Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 1 · Chapter 1
CHAP. I.
That the Prelat, now established in this Church, is both Diocesian and Erastian, cleared. The Informer is engaged to defend both. A twofold State of the Question propounded accordingly. Some Arguments from Scripture against the Diocesian Prelat, as a pretended Church-officer. Such as, 1. Perverting the Scriptural term, Episcopus, commune to all Pastors; in appropriating it to a Prelat. 2. Making it relate to Pastors, which hath the flock for its immediat object. 3. Invading & nulling the Authority allowed unto Presbyters, which is demonstrat at large. 4. Impeaching Christs Kingly office, as Head of his Church, and the perfection of his Word, in obtruding ane Officer upon the Church, of a different moold from those described and allowed by him.
THE state of the first Question in the first Conference is, whither the Episcopacie now established by Law in Scotland, be warranted or condemned by the Word of God. For clearing this, it must be understood, what that Prelacie is, which is now existent, and which this Author pretends is consonant to Scripture and Antiquitie. As to matter of fact, it is undenyable. 1. That the Parliament 1662. did expresly raze Presbyterian government, in all its preexistent Courts, Judicatories and Privileges, declaring it voide and expired. 2. They did Redintegrat the Bishops [to their Episcopal function, presidencie in the Church, power of ordination and censures, and all Church discipline to be performed by them, with advice (only) and of such of the Clergie (only) as they shall find, (they themselves being judges) of knowne Loyaltie and prudence.] And they redintegrat them to all the pretended Privileges possessed be them in Anno 1637. What time their power was at the greatest height. Since, of themselves they framed the Book of Canons, which doth establish their sole power and dominion over all Church Judicatories, razing classical Presbyteries and Parochial Sessions, and drew up the Liturgie and Book of Ordination without the least shaddow of advice from this Church; Threatning even excommunication against the opposers of that course. 3. It is also evident, that all this Power and Authoritie of our Prelats, is fountained in, derived from, and referable unto the Supremacie; As is evident by the Act restoring Prelacie, after the declaration of the Supremacie, as his Majesties Commissioners in the exercise of his Ecclesiastick Government, and, in the administration of all their pretended spiritual Authoritie, as accountable to him, their Head and supreme Legislator in all Church matters. Hence, it is evident, that this Author is obliged (if he would answer his undertaking in pleading for the present Prelacie) not only to evince the warrantablenes of the Diocesian Bishop in all his pretended spiritual power over Church Judicatories; But likewaves of the Erastianbishop, deriving all his Authoritie from the Civil Magistrat.
Wee shall then (befor wee come to examine his pleading upon this Head) offer, I. Some Arguments against our Diocesian Prelat, as a pretended Church-officer, and shall shew his office to be contrare to Scripture. 2. As ane Erastian Prelat deryving all his spiritual power from the Magistrat. I. As a pretended Church officer, the Diocesian Bishop is contrare to Scripture, in many respects.
I. In narrowing and restricting the Scripture term foreign to ane office and officer, distinct from, and Superior to, a Presbyter or Pastor. For since the Spirit of God in Scripture appropriats this term to Presbyters, and consequentlie the work and office therin imported, Tit. 1: 5, 7. Act. 20: 28. 1 Pet. 5: 2. 3. Sure it must be ane anti-Scriptural and Sacrilegius robbing of Presbyters of their right and due designation, to make this proper and peculiar to a Diocesian Bishop onlie, as the Characteristick of his office. Episcopal men themselves (and this Author particularely) doe acknowledge this term to be in Scripture applyed to Presbyters. Let them then shew a reason why they have made it peculiar to a Prelat as distinct from Presbyters; Or, let them shew where the word foreign denots such ane officer as they have shappen out (viz.) A diocesian Prelat having sole power of ordination and jurisdiction over a wholl diocess, with a negative voice and a sole decisive suffrage in the Church Judicatories thereof. Should they appropriat the term Pastor, or Minister, to a diocesian Prelat onlie? Who would not call this ane Anti-scriptural usurpation of the Presbyters due? And why also, shall it not be thought such ane usurpation when they appropriat the term Episcopus or Bishop, to such a pretended distinct officer: Since this term is as much given to Presbyters in Scripture, as the terme of Pastor or Minister. Judicious Calvin hath some remarkable passages to this purpose in his Comentaries. On Tit 1: 7. Having observed that Bishops and Presbyters are all one, He calls the appropriating of the name, Bishop, to the Prelat, a profane boldnes and ane abrogating of the holy Ghosts language Abrogato Spiritus Sansti sermone usus hominum arbitrio inductus praevaluit—nomen officii quod Deus in commune omnibus dederat in unum transferri reliquis spoliatis & injurium est & absurdum. Deinde sic pervertere Spiritus sancti linguam—nimis profana audaciae est. Act. 20: 28. He collects the identitie of the name & office of Bishop & Presbiter, from the elders being called Bishops, And having observed the same on Philip. 1. And that after, the name [Bishop] became peculiare to one. He adds, id tamen ex hominum consuetudine natum est, Scripturae autoritate minime nititur. Telling us that under this pretext of giving the name to one, ane unlawful dominion was brought in. But of this againe.
