abide at Ephesus and againe I left thee at Crete and to set in order things that are wanting which words point at ane occasional transient employment there not a fixed instalement 2. In these Epistles they are both Called back without the least intimation of their returneing 3. If their power was Episcopall and ordinary then in the apostles prescriptions and rules anent their Successours their power and authority ought to have been described and rules given touching the gifts Call ordination c. of the diocesian Bishop but the Apostle prescribes no rules for any officer higher then a Pastour supposes still that he is the highest ordinary officer in all his directions as to Church government 4. Add to this That Paul never calls Timothy or Titus Bishops though frequently making mention of them but Ministers Souldiers of Christ workmen the Churches messengers c. 1. Tim. 4. 6. 2. Tim. 2. 3. and 15. 2. Cor. 8. Supposing them his attendants in his Apostolick function Their accompanying Paul in his Travells is largely described by the divines at the I le of wight 1. Timothy is found at Berea with Paul Act. 17. 14. then at Athens 15. Thence Paul sends him to Thessalonica 1. Thess. 3. 1. Then havâ—…ig been at Macedonia with Paul he came to him to Corinth Act. 18. 5. Then he is with him at Ephesus and thence sent into Macedonia Act. 19. 22. Whither Paul went after him and was by him accompanied into Asia Act. 20. 4. He is with him at Troas 5. v. and at Miletum 17. v. where Paul gave the elders his last charge as the Bishopes of that Church And after this he is found either in journeys or absent from Ephesus Forafter he is found a prisoner with Paul at Rome being mentioned as his companion in these epistles written while Paul was at Rome as that to the philippians Philip. 1. to philemon 1. 1. and to the colloss 1. 2. and he is never found againe at Ephesus neer the end of the Apostles pilgrimage he is sent for to Rome So Titus is found at Ierusalem befor he came to Crete Gal. 1. 2. thence is sent for to Nicopolis Tit. 3. 12. then to Corinth then he is expected at Troas 2. Cor. 2. 12. and meets with Paul in Macedonia 2. Cor. 7. 6. whence he is sent againe to Corinth 2. Cor. 8. 6. after this neer the time of paules death is found at Rome from whence he went not to Crete but unto Dalmatia 2. Tim. 4. 10. And after this is not heard of in Scripture So that from their various journeys the order of them the time spent in them the nature of their employment which was to be the Apostles Copartners in their Apostolick function and negotiat the affaires of the Churches where the Apostles traveled and the Sciptures silence touching their being Beshops of any one Church These divines conclude that they could not be diocesian Bishops Others doe remarke severale other pregnant Circumstances in the sacred text specially relating to Timothy which doe evince him to be neither Bishop at all nor particularly at Ephesus in the prelatical sense As 1. That paul stirres him up to diligence upon this motive that thus he shall be agood minister of Christ not a Bishop of Christ 1. Tim. 4. 6. He was therefore a Minister Bishop but nothing else 2. That when Paul wrote this first epistle to him he was but newly entered into the ministery 1. Tim. 1. 3. with Act. 16. 1. 2. 3. c. And Paul will not have a Novice to be a Bishop 3. He is commandes to intreat elders as Fathers 4. To Honour them doubly that rule well therefore he was not to be a Father over these elders 5. That he had his gift by the laying one of the hands of the presbysery which could not be ane episcopall function 6. That Paul appointes him to reside there only untill his owne return from Macedonia to instruct the people for someshorte time until he came to him againe 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. 7. That assoone as Paul came from Macedonia to Ephesus he sent Timothie into Achaia himself staying at Ephesus and Asia for a season Act. 19. 22. to 40. v. and from thence he returned to Macedonia and through it unto Asia accompanied with Timothy and others after which we never read that he returned to Ephesus 8. That Timothie was sent to many churches to confirme and strengthen them as to Macedonia Act. 19. 22. To Thessalonica 1. Thess. 1. 2. 3. To philippi chap. 2. 19. 20. but never to Ephesus after his first departure 9. That though he is joyned with Paul in the Inscription of some Epistles Collos. 1. philip 1. and frequent mention is made of him in the epistles to severall Churches 1. Cor. 4. 17. Philip. 2. 19. 20. 1. Thess. 3. 2. 6. Hebr. 13. 23. Yet there is altum silentium of him in the Epistles to the Ephesians his own supposed diocess 10. That Paul laid hands upon the disciples who were ordained in that church after his supposed episcopacie That as Timothie was sent
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
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
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
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
tradition which from the Apostles is preserved by Succession of Presbyters in the Churches They will alledge that they are more wise then the Apostles themselves or these Presbyters dare this man say that Irenaeus meaned that it was only a Succession of Bishops in these Churches who keep that Apostolick truth That Presbyters are successoures of Apostles properly and immediatly in the power of the keyes is evident by a full Testimony of ancient fathers â—…gnatius about whom our Informer makes a great bustle in several places of his Pamplet in the Epistle ad Trallianos calles the caetum Presbyterorum the Assembly of Presbyters Conâ—…unctionem Apostolerum Christi a meeting of Apostles of Christ. â—…rinaus lib 4. Cap. 43 holds Presbyteros in Ecclesia ab Apostolis successionem habere that Presbyters in the Church have there succession from the Apostles Cyprian lib. 4. epistol 9. asserts omnes praepositos vicaria ordinatione Apostolis succedere that all overseers so he calls Presbyters succeeds the Apostles by a vicarious ordination Ierome on 2. Chap. of mica cited by Cratian in decretis distinct 5. cap speaking of himself a Presbyter saith si in Apostolorum loco simus non solum sermonem eorum imitemur c. If we be in the Apostles place let us not onely imitat there doctrine but also their conversation Augustin serm 36. to the fratres in Eremo and these too Preâ—…byters call them sal terrae Apostolorum successores the salt of the earth and the Apostles successours 2. As it is certan that these Catalogue-drawers did not understand veri nominis epâ—…copos or diocesian Bishops properly suoh thogh speaking after the manner of their times they gave them all one name So it is equally certain that the Testimoyns out of which these Catalogues are patchâ—…d up are most inconsistent and contradictory to one another as the divines at the I le of Wight and many learned men have made appear and still the nearer the Apostles times the Catalogues are the more darke and various They make Peter Bishops of Rome a fable contradicted by many of the learned proved to be such but whither Clemens was first or Third and who or in that order next after Succeed them whither Linus or Anacletus is never yet cleared Some make Titus Bishop of Crete some Archbishop Some Bishop of Dalmatia Timothy and John are made by many Bishops at the same time Some say Policarp was first Bishop of Smyrna Some make him succeed one Bucolus some make Aristo first Some give Alexandria one Bishop some tuo at once See appendix to jus divin min. Evangel And wheras our Informer replyes that notwithstanding of this yet all agree that a Succession of Bishops was and that these different relations cannot impeach the certainty of the Succession it self no more then difference about the Succession of princes will invalidat the certainty of the History I answer if he could prove that they understood Bishops properly so called or his diocesians in all these Catalogues of Succession this evasion might have some Shew of truth but it is certain that they did not Patres cum Iacobum Episcopum vocant c. the Fathers saith Whittak de pontif quest 2. c. 15 se 2. When they call James Bishop or Peter take not the name of Bishop properly but they call them Bishops of these Churches wherein they stayed for some time and againe if spoken of a Bishop properly its absurd to say the Apostles were Bishopes fore he that is properly a Bishop cannot be ane Apostle Because the Bishop is set only over one Church but the Apostles were founders and overseers of many Churches After he tells us that non procul distat ab insania c. it differs little from madnes to say that Peter or any other Apostles were Bishopes And to this purpose he speaks afterwards at large Q 3. c 3. Sect 9. proveing this from the unfixed extraordinary nature of their message or mission who were to follow the Spirits conduct towards all places whither they were called Which argument reaches evangelists upon the same ground So that Whitaker will send our Informer to Bedlam if he mend not this information and revocke not this principle anent the Episcopacy of Apostles and Evangelists and the Succession of Bishops from