Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 1 · Chapter 12
CHAP. XII.
The Informer offers Scripture warrand for Bishops. His Argument from the Government of the Church under the old Testament, and from the Apostles superioritie to the seventie disciples, examined. The first Argument concludes, a lawful subordination of Church-offiers; in general, but reaches no help to the Diocesian Erastian Bishop. The second beggs the question in supposing Prelats to succeed the Apostles immediately, and Pastoures, the seventy disciples; and from a Superiority among officers of different kindes groundlesly concludes a superiority among officers of the same kind. No Image of our Prelacy in the Iewish-Church-Government, or in the Apostles superioritie above other Church-officers. The Informer contradicts his fellowpleaders in this cause and himself also.
THE Doubter over come by this Informers mighty Answers (forsooth) [Confesseth Episcopacie not to be unlawful, and only pleads that it may become inexpedient, and a better put in its place] Whereupon he promises [That if we will not stand out against light, he will let us see warrand in the word for Bishops] and so he may easily doe. But the Bishop he must let us see the warrand for is the Diocesian Erastian Bishop, haveing sole power in ordination and jurisdiction, bound to preach to no flock, and deriving all his power from the civil Magistrat. Now, when he hath given us Scripture warrand for such ane ordinary Church-officer, as is of this mould under the new Testament, erit mihi magnus Apollo. Wee see he still walks in darknes as to the State of the Question, and dare not exhibit to us the mould of the present Bishop now existent, when he offers to produce Scripture warrands for him. His 1. Warrand is; that under the old Testament (setting aside the hie Priest who was a Typ of Christ) there was a subordination among the rest of the Priests, mention being made of chief Priests 2 King 19: 2. Ezr: 8: 29. &c. Matth. 2: 3. Act. 19: 14. And over these againe a chief priest under the hiest preist, who only was Typical, since two hie priests are sometimes mentioned, Luc. 3: 2, So there was a subordination among the Levites Exod. 6: 2. Numb. 3: 18, 19. with 24. 30. v. Neh. 11: 22. One is set over the Levites, called by the Greek, Episcopus, and another over the Priests v 14. From all which places he concluds, That subordination among Churchmen is no such odious thing as some believe] Ansr. …. If this be all the Conclusion which this man drawes out against us from the premised trite argument of Bellarmin and others, viz. that there is a subordination among Church men, It will never help him, nor wound our cause in the least; for as we grant without the least preiudice thereunto, that there is a subordination, both of Courts and Church-officers under the new Testament, Pastours being above ruleing elders, and they aboue Deacons. Presbyteries also being above Kirk Sessions, Synods above Presbyteries, National assemblies above Synods, as the jewes had there Supreme Sanhedrin, Exod. 24. 2 Chron 19. And also betwixt the Sanhedrin and Synagogue, a middle Ecclesiastick Court called foreign the Pre…bytery Luk. 22: 66. Act. 22. 5. and also their least Sinagogue-Iudicatorie, wherein was both ruleing, and censures. Act. 26: 11. Compared with Act. 9: 1, 2. And with Mark. 5▪ 35, 36. Act. 18: 8. Answerable to our Kirk Sessions. which is largely demonstrat by Mr Gillespie, Aar. rod. lib. 1. Cap. 3. pag. 8. to 38. As this (I say) is clear, so it is evident, that it is much more then a meer subordination of Courts or officers, which he most prove if he will conclude any thing to purpose against us, viz, The Prelats sole decisive power, and negative voice in judicatories, and their deryvation of all their authority from the Magistrat as his deputs, in their administration. Now, from the subordination of Courts, or officers, mentioned under the old dispensation, to conclude [the lawfulness of a Prelat (a pretended Minister of the new Testament) his taking from other Ministers all the power of Government, contrary to our Lords express command, his laying, aside the preaching Talent, and giving up all the ecclesiastick authority which he pretendes unto, to one who is not, Qua talis, so much as a Church member] is a wide and wilde conclusion: yet that this is the conclusion which he must infer to prove his point, is beyond all Question.