II. The office hereby designed, doth alwayes relate to the Flock, and hath them for its immediat object and Correlat, as much as the word Pastor. The Bishops of Ephesus were made by the holy Ghost foreign over the flock of God whom they were to feed. Whereas our supposed Diocesian Episcopus, or Bishop, His office and inscection relates immediatly to the wholl Pastores of his diocess, who are alse much, his flock and the object of his oversight, care, direction, correction and censure, as the foreign or layetie. Peter, bids the Episcopountes feed the flock & act the Bishops over them; But our diocesian Prelat, pretends to feed and rule the Pastores themselves. The Scripture Bishop is Populi Pastor but the Diocesian Prelat is Pastor Pastorum, Presbiter Presbiterorum, And therfor is ane Antiscriptural Monster.
III. The Diocesian Prelat usurpes and takes from Presbiters that authoritie allowed them of God in his Word. For both power of ordination and jurisdiction is soly and properlie in the Diocesian Prelat according to Episcopal men, and likewise according to our Lawes, As we saw above in the act anent Prelacy. For according thereto the Prelat is a Superior ordinar Church officer above Presbyters, he is sole as to ordination, may doe it alone, and assumes Presbiters onelie proforma. Which no more lessens his Principalitie and Supereminencie in this pointe, then a Prince in assumeing Counsellors (saith Dounam, Def. lib 5, Cap. 7.) weakens his princely power and authoritie. Presbyters exercise all their Acts of the power of order in a dependance upon him, he only is the proper Pastor of the diocess (as shall be afterward cleared) Presbiters are but his substitutes and helpers. They are likwayes Subject to him as their proper Sole judge and censurer by Ecclesiastick censures of suspension, deposition, excommunication, the decisive power in Church judicatories is properlie his. For the most unanimous Acts and conclusions of the diocesian Synod falls unders his cognisance, to be ratified or Cassat at his pleasure. He is the Sine quo non, and hath a Negative voice in the judicatories: the law allowing his Presbiters only to give him advice, Nay and not that either, unles he judge them of known layaltie and prudence. Now, in all these, he usurps over Presbiters authoritie allowed them of God. For I. Wee find the Scripture atributes the power of order & jurisdiction, equalie to all Presbiters, who have both keys of doctrine & discipline given them immediatlie by Christ. In that I. They are command foreign and foreign 1 Pet. 5. 28. Act. 20. 2. which comprehends the authoritie and exercise of both the keys of doctrine and discipline. 2. In all commands relating to the exercise of this power, ther is not the least hint of ane equalitie among them, which were very cross to the Lords Scope, if the Diocesian Prelats Superioritie were allowed and appointed. The Presbiters or Bishops of Ephesus, and those of the Churches which Peter writs unto, are commanded to feed and rule jointlie, equallie, and with the same authoritie, but non of them in dependance upon, and deryving a precarious authoritie from another, in feeding and ruleing. 3. In all the commands relating to peoples Subjection & obedience to Church Rulers in the exercise of their power, their is not the least hint of disparitie among these Rulers. 1 Thess. 5: 12. People are commanded to obey them that labour among them, and are over them in the Lord, and to esteem them highly. And Hebr. 13: 17. They are commanded to obey them who have the rule over them and watch for their Soules: but nothing of a special degrie of obedience to this supposed highest & supereminent watch man is heard of in these or any such like precepts. And no wonder, for thes simple Gospel times knew no Bishops who watched not over Soules, and laboured in the word and doctrine. When the Apostle Peter commands Christians to obey civil Rulers: He distinguishs the King as Supeream, and Governours sent by him, that a Chief subjection may be yeelded to the one, and a subordinat to the other. But nothing of this is heard of, in enjoining peoples subjection to Ministers. Ane honour must be allowed by Timothey (by the people of God consequentlie) to elders that rule weil, yea and a double honor, but