Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 1 · Chapter 16
CHAP. XVI.
The harmonius consent of ancient Fathers, Modern divines, and confessions of Reformed Churches for Presbyterian Government, in all its essentiall points of difference from Prelacie, is exhibit.
IT is clear that Presbyterian Government (the pure, ancient, and genuine Government of this Church) in every essentiall ingredient of it, as it stands in opposition to prelacie, is approved by, such a consent of antiquity, and modern diuines, that it would take up almost as much roome as this Informers pamphlet, to reckon up their names. That we may present them in … compendious view take it thus.
1. That jure divino, there is no difference betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter, hath a very large consent of antiquitie collected by many of the learned, whose testimonies we may see in Bishop Jewel against Hardin, edit: Ann. 1570. p. 243. And Reynolds in the forementioned Epistle at large cited (Petries Hist. part. 3. p: 469, 470, 471.) Where there is exhibit a full consent both of the Greek, and Latin Fathers, for this point of truth. The Doctor in his conference with Hart, holds That the president chosen out at first to moderat, is be whom afterwards the Fathers called Bishop, and that the name Bishop common to all Ministers, was by them thus appropriat to this president. Next for modern writers, the same Dr Reynolds tells us in the formentioned Epistle, that those who have laboured about the reforming of the Church these 500 Years, have taught that all Pastours be they intituled Bishops or Priests, have equall authoritie and power by Gods word. Citing the Waldenses in Aen. Silv. hift. of Bohem. Chap. 35. Pich. Hierarch. Ecclesiast. lib. 2. Cap: 10. Marsil. Patavin. Defens. pacis part. 2. Cap. 15. Wickleff. in Thom. Waldens. Doct. Fil. Tom. 1. lib: 2. Cap: 60. and Tom: 2. cap: 7. And his Schollers Husse and the Hussits, Aeneas Silvius Loccit. Luther. Advers. falso: nomin: Scot: Epise. & adversus Papat. Rom. Calv. in Epist. ad Phil. Tit. 1. Erentius Apolog. Confess. Wittenberg.—Cap. 21: Bulinger. Decad. 5. Serm: 3. Musculus Loc. Com: Tit: de Ministerio Verbi. Then he adds Jewel, Pilkington, Dr. Humphrey in Campian. & Duraeum Jesuit. Part. 2. Ra…: 3. Whittak. ad rationes Campian. 6. & Confut Durae. lik. 6. Mr Bradfoord, Lambert, Fox (Act. Mon.) Fulk. (Ansr. to the Rhemeflits.) To these may be added Cartwright against the Rhemists. Bishop Bilson himself against Seminartes lib. 1. p: 318. Bishop Morton in his Catholick Apologie Part. 1. Cap. 33. Erasmus upon 1 Tim. 4. To which add, that in the O…cumenick Coun…les of Constance & Basile, it was concluded that Presbyters should have decisive suffrage in Councils, as well as Bishops, because that by the Law of God Bishops were not greater then they, and it is expreslie given them. Act. 15. 23. To which we may add the Concil. Aquisgravense sub Ludovico Pio Imperatore. 1. Anno 816. Which approved it for sound divinity out of Scripture, that Bishops and Presbyters are equal; bringing the same texts that Aerius doth. To these mentioned the learned Reynolds doth add, the common judgement of Reformed Churches, viz. Helvetia, Savoy, France, Scotland, Germanie, Hungary, Poland, the Low Countries, citing the harmonie of Confessions. Yea their own Church of England (Chap: II. of the harmonie.) Therafter he learnedly refutes our Informer as to what he sayes anent Ieroms (so often repeated) a Marco Evangelista—shewing both by the decree of the 4t. Council of Carthage Cap: 3. Anent Presbyters interest in ordination (which, saith he, proves that the Bishops ordained not then alone in all places, although Ierom sayes, quid facit excepta ordinatione &c:) and by Ieroms proving Bishops and Presbyters to be all one in scripture, and even in the right of ordination 1. Tim. 4. 