CHAP. I.

THE state of the first Question in the first Conference is, whither the Episcopacie now established by Law in Scotland, be warranted or condemned by the Word of God. For clearing this, it must be under­stood, what that Prelacie is, which is now existent, and which this Author pretends is consonant to Scrip­ture and Antiquitie. As to matter of fact, it is unde­nyable. 1. That the Parliament 1662. did expresly raze Presbyterian government, in all its preexistent Courts, Judicatories and Privileges, declaring it voide and expired. 2. They did Redintegrat the Bi­shops [Page 3] [to their Episcopal function, presidencie in the Church, power of ordination and censures, and all Church discipline to be performed by them, with ad­vice (only) and of such of the Clergie (only) as they shall find, (they themselves being judges) of knowne Loyaltie and prudence.] And they redintegrat them to all the pretended Privileges possessed be them in Anno 1637. What time their power was at the greatest height. Since, of themselves they framed the Book of Canons, which doth establish their sole power and dominion over all Church Judicatories, razing classi­cal Presbyteries and Parochial Sessions, and drew up the Liturgie and Book of Ordination without the least shaddow of advice from this Church; Threatning even excommunication against the opposers of that course. 3. It is also evident, that all this Power and Authoritie of our Prelats, is fountained in, derived from, and referable unto the Supremacie; As is evi­dent by the Act restoring Prelacie, after the decla­ration of the Supremacie, as his Majesties Commis­sioners in the exercise of his Ecclesiastick Government, and, in the administration of all their pretended spiri­tual Authoritie, as accountable to him, their Head and supreme Legislator in all 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 [Page 4] 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 [Page 5] 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 [Page 6] 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 [Page 7] 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 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 [Page 8] 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; [...]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 [...]owsing power, being in the representative juridicall [Page 9] [...] 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 Pr [...]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 [Page 10] and authoritative concurrence of ordinary Ministers and Elders in Government: As is evinced in the premi­sed Scriptures, wherin it is convinceingly clear, that Paul, though ane Apostle of all the Churches, indewed with extraordinarie unconfined inspection over the same, and Pastor thereof, in actu exercito, having ex­traordinary Miracolous-gifts, & being the Master Buil­der and Spiritual Father, who by the Gospel had be­gotten both Pastores and flocks of many Churches, Yet would neither excommunicat the incestuous Co­rinthian alone, but put it upon the Church Officers as their duty to doe it by a judicial, decisive, joynt suffrage: Nor yet did he exclud the presbyters in ordaining even ane Evangilist, but took in their judicial and presbyterial concurrence. And in Act. 15. In that meeting or Counsel at Jerusalem, where was a wholl Colledge or Presbitery of Apostles, and mett about ane Act or de­cision of a high Nature, wherein was put forth both Adegmatick, critick & diatactick authority or power, in relation to the clearing of that great pointe of truth, anent the abrogation of the Mosaicall ceremonies, and censuring the opposers of Paul and Barnabas herin, who had disturbed the Churches and belied the Apost­les Doctrine: And accordingly in order to the restoring and establishing truth and order in these disturbed Churches: The ordinary Ministers or elders concurr with the Apostles in every step: viz, In the confer­rence & disquisition, the authoritative decision, the drawing forth of the sentence and decree, the sending out of the decreeing and censuring Epistle, the impo­seing of the decrie upon the Churches to observe and keep the same &c. 2. This cutts the throate of that juridical forensical joynt decision of Church Judicato­ries, which the Scriptur doth so clearly hold forth. Where is the [...] the censureing juridiall court, drawing sorth a joynt decision or censure? Wher is the [Page 11] Presbiteries forensicall Act in ordination of Timothie? To what end must the Corinth Church Officers Meet together, and authoritatively and joyntlie punish or censur the incestuous man? Wher is that pleasing of the Apostles and elders as the foundation of the Syno­dical decree and letter, together with, it seemed good to the HolyGhost, and to us, And to us, Mett with one accord. Wher is, I say, this joynt decisive power of Church Judicatories, thus clearly held out in the premised Scriptures, if the Act and Ecclesiastick decision thereof, be soly the Prelats, sic [...]olo, sie jubeo, masked with advice of Presbyters, of whose advice he may make what use he pleases, and with a simple nego. make their judgment and suffrage evanish into smoake. 3. This power of the Prelats cuts of from Ministers one half of their authoritie and commission receaved in their ordination. They are made therein (as is clear in Scripture, & our adversaries grant it) Rulers, Governours, Overseers, Pastors & Stewards in the Church; Have both the Shepherds bagg & staff, the key of doctrine and the key of discipline intrusted to them. By what warrand then must they give up all their power in government & their decisive suffrage in Church Judicatories, unto the domineering Prelat, and as to spiritual power in Church Judicarories, become meer Ciphers? They watch and rule as they that must give account of all their admini­stration to Christ. Peter exhorts the Elders suteablie to exercise their Episcopal Authority over the flock, that they may get the Crown from the chief Shepherd. Stewards (of God especially) must be faithful, and im­ploy well all their Talents receaved from the great Ma­ster, that they may get his approbation and reward as faithful Servants. The Elders of Ephesus were ob­tested by Paul to take heed to themselves, and to all the flock over which they were made Bishops by the Holy Ghost, to feed and rule the Church which God hath [Page 12] purchased with his blood. Now all thes exhortations di­rected to Ministers, are to no purpose, if they have no inherent immediat Rule, essentially included in their office, And to be exercised accordingly, but must only preach as a Diocesian Prelats Deputes, and be in the exercise of their ruling governing power, absolutly subject to him and at his disposal. Finally, This usurped authoritie in the Prelat sets him above the reach of all censure by Church Indicatories; So that though Ministers are absolutly and at his beck, censurable by, and subject to him, both as to their doctrine, conversation and discipline (and every one of them thus censurable and jointly) yet this hie Pop, who judges All, will be judged by none himself, Either as to his Doctrine, Life or Government. Some have said of the Prince, that though major singulis, yet he is minor universis, less then the whole body of the people, though greater then every one aparte. But the Prelat exercises a greater principalitie in Church Judicatories, & is therein major universis, greater then the whole meet­ing, so that thogh he can stop the Votes and Censures of the whole Synod, yet they cannot either by suffrage or censure in the least put a check to him, in any of His most wicked Acts or Antichristian Exorbitances. Now, how contrary this is to Scriptur, any may judge. The Prophets after their prophesying must be judged by the rest, as to their doctrine, 1 Cor. 14: 29, Ergo, a fortiori, much more as to their conversation & government, are lyable to be judged, and consequentlie censured if de­serving it: For he were a great Critick, that would distinguish these, so as those who have power to judge, have no power to censure or pass sentence upon their judging: And this is founded upon a general compre­hensive ground, viz. the Spirits of the Prophets (that is the gifts and exercises of the Ministery in all Church Of­ficers without exception) are subject to the Prophets, viz. to their disquisition, and censure in any peece of their [Page 13] work or official Acts. Now unles our Prelats would deny themselves to be Prophets and Ministers, or the Presbyters to be Prophets, they must acknowledge this subjection to their censure enjoyned in the Scripture premised, and consequently, that their exeeming them­selves from the same, is an anti-scriptural usurpation. I remember, while a writting, that proposing once this Argument to ane Episcopal Clergie man, I enquired to what Church Judicatorie in Scotland was Mr Sharp sub­ject, as to either his life or doctrine? He answered that he was subject to a general Counsell, and this was very apposit and consequenter to their principles: So that our Prelats (at least the two Arch-) are in no fear, but of a general Council if the Court froune not. In our Act of Parliament touching the mould of our Na­tional Synod, the Primat is the essential President, & sine quo non, and so is sure enough, from being censured there; so are the rest of the Prelats as to all their Sy­nods, according to our Lawes. But what think these exleges Episcopi, or hie Court Prelats, of such a humble Bishop as the Apostle Paul, who had hands laid upon him, and was authoritativelie sent out by that Presbite­ry of Prophets and teachers at Antioch. Act. 13. toge­ther with Barnabas, (about ane eminent Gospel-Lega­tion) and was by the same Church and Presbytery sent (together with Barnabas and certain other commissio­ners of the Churches) to that Synod at Jerusalem, Act. 15. Why did not Paul make use of his Negative voice and command them all silence in this debate? How comes it, that his hie Bishop subjects himself to the authoritative blessing and mission of some pettie Prophets and teachers. Ane amazeing looking glass, this is, (no doubt) to our aspyreing Prelats.

4. The holding of the Diocesian Prelat, and obtrud­ing him upon the Church, as ane ordinary Church offi­cer, distinct from, and superior to Presbiters, doth many [Page 14] wayes Impeach Christs Kingly office as head and law give [...] of his Church: whose faithfulnes above that of Moses (who ordered, according to the Patern shewed upon the Mount, the least pine of the Tabernacle) must needs reach the appointment of the officers, offices, qualifications, work and gifts of these officers, who are to officiat in his house, as our Confession of Faith and Catechisim doe assert. For according to our Prelatical Clergie, and according to the Lawes, the Prelat hath a distinct Work from that of a Presbiter (viz.) to govern a diocess, he hath the Actus primus of a State ruler, to sitt in Council or Parliament. Nixt, he hath a distinct solemne Consecration or inauguration to his Office. And 3. Must needs be supposed to have likwise distinct qualifications and Gifts from those of a preaching Presbiter, confer­red by this solemne imposition of hands and blessing at his Consecration, wherby he must be supposed to have a superior distinct mission, and to be in all the forementioned particulars, distinct from, and superior to a Presbiter. Now, if non of all these points of his superioritie can 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 màn 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 [Page 15] 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.

THe Diocesian Bishop, his office is in this contrare to the Word of God.

V. In that it Debases the highest Acts and exercise of the po­wer of order, in a Gospel Ministery. For all do grant preach­ing of the Word and the Administration of the Sacra­ments and Seals of the Covenant of grace to be such: So that he who can do thes Acts, hath the badge of the highest Ministerial Authority as ane ordinarie Church Of­ficer, these being among the most emnient Acts of the Apostles there office and Authoritie—Go teach, baptize, &c. They must have some to serve Tables that they may give themselves continually to the Mini­stery of the Word. Timothy, our prelatical mens Supposed-Bishop, must preach the Word, and be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and Doctrine 2 Tim. 4: 1, 2. The great Apo­stle of the Gentiles who had the care of all the Churches coming upon him, and therin a great ruleing work, Yet pronunces a woe upon himself, if he preach not the Gospel 1 Cor. 9: 28.—And he tells us this was a speciall trust committed to him: In this he admi­res the rich grace of God that he was putt into the Mi­nistery, and honoured to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ. Peter, that great Apostle of the circum­cision, [Page 17] 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 [Page 18] 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 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 [Page 19] 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 [Page 20] 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 [Page 21] (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 [Page 22] 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 a [...]e obligation upon [Page 23] 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 a [...] 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 [Page 24] 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 in­ [...]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.

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 [Page 26] office as such, and likewayes of the Euange­lists, reckening the Apostles, Prophets, and Euangelists as the extraordinary New Testament Officers, whose proper formal Office, died with them, and admits of no succession: for thus they ordinarily defyne the Apostles, that they were Christs immediatly called and extraor­narily gifted universal Ambassadours, sent out, to lay every where the foundation of the Gospel Church, and to plant the Gospel government therein: Particularly Polanus in his Syntagma reckens up these as their extraordi­nary expired prerogatives (to which we will find this Informer in parte give assent.) 1. Their imme­diat institution by Christ. 2. Their immediat mission to teach, (Paul had his from heaven.) 3. Their uni­versal legation to found and plant Churches throw the world. 2 Cor. 11: 28.—4. Its visible badge, (viz.) the conferring of the Spirit by the laying on of hands. 5. Their extraordinary authority beyond any of their Successors, as being set over the whole Church &c. Hence all the ingredients of their formal Office, as such, must needs be expired, And no Church Offi­cer can be said to succeed them therein. Their Call was immediat, sure, non can succeed them in that. Their special or proper work, was to plant Churches and the Gospel-government in them, and set up their Officers, of all which Churches they were Ministers in actu exercits, sure no Church Officer could succeed them in this. Their Qualifications as such Ambassadours, were correspondent to this great work, (viz.) their gifts of miracles, gifts of tongues, Prophesie, infalli­bility in Doctrin; Sure now can pretend to succeed them in this. Nixt, for the Euangelists, their Office was equally extraordinary, it consisting in a planetary motion, from place to place, to water where the A­postles planted, to bring reports of the Churches state to the Apostles, and commissions from the Apostles to [Page 27] them. Their various motions, pro re nata, upon & down, even after these Epistles (wherein they are supposed to have receaved their Episcopal charge) were written to them; and the Scriptures absolut silence as to their ever returning to these Churches againe, besides the Apostle Pauls shewing expresly in these Epistles, their occasional transient employment in this places, and express recalling of them therefrom, to the further prosecution of their extraordinary employment, and in these very Epistles identifying the Office of the Bishop and Elder: All these clear grounds, I say, do evidently demonstrat that the work and office of Timothy and Titus as Euangelists, is ex­pired, and cannot be pretended unto by any ordinary Church Officer, it being an appendix as it were of the Apostolick charge, and supposing its exercise and exi­stance, and the Churches then - infant state and con­dition. Now, to make these high and extraordinary fun­ctions, ordinary, and thus confound the two together, must be a very gross usurpation. 2. Hence it is mani­fest, that the Episcopal function (as above described in the quality, and mould of the Diocesian Bishop) will never be found in these extraordinary functions, either formaliter, or eminenter, and consequently it must be a gross belying of the Spirit of God, to pretend this in the as­suming of this usurped Office. First, The Episcopal Office will not be found in that of the Apostles or Eu­angelists formaliter. For these were universal unfixed Of­ficers, set over no particular Church or Diocess: But were pro re nata to officiat to the whole Church as being (the Apostles especially) Officers thereof in actu exer­cito. Nixt, the Episcopal function is not included in these Offices eminenter, or in the ordinary power whi [...] the Apostles or Euangelists exercised, or transmitte [...] the Church. And that for these Reasons. 1. Neit [...] the Apostles nor Euangelists in respect of their perpet [...] ordinary Ministerial authority transmitted by them in [...] [Page 28] Church, did exercise Superiority Episcopal over other Mi­nisters, but as to the perpetual Pastoral Charge, they held them their equals, and in the ordinary power of govern­ment, as wee saw above in the Apostles practise in ordi­nation and Jurisdiction amongst Churches constitut, and farr less can we suppose that the Euangelists were in such Churches to exercise any single or Episcopal prehemi­nence in government. For it were strange if Timothy who was ordained by a Presbytrye wherein Paul himself was present, should notwithstanding usurpe prehemi­nence over a Presbytery though inferior to ane Apostle. And that whereas Presbyters did concurr pari passu with a whole Presbytery of Apostles in every peece of a judi­cial Act and decree, yet that ane Euangelist inferior to any of the Apostles, should take Episcopal preheminence over a Presbytery. 2. The Apostles planted no such ordinary Officers in the Church, as had that Episcopal Power, therefore the Episcopal Power was not transmit­ted by them in the Church: And by further conse­quence it is not included in their Office eminenter. For it is evident, that in the first plantation of the Churches they fixed Presbyters, or Pastors, as their immediat Suc­cessor's in the Ministerial power, and likewise in their last farewel's into Churches, they committed unto these Pastors the ordinary power of government, with­out the least hint of a Super-institution of any officer of a higher order. Act. 20: 28, 29. Compared with 25. 1 Pet. 5: 2, 3. with 2 Pet. 1: 14—3. It was in respect of Paules ordinary Ministerial power, and in that Capa­citie, that he had hands laid upon him by that Presby­tety at Antioch, and was sent out with other commis­sioners to that Synod at Jerusalem by them, which looked like a humble submission pro tanto, unto them, and is far from the Episcopal preheminence: since the Prelats dissoune all Subjection to the Prophes in greater or lesser assemblies. 4. The Prelats authority is this, [Page 29] he is upon the mater the only proper Pastor of the Dio­cess, whose Episcopal inspection reaches Pastores and flocks both, as is above cleared. He is the fountaine from whom the power of order and Jurisdiction in the wholl Diocess, is deryved, and the exercise of both depends upon his Lordly disposal. Now, this is contrare both to the Apostles and Evangelists their or­dinary and extraordinary power, contrare to its very nature in universum, their office being a declarative ex­ecutive Ministerie onlie: And Dominion or Lordship be­ing discharged to all Apostles, and all Church Offi­cers whatsoever.

Hence in the 3d. place, This Episcopal pretence, a­ [...]nt the derivation of their Lordly grandour, from the A­postolick Office, fastens a grosse charge of unfaithfulness upon them. 1. In assuming a power in its nature distinct from what there Lord allowed and enjoyned them (viz.) a Lordly dominion, not a ministerial Steward­shipe & service only, & such a dominion as Princes of the gentiles exercise, even to have the actus primus of a civil Lord-peer, yea Chieff-peer, or Parliament man. 2. In de­baseing and Straitening their Apostolick Inspection, and carrying ane Office incompatible with it, and thus un­faithfully tearing out a parte of their commission. For, in becoming Diocesian Bishops, they should be fixed to particular diocesses, and therin exercise ane ordinary fixed poever, wheras their commission was to exercise ane extraordinary unfixed ministery towards all the Churches, planted, and to be planted. 3. In setting up up no such ordinare officers to succeed them in this so ne­cessarie a work, but committing the wholl governement to meer presbyters as is said. 4. In ommiting in all their ru­les & prescriptions anent Church government, & the of­fices and officers therof, the least intimation of this of­ficer, and giving no rules for either the qualifications or ordination of any higher officer then a meer presbyter, 5. [Page 30] In express dischargeing of Lordly dominion & preheminence among ordinary Church officers. Now, if this be not a debasing of, and hie reflection upon, these eminent extraordinary Church officers, both to make them car­ry ane office contrare and inferior unto, and incon­sistent with ther holy functions, intrusted to them by the Lord, and likewayes in their practice to contradict their doctrin in relation to Church government, yea and in both their Doctrin and practice, to contradict & crosse the Lords great commission and instructions, If this be not, I say, a horrid reflection upon their faithfull­nes, Let any judge.

CHAP. IV.

IN the 9 [...]. place. The Episcopal government is in this contrare unto the word; In that it cutts off Congte­gations from all interest and right, in Calling there Pastor. For in this government, the Ministers mission, Call, Ordination, and Relation to such a people, over whom he is to officiat, flowes all from the Prelat. The Con­gregationall eldership have not the Least interestin it. Hence this power of calling Pastores was ranversed by our Parliament when prelacie was set up, and the old popish Custome of patronages was restored. The Prelat sends a man to the poor people as their Minister, [Page 31] whom possibly they never sawe in the face. Now, this is contrare both to Scriptur and reason, contrare, to the practice of the apostolick Church. For 1. Even the deacons were looked out, and chosen by the people. Act. 6. 3. That the Apostles might ordaine and lay their hands upon them, and install them in their office with a pu­blick blessing: And if the people were to have so great ane Interest in choosing these men (though even the A­postles, who had infallible knouledge of qualifications, were present to ordaine them) that this trust of disbur­seing their Almes or charitie, might be committed to non but upon their consent & choyce. Ergo, a fortiori, Peo­ple have a far greater Interest as to their Consent and choyce of the man, To whom they are to Intrust their Soules conduct unto another world, which is of infinit more worth then all the Earthes treasures, And while the are no such infalible discerners of fitt persons to of­ficiat, as the Apostles were. If the Apostles would not set apart men for this meanest employment, without the Peoples-Consent & looking them out, How absurd is it, that the highest ordinary officer [the Pastor] should be sent to officiat in that eminent office with out ther knowledge or Consent.

2 Wee find the chooseing and sending out of Church officers in this hie ministeriall employment, To have been upon the peoples consent and choyce: for Act. 14. The Elders or Ministers who were ordained [...] or Church by Church, were thus ordained and sett a­part to their office, Compared with Tit. I. 5. Berause (not to stand here upon the import of the greek word [...], which imports a hand suffrage, and consent of the people, as shale be made good upon the Third Dia­logue and the exceptions of this pamphleter, upon that passage, examined) this is clear, that this ordina­tion was to be performed in the Church, Ergo, of ne­cessity, with the peoples Consent and choice: And [Page 32] Nixt, If the Apostles would not ordaine the Deacons, but after this manner, much lesse Ministers unto such a weighty employment, since in ther faithfullnes the people are (as is said) infinitly more concerned. Besydes, the very Intimation, and litte, of the men out of whom a Successor to the Apostleshipe in the place of Judas, was by God immediatly to be chosen, was with the peo­ples Consent, Therfor much more ought this to be in the ordination and admission of ane ordinary officer whose call is mediat and ordinarie. 3. The Scripture doeth clearly hold forth a congregational Church & juridi­cal eldership, representing that Church. Which (besyes many other reasons add [...]cible, and accordingly pleaded by our writ [...]ers) is evident in this, That as the Scrip­ture makes mention of greater Churches, such as that of Corinth, Jerusalem &c, Who were certanly pres­byterial, because, [...] they are found, thogh consisting of many officers and Rulers, and of lesser Societies, yet to be all poynted cut as one Church, which must needs Im­port a Classicall or presbiterial unitie of these lesseSocieties. So the Spirit of God doth also [...]all these lesser Societies Churches, in the plural. Let the Woman beep Silence [...] in the Churches 1. Cor. 14. 34. Which must needs Import the Single Congregations of that one Church of Corinth. And moreover, through thes Chur­ches Rulers, Elders, & Gouvernours were sett and esta­blished [...] Church by Church, that is, throw all particular Churches Act. 14. 23. With Tit. I. 5. For if the Church is found to have had both ruleing and teaching Elders, Rom. 12. 8. 1. Cor 12. 28. 1. Tim. 5. 17. And upon the other hand, if these lesser Societies are called [Churches] It certanly followes that they had ane eldership & rule in them. If ane eldership, and rulers, be allowed to rule and represent the Congregation in matters Ecclesiasticall, then by necessary consequence it followes, that the Call of the Pastor and Chieff elder [Page 33] and his choice, as most suteable to their condition, must fall within the compasse ofther Spiritual authority.

Finally, the denying of this unto Congregations, & the Episcopal arbitrarie obtruding of Ministers upon them without their call and consent, is in two great points, contrare unto divine Reason. 1. Unto that spiritual and near relation, which is betwixt a Minister and his flock, (which we will find this pamphleter after plead) which is certainly marriage like and very straite. And there being many peculiarduties, which they owe un­to him beside others Ministers, all flowing from this re­lation, particularly a special reverence, obedience, and subjection; These must certanely suppose a voluntarie consent and call, and cannot be bottomed upon the meer will and pleasure of another, which cannot make up this relation 2, This denying of the peoples right to call their Pastor, is contrare unto that Iudgment of discretion, that spiritual discerning, and trying of the Spirits, which is allowed, yea & enjoyned to the people of God; If in any thing a spiritual discerning must take place, surely in this especially, to whom a people doe intrust their soules direction and guidance; If in any thing a Christian must Act in Faith, and not give up his per­swasion to ane implicit conduct, and thus become a ser­vant of men, sure it must be, in a mater ofso great weight as this is? If Christs sheep have this for their Character, that they knowe the voice of the trew She­pherd from the voice of the hyreling and stranger, from whom they will flie, Joh. 10: 4, 5. Sure their know­lege and consent must interveen, in order to their ac­ceptance of, and subjecton to their Shepherd? If they must not belive every Spirit, buttry the Spirits, sure this caution and tryal must be especially allowed in this case, that they admitt not a false Prophet instead of a trew? So then the Episcopal Government, is in this, [Page 34] as in other pointes, chargeable with antichristian and anti-scriptural tyrannie over Christs flockes.

10. The Episcopal Government is in this contrare unto the Word of God (viz.) In denying, and cutting off from his administration, and the totall laying asyde of a singularely usefull Church officer appointed by Christ in his House (viz) the ruleing elder. That Go­vernment which denies and layes aside, any of the great Master of the vine yeard, his servants and officers whom he hath authorized and appointed, must needs be highly derogatorie to his glory and contrare to his word; But such is Prelacie. The Prelats are like that sloathfull wic­ked servant who smites and beats away there fellow­servants, while they eat and drink with the drunken. That Prelats disoun and exclude this officer, is evident both from their principles and practise. They all deny the divine warrand of this Church officer: And where Prelacy is established, he is excluded from Presbyteries and Synodes, and upon the mater also, from the con­gregation: For they deny and exclude all decisive suf­frage there, and take away all Authority of congrega­tional elderships, as we seen. Now that this ruleing elder, distinct from both the preaching Presbyter, and Deacon, Is appointed by God, our Divines have made good from severall Scriptur grounds. Such as 1. From Rom. 12: 6, 7. Where among severall other Church officers which the Apostle doth enumerat, there is a [...], or he that ruleth. Here is ane ordinary Ruler, distinct from all other Rulers, and Church officers, the word [...] signifies Rule and authori­tative power. Againe, he is ranked among ordinarie Officers, and so must needs be ane ordinary standing officer, yet stands distinguished from other ordinary officers, ha­veing both a distinct name from all the rest, likewayes a distinct worke, as being diversified from the teacher, the exhorter, and the giver. And moreover, a peculiar di­rection, [Page 35] as have likewise all the rest. So that from the circumstances of this place, the divine right of this of­ficer, is clearly demonstrate. Nixt, That passage is pertinently improven for this purpose, 1 Cor. 12: 28. Where we read of helps, Governments, under distinct pa­ragraphes, clearly pointing out ordinary Governing Church officers, distinct from the elders that preach, and the Deacon, and all other Church Governoures whatsoever. They cannot be Governoures in the General, for what doth this among a particula enumeration of officers▪ These are distinct from helps, distinct from the teaching elder, for he is already mentioned in this same vers. So here is a Rule, and Government, distinct from all governoures either civil or ecclesiastick, except this ruleing elder, yet set by God in the Church under the new Testament. But the third and most pregnant passage from which our divines doe demonstrat the di­vine right of this Church officer is that of the 1▪ Tim. 5: 17. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and Doctrine. Here is a ruleing Church officer, di­stinct from the preaching elder: For here is a general, elders, Nixt, we have two distinct branches of these elders (viz) the ruleing elder, and the elder that both rules and laboures in the word and Doctrine, in the word as the Pastor, In the Doctrine as the teacher. Again they are diversified in two distinct participles and epi­thets, [ruling] is made the marke and characterick of the one (viz) Ruling only: And [both Ruleing and teaching] is made the marke of the other, whereby they are distinguished in their nature and office. But in the 3d. place, the forementioned distinction eminently appears in the discretive [ [...] especially] which is set betwixt these two kynds of elders, intimating that as there were some of these ruling elders who did labour in the word and Doctrin, so there were others who did [Page 36] Rule and not labour in the Word: Both were worthy of double honour, but especially the labourer in the word, over and above this ruling. And to this purpose it is well observed, that the word [...] especially, is all­wayes in the new Testament made use of to distinguish one thing from another. As when it is said Gal. 6: 10. Let us doe good to all men, but [...] expecially, to these of the houshold of faith, hereby distinguishing soom that were of the houshold of faith, and some that were not. In which sense it is also used Phil. 4: 22. and 1 Tim. 5: 8, This precept, saith P [...]scator (Anal: in Locum) he first illustrats by a distribution and comparison of things different and unlike; for he distinguishes elders into those who were sett over Ecclesia­stick Disciplin, yet so asthey did not publickly teach, & those who did teach also: Wherein he clearly gives sen­tence for us against the Prelatick partie, in this point. Wee may hence Collect, that ther were two sortes of elders at that time (saith Calvin, on 1 Tim. 5: 17.) For all were not ordained to teach; for the words doc manifestly hold forth that some had go­verned well and faithfully, to whom notwithstanding, the office of teaching was not committed. And trewly from among the peo­ple their were grave and good men chosen and approved, who did together with Pastores, by commune Councell & authority admi­nister Church Government, and were in some sort, censors for cor­recting of manners, which oustome Ambrose compleans to have worme out of use, by the negligence, or rather the pryde of teachers while they covet to rule alone. The pregnancy of this Scripture tramples into the dust the pitiful evasi­ones of all the Prelatists in denying the divine right of this officer: Some of which we shall here take noti­ce of, and the confutation of the same, offered by our di­vines upon this point. Some, by Ruleing well will have living well, to be understood: But the Apostle is spea­king of the office of ruling in a Church officer, ruling over others, not of ruling over a mans [...]eif in a privat capacitie. Neither is the Churches Honorarium. dou­ble [Page 37] honour, double maintinance, due to living well, as here it is allowed to [ruling well] And this will say that the Minister that preaches not, is worthy of dou­ble honour for living well, which will make very harsh sense. Some understand this ruleing elder, of the [Deacon,] but the Deacon is no where called [...] or elder, his work being to help, to distribut, not to rule. 1 Cor. 12, 28. Rom. 12, 8 Some would being in under this [Ruler,] The ancient Superannuat Bishop; But this gloss will in honour preferr unto him, the diligent preaching Minister, which will wound their cause to death. Some, by the [Ruler] will have such understood as did administer Sacraments, but preached not: But Paul knew non of these non preach­ing or seldom-preaching Ministers, far less would he al­low them a double honoure, who rather deserved the contrary. Paul will have all Ministers apt to teach, and able to convince. Some by the [ruling elder,] would have Inferior Magistrats understood, who were appointed for ending civil Striffes; but the Apostle is here prescrybing rules to Church office bearers, not ci­vile rulers, and teaching Timothy how to cary in the Church. Againe, they had then no Christian civil Ma­gistrats, as all doe grant, and for their going to Heath­ens to compose their civil differences, Paul himself dissallowes it 1 Cor 6. Some againe will have the labor­ing in the word & doctrine to be nothing else but ane expla­nation of rulcing well; but this inadvertant gloss will set asyde My Lord Bishop as no good ruler. Againe, as is said, the [...] here, or the word [especially] is dis­criminating, and discretive, distinguishing one thing from another, not explaining one thing by another. If [...] were thus sensed, what odd work would it make in other places. 1 Tim. 4: 10. Who is the Savi­our of all men, especially [ [...]] of them that believe. This gloss will sense it thus, the Saviour of all men great­ly [Page 38] 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 [Page 39] 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.

[Page 40] 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 Crown­right, and inherent p [...]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 [Page 41] Act for the high commission. Hence it is aparent, that his Majesty as the fountaine of all Church Govern­ment, impartes this Authority to such as he pleases, and the Bishops are nothing else but his Majesties Commisioners in the exercise of that Ecclesiastick Po­wer, which is originally in himself. Now, that this Erastian Prelacie, or Church Government, is a stranger to the Scripture, is many wayes evident.

1. This Erastian Prelacie, Denyes all Church Govern­ment in the hands of Church officers, distinct from civil Magi­strace: which is ane error fully confuted and largely bafled by all who have written against Erastus and his followers, and is contrare many wayes to Scripture. I. To that distinction betwixt the Ecclesiastick and ci­vil Sanbedrin under the Old Testameet, asserted and cleared by many Scripture Arguments by our divines, paraicularly Mr Gillespie in the Aarons rode. I. From the institution of that Court of elders, supposed in Exod. 24. Who were not those elders chosen for the govern­ment of the Commonwealth, Numb. 11. For this was done at Sinai shortly after they came out of Egypt But on the 20 day Of the 2d. Moneth in the 2d. Year they tooke their journey from Sinai to the [...]dernes of Paran Numbr. 10. 11, 12. And there pitched, when the Seventie elders were chosen to relieve Moses. They we­re not the judges chosen by advyce of Iethro, for he came not to Moses till the end of the first year, or the begining of the Second after they came out of Egypt; Nor could they be judges, who judged befor he came; for he ob­served that the burdine lay upon Moses alone. So they must needs have been Ecclesiastick Rulers under the pre­sidencie of Aarone and Hur. vers. 14. Who were called up as the representatives of the Church of Israel, after the Judi­cial lawes were given, Chap. 22. 23. In this 24. Chapter there is a transition to the Ceremonial lawes, concerning the worship of God, and the Structur of the Tabernacle. [Page 42] Deutr. 17. 8, 9, 10. All grant there a Supream Court of judges, therfor also the text must be granted to hold forth a Supreme Ecclesiastick Court: For it caryes the authority & sentence of the priests, as hie as the au­thority & sentence of the judges, & that in adisjuncti­ve way as Two distinct powers, each binding respective in their oun proper Sphere. 3. From these judges & offi­cers 1. Chr. 23. 4, & 26: 29. Supposed, & set to their work when the Levits were divyded to there Charge, who were not tyed to service & attendances in the Temple, but to judge & give sentence concerning the law & its meaning: and this saith the text, over Israel, coming to them from any of the cities of the land. 4. From Jehosha­phats reformation. 2. Chron. 19. 8, 10, 11. Who restoring the government of the Church, did sett in Ierusalem le­vits, priests, Chieff of the Fathers of Israel for the judgment of the Lord, & for controversies Here is 1. A Court of prie­sts & Levits with power of Suffrage & thus consisting of Ecclesiastick membres. 2. In Ecclesiastick matters, Maters of the Lord, distinct from Maters of the King 3. For ane Ecclesiastick end (viz.) to warne that they trespasse not, not only against one another, but against the Lord. 4. All causes of their Brethren that dwelt in the Cities, were to come to them unto Jerusalem. 5. They have Ane Ec­clesiastick Moderator, or president, Amariah the chieff priest, over them in all Maters of the Lord, [...]istinct (as is said) from Maters of the King. These & many such Arguments are made use of by him & others, To clear this poynt of the Two distinct Sanhedrins, which fully overthrowes this Erastian Confusion of these two powers & governments. 2. This fountaining of all Church po­wer in the civil, and denying of Church government in the hands of Church officers, distinct from the Civil go­vernment, is Cross to that distinction of the Gospel Church her government, from that of the Civil power, wich is clearly held out in the new Testament. Wherin it is evi­dent [Page 43] 1. That the visible Church is Christ the Mediator his visible kingdome as Mediator. And so its Officers, Lawes, & Censures falls with in the compasse of his Mediatorie appointment and inspection. Matth. 16. 19.—& 28. 29. Joh. 18. 36. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11, 12.—2. That the gospel Church was Complea­ted in her being & essence, both as to Rulers & Ruled, Members & officers, and in rules & directions for the exercise of her government accordingly, when no Magi­strat was so much as a member of her.—3 That in all the precepts anent the exercise of this power, it is enjoyned to the Church, & to these Church officers, as such, with the same freedome & independancy upon the Civil po­wer, as at the first, & without the least restriction & li­mitation, in case of the Magistrats becoming Christian; All the grounds made use of in pressing the exercise of this power, being moral & perpetual, & respecting the Church her condition as a Church, whither the Magi­strat be friend or enemie.

In the 2d. Place, This Erastian prelatick mould of go­vernment brings in many grosse encroachments upon the liberties of the gospell Church. As 1. Denying her liberty to exercise her power & Key of Censure without the Magistrat: Contrare to all the New Testament instan­ces of the exercise therof with out him. 2. Introduceing a dominion, & arbitrary power upon all her government; Contrare to her liberty & the very nature of her govern­ment, which is a Ministerial Stewardship, not a dominion; for thus the Church is the proper object of the Magi­strats dominion that being the Nature of his power Rom. 13. And the present prelatick Church ounes the Supreme Civil governoure as her Chieff Church officerer.—3. Giving to the Magistrat qua talis (for this po­wer in Church matters, is by Prelats and their adherents aknowledged to be a perpetual Croun-right) the proper & Sole decisive suffrage in all causes falling under Ecclesiastick [Page 44] cognisance: for Prelatists onely meet to advise him in the­re Suprem Court or national Synod, according to the fore­mentioned Act. Now, this Cutts off all Church judica­tories ther decisive suffrage as Church judicatories, which (as is cleared above) they did fully at first exer­cise of themselves, without the Magistrat. 4. This mould will make the Civil Magistrat the proper immediat subject of the Keys, and Impartes all Church government to One, who, as such, is not so much as a Church member, and impowers him to give out this supposed fountaine power to no Church members, or to here enemies at his pleasure, As his Majesty gives to persons Civil the po­wer of excomunication? Yea it gives him a power, by his oun proper clicite acts, to dispense all her [external go­vernment] as the law terms it, which (if we look u­pon it as including all externall ordinances contradistinct from the internal government of the inward man, & the Church invisible) will necessarely import & include the exercise of both the Keys, & all the external dogma­ticke, diatactick, & Critick authority & power, intrusted to the Church representative: Which is a meer Civil papacie & the grossest of usurpations which the Church can be exposed unto, as shall be afterward touched. Finally, This will inferr, that Children, Heathens, yea women, may be chieff Church officers and heads of the Church too, since they may possesse the Crown of these Kingdoms, to which this Headship and Supremacy is annexed. But of this also againe.

3. This Erastian government is a gross encroachment upon Christs prerogative over his Church. And that in these wayes. 1. In assumeing a power over the Church which is proper to Christ only, I mean a Magisterial, architecto­nick power. That this is assumed by this Erastian mould of government, is evident? He who can dispose of go­vernment, and governoures of the Church arbitrarly, and dispose of all Church meetings, and Church maters, as he [Page 45] pleases and thinks fitt, Hath certanly this power; but that this Magisterial, architectonick, power and dominion over the Church, is Christs Sole prerogative, is abun­dantly clear by manifold plaine, positive, Scripture as­sertions. To Christ is all power given in Heaven and Earth, Matth. 28. 18. And he, as Mediator, is given to be head over all things to the Church, Ephes. 1. 21, 22. To h [...]m is all judgement (over her) committed, John. 5. 22. Hee it is also who possesses these high tittles, to be the Governoure (over his Church) by way of emi­nencie, Matth. 2. 6. That great shepherd of the sheep. Hebr. 13. 20. the shepherd and Bishop of Soules. 1. Pet. 2. 25. Hee is that one Master over all Church officers, who are but Brethren, Matth. 23. 8, 10. To us there is but One Lord Iesus. 1. Cor. 8. 6. Hee it is, to whom onely the im­periall acts of power are ascribed: as, the giving of lawes to his Church, the gospel precepts are his law. Gal. 6. 2. Hee it is who gave commandments to his Apostles, Act. 1. 2. there is but one law giver who can save and de­stroy. Jam. 4. 12. The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver or Statute maker, the Lord is our King, I say. 33 22. He it is who Constitutes her ordinances, preaching of the word Matth. 10. 7. 1. Cor. 1. 17. ad­ministration of the Sacraments, as of baptisme, John. 1. 33. the Lords Supper, 1. Cor. 11. 20. dispensing of Censures, Matth. 16. 29. Hee it is who appointes his Officers, Prophets, Pastores, Teachers, Ephes. 4. 11, 12. 1. Cor. 12, 28. In his name onely all ordinances are dis­pensed: Not in the name of Magistrats, or of any Mor­tall. The Apostles spake and taught in the name of Je­sus. Act. 4. 17, 18. In his name we are to Ask Joh. 14. 13, 14. In his name onely Ministers are to preach and baptize, Matth. 28. 18, 19. 2. Cor. 5. 20. In his name onely they are to Censure, to deliver to Satan. 1 Cor. 5. 4. In his name only Church assemblies are to be gathe­red, which seems the Smallest Act. Matth. 18, 20. [Page 46] (See jus divinum Regim: Eccles: Appollon: Revius. &c.—2. This Erastian government incroaches upon Christs prerogatives, In taking and using the Keys against Christs donation and authoritie Christ is the only Lord giver of both the Keys, and all their power. But, in this U­surped power, the Kevs are 1. Divyded, against his pre­scription, who gave both the Keys of Doctrine and Discipline joyntly to the proper recipients the [...]of (viz.) Church offi­cers. Matth. 16. 19. This Erastian government [...]ches away One Key (viz. of government) from such to whom Christ the great Master of the House, hath Intrusted both. Christ in this donation of the Keys, making no mention of the Civil Rulers, but only of Church Officers then appointed, who were distinct from the Magistrat. Hence 2. The Key of disciplin is taken and used against his mynde, by these to whom he hath not Intrusted it, which is a great encroachement upon his authoritie. In the 3d. place, this Erastian government encroaches u­pon Christs authoritie over his Church, In superadding Ane officer to theseChurch officers institut and appointed by him. For in all the Scripture rolls of Christs Church officers, the Civil Rulers are not found. Eph. 4. 10, 11. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 6. 7, 8.—4. This en­croachment appeares in making Church officers, as such, imediatly subject to the Magistrat in all their Spirituall administration, which is a hie Censure of the Primitive ex­ercise of this power independantly, as we shal shew. 5▪ In exeeming him from all Spiritual subjection unto, and censure by, Church Rulers. For where, [...]pray, shal we find the Magistrat excepted, and the hi [...]herCivil powers, if within the Church, from Christs lawes and rules a­nent subjection to Church censures and to his Spiritual office bearers intrusted therewith?

CHAP. VI.

IN the 4th place: This Erastian Government presumes to impeach the primitive Apostolick Church, her com­pleat constitution and faithfulness of Administration in relation to Government, and makes here to have had but a defe­ctive maimed constitution and authority thereanent, while the exercise of the civil power in her, was wan­ting. Which charges a gross deficiency upon Christs prescriptions in relation to her Lawes and Officers: Which are found in Scripture, very full, and suited to her state and condition in all times until all the Elect be made up, and here warfare is accomplished; and con­sequently, it impeaches Christs saithfulness and autho­rity as Mediatour, whose proper work this holy consti­tution is

5. This Erastian Prelacy takes away all the Scripture Landmarks and Limits, which are fixed therien by God, to distinguish the Civil and Ecclesiastick Powers and Govern­ments, and makes them every way the same, in all things wherein Scripture and Reason do distinguish them, both as to their Nature and Acts, and likewayes as to their Causes.

1. As to their Nature, this Erastian Government doth confound them. 1. In that it makes the Church and Commonwealth, the Political and Ecclesiastical Societies, one and the same, which are formally distinct. [Page 48] It being a visible profession that make a Church mem­ber, and outward habitation and subjection to the ci­vil power, that makes a Subject; Which may be where there is no profession, and consequently no Church-membership. For in this mould, the Kings Government Civil, is Church Government, for it is his Government as King, in which capacity this Ecclesi­astick Supremacy is his prerogative, and his Ecclesiastick Government is also Civil Government, for it is his Govern­ment as the Supream Civil Magistrat: And thus the Church, respected by his government, is the Common­wealth, & vice versa. 2. This confounds the Officers of Church and State, which the Scriptur doth aboundantly distinguish. For, as is said, The Church had all her Officers of Christs appointment, when no Magistrat was a Member thereof; and on the other hand, Common­wealths had all their civil Rulers, before they became Churches; But in this Erastian Prelacy, this order is confounded, The chief Officers of this Church are the Magistrats Commissioners to Church and State; where­as Church Officers are given by Christ as Mediatour to his Church as a Church, 1 Cor. 12: Ver. 28.—3. The actings of civil and Ecclesiastick authority are thus confounded, Spiritual church Rulers Act onely in Spiritual matters by Gods appointment, and civil Rulers there immediat proper Acts are only in matters Civil. But here Church Officers are Parliament Commissioners, and civil Rulers in the high commission do excommunicat.

Againe in the 2. place: This Erastian Prelacy con­founds these two powers in their causes, which are wholly diverse. 1. The efficient cause is diverse, God as Creator, is Author of Magistracy, Rom. 13. But Christ as Mediatour appoints Church Government, Matt. 28: 18. But here, the Magistrat qua talis, is a suprem Church Ruler? And thus is supposed to have his power from Christ as Mediator and Head of his Church: Which is [Page 49] ane opinion fully confuted by those who havewritten a­gainst Erastus, particularly Mr Gillespie in the Aarons Rod. 2. They differ in the material cause, the matter on which the two powers do act, are diverse: Ecclesiastick power doth act in the exercise of the Keys, the administration of the Word and Sacraments, having this for its proper Object and matter. The civil power consists in the ci­vil and secular Sword; the one reaches the inward, the othere the outward man. But in this Erastian Prelacye, the, Sword and Keys, are made one, promiscuously u­sed, and put into the same hands. 3. The two powers dif­fer in their formal cause: the civil power is put forth in political punishments, the Ecclesiastick in spiritual censures. But here, the same power is the first Radix and Foun­taine of Spirituall Censures, and Civil punishments, and gives them their formal essence and being, as such. Finalie. The proper immediat end of Civil power is the Temporal, External, political peace of the commonwe­alth. Rom. 13. 1, 2. 3. But the proper end ofEcclesiastick power, Is the Churches Spiriual good and edification as such, Matth. 18. 15. 1 Cor. 5. 5. 2. Cor. 10. 8. and 13. 10. But here, the Magistrat quatalis, being the Churches head, these ends are Confounded. These and several such like arguments are made use of by our writers against Erastus, which doe fully evince the unlawfulnes of this Erastian prelacie. Whosoever shal peruse Apollonius His jus Ma­jest: Circ: Sacr: the jus Div: regim: Eccles: the Aarons rod, wallaeus against Vtenbog: and such like, will find this ab­undantly clear.

To sh [...]t up all with One word more. Ther are these 3. horride absurdities, in relation to Church government, which the premised mould of this Erastian prelacie will necessarly inferr. 1. That a man may be borne, not only a Church member, but a Chief Church Ruler: Nay, that a Heathen, and a man that never professed the true re­ligion, but lives and dies ane ingraind enemie to it, and [Page 50] so hath neither mater nor forme, of Church membership, may be a Chieff Church officer. For his Majesties pre­sent authoritie herine (acknowledged by our prelats, and which is the Fountaine of their power) is the proper Croune dignitie of all that ever shall possesse and wear it: and so here is a monstrous Church officer, who 1. hath no qualifications of any Church officer whom ever Christ appointed. 2. A Church officer who is not Set in the Church (which is the essential marke of all Church of­ficers 1. Cor. 12 28.) for that supposes he must be a Church member A 2d. absurditie is this, That Children and women (who may have a lawfull lineal right to the Cro­un) may be Church officers, Yea the Fountaine of our prelats authority, and of all their Under [...]ings, and the chieff governoure of this Church; and thus, they who are forbidden so much as to speak in the Church, shall be Chieff Church Rulers, and likewayes such as have not the use of Reason. 1. Tim. 3 5. 1. Cor. 14. 34, 35.—A 3d. absurditie is, That the Church government upon earth may be Monarchical, and that One man may be her Supream head, legislator, And architectonick Monarch and Ruler, for aquatenus, ad omne, valet consequentia. U­pon the same ground that the Suprem Civil Ruler is Chieff head and Ruler over the Church in his domi­nions, the Church in all other places, being a body of the same nature, Should the Christian Church be con­tracted within his dominions, he were her Supreme uni­versall head? And it were so, if his Civil dominion should be extended over all the Churches: By this sa­me reason of his headship over One, he may be head o­ver all, and exercise ane arbitrary at least a legislative po­wer over all her ordinances and officers. And if this will not Clearly set the popes Treeple Croun upon his head, and disowne all that ever the protestant Churches have writen and acted against his blasphemous Supremacie, let common discretion judge, Ambrose (Epist: 33. ad va­lentinianum [Page 51] imperatorem) Saith, noli gravare imperator, ut putes in ea quae divina sunt, aliquod imperiale jus habere, op­liticorum tibi munerum jus concessum est, non Sacrorum. Grie­ve not O Emperour, so as to think that you have any Imperial authority over these things which are divine, the right or authority of politicall offices is committed unto thee, but not of Sacred.

CHAP. VII.

TO come now to examine what this new Dialogist, hath produced in defence of the present prelacie established amongst us, And to examine his ans­wers to our plea against it; We shall not stand upon the trifling debate about the personal good qualities of some that have been prelats, with which Hee prefaces this Dialogue, it being altogether extrinsick to the Que­stion anent the lawfulnes of the office it self, And would be no argument in our case against him, as this man can­not but acknowledge, else Hee must give up the cause, upon his concession of the Unquestionable eminent pietie, and integritie, of many burning and Shining lights, who have been the Lords Constant witnesses against prelacie. That which is here mainely conside­rable, Is his prevarication in Stating the Question a­nent prelacie, (viz.) [Whither the ancient Bishopes had a [Page 52] Superioritie over other Ministers] wherin he utterly [...]ches away from the pointe debeatable. 1. In making this the State of the Question [what Bishopes were in the pri­mitive Church] wheras the true State of our Que­stion, is, whither the prelat now existent in this Church, be a Scripture Bishop and consonant therunto, Or, ane officer ap­pointed by Christ in his house, Yea or not. And not whither there have been Bishops, or such as we now have, in the ancient Church. The Question is not of the mater of fact, but of the right, yea and the divine right of the pre­sent prelats in relation to their power. 2. In stating the difference betwixt the Bishop he pleads for, and the Pastor, Hee Smoothes it over in this general, [whither there have been such Bishopes, as have had a Superioritie over ordinarie Ministers] but doth not explai­ne what that Superioritie is which he pleads for, whi­ther of order or jurisdiction, or both; whither specifi­call, or graduall; Whither a Superiority of meer presi­dencie, or of principality; The [Episcopus preses, and princeps] sharing in this general name. Dolus latet in generalibus: Since there have been various Superio­rities, de facto, He should have particularized that Su­periority which He undertaks to defend. 3. His Doub­ter suggesting [that they were not Lord Bishopes] He must needs make him referr to 1. Pet. 5. 3. Dischar­ging to Lord it over Gods heritage; But how poor is his evasion from and solution of this difficultie, in star­ting this notion [whither there have been, De facto, Bishops with a Superioritie over Presbiters, Or Bis­hops who had Civill dignities in ancient times?] The pinch of this debate lying in this, whither the [ [...]. Or Lorship] discharged in that Scripture, will not stryke against such a Superiority or dominion, whither in Ecclesiastick, or Civil rule, as our prelats now assume? and not what sort of Superiority in Ec­clesiastick, or Civill government, prelats have former­ly [Page 53] had. The present prelat existent in Scotland, having such a dominion over Church Judicatories, and lik­wayes in Civils, as is above exprest, and derving all his power from the Magistrat in Ecclesiastick, as well as in Civil rule, He should have Stated his Question thus distinctly, and then fenced for his great Diana. But the man probably found this a taske which be durst not undertake: which appears immediatly after, in his decli­ning the debate anent the Bishopes Civil rule, telling us, [That he will make it none of his worke to debate with us, their acting in Civil affairs, Sometimes] But 1. Since he undertaks the patrocinie and defence of Episcopacie now established among us, And in his preface professes it his designe to prove it lawfull, and therby to take off one of our arguments for with­drawing from Conformists, And it being likewayes Certaine that the present prelats are Civil rulers. He must either undertake this debate, or acknowledge them unlawfull pro tanto at least? And that he proves but a maimed pleader for their present office, and falls short of a great part of his designe in this pamphlet. 2. He pitifully Snakes away from this debate also, in min [...] ­hing their State-medling, thus, (viz.) Their acting in Civil affaires Sometimes, which may be said of any man or Minister, His rare transient, occasional, accidentall or privat actings, and even in domestick affairs. But can­not this man distinguish betuixt this, and a Stated official acting, [...] constituent and constant members of Civill judicato­ries, as prelats are according to our lawes, and that even ex natura officij as they are prelats; Sure, he cannot di­stinguish the Mountaine from the Molchill, that can­not see a difference betuixt these. Either this Informer must account the prelats present State actings lawful, or not? If He account them lawfull, then He falls un­der a Three fold premunire in this point. 1. In de­ [...]lyning the defence of one of the prelats Unquestiona­ble [Page 54] legal privileges (disouned by presbyterians, and by him esteemed lawfull) notwithstanding of his under­takeing to plead for them. 2. In Undertaking only tos plead for their acting Sometimes, which (as I said) i far from the point and matter of fact, which he must defend. 3. In confessing at the foot of the page [That Church men should not needlesslie, or of Choice, intangle themselves in these incumberances] wherin he palpa­blie contradicts himself as to his Scope. For doe not our prelats of most free choice and deliberatly assume State Imployments? Or are their shoulders burdened a­gainst their will with these State honoures? Besydes, He cites 2. Tim. 2. 4. In acknowledging this intan­glement in wordly affaires, to be unlawfull in Church men; The text sayes, no man that warreth entangleth himself in affaires of this life. Now, if this text dis­charge universally, and absolutly, a Ministers intangle­ment in wordly affaires, How comes he to foist in his limitation of [needlesly, or of Choice] where is this limitation in the text? If all intanglements or in cumberances, as such, be unlawfull, as is here expressly asserted, as being inconsistant with the nature and importance of the Ministers Spirituall function, which requires the grea­test abstractednes from all worldly things, and the mans constant waiting upon, and giving himself wholly unto the things of God; Then surely whither he intan­gle himself by choice, or not, it is still ane intanglement, and consequently sinful; his acting deliberatly is butane agravation. Againe, since He maks ane intanglement Of choice, to be a needles intanglement, and consequently sin­ful, He must needs acknowledge that such is the present prelatick medling, which, as is said, He cannot deny to be most deliberat and of choice. But nixt, If He ac­count our prelats State-actings unlawfull? Then 1. Why doth He not interminis acknowledge so much, and not lisp it half out? 2. Why doth He alleadge some­thing [Page 55] from Scripture precedents to prove it warranta­ble? But Let us hear his Scripture arguments wherby He would prove this State acting lawfull. His first Rea­son is [That the jewish Sanhedrin made up of the Se­vinty elders, Moses assistants in Civill government, did consist partly of priests] where 1. Wee see He over­straines his point, and overstretches himself in his pretended proofe, for the These he undertaks to prove, is, [That Church men may act in State matters, though not of Choice, and so that it be Sometimes only] which he cannot but distinguish from a Constant official med­ling, if he speak sense. And to prove this, He brings ane instance of priests under the old Testament-dis­pensation, their being constituent members of a civil court? Now, how doe these quadrat? Were not these priests to act deliberatly and of Choice? If this prove any thing at all it will prove that Ministers (as being such members) may deliberatly and of choyce involve themselves in Civill affairs, which this man holds to be discharged 2. Tim. 2. 4. And so this Reason, because proving too much, and beyond his assertion, proves just nothing. 2. As we cleared above, the difference betuixt the Ci­vil and Ecclesiastick Sanhedrin, and that those Sevinty, mentioned in the 11. Numbr. who were chosen for the government of the Commonwealth, are distinct from those mentioned Exod. 24. Who were Ecclesia­stick and not Civil officers; So it is more then this In­former hath offered proof of, that there were priests in that Civil Court, since as is said, the Two Sanhedrins Civil and Ecclesiastick, did consist of distinct members, and there was not one Sanhedrin only, as this man seems to suppose. But 3. Though the concurrence of some preists in that Civill Court, were granted, Our writers have abundantly cleared the inconsequence of any argument drawn from that instance as to this point, In that though the Civil and Ecclesiastick [Page 56] Sanhedrin, were distinct originaly, Yet the judiciall Civil law being given immediatly by God to the jewes, as well as the Moral and Ceremonial, the priests by consequence, under that dispensation, had a most ne­cessary interest as to its interpretation & decision in many cases, for the law was to be sought at their mouth. The difference of which condition of the jewish, from that of the Christian Church (Spread over the world, and in Countreys where are different moulds of Civil go­vernment and lawes, and which are not tyed to that judicial law) doth cast the ballances and over­throw his argument. As for that of deutr. 17. Wee have seen how it holds out a Twofold Sanhedrin which had distinct members, acts, and objects. In a word, if his argument from this instance were good (upon his supposition that priests were mem­bers in that Court) it would prove that Christians could not have a lawful civil Supreme Judicatorie, un­les Ministers were constituent members thereof? And that Ministers were essentially & necessarly ex natura of­ficii (as these priests) constituent members of civil Ju­dicatories? which is more then he dare assert, and the absurdity thereof is above cleared. His 2d. Ground is drawn from [the examples and instances of Eli the Priest who judged Israel fourty years, and of Samuel the Pro­phet, who, though lent to the Lord from his birth, yet went in circuit yearly judging the people] But 1. The force of this reason leaning upon ane example meer­ly, of Church officers under the old dispensation, and the gratis supposed imitablenes thereof, it is (like the other argument) very unsound and lax. He will not dare to averr that every deduction a facto ad jus, is sound; All scripture examples, are for our improvement, but not for our imitation. Even good and laudable Acts of the Saints, are of this nature, many of them. Some were heroical, as Elias bringing fire from hea­ven, [Page 57] which the Lord discharged James and John to i­mitat. Phinehas his Act, he will say with his Master the surveyer, was of this nature. Some Acts did flow from ane extraordinarie emergent of Providence, and a call flowing therefrom, as Abrahams attempt to offer his Son, Israels borrowing from the Egyptians and not paying. Some Acts had their issue from a [...]an­sient and occasional junctur, procuring a necessity pro tunc, as Pauls preaching gratis, and working with his hands. Some acts were to confirme a special extra­ordinary call, So our Lords fourty dayes fast, and that of Moses his tipe. Now, to conclud from the premi­sed instances, the lawfulness of these Acts (viz) Sacri­ficing Children, borrowing and not paying, the po­pish quadrantum &c, This Informer will grant to be ve­ry poor and childish Sophristrie, yet such is his reason­ing here. 2. Divines doe tell us that these examples only are imitable, whose ground and scope are of a moral nature, which the persons did, as saints or Chri­stians: such are all examples of morall standing duties enjoyned in the commands. They tell us. 3. That there are two Rules necessarly to be observed (and which this Informer must of necessity grant) as to a conclusion, ab exemplo ad factum, or a facto ad jus, which cutts the sinnews of his argument here. 1. No example which crosses a morall precept can ground a Rule, for this would make the Rule crosse it self. And to bring this neer the point in hand, I will shew, that this Informer fights against himself, and must needs admitt this answer, from the very mould of his argument: For he thinks to imforce the Instance from Samuel his civill actings, by telling us that he was lent to the Lord from his mothers womb: Which will say, accord­ing to his pleading, That a man though singularly devoted to God in the sacred Ministry, yet may de­liberatly and of choice become a civil judge, yea [Page 58] a supreme civil judge; and then I would know, how he will reconcile this with the great gospel precept 2 Tim. 2: 4. Which himself pleads as discharging deliberat medling in civil affairs, because the sacred Ministery is a warfare, or a dedication of the Minister to the service of Christ? And what will he say if one shall argue thus, if a Minister, though dedicat to the Lord from his mothers womb, may notwithstanding become a civil judge, then the Ministry its being a warrfare under Christ, cannot hinder a mans medling by choice in civill affaires, which notwithstanding he denyes: So that either he must disown this Instance, or his sense of that Gospell precept. But of this againe. 2. No exam­ples of Acts done from ane extraordinary calling & gifts, are to be imitated by such as have neither the one, nor the other. Wee will find our Informer afterward grant this in relati­on to the Apostles, & that there are many things depen­ding upon special emergents that are not imitable in them. And if he should deny this Rule, as he will contradict himself, so he will not evite a great inconve­nience from the fact of Phinehas, from Ehud, &c. Incase some person of a boistrous heart, and unruly hand, should plead these instances to offer violence unto him. Be side, if this rule be not admitted, he will brangle the boundarie and limits of different ordinary callings, (and relations by consequence) which the God of order hath fixed. The examples of Magistratical or Ministeriall duties, obliges not privat persons to ane imitation; The Apostolick Acts of working Miracles, giving the Spirit by laying one of hands, universal un­fixed preaching (he will grant) are not imitable (as neither the peculiar duties of Relations among privat per­sons, doe obleige every one) because these extraordi­nary gifts and callings are now gone: And so say I of these examples of Eli, and Samuel, who are by all sound divines ranked among the judges whose call and of­fice [Page 59] is acknowledged to have been extraordinary; God keeping at that time the regal rights in his own hand., befor he set up any fixt ordinary Rulers and Kings, and creating, & calling extraordinarly, his owne deputies in the Government, sometimes out of one tribe, and so­metimes out of another, whose authority died with themselves and admitted of no succession. Wherefore Gideon told the people that God was their King, and refu­sed that office when offered; and the peoples guilt in wearing of this holy immediat Government of God himself, and desiring a King, is aggravated from this, That they had rejected God who was their King. So that his argument from these extraordinary instances, is wholly inconcludent; it being from ane extraordinary, to ane ordi­nary calling, from ane extraordinary factum, to ane ordinary jus; which is consequence we will find himself after­ward disown. And if he straine these instances, they will prove too much, (viz.) That Ministers may be Kings, or supreme civil judges; which I believe he will not adventure to plead for, since what ever thanks he may merite for this from the Pope, yet Royalists will allow him none.