2. Giveing, not granting to him that there was under the old dispensation such a Hierarchy as he pleades for, and such a difference of degrees among Church officers, as he represents, how will he prove this consequence [that the Government of the Church under the New Testament must be thus moulded, and have the same degrees of Ministers, as the Jewes had of Priests and Levits] this Connexion he supposes here, and offers afterward some smatterings in proof thereof, but with what success we shall see with in a little. Will he say that it is lawful to bring into the christian Church every point of the jewish policy? Bilson, ane English Bishop (even in pleading for Prelacie) will give him the lie if he say so, and shew him the disparitie betwixt their Church government and oures: Perp: Gov. Chap. 2. [for the tribe of Levi (saith he) was neither subjected to the Government, of another tribe, nor without manifest confusion could it want all Government, wherefore as all the rest, so this tribe also had its proper Magistrats, to wit, its, Pinces Elders, judges &c.—He adds, that the Jewes Law contained in the books of Moses, comprehended the mould of their civill Government, and the Priests and Levits being most skilful in this knowledge, we need not wonder that they were placed in the same benches with the judges] (this we offer to our Informers observation, to snew how this Bishop Pulles his care in argueing from the Priests sitting in civill courts numb. 11, To Justifie our Prelats civill rule) but now to our purpose in relation to Church government, he adds further [that the offices of the Sanctuarie, and rites and ceremonies of the Sacrifices, from which all the other tribes except the Levites were restrained, were not of one kinde; So that it needs be no wonder that these degrees of the administrators were distinguished according to the diversitie of offices and services. But in the Church of Christ, the Word and Sacraments concredited to all Ministers without distinction, as they are of one kinde, neither admitts any difference of administration, or celebration, so neither doe they require different degrees of Ministers] Thus he. Sure had our Informer listened unto this information of this Father of the Church (as he speaks) he would have spared this Argument as not worth the repeating. The Ministry of the Levites who served in the sojourneing Tabernacle, is compared to warrfare Numb. 4. Because of the Militarie order which the Priests and Levits observed in their externall Ministry. Where there was one common Temple, a common Ministry of the priesthood, a thousand administrators in every family (the twenty four families who served each their week in the Temple being called courses by Luke, & stationes by the Talmudists, the term being borrowed from warrfare, as Scaliger observes (in Canonibus isagogicis) it is no strange thing if in this Ministry, and Priesthood, their were such degrees of administrators; but the Prieststood being changed, there is made of necessity a change of the law, saith the Apostle Hebr. 7: 12. And the policie suitable to the state of that Church must by necessary consequence be changed also.
3. The antecedent of the Argument from that policie, will be a harder taske then he imagines, and this Informer would be quite out if put to draw us the Image and lineaments of our present prelacie in the Jewish Church Government. For 1. We cleared above that the Ecclesiastick Sanhedrin was distinct from the civil, and that the priests had a distinct independent authority and ministery: But the prelats derive all their spiritual authority from the Magistrat. 2. He cannot shew that either the Highpriest, or any inferiour priests had the sole decisive Suffrage in their ecclesiastick Courts, or such a negative voice as the prelats exercise & assumein their pretended Synods and presbyteries. The learned Iunius will informe our Informer (De Cler. Cap. 24 Not 13.) That, par consortium honoris & potestatis fuit inter sacerdotes, sed ordine impari, qua familiarum, qua temperis respectu. Penes concessum sacerdotum ex lege fuit ordinaria jurisdictio ecclesiastica That is, Among the priests there was a like participation of honour and power, though in a different order: partly in respect of families, and partly in respect of times, the ordinarie ecclesiastick jurisdiction belonged to the assemblie of the priests according to the Law. Thus he▪ Sure then it belonged not to the Highpriest alone, farr less to any inferiour priests, and therefore none of them all had our prelats negative voice in judicatories, or a sole decisive Suffrage, so that they were farr from our prelats principality as to directive and corrective power. And therefore though we should grant that his argument will hold as to our being oblidged by the policie of the Jewes, and to have the government of the Gospel Church this moulded, yet our present hierarchie is so different from it, that it will not help his cause in the least.