14. That Ierom could not mean Bishops in Alexandria to have had that Episcopall power since Mark, about which the question is. Where also he vindicats Calvin (Jnstit: …: 4. c: 4. Sect: 2.) cited by Bancroft (as likwayes by our Dialogist here) as consenting to the establishment of ane Episcopacie since Mark at Alexandria. He saith [That Calvin having showen that Ministers choose out one to preside, to whom especially they gave the name of [Bishop,] Shews that notwithstanding this Bishop was not above them in honour and dignitie, that he should rule over them, but was appointed only to ask the votes, to direct and admonish—and see that performed which was agreed upon by their common consent— And having declared, that Ierom shews this to have been in by the consent of men upon Tit. 1. He adds, that the same Ierom other where shews, how ancient ane order in the Church it was, even from Marks time to Heraclius &c: In which words of Calvin (saith the Doctor) seeing that the order of the Church which he mentions, hath evident relation to that before described, and that in the describing of it he had said, The Bishop was not so above the rest in honour that he had rule over them: It followes that Mr. Calvin doth not so much as seem to confess upon Ieroms report [that ever since Marks time Bishops have had a ruling superioritie over the Clergie] A contradictorie Conclusion to that of our Informer. The Doctor proceeds thus. Wherfore to use no more proofe in a thing manifest, which else might be easily proved more at large out of Ierom and Mr. Calvin both, it is certain that neither of them doth affirme, that Bishops so long time have had such a superioritie, as Dr. Bancroft seems to father upon them. To all this adde, that Dr. Holland the Kings professor in Oxford, at ane Act (Iully 9. 1608.) Concluded against Mr Lanes question [an Episcopatus sit ordo distinctús a Presbyteratu, eoque superior jure divino. That is, whither Episcopacie be a distinct order from the Presbyterat & superiour thereunto by divine right] That the affirmative was most false, against the Scriptures, Fathers, the doctrin of the Church of England, yea the very Schoolmen themselves, Lombard, Thomas, Bonaventur.
A 2d. Essentiall point of Presbyterian government in opposition to Prelacie, is in the mater of ordination and jurisdiction, viz, that these are not in the hand of any single Prelat, but that Presbyters have ane essentiall joynt interest therin. And this also hath a large Consent and Testimonie of the learned both ancient and Modern. For this the 4t. Council of Carthage is adduced Can. 5. and the Councils of Constance and Basile, anent Presbyters decisive suffrages in Council. Cyprian Epist. 33. and 78. Council of Antioch, Can…: 10. of Aneyra. Can. 13. Ruffins hist. lib. 10. Cap. 9. Sozom. l. 2. c. 23. and many such. Smectim. pag. 28, 29, 30, 31. cites many Testimonies for this. See Blondel. Apol. Sect. 3. pag. 120. to 130. Prins un-Bish: of Timothie and Titus from pag. 52. to 83. Where the full Consent of reformed divines is adduced, such as Ioannes Luckawits in his confession of the Taborits against Rokenzana Cap: 13. the Wald…nses and Taborits apud Fox acts. Monum. p. 210. Illyric. Catol. testiumveritatis. Tit. Waldenses 455. Melanchton, Arg. & Respons. par. 7. De Potest. Episcopi Arg. 2. Hiperius on 1. Tim. 4. 14. Hemmingius ibid. Gerardus Loc. Theol. de Ministerio Ecclesiastico proves this at large. Peizelius, Arg. & Resp. Par. 7. de Ordin. Ministrorum in Arg. 1. Musculus, Loc: Com. de Ministerio verbi. Morn…y Lord of Pless. de Eccles. Cap 11. Nay Canonists and Schoolmen themselves, Summa angelica ordo, Sect: 13. and Innocentius there cited. Filiu…ius Iesuit▪ de Casibus Consc. Par. 1. Tract. 9. Alexander Alensis Sum. Theol. par. 4. Quest. 9. M. 5. Artic. 1. Cajetan. on 1. Tim. 4. 14. and many others. Likwise it is made good that the Bishops swallowing up this power of Presbyters, and reserving it only to himself comes from Popish Authority. Leo primus (Epist. …8.) on complaints of unlawfull ordinations writing to the German and French Bishops, reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops, and among the rest Presbyterorum & diaconorum consecratio, the consecration of Presbyters and deacons. Then adds, quae omnia solis deberi summis pontificibus authoritate Canonum praecipitur. That is, All which things are commanded to be reserved to the cheife priests by the Authority of the Canons. For this see also Rabanus Maurus de Instit. Clericorum. l. 1. c. 6. And to this truth of Presbyters power in ordination, the Confessions of reformed Churches gives a harmonious echo. The latter confession of Helvetia (Harmon. of Confess Chap. 11. pag: 232.) asserts, That the holy function of the Ministery is givin… the laying on of the hands of Presbyters, no word of Pre lats hands. So the 18. Chap: (pag. 236.) they are to be ordained by publick prayer and laying on of hands, which power they say is the same and alike in all, citing that passage Luke. 10. he that will be great among yow, let him be your servant. So Act. 15. and Ierom on Tit. 1.