them The learned Iunius also Contr 3. lib 1. cap. 23. not 3. mantaines ane aequivocall acceptation of the word Bishop in this matter so that his paralleel holds not as to a difference about the Succession of Kings when a Monarchy all aâ—…e Supposed such but here the difference and equivocation is as to the authority of these Succeeding Bishops When he shall read Scallig Animadvers 277. The Informer may possibly suspect Hegesippus his naration anent James yet jerom and Eusebius depend upon him Scalliger holds Clemens Romanus to be no better likwayes jerom Catol Scrip is a Counterfit not the true jerom since he mentions pope hilary who lived long after jerom was in his grave And wheras the Informer maks a great outcry of jerom that jerom begins at the Evangelist Mark in the Alexandrian Catalogue which our wâ—…itters leave out in their citations its easily answered that it needs not be putt in since the Author sayes A marko from or after him the Presbyters choosed out one whom they made president wherein it s evident that he speaks of this custom after Mark and excluding him who was ane Evangelist before and needed not be set up by the Presbiters And surely if the first Bishop was ane Evangelist the rest were very heterogenious to their first pattern Besides in that jerom sayes Presbitiri a marco unum ex se electum c. Hee clerly insinuats that it was the Presbyters thereafter no Mark that it for if by Marks Apointment these Bishops wereset up he could not attribute it to the Presbyters etion Should one say in Scotia a regimine presbit Anno. 62. Episcopi introducti Ergo ab isto regimine introducti were â—…t not a bad consequence Here I will offer to him the remarke of a learned author Repl to Dun 143. anent the Circle which he and his fellowes doe ryde in this argument Timothy and Titus c. had ane Episcopal authority why because their authority was not Evangelistick Why so because it was not to die with them why that Because it was ordinary and perpetually necessary And how is that proved Because if the Apostles being alive they behooved to instruct Timothy and Titus with Episcopal authority much more being dead this was necessary to the Churches But when it is inquired how this Episcopal authority is proved it is fairely assumed againe as if it were granted that the Apostles made them Bishops of Ephesus and Crete So the last medium is still that which is in Question Let him ponder also what Didocl p. 125. and 139 hath produced anent the confusion and contradictions in this Alexandrian Succession Tilen himself de pontif l. 1.
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
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
argument as signifing any thing against us Since the retortion thereof is so manifest and therefore nothing he hath said will impeach Calvine and Beza's impugning of Episcopacy whose impugnations of it will stand to all generations Moreover in this citation of that epist. to Bishop Grindal the Informer hath sued off the half of the sentence viz quod tu igitur coram istam quorundam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tamdiu pertulisti reverende vir ineo sane insigne patientiae ac lenitatis Christianae specimen dedisti quo majori c. and neer the close of the same letter Beza faithfully adviseth as the fittest remedy for removing offences ut in legitimo caetu ex uno Dei verbo abolitis semel papisticae tyrannidis vestigiis ea constituatur administrandae Ecclesiae ratio non quae huic vel illi adlubescat non quae veteri aut recenti consuetudine sed quae firmo verbi Dei fundamento superstructae piorum Conscientiis fatisfaciat in eternum perseveret that is that in a lawfull A ssembly from the Word of God onely all the footsteps of popish Tyranny being once abolished that Method of Church Government be established not which shall please this or that person not which is founded upon new or old Custom or the wisdom of the flesh but which being built upon the sure foundation of the word of God may satisfie the consciences of the godly and endure for ever Which rule and mould of Bishops would no doubt cashier and raze to the foundation the diocesian Erastian prelate whom he pleades for yea all the Prelates in Brittain For what he adds p. 87. It may be easily and without prejudice to our cause granted that God by his providence had made him a Iudge The Informer will not owne such ane Atheisticall principle as to deny that the Bishops civil government in England or pretended Ecclesiastick is not the object of divine providence or be so brutish as to conclude Gods approbation of usurping Tyrannes from his permissive providence in reference to their tyranny or usurpation else he will for ever destroy his loyalty and fealty either to the King or his Lordbishop That passage of Calvins letter to Cardinal Sadolet after citedby him p. 88. though admitted is a poor proof that he held Church Government to be alterable Certainly Calvin held the scripture parity to be the most ancient Government Vetustissimae Ecclesiae or of the most ancient Church for such no doubt he held the Apostolick Church to be Beside wee must tell him that this passage upon search is not found and as it is here expressed is very insignificant since by Vetus Ecclesia he may understand the Church after the Apostles time which early began to Corrupt the Government As for Salmasius his retracting his opinion as to Church Government it will no more Impeach the truth it self which he asserts then any other mans defection will weaken the sound Doctrine which he once held Would the Informer take this argument from the Papists if they should plead from the retractiones of protestants and from their writing for popery that the protestant Doctrine were not sound would he not say that their first practise or writings for truth will stand good and witnesse against them in their defection Though it may be a question whither that retraction be reall or not which Durel mentions and the Informer out of him p. 89. Especially this being another of our Informers mute citations which he keeps as he doth the state of the questions in these Dialogues under the Clouds pointing us to no page in that Answer of Salmasius to Milton We will not here stand to shew how that Salmasius eyes were blinded with Court-gifts and pensions having receaved no small summe from King Charles the second for his encouragement to that worke and several learned divines who best knew him think his literature more Considerable then his divinity was solid As for that place of Salmasius in his Walo Mess. c. 4. p. 253. cited page 90. the Intire sentence is Epistolae illae viz quae Ignatii dicuntur natae suppositae videntur circa initium aut medium secundi saeculi quo tempore primus singularis Episcopatus supra Presbyteratum Introductus fuit Whatever time this was it appears by what followes that place in Salmasius that about this time Church power began exceedingly to be Corrupted and Bishops exalted almost to ane equality with Christ and men began to plead a jus divinum for them for Ignatius In Epistola ad Trallenses asserts Episcopum venerandum esse sicut Christum quemadmodum Apostoli praeceperunt that the Bishops must be had in veneration as Christ as the Apostles have commanded and he cites the Apostles words but such as do no where occurr in our Bibles And certanly if there be no more truth in that relation anent his retraction mentioned by that author then their is soliditie in that ground of it which he alledges it is not worth the noticing For the confusions in England cannot with any shew of Reason be charged upon Presbyteriall Government which was never yet settled there And this Informer dare not deny the blest effects of truth and unity godlines which it hath had in this land as is acknowledged by Churches abroad and particularly in that passage of the Syntagma confessionum which he cites in the last dialogue If Blondel in callng Episcopacy most ancient doth except the more ancient Apostolick times which he pleads as exemplifying Presbyterian parity he gives it but the spurious after-birth of humane antiquity The same we say as to his passage cited out of Moulin p. 90. and if something of the humane proestos were granted to have creeped in ere Iohn went oft the stage will that commend it any more then that mistery of Iniquity and love of preeminence which the Scripture assures us was in Paules time and his Surely by no meanes Besides we must here again tell our Informer that this Citation out of Moulen is among the rest of his Mutes since he hath neither noted booke nor page But now from our opinion of the unalterablenes of Presbyterian government and our acknowledgment of the bringing in of a Proestos so early the Informer will involve us he sayes in one of Two great absurdities Parturiunt montes What are these the 1. is That that generation who lived shortly after Iohn was altogether ignorant of Christ and his Apostles minde anent Presbyterian parity else they would not have adventured to change the government But this absurdity is easily discussed for it lights equally upon the Instance already given of Israells defection in worshipping the golden Calf fourtie dayes sooner then 40. years or more after the holy patterne of doctrine shewed them upon the mount How often doe we find suddener changes in scripture of the divine Institutions How quickly after Ioshua and the elders did all Israell depart from Gods way and ordinances How quickly