But the doubter objects [that there ought not to be such a subordination under the new Testament.] To which he answers, [That the Old Testament-subordination being to maintaine order and unitie in the in the Church, there is the same reason for it under the new, and stronger, because the Christian Church is of larger extent then the Iewish, and the danger of schismes, and the necessity of preventing them, the greater: And what better way for this then Gods way thus exemplary pointed out to us, although the New Testament gave no other ground, Gods own model being best for the Church.] I answ. 1. He must plead for much more then a meer subordination of Officers, if he speak to the point, as is clear from that is said. And his Doubter, (if he had dealt fairely) should have objected [that the New Testament Church ought not to have the same mould of government that the Jewish had, and that there is a vast disparitie betwixt their prelatick Erastian Hierarchie, and the Jewish Church-Government] Both which grounds doe break the force of his argument. But it is good that our Informer hath the doubters arguments and objections of his own moulding. 2. Though he know reason of a subordination under the Old Testament (he should have said of that particular mould of government which the Iewish Church had but his general one, to maintaine order and union in Gods Church (he should have said in that Church, under that special dispensation,) yet we have showen him some Reasons of their particular policie which doe not reach us. And shall onelyonly resume to him that we have neither. 1. Such a distinction of tribes. Nor 2. A common Temple, and common Ministry in one Temple for the universal, or for any National Church, as they. Nor 3. Have we such types and shaddowes, from which (as upon the former grounds) this mould of government did flow. Nor 4. Such various sanctuarie offices, and degrees, and varieties of administrations, requiring (as Bishop Bilson hath told him) such varietie and different degrees of Administratores, the Word and Sacraments being concredited to all Ministers without distinction &c. Besides, hath not the Apostle in the forementioned passage, Hebr. 7: 12. Given this Informer a sufficient Reason why wee are not tyed to the same Policie, viz because that the Priosthood is changed, (i. e.) their particular frame of Church officers, & that therefore there is made a change of the Law, that is, of the legal ordinance, both of worship & Government. 3. Darene say that Christs Church under the New Testament, may have every mould of government which may be in it self, or in respect of some circumstances, commendable, and subservient to these ends of order and union? Where is Christs faithfulness as a Sone over his own house, beyond that of Moses? Where are all the New Testament prescriptions in point of government, Officers, Lawes, Censures, if the Church thereof like a Tabula rasa may have any government introduced into it, which may be in its own time and place good, and Ministers framed according to the Old Testament dispensation?
4. How will our Informer extricat himself as to the Jewish High priest in maintaining this Answer to his doubter? Was not his office a special mean of order and unitie in that Church, and to prevent schisme▪s and divisions? And is there not the same reason that the Christian Church should be thus kept from that evil by a supream Highpriest or bishop? What better way for this, then Gods owne way? And what better pattern for modelling the New Testament-Church in point of her government, then this pattern? Surely the Pope will thank him for this. I know he sets aside (in contradiction to Saravia, as I shall shew) the Highpriest in his argument, as a Type of Christ, the man forsaw that this would cast his argument in to ane intire Popish mould; but he is not so forseeing as to prevent his being snared by his own reason, & caught in the brieres of contradictions. For 1. He dare not deny that this Officer was a singular Mean of their order and union. Hence he must grant that his answer to the doubters objection is naught, and that Gods way of preserving order and union in the New Testament Church, is different from his way, and the means of preverving it under the Old, and that the Samenes of the end of Gods ordinances and institutiones under both dispensations, will not plead for holding the same institutiones. Was not order, union, and the edification of the Church, the great end of all the Mosaical Ceremonies and Pedagogie. Were not the Jewes for this great end of order and union to keep their solemne Feasts? To go up to Jesusalem solemly and joynly three tymes in the year? To have one common Temple, one Altar, &c. And must therefore the Christian Church observe the same ordinances and institutions? 