—therfor (say they) let no man forbid that we return to the old appointment of God (so they call the Presbyterian way of ordination) and rather receive it then the Custome devised by men, (So they call the Episcopall Method). Thus the Confession of Bohem. Chap. 9. (Harm. Sect: 11 pag. 246. 247.) after setting down the qualifications of Ministers—As to ordination they say, that after prayer and fasting they are to be confirmed and approved of the Elders by the laying on of their hands. So the Confess. Sax: Chap: 12. (Harm: Conf: par. 2.) affirme that it belongs to Ministers of the word to ordaine Ministers, lawfullie elected and called. Where we have asserted both the Presbyters power in ordination, and the peoples interest in the Call of Pastors, in opposition to prelacy. So the Confession of the French Church. Credimus veram Ecclesiam &c: We believe that the true Church ought to be governed by that policy which Christ hath ordained, viz, that there be Pastours, Presbyters or Elders and Deacons. And again we believe that all true pastours wherever they be, are endued with equal and the same power under one head and Bishop Christ Iesus, which strikes our Diocesian and Erastian frame of government starke dead. Which is seconded thus by the Belgick Confess. (Art: 30.) All Christs Ministers of the word of God have the same and equal power and authority as being all Ministers of that only universall head and Bishop Christ. To thesewe might adde many other Testimonies of reformed divines, as Calvin, Piscator, Marl…rat on 1. Tim: 4. 14. Tit. 1. 3. Zanch. de Statu. P…ccat. and Legal. in 4tum. praecep. Chemnitius Loc. Com. Part. 3. de Eccles. Cap. 4. Exam. Concil. Trid. part. 2. de Sacram. ordinis pag. 224, 225. proving also that Election and vocation of Ministers belongs to the whole Church. Antonius Sadael, Resp. ad repetita Turriani Sophismata, par. 2. lo…. 12. Beza (de divers: Ministrorum gradibus.) Iunius [Controv. 5. l. c 3. N: 3.] Chamierus [Panstratia Cathol: Tom: 2. de Occum: Pontis: Cap: 6.
A 3d. Great point of Presbyterian Government in opposition to prelacie, is the peoples interest in the election and call of Ministers. And for this there is as full a consent of divines, and Churches, both ancient and Modern. Severall of the forementioned Confessions clears this, the peoples election and call being taken in together with, Presbyters ordination, Cyprian (Epist. 68.) is full to this purpose. Plebs ipsa maxime habet potestatem, vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi, quod & ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere ut Sacerdos sub omnium oculis, plebe presente deligatur, & dignus atque idoneus public… judicio ac Testimonio comprobetur. That is, The people themselves have Chiefly the power, either of Electing, worthy priests, or refusing the unworthy: which mater we see even of it self to descend from the divine authority, that the priest be set apart under the eyes of all in the peoples presence, and as worthy and qualified be approved by a publick judgment and Testimony. So lib: 1. Epist: 4. is full for the Churches libertie and right in elections. The 4t. Council of Carthage [Can. 22.] Requires to the admission of every Clergy man, civium assensum, & testimonium & convenientiam, The consent of the citzens, their testimonie, and agreement Socrat [l. 4. c. 25. sayes that Ambrose was chosen Bishop of Millan by the uniform voice of the Church. In the pretended Apostolick, but truely old constitutions of Clement [lib. 8. cap. 4.] The Bishop who must be ordained is appointed in all things to be unblameable, chosen by all the people; unto whom let the people being assembled on the Lords day (N. B.) with