did they relapse after deliverances both in the times of the Kings and of the judges yea and after solemne vowes of Reformation How quickly after Hezekias death did they turne aside How quickly after Josiahs death How quickly after Solomons death did Rehoboam forsake the law of God and all Israell with him I think these scripture instances of as universal far greater defections then this was anent the proestos might have made this man ashamed to bring this as ane absurditie Now what will he say to his own Question here I it possible is it probable that Gods Israell could be ignorant of his minde and adventure so quickly to change his ordinances Heard not all the Churche of Israel Gods voice from mount Sinai Had not these departers afterward known or seen his eminent seers heard his word and seen his works Could they be altogether ignorant of his minde who thus suddenly departed from him How could they then adventure to make such a change Alace What a poor querist is this I think indeed He and his party have given the Instance in our generation that such a sudden defectione is both possible and probable Was ever a nation more solemnlie and universallie ingaged unto God and had seen more of his greatnes power and glorie then wee did in the late worke of reformation How long is it since Scotland not onely knew and imbraced Presbyterian Government but also solemnlie vowed to mantaine it But he knowes how universally this work and cause of God is now rejected his Covenant abjured and disowned And the Informer himself who for what I know might have seen our first beautifull house is pleading for this perjurius change of Gods ordinances and lawes and breaking his everlasting Covenant Read he never the 106. Psal. 7. vers They provocked him at the sea even the red sea and vers 11. The waters covered their enemies and there was not one of them left Then believed they his words they sang his praise they soon frogat his works they waited not fr his counsell The Informer bluntly supposes ane impossibility of a peoples crossing light in apostazing changes and that all that generation most needs give a formall consent to this change of government in order to its introduction both which are groundless suppositions and they render this horne of his Dilemma very pointlesse Besides this change as we said before was but small at the first onelie a fixed Moderator and far from his Prelacy which even in Ieroms time was but come the length of taking from Presbyters ordination or rather the rituall part of it And the change had plausible pretexts of order and union as every innovation hath its own pretences besides that this change was not all at once but by degrees Wee must also here tell him that the same very suggestion is his 3d. Reason to prove Ieroms bringing in Bishops in the Apostles time and so a nauseating repitition But if we decline this absurdity the next he thinks is worse viz That that generation went over the belly of light in changing the Government and conspired against Christ and his Apostles Government and none are found testifying against it Answer 1. This absurdity doth like wayes fall upon the former Scripture instances of greater and more sudden and as universal defections of the Church of Israel What will he say to these questions in relation thereunto Were all ignorant Did all sin against light and adventure presumptuously to change the divine ordinances And as for a Testimony against these evills the Informer himself and his party for all their clamoures against us falls under ane obligation to answer this in relation to many corruptions and erroures which as early creept into the Church as Prelacy Wherof we gave Instances already and no Testimonies are recorded against them He seems to have forgot or to be ignorant of our divines answer to this argument of Papists calling for our producing of Testimonies against such and such evills or dating their first rise viz. That there might be tho we have not known them and that it is bad arguing from the defect of the History or the darknes of the first original of such a corruption to deny the plaine mater of fact and the corruption itself to be such How many Thousand eminent persons and acts of these times which we told him the learned doe acknowledge to be very dark as to matter of fact have never come to our knowledge And since we have often told him from Ierom that this change was lent and by considerable degrees and intervalles of time and Method of its procedor some might be overtaken with weaknes others puffed up with ambition and upon this ground the one might endeavour the other give way to this change especially its first degrees being small in respect of what followed Knowes not this man that the evill one sowes his tares while men sleep And this hierarchie being as in its nature so in its rise a Mystery Mystery of Iniquity Mystery Babylon Yea and a Mystery which was working long before this change even in Pauls time upon all these grounds his absurdity evanishes and reflects a greater absurdity upon himself who would have us shut our eyes against Scripture light upon such pretences as these rather embrace 2 corruption contrary unto it then acknowledge that the Church did erre We know very well what a wicket this notion hath opened for obtruding and retaining popish innovations and these men are fast warping in to that Method As for that which he adds of Blondel p. 94 who asserts that the Presbyters made him proestos or fixed Moderator who was first ordained Wee told him already that this fixed president tho a deviation from the Scripture rule yet is farre from the diocesian Prelats sole power in ordination and Jurisdiction So that his confidence some will be apt to say impudence is strange in calling this a power episcopall now existent since notwithstanding all its after growth it was not in Ieromes time come the length of our present Hierachical power of Prelats by many dayes journey Neither is it probable that Blondel could suppose this to be allowed of John which he holds to be crosse to the divine pattern As for Blond Apol pag 25. the Informer hath been mistaken in this citation no such words being found in that place But in page 52. after that he hath abundantly proven this thesis initio Presbyter Episcopus synonyma fuerunt that in the beginning Bishop and Presbyter were one and the same he begins the next sect thus Ubicumque Primum nascente Chistianismo Presbyterorum aggregari Collegium caepit Antiquissimum rectius Antiquissimo inter Collegas Primatus Contigit ut concessus totius Caput fratrumque tandem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jure quodam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fieret Which onely a mounts to thus much that first a moderator among ministers being established grew by peecmeal to a
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
abjuration of the present Episcopacie in the National and Solemne League and Covenant and the obligation of these oaths in opposition thereunto are examined CHAP. I. Atwofold state of the Question proposed the one touching the abjuration of this Prelacie in either or both these Covenants the other concerning the obligation of these oathts against it That Prelacie is abjured in the National and Solemne League and Covenant proved at large And arguments offered to evince their oblidging force upon the present and succeeding generations THE state of the Question in the Second Dialogue is twofold 1. Whither the Prelacie now established by Law in this Church be abjured in the national and solemne league and Covenant 2. Upon supposition that it is abjured in both the one and the other whither the obligation of these Oaths stands against it yea or not Wee shall a litle touch For the 1. Our National Covenant sworne by King Iames in the the year 1580 and by the Estates of this land and many times thereafter solemnlie and universally renewed both by our Church and State doth clearly exclude Prelacie The passages thereof pleaded against Prelacie and wherein our obligation lyes are these 1. In General wee professe to believe the word of God to be the onlie rule the Gospel contained therein to be Gods undoubted truth as then received in this Land maintained by sundrie reformed Kirks States chiefly by our own Whereupon we renounce all contrary doctrine and especially all kind of Papistrie in generall particular heads as confuted by the word of God and rejected by the Kirk of Scotland 2. After a large enumeration of many points of poprie disowned upon this ground and vowed against as contrary unto the word of God and the gospel of Salvation contained therein Wee renounce the Popes worldly monarchie and wicked Hierarchie and whatever hath been brought into this Church without or against the word of God 3. Wee vow to joyne our selves to this reformed Kirke in Doctrine faith religion Discipline Swearing by the