2. How will he prove that the inferiour Priests were not Types of Christ as well as the Highpriest? Dare he say that their praying for the people, and their sacrificeing, were not typical of Christs intercession and sacrifice, as well as the praying and sacrificing of the High priest, though not in the same degree of eminencie? I grant that the Apostle (Heb. 5.) speaking of the authority and honour of Christs Priesthood, presentes the legal type thus; Every Hiepriest taken from among men, &c. Yet if we shall consider that Hebr. 10. discoursing of the efficacie of Christs sacrifice in opposition to the legal, he sayes in the 11, & 12. Ver. And every Priest (simply, not evrie High-priest) standeth dayely ministering & offering the Same sacrifices, which can never take away sin, but his man after he had offered one Sacrifice for sins, &c. It will be evident that the inferiour priests were also Types of Christ. So that he should either have taken in the High priest into his argument, or excluded together with him, the inferiour priestes upon the same ground. For majus & minus non variant speciem rei. If he say that he is not speaking of their Sacrifices, but of their Government, which was not typical. Answ. Why might he not then have taken in the High-priest upon this ground, since these are as well distinguishable in him, as in the inferiour Priests? So that he might have been excluded from having any thing to do with the Type in pointe of his government as well as they. And for his single eminencie, it drew along with it those degrees of inferiour priests and Levits, (in his principles) which are mentionedso that if the one must evanish as a Type, in the same manner must the other. 3. It will much puzele this Informer to prove, that the Highe priest in respect of his government was a Type of Christ; Sure he will find this denyed by his fellow brother in the cause, Tilen in his Parenes: (Cap. 2) in summo Sacerdote ceu pontifice, non typi solum sed foreign ratio conspicua &—[In the highpriest, the type is not only conspicuous, but the reason of order, for he bore not a type or resemblance of Christ in resspect of the Kingely and judiciary power which Christ hath, who otherwayes should hauehave had the dignitie, both according to the order of Aaron, and the order of Melchisedeck, that is, both of a King and a priest.] Iunius, a greater then he, (de Pontif. lib. 1. cap. 6.) distinguishes these in the Highpriest.—in summo Sacerdote consideranda, non solummodo ratio typi, sed etiam ordinis & politiae,—[We must consider in the High priest not only the reason of the type, but like wayes of order and policie, &c.] then he addes the abovementioned: reason; So that in this argument, and his way of pleading for prelacie upon the ground of the Jewish policies. He will of necessity introduce a pope into the Christian Church: Which will be convincingly clear, If we shal in the 4t. place consider, that our Informer in this argument hauing set aside the High priest, as onelyonly typical, tells us of another single Chief and High priest under him, and tels us in answer to the premised objection, that this method of the Jewish government (with this Chief or high priest; distinct from the typical priest) is exemplarlie pointed out to Christians as Gods patterne for moddeling the gospel-Church government. So that without all shaddow of evasion his argument pleads for a chief patriarch over the Christian Church, as being a parte of the Jewish policie oblidging us, and exemplarly commended to us for our imitation. Moreover, I would know what he would say, If one should plead for retaining of all the judicial lawes of the Jewes upon his two grounds. 1. As not being typical. 2. As being Gods excellent means for order and union, and commended exemplarly unto Christians to the same end, what better patern for modelling our government and lawes then this patern? Likewayes will he say that every peece of the Jewish antiquated pedagogie was properly typical: And that we are bound to reteane as of a moral perpetual nature whatsoever thing in their policie was not such. Surely there were many things depending upon the particular exigences, and state of that people, both as a Church under that old dispensation, and as a Commonwealth regular in its civil Lawes immediatly by God, which no found divines doe call Typical, and yet doe hold that they oblidge no Church or state under the New Testament.