If, in a matter so plain and evident, it were need­full to adduc testimonies of writers and commentators (as this informer doth to no purpose) how harmonious would their consent appear unto this truth. The En­glish Annot: in their preface upon the book of judges, will tell him that the judges were not ordinary Magistrats, but extraordinarly called of God in times of great extremity &c. And in their preface on the first book of Samuel, they shew, that it containes rhe History of the two last judges, Eli, and Samuel, and of Saul the first King of Israel. And upon that place, Chap. 7: 15, 16. Anent Samuels judging of Israel, notwithstanding of his being lent to the Lord from his birth, 1 Chap. 28. They will Inform this infor­mer [thatas thiswas the jurisdictionof a judge, whichGod called him unto all the time of saul,—so, he was quo [Page 60] bound by his Mothers vow, Chap. 1. Whereby he was de­voted to the service of the sanctuary, to continue his re­sidence there, both because God had forsaken it for the sins of the Priests, and also, because the Lord himselfhad ta­ken him off from that levitical service, and called him to another imployment, namely, to be a holy Prophet and a judge over his people, which places he could not discharge, if he had been confined to a settled place.] The du ch. Annot: in the argument of the book of judges, describe them [to be such persons, not (who administred the ordinary function of judges among the people, as the Word is other where taken, but) whom God now and then as the state of Israel required, sometimes out of on tri­be, sometimes out of another, extraordinarly raised, cal­led, and with his Spirit of wisdome and couradge endewed &c. In the argument, of the first book of Samuel, they shew that therin is described the Government of Samuel as judge over Israel &c] So that until our Informer shall instruct the Prelats extraordinary call from God, and also their extraordinary enduements for civil Govern­ment, these instances of Eli and Samuel, will not [in the Judgment of these divines] afford them the least shaddow of warrand for there civil offices. So this man may be ashamed that he ever mentioned such an argument.

Finally, That Hee is in the breers of a contradiction here, is (as is hinted) evident, in that to prove that Church men should not ofChoice medle inCivil affaires, he gives this reason, for, no man that warreth intangleth himself with the affaires of this life. 2. Tim. 2. 4. Now, if this [for] or illative here, signifie any thing, and be not nonsen­se, this He must be supposed to hold, that, this text forbids Church men all deliberat medling in Civil af­faires. But will He dare to say that Samuel and Eli their judging of Israel was not deliberat and of Choice, Ergo, It was sinfull by this rule; Yet he ple­ads [Page 61] for its imitablenes as lawfull; though a deliberat involving themselves in Civil government, yea a Su­preme rule; and thus holds it not cross to this gospell precept. So that to escape this Scylla or Charybdis, He hath no imaginable refuge but one; (viz.) To assert with us, their extraordinarie Calling for what they did, and that singular old Testament-dispensation un­der which they stood. But then He must quit his plea for prelats civil Imployments from this Instance, and confesse it to be inconcludent.

But for the new Testament times, he tells us. How much Bishops were employed in Civill affairs, when Emperours became Christian, as Smectymnuus confesses. But 1. Since he pretends Scripture Instances under the old Testament, his new Testament Instance is very apochryphal and heterogeneus therunto, being of Bishops medling three or four hun­dered years, after the Canon of the Scripture was clo­sed. Humano Capiti cervicem pingere equinam. But his new Testament precept 2. Tim. 2. 4. Chased away the In­stance of Bishops medling in civill affaires, Three or four Hundred years forward. Nixt, I would know whither our Informer holds these Bishops medling in Se­cular affairs, to be lawfull or unlawfull? Iflawfull, and consisting with their Calling (which He would seem to insinuat in telling us, that Saravia defends at large, (even simply and absolutly) Church mens medling in state affaires) Why then doth he tell us in the nixt page That the fathers compleaned of this as aburden? Sure they were very froward to fret under a peece of lawfull im­ployment. If it was unlawfull, or a deliberat sinfull in­tanglement, why obtruds he it upon us as a regular pre­cedent? And what will Smectymnuus acknowledgment of the factum import, to infert His, or Our acknowledgment of the jus. He tells us likwayes, That ancient Councells [upon the ground mentioned, 2. Tim. 2. 4. of a Ministers sin­full intanglement] discharged them to follow Militarie imploy­ments, [Page 62] or to take ferms &c. Hence I inferr, then these Coun­cels held, that deliberat medling in state affaires, [...]or worldly incumberances, is inconsistent with a Mini­sters calling, and a sinfull intanglement discharged in that text; for since they discharged Militarie em­ployments and ferms upon this ground, they doe consequently discharge all such Intanglement. For, a qua­tenus, ad omne, &c. This he cannot but grant. And from hence I infer, two things against him. 1. He setts these Councils by the eares with his Scriptur instances. For since they condemne these formentioned civil employments upon that ground, 2 Tim. 2: 4. As a sinful intanglement in a Church officer 3 he must either say, that they condemned these old-Testament Instances of the Priests, of Samuel and Eli, as sinful: Or else acknowledge, that they held them (with us) to be extraordinary, and no regular precedents. 2. It will hence follow, that these Councils doe condemne Saravia, who (he tells us) doth at some length defind Church mens acting in State assaires. And Saravia condemnes and disputs against these Coun­cils; and then, it will be a pussing problem to him, to which of them he will adhere in this contest; since he holds, with these councels, upon that ground, 2 Tim. 2: v. 4. the unlawfulness of Ministers deliberat invol­ving themselves in civil affaires, it seems be quites there great Advocat Saravia, and all his pleading upon this point; For he tells us of no limitation in Saravia his pleading for Ministers meddling in State affaires. As for what followes in this page, he obscures and shifts the point here inquestion, in saying, That it is hard to call it simply unlawful, and in every case, to medle in these things. We know there is a lawful Concional medling, & also in way of Ministerial advice, unto the Magistrat in order to the satisfaction of his conscience, the Ministerial direction whereof is the Pastours work, at whose mouth Gods [Page 63] mynd must be sought, and likewayes by way of ministe­rial testimonie against what is sinful in state Rulers, which is all that our principles do own as to Ministers inter­posing in state affaires in our late times; but 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. Tit 13, So the Apostolick law, 2 Tim. 2: 04. [Page 64] 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 Mass [...]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 its 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 [Page 65] 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 civiliaconfu [...]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 [Page 66] 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 got [...]: 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 [Page 67] 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 [Page 68] 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, [Page 69] 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 [Page 70] 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 not to add new spirituall officers, who must have a new work &c. And the Bishops authority must either be comprehended among the rules anent these officers en­umerat, and the exercise of their power, or he is an [...] apocriphal officer and unlawfull: Or he must say we may add new officers, and offices, and institutions in poynt of government, to these contained in Scripture; and so our divines argument against the pope, from the Scriptures silence anent him, in its enumeration of officers, is naught. 3. Christ exercising ane external visible king­dom over his Church visible, and all Church officers, and their administrations, being in his name and authoritis as is above cleared, every Church officers mission and war­rand must be found in his word, other w [...]yes he runs unsent, and cannot expect his blessing; all that come be for him, and anticipat his call, are theeves and robbers. 4. All Christs officers, and their gifts are Christs royall and mediatorie donations to his Church, and by him pecu­liarly set and authorized therein. Ephes. 4. [...], 7, 8. &c, 1. Cor. 12. 28. He, as the great Master of the house, gi­ves all his Stewards their Keys, their Orders; Now, how Christ the king and head of his Church, his dona­tion, his commission, his giving his Keyes, Should be instru­cted other wayes, then by his clear warrands and institu­tiones in his word and Testament, I would gladly learne of this Informer. Is there any officer of State, any subordi­nat Magistrat allowed in a kingdome, which hath not the clear warrand of the lawes? Surely not, and so the [Page 71] case is here. Finallie. The ground and reasone which he builds this shifting evasion upon [viz. That many things are not otherwayes commanded, then under some generall: as that all things be done decently or to edification, instancing in the moderator and Clerk of a meeting of Ministers] is very poor: For since the authority which God gave Paul was to edification, & all ordinances which have the most clear institution, must be thus qualified, and to this end, that which is not O­therwayes commanded then under this generall, must needs be the alterable circumstances only, commone to Civill and Sacred actions, and such as supposes the thing it self, cloathed with these circumstances, to be [that which is to be done,] and by consequence falling Hactenus under the Compasse of a command or institution; for it is these only which are left to the regulation of Christian prudence, according to the generall rules of the word. But, as we have above cleared, such ane eminent Church officer as the Bishop is supposed to be, or any Church officer, can be no such circumstance, but is such a substantiall point of government as requires a clear and positive warrand, or else must be holden unlawfull; and this he must acknowledge or contradict himself, for He da­re not say but that Church officers are other wayes commanded then under this generall, and himself alled­ges the prelats divine institution: & so He can be none of these things which hath only this generall warrand. Besides, I would know, if He will say that this officer, the prelat, must be sett up and Act with decencie and order; surely He will not deny this: If then the prelat himself is but a peece of [decentie, and order] (as being only commanded under that notion, and a species under that generall) then he sayes that [order and de­cencie] must be managed & cloathed with [order and decencie] which will be very hard to reconceale to sen­se; or He must say, that the prelat must act with disor­der [Page 72] and confusion, or (to evit these rockes) that the prelat must be warranted under another notion then that of a circumstance of meer order, and so must have a particular warrand. His instance of the Moderator and Clerk is very foolish, the Clerk not being neces­sarly [a Church officer] and the Moderator [no di­stinct Church officer] from the rest of the members, and so is utterly Impertinent to this pointe and que­stion, anent a Church officer distinct from and Superior to a presbiter, whither he ought to have a particular Scriptu­re warrand. Besides that the same divine warrand that a judiciall procedor by disquisition, votes, and suffra­ge hath, and is exemplified in that Synod Act. 15. (this being the necessary frame of judicatories, as such, and consequently of all Church judicatories) the mo­derator hath the same foundation of his office; but He will never let us see a shaddow of this for the prelat. Now to shew what good Harmonie this Informer keeps in this point with some chieff men of his way (& others also) let us hear what they hold, Institutum Apostolorum de regimine Ecclesiastico—& ea gubernationis ratio quae aetate Apostolorum fuit &c.—The Apostles appointment as to Church government, and that way and method of government which was in their time, is perpetuall, and can no more be changed then the priesthood of Aaron could, saith Saravia con tra bezam Whitaker controv. 4. Quest: 1. Cap. 9. Tells us, That the Church must not be governed-vt humano ingenio arri­serit, as pleases mens fancie, sed ut Christo Ecclesiae domino so lique principi placet, But as it pleases Christ her only head and Lord. Hence he concludes that the forms which He hath institut must be held fast as the best. Matth. Sutliv: de Pontif: Ro­man: lib. 1 Cap. 1. Answering Bellarmins argument from Civil to Ecclesiastick Monarchie, tells him that-sicut unus Ecclesiae summus princeps &c As thereis one chieff Prince of the Church, so there is one true essential forme therof, differing from the various moulds of commone wealthes; & that as she hath but one [Page 73] head, so but one frame of policie, which those who resyle from Christi leges transgrediuntur-they transgress the lawes of Christ, and blotts her true government. Field, of the Church, lib: 5. Cap: 45. Argues thus against the popes temporal power, that among men non hath power of chaingeing any thing but he alone to whom in an eminent degree it belongs, and from whom it is originally derived; but to govern the Church as such is not eminently in the Magistrat.] It is a Bad o­men, cespitare in limine; our informer we see, in his first answer to his doupter, is so anhappie, as therin to justle with soom chieff champions of his cause.

CHAP. IX.

THe doubter in the nixt place [alleages Prelacy to the forbidden, and therefore unlawful: bringing for proof Matth. 20: 25, 26, 27, 28. And the Argument from this text, he makes his poor doubter slenderly and curtly to represent thus, That Christ forbids any of his disciples to he greater then another. This passage with its pa­rallel Luk. 22: 25. Is much scanned betwixt the Papists and us, in relation to the popes Dominion, and as it striks [Page 74] clearly against Prelacy, so Papists and Prelats doe as clearly joyne issue in their answers. In both passages it is apparent, that upon occasion of a sinfull and ambiti­ous emulation àmong the Disciples, which of them should be greatest, our Lord did sharpely reprehend them, dischargeing them expresly the Lordly grand­our of Earthly Rulers or Princes, and to exercise Lordsnipe or Dominion over one another, commending instead thereof, and in opposition thereto, a humble Ministerial service, and spiritual diligence in their spi­ritual stewardship or Ministery, pressing both, from his own exemplary humility in his converse with them. Now, our Argument against Prelacy is very strong from this text, and hath these Nerves. 1. The Lord most expresly discharges Superiority and inferiority among officers of the same kinde: Non are grea­ter then another in their office; no Apostle above another, but a compleat parity in their official power is here holden out; ergo, by necessary consequence, he commands a parity among Pastoures, and discharges superior and infe­rior degrees among them. 2. Whatever priority of order among officers of different kindes, be allowed, yet he discharges Dominion or principalitie in any of them, all masterly power, such as is allowed in civil Government; there being but one Master or Lord over the Church, and all Ministers being Brethren. This is clear, in that he mentions the civil Lordshipe of Rulers who are called benefactors in exemplyfiing what he discharges them, and likewayes in opposition therunto, commends a hum­ble Ministerial service, not a sort of warrantable Domi­nion, as that parallel 1 Pet. 5: 3. Makes it evident; So that he gives two deadly blowes here to the Diocesian Lord Prelat. 1. In that he makes himself a higher order and degree of the Pastorall office, whereas the Lord dis­charges this among officers of the same kinde. 2. In Lording it over his brethren (other Pastoures) both [Page 75] in a pretended spiritual capacitie, arrogating to himself a sole power in ordination and jurisdiction, and a ma­sterly power and principality over Church judicatories, (as is cleared above) and likewayes in his assumeing the E­arthly Lordship, place and grandoure, of civil Magi­strates, which is here expresly discharged. This being premised, let us hear what this new Advocat sayes to this Text. 1. He tels us that [It is a great mistake to think, that all superiority among Church men is here forbidden, which he fortifies 1. With this Reason, that the twelve, though equall among themselves, yet were superior to the seventy Disciples who were also sent to preach, & this He proves, because Matthias who was chosen to succeed Judas in the Apostleship, was one of them.] Ans. 1. It is here convincingly appa­rent, that this man shiftes, but dare not grapple with this Scripture, and the argument drawn from it, while he shuffles in this glosse and mistake (which is his own, not oures) viz, that all superioritie is here dischar­ged among Church men, as our inference or medium á­gainst prelacie from this text, as is evident from what is said. We grant with all sound divines, that among Church men or Church officers, there are superior and inferior degrees. First Apostles, secondarly Prophets &c. But we say, that hereby superiority among these of the same degree is forbidden, and likwayes principalitie and lordship in any of them of whatever order or degree, over another. So that we are not concerned to enquire, whither the Apostles were Superior to the seventy Dis­ciples, or whither they were sent to preach, and not ra­ther (as some doe judge) intrusted with a transient mission to prepare our Lords access to those places whi­ther he was to come, with out any formall Ministeral mission above ordinarie Disciples. Only I must say, his proofe of this Superiority of the Twelve above the Seventie, is very odd (viz.) Matthias was chosen ane Apostle, though one of the Sevintie. Now, to give Scripture [Page 76] light and proofe of this topick, both branches of this assertion must be proved from Scripture, not only that Matthias was chosen in Judas roome, but also and mainely, that he was one of the Seventie, wherof the Scrip­ture is utterly silent: and instead of Scripture proof of this, wee must take Clemens and Dorotheus, their Said so, which maks up a heterogenious proofe, like the feet and toes made of iron and clay. 2. He tells us, That ambi­tion, and not inequality, is here discharged. This ane old shift of Bellarm: and the Papists, we say that both ambi­tion, the root and principle of this desire, and the thing it self which was the object of this ambitious desire (viz.) Dominion, Principality, and Lordship one over another, is here forbidden: Subordinata non pugnant, 'tis strang sottishnes in this man to imagin, that am­bition, the inward principle of this unlawful primacie or inequalitie, should be forbidden onely, and not the in­equalitie or primacie it self, the outward act and accom­plishment of this ambition. Bellarm: answer to our divi­nes argument against the popes Supremacie from the text, is, that dominion is no: here discharged, but rather sup­posed, and that it is only such ane ambitious lust of overruling as is among the Kings of the Gentiles, that is forbidden. Whit­taker (de Pontif: Cap: 1.) Answers him, that this dominion it self, not the ambitious affectation only, is discharged. Bernard writing to Eugenius, & expounding this passage, & that of 1. Pet. 5. Understands them both as striking against do­minion, and enjoyning a Ministeriall care in opposi­tion therunto, Dominion (saith hee) is discharged and Ministery is enjoyned, So at length he concludes after se­verall things to this purpose. Thus Bernard clearly teaches (saith Whittak: de Pontif: Quest: 1.) that humilitie is not required in dominion (as our Informer distinguishes with Bellarm:) but dominion it self is discharged. But Bellar­min admitts to play the Lords if they be modest and humble in their dominion. Christus de re ipsa &c. (saith Iunius, de pon­tif: lib: 1.) Christ said of the thing it self, they exercise dominion [Page 77] but he spake not of the maner, they exercise dominion after this or that maner; they exercise dominion, saith he, but not so yee that is, yee shall not exercise dominion: it is a plaine denyal of the thing proposed. So we see his shift here as to prelacie, is the same with that of the Papists in defending the pa­pacie. But his Reason of this his glosse must be consi­dered, [viz.] Because otherwayes, our Lords argument ta­ken from his own example v. 28. Would not suite his purpose, since he was in power and authoritie above the Twelve. Ans. (Not to stay here to tell him, that this defence and gloss will equally serve the popes turne, and bear the blow of this text off his head in Correspondance with Bellarmins Notion above touched) Our Lords scope in proposeing his own example, is to antidot their in­ward pride, the root of their desire of this dominion, and powerfully to commend to them humility and low lines, as the most excellent remedy therof: And his ar­gument runns a fortiori thus. If I your Lord and Master be as on that serves, and am such a pattern of selfdeni­al and humility among you, much more ought you to studie humility, and to guard against all usurped authority and dominion, over on another, who are fellow Disciples, and servants. So he reasoned Joh 13. If I your Lord & master have washed your feet, you [viz, much more as being equalls] ought also to wash one ano­thers feet; so that which he imagines doth mak Christs ar­gument not sute well, maksit the more forcible & suite the better. 2. He here contradicts himself, while making the argument from Christs example, v. 28. to suite the discharge of ambition only, not of inequality (the terms in which he impertinently states the difference and op­position, as to what is discharged and not discharged) for he grants there was to be no inequalitie among the Apostles; and when he thus limites his general answer [that all supeiroritie among Church men is not here dis­charged] he grants that some superioritie (viz) among the Apostles themselves, was discharged, and consequent­ly [Page 78] discharged upon this motive Christs own example How then, I pray, will he make this argument from Christs example, who was in dominion and principa­lity above the Twelve, and their, and all the Chur­ches monarch and head, suite his purpose of dischar­ging Inequality, Superioritie, or primacie among the Apostles? His reason he explaines, thus further, that ta­king Christ onely to speak against ambition, or a sinful desire of superoritie, which was Diotrephes fault, the reason from his own example suites well who, though above all, yet was, a pat­tern to all in humility. Ans. 1. Wee have heard that Christs argument suites best in the sense we have propounded, which is the sense of all sound divines. 2. If it was only a sinful desire of a superioritie in it self law­ful, such as he sayes Diotrephes had (how rational­ly we shall after see) which our Lord dehorted from by his own example, then all our divines have mist the marke in pleading from this text against the object of this desire, not the sinful maner of desiring only, and the Papists gloss holds good against them, viz: that Christs example will plead only against ambition. 3. Our Informer yet againe falleth here into a twosold con­tradiction. 1. He makes the Superiority, the object of this ambitious desire, to be in it selflawful, and their fault only to lie in the ambitious or sinful desire; yet in answer to the nixt obiection he grants, that Christ dis­charged dominium civile & despoticum; Now, he must either say, that this was the object of their desire, & consequent­ly that it was sinful in the object, or else that our Lords discourse and exhortation was not to the purpose; A­gaine, this domineum civile & despoticum, is more then a meer superioritie. But 2. the superioritie here discharged was among the Apostles themselves, & this was the object of their desire; the ambitions question and de­bate was, which of them should be greatest, and highest above all the rest? Now he grants that there was to be no supe­rioritie, [Page 79] far less principality among them; How then can he say that Christ discharged only ane ambitious af­fectation of a superioritie in it self lawful; such as Diotrephes had, whom we will find him after assert to have ende­avoured to put himself into a lawful pre-existent office. Surely if there was to be no inequality among them, their desire of inequality was most sinful in the ob­ject, upon that very ground. Againe, he grants that Christ speaks to the Twelve, and likwayes cannot deny, but clearly insinuates a concession with the text, that the A­postles were striveing about inequality, which he acknow­ledges was unlawful in them, yet in the second answer, he will not have this discharged; which how inconsistent it is, let any judge. Beside, since. Christ spoke this to the twelve, among whom there was to be [no inequality in respect of power] as he sayes, & consequently discharged this, since he is rebuking them for striving about a primacy, the highest degree of inequality in respect of power, how absurd & nonsensical is his 2d answer, which denies [that Christ discharged inequality;] could Christ discharge them an inequality of the highest pitch, and yet not discharge inequality? Or could [all inequality in respect of power] be unlawful among them, and yet not be discharged when our Lord discharged [a primacy of power?] he will prove a strang critick if he distinguish these. He tells us lastly here that humility & imparity can well consist. But can humility, & a forbidden imparity consist? can humility in a Churchman, & [Dominium civile and despoticum] consist? Both which he acknowledges were discharged to the Apostles here. So he insinuats that their desired imparity, was still lawful in it self, since it may be possessed even humbly, & thus heaps up inconsistencies. He objects to himself That Christ in denying to them, the Dominion of the Princes of the gentiles, discharged all superiority among Church men. To which he answers That he onely discharges [Dominium civile, & despoticum] a princely Lord­ly power, such as they exercise: but the power of the Church is of another nature. Ans. 1. [Not to meedle with his [Page 80] makeing Dominium civile, and despoticum, adequat ter­mes, there being a Dominium politicum, ordinately contradistinguished from despoticum, which is also a Dominium civile) He grants here, that it was more then a simple desire of a lawful superiority, which the Apostles were tainted with, forgeting what he said immediatly before. Nixt, if Christ discharged this civil Lordly power to Churchmen, he discharged them to be Parliaments Lords, and to hold civil state offices, contrare to what he pleades from the instances of the Priests Numb. II. and from Eli & Samuel; and so he must grant the new Te­stament Church and its dispensation, to be in this diffe­rent from the old, since he acknowledges that Church power was here allowed the Apostles and their successors, and civill power discharged. Thus our Informer must grant, that Christ did here rid marches betwixt these things which he before confounded, and their Erastian Prelacy confounds. Again, this is the very shift of Bellarmin to save the popes supremacie: The Lord, saith he, In forbidding them, to rule as the Princes of the Gentiles, signified they were to rule, but not after that manner [viz.] Ecclesiastically; So he thinks it touches not the popes Ecclesiastick supremacy, and the Informer in this stryks hands with him. For if our Lord discharged only here that kind of Dominion as he sayes; But allowed a Church po­wer or dominion of another nature, surely for anything that is here discharged, ane Ecclesiastick pop or pa­triarch his mytrestands sure, and is never touched by any prohibition which the Disciples here got, against the sense and pleading of all Protestants. Moreover, will this Informer adventur to say that the popes primacy, or ecclesiastick Monarchy, even as abstracted from his civill Dominion, is not here discharged; And if it be [as all our divines assert it is] then our Lord understood another sort of abuse of power then invadeing a Do­minium civile, even all despotick or Lordly power, [Page 81] whither civill, or pretended ecclesiastick in Church offi­cers. Besids, if he discharged Lordly power, he discharg­ed that which Peter discharged 1 Pet. 5. Even to Lord over Gods heritage. What? will he dare to say that it is only a civill Lordship which is there discharged & not ra­ther ane ecclesiastick dominion, Which bath Gods herita­ge or Church for its object: And if so, then the Prelats Do­minion is expresly stricken against, since (as we have a­bove cleared) his power is a meer despotick Lordship or rule; For to be the proper object & fountaine of all ecclesiástick authority in the Diocess, to have sole power in ordination & jurisdiction; the sole decisive suffrage in Judicatories, is either a despotick Dominion and Lordship or it is nothing; and if the Churches power is of another nature then this civill Dominion, as this man tells us, of what nature is it? Only of another nature, because it touches spiritual objects; Then for any thing that is here forbidden, a papall ecclesiastick monarchy is never touched. Or is it of another nature because in it self Steward-like and Ministerial, not despotick or Princely, like that of the Magistrat (which is the sense of all sound divines, and must be his too, if he speak sense) then who sees not that the power of the Prince-or Lord-Prelat is most formally discharged? It being evidently of this nature. Yet againe, it is in this apparent that he shiftes and shuffles the question, and its terms here, anent the power of the Prelat and the po­wer discharged in this text. For in saying in the begin­ning of his Answer, that Christ discharges that kind Dominion of onely which civil Princes exercise, he must needes be supposed to contradistingush from this, ane ecclesiastick Dominion which is allowed, yet when he speaks of this he alters the terms, telling us [that the Churches power is of another nature] he should have said the Churches reserved Dominion, if he had spoken conse­quently, as that other kind of Dominion which he allowes, [Page 82] and by the consequence of his discourse, holds that the Text will allow; In a word, that all sort of [Domi­nion] whither pretended ecclesiastick, or civil, is here discharged to Church officers, and consequently his offering violence to the Text, is apparent from the con­text two wayes. 1. In that the strife among the Apo­les, flowing from this desire of unlawful greatnes, and which drew forth this exhortation and prohibition un­der debate, was not about a civill despotick rule; proper­ly, or onely, but anent a Lordship & chief rule in the Church, and in matters ecclesiastick, under Christ as their head; So that though the Lord exemplified the greatnes which he discharged them, in that of earthly princes, (there being no other then existent and apparent) yet it was not this primarily, but ane ecclesiastick Lordship or domi­nion, which he strycks against; Since he is directing them both negatively and positively anent the nature, And exercise of their spiritual and ecclesiastick Au­thority and Rule. 2. The positive parte of his injun­ction touching a Ministerial service, or humble Ministery, excludes all sort of dominion in what ever sense it can be taken, and not a civill dominion onely. Our Informer tells us, nixt. That sundrie interpreters, interpret Christs words, as discharging only Tyranny, such as earthly Princes ex­ercise. And in this he Informers us right; Onely he should have been so ingenuus as to tell us that they are inter­preters beyond our line, that is popish interpreters, for this is directly Bellarmins shift, to which, since he stands here upon the same ground with him, I shall return learned Whittakers interpretation and answer, which hitherto I believe hath passed current with all sound Protestants. Christ sets before them the example of the Kings of the Gentiles, not to the end they may flie ambition on'y (as this man shifts it) but to let them understand that they have nothing to doe with a kingly rule.—For (saith he) though the words translated [exercise dominion or autho­rity] [Page 83] which Matthew maks use of, doeth sometimes signifie im­moderat dominion, yet Luke Omitts the preposition in both these Words: But so it is that the simple verb, is attribut to these who obtaine power and dominion, not to these who insolently and tyrannically overerule; for all those who among the gentiles ob­tained principality did not reigne tyrannically or unjustly, nay the Clemency of many such, and their justice is praised. Thus he, de pontif: Quest: 1. To which I may add, that our Lord speakes of such Princes as were called Benefacto­ers or gracious Lords, a very unsuiteable designation for Tyrannes.

How easie is it from the Informer reasoning here, and with his net to fish out a papacy. That which the Apostles here desired was in it self lawful, and the fault was onely in the ambitious desire, as it was with diotrephes who desired a lawful preexistent office: This he clearly asserts: I subsum: But that which they desir­ed, and were striving about, was a primacie or papacie, Ergo that office is lawfull in it self. The pope will thank our Informer for this.

The nixt text objected by the doubter, is that preg­nant passage 1 Pet. 5: 3. Be not Lords over Gods heritage. And from this he maks him mutter out this slender ar­gument, [is not superiority among Church men there clearly forbidden.] Still we see our Informer keeps him under the covert of his own groundless supposition, that we doe from this and such like texts Impugne, Su­periority among Church men, as he terms it, whereas wee allow (as he cannot but know) with all sound divines, and scripture it self, superiour and inferiour degrees a­mong Church officers: And he cannot shew that any Presbyterian did ever draw forth from this text such ane insignificant notion as this against Prelacy; But hee beho­ved to make the knot easy, since himself must loose it. Our Argument from this text, is this, That the Apo­stle here injoyneing Ministers their duty [both nega­tivil [Page 84] and positively, he first dehorts from evills they are lyable unto, such as heart reluctancy at their laborius employment, covetusness and usurpation or Lord­ship and Dominion, whither over their fellowes, which Dietrephes affected, or over the people, by taking ane arbitrarie masterly imperious way with them, or a way of force and rigoure, as these reptehended Ezek. 34: 4. He nixt, positively exhortes them to lead or rule in a holy exemplarie, Shepherd-like Method, expres­sing the word of grace in their practise. Now [I say) from this genuine sense and scope of the place, wee argue against Prelacie, thus. 1. The Apostle exhorts these elders or Ministers as their [fellow-elder] suppo­seing them his immediat Successors in the highest Spheere of ane ordinarie Ministery, for he supposes them to have non higher over them now when he was shortly to put off his Tabernacle. 2. He enjoyns them to feed and take the oversight, or exercise Episcopal authoritie over the flock, as Paul did likewayes the Presbyters or elders of Ephe­sus, in his last farewel. (Act. 20.) a scrybing a com­pleat Episcopal authoritie to them, both as to jurisdicti­on and ordination. 3. Yet he discharges any of them to Lord it over Gods heritage, commending instead thereof, ane exemplarie humble service or ministery, Hence wee inferr against the Diocesian Prelat. 1 That there is no higher officer then a Presbyter, left by the A­postles as their ordinary Successor, since the Apostle as their follow Presbiter, exhorts themas the highest or­dinary officers, and therfor the Prelat, pretending to be ane higher ordinary officer, is Apocriphal. 2. All Episcopali authority is in Presbyters, both as to ordi­nation and Jurisdiction, and they have both name and thing of a Scripture Bishop, and therefore the Prelat, ar­rogating this name solely to himself, & all the Episco­pal power of ordinationand Jurisdiction as his solely, and denying it to Presbyters, is ane Anti-scripturall [Page 85] Monster: Since these Presbyters had this in a compleat parity 3. Non of these Elders must exercise a masterly power and dominion over the flocks, therefore the Lord Prelats imperious Lordly power is palpably condemned, which he exercises over both Pastores and flocks. Now, this being our argument from this text, let any man judge of this Informer ingenuity, while representing it in such a disguise, that he may seem able to grapple with it; Whereas we shall find that his answers to his Argument presented thus in its genuine strength, are like the conflict betwixt the giant and pigmee. But what sayes he to the Argument as in his own mould. 1. He answers That superiority among Churchmen is not dis­charged. By [Churchmen] if he understand in General, [Church officers] (though the terme be some what odd) we shall easily Admitt that this Text discharges not superior and inferior degrees among them, but this will nothing help his cause, as is evident. If he mean superiority among preaching Presbyters, or Elders, we have proved it to be here discharged, since the Apostle attri­butes episcopal Authority to these elders in common, and discharges Lordly preheminenc in any of them. Well, what is it that our Informer will admitt to be here discharged? domineering and Tyranny, saith he, which may be the fault of ane ordinary Minister towards his flocke. This is the old popish song made new again, to which I repon two things. 1. The word [...] is parallel with that of Matth. 20. and Luk. 22. Where peter learned the pro­hibition, and (as is said) imports indeed Dominion but no Tyrannical domineering it being made use of by the seventy interpreters to express Dominion unquestionably lawful. 2. The positive parte of the precept refutes this gloss, he sayes not, Not Tyrannically domineering, but using Do­minion moderatly (which ought to have been the other alternative branch, if this mans gloss were true, and the Apostle had allowed a lawfull Lordshipe) but He adds for the other branch in expressing what is injoyned [Page 86] being examples to the slock. Injoyneing thus to feed by ex­ample, and a humble Ministery; And this is opposit to all Dominion and Lordship whatsoever, and doth not discriminat only one Dominion from another; which is also apparent in the alternative branche, and positive precept of the above mentioned paralel texts. Besides we might here tell him, That the Episcopal prehemi­nence, being so many wayes cross to the Scripture rules in pointe of Government, may be truely called a most TyrannicalDomineereing. But the reasons of his gloss follows. He tells us; That this domineering and Tyranny may be the fault of ane ordinary Minister towards his flock, and that the Apostle is not here speaking of Church mens carriage towards one another, or of their equality or inequality among themselves, but of their behaviour towards the people, who are called the flock, or Gods heritage. Ans. This is a strange reason, and very hard to comprehend, only Tyrannical domineere­ing must be understood because it relates only to the flock. Can there not be a Tyrannical domineering over the Clergy also? And because the Apostle forbids to Lord it over the flock, therefore he forbids not Dominion over the Clergy; The quit contrare conclusion will better follow: If the Apostle forbids them to Lord it over the flocks, who were subject to them as their spiritual gui­des, therefore, a fortiori, he much more forbids them to Lord it over their fellow Presbyters, who were their equalls in this Spiritual trust and Authority over the flocks; And if it be unlawful to play the Domineering Prelat over one poor flock, it must be much more un­lawfull to Act this Tyranny over some Hundreds of both pastores and flocks. So that Ministers, or (if he will) Churchmens carriage towards one another, must be here clearly pointed out by a very necessary conse­quence from the less to the greater, and the equality of Ministers in their spiritual Government and Rule, by he same topick strongly inferred from this place. It [Page 87] strange that the Apostle should discharge to Lord it over the flocks, and yer allow a Lordship over both Clergy and flocks. But another wonder is, how he comes to excludMinisters from that tittle of Gods heritage, which his party (from whom our Informer here proves a se­paratist) do often make peculiar unto [Church Ru­lers] one would thinke that they should have a special Interest and share in that which grounds this deno­mination; Are they not the Lords purchase, as well as the people Act. 20. Nay they are in a singu­lar manner such, and Christs glorie; Are they not such as he will never cast off and alienat Psal. 94: 14. They are the starrs which Christ holds in his right hand; nay, as being singularly dedicat to him, they are singularly his: as the Levits had the Lord for their Inheritance in a speciall way; So they were singularly his, set aparte for him beyond all the rest of the tribes. And are not Ministers taken from a­mong the people for his Priests and Levits—And called therefore men of God, stewards of God, Ministers, Servants, Ambassadoures of Christ, because of their singular relation to him: And as this is a strong disswasive from Lording over the people, that they are Gods heritage, who therefore most not be the servants of me [...], So upon the ground of Ministers speciall interest in this denomination, the Apostles argument as to them, is the more forcible. Againe, since he so expresly forbids any of these Pastou­res to Lord it over Gods Heritage (enjoyning them a hum­ble exemplary Ministery) and far less to exercise a Lordly Rule over one another, he establishes by clear consequence (as I hinted) ane equality among them, in their pastoral official power and authority; Withall, the Apostle speaking to them indefinitely in this precept without the least exception and reserve as to any one of them: and making their episcopal inspection relate to the [Page 88] 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 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 [Page 89] 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 [Page 90] 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.

[Page 91] 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 [Page 92] 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 [Page 93] 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 [Page 94] 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 [Page 95] 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, abov [...] [...]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 non­sequitur. 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-

[Page 96] 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 [...]s, we need not determin as to our defence here) an [...] 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 [Page 97] 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 [...]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 [...]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 [Page 98] Church. To answer this Argument, the Insormer hathgathered together several scrapes and some very odd and inconsistent notions. 1. He tells us that Am­brose takes these Bishops, not to be the Bishops at Philippi, but certan Bishops present with Paul when he wrote, & in whose name he writs to the Philippians, joyning them with himself. But this gloss, as it is cross to the current of exposito­res, so to common sense. Paul, who only was the Spirit of Gods penman, joyns here Timothie with him­self in the inscription, as in severall other Epistles, and having taken to himself, and Timothie, the desig­nation of Servants of Christ, he doth nixt after this description of himself and Timothie, according to his usual Methode, describe these to whom he writes, (viz.) [to all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons] viz, there, at Philippi, not with Paul, they being ranked among these to whom he writes, who are contradistinguished from Paul and Timothy, the directors of the Epistle, and supposed to be with these saints at Philipp; Otherwa­yes there is no sense in the Text to read it thus, Paul and Timothius, to the saints at Philippi, with the Bishops with Paul. Had the Apostle joyned them with him­self, as he doth Timothy, in the inscription, they would have been mentioned in that branch of the verse toge­ther with him, and not cast after the adress, and the description of these to whom he writes. The Apostle in Gal. 1. After he hath described and asserted his Apostolick authoritie, he nixt adds, and all the brethren that are with me, to the Churches of Galatia. Thus he takes in many with himself in this inscription, before he describe these, to whom the Epistle is addressed. And should not these supposed eminent Bishops, have been after this manner joyned with him; Besids, will any say that the Deacons, joyned with these Bishops in the period of this verse, were not at Philippi, or [Page 99] 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, [...]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 [Page 100] 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 [Page 101] 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. [Page 102] 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 [...]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 [Page 103] 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 [Page 104] 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 [Page 105] 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 anti­scriptural. 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 [Page 106] 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 [Page 107] (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. [Page 108] 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 esteem [...], 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 [Page 109] 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 Doubter over come by this Informers mighty Answers (forsooth) [Confesseth Episcopacie not to be unlawful, and only pleads that it may become [Page 110] inexpedient, and a better put in its place] Whereupon he promises [That if we will not stand out against light, he will let us see warrand in the word for Bi­shops] and so he may easily doe. But the Bishop he must let us see the warrand for is the Diocesian Erastian Bi­shop, haveing sole power in ordination and jurisdiction, bound to preach to no flock, and deriving all his power from the ci­vil Magistrat. Now, when he hath given us Scripture warrand for such ane ordinary Church-officer, as is of this mould under the new Testament, erit mihi magnus Apollo. Wee see he still walks in darknes as to the State of the Question, and dare not exhibit to us the mould of the present Bishop now existent, when he offers to produce Scripture warrands for him. His 1. Warrand is; that under the old Testament (setting aside the hie Priest who was a Typ of Christ) there was a subordination among the rest of the Priests, mention being made of chief Priests 2 King 19: 2. Ezr: 8: 29. &c. Matth. 2: 3. Act. 19: 14. And over these againe a chief priest under the hiest preist, who only was Typical, since two hie priests are sometimes mentioned, Luc. 3: 2, So there was a subordination among the Levites Exod. 6: 2. Numb. 3: 18, 19. with 24. 30. v. Neh. 11: 22. One is set over the Levites, called by the Greek, Episcopus, and another over the Priests v 14. From all which places he concluds, That subordination among Churchmen is no such odious thing as some believe] Ansr. [...]. If this be all the Conclusion which this man drawes out against us from the premised trite argument of Bellarmin and others, viz. that there is a subordination among Church men, It will never help him, nor wound our cause in the least; for as we grant without the least preiudice thereunto, that there is a subordination, both of Courts and Church-officers under the new Testament, Pastours being above ruleing elders, and they aboue Deacons. Presbyteries also being above Kirk Sessions, Synods above Presbyteries, National [Page 111] assemblies above Synods, as the jewes had there Su­preme Sanhedrin, Exod. 24. 2 Chron 19. And also betwixt the Sanhedrin and Synagogue, a middle Ecclesi­astick Court called [...] the Pre [...]bytery Luk. 22: 66. Act. 22. 5. and also their least Sinagogue-Iudi­catorie, wherein was both ruleing, and censures. Act. 26: 11. Compared with Act. 9: 1, 2. And with Mark. 5▪ 35, 36. Act. 18: 8. Answerable to our Kirk Sessions. which is largely demonstrat by Mr Gillespie, Aar. rod. lib. 1. Cap. 3. pag. 8. to 38. As this (I say) is clear, so it is evident, that it is much more then a meer subor­dination of Courts or officers, which he most prove if he will conclude any thing to purpose against us, viz, The Prelats sole decisive power, and negative voice in judicatories, and their deryvation of all their authority from the Magistrat as his deputs, in their administration. Now, from the subordination of Courts, or officers, mentioned under the old dispensa­tion, to conclude [the lawfulness of a Prelat (a pretend­ed Minister of the new Testament) his taking from o­ther Ministers all the power of Government, contrary to our Lords express command, his laying, aside the preaching Talent, and giving up all the ecclesiastick au­thority which he pretendes unto, to one who is not, Qua talis, so much as a Church member] is a wide and wilde conclusion: yet that this is the conclusion which he must infer to prove his point, is beyond all Question.

2. Giveing, not granting to him that there was un­der the old dispensation such a Hierarchy as he pleades for, and such a difference of degrees among Church officers, as he represents, how will he prove this con­sequence [that the Government of the Church under the New Testament must be thus moulded, and have the same degrees of Ministers, as the Jewes had of Priests and Levits] this Connexion he supposes here, and offers afterward some smatterings in proof there­of, [Page 112] but with what success we shall see with in a little. Will he say that it is lawful to bring into the christian Church every point of the jewish policy? Bilson, ane English Bishop (even in pleading for Prelacie) will give him the lie if he say so, and shew him the dispa­ritie betwixt their Church government and oures: Perp: Gov. Chap. 2. [for the tribe of Levi (saith he) was nei­ther subjected to the Government, of another tribe, nor without manifest confusion could it want all Govern­ment, wherefore as all the rest, so this tribe also had its proper Magistrats, to wit, its, Pinces Elders, judges &c.—He adds, that the Jewes Law contained in the books of Moses, comprehended the mould of their ci­vill Government, and the Priests and Levits being most skilful in this knowledge, we need not wonder that they were placed in the same benches with the judges] (this we offer to our Informers observation, to snew how this Bishop Pulles his care in argueing from the Priests sitting in civill courts numb. 11, To Justifie our Prelats civill rule) but now to our purpose in re­lation to Church government, he adds further [that the offices of the Sanctuarie, and rites and ceremo­nies of the Sacrifices, from which all the other tribes except the Levites were restrained, were not of one kinde; So that it needs be no wonder that these degrees of the administrators were distinguished according to the diversitie of offices and services. But in the Church of Christ, the Word and Sacraments concredited to all Ministers without distinction, as they are of one kinde, neither admitts any difference of administration, or ce­lebration, so neither doe they require different degrees of Ministers] Thus he. Sure had our Informer listened unto this information of this Father of the Church (as he speaks) he would have spared this Argument as not worth the repeating. The Ministry of the Levites who served in the sojourneing Tabernacle, is compared to [Page 113] warrfare Numb. 4. Because of the Militarie order which the Priests and Levits observed in their ex­ternall Ministry. Where there was one common Temple, a common Ministry of the priesthood, a thousand administrators in every family (the twen­ty four families who served each their week in the Temple being called courses by Luke, & stationes by the Talmudists, the term being borrowed from warrfare, as Scaliger observes (in Canonibus isagogicis) it is no stran­ge thing if in this Ministry, and Priesthood, their were such degrees of administrators; but the Priest­stood being changed, there is made of necessity a change of the law, saith the Apostle Hebr. 7: 12. And the policie suitable to the state of that Church must by necessary consequence be changed also.

3. The antecedent of the Argument from that po­licie, will be a harder taske then he imagines, and this Informer would be quite out if put to draw 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 [Page 114] 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 [Page 115] 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 [Page 116] 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.) [Page 117] speaking of the authority and honour of Christs Priest­hood, presentes the legal type thus; Every Hiepriest ta­ken from among men, &c. Yet if we shall consider that Hebr. 10. discoursing of the efficacie of Christs sacri­fice in opposition to the legal, he sayes in the 11, & 12. Ver. And every Priest (simply, not evrie High-priest) standeth dayely ministering & offering the Same sacrifices, which can never take away sin, but his man after he had offered one Sacrifice for sins, &c. It will be evident that the inferiour priests were also Types of Christ. So that he should either have taken in the High priest into his ar­gument, or excluded together with him, the inferiour priestes upon the same ground. For majus & minus non variant speciem rei. If he say that he is not speaking of their Sacrifices, but of their Government, which was not typical. Answ. Why might he not then have taken in the High-priest upon this ground, since these are as well distinguishable in him, as in the inferiour Priests? So that he might have been excluded from having any thing to do with the Type in pointe of his government as well as they. And for his single eminencie, it drew along with it those degrees of inferiour priests and Levits, (in his principles) which are mentioned­so that if the one must evanish as a Type, in the same manner must the other. 3. It will much puzele this Informer to prove, that the Highe priest in respect of his government was a Type of Christ; Sure he will find this denyed by his fellow brother in the cause, Tilen in his Parenes: (Cap. 2) in summo Sacerdote ceu pontifice, non typi so­lum sed [...] ratio conspicua &—[In the highpriest, the type is not only conspicuous, but the reason of order, for he bore not a type or resemblance of Christ in res­spect of the Kingely and judiciary power which Christ hath, who otherwayes should haue had the dignitie, both according to the order of Aaron, and the order of Melchisedeck, that is, both of a King and a priest.] [Page 118] Iunius, a greater then he, (de Pontif. lib. 1. cap. 6.) di­stinguishes these in the Highpriest.—in summo Sacerdote consideranda, non solummodo ratio typi, sed etiam ordinis & politiae,—[We must consider in the High priest not only the reason of the type, but like wayes of order and policie, &c.] then he addes the abovemen­tioned: reason; So that in this argument, and his way of pleading for prelacie upon the ground of the Jewish policies. He will of necessity introduce a pope into the Christian Church: Which will be convincingly clear, If we shal in the 4t. place consider, that our Informer in this argument hauing set aside the High priest, as onely typical, tells us of another single Chief and High priest under him, and tels us in answer to the premised objection, that this method of the Jewish government (with this Chief or high priest; distinct from the typical priest) is exemplarlie pointed out to Christians as Gods patterne for mod­deling the gospel-Church government. So that without all shaddow of evasion his argument pleads for a chief pa­triarch over the Christian Church, as being a parte of the Jewish policie oblidging us, and exemplarly com­mended to us for our imitation. Moreover, I would know what he would say, If one should plead for re­taining of all the judicial lawes of the Jewes upon his two grounds. 1. As not being typical. 2. As being Gods excellent means for order and union, and com­mended exemplarly unto Christians to the same end, what better patern for modelling our government and lawes then this patern? Likewayes will he say that every peece of the Jewish antiquated pedagogie was properly typical: And that we are bound to reteane as of a moral perpetual nature whatsoever thing in their policie was not such. Surely there were many things depending upon the particular exigences, and state of that people, both as a Church under that old dispensation, and as a Commonwealth regular in its [Page 119] civil Lawes immediatly by God, which no found divines doe call Typical, and yet doe hold that they oblidge no Church or state under the New Te­stament.

For a conclusion of this argument, I shall tell this Informer that he grossly mistaks these Scripture expres­sions (at least in the judgment of some learned) anent the Chief Priests 2. King. 19: 2. &c. When taking them to denot different ecclesiastick degrees among the priests in their spiritual function: these chiefness (to speak so) or principality among the priests, being meaned of a civil principality existent in that Tribe before the priesthood was therein established: and that they were called Chief-priests, or Elders of the priests, did flow from this that this Trybe (subject to the same Princes as at the first) was afterward set apart for the priesthood, for Aaron and his Soones were chosen to be priests Exod. 28. but the whole. Tribe was not assu­med unto the priesthood before Numb. 1. Yet in the meane while the tribe of Levie (Exod. 6.) had the Heads of their families & their Princes. The Scripture then speaking of the tribe of Levie as a Tribe simply, a­scribes to it the same policie with the rest of the tribes, & Princes of the several families by the right of primo­genitur: Thus both priests and Levits had their chiefe men and presidents. But as a Tribe separat to holy things, it had its peculiar policie. One was chief priest onely by Gods appointment, at whose hand all the rest of the priests were. 1 Chron. 24: 24. And at the hands of the priests were the interior Levites, in their several servi­ces. David in distributing them in their several Temple offices, did not set the Princes over them as such, but onely having numbered them after the Heads of their families, and by their lotts or Courses, did assigne to them their service of the Temple, upon Gods command by the mouth of Gad and Nathan, the more [Page 120] to facilitat this Sacerdotal tribe, their comeing unto, and returneing from the Temple. The Chief of the families then, are not upon this ground Princes or Chief as to the Holy Ministerie; for there was but one onely high priest, all the rest as well the heads, as the families themselves, were at the hand of the highpriest in the Ministery of the House of the Lord, 1 Chron. 24: 19. Where the Chief or head in matters sacred, had no more power then the wholl body. So was it in the di­stribution of the Levits into their several classes by their Heads Chap. 23: 27, that they might beat the hands of the Sons of Aaron in the Temple Ministery. So that none of his citations doe amount to any proof of his fancied degrees and subordination among either the priests or Levits in their spiritual functions, or any other waye then in their civil capacitie as a Tribe; neither had the two high priests (mentioned Luc. 3.) The least warrand in Gods institution, but this is acknowledged to be a corruption in their Government then creept in a­mong other corruptions: and since he drawes his first instance of the Levits subordination from Exod 6. before that tribe was set apart at all to the Holy Ministe­ry, that passage at least, and (as I said, in the judg­ment of some) its parallels also aftermentioned by him, doe speak of the Civil Government and subordi nation of the Levites in that capacitie; and that any of their Chief rulers are by the Greeks termed Episcopus, is a very poor argument to conclude their Ecclesiastick rule, it being notourly known that the best Greek Au­thores put his designation upon Civil Governoures.

This subordination among the Levites in Exod. 6: 15. is unquestionably civil upon the ground assigned. And numb. 3. It is evident that the heads and princes of Families are numbered. And accordingly the heads and Chief of the families, 1 Chron. 24. and in Neh: 11: 14. He that is set over the priests, is the son of one [Page 121] of the great men (Haggedolim), or eminent in paris and place as many take it. 1 Chron. 24: 4. before the division and order is set down, its said, there were more Chief men found of the sones of Eleazar, then of the so­nes of [...]thamar, &c. all which doth much plead for­this assertion, but we need not be peremptor in pres­sing this, since the weight of our answer lies not upon it.

Our Informer comes nixt to his New Testament proofes for Bishops and produces first, the superiority of the twel­ve Apostles above the seventy Disciples. Where 1. Wee see, He is still in the clouds of a general superiority, which is farr from the Prince-like Arbitrary, and Era­stian superioritie of the Diocesian Prelat now existent, and whom he undertakes to plead for, which this Informer (Had he intended to have informed right) should have condescended upon. Had the Apostles such a superioritie over the seventy Disciples? Were they subject to the Apostles as their Rectors and judges? Did the Apostles (as our Prelats) assume a Sole De­cisive, conclusive suffrage, and a negative voice over Church Judicatories, notwithstanding of their extra­ordinary and high prerogatives? Did we not see the contrary exemplified in that meeting of Apostles with ordinary Ministers, Act. 15? Had the seventy onely a derived precarius Ministry under the twelve Apostles, as their Vicars & Substitutes in their Mini­stration? Had they no Interest in the Church-Go­vernment but upon the Apostles meer pleasure. As Curats are now in all these respects subject to their Pre­lats? Had not the seventy their mission, their insti­tution, immediatly from Christ as well as the Apostles themselves? Were they not consequently to exercise their Ministery upon this ground, without such a servil dependance upon the twelve as Prelats doe arrogat to themselves ane arbitrary principality over Ministers? [Page 122] Were the twelve to rule only, and to committ the preaching worke to the seventy as their deputes, as our Prelats now doe? Or were they not rather to help forward the great harvest, and the work of the Mini­stery, together with the Apostles themselves? So that this Informer will never find the least shaddow of ane Episcopall superiority here. But 2. Granting that the Apostles were officers in asuperiour degree to the se­venty, which is the utmost Conclusion which he can draw from Scripture, how will this infer a supe­riority among officers of the same degree. We grant the Apostles were superior to Evangelists, they againe to Pastoures, Ergo, one Pastour may be a diocesian Prelat over hunderds of other Pastours, is a consequence known to no logick. Christ appointed both extra­ordinary, and ordinarie officers in their severall de­grees, as Apostles, Evangelists, Pastours: Ergo, he appointed different degrees of Pastours, hath no con­nexion imaginable. 3. Tht basis of his argument lyes in this [that the Prelats are immediat successours of the Apostles in their degree of superiority to the seventy Disciples, and Pastours come after the seventy in their supposed subjection, and are not the Apostles immediat successours in the ordinary Ministery] but this, as the [...], the quesitum or question, must be proved, not begged and supposed by him. We did already evince the contrary, viz, That the Pastour to whom is committed the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments, and both the keys, immediatly from the Apostles, are the highest ordinary officers, and the Apostles immediat successorus as to both order and Jurisdictione. But the doubter and I object furder [that the Apostles superioritie over the seventie, was extraordinary, personall, temporarie, and to cease with themselves.] In answer to this, He grants that in some things their priviledges were extraordi­nary, [Page 123] and to cease with themselves, such as their immediat cas. ling, their sending to all nations their infallibility, gifts of tongues, or whatever was necessary for the first founding of the obristian Ch [...]rch. but in other things wherein they were supe­rior to other Ministers, their power was not extraordinary and temporarie, but still to be continued, such as ordination of Ministers, and governeing them by ecclesiastick authority; in which power the Bishops succeeds them, who are [the children in stead of the Fathers] as Augustin applies that of Psal. 45, v. 19. Ans. 1. Then it seems that with him the Episcopal office properly succeeds to that of the Apost­les, and is a continuation of their power in ordina­tion and jurisdiction over Pastours, which contra­dicts his second answer to our Argument from Ephes. 4 viz [that Bishops in that place may be comprehend­ed under the the office of Pastours & teachers] For here he makes their office the same with that of the Apostles as importing ane authority in ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors and teachers, and so he should have said rather that it is comprehended under the Apostolick office 2. He yet againe contradicts himself in this answer whill granting [that whatsoever was necessary for the first planting of the Christian Church is a privi­ledge ceased with the Apostles] and yet making their power of ordination of Ministers, and in governing them, to be still necessary, he must understand it as performed and done by them, since therein he imagins the pattern of episcopall power to ly: For other wayes the Presby­terians doe hold and prove that ordination by the Presbytery, and Government by Presbyters collegiatly, is still continued and necessarie; This he will not allow, and so must understand it of the manner wherein the Apostles performed this at first. Now I say, their Apostolick power in ordination and Government as exercised by them at first, was necessarie for the first founding of the Church. For 1. Their power of or­dination [Page 124] was of equal limits and extent with their mis­sion to all nations—Goe disciple all nations, I hope he will grant was extraordinary, as being necessary for the first founding of the churches, Ergo, say I. so was their power in ordination and Government of Ministers, since it was of a like nature, and of the same extent; for to what ever nations they were sent together a Church therein, there they were to ordaine Ministers, & governe them by ecclesiastick Discipline, which he makes to be the Bishops office. 2. Their sole power in ordi­nation and Government, here supposed, by him, did certainly presuppose the Christian Church in fieri, where­of they were to be founders. First They were, as Christs immediat extraordinary Ambassadours, to convert and bring in Churches, then to plant officers, & the Gospel Government in them; Now, who will say but this power was necessary for the first planting of the Churches, and so comes under the Character of these things which this man acknowledges to be expired: Surely where no other officers were to concurre, the Apostles of ne­cessity behooved to ordaine solely, and their Aposto­lick Inspection over them did necessarly depend upon, and flow from, their Apostolick extraordinary mission and infalibilitie, So that this power in so fare as Episcopall like, was indispensibly needful for the first founding of the Churches and consequently must be expired by his own confession, the nature and exercise of this power sup­poseing, and requiring their peculiar mission, infalli­bilitie, and gifts of tongues, which are acknowled­ged by this man to be expired privileges, necessary ry onely at that time. Moreover, the Apostles power in ordination and government did include extraordi­nary miraculous rodes and censurs, & a power in coer­ceing the rebellious, thus Peter stroke Ananias and Sapphira dead for their lying which was a fearful A­postolick Censure, put forth by his Apostolick [Page 125] 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 [Page 126] 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 Church­officers 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 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 A [...]gument; of the acknowledged extraordi­nary function of Tymothy and Titus, which is abundant­ly [Page 128] cleared by many, from their unfixed motion and of­ficiating, their occasional transient imployment in these places, Paules actual revocation of them both there from, the condition of these Churches, as being but in fieri as to their organick settlement and constitution: Particularly, that their power in ordination and Juris­diction was not episcopall, I prove from these grounds. 1. In Churches already constitut, this Authority was not solely resident in Tymothy and Titus Falluntur, qui putant (saith Calvin, Instit: lib: 4. Cap. 3.) &c. that is, ‘they are mistaken who judge either Timothy at Ephesus or Titus at crete to have exercised any impite or Dominion to dispose of things each at his own pleasure, they were set over the people (no word of their being set over Ministers) to go before them in good and wholsome Counsells in relation to the placeing of Ministers, not that they might doe as they pleased excluding others.’ Since Paul himself neither imposed hands nor did excommunicat alone, and since (as I said above) a wholl colledge or Pres­bytery of Apostles acted nothing pro imperio, but in Churches constitut had elders going along with them in all that Sinodal procedour Act 15. Farrless would Timothy and Titus assume this episcopal preheminence, who were inferiour to any of the Apostles, therefore their power in this was not episcopall. 2. That autho­ritie which was intrusted to the elders and Ministers in commone, /was not intrusted to any one officer, such as Timothie; But so it is that after the Church of Ephesus was exedified and compleated in its organick being, and after Timothy had gotten his charge as to ordination and Jurisdiction in Ephesus, Paul committed ‘the wholl episcopal power to the elders (as is said) before’ Timothies face in his last farewell, Act. 20. there­fore he intrusted him with no episcopall preheminence in or over that Church when compleated in its organick being. 3. They whose power stands so circumstantiat [Page 127] 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 Ile 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, ha­v [...]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 [Page 128] 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 [Page 129] commandes to intreat elders as Fathers. 4. To Honour them doubly that rule well, therefore he was not to be a Father over these elders 5. That he had his gift by the laying one of the hands of the presbysery, which could not be ane episcopall function. 6. That Paul appointes him to re­side there only untill his owne return from Macedonia, to instruct the people for someshorte time until he came to him againe 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15.—7. That assoone as Paul came from Macedonia to Ephesus, he sent Ti­mothie into Achaia, himself staying at Ephesus and Asia for a season. Act. 19. 22. to 40. v. and from then­ce he returned to Macedonia, and through it unto Asia, accompanied with Timothy and others, after which we never read that he returned to Ephesus. 8. That Timothie was sent to many churches to confirme and strengthen them, as, to Macedonia Act. 19. 22. To Thessalonica. 1. Thess. 1. 2. 3. To philippi. chap. 2. 19. 20. but never to Ephesus after his first departure. 9. That though he is joyned with Paul in the Inscription of some Epistles. Collos. 1. philip. 1. and frequent mention is made of him in the epistles to severall Churches, 1. Cor. 4. 17. Philip. 2. 19. 20. 1. Thess. 3. 2. 6. Hebr. 13. 23. Yet there is [altum silentium] of him in the Epi­stles to the Ephesians, his own supposed diocess. 10. That Paul laid hands upon the disciples who were ordained in that church after his supposed episcopacie. That as Ti­mothie was sent to confirme. Instruct and Comfort other Churches, as Philippi, Troas. So Paul writes to him. 2 Tim. 4. 12. that Tychicus was for this same end. sent to Ephesus: and that he wrote the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians from Rome, whom the Apostle (chap. 6. 21. v. of the Epistle directed to that church) sent to them as a faith full Minister, who therefore lookes liker their Bishop then Timothie. That the same is supposa­ble of Titus is also apparent, both in that he is called (as Timothy), not Bishop, but Pauls fellow helper, and [Page 130] that concerning the Corinthians, not the Cretians, and like­wayes in that he is imployed to the church in corinth, after he was left by Paul at crete, as his fellow helper in that church, 2. Cor. 2. 13. and was fixed to no one place of residence. That being charged to come to Paul at Nicopolis, his stay is found very short at Crete, so that after half a years residence there he was sent to Corinth and Dalmatia &c.