great name of God to continue in obedience to the doctrine and Discipline of this Kirke and upon our Eternall perill to maintaine and defend the same according to our vocation and power all the dayes of our life Now the obligation of this engadgement against prelacie is evident these wayes 1. All doctrines contrary unto or beside the word of God are here rejected and disowned All doctrines contrary to the simplicity of the Gospel recived and believed by the Church of Scotland and whatever hath been brought into this Church without or against Gods Word But so it is that the present hierarchy is contrary unto the Word of God both in its Diocesiâ—… and Erastian mould as hath been proved at large And we heard that this Church of Scotland since it received Christianity did stand for a long time under Presbyterian Government and untill Palladius was sent unto us from Pope Celestine never knew a Prelat Ergo Prelacie in its Diocesian Erastian mould is here abjured 2. Our Prelacie is condemned in that clause of the Popes wicked hierarchie whereby the Prelatick Government is most clearly pointed at which is evident thus 1. That the Government of the popish Church is prelaticall this man will not deny it is by arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops Primats Deans c and it being distinct from his Monarchie for else the naming of his worldly monarchie had been enough and moreover it being ranked among these things which are brought into the Church against the Word of God and into this Church against her pure Doctrine which was clearly the sense of it that assemblies and the body of this Protestant Church entertained assemblies declaring that the Word Bishop was not to be taken as in time of Papistrie And Iohn Knox whose sense and Judgement herein was certanlie retained and upon all occasions manifested by our Reformers accounting Prelacie to have quid commune cum Antichristo Ergo Prelacie is here vowed against simpliciter and in it self considered 2. If he grant a hierarchie to be here abjured sure it must be abjured with the rest of the corruptions enumerat in that large list of them exhibited in this Oath Now these are abjured in themselves simpliciter as contrary unto the Word of God and the doctrine of this Kirke ergo So must a prelacie or hierarchie be in its self abjured under the same formalis ratio as thus brought in whither by the Pope or any other 3. This hierarchie is supposed in this Oath to be contrary unto the Discipline of this Church as well as the popish Doctrine is therein supposed contrarie to her pure Doctrine Now as we shall shew the Discipline which this Church then owned was Presbyterian So that that Discipline or Hierarchie which stands in opposition to Presbyterian Government is here abjured but so it is that prelacie ex se sua natura stands thus opposit unto it ergo by the hierarchie all prelacy is abjured 3. Prelacy is abjured in that clause where we professe to joyne our selves to this reformed Kirk in her Discipline as well as her Doctrine and vow and sweare adherence unto both Now that the Discipline then owned by this Church was Presbyterian Government or discipline Is evident these wayes 1. Discipline by generall assemblies and Synods having compleat parity of all Ministers with a joynt decisive suffrage is Presbyterian Discipline but this was that Discipline owned by our Church For her first Nationall Assembly compleatly Presbyterial in its mould was in the Year 1560. After which time untill 1580 When this Covenant was sworne there were many assemblies exercising their power 2 That is presbyterian Discipline which did judicially condemne prelacie as having no warrand in the Word and ownes no Church officers as lawfull but pastours Doctors Elders and Deacons But so it is that this was the judiciall decision of our generall assemblies long before this Covenant for the first book of discipline containing the Basis of presbyterian Government was approved and subscribed by this Church in the year 1560. And the Second book of discipline in Anno 1578. Which two books compleatly overthrow Prelacie layes down a mould of Presbyterian government And therafter in the assembly at Dundie Anno. 1580. Sess. 4. The office of a Prelat was particularly condemned by a solemne act and abolished as unlawfull and void of Scripture warrand ordaining under paine of excommunication such as brooked the said office to lay it aside as ane office to which they are not called of God and cease from preaching and administring Sacraments under hazard of the same Censure or using the office of a Pastour till they receive admission de novo from the generall assemblie Now in the nationall covenant this existent discipline being sworne to be maintained who can say but that Prelacie is most formallie abjured therein Especially if it be considered that in the same year 1580 This national covenant was sworn at which timethese
onlie as interpreted against Prelacie supposing that it will not in its self strike against it but the league they simply abjure and disclaime its obligation as to a change of this Prelacie Ergo they doe upon the mater acknowledge that it stricks against it Finaly Our adversaries doe grant that it strikes against Bishops Arch-Bishops Deans c That we are bound therby to extirpat such officers though its onlie that specifick complex forme expressed in the Second Article which they think is properlie abjured But 1. Is it not a prelacie inconsistent with Presbyterian government which we engadge to preserve in the First Article which wee abjure and engage to extirpat in the Second and under this formalis ratio as thus inconsistent in the sense and judgement of our Church and State the Imposers of the Oath And are not Bishops Arch-Bishops Deans c contrary to Presbyterian government then in being 2. Dare this man or any of that partie deny but that the former prelacie which we had in Scotland was intended to be abjured by our Church and State and the Imposers and renewers of this oath and doe not all engagements bind according to the sense of Imposers in the judgement of Casuists 3. Is not our Government now by two Arch-Bishops and twelve Bishops Have not these their Deans Archdeacons Chanters c 4. Are not our Prelats restored to all their pretended priviledges taken from them by the Parliament who Imposed this oath Nay redintegrat to a more absolute possession of pretended Spirituall authority then ever any befor them possessed since our reformation 5. Are we not engadged to extirpat all Eeclesiastick officers depending upon that hierarchie as we are engaged against whatsoever is contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of godlinesse not in bulk onlie but every thing Sigillatim upon this ground and formalis ratio And dare any of them deny that in the sense of Imposers a diocesian Bishop or Arch-Bishop especially as their power now stands enlarged and qualified is contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godlines Dare he say that any of the Imposers judged ane Arch-Bishop or Bishop especially in such ane Erastian mould as he is now to be consistent with the word of God Sure he were very Impudent who would assert it This being clear then that these engadgements leavells against the present Prelacie let us point out Next their obliging force This will be clear if we consider these oaths 1. In their forme or formalis ratio or nature and essence 2. In relation to their subject whom they affect 3. In their mater and object 4. Their end and designe 1. In their Forme and that either in relation to severall sorts of tyes included in them Or 2. The Qualifiations of these tyes For the 1. They are oaths wherin God is invocked as a witnesse of our sinceritie and as a swift witness against us if we breake The Scripture is full in pointing at the Sacred nature of oaths The Third command of that fiery law which Gods own voice pronounced from Heaven and which his finger wrote upon the Tables and which he commanded to be keept within the Ark is thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vaine and with this severe Certificat that he will not hold them guiltlesse who thus profane his name He threatens to be a swift witnesse against the false swearer Thou shalt performe to the Lord thy oaths is amongst the grand and morall precepts frequentlie inculcat in Scripture See levit 6. 3. 19. 12. Numb 30. 2. Psal. 15. 4. In this egagement the debt accrews to God and the absolution consequentlie must have his speciall warrand Quia religio juramenti pertinet ad forum divinum Hence the Scripture is full of Instances of the Lords dreadfull punishing the sin of perjurie witnesse that of Saul and Zedekiah whereof afterward Now in both these engadgements there is expresse mention made of Swearing by and unto God 2. These engadgements are promises or promissory oaths whererein we express our purpose and resolution as to important duties both to God and man invocking himselfs as a witness of our sinceritie we have opened our mouths to God and to one another in reference to great and weighty duties relating to the first and Second Table O what strong bonds are promises especially of this nature what conscience did even heathens make of them where of instances are abundantly adduced in the Apologie pag 334 335. c. 3 These engadgements are vowes unto God that is promises made to God in the things of God such as publick and personall reformation God here is not only invoked as a witness but is the proper Correlat and partie in this engagement and O but it is a fearfull thing to fall into his hands to be punished for the breach hereof The Scripture is full as to commands and precedents to pay and performe our vowes see Numb 30 2. 