foreign, especialy, to those that labour in the Word and Doctrine. The Apostle in stating a distinction in the degries of honour allowed to elders, and in this different character of the one from the other, diversifies elders higher & lower. Now by the same reason, upon which Divines doe rationaly build this conclusion, it must be granted, that the enjoyning obedience to all Pastores promiscuusly and without any Note of distinction, will inferr their equal office and authoritie. And by the same reason that the Apostle added this foreign or especialy, in this place, he should have added, in these, or some such comands relating to the peoples obedience, a foreign or especialy, to distinguish the Diocesian Prelat from other Pastores, and expressed it thus, esteem them all highly obey them, be subject to them that teach and watch over you, All your Pastors, but especially the Supereminent Pastor or Bishop who hath the cheifinspection, and from whom all the rest derive their authoritie. Likwayes in enjoining the pastoral duties, he should have been especially noticed, who had the cheif hand and authoritie therin (which is a Topick improven by this informer) but nothing of this is seen in Scripture, as shall be after, more fully cleared. 4. Wee find accordinglie, A practical Equalitie, among Pastores or Bishops in the exercise of this governing power, abundantlie held out and exemplified in Scripture. The judging and censuring of the incestuous man, is by the Apostle enjoyned to the Church Officers or Ministers of Corinth joyntlie. 1 Cor. 5. Chap. compared with 2 Cor. 2. Chap. The Apostle all along supposeth ane inherent authority in these Ministers to put forth this grand juridical Forensical Act; …ydes them for so long neglecting it, and shewes its object (viz.) This person under the formalis ratio of wicked or scandalus. Again he shews its nature to be Ajudging, or puting from among them, and delivering to Satan, upon this judging previous thereunto: He also shews, that this authoritie touches, all Church Members, not them that are without, whom God judgeth, but those that are within. Now, as hee supposes (I say) ane authority of this Nature and extent inherent in these Church officers, so he speaks to them indefinitly and universally all along, which were very cross to his Scope, If he had set up or allovved, the Diocesian Prelat whose sole prerogative this were: And the inflicted Censur he calls, with the samine indefinitnes, A punishment inflicted by many, who accordingly are commanded with the same indefinitnes or universality of expression, To receave & absolve him upon his repentance. The exercise of the binding and …owsing power, being in the representative juridicall foreign or Church, to whom scandales must be delated, and to whom the promise of ratification of her juricall Acts in Heaven, is made. Matth. 18: 17. Besids we find the exercise of ordination in a Presbitry, 1 Tim. 4: 14. And that even in relation to ane Evangelist Timothy. The Presbitry here, must be a juridicall Senat and meeting, for the Office can lay on no hands: And ordination is ane hie authoritative juridicall Act. Pauls presence and laying on of hands together with them, confirmes their authoritie, as being cumulative thereto, not privative therof, even as his countenanceing of, or concurring, with, our Adversaries pretended Diocesian Prelat (let us suppose it in his Act of ordination) would not infringe his pretended right herein. Ergo. By their own Confession, and by paritie of reason, it cannot infringe or Impeach this power which is attributed to the Presbitery. Had the Apostle in stead of Presbyterie, put in Pr…at and expressed it, thus, By the laying on of the hands of A Bishop, or Diecesian-Bishop: I suppose our Adversaries would have thought the Episcopal power of ordination invincibly demonstrat ther from, notwithstanding of Pauls saying, 2 Tim 1: 6. By the laying on of my hands, (viz) together with the Bishop. Pauls extraordinare Apostolicall imposition of hands, being no white derogatorie unto the supposed Episcopal ordinarie power, now, verte tabulas, the Apostle sayes, by the laying on of the handes of the Presbitry, Ergo, the ordinary and equal power of Pastores, and its equal exercise in ordination, is herin convincingly made out.