But the Doubter acknowledging [Timothy and Ti­tus, their power over Ministers at Ephesus and crete, since they are taught how to ordaine them, what qua­lifications are requisite, how to proceed in their tryalls and censures, alledges that this they had, ‘as evange­lists & companiones to the Apostles in their laboures and as appointed to settle and water these Churches which they had planted.]’ In what respect these things are attribute to these Church officers, will be after exa­mined, when we shall consider how our informer pleads for their episcopall power upon these grounds. But to this exception of the Doubter, he answers ‘That this supposes them to be extraordinarie officers, whose office was not to continue in the Church. And the Doubter affirmeing this.’ [Because Timothy is cal­led ane Evangelist 2. Tim. 4. 5. and that therefore he could not be a Bishop] To this our Informer Rejoynes ‘That in a large sense, he was ane Evangelist or a pre­acher of the gospell, but that he was ane Evangelist in astrict sense, can no mor be proved from that scripture; then that he was a deacon: Because the Apostle in that same place sayes, fulfill thy deaconship, as the Greek signifies. Or that Philip was ane extraordina­ry evangelist, because he is called ane evangelist Act. 2. 8. for he was a deacon Act. 6. and Act. 8. 5. did preach the gospell, but was not therefore one of these extraordinary evangelists whose office was to cease in the Church. And Finallie, He tells us that ordination and jurisdiction is properly no worke of ane Evange­list’ [Page 131] but rather preaching and spreading the gospell] Ans. 1. This man casts up but a mist of Insignificant words in this distinction, whereby he endeavoures to elude so clear a scripture. Timothies Evangelistick offi­ce, wee see, is a gripping argument which our Informer would faine Elude, but with what success shall pre­sently appear. He grantes he was ane Evangelist in a large sense or a preacher, but not in the strict sense, but what that strict sense is, in which he denyes Timo­thy to be ane Evangelist, he doth not clear, and so his strict sense is left without sense, and his distinction must flie with one wing. He knew that his assigneing ane explication of his strict sense, would have so palpa­bly included Timothy, that his evasion would be presently shut up: therefore he left the other branch of his distinction, a meer mute under the clouds, and gi­ves us a distinction which stands upon one leg. 2. If he will take Eusebius sense (Hist. lib. 3. cap. 33. o [...] 37. with some) he will tell him [that this title is taken but two wayes, either for such as wrote the Gospel, (in which sence we grant that none of them were Evan­gelists, or such as taught the Gospel, and these agai­ne were either such as had ordinary places or gifts, or whose plaees and giftes were extraordinary, that is, who were not settled upon any one char­ge, but were Apostolorum vice, having a vicarius care of all the Churches, as the Apostles had the princi­pal care.] The Evangelists (as Ambrose phrases it) did Evangelizar sine Cathedra, or preached without a fix­ed charge. Here, by the way I cannot but admire the inconsistant subtilty (may I call it so) of Saravia (de divers. grand. minist. cap. 6.) who, in answer to Beza, pleading [that the appellation of Evangelist is given not to every on who preached, but to the Apostles tem­porary coadjutors in watring the Churches, not yet ful­ly constitut &c.] tells him that Apostolus nunquam Ti­motheum—Euangelistae nomine compellat. That the Apo­stle [Page 132] no where puts the Title of Evangelist upon Timothy, and that this title was given to none but Philip. Yet immedi­atly addes-Evangelistae nomen non nego Timotheo, quem Pau­lus Evangelistae [...]pus sacere jubet, I deny not the name of Evan­gelist to Timothy, whom the Apostle bides, do the work of ane Evangelist. If he deny not this name to him and the thing therein imported, how can he quanel the Apostles not putting this title upon him, or deny him the title, and the peculiar office therein imported. Calvin takes the word hereto Import that special extra­ordinary office mentioned. Ephes. 4. Now that Ti­mothy was such ane Evangelist, is already fully pro­ved and by consequence that the objection stands un­touched and unanswered by him. viz. That he was ane unfixed extraordinarie officer, and not to continue, and there­fore any authority which he is supposed to have over this Church, layes no foundation of Prelacie. For he sayes nothing to this consequence, but admitts it upon the supposition that Timothy was ane Evangelist in a strict sense, and ane extraordinary officer. Cartwright answering the Rhe­mises upon this place, takes it in the strict sense menti­oned, telling the Jesuites that Paules calling Timothy once ane Evangelist, hath more pith in it then all denomi­nations of Pishop that others can give him.

3. The Informers reason of denying the special office of Evangelist to be here imported, viz That he might be as well called a Deacon, as being enjoyned to fulfull his Miuistery or Deaconship in the Greek, is very poor. For 1. It being clear that the Scripture holdes out such ane office as that of Evangelist, specifically distinct fromother offices. Ephes. 4. (as this man acknowledges) and it being equally cer­tain that this or any other office and relation hath a work and dutie proper andpeculiar therunto and likewayes that the office layes ane obligation upon the person who carryes it, to perform the duties thereof. And Finallie. Jt being evidently the Apostles Scope, from the consideration of the office, to exhort to the duties suitable thereunto, its de­strable [Page 133] by its own light that Timothy is here stirred up to the duties of that peculiar station & office which we have proved he sustained; & thereforit cannot be under­stood of a general Ministery or service. Will any doubt what the sense of such phrases is, [do thework of a parent] [do the work of a Master] [do the work of a Pastour] who knowes what the office and relation of a parent, master, and Minister is, and that this phrase importes, this precept enjoynes the duties proper to such relations and offices. So the case is here, which none will doubt of but this Informer who starts needles doubts, when he cannot answer his presbyterian Doubter. 2. The Deacons office haveing in Scripture its limites drawn, the circumstances of the place where the word Diaconia stands, discovers when we are to take it in a ge­nerall sense, and when this inferiour officer is pointed out. So it were absurd when Archippus is bidden fullfill his Ministery, or when the Apostle calls himself a Mini­ster, to imagine that the proper formall office of Deacon is ascribed to the one or the other: But the service there meaned is ane Apostolicall and Pastorall service, not the service of Tables. Now, fulfill, or make full proofe of thy Ministery (as our Translatores doe weill render it, give­ing the deacon a peculiar Inglish terme according to the greek sound of the word to avoide confusion) is exige­ticall▪ the Ministery he is to fulfill, is his Evangelistick Ministery, the latter expounds the former, so that in the very phrase it self, the evangelistick office is asserted and the deaconship denyed. The phrafe of Evangelist, & espe­cially the workof ane Evangelist, determins his peculiar of­fice; there being no other Evangelists in the scripture sen­se, but either those that wrote or published the gospell in that extraordinary way, and Timothy being clearly one of such, it must needs import the Evangelist in a pe­culiar sense, and is distinct from the generall phrase of Ministery in the latter branch of the words, which stands limited and restricted by the first part as Isaid. [Page 134] 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 [...]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 th [...] fi [...] r [...]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 [...]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 [...]yond all question speak o [...] the Evangelist in a strict and proper sense, h [...] (I pray) & why doth it change its signification here? Extraordinary [Page 135] 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 ac­knowle [...] h [...] 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 [Page 136] 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 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 [Page 137] 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 [Page 138] 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 [Page 139] 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 [Page 140] 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 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 & diac [...]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 fort. 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 [Page 151] principis aut civitatis publica. And [de [...]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 [Page 142] 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 t [...]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 [Page 143] 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 epi [...]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 to him, but also the wholl Episcopal charge, [...], to feed and rule as the Ho­ly Ghosts Bishops set over the same, which com­prehends both ordination and jurisdiction. But what sayes he to this Argument. 1: It may be he was not [...]et settled Bishop as Gerard thinks. But sure he had all the [...] as Bishop which the first Epistle afoords him, from which this man derives his Episcopacy, and po­wer in ordination and jurisdiction: and if, for all these, [...]ur Informer will grant that he might have been not [...]s yet Bishop, but ane Evangelist. Then 1. he must [Page 144] acknowledge that all his pleading for his Episcopac in the nixt pages, from the power he is supposed [...] have in the first epistle, is but a beating of the aire an impertinent, since it might be Antecedaneous to h [...] Episcopacie: and by the Informers confession, he mig [...] have had yet no more Episcopal relation to the Church, then any who was never Bishop there. Henc [...] 2. Not being yet Bishop, but ane Evangelist still, (a [...] Gerard takes him) in a traveling posture up and down with the Apostle (as also Bishop Hall, Downam and Hoo­ker acknowledge him) I wonder how this man wil sustean his denyal, that he was ane Evangelist in the proper and strict sense, such as his was. Sure, if this his suppositi­on, or [may be] will hold good, timothies office, as suc [...] ane Evangelist, was to cease in the Church, as he expresseth it, and Pauls bidding him doe the work of ane Evangelist sufficiently Unbishops him at least pro tunc, which notwithstanding we heard him deny. 2. He tell us] ‘that Irenaeus who lived not long after the Apostles thinks there were Asian Bishops mingled with the el­ders of Ephesus, and with Timothie their Bishop to whom in common Paul made that exhortation comprehending the [Bishops] under the name of [el­ders] as Apostles were sometymes called] Ans.’ We may be much in love with this scripture in the pre­sent debate, since it forces adversaries upon such sim­ple incoherent shifts. First, it may be he was not yet made Bishop—then least that concession prove too grip­ping, there must be other Bishops of Asia, minglcd with these elders, and Timothie of necessitie must be now▪ Bishop, or hardly well after, and their own Bishop and the extraneous ones, must be all shuffled up unde the name of elders, and exhorted in common, a he shifts the argument from Philip. 1. But th [...] text it self sufficiently discovers the folly of this poo [...] shift. For 1. Paul called the elders from Ephesus, an [...] [Page 145] the elders of the Church there, not imaginary elders or Bishops from other places. 2. He sent for the elders of the Church, in the singular number, not of the Churches, and so all he sent for had a particular relation to that Church, for had there been elders of other Churches there, It would have been expressed elders of the Chur­ches: If other elders or Bishops of Asia had been there, they would have receaved the Scripture deno­mination of provincial Churches, which are expressed in the plural. So we read of Churches of Asia, Revel. 1: II. Churches of Iudea Gal. 1: 22. Next, This answer still sup­poses [The existence of the diocesian Bishop over Pres­byters at that time] which is a poor begging of the que­stion. Wee prove from this and such like texts, that the Bishops of Asia, and Ephesus were meer Pastours, who had in Common the Epicopal charge over the Church, and that the Holy Ghost set up these, and none else. Infine, This is but a meer shift in the Iudgment of Chrysostom, Hierom, Theodoret, and the Current of In­terpreters, who take these elders for meer Presbyters, and is contrare to the Syriack translation, which reads it, Pres­byteros ecclesiae Ephesinae. So the Concilium Aquisgra­vense.

But now comes his proofe of Timothie, and Titus, their Episcopacie from these Epistles. His first Reason in general, is That in these Epistles more fully then any where else in the new Testament, Paul gives direction to Timothie and Ti­tus how to carry in ordination and jurisdiction, which Two comprehends the Episcopall office. Ans. 1. With him there is a possibilitie, or may be, that forall these directions, Timo­thy and Titus were evangelists still, and not yet Bishops; and so these directions might be given to them as extra­ordinary officers, who, according to him, were to cease, and consequently though comprehensive of the Episcopal office, yet the office might cease with their persons as exercised in that manner, and the power of ordination [Page 146] and jurisdiction be deryved to different recipients, to be exercised in another maner, (viz) by presbyters in com­mon. 2. By what consequence will he infer ane Epis­copall authority and inspection, from the Apostles prescri­bing rules to them anent ordination and jurisdiction? May not all Ministers be herin directed, as well as Timothy and Titus? or will his giving directions to them in this poynt infer their sole and singular authority therein? Surely not at all in Churches constitute: and as for what they did in the frameing and constitution of Churches yet in fieri, as to their organick being, is not to the pur­pose. 3. We did shew above that the prelats power, and their way as to ordination and jurisdiction, is in its very nature, different from that which either Apostle or E­vangilist exercised, as being a dominion and arbitrary po­wer, yea including in it a civil dominion, and derived from the civil Magistrat. None of which can be said of any authority which Timothy and Titus are here sup­posed to have: In a word, as it is clear that the elders of Ephesus, at Paul's last farewell, were intrusted with the whole power of ordination, and jurisdiction, and as the Episcopi were commanded [...], to feed and ru­le with out any respect to Timothy: which clearly de­monstrats that he (and consequenly Titus) had no E­piscopal power of ordination and jurisdiction, over these Churches, established in their persons, by any prescrip­tions here delivered; So it is as evident that the same prescriptions might be delivered to any Moderator of a Synod, or vnto a transiently visiting Minister, though even in relation to a province, which being necessarly to be understod Salvo jure Ecclesiae, would import no E­piscopall or sole authority, and thus the case is here.

But what were these directions importing this power? He instances 1. [In the qualifications which they must require in such as were to be ordained-not suddenly to lay on hands, which respects ordination, next, the rules anent government, how to re­buke [Page 147] offenders, not to receave ane accusation, but before two or three witnesses, how to deal with heretikes, &c. Ans. 1. These Apostolik directions in point of Government, are good & excellent, but how doth he prove that the adres­sing of these directions, to Timothie, will infer his Sole and single authority in all these, so as to seclude Presbyters from their share therein? And if he prove not this, it will say nothing to evince ane Episcopal authority. What if such directions were adressed to a Moderator? would that infer his Authoritie over the Synod? Nay, since a Presbytry laid on hand's upon Timothy himself, Since the Presbyters of this Church of Ephesus, had the Episcopal power in Common, committed to them as the Holy Ghosts Bishops, Since the Corinth-Pres­bytery did excommunicat the incestuous, we may cle­arly infer, that these directions, though immediatly ad­dressed to Timothy, yet belonged to Presbyters of that and Other Churches, as well as him. 2. Supposing that this adress will give him a speciall Interest herein, yet how will the Informer prove that it respects Timo­thy any other way, and in any other Capacity, then of ane Euangelist, which he sayes it might be, he yet was, and not a Bishop? He dissallowes not of Gerards opi­nion, who sayes, that he was not yet made Bishop; Now, if these Rules were to be observed by him, and this his supposed singular Authority exercised [as ane Evange­list, whose office was to cease,] It will plead nothing for the Episcopal power. Surely upon our supposition, that he was a fellow-helper and assistant of Paul, in his Apostolik function, and had a transient occasional Imployment here, as is clearely held out in the Text, these rules are very suitable unto him in that capacity. Besids, these Directions are for instruction of every man of God, or Minister, in point of Church-Govern­ment 2. Tim. 3: 16. 1 Tim. 4. 6: But doth not give them Episopal power. Or will he say that every man [Page 148] hath the formal office, or place, in the nature whereof he is instructed? The dedication of a book to a man anent rules of kingly Government will not make the man, or suppose him, either King or Governour.

In the 3d. place. As to these Directions themselves, particularly as to Timothies direction, as to laying on of hands, 'tis Answered, that laying on of hands in ordination, is found in Scripture a Presbyterial Acte competent to meer Presbyters, which (as I said) they exercised upon Timo­thy himself, though Paul was present, 1 Tim 4: 14. 2 Tim. 1. 5. And therefor Timothy could have no single, or Episcopal authority therein in Churches Constitute So that the precept directs Presbyters as well as him in that point. Nay, this addressed direction mainly respected them, as the proper subject of this power, and the Presbytery received their lesson here (not to lay on hands suddenly) rather then Timothy. Nixt, As for his Authority and directions anent rebuking and Censures. I an­sw. That neither can this be Timothy's sole preroga­tive, for either it is meaned of a Privat rebuke, and this every Christian hath authority in: ‘Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.’ Levit. 19: 17. Prov. 9: 8. Or of a ministerial re­buke: and this is competent to every Minister of the word, Isa. 58: 1. 2 Tim. 41, 2. Ti [...]. 1: 13. 2; Sam. 12: 8. And besides, Institutions and reproofs of Church officers, will not prove a fixed Episcopal power. Pro­phets rebuked, but had no jurisdiction over Priests, nor Paul over Peter, though he reproved him. As for that which he particularly mentions about receiving ane accusation against ane Elder, It is answered. That this also belongs to the official juridical power of Elders, since Ruling & Government attribute to them in Scripture, doth necessarily import ane authority to receive accu­sations, and correct delinquents by reproofs and cen­sures, Matth. 8: 16. 17. There is ane accusation to be de­lated [Page 149] ecclesiae, to the Church, or the juridical Court, not to one Prelat, as is above cleared; and therefore the direction anent the receiving of the accusation, respects them who were to judge upon it, and not the Prelat. Com­pare this with 1 Cor. 5: 4, 5. The Presbyters must meet together to rebuke the Incestuous there and they that are Spiritual must restore the delinquent, Gal. 6: 1. The Church officers, or Ministers of Thessalonica must note and admonish authoritatively the disobedient Brother, 2 Thess. 3: 14, 15. To which I may add, that as upon the one hand Timothy is forbidden to rebuke ane el­der, and positively enjoyned [doubly to honour them, when faithful] So, the receiving ane accusation, is no more then that which every privat Christian and Minister is ca­pable of, even against the superiour, whither in state, or age, in relation to admonition, Counsel or Comfort accordingly. Levit. 19: 17. Gal. 6: 1, 2 Joh. 10, 11. None in whatever capacity are exeemed from this pre­cept, not to receive accusations lightly. Hence the 4th. Council of Carthage (cited by Blond. Apol. Sect. 4) enacted That no Bishop should hear ane accusation without the Clergie, and that without their assent, the sentence should be voyd. where was the negative voyce here. Whittaker, thus answers the Popish pleading upon this text, and our Informers too (controv. 4. Quest. 1. Cap. 2.) ‘That Timothy is commanded not rashly to receive ane ac­cusation, proves not that he had dominion over El­ders, which according to the Apostles minde is to bring a crime to the Church, to bring the guilty into judgement, openly to reprove, which not only superiors may doe, but also equals and inferiors. In the Roman Republick, the Kings did not only judge the people, but also the Senators and patricii; and certainly it seems not that Timothy had such a [...] ­sistory and Court as was afterward appointed to Bi­shops in the Church, what this authority was may be [Page 150] understood by that which followes, [those that sin re­buke before all], which equals also may doe. Thus bishops heretofore, if any elder or Bishop had ane ill report, referred it to the eeclesiastick Senat or, Synod, and condemned him if he seemed worthy, by a publick judgement, that is, did either suspend, excommunicat, or remove him, the Bishop condem­neing nocent elders or deacons, not by his authority a­lone, but with the judgment of the Church and clergie’—& in case of appeals, even to the Metropolitan he could doe nothing without the Synod & what they did was rati­fied. The same is the answer of Bucer de vt & usu, Sacr. Mi­nister: Willet. Sinops. Papis Contr. 5, Ques. 3▪ part 3, In the appeudix Eucer. de Gub. pag. 300. to 398.

The Informer tells us in the next place that ‘these directions concern after, ages and are of ordinary use: and therefore they cannot be extraordinary officers in these Acts—that in calling Timothy and Titus, extraordinary officers in these Acts, we lead the way to their errour, who call ordination and juris­diction, extraordinary.’ Answ. As we have proved, that none of these directions will infer in Timothy ane Episcopal Power properly such, but that any power he had above Presbyters; was by his special Evange­listick Legation, so the concernment of after ages in these directions, and their being of constant use, is a piti­ful argument to prove the continuanc of the power in that manner. Are not all the old Testament pre­cepts anent the antiquated ceremonies, all the acts & directions given to extraordinary officers, both un­der the Old and New Testament, of perpetual use in after ages? But are they therefore to be imitated and retained? What will he say to the Papists, pleading for the anoin­ [...] of the sick upon the Apostle James his precept [let the elders anoint the sicke with oile, and pary] this is ane Act enjoyned to ordinary officers, viz, to el­ders, [Page 151] and joyned with with prayer, a constant stand­ing dutie: and he will not say that this Apostolick precept is to be ex punged as useles. What? must we therefore retean anointing? would he not in this case distinguish betwixt that which is a constant dutie, and a temporarie concomitant and appendix. Acted not the Apostles extraordinarely in their very preaching, both as to its extent, its confirmation by miracles, their gifts of tongues, and are not the Acts of preaching and baptizing of constant use in the Church? Must not this Informer grant that these Apostolick Acts of prea­aching and baptizing are perpetual, though the mould and maner is extraordinary and gone, in so far as their extraordinary Apostolick power interposed therein. Thus the Acts of ordination and jurisdiction are moral, but the modusrei, is extraordinary, in so farr as their E­vangelistik authority, and special legation, interposed therein. He must either acquiesc in this, and ac­knowledge this his argueing Sophistick and pueril, or he will contradict what he said before, anent the Apostles extraordinary Priviledges, which are gone with them, viz, infaillibilitie, their immediat call, sending to all nations, and what else was necessary for the first founding of the Church. Now, is not that which was thus ne­cessary, of perpetual use? Are we not built upon the foun­dation of the Apostles and Prophets? Are not the ordinances and Ministery receaved from them, of perpetuall use? And their most extraordinary Acts, if we mean it of improvement. Nay, did not the new-Testament Church receave the Law of God, and ordinances from the Jewes? Must we therefore Judaize? 2. How will he prove that the asserting, that any officer hath ane ex­traordinary authority conversant about such ane Act, will give ground to say, that the Act it self, is extraordinary, or the ordinance touched by that Act, expyred? Will his asserting, that the Apostles exercised ane extraor­dinary [Page] authority which is now ceased, in their preach­ing unfixedly, by ane immediat call, and confirming their doctrine with miracles, and strange tongues, give ground to conclude that the ordinances of preaching and baptizing are expired also? I trow he will not grant this. How then will our asserting, that Timothy and Titus put forth ane extraordinary Evangelistick autho­rity in ordination, and jurisdiction infer, that the Acts of ordination and jurisdiction, or these ordinances themselves, are expired? can he not distinguish betwixt the power it self, and the different subject, and manner of its exercise, or­dinary or extraordinary? can he not see in Scripture ane extraordinary power derived, and cut out in a succession of different and ordinary channels, and diverslie exercised? Sayes he not that the Apostles had ane extraordinary power, of both ordination and jurisdiction, and both the keyes. But I trow he asserts that, there are different recipients, who bring down ane ordinary power by succession. Some (Prelats forsooth) have the key of Governmant, others (viz,) Presbyters, have preach­ing for their work, but no rule properly. And sayes he not that the extensive authority, in which the Apo­stles exercised their Ministry, is gone, and a limited ordinary Ministry derived from them. If the extraordi­nary Mission of twelve Apostles, hath derived from it a Ministery and ecclesiastick authority spread throw all Church-officers in the world, who succeed them not into the same office, let this Informer shew me, why may not Timothies Evangelistick extraordinary power in ordination and jurisdiction, be deryved by, and seat­ted, in a Presbytery, though the Evangelistick Office is ex­traordinary, and (as such) not succeeded unto. The service, and worke of teaching, and governing to continue in all times, doth not render the Apostolick mission or commission, ordinarie, nor infer their being succeded in idem officium, & eundem gradum, the [Page 153] ordinary power being institut and settled in the hands of ordinary officers, by a new warrand and commission, according to the Scripture rules of ordination. The office of Moses was not rendered ordinary, because ma­ny works of Government exercised by him, were re­committed to the Elders of Israel; and so the case is here. The Evangelists extraordinary office and com­mission (necessary, as that of the Apostles, for the first founding of the Churches, and watering and building them up in their organick being, & for settling all their ordinary officers) is changed into the Presbytery their ordinary Collegiat power of ordination & jurisdiction; which we find was in the Apostolick Churches exerci­sed, and even in this of Ephesus.

His 2d Reason to prove them Bishops, is, Because their commission at Ephesus & Crete, was n [...]t voyded upon the first settling of Ministers in those places, therefore their office was to be constant, since if meerly as Evangelists they were to settle a Church there, then they were to give place to the Presbytery when some Ministers were ordained: but they did not so:— [...]itus needed not ordain Elders in every city, if some few ordained might ordain the rest. Ans. 1. ‘This is a poor argument, and hath no twist of a connexion [their commission at these places was not voyded upon the first settleing of Ministers,] ergo, [they were not ex­traordinary officers, but had a standing Episcopacie there] which is a meer rope of sand.’ The Apostles of­fice and commission was not voyded over all Churches when settled, Ergo, they had no extraordinary in­spection, office, or commission, towards all these Churches. What consequence is here? So may it be said of these Vicarious Apostles, their commission to these or other Churches could not be voided or expired, though they were never so much settled, but they were prore nata to visite and water all the Churches, and bring Aposto­lick instructions to them, and reports from them anent [Page 145] their case. We have proved that Timothie and Titus ex­ercised their extraordinary office, and commission, to­wards many other Churches, after their return from the­se of Ephesus, & Crete, so that their commission towards these or other Churches, could be no more voided whil the Apostles Imployed them therin, then their office. Besid, this Informer should advert, that Timothy is left To charge some that they teach no other doctrine which was a commission beyond the meer settling of Ministers, and supposing some already settled. 2. Will he say that Timothy and Titus were ordinary standing officers or Bishops, over these severall Churches, where they might reside some time, and have Imployment therin, even after they had officers of their own? did they not visite and water many other Churches, were they therefore their Bishops? if so he must quickly transport them to be Bishops of other Churches, after they were Bishops here: & exalt them to metropolitan's as some of the ancients make them. 3. Their Evangelistik inspection, direction, and assistence, even after some ordinary officers were settled, could no more prejudge the ordinary power and authority of these officers, then the Apostles extraordinary inspection, and infallible universal directive power, could prejudge the Churches ordinary authority, in ordination and ju­risdiction. The Apostles power (which could not be voyded, nor expyre, whil they were alive) being Cu­mulative unto, but not privative of, the Churches ordinary power, so it is here. I would ask our Informer, was Pauls apostolick commission to Crete and Ephesus, voyded, af­ter Bishops were set up there? Nay, he will not say it. But did this Null the Episcopall power of Timothy and Titus, over these Churches? I trow not. Well, no more could Timothys extraordinary inspection make voyd the ordinary power of presbyters. 4. We told him al­ready that how long soever Timothy and Titus were resident there, they were to doe nothing pro imperio, [Page 155] and were not to lord it over the presbyters. 5. Although elders once ordained, have power to ordaine others, yet the bene esse, did call for the Inspection and direction of such highely gifted and extraordinary officers herein, as these were. And Moreover, in that Infant-state of the Church, Apostolick precepts and rules in reference to Church government, and the exercise of both the key­es, were to be delivered by these extraordinary officers, & consequently might call for, & protract their continu­anc therein, even after ordinary officers were ordained. Infine. He cannot deny but that the Apostle recalled both Timothy and Titus from these places, to the fur­ther prosecution of their employment in other Chur­ches, and that their transient imployment therein is held out, after their return from Ephesus and Cret; as likwayes their occasionall employment in both these places, which will in so farr voyd their commission in rela­tion to them, as clearly to refu [...] the supposed episcopal ordinary charge which he alledges they exercised. Next, from the Authores of jus divinum Minist: evangel: [con­cluding against the peoples power of ordination, upon Timothy and Titus being left at these places to ordaine elders] The Informer inferrs against them thus, why was Timothy or Titus left to ordaine elders, after some were ordained by Paul, If Ministers so ordained could ordaine the rest? and af­ter some were ardained by Timothy and Titus, they were left still upon that imployment. I answer, his inference touches not these Reverend authors in the least. The ordaineing of elders in relation to the beue esse, even after some elders were there, and the furder directing and com­pleating of these Churches in their members and offi­cers, did require ane Evangelistick inspection, though the ordinarie power of ordaineing, remained with the ordi­nary elders and Church officers, as the scripture doth clearly hold out. Paul haveing after committed to the elders of this Church of Ephesus the whol power of [Page 156] government. But the scripture gives not the least hint of the peoples power to ordaine, but attributs this still to Church officers as proper to them. So that this Inference stands good in the generall [though some were converted to Christianity there, yet they could not ordaine officers, but Church officers were sent upon that Imployment] ergo. Church officers must ordaine, and not the people: but the speciall inference will not hold, ergo, Biohops must only ordaine for the reasons already given, no more then from Paules ordaining the first elders, it will fol­low [ergo Paul, or ane Apostle only, must ordaine] which is a Consequence our Informer dare not admitt, else he will contradict himself. It is a good consequence [Paul, a Church officer, preached and baptized] ergo [none but Church officers must preach and baptize] but [ergo, none but ane Apostle must preach and baptize] is bad lo­gick. So his inference is neither logicall nor theolo­gical.

His 3d. Reason to prove Timothy a Bishop, is taken from Pauls solemne Charge 1. Tim. 6. 13. to keep. what he had commanded him, till the appearing of Iesus Christ. That presbyterians (particularly, jus divinum Minist. pag. 74.) hold these Directions to be for all ages of the Church, making them paralleel with Matth. 28. 20. anent Christs promised pre­sence to the end and 1: Tim. 5. 7, 21. Anent Pauls Charge to obser­ve these things. Whence he concludes that they were to have successors in their office, and were not extraordinary officers, since these divines say, page 160. [That Apostolick examples in things necessary for the good of the Church, and which cary a per­petuall equiry and reason in them, have the force of a rule] and the Apostles setting Timothy and Titus, over these Churches, is ane example Apostolick for the good of the Church, and hath a per­petuall reason and equitie in it. Ans. 1. Wee have made it appear that no directions given to Timothy will a­mount to demonstrat any episcopall dominion over this Church, and that he had no sole or arbitrary power [Page 157] either in ordination or jurisdiction, & consequently that the charge of [keeping that which was commanded him] will Import & inferr no keeping of ane Episcopall charge. 2. Wee have also shewed what a bad consequence it is, to argue from the perpetual use of precepts or directions, given to extraordinary officers, in relation to extraordi­nary acts, towards the Churches imitating of these acts, and retaineing these expired functions, which is palpably a non­sequitur, as this man can not deny, else he will swallow horrid absurdities. Every thing which is for our constant use and Improvement, is not likwayes for our Imitation. Againe, 3. I would ask this Informer, if the Command 1. Tim. 6. 13. joyned with the promise Matth. 28. 20. Will not reach and include every peece of the Aposto­lik and evangelistik office? Sure he cannot deny this, and yet he acknowledges there were severall peeces of their work temporary and expyred. Will he dare to say that what the apostle commanded Timothy in this Epi­stle, was confined within Ephesus, or reached him only as oversieing that Church, and not in relation to his E­vangilistick office throw all the Churches? and that the promise Matth. 28. did not reach the most extraordi­nary Apostolick Acts; So that himself must distinguish (unless he be inconsistent with himself) betwixt what is moral, and extraordinary, in this command and charge, and accordingly reached by the promise. 4. His citation from the Ius divin. Minist: &c Cuts the throate of his cau­se: for argueing thus against privat persons intrudeing in­to the ministry [That the scripture layes down rules for calling men to that office] they instance in the quali­fications of the person, Citeing 1. Tim. 3. 2, 3. anent the properties of the scripture Bishop or presbyter. ‘Then they add [That the Scripture directs as to the maner of his calling, viz, who are to ordaine, how hee is to be ordained, citeing 1. Tim. 4. 14. viz, that’ the presbytery is to ordaine, and ordaine by the lay­ing [Page 158] on of hands—adding, that these directions are for all ages, and citeing. [...]1 Tim. 6: 13, 14.] Now, if the­se perpetuall directions for all ages, be touching no other Bishops but these in 1 Tim. 3: 1. And anent ordi­nation by the hands of the Presbytery, surely those are Presbyterial not Episcopal directions, and doe pal­pably exclude Timothy [...]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 o [...]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 [Page 159] 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 h [...]s door to prove and make good.

His Last Reason, to prove the Episcopacy of Timo­thy and T [...]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 Evangilist [...]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 [Page 160] 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 [Page 161] (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 [...]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 Mi [...]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 [Page 162] 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 sh [...]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 plac [...]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, [Page 163] 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. T [...]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 mig [...]t be temporary and expired. 2. What Calls he the ce­monial part (distinguished from that substantial pat [Page 164] of his ordination, which Paul gave) which he admitts the presbyters unto, if we will. Nay Sir, we will not; 'tis 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 [Page 165] with the publick blessing at Timothies ordina­tion: for I suppose it was done in the view and presen ce of the assembly, But did any of them lay on hands? Besyds, we might here tell him that the word [...], or presbytery, doth alwayes Import a juridicall au­thoritative Court, so the word is taken Luk. 22. 66. and Act. 22. 5. As likewayes the word [presbyter.] Im­ports ane officer cloathed with authority, so that this Court of elders, must needs have ane interest in much more then the rituales of ordination.

His Last Exception, is, That upon our supposition, That Timothy was ane extraordinary officer and Evangelist, he could not be ordained by ordinary inferiour officers or Ministers. Ans. 1. As some say of the Prince, that though Major Singulis, greater then every single person, yet he is, Minor uni­versis, lesse then the whol body, so it may be said, that though Timothy, as ane Evangelist, were superiour to any meer elder; yet ane eldership, the juridical Court, the Church representative, might be above him; if at least such a superiority was here necessary; else let him say, whither the Prophets at Antioch, were in Capacity to Impose hands upon Paul, and Barnabas, and send them out upon a gospel legation. Himself is bound to answer this, whither these Inferiour officers, in that act, were greater then he, yea or not, and how these ordi­nary officers and teachers could authoritatively bless, and lay hands upon ane Apostle. And when he hath cleared this, he will easily exped our difficulty in this point. 2. Though it were granted, that a presbytery, consisting of meer ordinary officers, could not ordain ane Evangelist, yet I hope he will grant, that a presbytery, where such a one as paul was, might doe it, who as ane Apostle, might ordaine alone. If he say, what is then become of our presbyterial ordination, which we draw from this text? I answer, it is much confirmed, but not weakened by what is said, for if the Apostle [Page 166] 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 i [...] 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 [Page 167] 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 h [...]s next Argument.

CHAP. XI.

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 [Page 168] 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, [...]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 his argu­ment is [that one is named, though many are spoken to, and where many Presbyters are supposed to be, as at Ephesus, who threfore must needs be a Bishop.] but this ground will not [Page 169] hold good. Because, 1. This is no more then what is suitable unto the stile of this book, which is by mi­stick visional representations, to include many indivi­duals as one singular: So all the individuals of the Church, both members and officers, are represented by one candlestick: and why not also all the Ministers, by one angel, which is a terme that of it self, and in this place, imports no jurisdiction properly, but is immediatly referred to the qualities of Ministers, above expressed. 2. This is also suitable to the stile of this book, as it is epistolar, the addresse may be to one, but it will give no Authority to that one, over the rest, no more then ane addresse from the King, to a speaker of the Parliament, will give to that person, jurisdi­ction and authority over them? Or then our Lords saying to Peter only expressly, not to the rest of his fellow disciples, I will give unto thee the keyes &c. Will conclude that he was Prince or primat over the Apost­les, and that they had not equal authority with him, in the use of the keyes. Our Informer and his fellows here, doe justifie the Papists pleading for the Pope. 3. This is suitable unto Scripture prophetick writings, and to this book, as such, to represent many individuals by one singular, The four beasts, and twentie four El­ders, are not four individuall persons, or twentie four single Elders. The singular names of Woman, Beast, Whoor, Dragon, signifie a collection of many individuales. So the one Spirit of God is called the seven Spirits, in the 1 Chap: With reference to his manifold operations. Dan. 8: 20. One Ram signi­fies many Kings of the Medes and Persians. He that will not hearken to the Priest. Deutr. 17: 12. That is, the Priests, in the plurall. So the Priests lips should keep knowledge and the Law is to be sought at his mouth Mal. 2: 7. That is the Priests. Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord &c. that is, those servants. Particularly, as to [Page 170] this term Angel, It is said Psal. 34. That the Angel of the Lord encamps about the Godly, that is, many Angels. 4. It is suitable to Scripture, and to this book, To represent ane indefinet number, by a definit. Thus all Judas Adversaries are represented by the four ho [...]es, Zachr. 1: 18. All the Godly, and the un­godly, are represented by the five wise, and the five foolish Virgines Matth. 25. and in the 8. Chap of this book, The Seven Angels standing befor God, re­present all the Angels. Fo [...] in the 7 Chap: Mention is made of all the Angels who doe thus stand. So we are to understand with the same indefinitnes ofttimes the Septenary number, as the Seven pillars which wis­dom hewes out Prov. 2. The seven Pastours or shepherds Mic. 5. The Seven eyes Zachr, 3. And in this very book the Seven condlesticks, Lamps, and vials, Revel, 4: 5, 15—5. As wee find the scripture, and this same Apostle first naming a multitud, and then con­tracting it into a singular, as 2 Joh. 2. many deceavers are come into the world—then—this is a deceaver and ane Antichrist. And sometimes the individual in one sentence; turned into a multitud: as 1. Tim. 2: 15 Shee shall be saved, that is, the woman bea­ring Children—if they abide in faith and Charity that is such women in General, as Beza tells us all writers doe take it: So it is as certain that this single Angel is turned into many in one and the same Epistle in this book, and spoken to in the plural, as when it is said Revel. 2. 24. to you and to the rest in Thyatira. and in Revel. 2: 10. we find John changing in one senten­ce, the singular Angel into a multitude: fear none of these things which thow shal suffer, Behold the devil shal cast some of you into prison that yee may be tryed &c. as in 2 [...]oh. 2: He changes many into One. Finaly, Wee have proved that the Scripture allowes of no Angels Standing-Church officers or Bis­hops [Page 171] above the Pastours or Presbyters, who have in Scripture the whol Episcopall power given them. So that whatever this Informer shall produce as the Chara­cteristick of this Angel, we find it applicable to Pres­byters. 1. Is it the work of this Angel to preach and baptize? This Commission he will grant belongs to all Pastours. 2. Is it the power of ordination? The Scrip­ture shewes us that this is Seated in a Presbytery. 1. Tim. 4: 14. with Act. 22: 5. Luk. 22: 66. Matth. 18: 17. Or, 3. Is it the ruling Governeing power? Surely all Ministers are such Angels, All that watch for the peoples soules have a joynt rule over them, Hebr. 13. 17. And therefor none can challenge it solely to himself. In the Church of Thessalonica the laboures in the word and doctrine, joytlie and indiscriminatim fed, joyntlie censured and admonished, and were joyntly the [...] or Rulers, to whom consequently the people were indiscriminatim (or with out any diffe­rence of one of them from another) to submitt themsel­ves, 1 Thess. 5. 12. There was therefore no sole An­gel or [...] and ruler, but this Prostasia or ru­leing power was in many. So was it with the Church of Ephesus Act. 20. So with these elders or Bishops 1. Pet 5. And we offer to this, or any mans serious thoughts, whither it be suiteable to divine rules, to cross so many clear Scriptures upon the ground of a me­taphorial mistick expression: and to expone them in that sense, rather then to explaine the Metaphor and mistick expression by plaine Scriptures. And whi [...]her it be not more suiteable to understand the Angel of Ephesus, of the Ministers: to whom in a plaine Scrip­ture, the whole Government is found intrusted, ra­ther then to expound that plaine text, (Act. 20) by a Metaphor, and contrary to that plain text, to set up one Angel or Diocesian Bishop over that Church, with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction.

But the Doubter objects what have been saying, viz, [Page 172] That the Angel is to be taken collectively, and not for one single person, but for all the Ministers. To which (in a peece of pe­tulant folly) he Answers That he hath oft wondered at this reply, that it seems this Scripture pinches us sore, when we flie to such a shift—That Scultetus, a learned Prote­stant, affirms that the most learned interpreters understand the Angel thus, and that without offering violence to the Text, it cannot be otherwayes understood. Ans. 1. We hope is evident from what is said that the most native scriptural acception is to take the Angel collectively. To which we may adde, that although the Lord Jesus (the best interpreter of these Angels) doth expound the Seven candlsticks, to be the Seven Churches, yet in expounding the Seven Starrs, he losses the number of 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 [Page 173] [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 [Page 174] 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 Minist [...]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 h [...]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, [Page 175] 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 Se [...]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 by the ancients? But if he had offered us Te­stimonys speaking of sole power of these Bishops in [Page 176] 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.

[Page 177] 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 Coun­s [...]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 [...]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 dioces [...]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 [Page 178] 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 [Page 179] 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 Mor [...]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 all that Synodall assembly or Church? Surely not at all. The Moderator may be a man as little concerned therein, and possibly less, then any of the meeting: Or will the Kings Message or Charge to a parliament, adressed to the speaker, con­taining reproofes and commendationes of that great body and assembly, fix the guilt or commendation principally upon the speaker, or president? He will not say it. As for Timothy and Titus, we have proved that they had no such power, as he pretends, and that their inspection was extraordinary and Evangelistick, which cannot with any shew of reason be said of these Seven Angels. As for Beza [his acknowledgment of a more emi­nent Authority in government, which these single persons had] this man cannot with any shew of reason alledge Beza to understand thereby any other thing beyond the [Page 180] eminency of his Episcopus divinus, which with Beza is the Pastour, among whom jure divino, he will not a [...]mit so much as a perpetual president, far less a Bishop: for the perpetual president or Moderator, is with Beza, the Episcopus humanus, which he distinginshes from the divine, or scripture Bishop; and the diocesian prelat (pleaded for by this Informer) who hath the Chief, and sole power in ordination and jurisdiction, is the Sa­tanical Bishop. (In his Treatise de triplici Episcopatu;) So that Beza cannot Imput to these single persons any authority over their brethren, or ascribe to them any other eminency, then what the eminency of a Mode­ratorship will give, If Beza doe not compare them with the Elders of the Inferior sort, who rule only, as some would readily admit, who take these Churches to be Congregational. As for Mede, it is no great matter whither he take the Angels Collectivly, or for Single persons, if he Imput not to these Asian Angels ane Epis­copal Authority, which this Informer proves not, in ‘telling us, [Tha [...] the Tuentie four Angels about the Thron, doe with him, represent the Bishops]’ unless he can shew that he means his Diocesian Bishops: for he may mean the Bishops indefinitely, according to the genuine scripture acceptation. He holds there are Se­ven Bishops of Asia here only written unto, where are the Tuentie four Bishops, if Mr Mede take them in his sense? As for Mr. Brightman, his exponeing ordinarly the Angel, of a single person, as the Informer alleadges. Let us hear Brightman himself. ‘[To the Angel &c.] The Epistles are intituled (saith he) one by one, to the Pastours, Becaus the safety of the Congregation de­pends upon the soundnes of the Pastours: for there was not one Angel alone at Ephesus, but many, Neither yet any prince among these, as is manifast by Paul, who to Miletum sent for the Elders or Bishops of Ephesus,—adding, that nothing is spoken of their [Page 181] obedience to any one Chief Bishop—That a Prince hood came after the Apostles, and was not yet borne, save only that Diotrephes gave some shew of it. hence he concluds thus [therefore under the name of one Angel, the Epistle is written to the whol order of Pastours &c:]’ And by this account of Brightmans acce [...]tation of the word Angel, Let any judge of our Informers fidelity.

But now comes his last Argument for Episcopacy (which surprises not only his Doubter, but I believe, Most, if not all else, who have seen it) taken from ‘[Diotrephes his loveing to have the preeminence, 3. Joh. 9. who (he sayes) ambitiously loved to be first, and to have the Chief place: and that this ambition only John speaks against,—he adds, that ane office may be good and lawfull, though ane ambitions see­king of it, be sinfull.—That Beza renders it, qui primatum ambit—that our Inference of the unlawful­nes of the office he aimed at, will not follow from his seeking of this chief place, but rather that their was such ane office at this time in the Church, and now void, into which he meaned to put himself, or had already done so, out of ane ambitious desire to be great, which was a sinful end: that, he looked after himself, not the good of the Church.]’ Ans. 'tis long since we had this answer, and gloss from Romanists, though not as ane argument. Wee see popri and prela­cy in despight of all con [...]radiction will strick hands. When Luk. 22. Touching our Lords forbidding a Dominion, or primacy among his Disciples, is objected to Bellarmin, he resolves it just as this resolver. viz. ‘That the Lord rather institut and established a primacy in the Church, then re­moved it: And commanded his vicar to preside, but not as the Heathen, who seek themselves, and their own glory and commodity.’ de Pontif, Ques. 1. Chap. [Page 182] 3. Sect. 3.) Yee shall not rule as the Princes of the Gentiles (saith he,) Imports, that he admitts one to preside but not after that manner. He presses the Greek word [...] which signifies a Prince or Captaine (just as this man doth the [...] or loving of preeminence) to shew that such a Prince or primat was designed, de Pontif. Lib: 1. Ch. 9. Thus the Papists glosse generally the Text under de­bate. Tilen [in his Not. 67.] answering him ‘[That if it were so, then Christ rather inflamed then quen­ched their ambitious thoughts, which they [...]hil’ [...], or loving preeminence, intertained] makes this sin of diotrephes the same with theires which the Lord reprehended, viz. A sinful desire of ane unlawfull forbidden primacy. Adding, ‘[That the Lord said not, he who by my appointment shall be Chief [...], but he who from his sinfull desire would be Chieff.’ Bellarmin and the Papists fine notions, and old exploded evasions, we see stands these men in much stead: And doe furnish usefull materials to dress up Prelatick pamphlets. But what will this man say? Will he indeed owne this popish Argument and answer upon Luk 22. Which the topick of his ar­gument here will necessarly inferr? Was their a law­full primacy supposed among the Apostles, & the ambiti­ous desire only forbidden? Bellarmin presses that ane exorbitant dominion or tyrannicall only was forbid­den since the Princes of the Gentiles are mentioned (which this man also taks hold of) which seems to put a restricton upon that prohibition, but there is no such restriction in this place under debate: So that he is cut off from Bellarmins evasion. We heard before he admitted a lawfull Church Dominion as not dischar­ged in Luk. 22. And here he admitts a lawfull pri­macy over this Church, and in his pretended an­tiquity we will find him not to di [...]owne a Chief pa­triarch if not directly to plead for him; And then I [Page 183] see not why he may not take in the High Priest into his old Testament Argument, in relation to a morall standing primacy in Church-Government, and merite a co [...]l in some Popish order [...]r it be long. Now it is evi­dent that the Apostle simply dissounes this lover of pree­minence, and censures him upon the account of the preeminence he desired. And the Informer himself (though, as I observed before, he is not one with himself in it) acknowledges that the Lord discharged all inequality, and especially a [...], or primat, among the Apo­les; and therefore, why his scoler John censured not likewayes a [...] or primacy - affecting Mi­nister; seeking the same principality over his Brethren or fellow Ministers, which our Lord discharged among the Disciples, will puzell him to shew the disparity. Surely, when our Lord said, [It shall not be so among you,] and when he discharged a protos or Chief among the Disciples, recomending to the desi­rer of this to be their servant over whom this was affe­cted, he spoke to them as Ministers, and in that ca­pacitie: and therefore discharges this among all Mini­sters. For aquatenus ad omne—I wonder if this man will say that if any of the Seventy Disciples had affected to be a protos over the rest, our Lord would not have given them the same injunction. Or if he will say that they did not hold themselves concerned in the same rule, and the prohibition which the Dis­ciples here got. Surely he cannot deny this, and ther­fore it is Certan that John discharhes the very protos or prostacy self for what reason will it: he invent wherefor a preeminence or primacy should be disgar­ged to the Apostles, and allowed among the Seventy (who he thinks represents the Pastours) or any Infe­riour order of Church officers? Besides, what was it which Peter discharged to these Bishops 1 Pet. 5. Was it not a preeminence, or masterly primacy, and to [Page 184] be a protos? learned he not this prohibition of his Lord? and will it not be a Critical distinction to di­stinguish lordship from preeminence? Now the first we find universally discharged to Pastours, even over the flock [...], as this man acknowledges, and therefore why this preeminence, is not likwise in it self and sim­ply stricken against, will be Impossible to shew the dis­parity. I must presume that the Apostle understood the sence of this prohibition of his Lord, much better then our Informer: and we see he applyes to in­feriour Pastours and Bishops, that which was discharged to himself, and the rest of his fellow disciples. And, (as I said befor) if none of these scripture-Bishops were to lord it over the flock, farr less over their fellowes. So that to be a protos or Chief over them, was inhibit, as by the lord befor, so by the Apostle here, and consequently this lover of preeminence is simply condemned. The Inglish Annot: make the two places of Peter & John, par­allel, & the same evill to be discharged in both. So doe the dutch annot expressing that which diotrephes sought, in the Apostle Peters terms, of lording it over his bre­thren. Now I hope he will not say, that when Peter dis­charges Ministers to be lords over Gods Heritage, he discharged only ane ambitious affectation and Supposed a la [...]ll Lordship over the flock [...], abstracting from this ambitious affectation. Surely then this Prohibition of the Apostle Iohn, where Diotrephes is supposed to be practising, what is by Peter discharged, can admit of no such evasion either; unless he would make these A­postles to interfer together in this matter: for it were strange clashing of weapones, and contradiction of the tongues and pens of these Apostles, if Peter should discharge all Lording even over the flocks, in any Pa­stour, and yet Iohn should allow unto a Pastour, a pre­eminence, and primacy, both over the flocks, and his fellow Ministers and labourers with him in the [Page 185] Lords vineyeard. Infine, If to be a primat or [...] was a lawfull office, to be a [...] or lover of it (which is all that the word will Import) could deserve no cen­sure. The Informer knowes who said [He that desires the office of a Bishop, desires a good work] but our Lord who spoke this by the pen of Paul, said also himself immediatly to the Apostles, & by the Apostle Iohn in this place, he that desires to be a protos or Chief, must quite that desire. Hence these are different objects of de­sire, to be a scripture Bishop, and a protos or primat. To affect the office of a scriptur Bishop, and a primacy, are Antipods: so that it was not a lawfull, nor conse­quently praeexistent office in the Church, allowed by Iohn, which this man desired, and therefore he is simply condemned by the Apostle, both as to the desire it self, and the object of it. Hee who thus affects to be first, deserves to be called least in the Kingdome of God, and who thus exalt themselves, shall be abased. To all which I might add, that diotrephes Imperious lordly carriage in casting out and censureing, and not ad­mitting into this Church, such as the Apostle appoin­ted to be therein receaved, is a lively effigies of an [...] Episcopal primacy or preeminence, and of that ar­bitrary prelacy, that sole power in ordination and censures, which this Informer pleads for. Against which disorderlines of this early primat, the Apostles threatning of his holy censure, is a thunder-clapp which may terrifie all who carry this usurped office: and may make his Supposed Angels or Prelats, for this their as­pyreing, fear the stroake and punishment of those Angels, who keeped not their first estate, but left their own habitation.

I shall dimiss the Informers last argument, with one remarke further, which is this, if the affecting to be a protos or Chief, tainted the Apostles themselves, while the Christian Church was in its first Infancy, if in Pauls time the mistery of Iniquity, and of propry, was wor­king [Page 186] (the monstrous embrio of a papacy, and conse­quently of a Prelacy) If peter found it needfull to dis­scharge Covetousnes and lordship, to ministers, If the holy Apostle John was contradicted and coun­teracted by ane aspiring primat, Surely we need not wonder at that universal Change of the Apostolick Holy, humble Church Disciplin and parity among Ministers, which overspread the Christian Church not long therafter. And to our prelatists ordinary que­stion [When began the Change of preshyterian parity among Ministes]? Wee may answer, That the bitter [...]ootes of a Primacy or prelacy, were sprouting in the Apo­stles times; and therefore it is no strange thing that this destroying weed grew up so quickly thereafter the [...] or evill one, did quickly sow his Cocle among the wheat, and blew up this fire of ambition, primacy pride and (his own proper sin) till it came to the flam, first of a human proftasie, then of a Hierarchy, and unto the Culmen or tope, of a chief universal pri­macy at last. For that which he adds of Blondel his grant­ing [That diotrephes sought to be first Presbyter, & such a pre­sident as had authority over the rest.] Surely none who ha­ [...]e read Blondel can but acknowledge, that he distingui­shes all along the Presbyters set over others from the Episcopus divine jure institutus, So in his 1, 2, 3. and 4t. Arguments, page. 190: 191, 192, 193 &c. So that he maks the very constant fixed president (much more such a president or primat as diotrephes affected to be) distinct from the Divinely appointed Bishop; And therefore whatever he might suppose to be creeping in at that tyme, he must needs, upon this ground, interpret it to be a recesse from the divine appointment, and in so far a Corruption. As for what our Informer repeats here againe ad nauseam [‘That Bishops were imme­diatly the Church before all the Apostles were gone and imediatly after, which is a commentary upon [Page 187] Timothy, and Titus, and the Asian Angels, and Diotrephes.]’ I answer, I beleive indeed, as to his last instance, that there were Diotrephesies, earely enugh, and Beza's Episcopus humanus or fixed president, but that there was either in the Apostles time, or ane hunde­red years, and more afterward (I speak far within compass) his Diocesian Prelat, with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction in a Diocess, he will assoone joyn the poles together, as prove it by any faithful and authentick Testimony.

CHAP. XII.

OUr Informer hath by this time got out of the straites of his Scripture Arguments for prelacy, and his pretended replyes to Scripture arguments ag­ainst them. Wherin we have seen how pittifully he lies [Page 188] been Bruillied in his endeavours to put the fairding of some Scripture Characters upon this Monster, The Diocesian Prelat! Now he wil lanch out in to the vast Ocean of Antiquity wherein he supposes (and not alto­gother amisse) that this Leviathan can swim much bet­ter. And therefore he fills up the Third part of the pamplet, with a tedious legend of human Testimonyes in relation to Bishops. But in this his argueing from antiquity, he playes the same petty Sophister as in his pretended Scripture proofes. For he is still pleading for a versatil Chimaera of his own braine, and dare not state the Question, as to the Prelat now existent in his Diocesian and erastian mould, like to whom if he will shew me but one Prelat among all his ragged Testimonies, I will yeeld the Cause to him. So that we are not con­cened in his Testimonies, They being all Mute or Ambiguous as to our debate. Wee shall therefore proceed to Consider the substantials of his Argument on this head, and add some Chapters which will be found abundantly to cutt the sinne [...]es of his reasoning from pretended Testimonies of the Fathers, and vin­dicat our Cause even in point of Antiquity.