1. Sam 1 21. Ps. 76 11. Ecc 5 4. 5. 4. They are Covenants and that both with God and man viz engadgements to God for performance of duties revealed in his word such as the people made when upon the lawes promulgation they said whatsoever the Lord commands we will doe Exod. 19. 8. cap. 24 3 7. Deut. 5 27. and 26 17. and therefore are so often charged with breach of Covenant in their after disobedience We have engadged to God in these vowes speaking to us in his word from heaven touching nationall and personall reformation Here is also a mutuall stipulation betwixt the nations and with one another touching important duties of the 2d table in relation to there mutuall rights Now the Scripture is full in pointing out the weight and importance of such engadgements see Ezek 17. Jos. 9 18 19. Neh 9 38. Jer 34 18. So that in these Sacred bonds there is the tye of an oath from the reverence we owe to God whose name we must not take in vain The obligation of a vow from the homage and fealty we owe unto him the strength of a promise both to God and man from the influence of truth and righteousnesse all concurring to render the same Sacred and inviolable The binding force of these engadgements does further appear in their qualities as 1. they were solemnly taken on It s a Maxime that the obligation grows with the solemnity of ane engadgement and the Scripture aggregeth the breach from the solemnity such as the cutting the ealfe in twain and Zedekiahs giving of the hand c. For this imports deliberation and resolution in the engadgers and renders the breach more scandalous and infamous These oaths were taken by solemn assemblies and Parliaments after conference prayer fasting c. 2. These are holy and most weightie engagements in the great concerns of Gods glory and our own salvation the crown and kingdome of Christ against Anti-christ 3. They are large and extensive including duties of the whole word of
worshipping of Images c. Doth this man think that these Reformers would have admitted such corruptions presented under another notion then the Popes authority and obtruded by this Argument that their dependance upon him being broken off they were no more to be accounted his corruptions or that they would have embraced extreme unction or some other of his Sacraments and the inferiour orders of Lectors Acoluthi Exorcists c upon some other consideration then his Sacraments or orders surely he dare not assert this and so the case is here 2. As for his reason that otherwise all Ministers and Deacons should be abjured It is very impertinent Because 1. Ministers and Deacons are officers of divine appointment so that the abuse being removed this divine officer stands but prelacie is exse or of it self contrary to the word of God as we have proved 2. The Hierarchie is abjured in that Covenant as contrary to the then discipline of this Church but so are not Presbyters and Deacons 3. We have proved that the Hierarchie and the speciall prerogatives which prelates arrogate to themselves ar originaly papal and they in a speciall manner are looked upon by him as his creatures 4. as the Papacy cannot subsist without prelacie and any otherwayes then upon its shoulders so neirher prelacie nor the Papacy can consist with Presbyterian government and Presbyters divine right and power The Doubter next objects that all Bishops depend on the Pope citing Appol pag. 395. And that therefor all Episcopacy is abjured in this oath He answers the Apologie sayes they depend upon the Pope in esse operari but asks how he proves it and tells us that to say it is so because the Pope acknowledges they depend upon him alone is a poor because evident to any ordinary capacity resolving this upon the Popes ipse dixit like a Papist and gives the Papists that advantage over Protestant Churches that a Bishop depends upon the Popes supremacie now and from the beginning wherein he saith protestants do oppose the Pope and prove that his supremacy was contradicted by Councils and Fathers Anf The silly Impertinency of this new agent of the tottering cause is here very evident in thus reflecting upon that Author whose answers to these poor arguments of the Seasonable case he dare not touch For that Pamphleter alleging that Prelates are not abjured in that Covenant but as they depend on the Pope as it abjures the five bastard Sacraments as he makes them Sacraments and that therefor the corruptions only of these offices which flow from him are abjured and as a part of his blasphemous priesthood The Apollogist taking this concession inferrs thereupon That if these offices be abjured as a part of his Hierarchie and as confirmed by and depending upon him then Prelates are abjured who depend upon him in esse operári The Prelate as such being no officer of divine appointment as the Presbyter and deacon which if they were then this Casuists argument would hold good that we were to remove the corruption and retain the institution and ordinance of God But since we do suppose the office itâ—…self to be a corruption and he hath not proved the contrary his paralled as to the bastard Sacraments is naught And to clear this matter of fact that they are a part of the Popes hierarchie by the Popes acknowledgement that Author cites Peter-Suave in his history of the council of Trent where the Pope would not have it determined whither Prelats were Iuris Divini lest they should not depend upon him after this as formerlie Now the question here being whether the Pope lookt upon Prelates as a part of his hierarchie as in the capacity of Prelates in order to the clearing of this other question depending betwixt this reverend author and the Author of the Seasenable case viz. whither our Reformers intended to abjure Prelats in that Covenant as a part of the Popes hierarchie To clear this matter of fact what could be more pertinent then the Popes own acknowledgement and judiciall declarator that de facto they depend upon him and areowned as parts of his hierarchie is in this convincingly apparent That de jure they have no divine warrand this author supposed it as his principle the contrary wherof neither that Pamphleter nor any other hath proved So that the Popes ipse dixit in this is sufficient to prove this matter of fact That he made not the Popes ipse dixit the rule to decide whither this officer be juris divini or not is in this convincingly evident and by consequence this mans obvious folly in imputing to him such ane assertion that he grants that if this Casuist had proved the Prelate to be juris divini and institute by Christ or his Apostles then the abjuring of the Popes wicked Hierarchie would import only the abjuring of the corruption of this officer whose lawfull office might be still retained but this casuist taking this for granted that he is so institute and reasoning upon that supposition the author had good ground until his Antagonist as the affirmer shouldpro vehis supposition to hold fast his own principle viz that the prelats Episcopal being is papal which is cleared by many of the Learned from convincing Testimonies Let this Resolver read Leo epist. 86. and Swave Tom. 4. pag. 465. of the Council of Trent sess 23. cap. 4. de Sacram. ordinis where Anathema is pronounced upon any that denyes Prelates power of ordination c. over Presbyters I suppose he were alleging against a Papist that some of the Popish orders are essential pieces of his hierarchie and should prove it by the Popes acknowledgment and constitutions would he think the Papists rejoynder good ergo ye owne the Popes authority and make his ipse dixit judge Say it were a question anent ths Acoluthi or Exorcists c. Whither they are a part of the Popes Hierarchie would he not think the Popes acknowledgment and owning them for such to be a sufficient argument to prove this Since he supposeth and rationally that they have no other right either in esse or operari Do not all our divines draw Arguments from the Pope and his councils acknowledgment to prove their owning of many corruptions and that they are properly theirs But do they justifie the Popes Ipse dixit in proving this or in this method of arguing since they do suppose aliunde that they have no divine right as the Apologist in the point of prelacie rationally doth 2. as for what he adds of protestant Churchet or Prelates their opposing the Popes pretended right and Supremacy hereanent we say that they impugne his supremacy best who lay an axe to its root prelacie And to grant that prelacy is of its self a part of his Hierarchie will no more justify his supremacy then Pauls saying that the mysterie of iniquity was working in his time would do it And al tho the first Proestotes or Bishops did not