the Presbytery and the Bishops there present, give their consent: And a Bishop askes foreign, the Presbytery, & the people…, if they desire such a man to be set over them. The Helvetick confession told us, that the right choosing of Ministers is by consent of the Church. So the Belgick confession tells us [that Ministers, Elders, and Deacons, are to be advanced to their office by the lawfull election of the Church.] Greg. Nazian. (orat. 31.) commends Athanasius his calling as being after the Apostolical example foreign by the suffrage of all the people. Blondel clears this from a large consent of antiquitie (page, 379. to 473.) And this is cleared also by a large consent of protestant divines. Luther (de potest. Papae.) Calvin (on Act. 6: 3.) Beza (confess. Cap. 5. Art. 35.) Musculus (in Loc. com.) Zanch. (on 4t. com.) Junius (Animadvers. on Bellarm. Controv. 5. l. c. 7.) Cartwright (on Act. 14. v. 23.) Wallaeus, Bullinger, Wittaker. See Mr Gilesp. Misc. quest. pag 18, 19. Our first book of Discipline appoints to the people their votes and suffrage in election of Ministers. (in the 4t. head.) And the 2d. book (Cap 3.) discharges any to intrude contrary to the will of the congregation—or without the voice of the eldership.
A 4t. Essential point of Presbyterian Government in opposition to Prelacie, is in relation to the office of the ruleing elder, as appointed by Christ. This we cleared from Scripture, and there is as cleare a consent of antiquitie for it, and of modern reformed Churches and divines, exhibited by our writers. For this Ignatius (Epist: ad Trallianos, ad initium pag. 66. edit. oxon. An. 1644.) is cited. Likewise Baronius (in his Annals Anno 103. in the Gesta purgationis Caeciliani & Felicis.) Tertul. (Apolog. Advers: gentes. Cap. 39.) Origen. (ontra Celsum lib. 3.) Cyprian (Epist. 36.) Optatus (lib. 1. pag. 41. edit: paris: An. 1631.) Ambrose (comment. on 1 Tim. 5: 1.) And for modern writers, Whittaker (contra Duraeum lib: 9. Sect. 47.) Thorndicks discourse of religious assemblies (cap. 4. pag. 117.) Rivet (Cathol. Orthodox, Tract. 2. quest. 22, Sect. 4).
Finally. Presbyterian Government, as it stands in opposition to the present Prelacie in its Erastian mould, and maintaines a spirituall authoritie in the hands of Church officers, distinct from, and independent upon the civill powers of the world, hath as full a consent of the learned. As Erastianism was first hatched by Thomas Erastus Physician in Heidleberg about the year 1568.—And much catched up, and pleaded for by Arminians since, so it hath been impugned by a full consent of reformed divines, who have fully proved it to be contrary to the rules of Church Government set down in the Scripture both in the old and new Testament, and utterly eversive of the Gospel Ministrie and Church. The eminent divines who have written against it, are Beza (who encounters with Erastus himself upon this point) Zachriasursin, Wallaeus, Helmichius, Triglandus, Dr Revius, Dr Voetius, Appollonius, and many others, Especially the famous and learned Mr Gillespy in that elaborat peice, entituled, Aarons rod blossoming; wherein the consent of the ancient, and modern Church, as to this great point of truth, is exhibit. See 2. book. 1 Cap. p…g. 167.
Now, from all that is said, Whither Presbyterian Government hath not the patronage of the purest Scripture antiquity, and a full consent of the after purer times, and of reformed Churches and divines, in all the forementioned points of its opposition to the Prelacie now established: Both in holding, 1. The identity of Bishop and Presbyter, as to name and things 2. Presbyters right of ordination, and Jurisdiction. 3. The peoples interest in the Election, and call o. Ministers. 4. The ruleing Elders office. 5. The Churches intrinsick power of Government, I leave to the Impartiall to judge. And consequently of the vanity of this new Dialoguist, His pleading upon this point.
A Confutation Of the Second DIALOGUE, Anent the Covenants Against EPISCOPACIE.
Wherein, the Informers reasonings against the abjuration of the present Episcopacie in the National and Solemne League and Covenant, and the obligation of these oaths in opposition thereunto, are examined.