[...] I Suppose this man (if he will not renounce his pro­testant profession) cannot but grant, that it is not An­tiquity as he call it, or human Testimonies, but the Scriptures of truth, which most judge in this debate. So that I hop I may suppose that he lookes upon his Anti­quitity as ane accessorie appendix onely to his Scripture arguments, and that the Scripture is not for him, but against him, I hope it is conuincingly apparent from that is said above; we must to the law and the Testi­mony in this and all other points of faith. Antiquity without the first Scripture antiquity, deserves not the name. Id adulterum quod posterius, id verum quod pri nium, said Tertullian. That is adulterat which is Last, and trere which is first. I am the way, the truth and [Page 189] the Life, said Christ, but not I am Custome And Cyprian tells us, that Consuetudo sins veritate est vetusias erroris; Antiquity without truth, is but a mouldy error. Our Lord himself rejected this argument [it was said of old] and apposes unto it [but I say] Well may we then oppose the Scripture sayings to our Informer's [it was said of old] and by our Lords warrand, reject his pretences from Antiquity, to warrand any thing which the word condemnes: and for this we have good warrand of antiquity it self: for the fathers universaly doe hold that onelie the Scriptures must judge in points of faith. Sunt libri Dominici quorum authoritati utrique consentimus, utrique credimus (there being in them all things to be believed and practised) utrique servimus, ibi quaeramus ecclesiam, ibi discutiamus causam nostram, is great Augustins advice. ‘The books of the Lord are they to whose Authority we both consent, which we both beleive, To which we both submit, There let us seek the Church, There let us discusse our Cause.’ Jerom on Chap. 23 of Matth. tells us quod de scripturis authoritatem non habet, eaedem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur. That which derives not its authority from Scripture, the contemneing of it is as ready as the proof is offered, and (on the 1.) Chap. of Hag Quae absque athoritate & Testimoniis scripturarum quasi traditione Apo­stolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt, percutit Gladius Dei ‘Such things as men of there own accord find out & forge upon pretence of Apostolick tradition with out the authority and Testimonies of Scriptures, the sword of God strikes throw the same.’ Besides this discovers the plea from Antiquity to be very Imperti­ment in this debate: Because the Question betwixt us is not defacto, but de jure, not what sort of Bishops have been as to matter of fact, introduced into the Church of old, or of late, but by what warrand and right they have possessed their places? We alledge and prove [Page 190] that the present Prelat now existent stands condem­ned by Christ, the great lawgiver, his rules in point of Church Government, set down in his Testament. Now, to answer this Charge with humane Testimo­nies, as to Custom or practise of the Church, (even granting that his Testimonies did prove the matter of fact, viz, That our present Prelat is exemplified in the ancient Bishops) what is it but to oppose, humane cor­ruption to Gods ordinance, The practise of men to Gods rule, and mens Testimonies who are liars, to the divine Oracles of the God of truth.

This man thinkes it a Herculean argument, when he drawes his human Testimonies, as to prelacy neer the Apostles time (as if he had travelled to Hercules pillars) and wonders how we can suppose, that the Church could so soon alter the divine institutions. But I pray, how long was it after Gods Holy law was proclaimed from heaven, by his own terrible voice, that the wholl Church of Israel, together with Aaron himself, set up and worshiped the golden Calf, contrary unto the very express letter of the Second command? Now, suppose that idolatry several hundered years afterward had pleaded this Antiquity, or ancient Custome of the Church of Israel, (after frequently imitated, and which had its plausible pretexts of intention to worship God, for the seasi was proclaimed to Iehova, and to have a vi­sible signe of his presence) Wil the Informer say, that this had been a good argument to warrand the breach of the Second command, though this Practise was but fourty dayes younger then the promulgation if self. So the case is here, Though he could shew us human clear Testimonies, nay more, even Scripture Testi­monies, as to the factum, that the diocesian; yea, and Erastian Prelat, had been existent and set up in some Churches in the Apostles own time; yet if we can from our Lord, and his Apostles doctrine, and [Page 191] practise, prove this officer to be a plant not of a di­vine plantation, and contrary to the divine instituti­ones, He must needs grant (that though esteemed gol­den) it ought to be Nehushtan, rejected and pluckt up by the roots. The Papists, who hold the Scriptures to be but a half-rule, made up by traditions, yet will not dare to own (professedly at least) any principle, or practise, condemned in the Word. suppose he could bring thousands of Testimonies from ancient writers, touching his Prelat he pleads for; they are but h [...]man Testimonies, and therefore cannot beget a di­vine faith, which is founded upon the word only. Surge veritas ipsa Scripturas tuas inter retare, quam c [...]nsue­tudo non nooit▪ nam si nosset non-esset, saith Tertullian. A­rise o! truth it self, and expone they Scriptures, which cus­tome hath not known, for had it known them, it had not been. The Informer's Testimonies may induce to be­lieve that there were Bishops in the Church; but whi­ther the office which these Bishops are supposed to hold, be of God, yea or not; this queston must be brought to a higher tribunall; and Gods Oracles must determine therein, before the Conscience can be sa­tisfied, as to the owning of such a Church officer: And if God dissowne him, I may be ane Athana­sius contra orbem, in withstanding him, It being still certain that these human witnesses are testesfacti at most, but not judices veri & recti, Attesters of matters of fact, but not judges of what is right and equal therein.

Thus we have seen, that though all our Informers plea­ding from antiquity, were granted, his cause, profliga by Scripture weapons lyes grovelling in the dust. wheras he alleadges [Testimonies as to the existence of Pre­lats in the Christian Church, neer the Apostles times, or contem­porary with them, & that Catalogues of a Succession of Prelats, down from Apostles and Evangilists, have been keept in Chur­ches, which he thinkes speakes convincingly for the Episcopacy [Page 192] of Timothie, and Titus &c. I Ans. Although this be the very Marrow and strength of all his argument from Antiquity, yet when tryed, it will be found many wayes defective, and unsound. For clearing whereof I shall offer some things, both to the Major, and as­sumtion of this argument, which will be found quite to breake the force of al his pretences this way. For thus the argument must run.

If Diocesian Bishops, by the Testimonies of the ancient fa­thers, did exist in the primitive times, and Catalogues of them are drawn by these ancients, from Apostles, and Euan­gilists, then I must believe these Bishops to be of divine insti­tution: but thus it is by the Testimony of the ancient fathers: Ergo, I must believe Diocesian Bishopes to be of divine institu­tion.

Now this being the argument in its genuine strength, this pitifull pleader offers not a jott in proofe of the major proposition, whose connexion he cannot but know, the we all deny. All that he offers is in proofe of the assumption, which is also de­nved, & will be found very maimed. I. To the Major, I say, that it is of very dangerous conse­quence, to make that which men call antiquity, or [ancient custome,] the infallible rule, and commen­tary, as to the nature and office, of Church officers, mentioned in Scriptur. Because 1. If mens practise must be the key and comment in this case, so as we must not contradict or counteract it, then why may not also human practise, and profession of succeding ages, determine as to every Scripture truth, and duty therein held out? 2. This were to set up a high­er rule, and tribunal, then the Scriptures, and to make our faith to stand in mans wisdome, not in Gods, and to make the Scriptures of a privat interpretation, as if the Prophecy had come by the will of man. For if I must believe no otherwayes anent the Scriptures relating [Page 193] to the offices of Timothy, and Titus, then accord­ing to the practise of supposed Bishops, their succes­sores, and that they held no other offices, but such as these supposed successores are said to have had, then the Custome and practise of fallible men, becomes to me, the [...], the ratio a priori, and the chief ground, why I believe these Scriptures to have such a sense and no other; and so I give men a dominion over my faith, and my faith herein resolves ultimatly into a human practise, and Testimony of fallible men, which is a principle no protestant will allow.

Next, as to the asumption of the argument, I would demand of this informer, how I must be infallibly assured anent this universal judgment and practise of the ancient Church, and of this true succession; and how he will instruct the univer­sal harmonius judgement of all the ancient Fathers in this great point, (viz.) ‘[That such prelates as we have now, were the first recipients of the ordinary power of government, from the Apostles and Evangelists, as their only immediat & ordinary successors.]’ The topick of our Informers argument doth suppose the certanty of this mater of fact. But to clear this will be found a hard peece of work. Because 1. It is certan that many of the ancients wrote nothing; many of their wri­tings are lost; many writings going under their name are counterfit, & most especially to this debate. It were pos­sibly none of the hardest Tasks to discover some wri­tings here cited; to be meer countersites. How shall I know, that the Testimonies of those who have writ­ten, are not contradicted in this point, by such men of their times, who either have not written, or whose writings are perished? 2. There are many things, which the Ancients speak of as derived from the Apostles, and have had ane universal consent (as farr as the knowledge thereof hath come to us) which are ac­knowledged to be contrary to the word of God [Page 194] and the Apostolick doctrine; as, the error anent the vi­sion of God, [that the Saincts sie not his face till the last day.] the error of [free will,] which until Augustin op­posed it was universally receaved▪ the [Millenary error,] anent Christs personall reigne upon the Earth a Thou­sand years; called by Lactantius, [the doctrine of the holy prophets, and christian wisdome, which christians follow.] Iustin Martyr, holds them to be no christians that dissown this▪ and this is owned as ane Apostolick tra­dition. So [childrens partaking of the Lords supper;] and [the necessity of baptisme] was by Augustin 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 [Page 195] 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 ga [...]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 varr [...] [...] 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 Stromata [...] [...]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, [Page 196] 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 [Page 197] 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.] Iren [...]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 [Page 198] 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. [...]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, ‘Con [...]unctionem Apostolerum Chri­sti, a meeting of Apostles of Christ. [...]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 Pre [...]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 ep [...]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 patch [...]d up, are most inconsistent and contradictory to one another (as the divines at the ile of Wight, and many learned men have made appear) [Page] 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: [Page 200] 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 a [...]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 w [...]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 its 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 [Page 201] 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 [...]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. c: 24. not: 1.) acknowledges that [De Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primordijs, nihil ex Scriptura, im [...]ne ex patribus quidem, qui ante Synodum nicenum floruerunt, quicquam certi demon­strari ‘potest, That nothing certanly can be made appear concerning the beginings of the Church of Alexan­dria from Scriptur, no not from the Fathers who flo­rished before the council of Nice.’ Baronius (Anno. 44. 11: 42.) saith cum Apostolorum nomine tam facta quam scripta reperiantur esse suppositia, &c. ‘—Since there are suppositious both words and Acts under the Apostles name, & since what is related by true writers, remaines not incorrupt, it may make one dispair to reach that is true and [Page 202] cer [...]in.’ So much is the great popish historian forced to confess.

The Informer should likewise have done well to have put into the mouth of his doubter, Joseph Scal­liger, his grave difficulty about the succession of the Bi­shops of the Church of Jerusalem. (Related by Didocl. Cap: 4: p. 123.) Wherin he proves Eusebius relation to be contrary to our Lords prophecy anent the de­struction of Jerusalem, and to Josephus his History. To this I add, that he will find many learned men doe hold, that the first successors after the Apostles in these supposed Catalogues, were meer Presbyters, [who according as they were more eminent in the Churches, and consequently their memories refer­ved therein, whose Natales (as Iunius speaks) that is their dayes of banishment, martyrdome, or death were keept in the Churches records; according­ly they were cull'd out by the Fathers to fill up these Catalogues, though they were contemporary, & those they named [Bishops], in conformity to their own times. For this I recomend Fran­ciscus Iunius his learned discourse to this purpose Cont. 3: l. 2: c. 5. not. 18▪ —[errori causam prebuit, &c, the cause of the error (he means in those contra­dictory confused Catalogues of Bishops) was that there were many Bishops or Presbyters at once appoyinted by be Apostles in the Churches &c.] Its then evident (which is the Collection of Diocl. upon what is premi­sed) 1. That the Ancientes without examination having from their progenitors receaved many fabulous stories, delivered to the posterity such thinges as can neither be reconciled to Scripture, nor with them­selves.

2. That they might fill up their Tables of Bishops, and conforme the first ages to their own, they culld out the most famous Minister for zeal, piety &c and [Page 203] put them into their Catalogués. 3. Whom they thus put in, they called them [Bishopes] in conformity to their own times, though they were [meer Presbyters.] For (as we saw upon Phil. 1.) himself acknowledges, that the Fathers used the names indifferently. So by this time wee suppose it is convinceingly evident, that ou [...] Informers great argument from his Testimonies is lost.

There is a great consent of the learned in this that ‘for the first purest age, the Church was governed by’ Presbyters. without Bishopsblondel (Apol: Sect: 3: p: 3: 14. 3: 5—p. 308: 378.) Shewes the con­sent of the learned heerin. For this Church of Scot­land, we have the Testimony of Ioanes Major (de Cest. Scot: l. 2.) of Fordon (Scoto-chronicon, lib. 3. Shap. 8.) likwise of Blond. (Sect. 3.) All shewing, that this nation (haveing imbraced the Christian faith Anno. 79.) till the year 430. (When the pope sent Palla­dius as our first Bishop,) was governed only by Presbyters with out Bishopes; so that we had our union to the see of Rome together with Prelacy. Clemens, of the first century, in his Epistle to the Philippians, maks but two orders of Ministery, ‘Bishops and dea­cons, these only he sayes the Apostle set up to pro­pogat the ordinances to believers. And this to be a remedy to end all contests about Episcopacy.’ (page. 57. &c.) The same we heard of policarp (in his Epistle to the Philippianes) we heard of Augustins Testimony (Epist. 19. to Jerom.) Dr. Reynolds (in his Epist. to Sr Francis Knolls) cites Chrysostom, Ierom, Am­brose, Augustin, Theodoret, and many others an­cient and modern, to prove, that in Scripture, Bi­shop and Presbyter are all one. Jeroms Testimony upon Titus, is famous for this point, who assertes, and proves at large; from Philip. 1. Act. 20. Hebr. 13: 17. 1 Pet. 5. That by Gods appointment, and in ‘[Page 204] first Apostolick times & afterward, the government was by Presbyters, communi concilio Presbyterorum, [by the common councel of Presbyters.] that by divine appointment, Bishops & Presbyters are one, that the difference betwixt them had no better ground then contudo or Custom. That divisions by Satans instinct oc­casioned the difference afterward made betwixt Bi­shop and Presbyter. That their equality was not his privat Judgement, but a Scripture truth.’ The same he hath in his Epistle to Evagrius.

But now let us hear what ou [...] Informer hath Scraped together from his masters, Saravia, Dounam, Tilen, ‘&c. To infringe this Testimony. 1. He [...]ayes [That Ierom speaks onely of the first gospel times, when mentioning the identity of Bishop and Presbyter, when the Apostles did by their own presence & indu­stry Supply the rowme of Bishops, but as they began to fail by death, or their bussines called them elswhere and upon the Churches inlargement, & the Schisme that arose upon the Presbyters equality, Bishops were set up over Presbyters. This he proves, because, jerom sayes, that from Mark the Evangelist. The Pres­byters choosed out one, and called him Bishop, even to the Bishops heraclius and Dionisius, but Mark died before Peter and Paul. Then he compleans of Sme­ctimmuus as dealling defectively in leaving out this in their Citation—And of Mr. Durham (on the Revel. pa [...] 225. and thatMr. Durham takes no notice of je­roms similitud in speaking of this Election of Presby­ters’ in relation to their Bishop, viz, As the army doth choose the Emperor] Thus far we have our Informers first great defence, Which brings to minde a remarkable saying of Marcus. Anton. De Dom. De repub Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 3. Numb. 46. Sunt qui Hieronimum in rectam sententiam vel invitum velint trahere ille tamen dum consuetudini Sole ecclaesiasticae, ecclaesiaeque humano decreto tribuit [Page 205] quod ab Apostolis jure divino, est factitatum, aliquantum certe deflexit—neque in hoc aut excusari potest, aut in alium contrarium sensum trahi verba ejus, neque aliam Senten­tiam neque defensionen neque excusationem, admittentia ‘sunt haec in Epist. ad Titum: &c Some would (he saith) draw jerom to a contrary minde against his will, but whil he doth ascribe only to Ecclesia­stick Custome, and the Churches human deccree, what was done by divine right, he went out of the way, and in this he cannot be excused, nor can his words ad­mitt of any other sense, or meaneing.’ So much was this mans ingenuity beyond that of our Informer. But to the point, I Ans. 1. Wee have nothing here but the old Song, which hath been answered by many. Iunius [decler: c. 15. Not. 16.] tells him [That tria distinguit tempora 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 [Page 206] 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 Inform [...]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 th [...]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 Dis­p [...]sitio divina, or a divine appointment. Now I beseech him, did the Apostles first practise a divine f [...]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 [Page 207] 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 divin [...] 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 a [...] this time? why then were no [...] 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 [Page 208] 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 corres [...]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 [Page 209] 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.] Its 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 Episcopus [...]reses, to be the hum [...]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 [Page 210] 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 [Page 211] 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 lea [...]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 [Page 212] 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 i [...], in saying [that the Apostles by their presenc and industry supplied the want of Bishops over these Presby­ters.] So that he compares not the Bishops in his time, with the first Bishops who came in by Custome, but these human Bishops who thus came in, with the first scripture Bishops. we know not wher to find this ver­satil proteus in his answers here, and may truely al­leadge, that this Testimony pinches him and his fel­lowes.

Next, will he stand to this exposition of Ieroms words, which he here offers, viz, ‘[That the first Bishops admitted Presbyters to governe with them, and the after Bishops in Ieroms time, go­verned alone.]’ Then he must grant, that the first and second Bishops, were of very different cutts; and so he breaks his Argument from the Catalogues, all in peeces; and must grant that the word episcopus, or Bishop, is variously used by the ancients, And that our present Lord-prelats can receave no Pratrociny from Bishops of the first ages, wherein Presbyters governed by common Council, and had a deci­sive sufferage in Government, whereas the Prelats now are beyond what their predecessors had come un­to, even in Ieroms time: For then except ordination, the Bishop did nothing, beyond what the Presbyter might doe, whereas our present Prelats are sole both in ordination and Jurisdiction, and assume a negative voice in Church Judicatories, Yea a decisive suffrage in Parliament: which he dare not say that any of these Bishops did ever pretend unto.

Well, But if we shall say that Ierom speaks of the ‘first introduction of Bishops into the Church, then (he tells us) Ierom must understand it of the Apo­stles [Page 213] 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 [Page 214] 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 Ierom [...] comment upon Tit. I. Imports only his opinion, anent the Community of names of Bishop and Presbyter not of their office at that time]’ [Page 215] 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, distr [...]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 [Page 216] 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 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 [Page 217] 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 [Page 218] 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 n [...]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, [Page 219] 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 [Page 220] 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, o [...] 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 [tru [...]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 [Page 221] 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 th [...] 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.

[Page 222] 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 wi [...]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 [...]f Minsters and professo [...]s in this Church, heir complying with a Scismatick backslyding par [...]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 [...]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 [Page 223] 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.

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.] [Page 224] Dr Reynolds, in his conference with Hart, proves, that at first the Moderator or president among Ministers in their meetings, is he whom the Anci­ents in after times called Bishop. So he holds that the Bishop at his first rise was only the [...] or Mode­rator of the Presbytery. Blondel at large mantains the same, only he holds that the next in degree suc­ceeded him when dead. Hence Musculus after he hath from the texts alledged by Jerome, proved that Bishop and Presbyter are all one▪ adds ‘That thereafter Ambition begetting strifes about pre­cedencie, one was set up to be Moderator in a fix­ed orb.’ And least our Informer or any else al­leadge, that prelacy therefore is necessary to pre­vent Schisme. ‘This eminent light of the reformed Church adds.’ ‘but whither that device of man profited the Church or no, the times after could better judge, and that the effects issueing upon it, dicovered, that it was not the Spirit of God his remedy to take away Schisme, but Satans project to destroy a faithfull Ministery. The same saith Sadael viz, that this difference betwixt Bishops and Mi­nisters which was introduced to remedie Schisme, opened a gap to ambition.’ So Dr Whittaker haveing out of Jerome shewed [That faction occasioned the change of the Ancient Apostolick parity among Mi­nisters,]—adds—‘That many wise and godly men have judged the change and remedy more pernicious then the disease it self, which though at first it did not appear, yet experience after pro­ved that it brought the Antichristian yoake upon the neck of the Church.’ See the appendix to jus▪ divin. Minist. Evangel. In which Testimonies of these great men we may observe two things. 1. That they admitt the first Bishops to have been nothing else but fixed Moderators. 2: That even this much they doe [Page 225] condemne as a deviation from the first appointment, and as that which gave a rise to the Antichristian Ty­ranny. Now the difference and disproportion be­twixt this fixed Moderator, and our present diocesian era­stian prelat, is so plaine and obvious, that nothing further needs be said to clear it. Therefore his Argu­ment from the Catalogues and those early first Bishops who tooke place in the Church, is pitifully claudicant as to a conclusion of the ancient Churches approba­tion of our Prelats.

To clear it further, its evident (if we lay weight upon the Judgement of the ancient Bishopes them­selves in point of Church Government) that 1, They held not their consecration or ordination to be distinct from that of Presbyters, Episcopi & Presbyteri una & ea­dem est ordinatio. [That the Bishop and Presbyter have one and the same ordination,] we heard is Ambrose asser­tion.

2. No delegation of externall jurisdiction to Pres­byters was acknowledged by the ancients. As it is by our new hierachical pleaders. The Prelatists hold that the Bishop is properly the [Pastour of the whole diocess,] and that all the Ministers thereof have but a derived precarius Ministry under him▪ so D [...]wn. (de­fens. lib, 2. c. 4. p. 67.) Field. (of the Church 56. c. 27) Sarav. (de trip. epis. p, 87.) Spala [...]. l. 2. c. 9 Num. 15. and yet Ambrose [on 1 Tim. 5▪ And Chrisostom [Hom. 17 on Matthew] calleth Presbyters expresly Christi vica­rios, Christs vicars. Cyprian. [lib. 4. Epist. 8.] sayes, Domi­num sacerd [...]tes in sua ecclesia—&c. ‘That the Lord condescended to elect & constitut to himself Priests in his Church. 3. The Ancients held that the power of externall jurisdiction was common with Bishops and Presbyters.’ Ignatius (in his Epistle to the Trallians,) Calls the Presbyters senatum Dei, Gods Court, or Senat. Et non consiliarios solum, sed & assessores [Page 226] Episcopi. not Councellours only (as are our Curats, and scarse that) but the Bishops assessors. Irenaeus. (lib. 4. Cap: 44.) Calls them Principes, Princes or Chieff. Augustin. (Serm: 86.) Calls the Brethren ineremo, Patronos recto­res terrae, Patrones and Rectors of the Earth. Chrisostom ex­pressly shews (on 1. Tim. 1, Hom: 11.) Ecclesijs praesi­disse sicut Episcopi, &c: That they presided over the Chur­ches as the Bishops, and receaved together with them the office of teaching and governing the Church.

The homily begines thus, postquam de Episcopis dixit, eosque formavit, quidnam illos habere conveniat, a quo item abstinere necesse sit dictans, ommisso interim Pres­byterorum ordine ad diaconos transiit. Cur id quaeso? quia sci­licet inter Episcopum atque Presbyterum interest ferme nihil. quippe & Presbyteris Ecclesiae cura permissa est: & quae de Episcopis dixit, [...]ea etiam Presbyteris congruunt: that is, ‘after he hath spoken of Bishopes and formed them, injoyning what thinges it becomes them to have, and from what it is necessary they should abstain, omitting the mean whil the order of Presbyters, he passes over to deacones. Why so, I pray? even because that betuixt a Bishope and Presbyter there is almost no difference. Because unto Presbyters also the care of the Church is allowed: and what he said before concerning Bishopes, the same thinges also do agree to Presbyters.’ I know he addes—sola quippe ordinatione superiores illi sunt, atque hoc tantum, plus quam Presbyteri habere videntur. ‘That the Bishopes’ only in ordination are superiour to Presbyters, accor­ding to the latin interpretation followed by Dounam, and Bilson, and by Bellarmin before them. But the more learned interpreters have observed that the greeke will bear a farr other sence, [...] Sola enim suffragatione horum ascenderunt atque hoc solo vi­dentur Presbyteris injuriam facere. that is, ‘that onely by the Presbyters suffrage they have ascended, (viz’ [Page 227] to this power) ‘and in this onely they seem to do injury to Presbyters.’ The learned Iunius (de cleric. cap. 7. not. 611.) tels us that [...] (hic) Presbyte­rorum non Episcoporum; quod si [...] est ordinatio, ergo Presbyterorum est ordinatio. ‘The hand suffrage, is here the Presbyters. but if it be meaned of ordi­nation,’ then ordination belonges to them. And having proved this construction & sence of the greeke from Suidas, he shewes that Chrisost. places not the difference in ordination betuixt the Bishop and Pres­byter, but in this that the Bishopes ascendunt supra Presbyteros in gradum [...] ‘Doe ascend into there degree of Episcopacy above the Presbyters—al­though, because they stepp up by their suffrage, they seem to wrong them when they assume any power to themselves, who upon the ground of order, not of’ power, (saith he) are set over them by there owne suf­frag. He also tels Bellarm. (de cleric. ca. 15. not. 29.) That granting his sence of Chrysost. Wordes, yet the Bishop ordained onely signo & sermone ‘declaring the sacred institution or inauguration of the person ordained, but not ordinatione veritatis, or by the true ordina­tion which that signe represented.’ Some add, that if Chrisost. be thus understood in the sence of Bellarm. and his Episcopal sectators, he did not rightly ex­pound his text, while distinguishing that which he ac­knowledges the Apostle makes one & the [...] same▪ Ierome tels us of their common Government of the Churches together with the Bishops; from whom Gratian (in de­cretis caus. 16. Quest. 1 cap.) shewes that Ecclesia ha­bet senatum Presbyterorum &c: That the Church hath a senat of Presbyters without whose counsel the Bishop can doe nothing.

2. We heard that these Ancient Bishops were sett up by the Presbyters as their fixed Moderator and had all their Episcopall power from their free choice and ele­ction. And that any prerogative which they had over Presbyters, they ascribe it to Custom, and to the Pres­byters [Page 228] own choic, consuetudini., non dominicae dis­positionis veritati, to Custom not the truth of divine appointment, as Ierome speakes. Irenaeus, (who lived ann. 180; lib 4. cap. 43) tells us that we must adher to those Presbyters, qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis accepe­runt.—Who have succession from the Apostles, and together with the succession of Episcopacy have the gift of verity. Ambrose (in cap 4. Ephes.) affirmes that—non per omnia conveniunt &c.—[the government in his time agreed not in al points with scripture] he means it of any excrescent power which the Bishop then had above Presbyters. And Augustine ascribes al his diffe­rence from Ierom (who was a Presbyter) unto Ecclesiae usus, the Churches Custome, and grantes that in this one­ly Episcopatus Presbyterio major est, the Episcopacy is grea­ter then the Presbyterat. (Tom. 2. operum. Epist. 19. ad Hieron) And Ierome holds (in his Epistle to Evagrius) Primatum hunc Episcoporum Alexandriae Primum caepisse ‘&c.’ ‘That this primacy of Bishops began first at Alexandria, and, post-mortem Marcae Evangelistae—after the death of mark the Evangelist.’ And thus gives the lie to our Informer who would make us believe that it came from Markes personal pra­ctise and appointment while a live. he tels us also that it was [paulatim] & by [...]ent degrees, that omnis sollicitudo ad unum delata, The episcopall care was put upon on. Sozom. (lib. 1. cap. 15.) calls it civitatis consuetudinem a custome wh [...]ch prevailed with other cites▪ 'tis re­markable, that by Ephiphanius confession (Haeres 87.) non habuit Alexandrie duos episcopos ut aliae urbes. Alex­andria had not two Bishopes as other cities. But the In­former wil not dare to say, that our Prelats now have their power by Presbyters election as these ancient Bishopes

3. It is also clear, that in these first times when the Episcopus▪ praeses was set up, and for some ages after­ward, not only the Presbyters but the people also had a [Page 229] great interest in their choice. Cyprian (epist. 68.—) speaking of the choice of Bishops sayes ‘That pleb [...] maxime habet potestatem, the people have mainely a power—and that [plebe presente,] that is in the peoples presence, they were set up:’ Which he sayes was a power they had descending upon them de divina auctoritate▪ that is, from the divine Authority. And this had the approbation of ane African Synod consulted by the Churches of Spaine as to Election. Athanas: (epist. ad Orthodox.) condemned the come­ing in of a Bishop without the peoples consent as a breach not only of ane [Ecclesiastick constitution,] but ane [Apostolick precept.] See Smect: (page 26.) proveing this at large that Bishops were elected by the people. Cyprian. (lib. 1. Epist. 4. nomine Synodi afri­canae) videmus, de divina authoritate descendere ut sacer▪ dos plebe presente sub omnium oculis deligatur &c. ‘[That the Priest was chosen under the eyes of all the people being present, and approved as fitt and worthy by a publick Testimony.]’ This (he sayes) we see des­cends from divine Authoritie, & (ibid) diligenter de traditione divina & Apostolica traditione tenendum est quod apud nos fere & per provincias universas tenetur ut episcopus deligatar plebi cui ordinatur presente &c. ‘[That it was to to be held from the divine and apostolick tradition, as almost through all provinces it was observed, that that the Bishop was chosen in the peoples presence over whom he] was ordained &c.]’ He testifies that thus Cornelius was chosen Bishop of Rome (lib. 4 epist. 2.) Grat. (dist. 62. Can) nulla ratio fuit ut inter episcopos ha­beantur qui nec a clero sunt electi, nec a plebibus sunt expetiti. ‘No reason permitts that they should be holden Bis­hops, who are neither chosen by the clergy nor desi­red by the people.]’ So Ambrose was chosen by the citticens of Millan, Flavianus by those of Antioch, Chrisostom, by the Constantin [...]politans. This Custome was so rooted, that when Emperors afterward obtru­ded [Page 230] Bishops without the previus election of the cler­gie and people, the most famous Bishops much sto­mached it. Ubi ille Canon, (saith Athanasius Epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes) ut a pallatio mittatur is qui futurus est Episcopus. Where is that canon, That he who is to be Bishop, should be sent from the court? Let our court prelats mark this: And our curats answere this quere. Now I hope our Informer will not alledge that the people have any the least Inte­rest in the choise of our Prelats, so that they are but novell & none of the ancient Bishops in this point.

4. Non of the first Bishops could ordaine alone. This is beyond debate as to the first [Episcopus preses.] But even in after times also when Bishops power was far­ther advanced they could not thus ordaine.

That their power of ordination was not singular ap­peares from the ‘4th Councel of Carthage (Can. 22) which decrees that the Bishopes ordain not without the Clergy; and [Can. 3.] they are not to impose handes without them.’

The Presbyters in Cyprians time had the power bar­tisandi, of baptizing, manum imponendi, or of laying on hands, & ordinandi, that is, of ordaining. (epist. 78.) and in Egypt, in absence of the Bishop they ordained alone. see Smect. (p. 27.) upon this ground Ambrose said, that betwixt the Bishop and presbyter there is almost no difference. Now have not our prelats power to ordaine alone? and have they not de facto frequently done so? so that upon this ac­count also they are new minted Gentlemen.

5. The power and Government of the ancient Bish­ops in Church judicatories was [not sole and singular,] as that of our prelats, [nor did they invad or inhanse their decisive conclusive suffrage] as they doe, who are Princes in all the present Church meetinges which must only give them advice, and not that, unless ‘[Page 231] this high priest judge them of known loyaltie and’ prudence, and may doe with their advice what he pleases. Wheras Cyprian (Epist. 6. and 28) pro­fesses that he neither ‘could nor would doe any thing without the Clergie. And the 4 [...]. councill of car­thage condemnes the Bishops decision unless fortified by the sentence of the Clergie’ (Can. 23.) where was the negative voice here? see Ruffin. hist. lib. 10. Cap. 9. Smectim. proves from Canons of ancient Councills & the Fathers, That neither 1. In censuring presby­ters. Nor 2. In judgeing of the conversation or crimes of Church members. Nor 3. In excommunication, nor receaving of penitents, ‘Bishops could doe any thing without presbyters.’ And that there was no de­legation of their power. Downam himself confesses in reference to Ambrose time, and long after it. So that for 400 Years our prelats present Prince like power was not known in the Church. The ancient Bishops made themselves sole in no pointe of ecclesi­astick disciplin as our prelats, who have excommu­nicat alone. Tertull. (Apoleget.) shews that the exhortations, castigations, and censuradivina, the di­vine censure among which he takes in excommunica­tion, were performed by the probati quique seniores, all the approved elders. Befor him Iraenus [haeres: lib: 4 cap. 44.] Will have these Presbyters obeyed. Qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, ‘have succession from the Apostles—And that ad correctionem aliorum, for’ censure of others as well as for sound doctrine. Basilius magnus Archiepisc. Caesariens. affirms, that jus li­gendi & solvendi [...] ex aequo, omnibus pastoribus & doctoribus &c. ‘That the power of binding and low­sing is equally and together given by Christ to all Pastours and Doctors.’ Which even Lombard denieth not [sentent. lib 4. dist. 19.] It is also demonstrated [Page 232] that elaborat piece that the oath ex officio is a Monster to Antiquity.

6. Our Prelats Civil & State offices are also a Monster to pure antiquity, as they are Cro [...]se to our Churches Au­thority; who in her general assemblie hath condemned this. (Assemb: 38. sess: 25.) The forsaid author proves this also at large, to whom we refer the Reader, So that our Informer must acknowledge that our Prelats in this point also are different from the Ancients.

Whosoever shal peruse the Canones called Aposto­lick, ‘and of ancient councels, will find Bishopes medling in state-affairs, and especialy their holding’ of state offices, so harmoniusly condemned, that its a wonder that any who pretends to the knowledge of antiquity, and to plead for prelacy upon this ground, should have the considenc to justify it.

The 6. canon of those called Apostolick ‘passes the sentence of deposition upon bishops who assume secular imployments. [Episcopus vel Presbyter, vel diaconus seculares curas ne suscipiat, alioqui de­ponatur.]’ Balsamon upon this canon, referrs us to 13. cap. 8. Tit. Where there is exhibit a full collec­tion of canons to this purpose. The 81 canon. diximus non oportere Episcopum vel Presbyterum seipsum ad publicas administrationes demittere, sed in Ecclesiasticis negotiis ver­sari. Vel ergo ita facere persuadeatur, vel depon [...]tur. That is, ‘we have appointed that a Bishop or Pres­byter must not stoop to, or debase himself with pub­lick (that is, civil) administrationes or offices, let him therfor be either perswaded so to do, or let him be deposed.’ [...]alsamon upon this canon, obser­ving that it lenifies the first, referrs to XVI Canon Carth. Syn.

Again Canon 83. runes thus, Episcopus vel Presbyter, vel diaconus, exercitui vacans; & utraque obtinere volens, remanum scilicet magistratum, & Sacerdotalem administra­tionem, [Page 233] deponatur, quae sunt enim caesaris, Caesari, & quae sunt Dei, Deo. That is ‘a [...]ishop or Presbyter or deacon who bears office in an arm [...], and will needs hold both offices, to wit the Roman magistracy, and the sacerdotal administration or ministry, let him be deposed; for [...]uch things as belong to Caesar must be’ rendred to Caesar, and the things that are Gods unto God. Balsamon upon this canon referrs us to VII. Can. chalced. syn.—tales (saith he) anathemate ferientem si non penitentiam agant— ‘Which strickes them with [anathema] (the last extremest curse or ex com­munication.)’ ‘who assume military imployments and repent not.’ And having moved ane objection, whether the formentioned clause [cesset vel deponatur, let him leave off this office, or let him be deposed.] is here also to be understood, he tels us in the close of his answer, that omnia publica eandem rationem habent, ‘that al publick civil offices fals under the same con­sideration as thus discharged.’ And begins his gloss upon this canon thu [...], diversi canones Apostolici prohibue­runt sacris initiatos publica negotia administrare. ‘That is, diverse Apostolick canones have forbidden such as are entred into sacred functiones to handle or admi­nister publick (or civil) affaires.’ In the beginning of his gloss upon the 6 canon, he represents thus the crime of church officers holding of civil places which is cen­sured therin▪ De hominibus consecratis qui seculares servi­tutes exercent &c: ‘concerning men consecrat to god who exercise wordly slaveries.—such a Chara­cter’ do the Canons put upon our Prelates state offi­ces. That VII. Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon puts the formentioned censur upon such as—[se­cularia negotia exercent divinum ministerium negli­gentes]—who manadge wordly places and of­fices neglecting the divin ministry.

[Page 234] The XVI. Canon of the second Council of Nice ‘forbidding Bishops or presbyters to be [...],’ actores or procurators, doth it upon this ground.—debent enim ad id quod scripium est respicere nemo ‘Deo militans seipsum implicat secularibus negotiis. For they ought to take heed to that which is written no man warring for god, or who is his souldier should’ involve himself in secular affaires, see Balsamon, com­ment. in Canon. Apost. concil. & patrum, & in Photii nomo can pag. (mihi) 39: 108, 127, 178, 167, 319. Whenc we may collect. 1. how constant and sever the ancients were in their censour of this guilt 2. That they held this to be a debasing of the holy ministry, to which the pastor or Bishop most give himself 3. That upon the ground of that gospel precept (2. tim. 2: 4.) No man that warreth, intangleth himself With the affaires of this life, and that other ground of giving Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what is Gods, they do con­demne, not military imployments only, in a Pastor or Bishop or taking farms (as our Informer would make us believe) but also also all secular and civil offices without ex­ception. 4. That they held the sacred fun­ction of the ministry to be utterly inconsistant with publick civil imployments. And the civil office of a state-ruler incompatible with the ministerial office, in one and the same persone; since they are oppo­sed & contradistinguished as thus inconsistant, in the forementioned Canones and the grounds thereof. So that there is not a shaddow of defence for prelates state offices. Whil these Canones do sit in judgement, es­pecialy the scripture grounds hinted therein, and many others which have been adduced.

7. What ever generall expressions of the ancients he may plead, yet is it not certain, that in the first pure ages even after the [Episcopus humanus,] and the fixed presidents were set up, the archbishops, primats, me­tropolitanes, [Page 235] were Monsters and unknowne, yea even the diocesian mould and cast of Churches, let any peruse Mr Bains, his diocesians tryall tryall against Downam, and this will be convincingly clear.

8. Where will the Informer shew us our erastian pre­lacy in all his antiquity? A prel [...]y deryoing all its power both of ordination and Jurisdiction absolutly from the civill Magistrat, having no intrinsick spirituall authority, and in all its administeration, acting by way of deputation and commission from the Magi­strat as accountable to him in every piece thereof immediatly and solely as other inferiour civil Gover­nours. ‘Dar he say that these Bishops in the first’ ages exercised not ane inherent Ecclesiastick spi­ritual power, distinct from and independant upon the Magistrat? Was all their meetings and all matters cognoscible in them, given up to be, pro libitu, dis­posed of by any Prince or potentat whither heathen or Christian? Did not all Ministers and Bishops of these times exercise ane Ecclesiastick independant authority, as being totally distinct from, and not a part of the civill Government? Was ever there Erastian Go­vernment heard of in the Christian World till Thomas Erastus of Heidleberge brotched it? And hath it not since that time been Impugned by the most famous lights of the reformed Churches as contrary to the Rules of the Gospell Church Government? So that our Informer must acknowledge the present Ecclesiastico­civil, or linsy-wolsy-Prelacy to be a speckled bird of new fashioned coloures, never before seen, to which he will not find a paralleel among all the Fathers or Bis­hops of former ages.

9. Let me add, how will our Informer make it appear That in the first purer ages, any of the ancient Bis­hops did deny & wholly exclud [ruling elders] from Church Iudieatories. We have proved this officer to be juris [Page 236] divini from Scripture. And the full consent of Antiqui­ty, & also of reformed divines is abundantlie clear, & exhibit by many of the learned for the divine right of this officer. Ambrose is brought in compleaning of the disuse of these officers (on 1 Tim. 5.) As a devation from the Scripture-patern, & proceeding from the pride & negligence of Doctors. Origin. his Testimonie (lib: 3. contr: Celsum) is remarkable, who shewes that among the more polite hearers who were above the Catechu­menists [...], &c. Non nulli praepo­siti sunt qui in vitam & mores eorem qui admittuntur, inqui­runt, ut qui turpia committunt, eos communi caetu inter­dicant, qui vero ab istis abborrent. ex animo complext meliores quotidie reddant. ‘There are some set over the rest who inquires into the life and manners of those who are admitted, that such as committ these things that are vile, they may discharge them from the publick assembly, and embracing from their’ heart such as are farr from these things, they may render them every day better. Here are censurers of manners found in the ancient Church, though not Ministers, and designed and constitut to their work with authority in their hand to interdict the scanda­lous, and what are these but ruling elders? So Au­gustin (Epist. 137.) writeing to his Charge directs it thus dilectis sratrbus, clero, Senioribus, & universae plebi Eccle [...]ae hippo ensis, ‘To the beloved brethren, the’ Clergie, the elders, and the wholl people of the Church of Hippo. So (Contr. Crese. Gramattic.) omnes vos. Episcopi, Presbyteri, diaconi, & Siniores Scitis. All you' Bishops Presbyters, deacons and elders, doe know. Here are Tuo sorts of elders mentioned in one com­ma, who can be nothing else but ruling elders. For the same purpose, the learned in handling this theam, doe cite Barronius (Ann: 103.) Where he enumerats Episcopi, Presbyteri, diaconi, Seniores. Bis­hops, [Page 237] Presbyters, Deacons, Elders. So also Tertullian (Apolleget. adversus gentes c. 39.) Cyprian (Epist. 39.) (Optatus (lib. 1. p. 41.) and many others. See asser­tion of the government of the Church of Scotland. Chri­stoph. justell. observ. & not. in Cod. Can. Eccles. affric. p. 110, 111. jus divinum Regim. Eccles. Smectim. &c:

10. The Ancient Bishops were not set over whole pro­vinces, but city by city for most part, yea severall Cities had more, which sayes they were not at all Bishops properly. Clemens (in Constit. l. 7. c. 46.) shews that Evodius and Ignatius had at once the Episcopa­cy over the Church of Antioch, and what was this but a meer Collegiat Ministery. Council. African (Cap. 21.) appoints that to examine the cause of a Presby­ter, sex Episcopl ex vicinis locis adjungerentur, 6 Bis­hops from neighbouring places be adjoyned. Poor dorps had their Bishops as is clear in History. Nazianzon, a little towne neer Caesarea, yet was all the Episcopall See of Gregory Nazianzen. In Chrysostoms time, the diocess contained but one citie. Homil. 3. (in acta) nonne terr arum orbis imperium tenet imperator &c. [doth not the Emperour (saith he) Govern the World, but this man is a Bishop only of one city.] Sozom. (Hist. Bcclesiast. lib. 7. cap. 19.) Tells us that he found with the Arabians and those of Cyprus, Bishops in little Dorps.

11. The Ancient Bishops placed [preaching] among the chief partes of their office, and were not idle drones as ours are? Theophilact. on 1 Tim. 3. tells us that docendi officium omnium precipue ut insit episcopis est necesse, that the office of preaching, which is the chieff of all others, its necessarie that the Bishop be indewed with it.

As ours Court-prelats, so our non-preaching Prelats, are strangers unto, and condemned by the ancient Canons. Photii Nomocan. tit. 8. cap [Page 238] 12. [de Episcopis, qui non convertunt haereticos, & de Episcopis & clericis qui non docent populum.] he presents and digests the Canons against Bishops and clergy men who convert not haeretiks, and teach not the people. some of these Canones are as followes.

The 58. canon of those called [Apostolick], runes thus, Episcopus vel Presbyter, qui cleri vel populi curam non gerit, & eos piet atem non docet segregetur: & si in so­cordia perseveret, deponatur. ‘The Bishop or Pres­byter who takes no care of the people or clergy and teaches them not piety, let him be set aside: and if he continue in his folly let him be deposed.’ Balsamon upon this Canon, tells us that, Episcopalis dignitas in docendo consistit, & omnis Episcopus debet docere popu­lum pia dogmata &c: ‘The Episcopal dignity consists in teaching, and every Bishop ought to teach the people holy statutes for the Bishop is for this end’ established to attend the people &c: therafter he shewes that the presbyters ought to be so imployed, quia etiam prope Episcopos sedent in superioribus cathedris, [because they sit beside the Bishops in the higher seats] they were not then the prelats underlinges as our cu­rats are now; hence he concludes that the Bishop or priest who neglected this duety, were to be set aside, and if continuing, to be deposed.

The 36. of these Canons puts this censour upon the Bishop who neglects this duty, Si quis ordinatus Episcopus non suscipiat ministerium & curam sibi commissam sit segre­gatus &c: ‘That the ordained Bishop shal be set asid sured who goes not about his ministry and the duty intrusted to him &c.’ Balsamon expoundes this part of the Canon, and summes it up thus. Decernit itaque praesens Canon, ut si quis Episcopus, vel Presbyter ad do­cendum pertinentem manuum impositionem acceperit, & suum munus non implea, segregetur. ‘The present’ Canon discerns that if any Bishop or Presbyter hath [Page 239] received imposition of hands relating to teaching, and ful­filles not his office, that he be set aside &c. Where its evi­dent that he makes the Bishops ordination, or im­position of hands, relative unto the great duety and office of preaching the gospel, aswel as that of the Pres­byter, and accordingly expoundes the Canon.

The XXXIX. canon intrusts the Bishop with the Charg of the peoples soules, in correspondence with the preceeding. In the forecited cap: XII. Photii, we are referred to the Syn. Carthag. can. CXXIII. Syn. VI. can. XIX. LXIIII. See also Syn. Sexta in trullo can. XIX. quod opportet eos qui prasunt Ecclesiis, in omni­bus quidem diebus, sed praecipue dominicis—docere pietatis & rectae rationis eloquia, ex divina scriptura col­ligentes intelligentias &c ‘That all such as are set over Churches, on all dayes, but especialy on the Lords dayes most teach the oracles of piety and pure re­ligion, drawing instructions from the divine scrip­tures’ &c: Balsamon begins his commentary upon the canon thus, Episcopi Ecclesiarum doctores constituun­tur, & propterea dicit canon cis omnino necesse esse, eum cui praesunt populam semper docere, & multo magis in die­bus dominicis &c: That is, ‘The Bishops are con­stitut teachers of the Churches, and therefor the canon sayes unto them, that its absolutely necessa­ry alwayes to teach that people over whom they are set, and much more on the lordes dayes wherin all are almost present in Churches and artificers ceases from ther work &c.’ So that our non-preaching, or seldom preaching prelates, who by a new conse­cration (forsooth,) superadded unto their Presbyte­rial ordination to preach the gospel, get a bill of ease from this great duety, to act state games, except when their Lordships please to step into the pulpit, to supererogat, stands arraighned, stigmatized, and de­posed by the ancient Canones, as unworthy of any [Page 240] office in the house of god. Vide can. Apost. conc gene­ral & partic. Sanct. Patr. Photii nomocan. cum Balsam. comment. pag. (mihi) 39: 116, 117, 121, 207.

Unto this account and censure of antiquity, and of the ancient canons, past upon our non-preaching pre­lates, I wil here subjoyn a remarkable passage of a lear­led divine whose praise is in all the Churches. Whit­taker (de Eccles. contr. 2. cap. 3.) being about to prove that the Church of rome is no true Church of Christ. Presents this for his first argument. Pon­tifex Romanus non est verus Episcopus: Ergo Ecclesia Romana non est vera Ecclesia. Nam Ecclesia non po­testesse sine episcopo. The Pope of Rome is no true Bish­op: therefore the Church of Rome is no true Church: be­cause the Church cannot be without a Bishop. But least this last assertion cheer up our Informer and his fel­lowes, he addes, disputo ex eorum placitis. That he disputs upon his popish adversaries principles; and thus classeth them among the popish party in this point. But how proves he the pope to be no true Bishop—propter praecipuum munus episcopi (saith he) quod in illo desideratur, ‘because of the Chief office of a Bishop whcih is wanting in him. And what’ is that, olim episcopi Romani diligenter docebant ecclesi­am; & nulli facti sunt episcopi nisi qui in hoc munere fide­les erant. Olim hoc ad se pertinere, & praecipuum suum munus esse putabant, ut populum sibi commissum docerent atque instituerent; adeo ut monstri simile esset, per Annos post Christum plusquam sexcentos, episcopum aliquem in ec­clesia esse, qui aut nollet, aut non posset populum docere. that is, ‘of old the Bishops of Rome diligently taught the Church, and none were made Bishopes who were not faithfull in this office; of old they lookt upon this as the Chief duety incumbent upon them to teach and instruct the people committed to them; so that fore more then six hundred Yeares [Page 241] after Christ, it would have been lookt upon as a monster, if any such Bishop were in the Church who either was not willing or able to teach the people.’ He addes, That all the Apostolick Bishopes were such. And that the Apostle requires it in a Bis­hop that he be [...], apt to teach 1 Tim. 3: 2. hoc est (saith he) non ejusmodi, qui curet [...]antum, & det operam, ut alii doceant, & hanc authoritatem docendi aliis tribuat: sed qui ipse sufficiat alios docere. ‘Not such a one who is diligent onely to provid, others to teach, and gives this authority to others, But who is himself sufficient to teach others.’ This he proves because the Apostle is in that place shewing, how the Bishop most be indued and gifted befor he be chosen, and that therfore by [being apt to teach] we most understand a per­sonal care and ability and not a deputed care, quis enim hoc praestare non posset? (saith he) who is he who may not perform this. This he further cleares from 2. tim. 2. 2. where the Apostle injoyns Timothy to commit what he had heard of him to faithfull men, qui essent [...], themselves able to teach others. Re­prehending Turrian (and with him our Episcopal men) in interpreting that first passadge of a deputed care as to teaching. And shewes that the old inter­preter translates [...] a doctor, or teacher. And a doctor (saith he) is such a one as can teach himself. There­after he cites Oecumenius, and Chrysostom thus ex­pounding the premised scripture, and even soom of the popish scoolmen, as Aquinas upon this text, who cals this the proper work and duety of a Prelat. And shewes us that Aquinas pertinently applyes to this purpose that passage, Jer. 3. 15. I wil give Pastors ac­cording to my own heart who shal feed yow with knowledge and understanding. And that Cajetan, and Catharinus do thus expound this text. In all which we see with how full a consent of ancient and modern [Page 142] Churches and divines our non-preaching or seldom preaching Prelates are condemned, and how fully our scripture-argument against them upon this head, is for­tified and confirmed.

12. As in other points of difference, so the an­cient Bishopes were as farr from our Prelats fastuus pompe, and sumptuus grandeur which they assume. Am­mianus Marcellinus (lib. 27. de habitu vitae beatorum episcoporum,) tells us of their tenuitas edendi, potandique parcissime, indumentorum vilitas &c. Their spare eating and drinking, their meanenes of apparrel, their lovely countenance, as that which commendes them to God and his true worship­pers. Paulus Samosatenus, his fastuus pompe and at­tendants, although a great Bishop, is highly condem­ned, as exposeing our faith to envy and hatred. Euseb. (lib. 7. cap. 29.) The Canon of the 4 Councell of carthage (insert by Gratian in the body of the de­cree distinct. 41.) provides that, Episcopus non longe ab ecclesia hospitiolum, vil emsupellectilem, &c. That the Bis­hop have his little manse not far from the Church that he have meane houshold stuffe &c. Et dignitatis suae Au­thoritatem fide & meritis quaerat, and purchase Authority to his office or dignity by faith and good works. Sozom. (lib, 6. Cap: 16.) Relats of Basilius Magnus, Bishop of Caesaria, that he answered the Imperours praefect who threatned the Confiscation of his goods, thus, Horum nihil me Cruciari potest, equidem opes non habeo, preterquam laceram vestem, & Paucos libros. None of these things can torment me, truely I have no goods but a torne garment and some books. See the historia motuum [page 143. to 174.]

Now from all that is said, I think common in­genuity will acknowledge; (and this Informer him­self, if he be not ane utter stranger to it,) that our present Episcopacy is as far discrepant from that of the Ancient Christian Church, as east from west, and by [Page 243] consequence that this pleading from the ancient pro­stasie, or even the after Bishops to legittimat and pa­tronize our present prelacy, is a most gross nonsequi­tur and notorius fallacy.

CHAP. XIV.

WHereas the Informer is bold to affirme that Calvin [...] Beza, Blondel, and other eminent divines who have written against Episcopacy, are reconcilable to it, yea to a hierarchy of the highest stamp. Wee answer 1. The full and harmanious consent of An­cient and modern divines and reformed Churches, for that which we plead for in point of Church-Go­vernment, shall be exhibit in the last Chapter. 2. As for Calvin's judgment in relation to Presbyterian Government, It is so fully known to the world in his writings, that we think there needs no more to put a brand of impudence upon any, then to deny it. And [Page 244] we doe appeal to his judicious commentes upon all the controverted places of the new Testament betwixt them and us; wherein all that we plead for, either as to the identity of Bishop and Presbyter, in name and thing, the Presbyteryes power in ordination and juris­diction, the extraordinary Evangelistick Power of Timothy and Titus, the divine right of the ru­ling elder, the peoples right in the call of Mini­sters, the unlawfulness of Prelats sole power and do­minion over their brethren, the unwarrantablenes of Ministers state offices, &c, is clearly asserted. Let any consult him upon Matth. 18. 17. Matth 21: 22. Luk. 22: 25. Act. 6: 2, 3, 4. Act. 14: 23. Act. 20: 17, 28, 29, 30. 1. Cor. 5. 1 Cor. 12. 28. with Rom. 12: 6: 7. 2 Cor. 2: 6, 7. Eph 4: 11, 12. 1 Thess. 5: 12, 13. 2 Thess. 3: 14. Heb. 13: 7, 17. 1 Tim. 1: 3. &c. and 4: 14. 2 Tim 2 4: 2 Tim. 1: 6. Tit. 1: 6, 7. &c. and such like places, where he will be found to give sen­tence for us against the Prelatik party, and expound­ing them just as we doe. 3. These adversaries doe grant that the Government in this Church, which fa­mous Mr. Knox owned, and all his dayes contended for, was Presbyterial Government. And it is as well knowne and acknowledged by themselves, that he had the sense and judgment both of Calvin and Beza in that great bussiness. Spotswood in his history tells us that [John Knox framed our rules of disciplin in imitation of what he had Seen at Geneva.] Tilen▪ in his petulant piece intituled Paraensis ad Scotos Genevensis discipline Zelotas, makes this undenyable. He calls Calvin and Beza all along our Masters, and alledges that we can hear of nothing but out of their scool &c. But that they owned Presbyterian Government, as the onely Government appointed in the house of God, he never took the confidence or had the forehead to [Page 245] deny. When John Knox was desired by some to write to Calvin, and others about a certain difficulty, he answered that he came not here without all their Iudg­ments in what he had done, and that they might think him unconstant in writting for a resolution in that matter. Now John Knox look't upon Episcopocy as a limb of Antichrists Hierarchie, and as haveing aliquid com­mumune cum Anti Christo. Something in it common with Antichrist. So that what the Informer mentions of Measson, and Bish: Andrews their asserting of Cal­vin and Beza's Episcopall Government at Geneva, and their preeminencie in ordination and jurisdiction, is a gross calumny. The eminent parts of these fa­mous divines might make their judgement have great influence in determining others, but that either Calvin or Beza, did ever incroach upon the decisive po­wer of their fellow Presbyters, or acted any thing pro imperio or solely, is a calumny which any who ever read their lives can sufficiently disprove. Their la­boures and practise as well as their writings was for mantaineing the due right of Presbyterian Govern­ment against enemies of all sortes. In the life of Gal­leaceus Caracciolus, It is reported, That Calvin being consulted by him in a case of conscience requireing secrecy (in a great measure) would give him no de­terminat answer (tho a ruleing elder in that Church) without consulting his Brethren. As for that which the Informer cites out of Calvines Inflit. [l. 4. c. 4. Sect. 2.] where [He acknowledges that Jerom teaches that the proestos is ane ancient institution, and that he repeats what Jerome sayes, a Marco &c.] Its a pitiful proofe to conclud therupon that Calvin acknowledges diocesian Prelats as Ancient as Mark. For Calvine knew well that Jerome speaks but of the proestos first set up, and the Informer hath not proved that either Calvin or Jerom gave their approbation to the setting of him up. [Page 246] And for what he adds [That Calvin sayes ne ex equalitate ut fieri solet dissidi [...] orirenter. That they were set up least from equality discord should arise as usuallie there doth.] granting that he acknowledges they were more then meer Moderators, that is fixed Moderators. What then? Are our Prelats no more? Or will his acknowledg­ment of the factum, prove his acknowledment of the jus? and though mans corruption abuse parity to discord, what then? our corruption will abuse the best ordinan­ce of God. As for what he cites from Instit. (l. 4. c. 5. Sect. 11. Our Informer hath not proved. That Calvin by [Episcopi] and [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 secund [...] 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 [Page 247] nibus dederat, in unum solum transferri, reliquis spoiliatis & injurium est & absurdum, deinde sic preve [...]tere Spiritus sancti linguam, ut nobis eaedem voces, aliud quam volue [...] [...] 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 [Page 248] 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 synon [...]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 [Page 249] 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 malifecutu [...] est, quod per inde ac si non essent omnes Presbyteri collegae (N. B.) adeandem vocati functionem, unus, sibi pretextu no [...]ae appellationis, dominium [...]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 is, It is not permitted to Titus pleasure to doe all things alone, and impose upon the Churches what Bishops he pleased: but he only bides him oversee the Elections as Moderator.’ Paral­leling this with Act. 14. 23. where he saith that Paul and Barnabas acted not soli, & pro imperio, that is, solely and imperiously to put Pastores upon the people who were not expetiti or electi, desired and chosen, but only probatos & cognitos, men approved and [Page 250] known. Now let this man say himself, doth not Cal­vin here clearely assert our principles, and kill the dio­cesian Prelat with the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction?