formally depend upon him yet as a humane device they made way for him and eatenus are a part of his Hierarchie which the opposition of some Bishops when he first attempted supremacy doth nothing invalidat Besides that the question here betwixt the Apologist and that Pamphleter was about prelacie as it appeared befor the Reformers in its then being and would but not of the first proestotes or moderatours What he adds here anent Calvin his owning of a hierarchie and pronouncing Anathema upon them who would dissowne it if cut off from its dependance upon the Pope is answered already upon the 1. Dialogue Heâ—…e I shall only adde that if Calvin in that passage opposed unto the Popish Bishops Such as take Christ for their head what curse will he not judge them worthy of who owne and plead for such Bishops as pretending to renounce the Popes headship take for their immediat head a civill Pope and make him as to all spirituall maters a more absolute head then the Pope himself As for his argument from these Ministers who reasoned with the Doctors of Aberdeen their declaring that the Doctors might take the Nationall Covenant and yet debate and vote in relation to episcopacie in the ensuing assembly I wonder what blurred this mans eyes that citing pag. 395. of the Apollogy he could not look back to pag. 393. where he might have found this argument of his Master the author of the Seasonable case answered which this casuist drew from that pamphlet emitted anno 1638. under the name of his Majesties Commissioner so that we have it here in the 3â—… concoction and yet it is as raw as at the first The answer in short is I remit it at length to his reading in that peice that it was not the nationall Covenant it self that the Doctors scrupled to subscribe and consequently anent which that debate was stated betwixt the Ministers and them but the addition containing the application to the present times which as to prelacie was expressed thus a forbearing the approbation of the corruptions of the publick government of the Church by this they thought they were expresly specifically bound against prelacie this these Ministers denyed but never said that prelacie was not abjured in the nationall Covenant it self or the negative Confession Let this Absolver read the answers of the Ministers wherein this will be cleared The Doubter next objects that the decision of the assembly 1638. put it out of doubt that prelacie was abjured in that Covenant and that all Episcopacy was meant by the Popes hierarchie To which he answers 1. That prelacie being of divine or Apostolick right that decision is null from the beginning Ans. wheras he sayes he hath proved prelacie to be of divine or apostolik right I will presume to say I have proved the contrary so that the Covenant is so far from being null upon this ground that it is rather an accessorie tye to disown a corruption to the disowning wherof wewere before by scripture grounds preoblidged But passing this he next alledges that it was more then that assembly could do to declare this Who so 1. sayth he how could they put a sense upon ane oath taken 58. years before and few or none of the first takers alive or if alive few or none members of that assemblie how could they know that their exposition was according to the mind of the first imposers But why will this Plageary tell us still over and over the arguments of the Seasonable case without noticing the answer therof already exhibit unto him did not the Apologist tell him that this reason supposeth the sense of that Covenant to perish with the first framers And whereas that casuist added to make the argument stronger which this his disciple forgot that the oath being vinculum personale they could not give the sense of dead men To this the Apologist answers that there is also a vinculum reale as this nationall oath was and that it oblidging all the Land and the posterity we were accordingly in order to performance bound to Search into its meaning and that this was the proper work duty of a general assembly That that casuist himself acknowledged which this borrower should have noticed that this was the judgement of Ministers concerning its sense when prelates were first obtruded upon this Church so that its true meaning from hand to hand was come to them and that they were the more in tuto to judge of it And whereas the argument of the Seasonable case had a Limitation in it which this man forgott viz unless that assembly could produce authentick evidences that this was the meaning of Imposers the Apologist told him that they did produce authentick expresse evidences that such was the meaning of the first takers I would know how this man comes to descant upon the sense of ancient writers in this pamphlet and to determine anent sentences of private writers dead severall centuries of years agoe He is very confident in fastning his Glosses upon Jerom's words I trowe that Author is dead more then 58. years agoe And for as clear as his words are against the divine right of prelacie yet this man thinks he is Cock sure that this was not the meaning of Jerom's words which presbyrerians alledge Quis talia fando temperet a risu But the Seasonable case goes on to object next and this resolver followes up at his heels That all which that Assembly produceth Sess. 16. to prove this to be the meaning of that Oath amounts only to this that the Church about that time of taking the Covenant and also afterward was labouring against Bishops but proves not that episcopacie was abjured in the words of the oath Now why would he not do his Doubter such a small piece of justice as to put into his mouth the large answer of the Apollogist to this argument from pag. 406. to 409. But this would have made him too stiffe a Doubter for this Resolver or Informer but had he nothing in the Surveyer to resolve this Well the Apollogist here tells him and his Leaders in this argument that the Covenant supposeth a Government then in being to the defence of which it oblidgeth that that Government was not prelacie but presbytery he clears by a large induction of our assemblies acts and procedour as the Assembly 1638. did before so that that matter of fact being clear there is No doubt but that the nationall Covenant binds to defend and preserve presbyterian Government then owned and existing even as its engadgement to defend the King must needs be understood of King James who was then reigning That this was the government then Existent and owned by this Church we cleared in short already and need not here repeat it But 3. this Informer passing over a more plausible objection of his Master the Seasonable case enquires by what warr and that assembly could put upon others their sense of the Covenant they might
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
that Prelacy is condemned in the word and consequently the matter of these Oaths and likewise found contrary to the priviledges and reformation of this Church to maintain which the se Prelats themselves who exacted such Oaths stood engadged and such like grounds they prove them to be Materially sinfull iniquitatis vincula and from the beginning null or never obliging and do not pretend as he to loose from Oaths antecedently lawfull and binding Besides Prelats being removed this Oath supposing their existing power and office was ipso facto null and void as the souldiers military Oath to the captain upon the disbanding of the armie and so its root was plucked up Sublata causa tollitur effectus Sublato relato tollitur Correlatum So that he gets but a Wound to his cause in kicking thus against the pricks But he tells us that he will come yet nearer with an other argument and so he had need for the preceeding have never yet come near our cause nor his designe Well what is this Commissaries he saith were abjured in the Covenant as officers depending upon the abjured bierarchy yet we ownd them before Bishops were restored and why may not he the abjured Bishops also But will he suffer a Reverend father Bishop Lighton to answer for us and shew him the disparity of our Commissariot a meer civil administration influenced and authorized by superiour civil Governours as a part of the politicall constitution of the Kingdom with a Church office In his first letter anent the Accommodation printed in that piece entituled The case of the accommodation examined he will tell him that though we have the name of Commissaries yet they excercise not any part of Church discipline Which he sets down expresly to distinguish them from the Commissaries abjur'd in the 2d Article of the Covenant Now the difference of this owning our Commissaries in Scotland from owning and swearing fealty to the Bishop as a Church officer in all his Spirituall usurpations is so palpable that any may see the impertinency of this instance even in Bishop Lightons Judgement Moreover we abjure in the Covenant all Ecclesiastical officers depending upon that hierarchy But will he dare to say that the Commissary whose administration is properly Civil and when the Covenant was taken had not the least dependance upon a Prelat was an Eclesiastical