For a conclusion of this argument, I shall tell this Informer that he grossly mistaks these Scripture expressions (at least in the judgment of some learned) anent the Chief Priests 2. King. 19: 2. &c. When taking them to denot different ecclesiastick degrees among the priests in their spiritual function: these chiefness (to speak so) or principality among the priests, being meaned of a civil principality existent in that Tribe before the priesthood was therein established: and that they were called Chief-priests, or Elders of the priests, did flow from this that this Trybe (subject to the same Princes as at the first) was afterward set apart for the priesthood, for Aaron and his Soones were chosen to be priests Exod. 28. but the whole. Tribe was not assumed unto the priesthood before Numb. 1. Yet in the meane while the tribe of Levie (Exod. 6.) had the Heads of their families & their Princes. The Scripture then speaking of the tribe of Levie as a Tribe simply, ascribes to it the same policie with the rest of the tribes, & Princes of the several families by the right of primogenitur: Thus both priests and Levits had their chiefe men and presidents. But as a Tribe separat to holy things, it had its peculiar policie. One was chief priest onelyonly by Gods appointment, at whose hand all the rest of the priests were. 1 Chron. 24: 24. And at the hands of the priests were the interior Levites, in their several services. David in distributing them in their several Temple offices, did not set the Princes over them as such, but onelyonly having numbered them after the Heads of their families, and by their lotts or Courses, did assigne to them their service of the Temple, upon Gods command by the mouth of Gad and Nathan, the more to facilitat this Sacerdotal tribe, their comeing unto, and returneing from the Temple. The Chief of the families then, are not upon this ground Princes or Chief as to the Holy Ministerie; for there was but one onelyonly high priest, all the rest as well the heads, as the families themselves, were at the hand of the highpriest in the Ministery of the House of the Lord, 1 Chron. 24: 19. Where the Chief or head in matters sacred, had no more power then the wholl body. So was it in the distribution of the Levits into their several classes by their Heads Chap. 23: 27, that they might beat the hands of the Sons of Aaron in the Temple Ministery. So that none of his citations doe amount to any proof of his fancied degrees and subordination among either the priests or Levits in their spiritual functions, or any other waye then in their civil capacitie as a Tribe; neither had the two high priests (mentioned Luc. 3.) The least warrand in Gods institution, but this is acknowledged to be a corruption in their Government then creept in among other corruptions: and since he drawes his first instance of the Levits subordination from Exod 6. before that tribe was set apart at all to the Holy Ministery, that passage at least, and (as I said, in the judgment of some) its parallels also aftermentioned by him, doe speak of the Civil Government and subordi nation of the Levites in that capacitie; and that any of their Chief rulers are by the Greeks termed Episcopus, is a very poor argument to conclude their Ecclesiastick rule, it being notourly known that the best Greek Authores put his designation upon Civil Governoures.
This subordination among the Levites in Exod. 6: 15. is unquestionably civil upon the ground assigned. And numb. 3. It is evident that the heads and princes of Families are numbered. And accordingly the heads and Chief of the families, 1 Chron. 24. and in Neh: 11: 14. He that is set over the priests, is the son of one of the great men (Haggedolim), or eminent in paris and place as many take it. 1 Chron. 24: 4. before the division and order is set down, its said, there were more Chief men found of the sones of Eleazar, then of the sones of …thamar, &c. all which doth much plead forthis assertion, but we need not be peremptor in pressing this, since the weight of our answer lies not upon it.
