Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 1 · Chapter 14

Review and Examination of the Doctrine · Part 1 · Chapter 14

p. 243CHAP. XIV.

The Informers pretended Testimonies out of Calvine, Beza, Blondel, &c. For Episcopacy, Examined. Their anti-Episcopall judgment, cleared from their writings. The Informer crosses Bishop Spotswood, and Tilen. His two absurdities which by way of Dilemma he offers to us, from our assertion of the unalterablees of Presbyterian Government, & our concession of a Proestos early brought in, Scanned, & retorted upon himself. The Authores of jus divinum Ministerii Evangelici, vindicated at some length.

WHereas the Informer is bold to affirme that 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 p. 244we 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 onelyonly Government appointed in the house of God, he never took the confidence or had the forehead to p. 245deny. 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. p. 246And 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 p. 247nibus 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 p. 248dayes, 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 foreign 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 p. 249sake, 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 p. 250known. 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 p. 251of 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 p. 252principles 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 p. 253the 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, p. 254since 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 p. 255euiquam 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 p. 256ordinem & 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 p. 257right 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 foreign 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 onelyonly, 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, p. 258or 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 p. 259no small summe from King Charles the second for his encouragement to that worke, and several learned divines who best knew him, think his literature more Considerable then his divinity was solid.

As for that place of Salmasius in his Walo. Mess. (c. 4. p. 253.) cited page 90. the Intire sentence is Epistolae illae viz; (quae Ignatii dicuntur) natae & suppositae videntur circa initium aut▪ medium secundi saeculi, quo tempore primus singularis Episcopatus supra Presbyteratum Introductus fuit. Whatever time this was, it appears by what followes that place in Salmasius, that about this time Church power began exceedingly to be Corrupted, and Bishops exalted almost to ane equality with Christ; and men began to plead a jus divinum for them; for Ignatius, (In Epistola ad Trallenses) asserts, Episcopum venerandum esse sicut Christum quemadmodum Apostoli praeceperunt, that the Bishops must be had in veneration as Christ, as the Apostles have commanded, and he cites the Apostles words, but such as do no where occurr in our Bibles.

And certanly if there be no more truth in that relation anent his retraction, mentioned by that author, then their is soliditie in that ground of it which he alledges, it is not worth the noticing. For the confusions in England cannot with any shew of Reason be charged upon Presbyteriall Government, which was never yet settled there. And this Informer dare not deny the blest effects of truth and unity & godlines, which it hath had in this land, as is acknowledged by Churches abroad, and particularly in that passage of the Syntagma confessionum which he cites in the last dialogue, If Blondel in callng Episcopacy most ancient, doth except the more ancient Apostolick times, which he pleads as exemplifying Presbyterian parity, he gives it but the spurious after-birth of humane antiquity. The same we say as to his passage cited out of Moulin p. 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▪ p. 261it 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 onelyonly 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 p. 262at 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, p. 263the 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.

p. 264As 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 foreign jure quodam foreign fieret. Which onelyonly 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 foreign & commune Consilium, in foreign aut foreign 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) foreign. 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 foreign (praeunte tamen ac reliquorum nomine solemnia benedictionum verba pronunciante promotione antiquissimo) in possessionem muneris mitteretur, priorum per Consecrationem quoddamodo filius factus, qui foreign ratione aequo cum aliis omnibus jure (licet foreign) frater erat, ubi vero quaestionis in Ecclesiae p. 265regimine 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 onelyonly 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 p. 266authoritate 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 foreign 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 foreign vel foreign 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 onelyonly 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 p. 267from 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 p. 236Common 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 p. 237he 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 p. 238Scripture 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 p. 261of 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 foreign 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 p. 262the 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 p. 263in 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.] p. 264Wee 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 p. 265judgment 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.