So that nothing can be hence Inferred, but that Church consistories were not then without order, and that one did praeside among them; for Calvine sayeth on the 7. verse, porro locus hic abunde docet nullum esse Presbyteri & Episcopi discrimen. And he who praesi­ded here was Titus, whose Episcopacy we have aboun­dantly disproved.

As for that which he tells us Calvin adds, [that one was in authority over the rest at that time,] ergo, what? Had not Paul, Barnabas, & Titus ane extraordinary au­thority & commission? for he sayes, tunc, or at that time wherein these offices did exist; but will any think that Calvin could mean, a Diocesian Prelats ordinary po­wer which; immediatly befor he was disputing against from the text? He adds presently nihil tamen hoc ad prophanum & tirannicum collationum morem. This hath nothing to doe with the profane and tyrranicall Custome of Collations, longe enim diversa fuit Apo­stolorum ratio, for the Apostles case and ground was far different from this. As for that which he addes [of Cal­vins letters to a Bishop in the Church of Rome, anent Episcopacy it self, as being of God] I can appeall this mans conscience, if Calvin thought the Episco­pall hierarchie with sole power of ordination and ju­risdiction, far less the popish hierarchy, to be of God, and whither he doth not in his Commentaries Particularlie in the places cited, speak against the dio­cisian Prelat as such. Besides, we shall here tell the In­former that this passage which he cites as in the vo­lume of his [opuscul a page 72] upon a search of two several editions, hath not been found. As for his letter to the King of Pole, approveing all the degrees [Page 251] of the hierarchie] it is so grosly contrary to Calvins principles and writings, that the Informer must excuse us, not to take it upon trust from him, Especially since he exhibits no part of that letter. For his letter to the Duke of Somer set (citted by Durel, and the more to be suspected as coming from the hands of such ane enemy to his principles.) [anent some fantastick ones fludiing to bring in confusion under the name of the gospell] we think it a fantastick inferenc of our Informer, to conclude therupon, that he calls the asserters of Presbyterian governement such.

Although in that Epistle there is no express advice to remove Episcopacy, what then? there is no express advice for removing severall other Corruptions. But the Consequence that therefore Calvine did not disowne these Corruptions, the Informer himself will grant to be a gross non sequitur. And some Considerationes of prudence might move to wave the express tou­ching upon this head at that season, when light was but dawning as to a Doctrinall reformation, and the scales of the gross cimmerian darkness of popery, were but begining to fall off from the eyes of that peo­ple. Yet when the Informer shall peruse that Epistle again, he will find that Calvine Leaves it not altoge­ther untouched, when heuseth these wordes, habeat sane hoc locum In rebus istius vitae—atqui alia prorsus est ratio regiminis Ecclesiae quod spirituale est, in quo nihil non ad Dei verbum exigi fas est, non est inquam penes ul­lum mortalem quicquam hic aliis dare, aut in illorum gra­tiam deflectere,—that is, let this truely have place in af­faeires of this life—but the Church Government, which is spirituall, is of a far other nature, wherin there is nothing but what most be brought unto the touch­stone of the word of God, here I say it is not in the power of any mortall to gratify any thing unto others, or to decline for their favour. A passage which compared to Cal­vi [...]s [Page 252] principles in point of Church Government, doth fully Antidot the Informers waspish extraction from this Epistle.

For his treatise to the Emperor Charles the 5i. a­nent imbracing of a hierarchy tyed by a brotherly society a­mong Bishops and by the bond of truth, and united only to Christ] I see nothing discrepant in it to Calvines, or Presbyterian principles, If [Hierarchie] be rightly taken, and for this (if their be indeed such a passage whereof I have no certainty) I think we can in no rea­son suppose Calvine to owne the popish Government, even as abstracted from false doctrine, since he holds the very Diocesian Bishop, to be contrary to the Aposto­lick Government, far more the Hierarchy; will any man say, that Calvin did owne all the Locu [...]s of the profane popish orders which are parts of this Hierachy? so that Calvin by hierarchy, and spirituale regimen, doth indigitat the most simple and primitive Episcopacy which the fathers speake of; and withall since the embracing of the gospell simplicity and truth which Calvin there desires (as he sayes,) would quick­ly sned off all Luxuriant branches of humane invention in point of Government, and like wayes since Calvin ownes the Church Government set down in Scripture as our pattern (which doth as much reprobat the po­pish hierarchy, as the doctrine therein set down, doth their errors;) all this will preponderat towards Calvins meaning only a gospell Ministery, which is equally distinct from Bishops in the popish and prela­ticall mould. As for the difference [betwixt the primi­tive and popish Episcopacy] I think there is indeed a great difference, & we have proved our present hierarchy to be as much different from it, and soom what more if its erastian mould be taken in as the Informer must.

The treatise to Charles the fifth, entituled de ne­cessitate reformanda Ecclesia is so Generally cited by [Page 253] the informer, without quoting, either page or section that himself seemes half convinced of the Impertinen­cy therof.

For Saravia his asserting, that he defended Calvins opinion against Beza, he said in this as in the rest, more then he could prove. For what he adds of Hooker and Durel who assert [That Presbytery was settled at Geneva, because another Bishop could not be gotten after the popish was away, and that it was settled not out of a dislike to the hierarchie, but because they were in ane equality and stood so, being bent on reforming the doctrine] I Answer. His Authores in this assertion stand upon a very slippery and sandie fundation. What? Were there no able men to be Bishop after the popish Bishop was gone? and had they not leasure sufficient to doe this 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, [Page 254] 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 C [...]nctos sic [id est Archie­piscopos & Episcopos] hodie appell [...]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 in [...]aurent ut Ecclesiae Christianae fidos pastores, cur non agnoscamus, observemus & omni reverentia prosequamur? Nedum ut quod falsissime & impudentissime nonnulli nobis objiciuut [Page 255] 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 [Page 256] 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. [...]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 [Page 257] 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, [Page 258] 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 [Page 259] 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 [Page 260] (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▪ [Page 261] 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 [Page 262] 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, [Page 263] 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.

[Page 264] 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 fixed prosta­sie and after he hath Confirmed this, he addes in the next sect: Cum itaque Collegium id est ordinatus ratione utentium caetus fine ordine nec institui, nec Conservari, nec agere, nec agi, (amplius dicam) nec cogitari potest; aequabi­lis inter ejusdem muneris Consortes, ac sese honore mutuo praevenientes sanctos paritas, divina propemodum [...] & commune Consilium, in [...] aut [...] nequa­quam degenerabant: stabant enim aequo (in eodem gradu & ordine) jure omnes sed suo quisque loco; erantque in familiâ quaque Ecclesiasticâ, post primo genitum secundo, tertio &c. Geniti, qui majorem natufratrem (secundum Pa­trem caelestem) colebant, eique nec ambienti nec poscenti (in­vidioso nunc) [...]. In singulis communis regiminis actibus jure volentes cedebant, ac­primas ubique partes deferebant; ut si quando novus Cooptan­dus esset Collega, Cleri totius jam consistentis plebisque Consen­tientibus suffragiis & judicio Comprobatis, (N. B.) totius Pres­byterii [...] (praeunte tamen ac reliquorum nomine so­lemnia benedictionum verba pronunciante promotione anti­quissimo) in possessionem muneris mitteretur, priorum per Consecrationem quoddamodo filius factus, qui [...] ratione aequo cum aliis omnibus jure (licet [...]) frater erat, ubi vero quaestionis in Ecclesiae [Page 265] regimine quicquam emergeret, consultantium in commune fratrum disceptationibus (quasi naturae jure favore omnium fir­mato,) praeesset Senior; non gradu alio major (N. B.) non na­tiva gradus communis potestate potior, sed adventitiâ ob aetatis meritum delegata, superior.

Which is this in summ [that though the colledg of the ‘ordained were all alike as to their official power, yet least their joynt councel should fall under anarchical confusion, the first ordained minister (although of the same degree & juridical power with his colleagues) had a sort of veneration and precendency as to some acts, but stille in their name, & by their consent who were his brethren.’ Which will reach a patrociny to the diocesian Erastian Prelat, with his sole power of or­dination and jurisdiction, his negative voice in Church judicatories, and his delegation of Ecclesiastick power to the whole synod, his civil state office &c. When east and west shal meet together. Then he addes.

Hanc originalem Ecclesiasticae politiae formam sub Aposto­lorum oculis natam, non immerito putavit Hilarius, quid enim pietati, naturae rationibusque dictamini consonum ma­gis, quam ut priorum canitiem reverenter habeant aetate po­steriores? fac tamen Apostolis non modo nonimprobantibus, sed palam laudantibus ortam; ego sane libere ab initio obser­vatam Christianisque sive ab Apostolis sive ab eorum discipu­lis traditam, sed ut mutabilem & pro usu & arbitrio Eccle­siae mutandam (prout in causa consimili piae memoriae Crakan­thorpus sensit) crediderim. In which passage he pleades onely for this fixed moderatour, and doth not posi­tivly assert the Apostolik institution for it, but comes neer Bezaes expressiones in reference to the [Epis­copus humanus.]

As for Blondels confessing this primus Presbyter to have had authority with his precedency, as the Infor­mer is bold to assert, he had done well to point us to the place where these wordes are found [quis enim praesi­dentiamsine [Page 266] authoritate somniet?] for upon search they are not found; but it seems the Informer puts this sense upon his words which follow these cited above ac forte consistorialium omnium qui Pastorum Ecclesias quas­que in commune regentium [...] urgent, calculos ever­tit, quod ab ipsa Apostolorum aetate collegii cujusque Pres­byterialis singulare quoddam caput fuit. Qui vero? an nostrum ullus synedrium sibi (N. B.) vel [...] vel [...] hactenus somniavit? an non eodem inter nos jure modoque, vel per vices, pares inter compares, vel delegata a paribus ad tempus potestate praesunt, quo inter christianismi primordia ae [...]o honoris inter conseniores primas fuit? Where he de­nyes that this singular head of the consistory, or mode­rator his power did justle with, or evert the common votes or Episcopacy of the Pastoures, and consequen­tly their joynt Presbyterial government, because the consistory or meeting could neither be without a head, (or mouth) nor have many heads, which he assimi­lates to the then power of their moderators, chosen from among his equals and co-presbyters, either by turns, or a delegated power of presidency for some time.

The Informers citation of Chamier (p. 35.) [acknow­ledging from the beginning a [primus Presbyter] with a [nova po­testas and jurisdictio] ne esset Episcopatus mere titulus: Or a first Presbyter, with a new power and jurisdiction &c.] Burns his fingers, and rebounds a deadly blow upon him­self; for in calling this jurisdiction and power, Nova or new, he makes it later then the first scripture patent anent that Presbyters Authority, which was the same with that of his Brethren before this humane supperadded power. And consequently he must look upon him onely as Beza's humane Bishop, supposing ane anterior di­vine Bishop which is the Pastour or Minister.

And here again the Informer puts us to tell him that this his citation of Chamier attributinge a new jurisdi­ction [Page 267] from the beginning to the primus Presbyter, or first Minister, is so general, without pointing at ei­ther book or page, that it seemes he resolved that in this (as in other passages) none should trace him, to know whither he cited true or false. However the pla­ce he means is, lib. 10. de oecum. pont. c. 5. Where Cha­mier grants primum Presbyterum accepisse novam potestatem, that the first Presbyter receaved a new power. But that it was so from the beginning, is our Informers incrusted eeke­ment, which (as in another passage of Blondell) we must suppose his lyncian eyes discovered in some written copy of Chamier, which the printer was so uncivil as not to put in, because this our great doubt­resolver was not overseer at the presse. Any who loo­keth upon that chapter may discover that Chamiers scope is to prove that ab initio regimen Ecclesiae fuit Aristo­craticum, that from the beginning the Church government was Aristocracy, and that the disparity which after came in use, was ane innovation.

As for what he adds of Moulin, (pag. 76.) If he hold [The Episcopall power in ordination to be among these things, which, though in the Apostles time, yet were alterable] He may be probably supposed to include it among the Apostles extraordinary expired prerogatives, which this man must acknowledge will lay no foundation for pre­lacy. As for Stillingfleet, we are not concerned in his principles, or any debat betuixt him & them. For that which he calls ane evasion [Anent the alteration of some things in the Apostolick Church] As wee disowne Stilling­fleet, in making the frame of government which the Apostles established in the Church, versatile, various or alterable. So we disowne this Informer in resolving it solely upon the Churches decision, [what Apostolick practises are imita­ble or morall, and what not.] A dangerous popish prin­ciple, and wherein he will be found inconsistent with himself. But for the apostolick government by the [Page 236] Common Concell of Presbyters, wee hold it mo­rall and perpetual, upon the same grounds of the Chur­ches union and edification which himself doth plead. As for the shifts and bad issues which he alleadges Presbyterian writters are driven unto, Neither he nor any of his party can make it appear, but his own pitifull shifts, and of others of his way, in pleading for this Hierarchy, wee hope by this time are sufficiently apparent. As for Durells offer [To get Episcopacy ane approbation from all forraigne divines] we lett it pass as a peice of prelatick pageantry fitt to fill pamphlets. Ad pompam non ad pugnam—quid tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu. Durel and the Informer cannot stand befor their evidences, who have made the Contrary appear. For what he adds anent our Superintendents, as haveing upon the mat­ter ane Episcopal power, I referr him to the defence of the Epistle of Philadelphus against Spotswoods Calum­nies, printed at the end of Didoclavius page. 30, 31. Where he will find the difference betuixt them and Prelats cleared and stated in 12. Particulars to his Conviction, unless he hath resolved—Ne si per­suaseris, persuaderis. So that worthy Mr. Knox gave no patrocinie to prelacy in Countenancing the ad­mission of Superintendents. How he hath deryved his Prelacie from Scripture, and through antiquitie to refor­med times, & Churches, in their confessions, Let the impartial judge by what I have answered from the beginning. As for the Authors of jus divinum Minist: Anglic: [Their proof of the identitie of Bishop and Presbyter, at length cleared from Fathers, Schoolemen, & reformed divines, even from Episcopall divines in England] the Informer had done better not to mention that peice, then to have made such a simple & insipid returne, [Anent the Scoolmens notione, whither Episcopacy be a different order from Presbytery, or a different degree of the same order] for though this were granted that the scoole-men tost such a question, dare [Page 237] he say that the Ancient Fathers both greek and latine, and late reformed divines cited in that learned peice, in their clear and positive assertions of the parity of Bishop & Presbyter jure divino, intertained any such notion as this? Againe, had he been so ingenuus and true to the learned authores of that peice, and unto himself, [...]s he ought to have been, he might have found cited therein a passage of Cassander in his book of Consul [...]. (Artic. 14) Which breaks this his answer all in peices, and because his squeemish eyes lookt asquint upon it, I shall here sett it downe, that it may appear what a great charge this is which he brings against these divines. An Episcopa [...]us inter ordines ecclesiasticos ponen­dus sit, inter theologos & canoni [...]as non convenit; conve­nit autem inter ownes in Apostolorum aetate inter episcopos & presbyteros nullum discrimen fuisse, sed post modum schis­matis evitandi causa episcopum Presbyteris fuisse praepositum &c: That is, Whither Episcopacy is to be placed among the Ecclesiastick orders, It is not agreed between the Theologues & Canonists, but it is agreed among all, that in the Apostles age there was no difference between Bishops & Presbyters, but afterward upon the ground of eviting Schisme, the Bishop was set ever Presbyters, &c. Now whither these disputants did agree That alwayes from the Apostles time, there were Bis­hops distinct from Presbyters, as this Informer is not as­hamed to affirme. Let the greatest adversarie judge by this account of such ane impartiall witnes. How could he say, that these Fathers might be of this mind, and likwayes these later divines, that al­wayes from the Apostles there were Bishops set over Presbyters. What a selfcontradicting tenet is this for any rationall man to intertaine? viz, Bishops and Presbyters, re & nomine, in name and thing, the same in the Apostles times, and in their doctrine: and yet [that Bishops were set over Presbyters by the Apostles, and distinct from them in their times.] What will he make of all Ierome [Page 238] Scripture proofes through the Apostles times, and writings, anent this compleat parity of Bishops and Presbyters? of the saying of Ambrose [That, Non per omnia conveniunt seripta Apostolorum ordinationi quae nun [...] ‘est in Ecclesia. The writtings of the Apostles agree [...] not in every thing with the ordinance or appoint­ment (he means of government) which is now in the Church.]’ What will he make of Bishop Iewel telling Harding, in his defence against him? [That in calling it a haerefie to affirme Bishops and Presbyters to be one, He reflects upon Ierome and other Fathers whom he cites against him, yea upon the Apostle Paul, and makes him also a Haere­tick] What will he make of that assertion of Beza, Episcopus papam peperit. The Bishop brought forth the Pope. Of Whittaker [That the setting up the Prelat, yea the first proestos or president to prevent Schisme, was a remedy worse then the disease.] Now if he will reconcile these say­ings and assertions with their holding Bishops distinct from Presbyters, to have been in, and from the times of the Apostles, he will prove a wonderfull Oedipus.

But our Informer hath not yet done with these Au­thors, and hath another reflection upon them anent what they say page 64. [That Eusebius and Iraeneus were deceaved themselves, & deceaved others] he tells us 1. [They are hard put to it when seeking to relieve them­selves by discrediting these authores] But this man is hard put to it, if he deny that which is so Noto [...]ly true, & made good by so many of the learned. Were Iunius and Scalliger (who are approved herein by Dr Reynolds) hard put to it, who demonstrats Eusebius gross errors & mi­stakes. 2. He sayes Though in some things Eusebius was mi­staken, most he be so in every point wherin he maks Bishops su­perior to Presbyters, & drawes their succession from the Apo­stles. Ans. For the Catalogues of Bishops from the A­postles, we spoke to it already, and for Eusebius speaking alwayes in that straine, the reverend au­thors [Page 261] of that peece, (with others) doe tell the Informer that all that Eusebius sayes, is that it is reported—that his learned censurer Scalliger, maks it appear that he read ancient histories parum attente, (not attentivly,) & that he takes his measures in this point, & his relations upon trust, from Clemens fabulus, & Hegesippus not extant.

3. The Informer thinks it strange [that they can suppose Irenaeus (Iohns contemporarie and disciple) to be deceaved as to Church government.] Answer. Had he but looked upon the 4. 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 Archo [...], 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 [Page 262] 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 [Page 263] 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.] [Page 264] 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, its 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. Now surely the Apostle James was not of the Presbyters meerly, or chosen from among them; But to undeceave our Informer as to Bu­cers [Page 265] 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 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 [Page 266] 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, i [...]is n [...] great prejudice that will hence ensue to Bishops, as he hat [...] already cleared. Ans. We have made it appear tha [...] 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 i [...] 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 coul [...] cite Augusti [...] as of Aerius minde, since Augustine hold him to be erroneous upon this ground. (Haeres. 53. A [...]s. Why doth he not answer to that passage of Augusti [...] cited by Mr. Durhame, as he pretends to answer to som [...] of the rest of these fathers. What sayes he to Augustin [...] [Page 267] 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] [Page 268] 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, a [...] hereticall, only as he found it rela­ted by Epiphanius, wheras himself knew not how farr the name of heresie was to be extended, as he testefys in his pre­face concerning heresies. But that Augustin himself was of the judgement that by divine right, there is no difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter, he proves from his words Epist. 19. he cites also—Iewell against Harding the jesuit (asserting likwise with the Informer that Aerius was condemned for his opinion as a heretick) who proves that Jerome, Augustin, Ambrose, were of the same minde. Thus wee see Augustin made in this point consistent with Ierome, & also with himself, whom this man makes to speake contradictions, so as he may come faire off.

3. He answers That Ambrose and Chrysostoms Testimony will not come Mr. Durhams length, Becaus, Though Ambrose [or one Hilary] sayes that Episcopi & Presbyteri una est ordinatio, that they are both priests, yet the Bishop is the first, So that every Priest is not a Bishop, for the Bishop is the first priest. Ans. The Informer hath left out wittily (whither honestly or not, let others judge) in his translation of this sentence, the inference which Ambrose Drawes from this identity of the office, viz, that they have both one ordination. He maks the office one, and the ordination one consequently, and gives this reason why they have one ordination, viz, because, every one of them is a priest or Minister, uterque enim Sacerdos, sath he: Their ordination, is terminat upon, and relative unto, one and the same office. Now what greater length would he have Ambrose asser­tion come then this? That there is no diff [...]rent ordination of the Bishop and Presbyter, and consequently no officiall dif­ferences doth he not plead for ane officiall specifick dif­ference? betwixt Bishop and Presbyter? Makes he not [Page 269] the Bishops succeed the Apostles and Evangelists in their officiall power, and the Presbyters to come after the Seventy Disciples or meer ordinary Pastoures? Are their not many essential differences, which this mans principles, & the present practise, fixes betwixt the Bishop & Pres­byter, wherof we have spoken above? How can Ambrose then assert, that they have the same office and ordination? Where is the Consecration? Where is the Bishops sole power in ordination and jurisdiction? Where is his ne­gative voice among the Presbyters, making them in all their officiall power certain deputs under him, if their office be one, and their ordination the same with his?

2. As for the difference here assigned, viz, That the Bishop is the first priest, and that every Presbyter is not a Bishop in Ambrose sense, this will nothing help our Informer; Becaus 1. This is fitly applicable to the Proestos then in use, yea to the Moderator of a Synod, who (as such) hath a sort of Prostasie while the Synod sits, and every Minister is not Moderator, though the Mo­derator be no more then a Minister in his officiall po­wer; nay, this is applicable to the least accidentall dif­ference Imaginable. Every man is not white or black, yet every such is a man. Every Parliament man is not speaker, though the speaker is a Parliament man only as to his authority. Blondel his first ordained Minister, who, with him, is the first Bishop or Proestos, hath this properlie applicable unto him. 2. He must be minded, that Ambrose sayes, when speaking of the Scriptur - parity of Bishops and Presbyters, non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolorum ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia. That the writings of the Apostles did not in every point agree to the order which was then in the Church. Now this preter - scripturall or new order of government, what is it but that anent the primus or first among the Presbyters? so that this very primus or prostasie (tho farr from the present Hierarchie of our [Page 270] Prelats as is said) yet comes after the scripture appointment—with Ambrose, and is unlike to that paritie be­twixt Bishop & Presbyter, which is therein held forth.

The Informer Next offers something in answer to Chrisostoms Testimony, who asserts That almost there is no difference betwix a Bishop and Presbyter. And his great Answer is That notwithstanding these Fathers acknow­ledge a difference, and themselves were Bishops] Ans. If the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter come to a fer­me nihil, or almost none, Surely it decays and is ready to vanish away. And what this difference is, and where­in placed, we have already heard; and surely that prostasie in Chrysostoms time; behoved to be very in con­siderable, since it came to make upno greater difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter then a ferme nihil, upon the borders of a non ens. As for what he sayes of their being Bishops themselves. I answer, they are the more impartiall witnesses in this mater; They tell us oft that Ierome was a Presbyter, and therefore no friend to Bishops. Now here is a Testimonie of eminent Bishops for this very truth which Ierom asserts, and which this man would make us believe, was condemned as a He­resie. And surelie we are more tender of their reputa­tion, who interpret any Prostasie or Episcopacie which they held, to be according to this their judgement a­nent Episcopacie, and assert that what overplus of power they had or might possibly exercise, beyond that of a Presbyter, was by them lookt upon as founded on Ecclesiastick Custome or Ecclesiae usus, As Augustin speaks, but not to flow from a divine right, Then this Informer and his fellowes, who make them main­taine one thing and practise another; yea and contra­dict themselves so grossly in maintaining as high a jus divinum, as Apostolick doctrine, and practise, in re­lation to the Hierarchicall Bishop, and yet assert a ferme nihil as to the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter.

[Page 271] But the Informer adds, That they might think Bispop and Presbyter to differ Gradu, not ordine, in degree not in order, which is still a debate in the Schools. Ans. This assertion is so improbable, that he dare but lisp it out, and faintly asserts it with a might be; But sure he must needs acknowledge this distinction of the Schooles to be much later then these Fathers, and any gra­duall difference which they place betwixt Bishop and Presbyter, it is clear, that they found it upon Eccle­siastick Custome, as we heard both Ierome, Augustin and Ambrose assert.

But how long will this man involve himself in con­tradictions, and these Fathers also? Told he us not (page 15.) That Augustin upon Psal 45: 16. affirms, That the Bishops are properly the Successors of the Apostles unto their office. And saith he not immediatly there­after, That Ambrose upon 1 Cor. 12: 28. affirms of the Apostles first named in that Classe of Church officers, that ipsi sunt Episcopi firmante illud Petro, episcopatum, ejus acci­piat alter. That the Apostles are the Bishops by Peters as­sertion, let another take his Bisheprick. Tells he us not likewise here that Augustin makes James the first Bishop of Ierusalem, and Peter, the first Bishop of Rome? Tells he us not, that they transmitted ane Episcopall power in that traine of Successors, proved by Catalogues of Bishops? Did we not hear him plead, that the seventy Disciples, placed in ane inferiour orb to the Twelve Apostles, are properlie suc­cceded by Presbyters; that Matthias behoved to be ordain­ed ane Apostle, tho one of the Seventy disciples, is his great argument to prove this. Now I beseech him per omnes musas, will he say that Apostles and Presbyters dif­fer only ordine and not gradu, in order, not in degree? or that these fathers doe hold this opinion? how come their successors then to coalesce into one, after such a manner as to differ only in a ferme nihil, or almost noth­ing? Saith not Ambrose, Episcopi & Presbyteri una est or­dinatio, [Page 272] the Bishop and Presbyter have the same ordina­tion. But the Informer will not adventure to say that the Apostle and Presbyter have one ordination. For Matthias one of the Seventy must be solemnlie by God or­dained ane Apostle: And the Prelats must be 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 [Page 273] 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 [Page 274] 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.

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.

[Page 275] 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. Ra [...]: 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 O [...]cumenick Coun [...]les of Constance & [Page 276] 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 [Page 277] 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, Can [...]: [Page 278] 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 Wald [...]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. Morn [...]y Lord of Pless. de Eccles. Cap 11. Nay Canonists and Schoolmen themselves, Summa angelica ordo, Sect: 13. and Innocentius there cited. Filiu [...]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. [...]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.) [Page 279] asserts, That the holy function of the Ministery is givin [...] ‘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 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 [Page 280] divines, as Calvin, Piscator, Marl [...]rat on 1. Tim: 4. 14. Tit. 1. 3. Zanch. de Statu. P [...]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. lo [...]. 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 public [...] 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 [Page 281] 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 people [...], 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 [Page 282] 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. p [...]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 [Page 283] 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.

CHAP. I.

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 [Page 3] 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 Diocesi [...] and Erastian mould, as hath been pro­ved at large. And we heard that this Church of Scotland, since it received Christianity, did stand for a long time under Presbyterian Government, and untill Palladius was sent unto us from Pope Celestine, never knew a Prelat, Ergo, Prelacie in its Dioce­sian Erastian mould is here abjured.

2. Our Prelacie is condemned in that clause of the Popes wicked hierarchie, whereby the Prelatick Go­vernment is most clearly pointed at, which is evident thus. 1. That the Government of the popish Church is prelaticall: this man will not deny, it is by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Primats Deans &c: and it being distinct from his Monarchie, for else the naming of his worldly monarchie had been enough: and moreover, it being ranked among these things which are brought into the Church against the Word of God, and into this Church against her pure Doctrine which was clearly the [Page 4] 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 [Page 5] 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 things were so fresh & recent. 3. That discipline which the takers and framers of this cov [...]nant, at the taking of it, and in pursuance of its ends, did carry on and establish, that discipline it must needs include and engadge unto in their sense: but that was Presbyte­rian-government. For (to omit many preceeding discoveries heirof mentioned in the Apology) in the [Page 6] year 1580. The assemblie after their judiciall de­clarator, that Prelacie is contrary to the word of God, sent Commissioners to the King to desire the establishment of the book of policie by ane Act of Council, untill a parliament were conveened; and what this book of policie contained, we did already hint. Then in this same year, the national cove­nant and confession is sworn by the King and Coun­cil. In the assemblie 1581. it is subscribed by all the members, and the Act of the Assemblie at Dundie ex­plained. And it was again judicially declared that the Church did thereby wholly Condemne the estate of Bishops as they were in Scotland. At which very Nick of time the Confession of faith (Sworn before in the year 1580.) is presented to the assemblie by the King and Council, Together with his Letter to Noblemen and Gentle­men for erecting Presbyteries Compleatly through the nation, and dissolving Prelacies, all the three, viz, both the King, the Estates and the assemblie, fully agreeing in this judgement as to Church govern­ment, and this oath for its maintenance. And ac­cording to this joynt authoritative determination of Church and State, Presbyteries were erected. Lik­wise in this assemblie according to the forsaid joynt conclusion, the Second book of discipline contai­ning the mould of Presbyterial Government, and likewise this National Covenant and oath for its perservation, are (as the two great Charters of our Churches government and liberties) insert into the Churches records ad futuram rei memoriam, And that posterity might not be ignorant of the discipline sworn in that covenant. Upon which, and many such like grounds, the Assemblie 1638 did again judicially declare this sense of this National Oath, which ac­cordingly was received with ane expresse application to prelacy, and the other Corruptions attending it, [Page 7] and taken by the whole land with a full concurrence of the civil Sanction and authoritie, Anno. 1640.

The 2d. Great engadgement pleaded against pre­lacie, is that of the Solemne League and covenant: Whe­rin we vow the preservation of the reformed religion of the Church of Scotland in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and government according to the word of God, and the example of the best reformed Churches. In the Second Article, Wee sweare the extirpation of poprie and prelacie, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, their Chancellours and Commissaries &c. And all Ecclesiasticall officers depending on that Hierarchie—of whatever is found contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of godliness. Which engadgement hath been likwise taken by all rancks, by Parliaments, Assemblies, and the body of the people. Now that the Prelacie at this time established is abjured in this engadgement, is these wayes Evident.

1. Prelacie being razed in Anno. 1638. according to our national covenant, and ane engadgement being framed of adherence to the Religion established in Doctrine, worship, discipline and Government, in opposition unto all innovations formerly introduced, and upon both grounds, Presbyterian government, in its exact paritie being sett up, and judicially ena­cted, both by Assemblie and parliament: that the Solemne league must needs strike against Prelacie, is in this apparent, because this league is clearlie refe­rable to the great ends of the national covenant, as it stood then established, explained and Sworne by this whole nation; and therfor is ane accessorie en­gadgement, commensurat unto, and to be explained by the preceeding: and consequently none can doubt that it strikes against prelacie, and engadgeth to Presbyterian government, who knowes how former engadgements stood.

[Page 8] 2. The preservation of the Doctrine, worship, Discipline and goverment then existent in Scotland, referring to the then establishment therof, in opposi­tion to the former prelacie and all its corruptions; Its evident that all sort of prelacie & whatever corruption in Government is inconsistent with Presbyterian sim­plicity and parity, is here abjured and covenanted against. As we engadge the preservation of the Do­ctrine and worship as then reformed, from Prelatick innovations, so likewise we sweare to preserve our Churches ancient and pure discipline as it stood then recovered from prelatick encroachments. That disci­pline & government is here sworne unto, as the disci­pline and government of the Church of Scotland, which the Church and State of Scotland at this time established and owned: But so it is, that that was Presbyterian government, then fully ratified both by Church and State, Ergo, the preservation of Pres­byterian government is sworne; and by further con­sequence that government which was by Church and state extirpate, as abjured in the nationall covenant, and contrary unto this Presbyterian frame, was lik­wise abjured and covenanted against in this league. But such was prelacie, Bishops, Arch-Bishops &c: ergo. Again.

3. The great ground upon which our adversaries deny the national Covenant to strike against prelacie, is, that they hold that the then existent discipline, to which in that Oath we vow adherence as the discipline of this Church, was not Presbyterian government, & that King Iames did not own it. Ergo, (by ane argument a contra­riis, and ad hominem) since its undenyable with them that de facto Presbyterian government was now enacted, ratified, established and sett up, both by Assemblies and King and Parliament, that goverment we must stand oblidged unto by the solemn league, [Page 9] as the reformed discipline and government of this Church, and contrarily that government which was then de facto by assemblies, King and Parliament ra­zed as inconsistent with Presbyterian government, and as abjured in the nationall Covenant, that go­vernment wee cannot deny, but the solemne league stricks against. But so it is that prelacie was at this time razed by Assemblies, King and Parliament, as inconsistent with the nationall covenant, and Pres­byterian government then established, ergo this so­lemne league stricks against Prelacie.

4. The word preserve here used—and the ex­pression of common enemies cleares this further: preser­ving [...]relates to that which one is in possession of, the common enemies of this possession, in the sense of all, both Imposers and engadgers, are the Prelats and their Malignant Agents, so that the holding fast of what was attained in point of reformation &c: Pres­byterian government in all its established priviledges against Prelats, Prelacie, and all the incroachements thereof, is here most evidently engadged unto.

5. That engadgement and oath which they who have set up prelacie in our Church, did Cassat and remove, as inconsistent therewith, that must needs, by their own confession strike against it: but so it is, that our Parliament and Rulers did wholly Cassat this solemne league, in order to the establishing of Prelacie. Ergo, by their own confession it strikes against it. They cassat the nationall covenant 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 [Page 10] 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 [Page 11] 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 [Page 12] 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 [Page 13] 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: Its 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 God, all du­ties we are tyed to in his holy law. 4. They are universall engadgements, all were given up to God in them, representatives and members of Church and state. 5. perpetuall and reall, as that betwixt David and Iona­than 2. Sam: 9: 7: 21: 7. That betwixt Ioshua and the Gibeonites, Ioshua 9: 18, 19. And that Cove­nant Dent: 29: 14, 15.

Secondly the binding force of theseengadgements ap­pears in the subject they affect, as first, our Church in her representatives, and in their most publick capacity, the solemne assemblies in both nations. 2. State represen­tatives & Parliaments, thus all assurances are given, that either civil or Ecclesiastick lawes can affoord, and the publick faith of Church & state is plighted with invio­lable tyes: So that they must stand while we have a Church or state, in Scotland; both as men and as Chri­stians, as mmbers of Church & State, under either a re­religious [Page 14] or civill consideration, we stand hereby in­violably engadged: and not only representatives but the incorporation of Church and State are under the same.

Thirdly their binding force appears in the matter and Object, 1. The immediatformall object is the Word of God & the Truths and duties therein contained, and whatever is contrary to sound doctrine, and the po­wer of Godlinesse, under that formalis ratio, is here abjured, the eternall Truth of the Gospell as holden out in the Word, and received in this and reformed Kirks being the grand rule in this engadgement, what­soever is approved by it, is embraced, and what is condemned by it, is rejected under that notion. 2. The more remote or materiall Object, are the publick, ne­cessary, great and important Truths and duties the­rein enumerat, both of the 1 and 2 Table, and the errours and sins therein abjured: To the observation, faith and obedience of the one, and abhorrencie of the other, under the formentioned consideration as either consonant unto, or dissonant from Gods eter­nall Word and truth, we stand perpetually and invio­lably oblidged: So that this Oath hath ane objective, as well as subjective necessity contained therein, a ne­cessity of the matter in its own nature, prior to the engadgement, as well as a necessity of performance flowing from the engadgement it self, which may take place in things indifferent.

Finaly the constantly obliging ends and scope of these engadgments, joyned with the importance of the Matter subservient to these ends, further discover their inviolable obligaions. There is here both necessitas precepti, necessitas medij, & finis. The mat­ter sworne to be performed, falls under divine pre­cepts, the sins and evills abjured, falls under divine prohibitions, and these engadgements are both in re­spect of the matter it self, and as to the professed [Page 15] scope of the swearers and engadgers, levelled at continually obliging ends, such as Gods glo­ry, the advancing of Christs Kingdom, the pu­blick good of Church and State, the preservation and propagation of publick and personall reformation, truth, unity &c. Now both these Oaths and Covenants are professedly entered into as perpetual engadge­ments, and in order to these great ends for ever to be promoted, as their tenor clearly holds out.

If any say what is all to the speciall obligation for Presbyterian Government, and in opposition to Prelacie [...]? the Oath may be temporary or cas­sat and made void as to that point, though there be never so great duties otherwayes engadged unto therin. Ans This particular engadgement in rela­tion to the maintenance of Presbyterian Government, and in opposition to Prelacie, runs along in the fore­mentioned particulars. 1. It falls under the obligati­on of the Oath, vow, promise, and Covenant, and under the forementioned qualifications of solemnity, universality, and importance. Again 2. the pu­blick faith of Church and State reaches this most evi­dently, and is engadged for it. And 3. as Gods great ordinance holden out in his Word, Presbyterian Go­vernment falls within the compass of the object of these Oaths, and under that consideration is sworne to be maintained, and Prelacie as contrary therunto is abjured, which contrariety hath been already clea­ed. Again Presbyterian Government is here engad­ged unto as subservient to these great ends mentioned, and Prelacie is abjured as hindering the same, as both the Word of God and experience hath convincingly discovered.

CHAP. II.

WE come now to examine what this new absolver or pretended doubt-resolver, hath presented to us against the oblidging force of these great engadg­ments. The defence which he hath patcht up out of the survey of Naphtali, and that pamphlet called the seasonable case, consists of 2. parts. 1. He denys that the bond of either the national, or solemne league and Covenant, doth strike against the present Prelacie. 2. Upon supposall that the solemne league and Cove­nant doth strike against it, he denys its obligation. In both points we shall examine his grounds and tra­ce his Method. I the doubter alledges that Prelates are abjured in the Covenant, so that none may warrantably owne the Ministry of such as preach under them, as being perju­red. To this consequence he repones nothing, but seems to admitt it, and therefore we need not speak unto it. Only he quarrells with the antecedent & tells us that we would act more Christian Like, if we were sparing in judging another mans servants, who stand or fall to their own Master. But the judging there forbidden, being a rash felfish judging of others in things in­different, as meats or drinks, and (as Calvin pa­raphraseth the words) de hominium factis pronunciare [Page 17] extra verbum Dei de factis aliorum non licet statuere secundum nostram ipsius estimationem, sed ex verbo Dei. That we are not to judge of mens practises by our own opinion, but according to the rule of the Word, and not without its limits. Telling us further, that Iudicium quod a verbo sumitur, neque humanum est neque alienum that it is no human privat judgement which is drawn from the Scriptures, the impertinent application of this passage & premised Scripture to our case, which is a practicall disowning of palpable perjury, and tur­ning away from such, whose instruction causeth to erre from the words of knowledge, is obviously evident. This is no judging without Gods word, but accor­ding to it, to say that perjury is perjury, sin is sin. Our Informer by this new knack would take away all chri­stian judgement of discretion, yea by this his wide glosse, all judiciall decisions whither civill or eccle­siastik. Besides, is not his pamphlet a judging of another mans servants, Ministers and people, as schis­maticks and what not, for disowning Curats upon the forementioned grounds. Doth he not and all his party judge, despise, and persecute the people God, for that which he calls indifferent, and a disputable point, at the foot of the page. But to proceed, his Doubter alledging [that all stand bound against Bishops in the Covenants which doe abjure them] he cryes out at, all Bound! as a paradox, and tells us that many Ministers and people never took it, and asks if we think them bound. Yes we think them bound as we do judge them bound in Gods covenant (Deut: 29.) who were not there, as well as these who were there, young and old, wives, little ones, from the hewer of wood, to the drawer of water. It seems this man either hath not read that chapt: or understands not the import of nationall compacts even among nations themselves; which do certainlie oblidge all members in the incor­poration, although not personally sworne by every [Page 16] [...] [Page 17] [...] [Page 18] individuall. Will he say that no subject as a born subject oweth fealty and alledgeance to his Majestie, but such as have personally sworn the oaths of supre­macie or alledgeance. If so, then a man could not, be guilty of treason, which is certainly a breach of this fealty, unlesse he had personally sworn, which I know not who will assert.

But the doubter alledging That it obligeth even the posterity, he tells us that this is a strange fancy, Iura­mentum being with casuists, vinculum personale, binding those that took it only, that accordingly the Covenant sayes, [we every one for ourselves] and not [for our selves and others]—That the father who was against Bishops, his swearing should not prelimit his sons judgement (who is for them) in a disputable point, or oblidge him to act contrary, to his judgment. Ans: 1. That there are covenants and oaths reall and hereditary, as well as personal, is evident in scripture; and if this man were not more led by fancy then truth he would not deny it, which is not only thus evident, but acknowledged also by Casuists. Was not that oath and Covenant, Deut: 29. made with them who were not there and belonging unto (and by consequence engadging) their seed for ever. Deut: 5: 2, 3. Moses tells the people emphatically that God made the Covenant with them who were then alive, even that Covenant at Horeb, though they were all near dead with whom it was made. Neh 9. 38. all entred into Covenant but only some sealed it. Was not that oath of Josephs brethren anent the carrying up of his bones from Egypt to Canaan, the oath to the Gibeonites, such as did reach and oblidge their posteritie? So that oath betwixt David and Jo­nathan. 2. Sam: 9. 7. Now that the nature of this oath is such, cannot be doubted, it being about matters of perpetuall and everlasting importance, which no time can alter, evacuat or limit, and having the [Page 19] publick faith of Church and state interposed therin, by a vowand Covenant with God and man over and above the oath: And likewise being in its nature promissory, in relation to duties, midses and ends perpetually necessary and oblidging, it is palpably evident that it is reall, and not personall only. 2. For that ex­pression, every one for our selves, it is very imperti­nently here alleadged to exclude the posterity: for the end and motive of the oath before this is expressed to be, the glory of God, the advancement of Christs king­dome, the happiness of the King and his posterity, the true publick liberty, safety of the kingdomes &c. wherin every ones private state is included; which of necessity includes the posterity and designes the obligation for them.

Next, in the close of the first article, the posterity is expresly taken in, when the end and designe of the matters therin contained is said to be, that we and our posterity after us may live in faith and love &c: And in the close of the 5. article we engadge to endeavour that the Kingdomes may remaine conjoined in a firme peace and union to all posterity: and therefor his negative inference viz: for our selves, and not for our posterity, is opposit unto the very sense, scope, and words of this oath: so that this clause is cleary referable unto the various capacities, conditions, and relations, wherein, in order to the work of God, the then engadgers stood. 3. his notion about prelimiting the son by the fa­thers engadgement, is a poore shift. For this might be objected against any nationall mutuall compact, in matters of a farr lower nature then this. This might have been objected against Josuahs oath to the Gibeonites. Might not the posterity look upon it as a disputable point to keep unto them, and might not Zedekiahs posterity look on it as a disputable point to keep that oath of his to the king of Babylon? [Page 20] I wonder if this man would think it ane unlawfull Covenant and vow to engadge for prelacie as now constitute, and oblidge for our selves and posterity, that it shall stand in this posture. Sure he will not deny the warrantableness of this, since he looks upon prelacie as the ancient apostolick frame, owned by the primitive Church. But shall the sons judgement who is other wayes minded, be prelimited by the father, or els must he act contrary to his judgement? let the Informer see to this. If he say its not a disputa­ble point to hold the present prelacie, and that there­for the son is oblidged to informe his judgement and act rationally, the obligation to the dutie carrying in its bosom a prior obligation to know it: surely he must acknowledge that this is our case and answer as to the Covenant; and that consequently his objection is naught, and the horns of his horned argument are crooked, so that it pushes us with neither of them. We might also here tell him that a prelimitation as to pra­ctice, in many things not indispensably necessary: will fall under the fathers paternall power over Children, witnesse that case of the Rechabites: And that this will not in every thing inferre a prelimi, tation in judgment as to the object simpliciter: Nay who knows no [...] that the great morall precept [honour Thy Father and thy Mother] imports a very exten­sive obligation upon Children as such, in order to o­bedience to parents, and gives unto parents a large, and extensive authority hereanent. But shall the son be prelimit in his judgment anent all these, or act contrary to it? so this objection (in the Informers sen­se, and according to his scope) will blurre out a great part of the 5t. Command. But what needs more, the matters here engadged unto, are impor­tant truths and dutys, not disputable points, as he and the rest of his adiaphorist latitudinarian party [Page 21] would make them: and therefor we are under per­petuall obligations to owne and mantaine the same.

But if this man will abide a quere here, and a litle retortion of his notion further, thinks he it not hard to prelimit the faithfull ministery and profes­sors of this nation, in their judgement about his dis­putable points of the present conformity, by so many laws and acts, or else oblidge them to act contrary to their judgement? Sure fathers have at least as great, if not a greater authority to limit their chil­dren, then the Prelats and their party to prelimit the Presbyterian Ministers of this Church. Especially (which is our advantage in this comparison) the chil­dren being supposed under no previous contrary obli­gations to that which in this case the fathers put upon them in relation to prelacie, as the non-conformists are under counter obligations to that which is now demanded of them by their persequutors.

Mr Crofton. (in his analepsis, pag. 145.) ‘tells us that considering the Covenant as made by the people of England, as a Kingdom and a Politicall body, professing the reformed religion, it looks like a nationall obligation, that the confluence of publick assent and authority by the people collectively and distributi­vely considered, the accession of Royall assent, ma­kes it a Publick and nationall Covenant, binding all persons of the nation (that sware, or sware not perso­nally) and our posterity after us, in their particular places, and all that shall succeed unto the publick places, and Politick capacities of this kingdom, to preserve and pursue the things therein promised, so long as it re­maines a kingdom, under one king, and in the pro­fession of one reformed religion. He enforces this with the lord chief Barons speech, to the condemned traytors at the old baylie [you were bound to beare allegance to your king, yea though you may not [Page 22] have taken the oath of alleadgance your selves, yet yow were bound by the Recogintion of king James and his posterity made at his first coming to the crown of this Realme, by the whole parliament, being the whole collective body of the kindom] hence he inferrs, that they and their posterity, must needs be bound, who themselves have [universaly] by the authority of such who were intrusted for them engadged the faith of the nation: for I see not (saith he) how they can give away our estates or take pardons in the name, and to the security of the nation if they may not in our name make oaths, promises, and Co­venants to bind us and our Succeeding generations and posterities, in sense whereof I cannot but desire all that wish well to England to consider the Covenant, the Solemne League and Covenant.’ So that with Mr Crofton it is an uncontrovertible point, that the obligation of this Sacred oath reaches the posterity, which he makes good from the sense and pleading of the Lord chief Baron in the point of alledgance and fealty to his Majesty which is the sentiment of all La­wers, and of the law itself. So that what our Infor­mer calls ane odd fancy, appears to be a most solid truth, consonant both to Scripture, reason and the law of nations. As for the next objection of his doubter anent the fathers oblidging for the child in Baptism it is not our argument, nor is sutable to the state of this question, which is concerning a Covenant taken for our seed als well as for our selves; and if he acknowledge that the father binds not, in the name and room of the childe, then it toucheth not our point, for our question is about fathers taking on engadgements for themselves and their posterity. As for what the Informer adds here, its good that he acknowledges that ane oblidging force flows from the binding mater in that baptismall Covenant, and that the childs obligation is strengthened by his vow, which is enough [Page 23] in our case against him, since the matter of our Co­venants, and vows fall under divine precepts, to which the obligation of the oaths and vows is acces­sory. So that having sworne to keep these holy en­gadgements unto God, we must performe, and here he contradicts his forleader, the author▪ of the seaso­nable case, who will have us either acknowledge the matter of the Covenant indifferent, or not plead the force of an oath or vow as superadded to that which was duty before.

The doubter next objects That having sworne against prelacie we must not any more dispute, or question the obliga­tion, citing, Prov: 20. 25. This objection he advan­tagiously for himself, but foolishly propones, that he may make way for some discourse (forsooth) upon this Scripture. We acknowledge as well as he, that we are not forbidden to enquire into an oath and vow in what cases, and how farre it is binding. Nay this is comman­ded, since we must both sweare and performe in Iudge­ment, which requires a knowledge and inquiry as we saide before; and when an oath of vow is found materialy unlawfull, and vinculum Iniquitatis, it is no transgression of this precept to quite it. Such an inquiry as is in order to the understanding and performance of this vow in faith, we will allow whither to young or old. Only for what he sayes of many who were put to sweare at schools and colledges, and engadge in this Covenant, who could not do it in judgement, it is a calumnie which he cannot justifie, all being ex­horted and instructed therein who were come to Years of discretion, so as to be in capacity to enter into this Covenant, with judgement: and if lesser young ones present in congregations where it was sworne, did signifie a spontaneous consent, it was no more, then what Israels litle ones did by their presence before the Lord, Deut: 29. Well, but what is forbidden [Page 24] ehre to make inquiry (saith he) how the vow may be eluded. This is ingenuouslie saide, and hereby his own lips con­demne him and all his party, who have been now for many years, racking their wits to finde out evasions how to elude this Sacred vow. Witnesse the many pamphlets on this Subject since his Majestie's returne, and this mans among the rest.

But the Doubter alleading that upon enquiry we will finde our selves bound against prelacy both by the nationall & solemme League. He falls upon his impugnation first of the nationall Covenant, telling us as touching it [that the terme of the Popes wicked hiearchy will not include prelacie, as the survey of Naphtali fully proves] well, let us hear these proofs. The first is because king Iames and his counsel (the imposers of that Covenant, and the takers of it, Anno 1580) did in anno 1581: ratifie the agreement at Leith, made betwixt the Commissioners of the state and Church anno 1581. which was in favours of episcopacy. And would the king and counsell the next year have acted so contrary to it, if they had thought all episcopacy to be abjured therin Ans. Is this the great demonstration, which the Survever, and he have drawen out to prove this point, this being nothing but the old musty store of the Seasonable case, better propounded therein, then its here. To this I say, first, it is a very weak or rather wilde proof to conclude that such a corruption as prelacie could not be imported in that expression, Because the takers and imposers did some time after counter­act and contradict their engadgement: must the sense of a promissory oath and Covenant be measured by the after practice of engadgers? Sure he will not darre to admit this rule, and yet its the very topick of his argument. I would but ask him, if we could clearly demonstrat from the words of this oath, and from [Page 25] this expression, that episcopacy is therein abjured, must he not grant that this argument taken from their after practice who took it, will signifie nothing, since it cannot stand good against the sense of the words, and the obligation natively resulting there­from. Sure he cannot deny this, else he will swallow monstrous absurdities. And therefor unlesse he can disprove our arguments, which do prove prelacie to be abjured in that oath, and by the words in their genuine sense, he must grant that this practicall argu­ment will signifie nothing. 2. He might have found that the Apologist outshoots the Surveyer and him, as also the Seasonable case in their own bow, and breaks this argument with a wedge of their own set­ting: for whereas they alledge that about a year or lesse after this Covenant was imposed and taken, King James ratified that aggreement at Leith. He retorts that at the assembly 1581. which had declared prelacie utterly Unlawfull, and without warrand in the word, the Kings Commissioner presented to them (together with the Covenant subscribed by the King) a plot of presbyterys to be erected by him through the Kingdom, together with his letter to noblemen and gentlemen to be assistant therein, and for dissolving prelacies, to make way for these judicatories made up of Ministers and Elders. Hence (Saith he) how could King James intend prelacy by this confession since the self same day (a shorter time then half a year) wherein this confession (subscribed by him and his houshold) was presented to be subscribed by the assembly, he presented a plot of presbyteries to be erected through the Kingdom. Now let our Absol­vers Medium come in here, would King and counsell have acted so much for presbytery, and in opposition to Prelacie, in that very day wherein this nationall Covenant was presented by him, If he had not judged [Page 26] prelacie to be therein abjured, and presbyterie en­gaged unto. And (if this assemblies carriage will have any weight in this argument) would they have recorded this oath as the Test and badge of this their nationall engagement, after they had immediatly before judicially declared against prelacie, if they had not looked upon it as abjured therin, and under­stood this oath in a sense opposit thereunto.

The Informers next reason is, that in their strivings with the King to get prelacie away, they never used this argument; that it was abjured in the nationall Covenan [...], which they would have done, had they thought it to be included in that expression, of [the Popes Hierarchie.] This, our In­former hath very justly copied out of the Seasonable case. What? had the Surveyer in all these pages which he cites, no new notions to furnish him with, that this proctor is still feeding on the old store. But to the matter, first, how (I pray) runs this argument, [Ministers pleaded not this obliga­tion at that time with King James: Ergo, There was no such meaning in the nationall Covenant] surely this is a wide consequence. 2. this is yet wi­der [we know not of any such pleading at that time: ergo there was none] besides, he might have found that the Apollogist tells him out of Petries hist: pag. 448. That Mr. Melvin in anno 1584. writing to divines abroad anent our Church, shews them that three years since, the discipline of this Church was ap­proved, sealed, and confirmed with profession of faith, subscription of hand, and religion of oath, by the King and every subject of every state particularly. And that (pag; 570.) he shews that when some Ministers (anno 1604) were accused by the Synod of Lothian as to a designe of overturning the government, the synod pre­sented the confession of faith to them, as containing ane abjuration of prelacie, and a vow for presbyterian [Page 27] government, And that Mr. Forbes one of the im­pannelled Ministers for holding that meeting at Aber­deen in anno 1605. in his discourse to the gentlemen of the assize, shewed that they were bound by the nationall Covenant to mantaine the discipline of the Church, and having read it to them, he told them that they would be guilty of perjury, if for feare or flattery they discernd that to be treason which themselves had sworne and subscribed. Who also desired the Earle of Dunbar to shew the King what followed upon the breach of the oath to the Gibeo­nites, and that they feared the like should fall on him and his posterity. The Seasonable case (pag: 13.) acknow ledges that Ministers at that time lookt upon them­selves as obliged against prelacy, by the national Co­venant, as well as we by the League, in plaine contra­diction to this Informer. As for that which he adds [of Beza's intention in writing against prelacie] we spoke to it already upon the first dialogue. And seeing this man objects to us Beza here again, we will offer to his consideration, Beza his 79. epistle written to John Knox, and dated at Geneva, Aprile 12. 1562. Whe­rein he sayes, ‘This is the blessing of God that ye brought into Scotland, together with the sownd doctrine, [...] or good discipline—he obrests him to keep these two, since if the one be lost, the other cannot long continue—there­after he imputes it to this cause, viz the want of this pure discipline, that the gospell is preached to many in judgement, not in Mercy. Then he adds, I would have thee (my Knox) and the rest of the brethren remember (which is now as befor our eyes) that as the Bishops brought in the papacie, so these false Bishops the relicts of papacie, will bring Epicurisme into the Church. Let them beware of this whoever wish the safety of the Church: and seeing ye have once banished is out of Scot­land,’ receive it never again, albeit it doth flatter with the [Page 28] shew of retaining unity, whereby many of the best ancients were deceived. See Petries hist. part. 3. pag. 376.

The Doubter next enquiring what is meant by the Popes hierarchie. He answers, not all Bishops, but these who actually depended upon the Pope, and that all Bishops can no more be understood, then reformed Presbyters, who renounce their dependance upon him; Presbyters and Deacons being a part of his hierarchie, as the Council of Trent deter­mines. Ans. This is already removed when we did shew that prelacy is here abjured simpliciter, and absoluty, ab­stracting from this dependance, it being here abjured as other corruptions are abjured, not mainly or only, because the Pope brought them in (as the assembly at Glasgow in the year 1638 clears it in their expla­natory act, and likewise the Apollogist pag. 396.) but as a corruption, [...]ex se & sua natura of its own nature, contrary to the word of God, and the pure received doctrine of this Church. It is His wicked hierar­chie as the rest of the corruptious therein enumerat, are called [his] such as invocation of Saints, de­dications of altars &c. Because introduced by him, not to distinguish these corruptions, from a lawfull dedication of altars, 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 [Page 29] 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, [Page 30] 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 it [...]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, [Page 31] [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 [Page 32] [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. He [...]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 [Page 33] 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 3 [...] 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 [Page 34] 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 [Page 35] 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 [Page 36] 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, [Page 37] —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, its 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 [Page 38] 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 therefor [...]—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 [Page 39] 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 were.

But what is meant by [discipline] in that Covenant? The substantialls of it (sayth he) and necessary policie as exprest in the first dook of discipline, 9. Cap. which is un­alterable, tho particular formes (as some think) may be changed. But 1. Why will this versatil Informer bemist his reader what dark and generall expressions. Whi­ther means he the [essential necessary Policy,] according to that phrase of the book, or a necessary Policy exprest and asserted in that book? If the first, I would ask him. 1. Why condescends he not upon that essential and [Page 40] necessary policy, and gives no account of its nature and extent, as it is contradistinguished from that which is not necessary, but mutable. 2. If by substan­tials of Government [...], he mean all Church-officers of divine appointment, according to the Scripture ac­count of their qualifications, their authority, and its due exercise, with what sense or reason can he suppose, or any els, that this wil not determin a particular form, & cansubsist without it? how can a particular form be more formaly and explicitly described then thus? But, next, if by necessary Policy, he understand the Poli­cy held out and asserted in that first book, I would ask him. 1. Why excludes he the second book, which was at this time extant and received, and which doth in severall chapters viz. 5, 6, 7, 8. treat of the Pastor, Doctor, Eld­er, and Deacons office, which he will no doupt own as substantiall peeces of Church-policy, being so clearly asserted in Scripture. 2. Why answers he not to the account & character of that first book given by the Apoll: (pag. 10.) who tells him that it overthrowes pre­lacy in the establishing of Church-sessions, the way of election and triall of Ministers, and severall other things contrary to the episcopall method; will he by this silence consent, that prelacy stands in opposition to the substantialls of Church Government, and the utterly necessary Policy therof? to a policy indeed unalterable; (to use his time phrase)? if he say, that he understands by this phrase, that policy which is necessary in either or both these books, but not the intir. Policy delineated therin; how will he prove that the Covenant-obligation in the Intention of the imposers, reaches the on and not the other? Next I would ask this Informer, whither thinks he that particu­lar forms of Government are alterable, yea or not? if not, how comes he to distinguish them in this, from the essentiall necessary Policy which he cals unalterable? if he think them alterable, why doth he not positively as­sert [Page 41] this, but presents this opininion as the thoughts of some only, and censurs Stilling fleets opinion herin (pag. 76.) Besides, if by [substantials of Government] he un­stand [the disciplin asserted in that book,] he justles and deals stroaks what his reverend father B. Spots­wood, in his character therof exhibit in his Histo­ry, pag. 174. For first, he sayes it was framed in imi­tation of the Government of the reformed Church in Gene­va, which all know was Presbyterian. 2dly. He sayes it it could not take effect as being but a Dream. And did he call the [substantialls of Government] but a Dream, thinks this man? Surely either the Bishop or our In­former dreams. 3dly. He wisheth Iohn Knox had retain­ed the old policy, and therefore in his sense this policy was distinct from Prelacie. On the other hand the framers (the Ministry owneing it) supplicat the Par­liament after it was drawn up for [the restauration of the Discipline of the ancient Church,] and for dis­charging the Popes usurpation, and of all that Disci­pline that did flow therefrom, as inconsistent with the Discipline of the ancient Church, and the Disciplin contained in that book. How absurd is it to sup­pose that it was only substantialls which was at this time existent, and no particular forme; it being a forme of Government and the Discipline of this Church, which the Covenant oblidges unto; and the Apologist as, well as the Assembly 1638. could have given him a large account and proof of a particu­lar forme at this time existent. In a Word, let us have all the substantialls of Government, i. e. AllChurch officers divinely appointed, with their due power and Assemblies higher and lower, and it will quickly justle his prelacie to the door, and make him him and hisFathers feest he dint of the true Church of Scotland, her sword and censures for what they have done, if they repent not.