Our Informer comes nixt to his New Testament proofes for Bishops and produces first, the superiority of the twelve Apostles above the seventy Disciples. Where 1. Wee see, He is still in the clouds of a general superiority, which is farr from the Prince-like Arbitrary, and Erastian superioritie of the Diocesian Prelat now existent, and whom he undertakes to plead for, which this Informer (Had he intended to have informed right) should have condescended upon. Had the Apostles such a superioritie over the seventy Disciples? Were they subject to the Apostles as their Rectors and judges? Did the Apostles (as our Prelats) assume a Sole Decisive, conclusive suffrage, and a negative voice over Church Judicatories, notwithstanding of their extraordinary and high prerogatives? Did we not see the contrary exemplified in that meeting of Apostles with ordinary Ministers, Act. 15? Had the seventy onelyonly a derived precarius Ministry under the twelve Apostles, as their Vicars & Substitutes in their Ministration? Had they no Interest in the Church-Government but upon the Apostles meer pleasure. As Curats are now in all these respects subject to their Prelats? Had not the seventy their mission, their institution, immediatly from Christ as well as the Apostles themselves? Were they not consequently to exercise their Ministery upon this ground, without such a servil dependance upon the twelve as Prelats doe arrogat to themselves ane arbitrary principality over Ministers? Were the twelve to rule only, and to committ the preaching worke to the seventy as their deputes, as our Prelats now doe? Or were they not rather to help forward the great harvest, and the work of the Ministery, together with the Apostles themselves? So that this Informer will never find the least shaddow of ane Episcopall superiority here. But 2. Granting that the Apostles were officers in asuperiour degree to the seventy, which is the utmost Conclusion which he can draw from Scripture, how will this infer a superiority among officers of the same degree. We grant the Apostles were superior to Evangelists, they againe to Pastoures, Ergo, one Pastour may be a diocesian Prelat over hunderds of other Pastours, is a consequence known to no logick. Christ appointed both extraordinary, and ordinarie officers in their severall degrees, as Apostles, Evangelists, Pastours: Ergo, he appointed different degrees of Pastours, hath no connexion imaginable. 3. Tht basis of his argument lyes in this [that the Prelats are immediat successours of the Apostles in their degree of superiority to the seventy Disciples, and Pastours come after the seventy in their supposed subjection, and are not the Apostles immediat successours in the ordinary Ministery] but this, as the foreign, the quesitum or question, must be proved, not begged and supposed by him. We did already evince the contrary, viz, That the Pastour to whom is committed the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments, and both the keys, immediatly from the Apostles, are the highest ordinary officers, and the Apostles immediat successorus as to both order and Jurisdictione. But the doubter and I object furder [that the Apostles superioritie over the seventie, was extraordinary, personall, temporarie, and to cease with themselves.] In answer to this, He grants that in some things their priviledges were extraordinary, and to cease with themselves, such as their immediat cas. ling, their sending to all nations their infallibility, gifts of tongues, or whatever was necessary for the first founding of the obristian Ch…rch. but in other things wherein they were superior to other Ministers, their power was not extraordinary and temporarie, but still to be continued, such as ordination of Ministers, and governeing them by ecclesiastick authority; in which power the Bishops succeeds them, who are [the children in stead of the Fathers] as Augustin applies that of Psal. 45, v. 19. Ans. 1. Then it seems that with him the Episcopal office properly succeeds to that of the Apostles, and is a continuation of their power in ordination and jurisdiction over Pastours, which contradicts his second answer to our Argument from Ephes. 4 viz [that Bishops in that place may be comprehended under the the office of Pastours & teachers] For here he makes their office the same with that of the Apostles as importing ane authority in ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors and teachers, and so he should have said rather that it is comprehended under the Apostolick office 2. He yet againe contradicts himself in this answer whill granting [that whatsoever was necessary for the first planting of the Christian Church is a priviledge ceased with the Apostles] and yet making their power of ordination of Ministers, and in governing them, to be still necessary, he must understand it as performed and done by them, since therein he imagins the pattern of episcopall power to ly: For other wayes the Presbyterians doe hold and prove that ordination by the Presbytery, and Government by Presbyters collegiatly, is still continued and necessarie; This he will not allow, and so must understand it of the manner wherein the Apostles performed this at first. Now I say, their Apostolick power in ordination and Government as exercised by them at first, was necessarie for the first founding of the Church. For 1. Their power of ordination was of equal limits and extent with their mission to all nations—Goe disciple all nations, I hope he will grant was extraordinary, as being necessary for the first founding of the churches, Ergo, say I. so was their power in ordination and Government of Ministers, since it was of a like nature, and of the same extent; for to what ever nations they were sent together a Church therein, there they were to ordaine Ministers, & governe them by ecclesiastick Discipline, which he makes to be the Bishops office. 