officer depending upon that hierarchy Surely the meanest capacity may discover the vanity of this argument The Doubter objects this that the Commissaries did not then depend upon the Bishops and therfore might be ownd as not contrary to the Covenant To this he answers that upon this ground of a non-dependance upon Bishops we might have ownd a Dean at that time or a Bishop as having no dependance upon an Arch-bishop and that he cannot see why any member of the hierarchy under the highest might not have been owned and retaind on this ground as well as the Commissary Ans. The disparity is manifest to any of Common sense the Dean sua natura is an Ecclesiastick officer and the very office denotes a relation unto and Ecclesiastick dependance upon a prelat in spirituall administrations so that Prelacie being laid aside and the hierarchy smoothed to Presbyterian Parity and Government the Dean is a meer Chimaera and so is the diocesan Bishop and can no more subsist the basis and fountain of his very office qua talis or as such being removed and extinct But the Commissary a civil officer and Magistrat his administration of its own nature civill depends upon and is regulat by superiour civil Rulers and so in that case subsists intirely as a part of the civil Government where prelacie is abolished and can no more be scrupled at because a prelat did somtime usurpe an authority over that office then the office of the Lord high Chancellour or any other civil office of state and inferiour offices theron specially depending because somtime a Prelat was Chancellour and usurped authority in these matters ought to be disowned or scrupled at upon this account 2ly He sayes this answer comes near to what he said before anent the English divines who hold only that complex frame to be abjured in the 2d article which consists of all the officers there enumerat Ans. 1. It is more then he hath proved that the English divines do owne even sigillatim or apart all these officers or looke upon themselves as only obliged against that complex frame consisting of all the officers enumerat in that article We heard before out of Timorcus whom Bishop Lighton in that letter and the Informer himself cites as holding that our Prelacie is consistent with the Covenant and whom they appeal unto in this debate that they disowne all Prelacie where one single person exerciseth sole power in ordination and Jurisdiction all Prelacie beyond a Proestos and particularly the name and thing of Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Chapters Arch Deacons Timorcus in the 7. Chap. adds all Bishops not Chosen by the clergie and people all Bishops who act by Deans prebends and exercise their power by Chancellours Commissaries c. Doth not the article it self abjure all ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy So that though we did come near to what they say in this answer we come never a whit nearer him 2ly we told him already that the Commissaries office is properly Civil though usurped upon by the Prelat so that when purged from this usurpation and running in the channell of a meer civil administration influenced and authorized by Superiour civil Governours as a part of the political constitution of the kingdom it falls not within the compass of an Ecclesiastical officer depending on the hierarchy by his own Confession and Bishop Lightons How then was the owning of him before the introduction of Prelacie contrary unto the Covenant But because he suffered not his poor Doubter to tell him that the Commissary besides that in our late times he did not depend upon the Bishop is really and upon the matter with us a Civil not a Church officer he thinks to surprise him with a third answer That now the Comissaries do actually depend upon the Bishops yet we scruple not nor decline their Courts and authority and if we decline them not as according to our Principles we are oblidged how are we free of perjury and if we can acknowledge a Commissary notwithstanding the Covenant why may not he also a Bishop Ans. What poor tatle is this we told him already that the Commissariot is of it self a lawfull Civil administration not ane Ecclesiastical function and the prelats usurped authority cannot render this civill office unlawfull Wheras the dicoesan Bishops office is a pretended Ecclesiastical function and in its very nature a gross corruption and contrary to the word of God as is above cleared Which disparity is palpable to any that will but open their eyes Do we abjure any Civil courts or officers in that article are they not termd expresly
anent alterable circumstances of order and decency about which the Churches exercise of Christian prudence is convérsant so that he must understand what he pleads for to be of that nature but we have shewed upon the first Dialogue how far its contrary to Scripture reason to include a diocesian Bishop or Arch bishop within the compass of decencie and order there commanded since decencie and order points only at circumstances of actions already commanded and circumstances commun to civil and sacred things And this according to the generall rules of the word so that none can think Blondell so sottish as to take in among these the Diocesian or Erastian Bishop and Arch-Bishop 3. Since the profest scope of Blondells learned Appology is to plead for sententia Hieronomi which is that in Apostolick times communi concilio presbyterorum Ecelesiae gubernabantur surely whatever Blondell may admitt as to the Churches libertie in relation to a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the admission of the diocesian prelate with sole power of ordination and Jurisdiction which this man pleads for and much more the Erastian prelate would evert both his hypothesis and scope Again he dare not deny that with Blondell the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Ministeriall scripturall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyterat so that what he calls the modus rei cannot in its self and consequently in Blondells meaning be supposed such a modus rei as destroyes the thing it self the subject which it affects as certainly by the Diocesian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much more the Erastian doth the very substantialls of Presbyters divine power which this learned author is in that piece pleading for And in a word I dare pose this Informer whither Blondell would not have thought a national Churches liberty in this point of Custome or alterable circumstances of decencie and order even tho we should grant that he puts Episcopacy among these is tyed up and restrained by sacred solemn Oaths and vowes universally taken on against the same so that his cause is never a whit bettered by these blind Testimonies which as is said he he durst not translate as he professeth to doe in the rest of his citations for the advantage of the unlearned The assertion after subjovned by him viz. that the unlawfulness of Episcopacie was questioned by none of the ancients except Aerius and rarely by any of the modern except some of our British divines that antient and modern divines think that prelacie was the primitive Government left by the Apostles we have proved to be a manifest untruth Specially when applyed to the prelacy existant with us and that it is the consentient judgment of the far greatest part both of ancient and modern that there is no difference jure divino betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter And that our Prelats now in Scotland are as far different from the antient Bishops as east from West so that no patrocinie can be drawen from the one to the other That Blondell professes to vindicat Jerom from that which he calls Aerianism who will believe taking Aerius opinion to be for the premised Identitie of Bishop and Presbyter since we have made it appear by Testimonies of the learned that both Greek and Latine Fathers held this same opinion with Aerius How he hath proved Episcopacie to be the Government which hath best warrand in the word and hath continued without interruption for many years we refer it to the reader to judge by what is above replyed wherein we have made it appear that as his pretended Scripture proofs for prelacy and his answers to our Arguments against it are most frivolous so none of his pretended Testimonies from antiquitie doe reach his conclusion nor any shadow of a patrocinie for our present Prelat now established whom we have fully disproved from Scripture both in his diocesian and Erastian mould What poor shaddowes for proofs doth this man grasp at Blondell thought the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lawful and its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to belong to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and good order Ergo he pleaded for the Diocesian Bishop with sole power of ordination and Jurisdiction and a Bishop deriving all his power from the civil Magistrat as immediatly subject unto him which is a very antilogical proof and a meer rop of sand Lastly he mainly commends to his reader this Dialogue anent separation wherein he sayes all the reasons brought for it are propounded and answered without passion