Nixt, The Prelats monopolizing thus in himself, the decisive suffrage of Judicatories, is cross many wayes to Scripture. For, I Its a stepping up (in a peice of Diotrephese-lik, or rather papal-pride) above the Apostles themselves, who in Churches constitut, did alwayes take alongst with them, the advice, consent and authoritative concurrence of ordinary Ministers and Elders in Government: As is evinced in the premised Scriptures, wherin it is convinceingly clear, that Paul, though ane Apostle of all the Churches, indewed with extraordinarie unconfined inspection over the same, and Pastor thereof, in actu exercito, having extraordinary Miracolous-gifts, & being the Master Builder and Spiritual Father, who by the Gospel had begotten both Pastores and flocks of many Churches, Yet would neither excommunicat the incestuous Corinthian alone, but put it upon the Church Officers as their duty to doe it by a judicial, decisive, joynt suffrage: Nor yet did he exclud the presbyters in ordaining even ane Evangilist, but took in their judicial and presbyterial concurrence. And in Act. 15. In that meeting or Counsel at Jerusalem, where was a wholl Colledge or Presbitery of Apostles, and mett about ane Act or decision of a high Nature, wherein was put forth both Adegmatick, critick & diatactick authority or power, in relation to the clearing of that great pointe of truth, anent the abrogation of the Mosaicall ceremonies, and censuring the opposers of Paul and Barnabas herin, who had disturbed the Churches and belied the Apostles Doctrine: And accordingly in order to the restoring and establishing truth and order in these disturbed Churches: The ordinary Ministers or elders concurr with the Apostles in every step: viz, In the conferrence & disquisition, the authoritative decision, the drawing forth of the sentence and decree, the sending out of the decreeing and censuring Epistle, the imposeing of the decrie upon the Churches to observe and keep the same &c. 2. This cutts the throate of that juridical forensical joynt decision of Church Judicatories, which the Scriptur doth so clearly hold forth. Where is the foreign the censureing juridiall court, drawing sorth a joynt decision or censure? Wher is the Presbiteries forensicall Act in ordination of Timothie? To what end must the Corinth Church Officers Meet together, and authoritatively and joyntlie punish or censur the incestuous man? Wher is that pleasing of the Apostles and elders as the foundation of the Synodical decree and letter, together with, it seemed good to the HolyGhost, and to us, And to us, Mett with one accord. Wher is, I say, this joynt decisive power of Church Judicatories, thus clearly held out in the premised Scriptures, if the Act and Ecclesiastick decision thereof, be soly the Prelats, sic …olo, sie jubeo, masked with advice of Presbyters, of whose advice he may make what use he pleases, and with a simple nego. make their judgment and suffrage evanish into smoake. 3. This power of the Prelats cuts of from Ministers one half of their authoritie and commission receaved in their ordination. They are made therein (as is clear in Scripture, & our adversaries grant it) Rulers, Governours, Overseers, Pastors & Stewards in the Church; Have both the Shepherds bagg & staff, the key of doctrine and the key of discipline intrusted to them. By what warrand then must they give up all their power in government & their decisive suffrage in Church Judicatories, unto the domineering Prelat, and as to spiritual power in Church Judicarories, become meer Ciphers? They watch and rule as they that must give account of all their administration to Christ. Peter exhorts the Elders suteablie to exercise their Episcopal Authority over the flock, that they may get the Crown from the chief Shepherd. Stewards (of God especially) must be faithful, and imploy well all their Talents receaved from the great Master, that they may get his approbation and reward as faithful Servants. The Elders of Ephesus were obtested by Paul to take heed to themselves, and to all the flock over which they were made Bishops by the Holy Ghost, to feed and rule the Church which God hath purchased with his blood. Now all thes exhortations directed to Ministers, are to no purpose, if they have no inherent immediat Rule, essentially included in their office, And to be exercised accordingly, but must only preach as a Diocesian Prelats Deputes, and be in the exercise of their ruling governing power, absolutly subject to him and at his disposal. Finally, This usurped authoritie in the Prelat sets him above the reach of all censure by Church Indicatories; So that though Ministers are absolutly and at his beck, censurable by, and subject to him, both as to their doctrine, conversation and discipline (and every one of them thus censurable and jointly) yet this hie Pop, who judges All, will be judged by none himself, Either as to his Doctrine, Life or Government. Some have said of the Prince, that though major singulis, yet he is minor universis, less then the whole body of the people, though greater then every one aparte. But the Prelat exercises a greater principalitie in Church Judicatories, & is therein major universis, greater then the whole meeting, so that thogh he can stop the Votes and Censures of the whole Synod, yet they cannot either by suffrage or censure in the least put a check to him, in any of His most wicked Acts or Antichristian Exorbitances. Now, how contrary this is to Scriptur, any may judge. The Prophets after their prophesying must be judged by the rest, as to their doctrine, 1 Cor. 14: 29, Ergo, a fortiori, much more as to their conversation & government, are lyable to be judged, and consequentlie censured if deserving it: For he were a great Critick, that would distinguish these, so as those who have power to judge, have no power to censure or pass sentence upon their judging: And this is founded upon a general comprehensive ground, viz. the Spirits of the Prophets (that is the gifts and exercises of the Ministery in all Church Officers without exception) are subject to the Prophets, viz. to their disquisition, and censure in any peece of their work or official Acts. Now unles our Prelats would deny themselves to be Prophets and Ministers, or the Presbyters to be Prophets, they must acknowledge this subjection to their censure enjoyned in the Scripture premised, and consequently, that their exeeming themselves from the same, is an anti-scriptural usurpation. I remember, while a writting, that proposing once this Argument to ane Episcopal Clergie man, I enquired to what Church Judicatorie in Scotland was Mr Sharp subject, as to either his life or doctrine? He answered that he was subject to a general Counsell, and this was very apposit and consequenter to their principles: So that our Prelats (at least the two Arch-) are in no fear, but of a general Council if the Court froune not. In our Act of Parliament touching the mould of our National Synod, the Primat is the essential President, & sine quo non, and so is sure enough, from being censured there; so are the rest of the Prelats as to all their Synods, according to our Lawes. But what think these exleges Episcopi, or hie Court Prelats, of such a humble Bishop as the Apostle Paul, who had hands laid upon him, and was authoritativelie sent out by that Presbitery of Prophets and teachers at Antioch. Act. 13. together with Barnabas, (about ane eminent Gospel-Legation) and was by the same Church and Presbytery sent (together with Barnabas and certain other commissioners of the Churches) to that Synod at Jerusalem, Act. 15. Why did not Paul make use of his Negative voice and command them all silence in this debate? How comes it, that his hie Bishop subjects himself to the authoritative blessing and mission of some pettie Prophets and teachers. Ane amazeing looking glass, this is, (no doubt) to our aspyreing Prelats.