CHAP. III.

BUt now this our Oedipus and doubt resolver who hath acquit himself so dexterously in absolving us from the nationall Covenant, marches up after the Seasonable case, to try how he can play the absolver as to the solemne league. And his Doubter making a wide step to the 2d. Article [wherein he allegeth Bishops are abjured, and that Protestant Bishops are meant]. To this he answers, That its not every kinde of Protestant Bishops that is there intended, and that Timor­cus (pag. 14, 16.) holds that all episcopacy is not abjured, but that they could in England freely Submit to the primitive episcopacy viz, the precedencie of one over the rest; with­out whom nothing is ordinarly to be done in ordination and jurisdiction—that they assert its only the English kinde of prelacy (expressed in the Article for that end) that is abjur­ed, which we have not in Scotland. That Mr Vines and Gat­taker assert, that its only that complex frame consisting of all the officers there mentioned, that is abjured—that the Assembly of divines was reconcilable to moderate episco­pacie,——That Timorcus holds that the English par­liament & our commissioners were not against all Episcopacy, (citing likewise Mr Crofton pag. 70: 71.) hence he concludeth that the English preshyterians would not cry out against con­formists as guilty of perjury. Ans. I. It is a very pityfull shift [Page 43] to measure our obligation in Scotland against Prelacy, by the 2d. Article of the league, which relates to the Church of England, wherein only that prelacy was exi­stent. For since Scotland, from the time of our refor­mation never had such a Prelacie as the adversaries ac­knowledge, they must consequently grant that the pre­lacie which that article engadgeth to extirpat, is not solely or mainly the Prelacie which we stand oblidged against in that Covenant, but a Prelacy inconsistent with Presbyterian Government (and under that for­mall consideration) which in the first article we are en­gadged to preserve. In order to which preservation of our reformed discipline from our own Prelacie, the 2d Article, which doth relate to the extirpation of Prelacy in England and Ireland, is subservient as a mean to its end. This is convincingly clear, for I. Extirpation and Preservation being opposite terms, and the last being made use of as to our Church of Scot­land, must needs relate to Presbyterian Government as then established, in all its previledges, which clear­ly excludes the episcopacy formerly existent therein; And the extirpation, and reformation ingadged to in the 2d. Art. must relate to the then existent Prelacy in England and Ireland, and that by way of mids leading unto, and for execution of the ends of preserving our own established reformation, engadged unto in the first Article. 2. We said already that our Parliament did rescind all acts against our episcopacy, together with the solemne league, and restore Prelats to the sole possession of Church Government under the King, declaring clearly that the preservation engadged unto in the first article, cannot consist with our Prelacie. Again, as this duty of extirpation is engadged unto in so far as is necessary in order to the preserving of our own established reformation, by this Church prin­cipally vowed and intended, so that clause in the [Page 44] end of the 2d. Article, viz. [to extirpate whatsoever is found contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of godliness] amounts both as to us and England, to such an extensive engadgement in opposition to Pre­lacie, that it totally excludes it even in our adversaries mould, under this formalis ratio as thus opposit to sound doctrine &c. Which hath been cleared upon the first Dialogue.

Next, will this man deny that these officers, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Chapters, &c. are not in themselves and simply abjured in that 2d. article, or that the Presbyterians in England would not disowne them as inconsistent with the Covenant? Sayes he not that it is only a fixed presi­dency of order which they are for? and is this all that Arch-Bishops and Diocesian Bishops do possess? have we not in Scotland Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans and are we not engadged to extirpat these in the 2d. article? how then can he say that it is only that com­plex frame with all these officers which we are oblid­ged against. Do not two remarkable clauses contra­dict this gloss? I we engadgeto extirpate all Ecclesias­tick officers depending on that Hierarchie, what? is it only all in bulk, and not all and every one? this were equivalent to such a wilde assertion, as if one should say that after the enumeration of these evills schism, heresie, profannesse,—which are thus Summed up, whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness, this engadgement did only relate to all these evills complexly, and not to every one sigilatim or apart. 2. Whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine in our principles, is there abjured as I said: but such are Bishops, Arch-Bishops, and I adde, whatsoever is inconsistent with our established reformation and with Presbyterian government, is also here formally abjured. In the 3d place, Timorcus is clearly against [Page 45] our Informer, for in explaining what is that pre­lacy which is abjured, he distinguisheth a Prelacie of jurisdiction, and of meer order. The prelacie of ju­risdiction, he saith is twofold, the first is, whereby the Bishop hath sole power of ordination and jurisdiction (such as is our prelacy now in Scotland) in which go­vernment Timorcus saith that Ministers, do meet with the Bishop only ex abundanti, to give him advice, which is all that our Curats are allowed by law, as is said above, and scarce that. The 2d sort of prelacie he calls paternall, wherein the colledge of Presbyters have a constant Prelate or President, who must con­curre with them ordinarly in ordination and acts of jurisdiction. He interprets the Covenant expresly to strick against the Prelate with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction; which prelacy he calls Popish even though the Bishop admit Presbyters to concurre with him in ordination and government. Now let this man say, since Timorcus (whom he will not assert that these others divines do contradict in this point) together with the parliament of England according to Timor­cus, do disowne such a prelacie as is here described, and interpret the Covenant obligation as reaching the extirpation thereof, doth not this articlé of extirpa­tion according to their sense, clearly reach and cut off the present prelacie of diocesian Bishops and Arch-Bis­hops, obtruded upon this Church? can he deny that they have the sole power of ordination & jurisdiction, that all the power which Curats have according to our Law, is to give the Bishops advice, yea and not that either, unlesse he judge them to be persons of Known loyaltie and Prudence. And surely if this precedency of meer order, here exprest, be the only primitive Episcopacie, it is far short of what our Infor­mer pleads for, and will never come up to justifie the prelacie now existent. And if in the sense of Timor­cus, [Page 46] and the other divines mentioned, and in the sense of the imposers of that oath, the extirpation engadged unto, cuts off whatsoever is beyond this precedency of meer order; it is incontrovertibly clear that even in their sense, the prelacie now existent is ab­jured.

That Mr. Crofton, and the Presbyterian Cove­nanting partie in England according to him, are not reconcilable to our prelacie, nor the Covenant in their sense, appears evidently by his pleadings for the Covenant, against the Oxford men and others. In his Analepsis (pag. 74. 75.) he mentions a breviary of reasons to prove [that the prelatical government in its formality is a plaine and clear papacie, and that a Diocesan Bishop, and ane universal Metropolitan or Pope differ only in degree and limites, not in kind] ci­ting, and approving of Salmasius and Beza's, calling episcopacie a step to the papacy; so that the very office of a diocesian Bishop as such, is as unlawfull as the Papacie in Mr Croftons judgment, it being with him a part thereof. Again (pag. 78.) whereas the Oxford men plead [that they cannot swear against episcopall go­vernment, which they conceive to be of divine or apo­stolick institution] he chargth them and Dr Gauden, with sophistick concealment of the ratioformalis objecti, and not describing of episcopall government: And tells him that episcopall government may denominat a government, communi concilio Presbyterorum, with a Moderator or Chaireman, ordinis causa, which he sayes is of divine institution, and exemplified act. 20. where Bishop and Presbyteter are terms synonimous denominating persons invested with the same office and authority. This he sayes the Covenant strikes not against, and the prelacie which is abjured he describes to be a government wherein one person is advanced into a distinct order of Ministrie above other Ministers, and is [Page 47] invested with Prince-like power over them, enjoying an au­thority peculiar to him eo nomine as Bishop, of sole ordination and jurisdiction, unto whom all other his fellow Ministers are subject, and must swear obedience to him &c. I wonder if our Informer will deny this to be the characteristick of our present Prelats, or affirme that they possess no more authority in Church judicatories but a meer prece­dency, ordins causa, which is all the Episcopacy which Mr Crofton holds that the Scripture, and the Cove­nant according therunto, will allow. Thereafter, (pag. 72.) He tells these Masters, that Christ gave his Dis­ciples charge that they should not affect superiority one over another, or princely power over Gods heritag [...]; 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—— [Page 48] of a Countie, or many Counties making one di [...]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— [Page 49] 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 las [...]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 [Page 50] 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 [Page 51] and Ecclesiastick power—each having a Prefi­dent to propone questions, gather suffrages &c. and no more.’ Which mould of government, whi­ther it would not smooth our prelacie to a compleat Presbyterian parity, let the Informer himself judge. It is incontrovertibly clear from these passages of Crofton, that even in their sense whom our Informer alleges to stand on his side, the present prelacie is abjured.

Finally, as for the authors after cited, and that de­claration of the sense of the 2d article which he men­tions, we say, as it is not clear (nay the contra­ry is evident) that such proposals in explication of that article, were either mad or approven by all, or the soundest Presbyterians there present, so it is als evident that if prelacy even as by them reserved, be found contrary to sound droctrine, and the power of go­dliness, that article of exti [...]pation doth most clearly and formally reach it. Neither are we so much con­cerned in the problemarick glossings or disputes of any persons in England (they not having tendered that oath unto us) as in the obligation of this oath, and that of the Nationall Covenant lying upon us, to preserve our reformation as it stood then establisht. Moreover this man would take Dr Sandersons advice here that ‘an oath being stricti juris—the meaning is to be kept when clear from the words—but if it be doubtfull, every one is to take care that they in­dulge not their own affections and inclinations, or give way to too large a license of glossing, to the end they may with more ease loose themselves from the obligation, or give such a sense to others, or take it to themselves—as the unconcernd do see that the words will not bear, both for fear of perjury and ensnaring of others.’ Thus he, de jur prom. prae­lect. 2. parag. 9.

[Page 52] The Doubter objects next [that we are not concer­ned in the parliament of England sense, but in the sense of the Church and state of Scotland, who imposed the oath, and meant it against all sort of prelacie.] To this he answers, that it being a common league of the three Kingdoms, the meaning must be determined by all the three; and that Timorcus shews that the Parliament of England their sense mas with concnrrence of our Commissiners. Ans. 1. We have already made it good, that giving the In­former the advantage of the sense of the 2d. article which he alledges, it will notwithstanding clearly ex­clude our present prelacy. Timorcus telling us expres­ly (pag. 16.) that the Covenant, aperily oblidges a­gainst Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans &c. which termes he sayes are lyable to no ambiguity, and particularly against all such exercise of prelacie, as is by one single person, arro­gating to himself sole and single power in ordination and ju­risdiction. Darre this man deny that our present pre­lates have this legall prerogative expresly allowed them by our lawes? is not all Church government to be managed by them with advice only of such of the Clergie, as their Lordships (forsooth) shall judge loy­all? so that the prelacie which Timorcus and the English are for, is point blanck cross to the present hierarchie; and the three nations sense of that article will (as we have proved) never be reconciled to his sense and plea­ding in this point. 2. We told him also that it is not the 2d. Art. Whereby mostly or principally our obligation against prelacy is to be measured, it being that which relates especially to England, where Prelacy was then existent; and whatever sense any there do put upon that Article, yet they never offered to put any glosses upon our great engad­gement to preserve our reformation then established, and never imagned nor offered the least limitati­on of our obligations both by the National Cove­nant [Page 53] as then particularly applyed against prelacie, and likewise our obligation in the first part and article of the League, to preserve our establisht reformation, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, which consequently stands inviolable according to its native and necessary meaning, in contradiction to our Prelacie or any Prelacie whatsoever, as he dar not deny that this Church and Nation at the imposing did understand the same.

Our Informer permits now his Doubter to tell him [that we are engadged to preserve the Government of the Church of Scotland, which was Presbyterian, and that therefor in the 2d. article we swear against all kinde of Prelacie, Prelacie and Presbytery being in­consistent.] To this he answers that if we are in the 1. Article bound to maintain Presbyterie, and in the 2d left at libertie for some kinde of Prelacy, and with all if Presbyterie and Prelacie be inconsistent, then we have sworne contra­dictions, viz, to admit of no kinde of Prelacie, and yet ad­mit of some kinde of it. Ans. 1. He hath it yet to prove that either we or England are left to a latitude (ac­cording to the Genuine sense of that Article) as to any prelacy, or whatever government else is incon­sistent with Presbyterian Government, because, 1 the generall oblidgements [to endeavour a reformation according to the Word of God—and to extir­pat what ever is found contrarie to sound Doctrine and the power of Godliness] will (as I have said) necessarily import, both as to us & them, ane engadgement against all kind of Prelacy under this notion and upon this ground. 2. As for [Englands reserving a latitude for a proestos] which he here alledges, Timorcus will tell us (out of Doctor Sanderson) of this rule as to the in­terpretation of promissory Oaths ‘that tho its granted that promissory imposed Oaths must be interpret ac­cording to the sense of Imposers, as our private Oaths [Page 54] according to our sense, yet both these rules are to be limited, so that neither our private sense of our spontaneous Oaths, nor yet the sense of those who impose Oaths upon others, must be other then will com­port, with the just signification of the words and phrases, in the Oath, vow, or Covenant, for this were to de­stroy [saith he] the simplicity necessary to every Oath, and indeed not to interpret, but to coin ane Oath or new obligation. Now the obligation of’ both Nations in this Oath, is to endeavour reformation according to the Word of God, and to extirpat whatever is contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of godliness. If therefore a fixt Moderator, or any supposed moderat mould of Prelacy be found contrary thereunto, no mans glossings whatsoever, can (according to this necessary rule) prejudge the native import, significa­tion, and extent of these generall clauses. In the 2d. place, his contradiction here imputed to us, is but his owne airie imagination, for it is not ad idem, and eodem modo. Wherein he imagineth the contradiction to lye. Our duty to preserve, and our obligation thereanent, being relative to the establisht Government of the Church of Scotland, and the extirpation engadged unto, being re­lative to another nation and Church, wherein that species of Prelacy particularized in the Article, was existent; so that there is no liberty left for any kinde of Prelacy in Scotland; and for Englands reserving, I have told him that what ever glosses any may put upon that 2d. article, yet if the generall clauses and expres­sions mentioned will exclude all kinde of prela­cie, their glosses will not comport with the simpli­city and genuin sense of the oath, and therfor are not to be admitted. Since if it can be made good from the scripture that all kinde of prelacy is unlawfull, dis­sonant to the divine rule, and repugnant to the po­wer [Page 55] of godliness, the oath doth most clearly strike a­gainst it.

‘Mr Crofton pag. 110. in answer to the Author whom he calls Dr Featly's ghost, objecting that in the Covenant, the Church of Scotland is set before the Church of England, tells him that it is in relation to different acts, the Reformed Religion of Scotland to be preserved, of England to be Re­formed; that it is no Solecism to put the factum be­fore the fieri, to sweare the preservation of good ac­quired, before ane endeavour to obtain the same or bet­ter, to prefix the pattern to that which is to be ther­unto conformed. He adds, that his Antagonist hath little reason to grudge that Scotland should be propounded as a pattern of Reformation to En­gland, since Beda reports that this nation did as first communicat the science of divine knowledge without grudge or envy unto the people of England, citing his Eccles. hist. gent. Ang. lib. 5. cap. 23. Hence he infers, that it is no folecisin to propound us as a pattern of Reformation, who had first obtained it, and from whom Christianity it selfe was ar first transmitted to them.’ Here let out Informer informe himself, first, that in the sense of the English Presbyterians, [the preserving of our establisht Reformation] is that arti­cle wherin our obligation to Presbyterian government is properly included; and that the article of Refor­mation yet in fieri, relates properly to England. 2. That they state a distinction betwixt preserving and reforming as distinct acts, the one relating to our Re­formation in Scotland already obtaind, the other to that in England yet in fieri, wherin they check this mans blunt measuring our obligation against prela­cie first and principally by the second article, and his denying our obligation to preserve Pretbyterian government containd in the first, and his blunt con­founding [Page 46] the obligation of the two articles, to give some shadduw of his fancyed contradiction which he would fasten upon us, viz. [That we are bound against all Episcopacie in the first article, and yet the second can admit of some.] For as we have before answered, so Mr Crofton tells him here again, that the acts and objects are different. The preserving of the Reformation, government and discipline of this Church (which we see he holds to be Ptesby­terian government, according to our two books of discipline, and opposit to diocesan prelacie as such) is a different act and object, from these of ex­tirpating Prelacie out of the Church of England. And thirdly, that with Mr Crofton, and the English Pres­byterians, it is no such paradox as this man afterwards endeavours to perswade us, that the Covenant obligeth them to Reforme England according to our pattern, which we see they hold to be the Scripture pattern. For Mr Crofton tells his Adversary that our factum was to be their Fieri, and our acquired good in point of government, the measure of their good to be ob­taind, and that the good they were to obtain (ac­cording to the Covenant) was the same with ours, and tells him in terminis and expresly, that our pattern is in the first article prefixed, to which they are to be conformed.

From what we have said out of Mr Crofton tou­ching his sense of the Covenant, and the sense of the English Presbyterians, who adhere thereunto, it is evident that it strikes against all prelacy including the priority and power of diocesan Bishops and Arch-Bis­hops; That prelacy disputed against by Gerson Bucer in his dissertations de Gub. eccl. Didoclavius in his Altare Damascenum. Cartwrights Exceptions. Paul Bai­nes his Diocesans tryall. Smectymnuus. Mr Pryn in his publick and positive challenge for th [...] unbishop [...]g [Page 57] of Timothy and Titus, cited by Crofton, pag. 83. as unanswerable pieces. Yea all Bishops whose office and authority is such as Mr Crofton (to use his own expression) might not stand up a Peer to them in officiall power, tho a simple Presbyter; so that our In­former is quite out in telling us that in their sense the Covenant is reconcilable to our prelacy, and strikes only against that of England. Again, Mr Crofton in the Analepsis, (pag. 129.) answering the charge of Ambiguity put upon that clause of [the best reformed Churches] tells the Masters of Oxford, that the sense is [in endeavouring the reformation of England, the word of God shall be our rule, and the best reformed Churches our pattern.] Wherein he clearly asserts with us, that the obligation of the Covenant, reaches the extir­pation of whatever Prelacie is found contrary to the Word of God: But so it is that the Apostolick Churches (as we shall finde Mr Crofton here assert) owned no Bishops but such as he might stand up a Peer unto, so that the Scripture rule, and by consequence the Covenant according thereunto, strikes against, and cuts of all Prelacy of Diocesian Bish: of whatever Goverment doth admitt of any Church officers, above Presbyters. And in his sense they are oblidged to re­duce Englands prelacy or hierarchy, to a compleat presbyterian parity. The Scripture makes (with Mr Crofton) the Bishop and presbyter meerly Synonima; So that no prelacy wherein a distinction is admitted, can consist with the Covenant in his judgment; nor can any glossings of men prejudge this rule, and the obligation resulting from this clause to extirpate Pre­lacy foot and branch.

Our Informer might have seen this his notion further refuted by the Author of that peice intituled [The case of the accommodation examined, pag. 39. 40.] who shews ‘that in so farre as England had attained we might [Page 58] close with them in a particular Oath, for extirpa­ting an evill discovered, and yet for a further ad­vance, rest upon the more general tyes so surely cautioned, till God should give further light—so that the engadgement of both parties expresly only to extirpat that species, did no way hinder the set­ting up of Presbyterian Government, and rejecting of all prelacy to be Covenanted unto under the Ge­neral provisions—That, it was aggreeable to truth and righteousness for us to concurre, with that Church convinced of evills, but not so enligh­tened as to remedies, in Covenanting against the evills in particular, and also to endeavour a refor­mation according to the Word of God, and by vertue of this general oblidgement, become bound to make a more exact search anent the lawfullnes or unlawfullness of things, not so fully clear in the time of entering into the Oath, and after the disco­very to reject what seemed tolerable. So that no hesitation among them, doth hinder England and Scotlands respective obligations to extirpate all episcopacy as contrary to that doctine which is ac­cording to godliness.’ What inconsistency will the Informer shew us in this, that one nation vow adhe­rence to its owne establishment in point of reforma­tion and Church Government, and likewise vow assi­stance of another nation in the removal of a corrup­tion therein, tho the removall will not amount to such a compleatness of reformation at first, as will be every way like unto this establishment, both nations being notwithstanding oblidged respective, under generall clauses to make this reformation compleat.

The Informer next tells us, that it is doubted by the lear­ned, whither in the first Article there be any obligation to main­tain presbyterian Government. His first reason is, because there is no express mention of presbyterian Government therin, [Page 59] but only of our reformed religion in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government. Ans. this reason of the Seasonable case which he hath borrowed, is very insignificant. Our Church, after long wrestling being recovered from corruptions both in Doctrine and Worship, which Prelates had introduced, and her Discipline and Government according to the Scripture pattern set up, in Presbyteries, synods, and Assemblies, and all the priviledges of these her courts, authori­zed and establisht both by civill and ecclesiastick con­stitutions and laws, will any doubt (but the sceptick who will dispute that snow is not white) that the discipline then reformed and establisht, is in that oath sworn to be maintained. He may als well alledge that it is not the doctrine and worship then esta­blished, which we Covenant to preserve, as to doubt of the government, since this reformation then esta­blished, takes in all the three together, and in the same sense. Besides his Master the Seasonable Casuist, grants that there was then in Scotland no such offi­cers, as are enumerate in the 2d article, but an esta­blisht reformed government was then existent. Now dare any of these new absolvers or resolvers say, that it was not Presbyterian government, or that this was not the sense of the imposers of that oath. His 2d reason is, that Independents took that Covenant, and had a hand in wording that article, that it might not import any par­ticular forme of government.—That the words im­port no one forme of government, but with this proviso, as re­formed. The Seasonable case said this already, to which the Apologist returned answer ‘That the go­vernment of this Church at that time being Pres­byteriall (as he acknowledged) there could be no other government understood, then what was then existent, established and reformed. That to say’ Indendepents understood it of their government, will [Page 60] no more reflect upon the Covenant, then upon the ‘Scripture it self, which Independents do alledge will plead for their government.’ Next, I would ask this man, why may not the same insignificant quirk be also objected as to the doctrine, and worship, viz. that only the doctrine and worship with this pro­viso as reformed, but not the then established do­ctrine, and worship, is understood in that article, and so sectaries may lurk under this generall also. Thus he may alledge that no engadgement or oath in relation to his Majesties authority will binde, ex­cept his name and Sirname be in it, because some may entertaine a chimera of their own under his Ma­jesties general titles. Alas! what ridiculous conceits are these.

The Doubter next objects [that the English par­liament, who together with our Scots Commissio­ners imposed that oath, did by [the reformed govern­ment] understand Presbytrie which was then settled here, and that therefore we are to understand the oath in their sense who imposed it, whatever Inde­pendents think.] He answers, by denying that the En­glish parliament understood the 1. article of Presbyterian go­vernment, for then they would have thought themselves bound to reforme England according to our pattern, but on the con­traire in anno 1647 they toid our Commissioners, that they could never finde Presbytrie necessary by any divine right, and charged them with Superciliousness in judging that there is no other lawfull Church government, but what they call so, and with misinterpreting the article anent Church government. This the Seasonable case also said before him, and this hungry casuist catches up his cibum praemansum, but could not see the answer returned to this in the Apolo­gy. To this I say first, that the Parliament of England tendered not that oath to us, nor is their sense therof, principally to be eyed by us, as in his mould of the obje­ction [Page 61] and answer, he seems to suppose. The parliaments of both Kingdomes imposed the oath upon their own subjects, framed by the consent of both accor­ding to their own condition, and exigence; so that we are to look mainly to the procedour and sense of our Church and state, for a discovery of the genuin sense and meaning of that oath. Now it is most evident that the designe of our Church and state in framing and imposing of this oath, was to establish and pre­serve our Church government then in being, which, he who denyes to have been Presbyterian, in its compleat formes, and courts, he may deny any thing. 2. We told him alreadie, that whatever defection or liberty of glossing any might be guilty of, yet the words and clauses of the Covenant, as to that 1. article, are clear and abundantly significant, and will admit of no evasion. And in relation to the total extirpation of prelacie out of that Church where it was existent, the 2d Article, is as clear and con­vincing. And therefore whither they lookt upon themselves as oblidged to follow our pattern yea or not, we have proved that they stood oblidged, both by that particular enumeration in the 2 Article, and also in the more generall clauses mentioned, to ex­tirpate Prelacie root and branch. This man will make a meer Proteus of oaths, if their sense and obli­gation must vary, turne ambulatory or ambiguous, according as men do shift or turne aside. We told him of Dr Sandersons rule, anent the import of the words of an oath, in their genuin sense in reference to its obligation, whatever liberty men may take to glosse, or interpret, which is the judgement of all sound Casuists. 3. Dare he say, that ever the par­liament of England denyed, that de facto Presbyte­rian government was compleatly established in the Church of Scotland, or will he make them so irratio­nall [Page 62] as to deny this necessary consequence, that there­fore the 1. Article of the Covenant doth clearly oblidge this Church to its preservation as the reformed Go­vernment then existent; and if his consequence cannot but be admitted, surely whither they looked on themselves as oblidged to follow our pattern yea or not they held no sense of this article contrary to our own sense, nor denyed our obligation to maintain our esta­blished Presbyterian Government. And besides, they never denyed their obligation to reforme the Church of England according to the Scripture pat­tern; and that of the best reformed Churches, in con­formity to that pattern. And that the Church of Scotland, and other Churches where Presbyterian Government was existent, were such, was and is the sense and acknowledgement of the reformed Chur­ches themselves, as from their confessions we have made appear.

For confirming this further (because the Infor­mer hath told us frequently of MrCrofton) let us heare how he will bespeak him in this point. In that piece intituled [The fastening of S Peters Fetters pag. 40.] He tells the Oxford men ‘of the Church of Scotlands Philadelphian purity—in deli­vering in writting, and excercising in practice that sincere manner of Government whereby men are made partakers of salvation, acknowledged by Mr Brightman on Apocalyps 3. and the Apology to the Doctors of Oxford, and of Beza's epistle 79 to Mr Knox, exhorting him to hold fast that pure Discipline which he had brought into Scotland, to­gether with the Doctrine. And (pag. 41.) he cites the corpus confess. (pag. 6.) Where the colle­ctor layes down this as the ground of that Chur­ches purity of doctrine, and 54 years unity without Schisme [that the Discipline of Christ and his A­postles, [Page 63] as it is prescribed in the word of God, was by litle and litle received, and according to that Discipline, the Government of the Church disposed so near as might be] which he prayes may be perpe­tually kept by the King & Rulers of the church.’ These English Non-conformists, Beza, the Author of the syntagma, in Croftons sense, and himself together with them, thus clearly avouching Presbyterian go­vernment, which Mr Knox introduced, to have been the government of this Church since the refor­mation, and which King Iames also owned. For after he hath told us in the same page ‘of Arundel, Hutton, and Matthews, three English Arch-Bishops, their approving the order of the Church of Scot­land, he tells the same Oxford men of the joy which King James profest in the assembly 1590 that he was born to be a King of the sincerest Church in the world. Again (pag: 39.) he makes mention of this Chur­ches two books of discipline, as the great badge and Test of her government; and in answere to the Ox­ford mens exception against that article of the Co­venant, which binds to preserve the discipline and government of the Church of Scotland [viz. that they were not concerned in, and had litle knowledge of that government] he tells them, that he wonders how an university conversing in all books, could profess they had no knowledge of these books.’ So that in Mr Crostons sense and in the sense of the Presbyterian covenanters in England, the government engadged unto in that article, is that platforme of Presbyterian government contained in these 2 books of discipline, which adversaries them­selves do grant to comprehend an intire frame of Pres­byterian government.

Again (pag. 141.) he gathers from the tenor of the Kings coronation oath at Scone, ‘that the royall [Page 64] assent was given unto Presbyterian government in pursuance of the obligation of the solemne league and Cove­nant, and that, in his Majesties most publick ca­pacity as King of great Britain, France and Ireland, for himself and Successors: and asserting clearly the equity of the obligation, he asks the learned in law [whither the royall assent by such expressions publickly made knowne (as here it was unto acts and ordinances of parliament in his other dominions to be past here anent) be not sufficient to make an act of parliament a perfect and compleat law by the’ equity of the statute 33. Hen. 3. 21. &c.] So that Mr Crofton clearly asserts our obligation to Presby­terian government to be contained in the Covenant, and to reach all his Majesties dominions. For he tells us in the preceeding page, ‘that to all such as ap­prehend the constitution of England to be Merum imperium, wherein the King hath supremam Majesta­tem, it is evident that his Majesties ratifying the Covenant thus, hath rendred it nationall. Again Timorcus (pag. 70.) asserts that the parliament who imposed the Covenant (anno 1648.) sent proposi­tions’ to the King wherein was demanded the utter abo­lishing of episcopacie. Which is point blanck cross to the character of that piece obtruded by the Informer, and doth evidently demonstrat (compared with these passages of Mr Crofton) that the whole body of Pres­byterian covenanters in England, both imposers and takers, parliament and people, understood that article of Presbyterian government.

The Doubter here poorly grants [that England and Scotland did not understand that article in the same sense, but alledgeth that since our Church understood it of Presbytry, we are bound to it in that sense.] Upon this he assumes, That it will not follow that we are bound to it in the sense of our Church and state, but rather that in [Page 65] relation to government it is with out sense, since the imposers themselves were not aggreed as to its meaning. Ans. we have already made it good, both from the sense and scope of the national Covenant, the judicial inter­pretation and application of it to our former prelacie expres [...]ie, the nations universall taking it so, and the authorizing thereof both by King and parliament, as well as by the recommendation of the assembly, from the total extirpation of prelacy, and setting up Presbyterian government in all its courts, in conse­quence hereof, that that article of the solemne league which relates to the preservation of the then existent Reformation in doctrine, worship, discipline, and go­vernment, cannot without extreme impudence be distorted to any other sense, then a preservation of the Presbyterian government then existent. Espe­cially the league being framed and entered into by us, for our further security in relation to what we had attained. And this being the article framed by the Church and state of Scotland at that time, and this being also their scope and designe, discovered in their treaties with England, when that Covenant was entered into, I dare appeal this mans conscience upon it, whither ever any demurre here anent, or any other sense of this article, was offered by the English when the nations first entered into this oath? or whither, the imposers thereof in Scotland, would have engaged in that league with the English, upon any other termes then these, and in this their sense of that 1. article. Thinks the Informer that if any such thing had been muttered in the first transaction of this business, that the English did not look upon the Presbyterian government as the reformed government of this Church, that the Scots nation would have transacted with whem in this league? Nay, when (as Timorcus tells us) it was debated branch by branch, [Page 66] phrase by phrase in the convention house, in the par­liament, in the assembly of divines, was there ever such a notion as this of our Informer started, that by the reformed government of the Church of Scotland, Presbyterian government was not to be understood? in a word, dare he deny that the godly conscientious Ministers and people of England, did in the sense of this oath, and even in imitation of the Scottish, or ra­ther the Scripture patterne, plead for, and had begun to set up Presbyterian government, and are closs to their principles to this day.

But he adds, that it is irrationall to say we are bound to it in the sense of the Church and State of Scotland, because they were but a part of the Imposers and the least Part. Ans. I told him already that in relation to the engadgers in Scotland they were the proper imposers, the authority of the respective rulers of both nations, in relation, to their own subjects being first and immediately to be lookt unto, and their sense & scope therein to be main­ly eyed, and each Nation being properly and imme­diatly judges, as to their own national end in this sti­pulation. Thinks this man, that the then represen­tatives of Church and State, did eye any other end as to Scotland, then the preservation of the reforma­tion in Doctrine, Discipline, Worship and Govern­ment, as at that time therein establisht. Moreover, the sense and scope of the article it self being convincing­ly inclusive of Presbyterian Government, it can ad­mit of no other glosse without manifest distortion, and frustration of the imposers designe therein. Next he tells us, that suppose Presbytery were meant in the 1 Article, yet the 2d will admitt some episcopacie. What poor stuffe is this. Suppose the Article of extirpation relating only to England and Ireland, would comport with some episcopacie (which the Informer hath not yet proved) what hath that to do with Scotland? [Page 67] Or how can that enervate our engadgement to preserve the reformation as then establisht in Doctrine, Wor­ship, Discipline, and Government? Because in relation to the extirpating of Englands Prelacy after the refor­mation in Scotland is compleated and sworn to, we are to bear with the English Church in some remaines of Prelacy, till God give further light, must we ther­for be oblidged or allowed according to the sense and scope of this Oath to corrupt or raze the Fabrick of that establisht reformation, and bring in again prelacy into that Church out of which it had been totally era­dicate? Nay, this is too dull inadvertancie. As for what he adds that Presbytery is not inconsistent with any kinde of prelacie. I answer that the presbytery establisht and sworn to be maintained in Scotland, is, and Beza is so farre from disowning this, that (as we heard) he exhorteth John Knox to keep that Church and house of God clean of prelacy, as he loved the simplicity of the Gospel.

CHAP. IV.

[Page 68] OUR Informer having spent his Master pieces, and the cheife products of his invention, or ra­ther of those who have gone before him, upon this difficult task of reconciling the Covenant to Prelacy, doth next (as a liberall bold disputer) undertake to loose the Covenant, even upon supposall of its pre­existent obligation against it. And therefore mak­ing his Doubter tell him [that he bears off the ac­knowledgement of anyobligation against episcopacie, either in the national, or solemne league, lest he fall under the charge of perjurie]. In answer to this he will suppose that episcopacy is abjured in both Covenants, and yet undertake to defend that they arenot perjured who now sub­mit to prelacie. The Doubter thinks this strange Do­ctrine, and so do I. Because [to swear against episco­pacie and yet acknowledge it is to do contrary to their Oath.] To this doubt he returns a large resolution, but still follows up the Seasonable case closs, for fear of miscarrying. And first, he begins with a threefold partition, either prelacy (saith he) is an unalterable neces­sary Government of divine or Apostolick warrand, or it is sinfull and contrary to the Apostolick Government, or thirdly of a mid­dle nature, neither commanded nor forbidden, but left to Christian prudence as found expedient to be used or not. Here I must stope him a little, and minde the reader, that we did upon the first Dialogue, disprove this indiffe­rent Proteus-Prelacie, as a monster to Scripture, since the Scripture condescending so far as to its institu­tion of officers, ordinances, Lawes, censures; and (as we heard himself acknowledge) setting down all substan­tialls of Church Government, prelacie must of necessity be either consonant or dissonant therunto, and by con­sequence necessary or finfull, commanded or forbid­den. So that he is to be limited to the first two, and [Page 69] any supposal anent the indifferencie of presacy, is but his petitio prnicipii; and the gratification of his adversa­ry for further clearing of this question: now proceed we. If it be the Apostolick Government derived from their times to all ages of the Church, he hopes we will grant that no Oath oblidges against it. This I willingly grant to him, but what then? Why, we must not cry out perjurie till what he hath offered on this head be solidly answered. Let this bargaine stand, I hope I have made his Scripturae pretences, appear to be vaine, and proven the con­trariety of that prelacie now established, both to the Scripture and pure antiquity, and till he hath answered what is offered upon this point, we may impute perjury to him by his own acknowledgment. What next, what if it be sinfull? Then he sayes we need not plead the Covenant obligation. No? may we not plead the Co­venant obligation against Schisme, heresie, and pro­fanness? May not the Oath of alledgance be plead­ed against treason, because before this Oath treason is a sin? Said he not already that the Baptismall vow is a superadded obligation, though the matter it self doth binde? did not the Oath and Covenant (Neh. 8.) containe an abjuration of many sins, against which the people stood before preoblidged? But he adds, its true a supervenient Oath makes the obligation the stronger. Right, why then may not we plead that which makes it stronger? Especially against this man and his fellows, who have such a mighty faculty of resolving and absolving all S Peters fetters. Sure they had need of Double nets who would catch a Proteus. Then he tell us, That the ablest champions for Presbytrie dar not assert episcopacie to be unlawfull. What champi­ons are these that prove it to be contrary to Scripture, and yet dar not assert it to be unlawfull? Sure they are very faint disputants. We heard that Beza (whom our Informer will sure call a champion for Presbytery) [Page 70] called episcopacy dia [...]olicall and the egg out of which An­tichrist was hatched. Was not that near the march of calling it unlawfull? But how will he now absolve us? Why, it must be indifferent, neither lawfull nor unlawful, and then the question is with him, if we could by our own Oath, make it absolutely and in every case unlawfull, so that we can never after submit unto it. He adds, that we are mistaken if we think that an Oath against a thing indifferent will in every case bind. Here I shall only tell him that since all his resolving skill goes upon this supposition, he should have travelled to Utopia with this resolution, since we do suppose and have proven Prelacie to be unlawfull, and so are not in the least concerned in what he saith upon this point: Since he is still arguing ex ignoratione elenchi.

But let us see how he will absolve us upon this sup­position, which he must in pity be gratified with, be­fore he can draw forth his weapons. Our Informer still stricks hand, with the Seasonable case and the Sur­veyer, telling us first, that the oath ceases to bind, if the thing sworn against, be a matter wherein our superiours have power to command us, they by their authority given them of God, may require obedience of us in any thing lawfull, and so may in that particular, command us to do or use what we have sworn against, it being a thing in it self lawfull, and in this case our oath ceases to binde. Ans. this simple notion, by our Informer poorly propounded hath no taste in it, and cannot reach our case, even though he had won over that insuperable mountain of the unlawfullness of prelacy, and had proven, or his adversary had gran­ted it, to be indifferent, for 1. his supposition runs thus. That episcopacy is indifferent to be used in the Church or not as it shall be found expedient. Now, I beseech him, who is the proper judge, what frame of Church go­vernment best sutes her condition? is not the Church representative, to whom is intrusted the power of [Page 71] the keys? by what warrand will he bring in the Magi­strate primo instanti to alter and set up Church govern­ment as he thinks fit, even granting it were indiffe­rent? he sought at first but a grant that prelacy was indifferent, but ere he can produce one reason for his point, he must have a further grant of Erastianisme, and that the Magistrate is the proper competent immediat judge in matters ecclesiastick. Who can stope the mouth of this hungry cause of his, that must have multiplied concessions of the adversary, and yet cannot subsist, but starves with its own weakness when all is done. For 2dly, although this were also gran­ted, what will he say in this case, wherein the supe­riour hath bound and engadged himselfe with the same Oaths, vows, and bonds that the subject is tyed with, and hath solemnly vowed to God against such a frame of Government? Sure this will tye up his hands if we may beleeve the maxime asserted by Dr Sanderson and other Casuists that juramentum tollit li­bertatem even in a thing indifferent. Had we not the ratification of the Nationall Covenant with the band and explication against the Scots Prelacie, in plain Parliament by King Charles the first, under his hand writing 1641? Did not the King who now is in the Year 1650 and—51, swear and subscribe both this oath, and the solemn league and Covenant, and gave all imaginable assurances for upholding Presby­terian Government, and in opposition to Prelacy? suppose he had power to command in this matter, sure his commanding power is tyed up, when he hath vowed and Open'd his mouth unto God, and lifted up his hand to the most high, That Prelacy shall never be allow'd within his dominions, far less commanded. Whatever power God hath given to Magistrates over their subjects, sure he hath given them no power to loose themselves from his oath and vow upon them [Page 72] is. Thirdly, it is too laxe a principle, to hold that in every thing, in it self indifferent, the Magistrates power reaches to supercede or loose, the obligation of an oath or vow of the subject. For a subjects freedome and liberty, as in that capacity, and the Magistrats authority, being coordinate, as the subjects liberty must not justle with the Magistrat's lawfull Command, suited to the ends of government, so neither must the Com­mand of the Magistrate incroach upon this reserved liberty of the subject, who hath many things in his own power and without the reach of any lawfull com­mand of the Migistrate. A Subject, and a slave, are quite distinct things. God restrained & set bounds to the power of Kings, and Magistrates whom he set over his people, so that they might not command such and such things. Therefor in what things soever, the exercise of a subjects liberty, crosses not the de­signe and end of the Magistrates power exprest in Scripture, his vow is without the reach of the Magistrates suspending or loosing power. Na­both would not give Ahab his Vineyard, no not for money. What if a man in a parentall capacity, in­terpose a vow as to his childe in reference to some occupation or inheritance, which are supposed, be­fore th [...]s vow, to be things indifferent? Sure the Ma­gistrates suspending power will not reach this vow. This will be clear, if it be considered, That the preservation of the Subjectes liberty, is one of the great ends of the Magistates Authority.

The Second case wherein the Informer tellsus, that ane Oath in things indifferent binds no [...], is when the thing sworn is so altered in its nature, that it becomes sinfull and cannot be lawfully performed. He tells us that Casuists say, That cessat juramenti obligatio cum res non permanent in eodem statu Ans. This other case generally byhim pro­pounded here, shall be considered & spoken to, when we shall see how hereafter he explaines and applyes it. [Page 73] Therefore we shall in this place dismiss it with one word, That Prelacy is now the same, and worse thn formerly, And therfor the premised maxime cannot reach his Conclusion in the least.

His Third case wherein he tells us, that the Oath in things indifferent ceaseth to bind, is, when it is impe­ditivum majoris boni, which he sayes the Seasonable case and the survey of Naphtali, do apply to this Oath. And how he applyes it we shall after hear, He tells us, they do prove; that supposing Episcopacie lawfull, though i [...] were meant in the Covenant, none should think themselves bound to stand out against it, our Superiours having com­manded us to obey and submit to that government. And that he solidly repells what is brought by the Apologie or Naphtali to the contrary. But how insignificantly either he, or these new Casuists, do loose the Covenant upon this Pretence, hath already in part, and shall yet further appear.

What a laxe Adiaphorist is this, who by his new divinity, first takes this great duty of vowing or swearing quite away; For, no Oaths must be pleaded in things necessary, in this man's judgment, They canno in things that are sinfull or unlawfull have place, and so all the subject thereof must be things lawfull; and for this, there needs no more to make all Oaths and vows evanish, but a command from the superiour, and then they are gone. Secondly, he makes the Magistrat's posteriour and supervenient command, no [...]only loose all his subjects from the obligation of what is lawfully sworn, but also himself from his personall Oath: Though he hath sworn and vowed never so deeply, he hath no more to do but to make a Law against it, and then the Oath, as impeditivum boni, ceasethto bind either himselfe or his subjects. Thirdly, he makes all the reserved liberty of the sub­ject (which Government is for preservation of) a [Page 74] meer nullity and Chimaera, so as this liberty it selfe, or any vow or Oath in things which are properly within it's sphere, evanishes at every arbitrary command of the powers. Hence a subjects liberty resolves into a meer nothing or slavery. Fourthly, thus the Judgement of all Churches in Brittain and Ireland under this Oath, must in relation to the expediency of this suppo­sed lawfull Episcopacy, and its present suitableness to her edification, be at the meer beck of this arbitrary command of the civill power, as the sole and proper judge of this matter. And so.

First, the Magistrate is not only the immediatjudge of all ecclesiastick Government, or what is most suitable to the Churches State and edification in point of Govern­ment. But 2dly, all judgement of discretion is taken away from the people of God, in relation to this matter of so high importance, and their acting in faith conse­quently, in this supposed obedience. So that men are made absolutly Lords over their consciences. Yea 3dly, all regard to the eshewing the offence of the weak, and the Scripture Rules in relation to their scandal, and stumbling, are made void; the meer command of the powers determining that matter, in the princi­ples of this Informer. Yea Moreover, all our Chri­stian libetry in things indifferent, which Christ hath pur­chased with his precious blood, and which we are commanded so much to hold fast, is close swallowed up, so that both judgement & practise, in matters where­in God hath given a liberty, are tyed unto, and only regulable by, the arbitrary command of the pow­ers: And what monstruous absurdities these are, the meanest capacity may judge.

As for what he adds here, that an Oath about matters not sinfull, is alwayes to be understood with this restriction, [so long as lawfully I may] which the matter thereof requires, because the taker is under prior and greater obligations (viz [Page 75] obedience to his superiour and the like) then that of the Oath in a thing indifferent, and therefor when the prior obligation crosseth this latter of the Oath, its obligation must cease. Ans. This prior obligation the Informer makes rela­tive to the Magistrats command interposing, which according to his laxe and unrestricted supposalls, ma­kes all Oaths no stronger then a threed touched with the fire, and when applyed to our case, is utterly impertinent, because; first, there are things in their own nature indifferent, yet within the sphere of the subjects reserved liberty; and Conse­quently not within the reach of any lawfull command of the Magistrat, nor of any anterior obligation, to that of the Oath by further consequence; and that the matters in debate are not such, he hath not pro­ved. 2ly, The Magistrate himselfe hath by his own Oath (in this case) superseded and tyed up any right of commanding, which the Informer may suppose he had. 3ly, upon both these grounds, the performance of this great engadgement, can never justle with any lawfull command of the Magistrat. And by further Consequence, 4ly, There is no greater or prior obli­gation in this case lying upon the Swearer, from the Magistrat's right, to breake or cut short the obliga­tion of this vow. All which is yet further convincing­ly clear, if it be considered, that this great supposi­tion of the lawfulnes or Indifferency of Prelacy (which is the grand Topick bearing the weight of his Argumenta­tion) is but begged by him, and as an almes, given by his Adversary. But the contrariety of Episcopacy to the Scripture, which we have alreadie proved, being once supposed, it followes, that there is an obligation Prior to all Oaths, lying both upon King and subjects for it's Extirpation, but which is much more strengthened by the Supervenient Oaths and vo­ws of God upon them, for this great end.

[Page 76] The Informer adds further, that our obligation to our Superiours, is Gods tye—our Oath a knot of our own ca­sting, and that when two duties at once seeme to require per­formance, and we cannot get them both satisfyed, the lesser should give way to the greater. Ans. 1. The same God who hath enjoyn'd obedience to Rulers, hath reser­ved the subjects liberty, and Christian liberty, and by his authority salv'd and authorized Oaths and vows which are within the compass of that reserv'd li­berty, so the last knot is of Gods casting as well as the first. And such Alexander-like absolvers or Cutters as our Informer and his fellowes, will find that they are hewing at divine cords, when the curse due to per­jury shall enter into their houses and soules, if they repent not. 2ly, Hence in this case and question under debate, our obedience to the Magistrat (especially upon our true supposition of the unlawfullness of Pre­lacy, and of the Oath against it, lying upon the Ma­gistrat himself) is sinfull; and so the comparison is betwixt duty, and sin, not a greater and lesser duty, which this man must grant is ever to be preferred. And besides, the Informers supposition, that this Oath is a meer voluntary deed of our own, which had so full a ra­tification of the Magistrates Authority, is among the rest of his gratis supposita and Beggings of the question, which we must send back to him with a lash, untill it be return'd with a due Testimonall of better proof then of his Ipse dixit. 3ly, Even upon his own supposition, Dr Sanderson will tell him, that any law made against an Oath, which is but spontaneous, if the law be alternative, to obey or suffer, the Oath will bind against the active part, and oblige not to obey the power in that supervenient command or Law, which is con­trary even to the privat spontaneous Oath, de Iur Promis. Prel. Sect. 9. But a fortiori much more will this oblige not to obey that Law, if the Oath be not [Page 77] only spontaneous, but hath been fortifyed by the Legislative power, yea and vow of the Superior him­self, who Pretends to loose it by his after-Law. 4ly, Whereas he alledges, Gods putting us under the commands of the powers in this case, and his freind Dr Burnet in this Argument, tells us that [our Oath being a voluntary deed of our own (as he gratis supposeth with the Infor­mer) cannot prejudge the commands of our superiours, which are Gods own immediat commands.] They should know (as Timorcus long since Informed them Chap. 6. sect. 35.) That the Topick of this Argument being, The dominion of the superiour over the Inferiour, if the command or Law be the exercise of a dominion in things wherin he hath no dominion, the Oath will bind against such lawes. This man and his fellows are still talking of the prior obligation of obedience to the Magistrat, but they must know that the Magistrats dominion in this point must be instructed by a Patent from God the supreme Legislator, before we can ac­knowledge it. And if our Oath interferre with the exercise of a dominion which is without its due sphere, sure it interferres with no prior obligation which God hath lay'd upon us. Even Azorius (Mor. Quest. l. 11. cap. 6.) will tell him, that an Oath will bind Con­tra mores jure civili institutos, if the divine Law be in any thing crossed thereby. Nay, Casuists, even such as Abbas, Silvester, Azorius, Molina, Les­sius, Leyman, Sanohes, Swares, do grant. That an Oath will bind against any civill Law, if it oblige ad paenam non ad culpam necessario, to punishment, and not necessarly to sin. And further most of them admit the binding force of Oaths against the Laws or com­mands of superiours, ubi materia legibus opposita sine pec­cato fieri potest, where the matter of the Oath, which is contrary to the lawes, may be performed without sin it being non contra jus naturale aut divinum, that is, not [Page 78] against the Law of nature or the divine Law. See Ti­morcus ubi supra. 5ly, Even putting episcopacie in the category of things indifferent, this Oaths obliga­tion against it, will countervaile & oversway our obli­gation to obey the Magistrate, and submit to his laws, In such a case, wherin it is found inexpedient for the Church, and particularlie for this Church, as by its apparent dreadfull effects is evident; such as the desolation and wasting of this Church, the spreading of poperie and Arminianism, the Casting out of many of the godlie Ministry, the fixed division therin, the endless Confusions and broiles, and therby the wide door opened to all Popish invasions &c. For since the Magistrats simple Command cannot deter­mine what Government is expedient or inexpedient for the Church, this must be supposed that Prelacie is best, before the Command can be, so much as sup­posed Lawfull, els the Magistrat may injoyne an Hundred Oaths this year in such and such things as he calls expedient, and null them all the next year, though himself be engadged therin, upon pretence of in­expediency of the Matter, because of occurring circumstances, which will make mad work of Oaths, and hang them all at the Magistrats sic volo sic jubeo, as to their obligation. Its true that the greater duty (as is clear Math. 9. 13.) counter-balances the less, but I Pray, shall the meer will and Command of the power, determine the greater dutie? and be the sole and supreme rule to determine the Conscience, as to the expediency of a thing hic & nunc. And though (as he sayes) every positive precept oblidge not ad Sem­per. Yet he must acknowledge, first, that it oblidges sem­per, and though not as to the act, yet as to the eshewing the Contrary therof. And Secondly, to act semper, ex­cept when Gods command superseds it, as to other duties in their seasons. So that till he clear this in the [Page 79] point of prelacie, and that the renouncing of our Covenant, and presbyterian Government at the Magi­strats Command, is in our case the greatest duty, this rule makes against him.

The Doubter, as to his first rule, anent the autho­rity of superiours interveening, objects, ‘that its hard to say that mans authority can loose the Oath of God, since in this Case we must say, that we have ope­ned our mouth unto God, and cannot go back]. To this he answers.’ 1. That the law of God in the 5th Command layes the first and Primarie obligation upon us to obey our superiours, which Command we cannot bind up our selves from obeying. Ans. 1. the same God who gave that Command, did by the third Command oblidge both superiours and inferiours, to be a ware of taking his name in vain, and therfor not to presume to break their Oaths and vows in any Lawfull matter, unlesse in­such Cases as himself the blest and supreme Lawgiver, excepts; which he hath not yet letten us see as to this Oath, wherin both superiours and inferiours have entered, and therby oblidged themselves to God against what he pleads for. So that Gods reserved Su­premacie, and Dominion, which (to use his own argument against him) is the primarie and fundamen­tall tye, upon which this 5. Command is bottomed, and according to which our obedience therto must be Regulat, will cut short the obedience to the supe­riour in this case, wherin we cannot obey him in the Lord, and without violating our fealty and allead­geance to the God of Gods, and wronging his su­prem dominion. 2ly, In this same 5. Command, God hath limited the Power of superiours, and tied them under many bonds of duties to their subjects or inferiours, which, in none of their Commands they must trans­gress, and if they do, their Commands oblidge not Inferiours to obey. Now, that this Loosing the obli­gation [Page 80] of these Oaths is in our case an encroachment upon the subjects right and reserved Libertie, as well as christian Libertie, and an encroachment upon Gods sovereign right, is above Cleared. Next he sayes, this were a way to frustrat the superiour of all obedience, and every man might pretend, I have sworn against such a thing commanded, therfor I cannot do it. Thus privat persons might prelimit themselves from obeying in everie thing. Ans. in our case there is no such hazard, for the superiour hath prelimit Himself by his own oath, and this will not prelimit him upon such a pretence, from obe­dience in any thing that is Lawfull, or which falls within the Compass of his Power As a Magistrate and is suitable to the great ends of his Power, to say, that he cannot Arbitrarly loose people from a Lawfull Oath, sworn also by himself. But on the contrary, this pretended Informer his doctrine herein prelimtes and cuts short Subjects Libertie, and Christian Li­bertie, and Libertie of Conscience, subjecting it, and all Gods rules theranent, all scripture Rules of Expediency and Edification, and all Oaths and vows superadded to matters subordinat to these ends, unto the Magistrats arbitrary disposal and laws, which is a prelimitation equally if not more dangerous.

Our Informer in the next place for proof of this his doctrine, sends the Doubter to Numb. 30: where (he sayes) the husband or parent is vested with a Power to null and make void the vow of the wife or daughter, and by Pro­portion the King, who is Pater patriae, hath the same autho­rity. Ans. it will be a harder task then this man can well mannage to bring in the King here within the Com­pass of the father and husbands right, as to this absol­ving Power. For first, the Magistrats Power is far different from the Marital and Parental, and the re­lation betwixt King and subject is nothing so strait, as betwixt husband and wife, parent and Children, the [Page 81] one being natural, the other Political, the one chan­geable, the other not. A man may chuse to Live under what Magistrat he pleases, but the woman cannot cast off her husband, nor the Child shake off his relation and dutie to the father. Besides, subjects set up their Magistrats and Limite them: But so it is not as to the Marital and Parental relations. The husbands authority flows not from the wife her dona­tion, nor the parents from the Children. So that a pa­rallel argument can hardly be drawen from the Power of husbands and parents, supposed in this text, in re­lation to Oaths and vows of the Children and wife, to that of the Magistrat in relation to his subjects. 2ly, in the beginning of that Chap. the Lords way of Laying down this great Sanction touching vows, seems to exclude the Magistrat from this absolving Power. For after the propounding of the Law touching the keeping of voluntary Oaths and vows, viz. that the person vowing shall not break nor profane his Word as the He­brew signifies, but do according to all that Proceeds out of his mouth. 1. The Case of the wife and the Daughter not foris-familiat, is Gods great and only exception (exprest in the Text) from his own rule, and Law, touching the strick observation of voluntarie Lawfull vows. So that, the rule and Law seems to reach all other Cases, as to free vows, except only this. 2ly, in the Beginning of the Chap. we find that Moses spoke this to the Rulers and heads of the tribes, but the text is silent as to his apply­ing of this exception anent the father and husbands Power in absolving vows, unto these heads & Rulers, which should have been especially intimat to them. Hence it may be probaby Concluded that the Rule and Law touching the observation of vows, stands fast in all other Cases except these here expresly excluded, by the Great Lawgiver. So that ere his argument can reach us, he most give in Sufficient proof that the [Page 82] Magistrat stands vested with this Power, and falls within the Compass of this exception, in relation to his subjects. Not to detain him here in tasking him to prove, that this Judicial statute, as others of the like nature, doth belong unto the Christian Chùrch. But in the second place, Granting that the Magi­strat is here meant, it will never speak home to his Point, but much against him, for 1. the dominion of the Superiour being the ground of this dis­charge, wherin the husband and Parent have Power, if the matter of our vow be found such as is excepted from the Magistrats dominion, the Informer must grant that this text will not reach our Case. And supposing the matter, antecedaneously unto the vow, to fall under divine Commands, this is evident beyond exception. But because he beggs our concession, that it was before indifferent, I adde, if it be within the Limits of our reserved Libertie as free subjects, or of our Christian Libertie, its still on both grounds, beyond the reach of his dominion, and consequently excluded from this exception, and the vow must stand and oblidge according to the Grand precept here set down; so that a hundred discharges of the Magistrat will never touch it.