which doth but alienat the minds Ans. How poorly this man hath answered the true grounds of disowning conformists or rather past them over and how pityfully he all along begs the question in supposing what he hath to prove we hope is made sufficiently appear to the Judicious and impartiall As for passion its true there is less of this in his Pamphlet then in some other of this stamp which his fellowes have flung out among the people yet he hath his signal flashes of it in Iustifying Dr Burnets parallel of nonconformists with Scribes and Pharisees and in calling them as great and causeless Schismaticks as ever the Church had in any age nay in his grosse malitious reflecting upon the sufferings of poor Innocents in this land telling us under the covert of Cyprians words that their in expiable sin of discord is not purged by their sufferings that forsaking Christs Church they cannot be martyres nor reign with him which with what a tincture of malice it presents its self let any judge His conferences he sayes do bring water to quenchour flames but they bring rather fewel to the fire and wood and hay to uphold Babell The Rabbies whom he pleads for have kindled our flames and the best way to quench them Is to put these incendiaries to the door Next he cites the preface of the Syntag. Confess edit Genev. wherin the Church of Scotland is commended for her unity as well as purity of Doctrine and then he cryes out O how have we lost our good name and the staff of bonds is broken in the midst of us but he should have been so ingenuous as to have told us that we are in the preface of that Syntagma commended for our reformed Presbyterian discipline as the great bond and cement of our unity and the guard of our pure doctrine and who have broken this bond and sacred hedge I need not tell him and what hath been the distress confusion and desolation of our Church since it was broken every one now sees so that he might lament the loss of our good name upon this ground and especially of our Integrity where he a true son and watchmen of this Church The consequences of our sad divisions through the violence and Schismatick intrusion of abjured perjured Prelats and their underlings have indeed hazarded the standing of Christs Kingdome among us according to that of Mark 3. 24. And the biting devouring wolves the Prelats for whom he pleads have hazarded
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
gratis asserted and worse proved Learned Calvin upon the place tells us That his Deaconship was a temporal and transient function then expired because otherwayes it had no been free to him to leave Jerusalem and go to cesaria And that he is not here proposed as a voluntar deserter of his office but as one who had a more excellent office intrusted to him Which two grounds will put faire to prove that he was not a deacon still Then he adds Evangilistae meo judiciointer Apostolos doctores medii erant munus enim obibant Apostolis proximum ut passim Evangelium praedicarent nec praeficerentur certae Stationi That is Evangelists were sett in the middle betwixt Apostles and Doctours had ane office nixt to that of the Apostles and Doctours had ane office nixt to that of the Apostles that they might every where preach the gospell and were not fixed to any Station He gives this reason of his description of the Evangelist Because Ephes. 4. the Apostle describing the order of the Church doth in such manner substitut them to Apostles as he shews that they had a more inlarged office of teaching intrusted to them then to Pastours whose worke was tyed to certain places Hence he concludes that Philips deaconship at Jerusalem was onely temporall And for some time there exercised by him and that he was afterby the Church assumed to be ane Evangelist In which words wee see 1. He doth upon weightie grounds prove him to have been no Deacon at that time wherein he is called ane Evangelist 2. That he was ane Evangilist in the strict and proper sense as it is taken Eph. 4. 3. That Evangelists are officers above ordinarie teachers or pastours and in this distinct from them in the judgement of this great divine that they were fixed to no certan charge as they but as being nixt Apostles had ane indefinit unfixed Ministery all which is cross to this mans blunt confused discourse of this mater and cutts the sinews of Timothy's supposed Episcopacy Lastlie Where he affirms that ordination and jurisdiction were no proper worke of ane Evangelist but preaching and spreading the Gospell 1. I urge him thus if preaching and spreading the gospel was the characteristick of the Evangelist He must mean it in a more extensive way then ordinary Pastours if he speak sense then sure he cannot deny but that Timothy thus preached and spread the gospel as the Apostles Coajutor in many Churches as is cleared above Whence it followes by his own Confession 1. That Timothy's office was extraordinary and is ceased for he affirmes that the office of ane Evangelist whom he calls extraordinary was to cease in the Church 2. That he had no Episcopall authority in ordination and jurisdiction He being ane Evangelist in a sense beyond any ordinary preacher and upon the other hand ordination and jurisdiction by his confession not being his proper worke who is ane Evangilist So that Pauls calling him ane Evangelist must lay him by from being a Prelat and consequently all the Informers pleading from his supposed power in ordination and jurisdiction in the 1. Epistle written to him is frivolous and vaine For in his sense he could not Act both the worke of evangelist and Prelat these being according to his pleading inconsistent But nixt the wonder is how this man comes to divide preaching and spreading of the gospell from the power of ordination jurisdiction since he cannot but acknowledge that the Apostles did both these and affirms that their office was episcopal as we heard above And after he will tell us that Catalogues of Bishops are drawen from the Apostles and by Ierom from marke the Evangelist who was Bishop of Alexandria Then it seems this power in ordination wherein with him the Chief part of my Lord Bishops office lyes was very well consistent with both the Apostles and Evangelists their unfixed inlarged preaching and spreading of the gospell The Apostles unfixed preaching spreading of the gospell sure he will not deny nor can he deny to marke the Evangelists office in the strictest sense he can imagine so that both are with him compatible Thus we see in withstanding the truth hee is still in the briers of Contradictiones The Doubter excepts aganist his reason That philip might be both a deacon and Evangilist To which he answers That by the same Reason Timothie and Titus might be both Bishops and Evangelists I answer 1. We have showen already That philip ceased to be a deacon at Jerusalem when he became ane Evangelist 2. Supposing he were yet the Informers answer and parallel is naught For 1. Philipes becoming ane Evangelist was ane advancement to a higher office holding still ane inferiour which is eminenter included in it as he will grant but making ane Evangelist a Bishop is a degrading of a high extraordinary superiour officer to ane ordinary inferiour 2. As ane Evangilist properly so called his work was to preach and spread the gospel unfixedly as a Bishop his work he will say was ordination and jurisdiction which Two we heard him affirme to be incompatible Besides in separating the power of ordination and jurisdiction from the Evangelistick office he is contradicted by Saravia who in many places mantaines the contrary degrad cap. 1. and Cap. 16. and cap. 23 And here I shall shew our Informer how he hath run cross to his great Master in his glosses upon several of these Texts under debate that it may appear what babellike builders our prelates Advocates are Upon that passage Matth. 20 I finde he is a little more ingenuous then this is Disciple and plainely speakes out what he but mutters exam tract de episc tripl quest 1. pag 70. after he hath repeated that Text with its parallel in Luke he adds Ex his verbis quaero num cuiquam sano videri possit D. Iesum sustulisse aut prohibuisse primatum aut principatum non potius docuisse quid eum deceat qui in Ecclesia primus princeps futurus erat c that is From these Wordes I demand whither any that is sound can judge that the Lord Iesus did take away primaci and principality and did not rather teach what becomes him who was to be first and Prince in the Church and thereafter he tells us that Christ by his own example did shew what sort of primaci it is that the allowes in his Church so that he doth in downright express terms plead for a supreme patriarch or pope representing Christs pritcipality over the Church what harmony this keeps with the judgment of protestant divines upon that passage any may judge The Informers holdes That there was to be no inequality of power among the 12 Apostles although he is not consistent with himself in this as is already observed but Saravia runs so far cross to him in this assertion that he mantaines a primaci of power among them That the Bishops saluted with
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.