4. The holding of the Diocesian Prelat, and obtruding him upon the Church, as ane ordinary Church officer, distinct from, and superior to Presbiters, doth many wayes Impeach Christs Kingly office as head and law give… of his Church: whose faithfulnes above that of Moses (who ordered, according to the Patern shewed upon the Mount, the least pine of the Tabernacle) must needs reach the appointment of the officers, offices, qualifications, work and gifts of these officers, who are to officiat in his house, as our Confession of Faith and Catechisim doe assert. For according to our Prelatical Clergie, and according to the Lawes, the Prelat hath a distinct Work from that of a Presbiter (viz.) to govern a diocess, he hath the Actus primus of a State ruler, to sitt in Council or Parliament. Nixt, he hath a distinct solemne Consecration or inauguration to his Office. And 3. Must needs be supposed to have likwise distinct qualifications and Gifts from those of a preaching Presbiter, conferred by this solemne imposition of hands and blessing at his Consecration, wherby he must be supposed to have a superior distinct mission, and to be in all the forementioned particulars, distinct from, and superior to a Presbiter. Now, if non of all these points of his superioritie can be found in Scripture, this Officer patched up thereof, must either be unwarrantable, or, Christ the Churches head and lawgiver, his Lawes and rules in point of Church Government, and in relation to the duties, gifts, ordination, and work of Church Officers, are not full and perfect, but mank and deficient as to such ane eminent Church Officer. And where is then the perfection of his word and Testament, to make not only the ordinarie Christian but even the màn of God, the Minister of God, perfect and throughly furnished to every good work. That non of all the formentioned particulars as to this Officer distinct from and superior to a Presbiter, can be found in Scripture, but are contrarie therunto. I prove thus 1. The Scriptur mentions no name, qualification, work, dutie or ordination of any or dinary Church Officer superior to presbiters, and which are not likewayes appropriat to them, who are called Rulers, Governours, Bishops; and both ordination and Jurisdiction ar apropriat to them in a perfect paritie 1 Thess. 5: 12. with 17. v. and 1 Tim. 5: 17. Hebr. 13. v. 7, 17. 1 Cor. 5: 13. 1 Tim. 4: 14. 3 Epist. Ioh. 9. v.—2. In all the Holy Ghost his purposed recitalls of ordinarie Church officers, and purposed declaration of their gifts and duties, ther is not the least hint of the premised ingredients of the office of this supposed Diocesian Bishop, as thus distinct from and Superior to Presbiters, (1 Cor. 12: 28. Eph. 4: 11, 12. Rom. 12. 7, 8. In these places wee have besyds the Apostles, Prophets & Evangelists (whose Office, as extraordinaire, is ceased) Pastores, Elders, Deacons; But no hint of the Office, name, qualifications or Mission, of ane ordinarie Church Officer Superior to the Pastor, is either heire or in any Scripture else, which notwithstanding is express as to the Office and qualifications even of the Deacon, the lowest Officer. Strange! the server of Tables his Office and ordination clearlie set down in Scriptur: And yet Altum silentium, as to either, name, Office or ordination, of the Diocesian Bishop. If the argument of our divines be good from hence against the Pope, because not mentioned in these Catalogues of Church Officers, Ergo, a pari, It must hold good against the Prelat. And as to that, that the Prelat hath the Actus Signatus of a State Ruler, how cross this is to Scripture, we may after shew. Sure, since Christ set all these his Officers in the Church, and commands them diligentlie to wait upon, and attend their work and Ministery therein; He never made or allowed them to bee State Rulers