We heard him acknowledge, that by [discipline of this Church] in the nationall Covenant, the substantialls of Government is understood, and that consequently it binds therunto; So he must acknowledge that our solemn Covenant will inviolably bind to this divine Frame of Government, & no earthlie power can loose therfrom, no more then from Scripture institutions. And Do­ctor Featlie acknowledgeth that people may Covenant, without their Superiours, to fulfill Gods Law. Now, give us all Scripture Church officers, and their Rules of Government, & Prelacie shall be quickly gone, So that upon his concession that the national or solemn league [Page 83] do reach the substantialls of Government, or what is necessary for the ends of Government set down in Scripture, it will amount to that which we plead for; and he must grant it falls not under the Magistrats Dominion, and that his argument from this text is lost. 2dly, this dissent which looses the vow, must be both ane open dissent, and also presentlie in the verie day he heares of it. Qui sero se noluisse significat putan­dus est aliquando voluisse. That is, he that declares a late dissent, may be presumed sometimes to have gi­ven his consent, saith Dr Sand. de jur. prom. This he cannot say as to our King. 3ly, It most be constant, the dissent suspending, but not loosing the obligation. The oblidging vertue being naturall, and inseparable to the vow (as Dr Sand. tells us de jur. prom. pag. 3. Sect. 10.) when ever the consent comes, the obliga­tion returns. Now have not our King and Rulers con­sented unto, and ratefied all our vows both in the na­tionall, and solemn league and Covenant? 4ly, This consent of the superiour once given, can never he retracted by a dissent again. Whither it be before or after, he can never make it void, as the Text doth clearlie hold out. See Sand. 16. Prel. 7. Sect. 6. Now have not both the nationall and solemn League, the Consent & vows of all our superiours ratifying the same. So that this text every way pleads for the obliga­tion therof; for this their consent, once given, they can never revoke, far less their Oath and vows, but the vows of the inferiours, are thereby rendered for ever valid; as Casuists in setting down these rules doe grant, so Aquinas, Filucius (Tract. 25 cap. 9.) Azor. (Moral. inst. lib. 11. cap. 10.) Sanches (lib. 3. Cap. 9.) Amesius (cas. lib. 4. cap. 22. Quest. 11.) Sand. (Juram. Prom. Prel. 4. Sect. 16.) But the Doubter objecting [this consent and ratification of our su­periours, which therefore they cannot make void.] [Page 84] He answers, that by comparing the 12. and 15. verses it ap­pears, that after the husband hath by silence confirm'd his wifes vow, yet he hath a power of voiding it again, and she is exonered of her vow, and bound to obey her husbands Com­mands. Ans. Although this were granted (as the Text stands in clear contradiction to it) that the hus­band might null the vow, after he hath confirmed it by a silence or tacit confirmation, yet it will not fol­low that his nulling power will hold, after he hath given not onlie a formall consent positive, but also solemnlie vowed and bound his soule to the Lord, in the same vow, which is most evidentlie our case. Have we not the solemn vows, subscriptions and Oaths of both King and Rulers, concurring with the vows of the subjects in this case? How then shall they loose their own vows. 2ly, this wilde gloss is expresly cross to Dr Sanderson, and other Casuists, their sense of this case and text as we heard, who hold that if once the superiour hath either tacitly or expressly, precedaniously or subsequently consented, he can never by his dissent again either discharge from the Oath or (so much as) suspend the obligation of it. Dr. Sand. saith (16. Prel. 7. Sect. 6.) its a true rule, quod se­mel placuit amplius displicere non debet, what once in this case hath pleas'd the superiour, ought never to displease; Gods Word declaring it established for ever. If he hath consented (saith the Dr) either be­fore or after, be can never afterwards take away its o­bligation. 3. He makes the text contradict it self, for (ver. 7.) upon the husbands tacit consent, and holding his peace in the day he heard his wifes vow, the Lord declares that her vow shall stand, & the bond whe­rewith she bound her soule shall stand. And (vers. 14.) The husbands holding his Peace, establishes her vows and confirms them. Now then, God having declaire that the vow stands, is confirmd, and established as [Page 85] soule-bond upon their soules, by this consent tacit or ex­presse how shall it be null, and not stand, by ane after dissent? Sure [to stand] is here opposed unto [not to stand] upon the termes of the present open dissent in the day he heard of it, which is the onlie exception. That which God declares to be confirmed, and to stand, upon the father or husbands consent, admits of no nulling afterward by them; but so it is, that the wife or daughters vow upon the first con­sent and ratefication, stands and is confirmed, as a soule-bond: ergo, it admits of no loosing by ane after dissent. I prove the major two wayes, 1. standing and Confirming here are opposed, to nulling and making void. And 2ly, this would make more Limitations then God makes, as to the Loosing of the vow; for there is no exception but that one, of the husbands open dissent, or the parents, in the day he hearts of it. This is the onlie exception from the rule in the 2d vers. anent the binding of the vow. But this mans gloss brings in another limitation cross to the very scope and express sense of the words viz. the husbands dis­sent, after he hath by a previous consent ratefied the vow. That God admits the vow to stand, upon this express or tacit consent, is evident in the text.

As for the reason which he adds, viz. That the wife is under a prior obligation to obey her husband; it is absurd and ridiculous, for will he carve ou [...] ane obligation in this point beyond what God hath so expresly limit and declard. This were to give the husband a power, not over the wife onlie, but over God himself, and his express declarator. As for that clause (ver. 15.) that if he shall any wayes make them void, after he hath heard them, then he shall bear her iniquitie. What a wilde inference is it, from hence to conclude ane absol­ving power, in express contradiction to the text, and the limitations previoussie set down. To say that the [Page 86] vow cannot be loosed, unless the father or husband declare his dissent in the day he heares of it, And that if he hold his peace he hath confirmed it, and the bond and vow shall stand; And yet that after all this, he may loose it by ane after dissent, is so plain a contradiction, that none can be plainer. If we will make the text then consistent with it self, the plain meaning is, that he shall bear her iniquitie, or the guilt which otherwise would have Iven upon the wife or daughter, if not hindered in the performance. That the guilt and punishment of the non-performance shall ly upon him who hindered the same, doth clearlie import the non-performance of it self to be a guilt (which contradicts his pleading and argument.) But the poor votarie being hindered, it lyes upon the hinderer as I said. So that we strongly inferr from this, the binding force of the vow, since the Lord terms the non-performance a guilt: as violent men hindring Ministers to preach, shall bear their guilt and punishment, which otherwise they were expo­sed unto if neglecting this great work. All do know, what these Scripture-Phrases of bearing his judgement, bearing his iniquitie, being parta­kers of Other mens sins, do import. Which Con­firms this answer. His comments upon this phra­se are verie vain [first he shall bear her sin (saith he) if a guilt] what is that? bear a guilt, if a guilt, sure a repugnantia in adjecto. His next gloss ma­kes the husband ane expiator of the guilt because she did her dutie in obeying him, who revoked-his Confirmation upon just grounds. What, upon just grounds contrary to Gods command? this is ane odd exposition. Doth God give the least warrand here to absolve and null the vow, after it is ratefied by his previous consent.

Mr. Poole in his annotations renders thus the sense of this 15. verse [after he hath heard them &c.] ‘[Page 87] and approved them by his silence from day to day, if now after that time spent, he shall upon further thoughts dislike and hinder it, which he ought not to do. Her non-performance of her vow shall be’ imputed to him, not to her: Where, as he doth clearly assert (with us) that her iniquity, mention'd in the close of the verse, is the iniquity of the non-per­formance of the vow, which is imputed unto the hus­band, so, that he ought not to hinder the votarie, or stop this performance after that he hath confirmed the vow by silence; in plain contradiction to the In­formers phantastick glosses and inferences. Wherin altho he pretend a concurrence of Interpreters, ex­pounding this verse of the husbands Lawfull voiding of the wifes vows after his previous confirmation, yet he hath produced none of their names.

The Doubter enquires next how he applies his Se­cond rule, anent things sworn their not abiding in the same state, to the Covenant. He answers, that upon supposi­tion that Prelacie is Lawfull, and abjured in that Oath, the great change now is, that Prelats are again Established, and submission to them commanded. So that we are now bound to obey authoritie herin, and not to keep the Oath. And this is verie sutable to his large absolving glosses, which we have alreadie heard and refuted, and which is Likewise removed by what we have said, anent the matter of this vow, which is not capable of any such absolving trade as is now set up. These mens pla­giary faith and divinitie, makes all vows no stronger then straws. Though the Magistrats and subjects universallie vow, yet a Law (if the matter be not absolutlie necessarie, though never so expedient and edifying) makes it ipso facto null and void. If he had letten us see any greater good, expediencie, or ne­cessitie of prelacie, then in keeping this vow, he had [Page 88] spoken to the purpose. But this neither he nor any of his party will ever do.

In a word this lax rule as here interpret by him, will inferr many absurdities, as 1. that the meer Law looses the obligation of the vow and Oath, though the matter therof falls not under the dominion of the Ruler. Which, 2ly, it doth not if it be either expe­dient or necessarie, and yet the meer Law (with him) robs it either of expediency or necessity. And thus, 3dly, mans law stepps up above the divine Law, au­thorizing the matter of the Oath upon the foremen­tioned grounds. 4ly, He makes the expediency of the Law, and its being wholsome or no, cognoscible by no anterior or superiour Rule, but its self, and the meer will and power of the Magistrate, and to be obeyed upon that sole ground. 5ly, hence the obedience therof in faith, is excluded, and no acts of obedience can flow from spirituall knowledge.

The Doubter next objects [that his Oath against Bishops had the first obligation, and therfor he can­not be loosed by the after Law.] To which he ans­wers, that the 5th. command, and submission to the ordi­nance of man, had the first obligation, and that obedience to authoritie comes under the baptismall vow—that to say our Oath will oblidge against the Magistrats Command to the Contrary, will elude the express precept Ecl. 8. 2. to obey the kings command in regard of the Oath of God Ans. This is nothing but what we have heard, repe­titions ad nauseam, and still idem per idem. Our obli­gation in the 3d command, not to take Gods name in vain, and to keep and stand to all Lawfull Oaths, and vows, unless in cases which God himself excepts, is surly a verie arlie, and a baptismall obligation, prior to any Law of the Magistrat, and such as no authoritie and Laws of men can evacuatand enervat; and our obedience to the ordinance of man, or the higher and [Page 89] Lower Powers, being for the Lords sake, that is upon the motive of his authoritie, doth infer, that we must not dare to cross his authority, under pretence of obedience to the powers, in breaking lawfull Oaths and vows which he has commanded us to keep. Sure no Laws of men can supersed this obligation. That the Oath under debate is such, hath been already made good, and needs not be here repeated. As for that of Eccl. 8. 20. It makes clearlie against him; the English annotations having upon that text, mentioned the mutuall tye, oath, and Covenants betwixt King and subject, instancing 1. Chron. 11. 3. do tell us ‘that this is not only ane enforcement of the duty of sub­jects, but likewise, that the clause contains a li­mitation, by which our obedience to men is bounded: And thus they sense the precept, keep the Kings com­mand,’ yet so that thou do not violat thine Oath and obedience due unto God. Our service to the one (say they) must be such as will consist with our fealty to the other. We are bound to God and his service by Oath and Covenant, and no subor­dinat obedience to others, must make us forget our duty to him. Which clearlie crosses this Miss-Informers scope who would perswade to perjurie and breach of Cove­nant with God, upon pretence of fealty to the Magi­strat.

Mr Poole in his annotations having told us ‘That the first branch of the verse is not to be understood universally, but of such commands as do not crosse the commands of God, expones this Oath of God mentioned in the second part of it, either of the Oath we are under to keepe all Gods Laws, or the subordinat Oath of fealty and allegiance. But adds, that this also may be understood, and is by learned Interpreters taken, as a limitation of their obedience to Kings, the words being thus rendred, as the He­brew (faith he) will very well bear, but according [Page 90] to the Word of the Oath of God, obey the Kings com­mands, with this caution that they be agreeable and not contrary to the Laws of God, which thou art ob­liged by thy own and thy parents Oaths oft renewed, to observe in the first place.’

As for what he adds (out of the grand case) anent Iesuites Oath in Rome to preach in England Catholick doctrine, and of a Law made in England against the same. It is, so pal­bablie impertinent and unsuteable to the point, that I wonder at the mans confidence in presenting to the world such poor trifling fopperies in so weightie a mat­ter. Dare he say that the matter of our vows, which our Rulers themselves have taken, is in any measure like to this. Nay, doth he not suppose the Matte [...] of this Oath to be Lawfull, he must then confess this instance to be most impertinent. But the knack is, That abstracting from the unlawfullness of the Matter, it was declair'd, that ane Oath cannot bind against a Law, although the Law be made even after the Oath is taken. This was no doubt a lax determination, And such as he dare no [...] himself subscribe unto in everie case; what, an [...] Oath cannot bind against a Law in universum, and sim­ply? what if the matter be necessarie, or falling un­der divine Prescriptions or institutions? What if con­vincingly expedient in its circumstances? Will thi [...] Law, yea and after the Oath is taken, overrule th [...] divine Law determining the same? Well resolve [...] Mr. Informer. You may go sell absolutions ano [...] of a high rate.

Come we now to his third case, anent the Oath hindring a greater good, then the performance it ill amount to and the dissolution therof upon that ground. This the Doub­ter thinks [will furnish people with a readie excuse to free themselves of Oaths, by alledging that some gre­ater good is hindered thereby.] To this he answeres 1. That Casuists admit this rule with these limitations viz. when [Page 91] that greater good is certain, and no otherwise attainable, but by the discharge of our Oath, and a good to which we are pre­obliged before we took the Oath. Ans. We shall not much contend about these rules & limitations of this Ma­xime in thesi, or in the generall, only I shall adde some more limitations here. That 1. This greater, certain, & no otherwise attainable good, must be such, not in our apprehension only, but according to the Rule of the Word, for otherwise we are just where we were as to the hazard of perjurie, if every mans [thinks so], or the Ma­gistrats [arbitrarie Laws] shall be the only Rule to determine this, as this Informer makes all resolve there­unto which he pretends in this case, in relation to that greater good, which he offers in breaking this Oath. Hence Gregorius Sayrus (clav. reg. l. 5. cap. 8. n. 15.) having determined that every man hath a power to commute ane oath for something better, is opposed by Silvester and others, who say, that the Pope must determine the good to be better. So ratio­nall and Consequent to their Principles are even Papists in this point. And must not Protestants be a­shamed to refuse this limitation, that the Scripture (with us the onlie, and supreme rule) must deter­mine this greater good. Next, Timorcus will tell him, that the Oath thus irritat, must be onlie made to God, for if it be to our brother, and for his advantage, we must have his consent as necessarie towards the commutation. This he tells us, is agreed upon by Casuists, as well as the other limitations. To these we adde Dr. Sand. rule (de jur. prom. Prel. 3. Sect. 12.) that, precise ob hoc quod videtur impeditivum majoris boni, obligandi vim non amittit. Id est, That the Oath loseth not its obliging force, meerly because it seems the bindrance of a greater good, unless other circumstances also concurr (as usu­allie ‘there do) which either evince it unlawfull, or not oblidging. His reason is because in all cases [Page 92] it is not true that everie one is oblidged to do what is best, he means, simpliciter, and abstracting from the present circumstances) since this would open a flood-gate for all manner of perjury.’ As for that li­mitation (presented with an especially as the main one) anent the Oaths hindering the greater good, to which we were preoblidged, which this man foists in, to make way for his nauseating repetition, anent the Magistrats power, it may be alledged that it is not consistent with it self: for if we stood Preobliged to this greater good, it renders the Oath ab initio null, for the same cause on which it is loosed upon the prospect of that greater good. The greater obligation (as he sayes) still overru­ling the lesser, & ane Oath in prejudice of a greater obli­gation, and contradictorie therto, can lay on no ob­ligation, for so we might be under contradictorie ob­ligations according to his way of reasoning about the Magistrats power. [I will have mercie and not sacri­fice] is one of his illustrating instances. So that the obligation of the Oath, according to his reasoning in this matter, was like unto this inverted rule, viz. Sacrifice and not mercie, and being such ab initio, it could not bind. I know (as Dr Sand. saith) that which is abstractedly and simplicer a greater good, may hic & nunc, and in such a complex case become the lesser, consideratis considerandis all circumstances taken in. But this he admits not, for he adds unto the known rule anent the greater and certain good in its time and circumstances, that other limitation anent the vower his being preobliged unto it, which can no otherwise be understood then in opposition to the obligation of the vow, unless this his added limita­tion be redundant, or non-sense.

But 2dly, let us come to the assumption, what is that greater good, attainable in breaking this Oath and vow rather then in keeping it. This he tells us is [Page 93] obedience to authority (that's the panacea curing allwounds the universall topick, and primum mobile) avoiding of Schisme, Ministers serving God, in the work of the mini­stry to which they are called; these he sayes are greater and bet­ter goods then adhering to the Oath in a thing indifferent Then he adds, that Ministers should consider, whither is be bet­ter to lay aside their Oath, then their Ministerie. (Espe­ciallie ane Oath about a thing indifferent) and in­capacitat, or do that which by consequence incapacitates them for the Ministerie—that Ministers think that by their Oath they are obliged not to continue in their stations, as matters now stand, and yet divines hold that the lesser duty gives place to the greater, as David did eat the shew bread rather then starve, Paul and those with him, did cast their goods into the sea &c. In Answer to this, we need not much enlarge, it being nothing but what is upon the matter already objected and answered. 1. If the Oath, for its mat­ter contain important duties falling under divine com­mands, and unalterable obligations, if Prelacie be contrary unto divine prescriptions in point of Govern­ment, & the disowning of it consequently be a standing necessarie duty (which we do suppose and have proved, and he cannot disprove) then this man him­self will grant that all this tatle about the greater good in breaking the Oath, is to no purpose. 2ly, say prelacie were but indifferent, yet upon the supposall of the greater ex­pediencie of Presbyterian Government for this Church then Prelacie, and upon the certain supposition of all the Rulers engadgement in this Oath and vow to God against it, (the first of which suppositions he hath not disproved, and the 2d he cannot deny) it is certain, that both Rulers and Ruled their keeping the Oath, is a far greater & more certain good, then their breaking it. 3ly, let Dr Sand. limitation here again come in viz. ‘That the Oath is not precisely loosed because it seems to contradict a greater good, unless Other cir­cumstances [Page 94] do also occurr, which either evince it to be unlawfull, or not oblidging, and that its not true that in everie case we are bound to do what is’ best, that is unless omnibus pens [...]is, and caeteris Pari­bus, all circumstances duelie pondered, it be found best; and then the Question is whither it were best for Rulers or ruled to keep this Oath for these great ends which he mentions, than to break it. Whither it be a greater good to keep a Lawfull Oath, though I suffer under authoritie levelling against it, or break it to please men▪ or whither I shall chuse the evill of suf­fering or sinning? (for he hath not yet proved that the interposing of the Rulers meer Law or authoritie, will make this Oath unlawfull, & we have shewed that Casuists mantain the Contrary.) Whither peace with God be a greater good in keeping his Covenant, then peace with men and with the world in breaking it? This Question was soon resolved with Elias. The children of Israel have forsaken thy Covenant—and I onlie am left &c. 4ly, This greater good, he acknowledges must be such, as is no Otherwise att [...]inable then by breaking the Oath. Hence the Question will be, whither the Gospel might not have been preached, schisme a­voided, and God served in the Ministerie of the word, by keeping this Oath and Covenant with him? This man will come to a great height of impudence if he deny this. Nay, if he deny that this good might have been thus beter obtain'd. He alledges we have now a great Schisme by Presbyterian Ministers departing from their party, and he will not deny that many excel­lent preachers are Laid aside, the Magistra [...] is displeas'd and disobeyed, all filled with confusion and disorder, poperie like to creep in &c. Now, had not all this been eshewed by keeping our Covenant with God? The gospel had been preached by Presbyterian Minist [...]rs, and he will not deny that all his party of Conformists [Page 95] too, had keeped their ownstations, this schisme had been avoided, and the Magistrat obeyed while commanding for God. So that this rule everie way makes against him. And in stead of obtaining a grea­ter good by breach of Covenant, we have lost the greatest good, the gospel and peace with God, and incurred much sin and miserie.

I know he will say that he speaks upon the suposal of the Rulers disowning the Oath, and Establishing prelacie. But then I urge him thus, 1. Since he cannot but grant that the keeping of the Oath, or holding fast Presbyterian government, would have had the fore­mentioned advantages following upon it, shall the meer pleasure of the Rulers cast the ballance, and disprove its native tendencie sua natura towards the formentioned effects? the matter of the Oath is still of it self, or of its own nature, more productive of these good effects; & Consequently the keeping is to be pre­ferd to breaking of it, which is attended with evils counterballancing these apparent good effects, which he imagins to attend this breach. 2ly, if the Oath can­not be commuted or changed, but for a greater good, and all these good effects mentioned, might have been bet­ter, & more certainlie attaind, by keeping then breaking it, then the Rulers commuting the Oath, or altering or breaking of it, he must acknowledge to be sinfull upon his own ground. Since they might have attaind these good effects of obedience, preaching the gospel, and unity, by keeping this Oath, and might have more surelie and better eshewed the forementioned evils then by breaking it. And then, let him in the third place seriously Consider, whither the Rulers sin in commutting or breaking this Oath, for neither a greater, nor more certain good, will warrand my breaking of the Oath to follow them in that sinfull course; and loose me from my obligation. 4ly, It will [Page 96] hence follow, that he playes the petty sophister here, in calling disobedience to the Magistrat, in this one point of a sinfull command in relation to this Oath, (which on the formentioned grounds is proved Sin­full) a disobeying of authoritie. For he dare not say that disobeying a sinfull command can come under this chara­cter. And the true state of this Question is not, whi­ther it be a greater good, to obey the Magistrat or keep ane oath? but whither it is a greater good in this particular to obey him, in Embracing abjur'd Prelacie, or to stand to the Oath; and the issue of this is, whi­ther it be best for the Church of Scotland to have or want Prelats? which, from what is said is soon deter­mined. 5ly, What if these pretended good issues, be coun­tervaild by greater evills: such as persecution of many thousands, godlie faithfull Ministers and Professors, laying waste Gods heritage, Blood, miserie, con­fusion, schisme, (the godlie adherers to this Oath, being without all question this Pure Church) famine of the word &c. Nay, according to Dr Sand. rule mentioned, where is the Relaxation of all parties en­gadged in Covenant one with another, as well as with God? were not the Churches of both nations nay in all the three Kingdoms, engadged to one another in this Oath? now thinks he not that this prospect of a greater good in breaking this oath, should have been laid to the eye of the representative Church in the three Kingdoms, in order to the change of government. And should not all parties engadged in this Covenant, have dispensed with it, and with one another in con­templation of this greater good, and for obtaining this better government? thinks he that such a great question as this: What is this greater good in point of Church Government? And that other Question. Whither such great and solemn Oaths may be laid aside in order to the obtai­ning of it? Are Finally decided by the Magistrats Law [Page 97] without the least owning the Church representative? and besides, he dare not say that all are bound to obey the Magistrat in all things indifferent. Is not subjection (by the acknowledgement of most, and even of his Ma­ster the surveyer) different from active obedience.

Finally, as for what he sayes of Ministers, the Apologist told him, and his master the Seasonable case, and I do tell him again, that God calls no man to preach the gospel by such ane unlawfull meane as perjurie and breach of Covenant, and that in this case Ministers suffering for truth, is a Confirmation of the gospel Phil. 1. 12. That in deserting and not preaching, they are meerly passive: being persecute for their integritie; so the charge and guilt of not preaching lyes upon their persecutors. Besides, the state of the question in truth, and in our principles importing a competition betwixt sin and suffering, and duty and sin, not a lesser and greater duty, the folly and impertinency of his instance, anent the lesser duty over­ruled by the greater (exemplified by that, I will have mer­cy and not sacrifice, repeated here ad nauseam) as also that instance of Paul and those with him, their casting their goods in the sea &c, is most evident. The sin and perjurie of this course of conformitie, being our principle, which he cannot disprove, even though we should grant all his pleading here (which goes but upon a begged supposition of prelacies indifferencie, and the indifferencie of the matter of the Covenant) what a flat folly is it, to tell us of preferring greater to lesser duties? wheras with us the question and case is, anent Ministers duty when the Magistrat refuseth to ad­mit to preach, but upon sinfull terms; which one consi­deration makes all his tatle here evanish in wind. Sup­pose the Rulers of a land discharge all preaching, but upon the terms that Ministers should commit some horrid act of wickedness, would this man admit any to [Page 98] plead as he doth for doing evill that good may come of it, and to tell what a weightie duty it is to preach the gospel, and that the lesser duty of forbearing that evill commanded, is overruld by the greater obliga­tion to preach, &c. Well, he and his partie (like the pharisaik teachers, twixt whom and us he insi­nuats a comparison) are sure blind Informers and leaders, and may be set to learn better (thou that teachest another teachest thou not self;) For they have vented such principles anent sacred Oaths, as some heathens would be ashamed of, and which bani­shes all faith out of the world. For what he adds anent the Rechabites, when he shal equiparat the matter of their vow, a thing meerly civil, relating to their ab­stinence from wine, and the manner of their dwelling, with the weighty and great duties of a Covenant with God, for publick and personal reformation, and with­al prove that hazart will equally plead for the laying aside of the last, as in some cases it may warrand a dis­pensing with some part of the first, the parallel shall be admitted, but till then, it must pass among the rest of the Informers gratis dicta. The Dutch annot. (on Jer. 35. 7.) Shew that Ionadab probably put this in­gadgment on his posterity, upon his foresight (by a prophetick spirit) of the judgments and desolations to come upon Israel, in order to their inoffensive walk, and for inuring them to par­simony. And as for their dwelling at Jerusalem in case of hazard they shew (on. 11. V.) ‘that the Rechabits, laid aside in this one thing their fathers command, be­cause it was but a humane ordinance, which in obe­dience to the law of God, they might in some cases wave, which was also Ionadabs intention, and acceptable to God. And that in giving this account to the prophet of their practise in reference to their dwelling now at Jerusalem upon the Assyrians invasion, they do shew that their fathers charge, and their vow was not to be [Page 99] extended to this case.’ So that in their sense there was no breach of the vow properly and strictly taken, but onely the laying aside of a part of a humane ordinance, in case of extreme hazart, and this according to the nature and designe of the vow it self, and the first insti­tution therof.

CHAP. V.

THus we have seen into what a fascination and labyrinth of absurd inconsistent notions this new proctor hath involved himself, while endeavouring to loose these sacred bonds of our solemn vows and Co­venants with God, and that he hath run cross to the scripture, to Cafuists, yea to himself, in this enter­prise. We shal now proceed to examine what strength is in the remnant of his reasonings upon this head; [Page 100] And how he acquits himself in his answers to some pregnant passages of scripture pleaded for the Cove­nant. The first that follows in this dialogue is that remarkable transaction of Joshua and Israel with the Gibeonites, largly and unanswerably pressed and im­proven by such as have written for theCovenant; which this man thought he could not for very shame passe over; but sure he had better done so, then to have made such a pitifull and superficiall return. Well, let us hear it.

The Doubter now assaults him as to this notion anent the greater good in quiting the Oath, with that instance of the Oath to the Gibeonites, [whom God had commanded to make no peace with, but enjyond Israel to root them out, to whom Josua and the Prin­ces might have said, Gods command Looses us from our Oath, and it will hinder a greater good, yet in that particular they rather dispensed with Gods com­mand, then with their Oath; the acceptablness wherof to God, appeard in his punishing Saul a long time after for killing these Gibeonites, to whose predeces­sors Joshua & the princes had suorn.] In answer to this, he runs out a great length anent that transaction, to in­fringe this argument. Which I shall now examine.

But before I enter upon this, I would premise two things, first, that this trifling Informer hath so moulded our argument from this text as quite to divert it from its true channel and scope, which is to prove the oblid­ging force of ane Oath or Covenant (Lawful upon the mat­ter) both upon the takers, and their posterity, notwith­standing of many circumstantiall sinfull aberrations from the divine rule, in the manner of entring into it. As is most evident in this instance as I shal after shew. And this man could not be ignorant, that this text is thus Improven by Timorcus and Others, who have writ­ten for the Covenant, and this argument, and [Page 101] improvement of the text which he presents, is but a man of straw of his ownupsetting. Secondly, that we are not concerned in order to the evincing the premised truth for the proof wherof we adduce this text, pe­remptorly to determine this question, whither this Oath did contradict Gods positive Law, and how far any piece or circumstances of the divine precepts anent the destru­ction of the Cannanites, making no leagues with them, justles with this Covenant and Oath, and are found over­ruled by its oblgation: for our argument stands good and intire, tho we abstract from any positive de­termination in this point. So that in tracing our Informers extravagant discourse in answer to this ob­jection of his own moulding, we shal rather disco­ver the slippery grounds he walks upon, and the inconsistencies wherin he is involved by his answers, and confident assertion of the Oaths conformity to the divine Law, then positively to resolve and determine any thing in this debate, which this man hath no less ridiculously handled, then impertinently brought in. But to the point.

First, he wonders that we make use of this argument to prove the obligation of our Oath against Bishops. But sure it is ane argument verie Sutable, if ane Oath into which Joshua and all Israel were cheated, ane Oath to heathens, and which had at Least-wise a verie appa­rent inconsistencie with Gods command, to root out these Canaanites, and not to pitie or spare them, is found so highly obligatorie, and even binding the posterity, how much more the nations Covenanting with God, and with one another for publick and per­sonall reformation. But he sayes, That we mistake this place. Why so? First, if we think Ioshua was forbidden upon any termes to make a Covenant with these Canaanites, but to root them all out, and yet because of this Oath spared them, then (he sayes) we run in a most wild and gross opi­nion. [Page 102] Severe censure! why so, what is that opi­nion? that ane Oath (saith he) can bind against a com­mand of God, whither it be a morall or particular Command, its all one. So that as we said before, that ane Oath can bind against commands of men in authority, now we go a greater length, in making them bind againste Commands of God. But I answer, first, that there was a command of God to cut off these Canaanites, without pitying or sparing them, I hope he will not deny, and if he do, it is easie to be produced, Exo. 23. 32, 33. Exo. 34. 12. Deut. 7. 2. Nay more, Gods command herein was so peremptory, that where he appointed his people to tender peace to other cities, before they proceeded to destroy them, there is ane exception made (as Iack­son observes upon Joshua 9. 7.) of the cities of Canaan Deut. 20. 15, 16. thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the Cities of these nations. But of the cities of the People which the Lord thy God hath given thee for ane inheritance, thou shall save alive nothing that breatheth. To this place Jackson points us to clear this matter. 2ly, Its as evident that these Gibeonites had their saftie from this Oath and Cove­nant. For upon this we have the judgement of all the princes of the congregation, (Josh. 9. 19.) in deter­mining that question about their saftie, we have sworn unto them by the Lord, therfor we may not touch them, because of the Oath which we sware unto them. Yea more, when many hundered yeares after, the injury of Saul is mentioned in slaying them, the ground of their right to Live and dwell among the Lords people, ra­ther then the other Canaanites, is attributed expresly and solely to this Oath; 2. Sam. 21. 2. Now the Gibeonites were not of Israel but of the Amorites, and the children of Israel had sworn unto them, and Saul sought to slay them, wherfor David said what shall I do for yow. Now the command being so express to cutt them off, and upon [Page 103] the other hand, their saftie being first and last attri­buted so clearlie to the Oath, that which this man calls a wilde and gross opinion, he must either impute to the Scripture-account of this matter, or resolve and accommodat this difficulty, which he is (in maintain­ing the Scriptures authority) oblidged unto as well as we. 3ly, that which he calls a wilde and gross opinion, is the Judgement of Learnd Divines, particularly of Jackson, who upon the twenty vers. of that 9 of Jo­shua, having moved this objection, that what the Prin­ces sware was against the express command of God, who had often enjoind to destroy all these Canaanites. Returns this answer. That though one Oath or vow doth not bind men for doing of any thing that is absolutely unlawfull, yet in this case it was not so, because the charge which God gave for slaying the inhabitants of the Land, was a particular command, and so far only to bind their consciences, as it might be obeyed without any breach of the morall Law, as in Rahabs case it is also evident. But, here they could not obey that command of God concer­ning their destroying all the Inhabitants of Canaan, without perjurie, which is against the Law and light of nature—he adds, that their perjurie would have given great occasion to the enemies of Gods people to blaspheme—So that (saith he) there lay a strong bond upon the consciences of the Is­raelites, though they were deluded by the Gibeonites. Now I think the account of this difficulty exhibit unto us here by this learnd divine, may make him ashamed of his assertion in this point, & we may retort his objected ab­surditie thus, if the morall Laws obligation in opposi­tion to perjurie, stood against and counter-ballanced a particular command of God in this matter, much more will the force and obligation of ane Oath, in a matter of far greater importance, stand good against any po­sitive Laws and statutes of men. And if even Gods positive Particular command, could in this case [Page 104] gound no dispensation with their Oath, but God would rather dispense with the particular command, than with it, how much more absurd must he be, who pretends a dispensation with, and a nulling of, such selemn Sacred Oaths and vows to God as we are un­der, and in such weighty matters, upon the arbitra­ry commands of men, especially men under the same Oaths themselves.

In the premised distinction of Mr Jackson, the In­former might have discovered the folly of his bold un­restricted assertion; no Oath can bind against a comand, no not a particular command. For Jackson distingui­shes (which this man admits yea and positively as­serts) betwixt that which is simply and absolutely unlaw­full, and that which is unlawful only upon the ground of a particular positive precept, which in some circum­stantiat cases may-come to justle with the absolutly binding moral Law, as in the instances adduced by the Informer himself is evident.

4Ly, His own rule anent the lesser obligation over­ruled by the greater or Prior, will plead for this, and his instances, of Mercie and not Sacrifice, of Paul and those with him, their casting the goods into the sea, Da­vids eating the shew-bread to keep from starving, do con­firme the answers above set down. For here particu­lar positive precepts, are overruled by the greater and Prior morall obligations of the 6th Command anent self Preservation. What absurditie then is there in this assertion, that the great morall precept of Not ta­king Gods name in vain, did over-rule a particular po­sitive precept? Doth he not here see Gods great mo­rall Commands (in the premised instances) binding against lesser positive precepts. And when he saith that whither the command be morall or particular which the Oath binds against, all is one as to his fancied absurditie, he discovers ignorance, and inconsistency with him­self, [Page 105] for in all his formentioned instances, mo­ral precepts do overrule positive, particular and lesser precepts. And why shall not also the great morall command anent not taking Gods name in vain, over-rule that positive and particular precept anent the staying of these Gibeonites, and far more our so­lemn vows, the present statutes of men. Sure, he will never be reconciled with himself here, or assigne a disparity. Hence Iackson having said that the bond of this Oath lay strongly upon the consciences of the Israelites to observe it, though they were deluded by these Gibeonites, addeth that in this the Rule holds good, I will have mercie and not Sacrifice, and from his own argument concludes that which he here denyes. So that this case of the Gibeonites (according to Jack­sons solution of this difficulty, and that sense of this scripture followed by him and Other learned divines) strongly repells his rule, from the hindrance of a grea­ter good to loose the Covenant, especially since this greater good doth with him still resolve into obe­dience of mens Laws. Had not the Israelites this ground more strongly to plead against the keeping of their Oath to these Gibeonits, since not only they were cheated into it (and dolus aufert consensnm say Ca­suists) but it seemd to hinder a farr greater good viz, the obeying of Gods express command to root them out; yet Joshua & the Princes knew not this new knack for loosing Oaths. But the interposing the sacred name of God in ane Oath, was with them so weighty a matter, that it overruled all these pretences.

Thus we have seen how he acquits himself as to his first charge of [a mistake of this place] and that what he calls a gross and wilde opinion, is the sense of the scrip­ture embraced by learnd divines and consonant to his own pleading; so that in this charge he discovers too bold ignorance. What more hath he to say? he tells [Page 106] us 2ly, that we are mistaken if we thank, that Ioshua had no warrand to make peace with any of the Canaanites, but was commanded without once treating with them, to root them all out: because in Deut. 20. 10. he is commanded to pro­claim peace indefinitly to any citie he came to fight with, the Canaanites not excepted. Ans. How can this man say that the Canaanites are not excepted, from that offer of peace there injoyned, when as he doth not so much as offer to answer to these pregnant circumstances of the text, pleaded by Iackson and Others to prove the contrary. For, after the Lord hath comman­ded them to proclaim peace to a city before they assau­ted ‘it, there is (verse 15.) a limitation. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee,’ which are not of the cities of these nations (viz: who were devoted to destruction) therfor in the 16. vers. after the Lord hath thus ridd marches, as to the Canaanites they get this precept, But of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for ane inheri­tance thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Can any restriction and exception be more peremptory? and that we may know, who these are who are thus ex­cepted from mercy, and from these offers of peace mentioned, the 17. ver. clears it. But thou shalt ut­terly destroy them, namely the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizites, the Hivites and the Ie­busites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. This additional motive of Gods command is here remarkably inserted; which is the more remarkable if compared with the 2. of Sam. 21. 2. The Gibeonites were not of Is­rael but of the Amorites, and the Children of Israel had sworn to them. When the spirit of God, is reminding us of this story in pointing at Sauls guilt, we are first told that they were of the Amorites, a people devoted to destruction by Gods command, but excepted [Page 107] from the rest that were destroyed, upon the ground of this Oath, and upon this ground solely.

Jackson upon this passage, holds ‘that the offer of peace, is not to be understood of any city of Ca­naan upon these grounds, first, because they were expresly charged utterly to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan, to the end they might dwell in their room and might not be ensnard by their dwel­ling among them; and secondly, we do not read that ever Joshua tendered peace to any of the cities, tho it be mentioned as a strange thing, and a signe of Gods hardning their hearts, that never any of those people, did of their own accord crave peace, save the Gibeonites Josh. 11. 19.—Yet we never find that there was peace profered them, and it seems that the Gibeontes did therefore seek it by craft, because Otherwise they saw it would not be granted them; and 3dly, it is expresly noted as a fault in the Israelites, Judges 1. 28. that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out. Hence he concludes, that this is only to be under­stood of such cities as they should besiege that were not of the land of Canaan. And upon the 15. vers. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations, He adds, but these must neither have peace offered them, nor must their women and little ones and cattell be spared when their cities are taken by force; for the following reason (saith he) doth mani­festly exclude them from both these favours (citing’ vers. 18.) That they teach you not to do after all their abo­minations &c. Sure it had become this Magisteriall Informer to ponder these reasons ere he had obtruded upon us his bold and inconsiderate assertions in this point. The Dutch Annot: on this 15. vers. expresly assert ‘that the cities of the Land of Canaan are ex­cluded [Page 108] from offers of peace, because the Lord had commanded them to be banned (that is devoted to destruction) as is related in the sequel. Mr Poole upon this 10. vers. asserts that this seems to be un­derstood not of the cities of the Canaanites, as is ma­nifest from vers. 16, 17, 18. who were under ane absolute sentence of utter destruction, Ex. 23. 32, 33. Deut 7. 1, 2. Whence they are blam'd that made any peace or league with them, Judges 2. 2. but of the cities either of other nations who injur'd or disturbed them, or commenced war against them, or aided their enemies, or oppressed their friends and allies or of the Hebrews themselves, if they were guilty or abettors of Idolatry or apostacy from God, or of sedition or rebellion against authority, or of giving protection and defence to capital offenders. Ci­ting Gen. 14. Judges 20. 2. Sam. 20. The En­glish annot. upon this 10. vers. do also assert that this offer of peace is not to be understood of the ci­ties of Canaan, for they were to be more severly dealt withal vers. 16, 17. and for shewing them more favour Israel is blam'd Judg. 1. 28. but of ci­ties without the land of promise vers 15.’ So that our Informer is here runnig crosse to the plain sense & scope of the text, and the current of Interpreters.

But he adds, that there was a difference betwixt these Canaanites and the nations a far off in relation to this allow­ance of peace to them. First, it was to be upon the termes of relinquishing their idolatry, yeelding up their Lands, and becoming servants. That therfor leagues with them are forbidden, they reserving their heathnish worship. But where will he shew us this restriction, or difference in Scripture? non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit. We have seen Gods peremptory precepts to cut them off, to save alive none that breatheth of these excepted cities and nations. We find also peremptory com­mands [Page 109] to make no leagues with them, no not for ci­vill commerce, as they might with other heathens a­far off, Exo. 23. 32, 33.—thou shalt make no Cove­nant with them—they shall not dwell in thy land, as these Gibeonites were permitted; so Exo. 34. 12. Deut. 7. 2 we have the same precepts renewed. Now, where is this exception, as to these leagues? it lyes upon him as the affirmer to prove and instruct this limitation, which he here affirms, out of the text. God who gives the law must himself also give the exception. And this man must be charged with malapert intruding into what he hath not seen, in pre­suming to put in his exceptions, unless he can in­struct them, which yet he hath not done. I confess God who is above the Law might allow an [...] in certain cases, especially such as this anent their Oath, but looking to his own precept we find no such ex­ception from it. 2ly; he sayes, there was this diffe­rence betwixt them and other nations, that if they refused peace, they were to be worse dealt with then any other city that was not of the Canaanites, because (Deut. 20. 16, 17.) in ease of their refusal, nothing was to be saved alive while, other cities were but to lose the lives of the Males only. vers. 12, 13, 14, 15. Now, the violence which he offers here unto the text, is obvious to any that but reads it. For after that (ver. 10.) the lord hath laid down this Law in generall, anent their proclaiming peace to a city before they assault it, and showen (in the 11. ver.) That if the city yeeld, they shall be tributaries—(vers. 12, 13.) God injoyns that if the city refuse peace, every male must be cut off—and (ver. 14.) the Women, little ones, and the cattel must be saved, and its spoile taken. Then (vers. 15.) to ridd mar­ches, and to shew whom all these prescriptions relate unto, and whom not. The lord adds—thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from [Page 110] thee which are not of the cities of these nations. And then (as I said) in relation to them the severe command followes (16. ver.) but of the cities of these nations which the Lord thy God gives thee, thou shall save alive nothing that breatheth. And that these excepted cities and people may be known they are particularly named as in above expressed. He sayes, in the case of their re­fusall, nothing was to be left alive, and they were to be worse deal; with than others, who refused peace, who were to lose the males only. Wheras the text appeares express, that the Law anent offering peace, and dealing thus according as it was accepted or refused, did not belong to them at all, but that they are very clearly and peremptorly excepted from it. As for his long confused parenthesis here foisted in anent the difference betwixt the peace and a league, and that Ioshua first made a league with the Gibeonites, but knowing them to be Canaanites-brake it, because contrary to the com­mand of God (citing Josh. 9, 21, 22, 23.) and meerly al­lowed them a peace. It is fl [...]tly contradictory to the text, for (vers. 15.) it is said, he made peace with them and made a league with them (and this league was) to let them live, and the Princes of the congregation sware unto them. Lo here is the Identity of the peace and league, and the designe and contents of it [to let them live.] The Dutch annot. upon 15. v. [the princes of the congregation sware to them] tell us, that they rati­fied by Oath that which Joshua had promised them, viz. that they should remain alive. The English annot. in stating the question and difficulty concerning the contrariety of this transaction to Gods command, ex­press it thus, whither Ioshua in making peace with them, and the Princes in confirming it by Oath, did Lawfully or not. And speak to the Lawfulness, or unlawfulness of both Ioyntly without any distinction, but make no exception in the least of the league as if distinct from the peace con­firmed [Page 111] by Oath, which certainly in statingthe que­stion they would have expresly excluded, had they ima­gined any such distinction. That Joshua keept the peace and the league, and that this league & peace was to let them live, is accordingly set down in the same termes when the Princes ratefied it; and all along where the peace is mentioned, The Oath (and by con­sequence the league which was therby confirmed) is proposed as its ground. They smote them not be­cause they had sworn by the Lord (18. vers.) And (vers. 19.) the Princes determine they must not touch them, because they had sworn to them. And (20. vers.) we will let them live lest wrath be upon us be­cause we have sworn unto them. And (vers. 21.) the Princes said to the People let them live—as they had promised unto them. Lo all along the Oath is most consciencioussly observed, and that as accessory unto, and confirming this whole transaction, both the peace and league, the, scope and sum wherof is still expressed thus [to let them live.] As the text makes no distinction, betwixt the peace and league in this ratefication, so the intendment therof is never extended byond their life and saftie first or last. How then can this man say that Joshua brake the league, since the termes therof were to let them live (ver. 15.) which is acknowledged by the Princes & faithfully performed. The league and peace and Oath here are still one, and fall under the same consideration as consonant, or dissonant to the com­mand; if the peace was contrary to the command so was the Oath, and if the league was contrary to the command so was the Oath also. For it is most evi­dent, that the text speakes of the peace and league in­discriminatim or without distinction in relating this transaction, and of the Oath as accessory both unto the one and the other; so that the Oath was unlawfull, if either the peace or league was unlawfull, and if ei­ther [Page 112] was broken the Oath was broken, and Joshua and the Princes were perjured: Wheras the text re­cords their faithfull performance of the Oath as rate­fying all that transaction. But it is no strang thing to see men so notoriously blotted with perjury seek pre­cedents in scripture Saints if they could finde them. But this instance will stand in judgement against them if they repent not.

Whereas he saith, that Ioshua brake the league as contrary to the command of God when he knew them to be Canaanites, giving this as a reason why he allowed them a peace only. It is such a flat contradiction to the text, and to it self, as none can be more plain. For according therunto Jo­shua could not break this league without breaking his Oath which confirmed it, and could break neither the one nor the other, and allow them a peace. Since this peace was the import both of the league and Oath, and all that the Scripture mentions as their de­mand of Joshua, was peace and their life, and nomore; and this all along Joshua and Israel keept, and precisely because of the Oath. As any who reads the text may see. The Dutch Annotations upon Josh. 9. 15. expone that branch that relates to the Princes swearing thus, ‘that they ratified by Oath that which Joshua had pro­mised them, viz, that they should remain alive.’ Wher­in, as they clearly hold that the Oath was accessory to this whole transaction, so they make it intirely to ter­minate in this that they should have their life. And upon 2. Sam. 21. 1. Where Sauls guilt in slaying these Gibeonites is mentioned, they paraphrase it thus, that ‘it was contrary to the promise made to them & rate­fied by Oath. Josh. I. 15, 18. And whereas we are put in minde in the 2. ver. that [the Gibeonites were not of’ Israel But of the Amorites]—they para­phrase it thus, that they were remaining of the hea­then nations whom God had commanded to destroy [Page 113] —and the other clause of the verse wherein we are put in minde [that Israel had sworn to them and Saul is said to have sought to slay them in his zeal] they paraphas [...] it thus, that it was ‘irregular fained zeal whereby he thought to mend what Joshua and other godly Governours, according to his opinion had ne­glected or ill done, but it was directly against the Oath made by Gods name, by his special providence, for which thing God was now greatly provocked, as by’ this pleague upon the land, & Gods answer appeareth. Wherein, how evidently they stand in opposition to this mans glosses and pleading upon this head, is ob­vious to themeanest reflection since onely for thatOath they charge guilt on Saul. The English annotations upon (ver. 18.) say, ‘that abstracting from the Princes Oath it had been cruelty to have slain them seeing they had violat a lawfull Covenant.’ Now how this aggrees with this mans gloss of [Joshuas breaking the league, as contrary to the commandment] let any judge. Jackson thus senses ver. 23.—‘the curse, which God had pro­nounced upon the people of this land requires that you be cut off as well as the rest, yet because of the Oath which we have taken this curse shall be upon you in bondage and not in death.’

His next instance to prove his supposed limitation of Gods command to destroy the Canaanites is that of Ra­hab her being spared Josh 6. 17. Which clearlie crosses his pleading & argument here; for 1. the spies upon very strick terms state their Oath: and told Rahab not only that if she should make the least discovery of their busi ness, but likewise that if she or her friends, even so much as one of them, were out of the house when the city was taken; this Oath should not reach them, whatever submission she had made. And 2dly, All Joshuas ground when he commands the spies to secure her and her friends, is their Oath: they are commanded to [Page 114] bring out the Woman, [as they sware to her] and for no other reason. 3ly. I pray, what saved her friends and her relations as well as her self from this common destruction? Surely, they made no peace nor any such submission as this man supposeth necessary to exeem them from the commanded destruction, nor was there any assurance the spies could have touching them, and therefore they could not be upon any other ground saved, but because included in this Oath. Be­sides, what power had these two men to transact a peace without Joshuas advice and knowledge? the ground of, their transacting with her, is their ne­cessity, and the Womans offer of their saftie. Now I retort his argument here against him; to prove that they were spared upon other terms then the Oath, he adduceth this instance of Rahabs preservation upon the submission mentioned, viz. her making and accep­ting of peace, and hence concludes that she (and by consequence the Gibeonites) together with her friends, were saved upon other terms, then meerly upon the Oath, and that abstracting from it Israel was obliged to save them. But one might argue thus, if Rahabs friends (at least) might have been Lawfully cut off upon the ground of Gods command to cut off the Canaanites who made or accepted no terms of peace, and were only saved by the spies Oath, then the Oath (according to the Informers own principles) did bind in opposition to a positive precept to cut off the Canaanites: but so it is, that upon the ground of this Oath only her friends wer spared, as this man cannot deny: ergo, the Oath did bind here in oppo­sition to a positive precept. He dare not say that her friends were proselyts, or did in the least directly or indirectly submit. Nay for any thing that the spies knew they might be as cursed heathens as were in all Jericho (for what was Rahab her self before God ex­traordinarly [Page 115] touched her heart) and consequently by Gods positive precept devoted to destruction with the rest. Yet this Oath, made even to another for them, yea an Oath which had a seeming extortion of fear in the spies hazard, saved and exeemd them from this stroak & curse, so that in this case himself must con­fess that the Oath did bind in opposition to the posi­tive precept. And this one clear Scripture instance seemes enough to prove the point that the Oath did over-rule a particular, positive precept, though all that he sayes of the Gibeonites were admitted.

He adds, that it is evident, from Iosh. 11. 19. that if other cities in Canaan, had submitted, as Gibeon, Ioshua might have spared them. I answer; the Text sayes that de facto they made no peace, and that God hardened their hearts that they might come against Israel and fall. But this will be too weak to bear the weight of his conclusion that Ioshua might have spared them all. For 1. How can this consist with the plain posi­tive command as to their utter off cutting (often renewed) and with Gods promise of giving Israel their inheritance, to spare them all. For the Psalmist tells us, that he did drive out the heathen with his hand and plant­ed his people, he did afflict the people and cast them out. Psal. 44. 2. And Psal. 78. 54, 55. He brought them to the bor­der of his Sanctuary, even to this mountain which his right hand had purchas'd. He cast out the Heathen also before them, and divided them an inheritance by line, and made the tribes of Israel to dwell in their tents. Hence as they were frequently enjoyn'd to cast them out least they should become a snare to them Exod. 23. 33. Deut. 7. 16. Ex. 34. 12. So Israels sparing them when they were planted in that land is frequently reprehended as their great guiltiness Judges 1. 27, 29, 30, 31, 33. And Judges 2. 1, 2. Upon which ground the Lord threatens as a punishment that he will not drive them [Page 116] out: But that they shall be thorns in their sides. And this threatning we find execute, and the same very guilti­ness presented as the cause of it, viz. That they did not destroy the nations concerning whom the Lord commanded them. Psal. 106. 34, 35. which confirmes this as­sertion; and therefore this historicall clause in that passage of Joshua, is to be expounded in cor­respondence with the plain and positive command, which we have already seen clear. 2ly. Jackson upon that 19. ver. [there was not a city that made Peace with Israel &c.] tells us, that this is added as a reason why the wars with the Canaanites lasted so long—because the Inhabitants did obstinately stand out—and attempted not to procure conditions of peace save only the Gibeonites—Which is far from coming up to his scope and designe. For it is one thing to say that de facto [...]he wars lasted long—because none of­fered to yeeld but Gibeon, and another thing to say that Io­shua was not oblidged nor commanded to cut off any but those who thus warred and resisted. Which will be the more weighty, if it be considered in the third place, that as in the command to cut them off, no such restri­ction appeares, but upon the contrary the Canaanites are excepted from mercy, so we do not find that Joshua offered terms of peace (as this man alleadges he was obliged) unto any of these that were cut off, but as­saulted them as those whom God had devoted to be destroyed, in obedience to his holy, though se­vere command, As we heard Jackson hath ob­serv'd. This will be more clear, (and therin the Informers adversary might puzle him) If we shall again reflect upon the remarkable circumstan­ces of that transaction with the Gibionites. In the 6. ver. of that 9. of Joshua, they propose the matter thus, we are come from a far country, there­fore make a League with us. Whatever they had under­stood [Page 117] of Gods command to cut off the Cananites, this surelie was a strong argument with Joshua. Now re­mark the answer in the 7. ver. the men of Israel said per­adventur ye dwell among us, and how shall we me make a league with you. Sure their offering terms of peace and submission, might have stopped this question and de­murre according to his opinion, who holds that upon their submitting to terms of peace, They might have been spared and even incorporat among Gods people, as he tells us from Josh. 11. 19. that all these Canaa­ni [...]es might have been spared, had they thus submitted So that in his sense their first offer was a ground of peace. Especially since (as is observed by learned Interpre­ters from their offer in the 8. ver.) they sought peace from Joshua and Israel upon their own termes, and offered to accept any conditions proposed by them. Which was the lowest step of submission. And when they further answer that demurr about the place of their abo [...]e with this general, we are thy servants, i. e. We offer our selves to thee & all that is ours, which was enough in this mans Judgement, to except them from the stroak threatned, and commanded to be execute upon the rest of the Canaanites. Yet this doth not satisfie Jo­shua, but again he particularly interrogats them upon these two points, who are ye? and next, from whence come ye? This their free and general concession (as some do judge) giving Joshua just cause to suspect that they were of the cursed Canaanites whom he was to des­troy; and then they tell him that wherin the dolus lay, we come from a far countrey. Now, I suppose they had answered to these two Questions thus, we are A­morites, and we dwell here. Thinks this Informer that Joshua would have lookt on himself as obliged by Gods Law to transact with them. What needed then his peremptory Interrogations (after their declared submission) anent their stock and lineage, and the [Page 118] place of their abode? What needed the people mur­mur, and desire to cut them off, after the contrary of what they pretended was discovered, notwithstan­ing hereof? Nay thirdly, why is it, that again and again their saftie is attributed solely to the Oath, with­out the least hint of their submission as having any influence thereupon? Finallie that passage Joshua 11. 19. [no citie made peace—For it was of the Lord that they might have no favour] seems to im­port no more but this, that favour might have been shown them had they submitted, but how? Even by God the supreme lawgiver (whose mercy is over all his Works) his dispensing with his own Law, and se­vere positive precepts, (as in the case of the Gibeo­nites he did) and in what Method it seemd best unto him, but it will be hard to inferr from this a limi­tation of the precept it self for the reasons already gi­ven. So that all that seems to follow from this pas­sage is, that had they submitted, God might have spared them by a speciall dispensing with his own Law, (For he will have mercie and not Sacrifice) and Joshua upon Gods appointment. But not that the Law it self did dispense with them.

As for what he adds in further confirmation of this opinion, anent Salomons imposing bond service upon the remains of these cursed Nations, and their poste­rity afterward, whom the children of Israel were not able to cast out (which, in ane odd phrase, he calls a kindness) and anent these Children of Solomons servants, mentioned Ezra. 2. 55, 58.] Jackson will tell him [That it contradicts not the Law (Deut. 7.) anent utter smiting them, and shewing them no mercy, since, that Law may be meant of the inhabitants that were in the Land at their entring first into it, not of their posterity. Especially these who had their lives previously secured.] Which fully cuts off his argument from this [Page 119] Text. And this is also the answer of Mr Poole and other learned interpreters upon this passage. Besides, that the Nethinims were probably the Gibeonites issue, and were however all of them, by a long tract of time Proselyts incorporat among Gods people and professing the true religion, which providentiall title might abundantly secure their lives

The Dutch Anotations upon Josh. 29. 27. do inferr from the nature and mould of that phrase which signi­fies [a delivering them over.] that hence it is thought they were called Nethinims i. e. given and delivered over which confirms the answer adduced. However the person who should directly impugne the Informer as to what he maintains in this question (which he hath impertinently brought in without any ground, to make some shift of answer) might further tell him that this being but a practice, cannot be pleaded against a rule, but must be measured by it, which is a prin­ciple acknowledged by all.

And here I shall exhibit some remarkable inconsi­stencies of this man with himself upon this point 1. he supposeth that Joshua and the princes their Oath to the Gibeonites stood inviolable as to this transaction both now and herafter; for he sayes (page 143.) that Sauls slaying the Gibeonites moved God to wrath, because it was contrary to Ioshuas Oath made to their fathers. Now Joshua & the Princes Oath ratefied all the Transaction with them, & was accessory therunto as the text most clearly holds out, viz. both the league and the peace; yet he tells us (page 141.) that as soon as Ioshua knew them to be Cananites, he brake the league as contrary to the com­mand of God, and consequently his Oath confirming it according to his doctrine as being Likewise contrary to the command. 2ly, In that same page he tells us that no peace was to be concluded with the Canaanites, unless they became servants & renounced their heathnish idolatries, [Page 120] and that with the same proviso leagues were discharged with these Canaanites. Yet immediatlie after he makes a distin­ction in this point betwixt a peace, and a league, and tells us, that Ioshua had first made a league with them, but when he knew them to he Canaanites, he brake it as being contrary to the command of God, and only allowed them a peace. Now both the peace, and the league, were equally allowed and commanded upon thir termes of yeelding up their Lands, and relinquishing their Idolatrie, and both were equally dischar­ged if they did not so, according to the series of his reasoning, as is obvious to any Reader. How then (I pray) could Joshua break his league with them as contrary to the command of God, more then the peace, both which he holds to have been allowed them with this proviso. 3ly. He sayes Ioshua and the Princes sware nothing but what God com­manded (pag. 142.) Now the text is most express that they sware the league ver. 15. and Ioshua made peace with them, and made a league with them to let, them live, and the princes of the congregation sware unto them. This league he sayes Ioshua brake as contrary to the com­mand of God, in his second answer; yet in his 3d an­swer he tells us, that the Oath contained in it nothing contrary to the command. Again, he sayes God com­manded to make no peace with them, But upon the termes of submission, relinquishing their idolatrie, and giving up their Lands. To this only he restricts the Princes stipulation, as falling under the command, yet acknowledges the command will include a league also upon thir terms, which els where (as I said) he dstinguishes from the peace, which he holds was not to be allowed them even upon thir termes. And likewise, in his second answer he tells us that they had peace only upon their submission, with­out mentioning these other termes. Likewise he sayes [Page 121] that on these termes he transacted to spare Rahabs friends, but where was this assurance as to her friends?

4ly, He acknowledges (pag. 143.) that Gods wrath for slaying the Gibeonites was because of Ioshuas Oath, made to their fathers. Yet page 108. he cries out upon his Doubters assertion anent ane Oath binding the posteritie, as a strange fancy, and tells us that Casuists say, that Iura­mentum est vinculum personale, binding these only who take it. Now wheras this man wonders much at our argu­ment from this text anent the Gibeonites, let any judge whether his own shattered inconsistent discourse be not rather an object of wonder.