2. Their sole power in ordination and Government, here supposed, by him, did certainly presuppose the Christian Church in fieri, whereof they were to be founders. First They were, as Christs immediat extraordinary Ambassadours, to convert and bring in Churches, then to plant officers, & the Gospel Government in them; Now, who will say but this power was necessary for the first planting of the Churches, and so comes under the Character of these things which this man acknowledges to be expired: Surely where no other officers were to concurre, the Apostles of necessity behooved to ordaine solely, and their Apostolick Inspection over them did necessarly depend upon, and flow from, their Apostolick extraordinary mission and infalibilitie, So that this power in so fare as Episcopall like, was indispensibly needful for the first founding of the Churches and consequently must be expired by his own confession, the nature and exercise of this power supposeing, and requiring their peculiar mission, infallibilitie, and gifts of tongues, which are acknowledged by this man to be expired privileges, necessary ry onelyonly at that time. Moreover, the Apostles power in ordination and government did include extraordinary miraculous rodes and censurs, & a power in coerceing the rebellious, thus Peter stroke Ananias and Sapphira dead for their lying which was a fearful Apostolick Censure, put forth by his Apostolick authoritie at that time, Paul stroke Elimas the sorcerer blind for withstanding the truth; besides, their power in ordination at that time, included their miraculous conferring of the Spirit by the Imposition of hands. 2 Tim. 1: 6 Act. 19: 1, 2, 6. Now, all these Apostolick priviledges (which this man must needs acknowledge upon his own ground to be expired and extraordinarie) being necessarily included in, & essential unto the Apostolick power, the nature and exercise thereof must be expired also. Wee shall offer here to the Informer a distinction of the learned Iunius, who in his answer to Bellarmins argument for the Apostles Episcopal singular power, from that word Shall I come to you with a rod, distinguishes the ordinary and extraordinary rod, secundum illam, &c. (de Concil. lib. 2. Cap. 16.)—that is, according to the commone ordinary rode. Peter was a fellow Presbyter 1 Pet. 5. But according to the singular and extraordinary, he stroke dead Ananias and Sapphira. In respect of this commonrode (saith he) Paul saith 1 Cor 5.—[You being gathered together with my Spirit in the name of our Lord Jesus] but as to this singular one, he saith [Shall I come to you with arode 1 Cor 4, 21] this common rode he denyes to have him in the hand of any one man whither Apostle or other, or that they had any sole or singular preheminence in Churches constitute. And this cutts the winde pype of our Informers topick and argument here for the prelats power. Which leads to a 3d. Answer.
3 We proved already that the Apostles exercised no singular Episcopal preheminence in Churches constitut, and what they did in churches not as yet constitut and infieri, is not to the purpose by his own confession, since it falles in among those things necessary for the first planting of the Churches, which priviledges the acknowledges are gone, That the Apostles exercised no such single preheminence in churches constitut, is abundantly cleared in the 2. Argument against Episcopacie, where we shewed that neither in ordination, nor excommunication, nor in Ministerial decision of controversies, the Apostles assumed ane Episcopal power in Churches constitut, but had the ordinary Churchofficers Presbyterialy concurring with them. Wee likwayes proved in the 8. Argument, that the Episcopal power is neither formaliter, nor eminenter, contained in the Apostles authority, but is inconsistent there with, and contrary therunto, there sole directive, corrective power over the diocess, as being the proper sole pastoures thereof, their sole decisive suffrage, and Lordly dominion over Church-judicatories, besides their civil rule, like that of the princes of the gentiles; rendering our prelats power ex sua natura, & in universum, different from the very nature of the Apostles authority, and the authority of a Gospel Ministery altogether: and consequently it could not be transmitted by the Apostles, to the Church, as any peece of the Gospel Church Government; and by further consequence they are none of the Fathers or Children whom the true church, or the Apostles brought forth, but the Spritus brood of Satanical Antichristian pride. As for what he addes of the Fathers making Bishops Successours to the Apostles Iunius will tell him (De cler. cap 14. Not. 15.) That this is not to be understood of a Succession from Christs institutionquia nunquam instituit Christus ut Apostolis secundum gradum in ecclesia succederetur, because Christ never appointed Successors to the Apostles in the Church according to degree—And that the fathers understood it of a succession ex simili, non ex pari, a succession of similitude, not of paritie and of a similitude secundum quid, or imaginary, according as Prelats were then moulded.