Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 1 · Chapter 7

Review and Examination of the Doctrine · Part 1 · Chapter 7

p. 51CHAP. VII.

The Informers deceitfull shifting and obscuring the true State of the Question anent Episcopacie, and flinching from the point debatable, discovered Severall wayes. He declines a direct pleading for prelats civil offices, Yet offers some arguments defence therof: Wherin his prevarication, and Contradiction to himself, is made appear.

TO come now to examine what this new Dialogist, hath produced in defence of the present prelacie established amongst us, And to examine his answers to our plea against it; We shall not stand upon the trifling debate about the personal good qualities of some that have been prelats, with which Hee prefaces this Dialogue, it being altogether extrinsick to the Question anent the lawfulnes of the office it self, And would be no argument in our case against him, as this man cannot but acknowledge, else Hee must give up the cause, upon his concession of the Unquestionable eminent pietie, and integritie, of many burning and Shining lights, who have been the Lords Constant witnesses against prelacie. That which is here mainely considerable, Is his prevarication in Stating the Question anent prelacie, (viz.) [Whither the ancient Bishopes had a p. 52Superioritie 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 [foreign. 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 p. 53had. 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 p. 54legal 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 p. 55from 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 p. 56Sanhedrin, 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, p. 57which 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 p. 58a 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 p. 59is 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 p. 60bound 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 p. 61for 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, p. 62or 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 p. 63mynd 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 foreign & foreign. 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. p. 64This 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 p. 65present 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 p. 66Scripture 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 p. 67things 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 p. 68doctrinés 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, p. 69falls 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 p. 70to 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 p. 71case 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 p. 72and 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 p. 73head, 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.