But to proceed, his third answer to the premised argument of his Doubter, from this instance of the Gibeonites, is that Ioshua did nothing contrary to Gods command, which was to spare them upon their submission. Ans. (Besides what is touched anent his inconsistency with himself in this, and what we are to add, anent the impertinency of this unto the point, though gran­ted.) I say first, that Joshua and the Princes were bound to spare them abstracting from this stipulation and Oath, is more then he hath proved, and appears contrary to the command above expressed, and the current of the context where this Oath and stipula­tion is set down; whether we consider Joshuas pe­remptorie demands and demurres anent receiving them to peace, after they had expressed their submis­sion, or the Oath its being again and again mentio­ned, both in setting down the stipulation its self (ver. 15.) and the reason why they were not smitten (ver. 18.) and the Princes judicial determination. (ver. 19.) as the sole ground of Joshuas and the Princes obligation to them, without the least hint of any other, which cer­tainly might have been (and consequently if true would have been, might his impugner say) very per­tinently and strongly pleaded by Joshua and the Prin­ces, [Page 122] to quash the peoples murmuring at the sparing of them. 2ly, I might say, that this stipulation and Oath, although cross to a particular positive precept, yet notwithstanding, as matters here stood cir­cumstantiat, was consonant to a generall moral rule of Gods mercy, who loves it better then Sacrifice. And the sparing of these Gibeonites was grounded upon this great moral precept [of the reverence due to Gods name, interposed by a Sacred and Solemn Oath.] Which answer is the verie determination of Joshua and the Princes in this matter. His impunger might here adde that it is utterly improbable, that in the Princes determination of the question [whether these Gibeonites were to be saved, and the stipulation with them held as valid] their submission would have been omitted, if they had understood Gods command with this limitation, which is a doubt that would much puzle this Informer to resolve.

His 4t, Ans. is, that God was angry at the slaying of the Gibeonites, because it was contrary to his command, to give them peace upon their submission, and unto Ioshuas Oath to their fathers, and not meerly because it was contrary to the Oath. Ans. Joshua and the Princes Oath is both in that 9. of Joshua, and the 2. of Sam. 21. mentioned as the only ground of their right to their life, without the least hint of any command anent their having peace upon their Submission, which notwithstanding this antiscriptural Informer (who will be wise here above what is written) sets in the first place, as the principal cause of their right. When the reason is rendered (2. Sam. 21.) why these Gibeonites had a right to live a­mong the Israelites, though they were not of Israel, but of the Amorites, it is expressed thus, the children of Israel had sworn to them, and Saul sought to slay them. Again, since he grants that God was angry at the slay­ing of these Gibeonites upon the ground of Joshua [Page 123] and the Princes Oath to their fathers, he confequent­ly grants that this Oath, notwitstanding of the cheat by which Joshua and the Princes were brought under it, was still binding and did oblige the posterity, which is the Chief point that this instance is adduced to prove against him, as we shall presently shew. For what he adds after, it is not much noticable. The reasons of the English annotations as touching this Oaths consonancie to Gods Law, we are not in this point concern'd to scanne, since our argument stands good even upon their supposition. As for these who say, that Ioshua and the Princes Oath, was contrary to Gods Law, and do therfore assert that it did not bind. We have shown that as herin they are not ours, so in this assertion they clearly cross the Scriptures, as is evi­dent from what is above touched.

Here we shall again minde the Reader for a con­clusion to this argument and instance anent the Gibeonites, that all this mans clamour, about the consonancy or dissonancy of this Oath to Gods Law, is out of the way, and never meets our reasoning from this passage, even as its moulded by himself, so that we may without losing our argument as to its main scope, grant all that he sayes anent the consonancy of the Oath to the divine precept about cutting off these Canaanites, and that it did admit these restrictions which he speaks of. But our argument for the Covenant is here twofold 1. That this Oath and Covenant with these Gibeonites though its matter were of a far lower nature then our Sacred Covenants, and vows, yet did not only o­blidge that, but all succeeding generations, And therefore much more our solemn sacred vows, so so­lemnly and universally sworn, and about the great concerns of Publick and personal reformation, do oblidge all the posterity. Now this being our main Argument, he is so far from denying it, that he grants [Page 124] it upon the matter, in asserting and yeelding unto us, that this Oath consonant to Gods Law, did bind the posterity; for thinkes he that we doe not suppose and hold the matter of the Covenant to be consonant to Gods Law' Why then wanders he out of the way, while preten­ding to answer this argument, and pleaseth himself, and leads his Reader off the way with unprofitable talk not to the purpose? The consonancy of our Oath to the Law of God, being even his own supposition in this argument. 2ly. From this instance we argue (as I said) for the binding force of the Covenant even upon the adversaries supposition anent the coact­ion, deceit, fear, or such like irregularities in the manner of entring unto it, (which they use to make a great clamour about) and from this text we conclude that all these will not loose the Oath, when once it is taken. Since here there was a notable cheat whereby Joshua and all Israel were brought under this Oath, taking away both a rationall assent of the Iudgment, and the free sutable election of the will, quia dolus aufert assensum that is, deceit takes away assent, say Casuists, Yet all this did not irritat this Oath when taken. And even as himself states the objection, his Doubter alledges, that the pretence or appearance of a greater good in brea­king the Oath, was not wanting,—and particu­larly pleads, that this Oath did bind the posterity. Now what his roaving discourse anent the Oaths consonancy to the Law, sayes to all this, let any rational man judge; Since both his Doubter and he, do suppose the matter of this Oath lawfull. He knew that his stating the question aright and speaking to it, would have made the vanity of his answers appear, and therfore he started this notion anent the Oaths binding against a precept, that tossing it a little upon his forked pen, the unwarrie Reader might beleeve, he had return'd a full an­swer to this argument: Whereas he but beats the air [Page 125] in ane airie discourse out of the way, and yeelds the cause when he hath done.

Next he sayes, we use to plead Zedekiahs breach of Oath to the King of Babylon, which the Lord was so much displeased with. But how, and to what scope we plead that text, he durst not set down, nor put into the mouth of his Doubter any formall argument from it; Which if rightly propounded, he knew well his cause would quickly fall before it. This man could not be ig­norant how Timorcus, and others, improve this text, viz. that Zedekiah who was of the Kings seed, the son of Josiah (Ezek. 17. 13.) had ane Oath put upon him by the King of Babylon anent his, and the Kingdoms feal­ty and subjection to him (2 Chron 36. 13.) after he had overrunn the land, and made prisoner Jehoia­chin his Brother, and keept Zedekiah himself under his power. That he could neither have the crown, nor his libertie without this Oath of fealty to the King of Babylon, which was forced upon him out of fear, and as a prisoner—yet for the breach hereof (Exek. 17.) he is threatned with the losse of all. Shall he break the Covenant and be delivered—as I live saith the Lord surely my Oath and Covenant that he hath bro­ken even it will I recompence upon his head. And in the midst of Babylon he shall die. Here was ane Oath, forced upon a prisoner, and a King of Judah, and upon the matter inconsistent with Israels Laws, made that the King­dom might be base, yet the breach of it was thus ter­ribly revenged: Therfore much more dreadfull is the breach of our solemn vows, whose matter is of such high importance, and their end so excellent, and the power imposing so native and Lawfull &c. What sayes he to this Argument? he tells us, that the Iews were commanded to submit to the King of Babylon (Ier. 27. 6. &c.) so that the breaking of the Oath was disobedience to Gods com­mand. But who denyes this, and what doth this ar­guing [Page 126] reprove? doth not his Doubter and himself also suppose the matter of the Covenant to be consonant to Gods command. But how takes he away these nerves, and t [...]ckling points of this instance and argu­ment for the Covenant. 1. That this Oath was forced upon him as a prisoner. 2ly, taken by Zedekiah out of fear. 3ly, had a very apparent Inconsistency with a greater good, viz. to free Gods Church and people from a heathen slavery. 4ly, was cross to many stan­ding Laws of Israel, yet neither the force of this hea­then Invader, in imposing this Oath, nor the fear and bondage of this King of Israel when he did take it, nor the apparent inconsistency of its matter with a greater good, and its certain inconsistency with the standing Laws of Israel, did loose the Oath when ta­ken, nor exeem the breaker of it from wrath and Judgement. And all this because it was upon the matter warrantable, and allowed of God, as we hold the Covenant to be. And therfore neither force, fear, bondage, the greater apparent good in breaking it, nor the inconsistency of it with our present Laws, none of all these pretences (we say) will loose the Oath of our Covenant, the matter of it being warran­ted of God, and of such high importance as is said. Sure it is obvious to any that this answer of his, sayes nothing to the antecedent or consequent of this ar­gument for the Covenant, nor touches it in the least.

The Doubter objects next [the mark of the blessed man (Psalm 15. 4. vers.) swearing to his own hurt and not changing.] In answer to which this Informer grants, that in many things a man may swear to his hurt and not change. This is sound, and in so far he must grant, that the Oath may hinder many goods and yet not for all that be violat. And in recompence of this concession I readily yeeld to him, that ane Oath will not [Page 127] bind to a mans hurt in every thing, as to take away his own life. And that such ane Oath binds only to repen­tance, as being iniquitatis vinculum. But what will he say to this argument which he makes his Doubter here mutter out? Why, when it hurts (saith he) those in au­thority and peoples soules, it will not bind. True, but how doth the keeping of the Covenant hurt peoples soules, or these in authority? we read much in Scrip­ture of the hurt that breach of Covenant hath brought upon both these. But how a peoples keeping Cove­nant with God wrongs either their soules or these in authority, we would gladly hear. Dare he say that every disobedience to the command of Rulers, impea­ches their authority? or that peoples want of the means and ordinances of life, is to be imputed to Godly suf­fering ministers, whom for keeping Gods Covenant they have chased away from their flocks & families? As for familie hurt, or in relation to things of this life, ther's no question but that ane Oath in many cases will bind notwithstanding therof; Which is the Judgement of all Interpreters. But now the Doubter having spent all his arguments, hath only one poor General left, viz. that we are tender of Oaths. To this he ans­wers first, by acknowledging, that we ought to be considerate before we enter into ane Oath. Very true, and had we all been so, there had not been so many contradictory and ungodly Oaths, standing upon record against Scotland, as this day there are. Withall he sayes, we should be well advised before we thinke our selves discharged of an Oath. And no doubt if he and his party had advised this better with God, with his word, with sound Casuists, and their own consciences, they had not upon such poor grounds as we have seen, first perjured themselves, and plea­ded for others doing the like. But yet (saith he) to think we cannot be at all discharged of an Oath, in a thing not ne­cessary, [Page 128] is to be more tender then we ought to be. True: but not to take every matter of an Oath for not neces­sary, which he may have the confidence to call so, but cannot prove it, and not to admit every ground of discharge as lawfull, which such Adiaphorists as he may pretend, is to be no more tender then we ought to be.

But here, our Informer will reach a blow again at the Assembly 1638, because of their loosing Ministers, who entred by the former Prelats, from their Oaths to them. But where is his discretion and tenderness, who ob­jects this as a fault of that assembly, and yet dare not exhibit, nor offer to scanne their grounds men­tioned in their act, in reference to these engadge­ments? wherein, because 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 [Page 129] 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 [Page 130] 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 [Page 131] 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 [Page 132] function, and in its very nature a gross corruption, and contrary to the word of God, as is above cleared. Which disparity is palpable to any that will but open their eyes. Do we abjure any Civil courts or offi­cers in that article? are they not termd expresly Ec­clesiastical officers who are there abjured: Nay, doth not Timorcus tell us that in England the Com­missaries ‘exercise a power in Church discipline by a delegation from the Bishop.’ And doth not Bi­shop Lighton deny this to be competent to our Com­missaries here. For in that passage of the letter now cited, he sayes we have nothing but the name of Com­missaries, he means in respect of these in England, who exercise ecclesiastical discipline under the Bis­hops. Didoclavius pag. 458. Cites Cowellus in In­terprete, about the office of the Bishops Commissary in England, speaking thus, Commissarij vox Titulus est Ecclesiasticae Iurisdictionis (saltem quousque commissio per­mittit) in partibus Diocesios a primaria Civitate tam Longe dissitis ut Cancellarius subditos ad principale consistorium Epis­copi citare non potest &c. ‘That is, that Commissary in England is a title of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction so faras his commssion will allow in places which are so far remote from the cheif city of the diocess, that the Chancellour without great molestation cannot cite them to the Bishops cheif court.’ Didoclavius tells us (ubi supra) that according to the Statutes of En­gland, the Chancellour is the Bishops principal offi­ciall, & the Commissary the Bishops foraneous officiall.

To conclude, 1. The Bishops power as to Civills, and their deputation of this their power to Chancel­lours is a most gross usurpation, Contrary to the Scripture, which forbids the Minister to entangle himself with things of this life. Our Lord himself would not so much as be an arbiter in a civil Cau­se. Paul speaking of the ministerial duties, saith [Page 133] who is sufficient for these things. The Apostles must Give themselves continually to the Word. Cartwright against the Rhemists upon 2. of Tim. 2. 4. Proves that pure antiquitie Knew nothing of prelats thus medling, citing Jerome (super Sophon. cap. 1.) who expounds that place against Ministers medling in Secu­lar affaires. And Cyprian, who applies this place against one who took upon him to be executor of a Testament: Lib. 1. Epist. 9. concil. Carthag. 4. Cap. 20. Apostol. can. (Can. 6.) Seculares Curas non Suscipite. Likewise Am­brose, who affirmes that Worldly Government is the weak­ning of the priest. (Lib. 5. Epist. 33.) Smectimnuus (pag. 32. Sect. 10.) cites concil. Hispall. 2. Cyprian Epist. 28. against this deputation of prelats power to Chan­cellours, Commissaries &c. and Brings in Bishop Dounham aknowledging (Defens. Lib. 1.) that in ‘Ambrose time and a good while after, which was about the year 400. till presbyters were wholly neglected, the Bishops had no ordinaries, vicars, Chancellours, Commissaries, that were not Clergie men.’ But this restriction they affirme to be a meer blind, and Challeng him to shew any such under-of­ficers of Bishops in those times. So that they hold this to be one main point of difference betwixt their Bishops, and the primitive Bishops. 2dly, in England, not only hath the Commissary a Civil administration under the Bishop, but hath Likewise power of Spiri­tual censures, and a great part of the Bishops eccle­siastical administration, committed unto him both over Ministers and others; such as suspension, depo­sition, excommunication: See Didoclav. (pag. 464, 465. de officialibus) Cartwright (2. repl. part. 2. pag. 69.) who shews ‘that the prelats not only exercise Tyrrany themselves over the Church, but bring it under subjection to their very Servants, yea their Servants Servants such as Chancellours, [Page 134] Commissaries &c.’ 3ly, it is clear that since the re­formation we never had in Scotland such Commissaries; but our Law and practice since that time, and since Po­pish Prelacies were dissolved, hath much reduced them to the state & Quality of other civil officers, whose ad­ministration of its own nature depends upon superiour civil officers. For this we have (as I said) Bishop Lightons own Confession, that we have but the name of Commissaries here, who have nothing to do with Church dis­cipline; Only their civil power is invaded again by the Prelats. 4ly, B Lighton and this Informer do both plead, ‘that its only the officers enumerat in the 2d Article of the Covenant, and the Commissaries as then moulded & Existent in the Church of England, that this Oath oblidges against.’ And so according to their Principles and pleading, our Commissary here, so vastly discrepant from theirs, falls not within the com­pass of the Covenant abjuration. Hence finally, the owning of the Commissary in his Lawfull civil admi­nistrations, can be no acknowledgement, either, 1. of the English Commissaries Power, which he hath not. Nor 2dly, of the Prelats usurpation upon this civil office; no more then the simple using of our ci­vil Laws, and the ordinary civil courts during Crom­wells usurpation, was a homologating the wickedness therof, which this man will not dare to assert. An usurper may be in titulo, and such submission and im­provement of the civ [...]l power invaded by him, as doth acknowledge the providentiall Title, and his being pos­sessed of the power de facto, and having as they use to say jus in re, or actual providential possession therof, If there be no active concurrance towards his Esta­blishment, is, as to civills, free of any guilt of the usurpation, and will import no acknowledge­ment of the usurper his Pretended jus. Which is the Judgement of all sound divines and Casuists. [Page 135] But the case is far different as to our Informers deriving his deputed Ecclesiastical Ministery or spiritual autho­rity from the Bishop; because, 1. the Prelats office it self is a gross usurpation, contrary to the Scrip­ture, so is not the Commissaries office. 2dly, the Pe­lats usurped possession of unlawfull power over the Church, which is Christs Kingdom, cannot give him so much as a providentiall Title; and therfore all acknowledgement therof is unlawfull. Thirdly, his submission to prelacy as now it stands Circumstan­tiat, is an acknowledgement both of the possession, and jus, which this man will not deny, and this is far dictinct, from an act which doth but indirectly acknowledge the usurpers possession. So that his Con­formity is ane express acknowledgement and owning of a gross encroachment upon Christs Kingdom (his Church) which is toto Coelo different, from acknow­ledging a possession de facto of, and a Providential title unto, a part of the civil administration of the King­doms of the world, which are mutable. And as for a testimony against this usurpation, I suppose that had the people of God disowned these civil courts, upon this ground of the Covenant obligation, his party, for the preceeding reasons, had signally cried out against it, as an AnaBaptistical rejecting of Law­full civil Government, more then he doth upon this Pretence, alledge a homologating of Prelacie, in this acknowledgement. But however, we say, that the people of God their notour and standing testimo­ny against Prelacie it self as now Established, doth sufficiently reach this among other its usurpations, although this piece of civil Government be eatenus or in its own nature and as such, owned as for­merly.

But now our Informer charges us with another breach of Covenant, upon the ground of schisme, [Page 136] which he sayes, we are carrying on in opposition to the peace and liberty of this Church, which Christ has bequeathed to her in legacie. This heavy charge we would gladly know how he will instruct, and because he cannot stay to discuss that point in this dialogue, we will therfor supersed our enquiry here, and pass over to his third dialogue, and Examine therin the grounds of this accusation, which we doubt not to discover, to be as Irrational, as these examined in the preceeding Dialogues.

CHAP. I.

THE state of the Question in the third Dia­logue, is anent sinfull separation and Schism; whether the people of God be guilty of it in ad­hering to such Ministers as contend for our Re­formation, rather then Curats or Confor­mists; And whether they stand in this case of our Church) oblig'd to adhere to the one or the other, as their true Pa­stours, from whom they are to receive the gospel ordinances, and to whom they owe subjection, reverence, and obedience accordingly. This state of the Question our Informer cannot in the least pick a quarrel at, it being most suitable unto his pleading, which is all along ground­ed upon this supposition, that conformists do stand in a Ministerial relation to this Church, and professours therein: from which he concluds peoples obligation to adhere unto them, as their only true, and proper Pastours. And in correspondence to this principle and infe­rence, doth universally and absolutely fasten the charge of intrusion and Schism upon Presbyterian Mini­sters, [Page 3] and people, as to their respective acts of preach­ing, and hearing in their present state and circumstan­ces So that if we can overturn this his grand topick, & fortify the antithesis therof, he must grant that all his reasoning in this Dialogue falls to the ground. For clearing this let us take a litle view, first, of our Church of Scotland her case at Prelacies introducti­on. 2ly, of her present case. 3dly, of the different grounds which the Presbyterian and Prelatick partie plead upon, for the peoples adherence. 4thly, on whose side the separation stands. Schism is a sinfull se­paration from a Church, with whom, & in what acts we are bound to adhere. So that when this Question is clea­red, who are that Church to which we stand under obligations to adhere, it will go far to clear this de­bate.

First, As to the state of our Church at Prelacies Introduction, I shall l [...]y down these three suppo­sitions in relation to the matter of fact. First, that our Church from the infancie of her Reforma­tion, together with popry rejected Prelacy, and in her National capacitie, and in her supreme Judicatories disowned it as contrary to the Word of God, as a piece of Antichrists wicked Hierarchy: And in her National capacitie abjured the same often, solemnly, and universally. This hath been already clear'd upon the preceeding Dialogue. 2ly. Presbyterian Go­vernment hath been look't on by our Church, as the only Government of the Church appointed by Christ in Scripture, and as the hedge of her reformed Doct­rine. Nay the owning of it hath been the great badge and Criterion, to try her true members; the subscribing the books of Discipline, and the natio­nall Covenant of old, and the solemn league of late, with engadgements of adherence to Presbyterian Go­vernment, have been the ordinary door of entry [Page 4] into her Ministry. This, as to mater of fact, is clear and undeniable. 3ly, Our Church hath Judi­cially condemned E [...]astianisme, and Ministers their state offices, and appointed Judicially the censuring of the opposers of this her establishment as scanda­lows, Assembly 38. Sess. 16: 17. Confirmed and re­newed in Assembly 39. So Assembly 40. Sess 5.

In the 2d place, as to our Church her present condi­tion, these things are clear and undeniable. 1. That all the legall right of the late work of Reformation is removed in the act rescissory. 2. Presbyterian Go­vernment is raz'd, and the Church-Government monopliz'd in the Arch Bishops and Bishops, obtru­ded upon this Church: And the right and liberties of Presbyters and all our former Church-Judicatories is removed and taken away. 3ly, Ane arbitary and Erastian Prelacy is set up in opposition, both unto our Churches intrinsick power of Government, and like­wise her particular frame of Presbyterian Government. 4. All her vowes and great Oaths both in the Natio­nal Covenant, as explaind An. 1638. And in the solemn League against Prelacie, and for maintain­ing her reformation, are disown'd, raz'd, and cassat, as far as legall enactings can reach. 5. Ane express bad [...]e is appointed as to both Ministers and people their owning this course of defection, and dis­owning the late reformation viz. ministers submitting to Erastianism and Prelacy and owning their new courts; and peoples hearing their vi [...]ars and substitutes, for the same scope in th [...] rulers diclaird designe. 6. Mini­sters betwixt three and four hundred disown, and stand in opposition to this course, and a great part and body of the professours of this Church have like­wise disownd the same, & stood their ground. Hence upon what is said, it followes in the 7th place, that ane ax is laid to the root of her reform'd Doctrine, [Page 5] Worship and Government; The great hedge thereof is removed, viz: her solemn vows: and beside, her doctrinall principles anent the Antichrist and his Hierarchy, the Churches intrinsick power of Go­vernment, Christian libertie, the unlawfulness of sig­nificant ceremonies in Gods Worship; her Do­ctrine anent Justification, the Imperfection of obe­dience, Christs certain, determinat, and full satis­faction for sinners, in opposition to the Socinian and Arminian errors; The morality of the Sabbath &c. are opposed by this innovating prelatick partie. And next, for her Worship (beside what corruptions are al­ready introduced, and others pleaded for, as the perth Articles &c.) It is, upon the matter, subjected to mens arbitrary impositions; And our National Covenant and Conf [...]ssion is disownd, ae stricking a­gainst popish corruptions, and also our late confession as asserting the above-mentioned Doctrine & principles. And for Government, the Curats are meer slaves of Prelats, in all their meetings by his negative voice, and the Prelats themselves are but the Magistrats crea­tures. And thus as our late consession is disownd in relation to several doctrinal points of Christian liber­tie, moralitie of the Sabath, free election, &c so like­wise in relation to its principles as to Church Go­bernment, and Christs appointing Officers, lawes, and censures, as head of his Church, his not giving the keys to the civill Magistrat &c. Wherein our pre­latick party are come so great a length that the late theses from St Andrews an. 81, daines that Assem­bly of Divines whose confession is authorirized by the generall Assembly of this Church, with no other name then that of a conventicle. 8ly, Our Churches case is now worse then when prelacy was introduced by King James. The Limitations of Erastianism by the Act of Parliament An. 1592. in relation to [Page 6] her priviledges concerning heads of religion, heresy, excom­munication, and censures, clear this. Next, Church-Judicatories were not discontinued, but sat upon their old ground; and Prelats were restored by Par­liament to their civil dignities only. Hence 9ly. Its clear that this pure Presbyterian Church hath been meerly passive as to all these innovations lately intro­duced; her true representatives or lawfull Assem­blies never having consented to this course of con­formity, as appears by the Assembly 38. Their act anent these meetings, at Linlithgow 1606; at Glas­gow 1610. at Aberdeen 1616. At St Andrews 1617. at Perth 1618. Which consented to Prelacie; All which meetings they demonstrat to be contrary in their frame and constitution, to the priviledges of this Church. And at prelacies late erection Presby­terian Judicatories and Synods were preparing a Iudi­cial Testimonie, before they were raisd. So that the voice of our lawful Assemblies is still heard in opposi­tion to this course; & since Prelacies erection we have never had so much as a shadow of ane Assembly &c.

For the 3d point, viz. the different grounds which the Presbyterian and prelatick party (and this man par­ticularly) do plead upon, for the peoples adherence; take it shortly thus, the prelatists do plead first, that they are Ministers, and in that relation to this Church. 2lv. That corruptions in administrators will not (ac­cording to our own principles) warrand separation from ordinances. 3ly, they plead order, and union, which (they allege) is broken by peoples withdraw­ing. These are the cheif topicks they insist on. On the other hand Presbyterian Ministers plead for disowning them according to the forementioned sta­te of the question, first, from this that the body of Presbyterian Ministers & professours adhering to our Churches reformation, principles, and priviledges, [Page 7] are the pure genuine Church of Scotland, tho now fled into a wilderness; whose voice we are called to hear as her true Chiidren. 2ly, that this course of confor­mity is a meer intrusion on this Church, and invasion of Christs Kingdome, prerogatives and ordinances, subjecting the lawes, officers and censures of his Church unto men, exauctorating & putting in officers without his warrand; that Prelats, and their de­putes consequently, have no right to officiat as Mini­sters in this Chuich. Since both the one and the other are arrand intruders upon the same, and promoters of this Schismatick destroying course of defection. 3ly, that our Churches divine right and claim to her priviledges stands fast, notwithstanding the present encroachments and invasions thereof; and her Chil­drens obligation of adherence to the same according­ly. 4ly, That hence it followes, because of the na­ture and tendency of this course of defection, that all are obliged to keep themselves free from the least ac­cession to it, and therefore to disown Curats; both as maintaining principles contrary to the principles and doctrine of this Church, and as standing in a stated op­position to her, & likewise as the obiects of her censu­re, if she were in capacity to draw her sword. That the people of God have both corrupt doctrine to lay to their charge, beside the corruption Worship; and also their go­ing out from the fellowship of this Church, and lead­ing the people away from our vowed reformation &c.

In the 4th place, to come to clear ths great point on whose fide the separation stands, let us premise these things. 1. Every separation is not sinfull, even from a Church which hath the essentialls, yea and more then the essentialls, a man may go from one Church to another without hazard of separation. But further, in these cases separation is not schism. I. It if be from those (tho Never so many) who are [Page 8] drawing back, and in so far as drawing back, from whatever peice of duty and integrity is attaind. For this is still tobe held fast, according to many scripture comands, as we shall shew. So Elias when Gods Covenant was forsaken, was as another Athanasius; (I, and I only am left) in point of tenacious integrity. 2ly, if we separat in that which a Nationall Church hath commanded us as her members to disown by her standing acts, and authority, while those from whom we separat own that corruption. 4. If Mini­sters their supposed separation be ane officiating as they can have access, after a National Churches refor­mation is overturnd, and they persecute from their watchtowers by these overturners. For in this case the persecuters separat from them, and chase them away. 4. There is a Lawfull forbearance of union and complyance with noto ious backsliders, in that which is of it self sinfull, or inductive to it, which is far from separation strictly taken; The commands of ab­staining from every appearance of evill, and hating the garment spotted with the flesh, do clearly include this. 5. Many things will warrand separation from such a particular Minister or congregation, which will not warrand separation from the Church National; nor infer it, by Mr Durhams acknowledgment (on scandal pag. 129.) For if scandals become excessive, he allowes to depart to another congregation. 6. There is a command­ed withdrawing from persons and societies even in worship; the precepts, to avoid them that cause divisions and offences contrary to the received Doctrine, Rom. 16. 17. to come out from among the unclean & be separat. 2 Cor. 6. 17 to cease from instruction that causes to erre from ehe words of knowledge, Prev. 19. 27. to save our selves from the untoward generation. Act. 2. 40, will clearly import this by con­sequence. 2dly, This charge of sinfull separation which they put on Gods people supposes many thigs which [Page 9] must be proved, as first, that the Prelats and their adherents, are the only true organick Church of Scot­land, which is denyed; her frame and constitution being such as it said; surely the Ministers and profes­sours adhering to her reformation must be the true Church of Scotland tho the lesser number, as they should have been, if this prelatiok defection had been in­tirely popish. These souldiers who keep the Gen [...]rals or­ders are the true army, not the deserters of the same. Either the Church in this Nation as lately reformd & constitute, and to whose constitution many Confor­mists vowed adherence, was not the true organick protestant Church of Scotland, or this partie, whose constitution, Principles, Doctrine & practice, are point blank contrary therunto, is not. 2. It supposed that there is no lawfull use of ordinances among Presbyterian Ministers, as persons who have no Lawfull call to of­ficiat in this case. Hence this man pleads for disow­ning them universally and absolutely; but we affirm they are Ministers standing in that relation to this Church, and under the obligation of Christs comand to officiat, which Conformists have not yet disproved 4. He sup­poses that every thing which may be expedient as to the [...] and order of a Church, when enjoyning her full peacable constitution, will equally oblidge in her broken and persecute condition, when a prevailing backsliding party is in her bosome. Now; scripture and reasen will disprove this: circumstances of order must give place to important duties in extreme ne­cessity as this is: the scattered officers of the Church of Jerusalem, went every where preaching the gospel (Act. 8,) so did Ministers in the beginning of the Re­formation. 4. It is supposed that our change is only as to government: and such only as was in King Iames time, both which we have showen to be false. 5. He takes for granted that their personal faults who are conformists, [Page 10] and a supposed pullution of the worship therby, is our ground of non-union; and that our granting them to have the essence of a Ministeriall call, and that their scandals will not pollute the worship, will infer the hea­ring of them in this our case, which is also false. For even upon this supposition, we are not bound to owne them no more then ane ingraind Schismatick, obtruded forcibly by a party of the congregation upon the rest of the people, might be ownd on this ground. 6 This man begs the question in supposing that the constitution and frame of the Prelacy now establish't, is the same with that of the ancient Church, for he often tels us that we would have separat from the ancient Church, upon the same grounds for which we disown Conformists. Whereas we have shewed the difference of our prela­cy from theirs in many points. That our prelats both as Diocesian & Erastian, are wholly discrepant from the ancient Bishops. 7. He takes it for granted, that Ministers who disown this course of backsliding their relation to their flocks is cut off, in the present posture of our Church, and that the Prelats and their substi­tuts, (the Curats) are the onely proper representa­tive Church of Scotland, who accordingly have one­ly the lawfull power and exercise of the keyes as to either admission or censure of Ministers. A principle alwayes disowned by our Church. See Protesters no subverters (pag. 96.) Rutherfoords due right of Presbyt. [pag. 430. 431.] Altare Damasc. (pag. 23.) 8. He supposes that its unlawfull in this our case to officiat, ren [...] ­tente Magistrat [...]; that this very violence and the present Lawes will render Ministers officiating unwarrantable [pag. 205.] which is a great mistake, for the Magi­strat cannot loose from the pastoral relation which he gave not, ejusdem est constituere & destituere. A [...]es­medull. [cap. 30. thes. 14. And hence the Ministers rela­tion [Page 11] to the Church Nationall stands, tho he restrain the exercise thereof in any one place; and consequent ly the tyes and commands to officiat; so that disobeying the Magistrats command not to officiat, is no disobedience to his lawful authority. Nay Apollonius thinks that the divine relation of a Minister to this Church, tho banisht from his native country, doth stand. Ius Majestatis circasacra part. 1. pag. 331. (9.) He still supposes that, what will not exse, or of it self plead for disowning the hearing of the gospel, or of a Minister simpli­citer, will plead nothing in this our case for disowning Conformists. The mans weakness, personal faults, not lecturing &c. are not of themselves sufficient to cut us off from hearing absolutely. But tho this be granted, we have the pure genuine Church of Scotland, and her faithful Ministry to adhere unto, and over and a­bove these grounds mentiond, conformists schismatick practice, and corrupt Doctrine to lay to their charge, which will make this ground in our case very weighty and preponderating; and this the Informer himself must grant, for he will not say that such like preten­ces or arguments in our case, were valid as to the owning of Nonconformists and des [...]rting of Curats. Moreover he will grant, that Presbyterian Ministers might Lawfully be heard, if Conformists were not standing in their way. Now so the case is in relation to Presbyterian Ministers pleading; for that none of these things which he mentions were valid to infer peoples disowning of Conformists, were there no other Ministers in Scotland, and if this Church had universally, both Ministers and people faln into this cou [...]se of backsliding, will be readily granted; But without any advantage to his cause, as is evident. To these many discoveries of his begging the question in this debate, our plea and arguments will be clearer if we add a short view of our suppositions in this case [Page 12] and question. Such as 1. our principle of the unlaw­fulness of prelacie. 2. The binding force of our cove­nants. 3. Our Churches divine tight to her Reforma­tion and priviledges once establisht. 4. that this is a case both of defection, and persecution. 5. of compe­tition betwixt Ministers & professours contending for our Reformation, and a party of backsliders overtur­ning it. 6. The tendency of this course of Prelatick defection, to raze our Reformation; and that if not prevented; it will end in propery. 7. That Presbyte­rian Ministers relation to this Church, and their obligation to duty founded upon that relation, is not extinguished but subsists notwithstanding of the pre­sent violence and persecution, which they with their weeping mother are exposed unto. Having premised these things, from what is said we may draw forth at length the great state of the question thus, whether, when the Reformation of a National Church in Doctrine, worship, discipline and government, is by a backsliding par­ty overturnd, and a course-carryed on to raze it, God ha­ving left a considerable body of Ministers & professours, who stand in opposition to that course, and are in their capacities testifying against it, are these Ministers and professors who preach and hear in opposition to that course, or the com­plying Ministry and hearers, the scismaticks? This being clearly the state of this question, we shall offer these arguments to fortifie our principle of disowning conformists in this our case, and denying a subjection to them as the Ministers of this Church, and adhe­rence to Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry, and acquit this principle and practise from the Informers charge of sinfull separation.

1. Whoever of the two partiss adhere unto the true genuine Church, owning her constitutions, authoritie and priviledges, its certain the contrary party must be the schismaticks; here it must be seen who are the [Page 13] first departers, who have first broken the hedge, who have first disownd and opposed the Covenants, the Government, the sound and pure doctrine of this Church, in complyance with persecuters, surely they and they only are the schismaticks. Had not this inva­sion been made upon our Church and her priviledges, what would have been her Judgement of the present principles and practices of Conformists in any of her Lawfull courts? would they not have been judged censurable as the worst of Schismaticks? Now, what is the difference here, except, that this party makes the greater number; but will this take away the charge of schism? suppose a party of notorious schismaticks should cry ou [...] upon such as withdraw from them as schismaticks, were not this a ridiculous charge; and Just so is that of Conformists in this case.

2. Every schism supposes ane obligation of adhe­rence to that Church from which the separation is made. Now then, let him prove ministers obligation to joyn into this Prelatick course (without which they will not admit them to officiat) and disprove our prior obligations to opposeit; or else Ministers obligation to preach, and peoples consequently to hear in opposi­tion to this course of defection, will stand good on the old grounds, and all the scripture comands (foun­ded on Pastours of this Church their Ministerial re­lation) to set the trumpet to their mouth, and give a Ministerial testimony against this defection, and peoples obligation to hear and take warning, will press and plead for that which he calls schism and a sinfull separation.

3. Hence Presbyterian Ministers, and professors are in this their practise never toched, by all his ar­guments and defences, but these are weapons in their hands against him and the conforming party. 1. Whe­reas he pleads the essence of the ministeriall call, which [Page 14] conformists lay claim unto, Presbyterian Ministers an­swer, that Nonconforming Ministers have this, that they are Ministers of this Church, and have a better right to officiat as her true pastours then Prelatists. And if this will not plead for hearing Non-confor­mists, why shall this argument be thought valide for hearing Curats? is not the same way from Athens to The­bes, and from Thebes to Athens? if his concession tou­ching the essence of their Ministerial call, will not (with him) infer hearing Non-conformists, because of their sup­posed schism: Ergo a fortiori it will not infer the hearing of Curats, who really are such. 2. he pleads that corrup­tions, and failings in administrators, or even some cor­ruptions in ordinances, will not infer disowning of Mini­sters. Why then pleads he for disowning Presbyterian Ministers and ordinances adminis red by them, to whom this is so clarly applicable. 3ly, he pleads union. But let him say, what was the order and union of this Church before these innovations? was it ane union under Prelacie, Erastianism, and persurious breach of Covenant; was not our Churches Reformation in do­ctrine, worship, discipline and Goverment, a beau­tiful order and union? Now who broke this? supppo­se we should Plead union, against his withdrawing Presbyterian professours from Presbyterian Ministers, will he owne this pleading? or not rather disowne it, because he thinks our union is schismatical; well, so we hold and do prove the prelatick union to be: & therefore untill he disprove our charge against his party, this pleading is null.

4. Divines, do tell us (particularly Timorcus chap. 7. page 32.) ‘that a sinfull separation which falls within the compass of schism, is from the com­munion of a Church as walking according to the divine rule; otherwise, if the Churches deviation specially be great, there is no fear of any guilt by schism in depar­ting [Page 15] from it; and hence infers, that unless absolvers can instruct that prelacy is juris divini, disowning and abjuring it cannot be schismatical.’ Moreo­ver this man himself grants, that schism in its ordi­nary acceptation, is taken for a causless separating, and that where communion with a Church cannot be held without sin, in that case separation is necessary. Now then if we can prove, that our non union is not causless, and that commu­nion cannot be held with Conformists (in our case and circumstances) without sin, we are not Schismaticks by his oun confession. To clear then this great point of the sinfulness of owning them in their demanded con­formity; we offer these considerations. 1. Owning them and subjecting our selves to their Ministry as the Pastours of this Church, hath a palpable breach of Covenant in it as the case now stands, for all along we must suppose its binding force, and that there is a conside­rable body of Ministers & professours contending for it, and that the question is, to which of the parties contending we are bound to adhere, and that accord­ing to our principles anent its binding force, and the unlawfulness of Prelacie, which this man cannot dis­prove. The owning of them in the manner above ex­pressed is a breach of Covenant many wayes. speci­ally as this man pleads for it, with a totall disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their Ministry. In this case it is a resiling from what we have attain'd in point of re­formation, contrary to the first article, wherein we are bound to maintain purity of worship and Doctrine as then establisht. Now their preaching is for the most part consisting of corrupt doctrine contrary to our Re­formation? And their prayers have severall petitions with which we cannot joyn, such as for prospering Prelats and their courses; Not to speak of the abro­gating the lecture, repeating of the creed at baptism, singing a set forme of conclusion, or what innovati­ons [Page 16] in worship are introduced. Again, this is a concur­ience with promoters of this course of backsliding, and a suffering our selves to be withdrawen from our union engadged unto, and a denyall of suteable assistance to faithfull Ministers contending for the Covenant against backsliders, all which are contrary to the other arti­cles thereof. This will be specially clear, if it be fur­ther considered. That 1. The body of presbyterian Mi­nisters being ejected, if disown'd in the manner and extent pleaded for by this Informer, the presbyte­rian interest, and our Reformation according to the Covenant, will be extinct, sold and betrayed. 2. Hearing Curats and peoples subjecting themsel­ves to their Ministry as the Pastours of this Church. is by the Rulers required as a direct badge and Test of owning Erastianism and prelacie, in opposition to the Covenant & work of Reformation: So that its a case of con­fession, now to adhere to a faithfull Ministry conten­ding for it. 3. Ther's no other way to exoner our consciences before God and the World, and Declare our nonconformitie to this course of backsliding, but by this practice, there is no getting of wrongs redrest, or corruptions in the Ministry removed. Thus the Apology pag. 272. 4. We are in the Covenant engadged against Indifferency, in this great work of Reformation, and is not this the way to fall into it more and more. 5. We engadge that we shall ende­avour, that this work of Reformation shall remain invio­lable to posterity. But what memory shall the posterity have of this work if prelats and curats be thus submitted unto? 6. We engadge opposition in our capacity to all prelatick malignant enemies of the Lords worke and interest; but how is it performd when we thus strengthen their hands, in their avowed opposition therunto. 7. How assist we and Defend in this common cause of Religion and liberty, such as en­ter [Page 17] into this league, when we thus Divide from our suffering brethren, wound and offend them and shake off a faithfull Covenant-keeping Ministry. 8 How maintain we our reformed Doctrine, wor­ship, and union, when thus owning false prophets, and the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge, and such as cause Divisions and offen­ces contrary to the Doctrine we have Learnd. Prov. 19. 27. Rom. 16. 17, 18. 9. How maintain we the priviledges of our Church and her Reformed Government? when owning intruding prelats and their creatures as Ministers of this Church, and disowning her true Ministers, now taking her by the hand. This practice is ane approving of Curats call and mission, rather then that of presbyterian Ministers, which no man will deny to be contrary to the Covenant. Next, owning and adhering to Curats in this our case, and accor­ding to our principles, hath an accession to much guilt otherwise, such as. 1. The owning of a palpably blasted, and Disowning a palpably sealed Ministry. 2 A high reflection on the sufferings of many Godly upon this ground. 3. A shutting of our eyes against Ministerial Discoveries of the sin and duty of the time. 4. A casting of our selves on tentations of greater complyance. 5. A breaking of fellowship with these that are contending for Gods worke and denying a sympathy with them, yea a trampling on their blood which has been shed on this ground. 6. A disowning the Ministeriall authority, and tearing the commission of Christs faithfull Ambassa­dours, and depriving our selves of the blessing and benefit of their Labours &c.

5. This practice of denying a Subjection to the Ministry of Conformists, and of our Rulers demanded conformity therin unto the present course of defection, will be found to fall under great [Page 18] scripture obligations, such as 1. The obligation of perseve­ring in integrity, and holding it fast. Colos. 1. 23. Heb. 10: 23. Psal. 25. 21. Supposing prelacy unlawfull, and the binding force of the Covenants in reference to all the work of reformation as it stood establisht, this practice is clearly cross to the premised obligation, both as ane acknowledgement of prelacy and Erasti­ani me, and also as a Disowning of faithfull Ministers. 2. The obligation of keeping at the greatest Distance from sin, exprest Jude 23. 1 Thess. 5. 22. 1 Tim. 5. 22. will infer Disowning Curats in this case. 1. All Direct, or interpretative consent to sin, is here Discharged. 2. A practice otherwise lawfull, will on this ground become inexpedient hic & nunc. We must not eat in the case of offence, tho we may freely eat all meats Rom. 14. 14. 1 Cor. 10. 25. Now on the forementiond Suppositions, the owning of Cu­rats hath an accession to their sin, beyond that of ane apearance or a touch, It being both a Deserting the pres­byterian Ministry, and a badge of conformity to Erastian prelacy, and all the corruption and defection of the time, which is therby advanc'd & promoted, 'tis also in this case of competition, a deliberat adherence to the prelatick rather then presbyterian interest. 3. The great obligation of a testimony to truth and Duty, exprest Heb. 10. 23. Mat. 10. 32. will plead for this practice, All truth must be avowed, & practi­cally avowed. We must walk circumspectly, or exactly as the Word imports, & we must avow truth & duty on the greatest hazard; even the smallest mater is great, when a testimony is concernd in it, were it but the circumstance of an open window, Daniel durst not ommit it upon the greatest hazard. And as this testimo­ny must be full, so must it also be constant. Demas shame is, that the aflictions of the gospel made him forsake the Apostle after great appearances for Christ, and [Page 19] embrace this present world. And beside, whatever truth or duty is opposed, that becomes the speciall object of this testimony. Hence Ministers and Professours in their capacity are called to contend for this Work of Reformation; and Ministers silence as to a Ministerial testimony against this course of backsliding, and people's disowning them, and adhering to Conformists, is so pal­pably cross therunto, as nothing can be more. 4. This practice is inferd from the scripture obliga­tion, to guard against the slumbling and offending our brethren, exprest 2 Cor. 6. 3. Math. 18. 6. 1 Cor. 10. 32. Here is Discharged any Dictum vel factum quo alius deterior redditur, saith Polanus. Whatever practice gives occasion of our brothers sinning, of calling truth in question, of acting with a Doubting conscience, or which weakens his plerophory or assurance, is here discharged. And neither the lawfulness nor Indiffe­rency of the thing it self, nor mens Authority com­manding it, Nor the weakness, yea or wickedness of those in hazard to be stumbled, will warrand the Doing of that out of which offence arises. Paul De­clares all meats lawfull, yet will not eat in case of of­fence 1 Cor. 10. 25. 1 Cor. 8. 13. This Declaring of the lawfulness of that practice, is equivalent to any civill Declarator or Law which alters not the nature of scan­dal. Paul will not have the weak stumbled Rom. 14. 1, 2, 3. 1 Cor. 8. 11, 12. Nor give occasion to the malicious who desired occasion 2 Cor. 11. 12. Now owning of Curats as the case is now circumstan­tiat doth harden them in their apostacy, and hath a tendency to wound the peace of the godly who dare not owne them, or may provoke them to act against their light; and therefore unless owning them could be proved a necessary duty, as matters now stand, the premisd scripture obligation will infer it to be sinfull. 5. disowning conformists will clearly [Page 20] follow from the scripture obligation, to turn away from seducers, and such as turn aside from Gods way. 2 Tim. 3. 1. The apostle having given a large Induction of evills adhering to these in the last dayes, putting among the rest of their black Theta's, Covenant breaking, con­cludes his discovery with this grand precept (ver. 5.) from such turn away. We must beware of false pro­phets, the concision, and of such as walk not accor­ding to the received ordinances, Math. 7. 15. Rom. 16. 17. Philip. 3. 2. 2 Thess. 3. 6. Christs sheep do flee from the stranger, and hear not his voice. Iohn. 10, 27. 1. All promoters of wayes contrary to the simplici­ty of the gospel, are here commanded to be eschewed. 2. We must know and discover such by their fruits and practicall unfaithfulness, as well as false Doctrine, Mat. 7. 16. compared with 2 Tim. 3. These that pra­ctically act the foxes Cant. 2. 15. are to be taken away, and consequently eschewed, the saints must be for­tifyed against these that ly in wait to deceive, God disowns these that make sad the hearts of the godly and strengthen the hands of evill doers. Ezek 13. 22. such as stand not in his counsel Ier. 33. 22. & cause peo­ple to err by their lies and lightness. Ier. 26. 32. Now upon the forementiond suppositions its clear that Conformists are leading aside from our Reformation, opposing the principles & priviledges, of this Church; they are Covenant breakers from whom we are to turn away; they are speaking peace to the wicked, and hea­ling the wound slightly, and are ruling with force and rigour Ezek. 34. 4. 1 Pet. 5. 3. Witness their pre­sent violence. 6. This practice of Presbyterian Ministers officiating in opposition to this course, and peoples ad­herence to their Ministry, is inferr'd from the scrip­ture obligation of many terrible charges and adjurations laid upon Ministers, in reference to a faithfull diligence in their Ministerial function, and a suteable Ministerial testi­mony [Page 21] concerning the sin and duty of the time, which is ne­cessarly inclusive of their peoples reciprocal diligence, in attending their Ministry, and their obedience and faithfull adherence accordingly. They are comman­ded to cry aloud and shew the people their sin Isa. 58. 1. and as they would not have the blood of souls upon them, to give faithfull warning touching sin and duty, and their peoples case and hazard, especially in times of great sin and judgement, when God is terribly pleading his controversy with them Ezek. 3. 17. hence they are enjoyned to be instant in season and out of season, reproving, rebuking and exhorting with all long suffering and Doctrine 2 Tim. 4. 1. And as faithfull watchmen on Ierusalems walls, never to hold their peace day nor night till she be establisht, and made a praise in the earth Isa. 62. 6. to fulfill and make full pro [...]fe of their Ministry Colloss 4. 17. And as these comands in order to Ministerial dili­gence, do singularly oblige herunto in this case, so the scripture woes and threatnings thundered against Mini­sters negligence and unfaithfulness, are very convincing and awakening. See Ezek. chap. 3. and chap. 13. 5. 6: Hence on the forementiond suppositions it clearly fol­lowes. 1. That Ministers are oblidged to be constantly instant in season and out of season, in their Ministerial testimony against this course of defection. 2. This case of defection and persecution ampliats and extends this duty to all to whom they can have access, as the scat­tered preachers Acts. 8. Went every where prea­ching the gospel, after that persecution that arose about Stephen. 3. This Ministerial testimony upon the forementioned grounds, must be levelled at all the corruptions of the times, and all the branches and degrees of our defection. 4. The duty and obliga­tion of the people of God, is reciprocall and com­mensurable therunto. And if hearing Curats and [Page 22] disowning Presbyterian Ministers, be not inconsistent with this great obligation, let any Iudge.

6. That part [...] in a Reformed Church, which having overturnd her Reformation, hath shut out, laid aside, and persecute away sound adherers therunto both Ministers and professours, and will not admit Ministers to officiat, but upon the sinfull terms of complyance with their way, cannot charge the sound party with schism in standing where they were, & own­ing and prosecuting their respective duties, as Mi­nisters and flocks, in opposition to these overturners and backsliders. For this would justify the most ingraind schism that ever was heard of; Now so the case is here, for all Presbyterian Ministers are cast out, and they and all sound professours adhering to them persecute, unless they will retract their principles, and conform to prelacie. Ministers, in taking up a new tenour and exercise of their Ministry in a precarious servile dependence upon Erastian prelacy, headed and influenced by a meer civil papacy; And people, in subjecting themselves to the Ministry of the servile deputes of Erastian prelates, as a badge of their hear­ty complyance with, and submission unto, this blas­phemous supremacy, and consent to the overturning of the pure constitution and reformation of this Church. So that the Presbyterians their plea is an owning of duty against Schismaticks disowning it. Do not our Divines tell the Romanists on this ground, that they have seperat and persecute us away from them, and that therefore the schism lyes upon themselves, not on us: So the case is here. Let this man say, what would have been the judgement of our Church in any of her for­mer judicatories, anent a party owning such princi­ples as Conformists do, and persecuting or casting out all that oppose them, and dare not concurr in their course of backsliding in overturning the sworn [Page 23] Reformation of this Church; I dare appeal to the In­former himself, if such would not have been judged censurable as the worst of Schismaticks. And he can assigne nothing now to turn or cast the scale, no ground of disparity, unless he place it in this, that prelatists are the greater number, and have the civil power on their side. And if this pityfull plea will carry it, the Ro­manists have long since outweighed the protestant Churches in this debate, which this man will not for very shame admit.

7. This practice of adhering to Presbyterian Mini­sters, and disowning Curats, hath nothing of the ingredients of schismor, sinfull separation from this Church, included therein, as matters now stand, and as the question is stated on the forementioned hypotheses. Which will appeare in these cleare positions in the point of schism (which are evident in their own light) being applyed and brought home to our present case. 1. Schism is a starting out from under due relations to a Church and from her Ministry, and duties accordingly. But in this our case, and practise under debate, Mi­nisters and professours are pursuing the duties of their re­spective relation to this Church, as it stood reformed and establisht before these innovations, and the Apostat prelatick party are doing the contrary. 2. In a sinfull Schismatick separation, it is alwayes supposed that the withdrawing, is from those who are holding the communion of the true Church, otherwise we lose the basis and fun­dation of all sound definitions of schism. But here the persecute party are owning the Reformation of this pure Church against a party of separatists, who have broken her order, union, and National vows; and who are also censurable by all her standing acts. 3. In a proper Schismatick separation, the principles and pra­ctice of these from whom the separation is made, are supposed to be subservient to that Churches union, right establishment, [Page 24] and for maintaining her communion; but to separat from those whose principles and practice is a stated opposi­tion (and in so far as an opposition) to her purity and Reformation, is to maintain her true union and com­munion, and not sinfully to separat from it.

The Assumption as to this practice under debate, might be cleard by a large induction of particulars. If we take a view of the two parties (Presbyterian and prelatical) their carriage in relation to this Church: It will be evident, 1. In general. That Conformists their principles and practice, is a direct impeachment of our establisht reformation, and that Presbyterians are maintaining and adhering to the same. 2. Confor­mists do avowedly disowne and abjure our Covenants, Presbyterians adhere unto and owne the same. 3. Con­formists are breaking and dissipating our Churches establisht order and union, Presbyterians are in this practice contending for both; the one party is woun­ding our Church both by persecution and reproach, the other is taking her by the hand, endeavouring her help and comfort in this her deep distresse, and so the Covenant obliges to disowne the first, and adhere to the second. 4. The one is censurable by her, the other deserves her praise. Now can there be any que­stion in this, to which of these parties people are obliged to adhere according to the principles of our Reformation.

In the 4th place, In a sinfull separation as to com­munion in worship, it must be supposed, the worship of that Church ownd and establisht therein, because a party innovating herein, as well as innovating in doctrine and government contrary to that which is establisht, are hactenus, and ipso facto (in this their practice, and upon this very ground) schismaticks both in their worship and government. Therefore to disowne them therein can be no schism; for this would involve a [Page 25] palpable contradiction, that these withdrawers in this same practice, and in the same respects and circum­stances therof, were Schismaticks and not Schisma­ticks. Now prelatists their doctrine is new and odd, and not the voice of this Church. And their worship, (over and above the corruption adhering to it) is the worship of an innovating party, and contrary to our Churches establisht order. And therfore to disowne them therein is no sinfull separation from this Church her fellowship and worship, while existing in her sound and purer part, and opposing these innova­tions.

5. In Schismatick separation, the rent is made in the bowels of the true and genuine Church. So that when a schism and rent is stated betwixt a godly Ministry contending for a pure Churches Reformation, against an apostat party of the Ministry: the sound professours stand preobliged to adhere unto, and strength [...]n the sounder part, upon this very ground of holding the union and communion of that pure Church against these backsliders; sup­posing they will rent and ruine her, if not opposed: and so the case is here. The union and order of this Church, is already broken by the prelatick innovators and backsliders, and by them only; so that upon the sup­posal of this fixed schism, the people of God must adhere to the sound Church and Ministry. And in this extreme necessity, the lesser obligation as to parochial or­der, must give place to the greater duties of preserving and maintaining the Churches union and reformation, when a course is carried on tending to ruine it.

6. Every sinfull separation is, from the fellowship of a Church either in her Ministry, lawfull courts, or Worship and ordinances, according to the various relations, state and condition of Separatists, whether Church of­ficers or others. But in this our case, Presbyterian Mi­nisters and professours separat in none of these respects [Page 26] from the genuine Church of Scotland. 1. Mini­sters separat not from her courts; for none of her law­ful courts are now publickly own'd or existent. 2. People separate not from her Worship, as it stood re­formed and vowed unto, when they owne the ordi­nances dispensed by her true pastours, for that only is the true Worship of this Church. Nor 3. from her Doctrine, and a due subjection to her faithfull pastours in the Lord: And therefore neither from the fellowship of her faithful Ministers and professours. Where is then the Schism? Since both the Doctrine, Worship and Government of this true Church are ownd, and backsliders and Schismaticks only (and as such) are disownd.

7. Schism supposes that these whom we withdraw from, are such to whom we are under obligation to adhere: for it is a breach of union, which is cemented and con­glutinate by the obligations and duties of those who are concerned to hold it fast; So that where the obligation to the duty in subserviency to this union cannot be demonstrate, to be incumbent upon such and such persons, and in such acts, By whom and wherein this union is to be upheld, the charge of Schism upon these acts, which are supposed to violat that union, evanishes and falls to the ground. But if the person (tho a Minister supposed) from whom the separation is made, wants that which immediatly grounds this obliga­tion of owning h [...]m hic & nunc, as the case stands cir­cumstantiat, in that respect withdrawing or non-u­nion can be no Schism, for else the most ingraind Schismaticks might be owned; the Informer himself must of necessity admit this, for otherwise he will crosse and cut the sinews of all his pleading and argu­ments which he presents in this Dialogue for disown­ing Presbyterian Ministers in this our case, for I am confident that out of this circumstanciat case he will [Page 27] grant that it is no breach of any of his rules or reasons to hear them. That [they are Ministers] and [are prea­ching faith and repentance] that [they have a lawfull Ministeriall call and ordination &c.] All these he thinks will plead nothing, as the case is now circumstantiat, for adhering to them, because of that in their present condition, which outweighs all this, and looses peo­ples obligation to owne them, which he thinkes is no Schism but duty: Now, let our Informer turn the ta­bles; if there be first that in Curats present state, which preponderats as to our disowning of them now, tho all that he pleads as to their ordination, and ministerial call were granted, its no Schism in this our case to dis­owne them according to his own principles and plea­ding in this point. 2. He must grant that denying to hear hic & nunc, and in such a complex case, is different from a denying to hear simpliciter, or disowning such a mans Ministry simpliciter, or absolutely, as he will grant that out of this case Presbyterian Ministers might be heard, and that disowning them is not simpliciter a disowning a true Ministry or Church, or them as Ministers; So that its this case of competition with Conformists, which with him casts the ballance. Hence as matters now are stated and circumstantiat, and upon our principles and pre­mised Hypotheses, he must grant there is that in con­formists case, which hic & nunc will loose our obli­gation to receive the ordinances from them as the ministers of this Church, which is the white in the marke wherat all his arrows are shot. Such as 1. that we are preo­bliged by a lawful Oath to extirpat and disowne them. 2. That they are promoters of a Prelatick designe to ruine our Reformation. 3. That they have avowedly disownd our Covenants, and that we are commanded by the overturners of our Covenanted Reformation, to hear them as a badge of our renouncing it; and concurring in this course of backsliding. 4. That they [Page 28] are intruders, and not entring in at the door, and in the way and order of this Church; That they are vio­lently thrusting out, and persecuring her faithfull Pa­stours, that they perjuriously renounce a call from the people, and ordination by the Presbyterie. All which grounds he must either grant will supersede our obligation to owne conformists hic & nunc according to our principles, or quite his plea and pleading as to the disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in the exer­cise of their Ministry.