The Sifters Sieve Broken, Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Wherein it is cleared, that the Covenant is not to aboliſh Epiſcopacy, root and branch, nor is Epiſcopacy of Chriſts institution, in anſwer to Dr. B. Second Chapter.
Caſe of Conſcience Reſolved
NOw the bond of the Kings oath, may be taken off two wayes; either by clearing the unlawfulneſs of it, that it was vinculum iniquitatis, and ſo void the firſt day; For qu… jurat in iniquum obligatur in contrarium. And if Prelacy in the Church be an uſurpation contrary to Chriſts inſtitution, then, to maintain it, is ſin; and all bonds to ſin, are fruſtrate. And truly, as Prelacy ſtood with us in England, ingroſſing all ruledom in the Church, into the hands of a few L. Biſhops, I think, it may be cleared to be an uſurpation, by this one argument.
That power that diſpoyls any of Chriſts Officers of any priviledg or duty indulged or injoyned them by the word of God; that power is an uſurpation againſt the word of God. But this did Prelacy, as it ſtood in England: therefore Engliſh Prelacy, was an uſurpation againſt the word of God.
The Major is cleer of it ſelf. The Minor is thus proved: Presbyters are by Chriſts warrant, in Scripture, indued with power to rule in their own congregations, as well as preach; See 1 Tim. 3.5. & 5,17, Heb. 13.17. 1 Theſſ. 5.12. Now as Prelacy ſtood in England, the Presbyters were not onelyonly excluded from all ſociety of rule; but, which was more prejudicial to the dignity and liberty of the miniſtery, were ſubjected to a lay-Chancellor; and was not here uſurpation againſt Gods direction?
Now what ſaith Dr. Boughen? you ſay true (ſaith he) that the oath which is Vinculum iniquitatis is void the first day, &c. And hitherto your argument is good; and in it, he will joyniſſue, &c. Cap. 2. Parag. 1. See what a work this paſſage hath on the Doctor, taken together, and conſidered when the blood was down; now all goes current; yet this is the place, for which he ſpit ſo much poyſon of aſpes in his Epiſtle to the Reader. I hope, the Reader will obſerve; and by appealing from the Doctor in paſſion, to the Doctor out of paſſion, ſee how injuriouſly he hath traduced me, for one that blaſphemes and ſpits in the face of authority. Well now, upon this the Doctor will joyn iſſue, and will readily acknowledg, that if Prelacy in the Church be an uſurpation against Christs institution, then to maintain it, is to ſin, and all bonds to ſin are frustrate; but yet Parag 2. He adds, he hopes I uſe no tricks, but by Prelacy mean Epiſcopacy properly ſo called. Doctor, I do uſe no tricks, a good cauſe needs them not; but I doubt, you will be found to uſe tricks preſently, and that poor ones; that is, to change the ſtate of the queſtion: For when I implead Prelacy as unlawful, I implead it not abſolutely; but as it then ſtood in England. But the Doctor proceeds, and thinks that my medium is an arrow for his bow; and makes a triple aſſay to hit me with it, but is unlucky in all, as will preſently appear; firſt thus, If Supremacy in Parliament be an uſurpation contrary to Chriſts inſtitution, then to maintain it, is to ſin; But ſupremacy, &c. ergo it is ſin.
The major you prove, by 1 Pet. 2.13, 14. Submit your ſelves to every ordinance of man, whether it be unto the King as ſupream, or unto governours, as thoſe that are ſent by him. I anſwer, the Apoſtle gives no other ſupremacy to the King here, then I give him Pag. 9 of my caſe; that is, to be the Supream Magiſtrate, from whom all power of execution is legally derived; and this is competible with that ſupremacy which I give the Parliament. Oh, but ſaith the Doctor, every rational man cannot but understand, that there cannot be two ſupreams in one Kingdome. But Maſter Doctor, Rational men will ſee a difference between a Supremacy, and the Supremacy; that is, Supremacy abſolute, and in a kind. There be more Supremacies ſecundum quid, in ſome reſpect, though not more in one kingdome abſolutely; and this I ſhall make you confeſs to be my meaning, in aſſerting more then one ſupremacy in a kingdom, and to be a truth, or I ſhall make you deny, not Reaſon onelyonly, but your own words, when I come to anſwer your laſt Chapter.
His ſecond Argument is againſt Ordination by Presbytery, but in that he begs the queſtion, and therefore he refers us for the proof, (that Ordination by Presbyters is againſt Chriſts inſtitution) to another place, where we ſhall meet with it.
Thirdly, He argues, If Epiſcopacy in the Church be no uſurpation, but Chriſts inſtitution; then to endeavour the extirpation of it, is ſin. But Epiſcopacy is Chriſts inſtitution, ergo. This he doth but propoſe here, and endeavours to prove hereafter, where his proofs ſhall be examined.
He proceeds, parag. 3. "That you, your Aſſembly and Parliament, have made and taken an Oath to extirpate Epiſcopacy, is too notorious to be denyed.
Sir, your are the confidenteſt man, not onelyonly in uncertainties, but falſities, that I have heard. It's neither true, that I made the Covenant; nor notorious, that I have taken it: neither is it true, that the Covenant is to extirpate Epiſcopacy; but onelyonly, (according to my argument,) Prelacy, as it then ſtood, that is, by Arch-Biſhops, Arch-Deacons, and the reſt, in your &c. Oath, as is plain by the expreſſion of the ſecond Article. And therefore you muſt prove, not onelyonly (as you ſay) Epiſcopacy, but Epiſcopacy as it then ſtood, not to be contrary to the inſtitution of Chriſt, before you can prove the Covenant in that clauſe to be a bond of iniquity; or exempt the Kings oath from unlawfulneſs in that clauſe, if it binde to maintain Epiſcopacy as it then ſtood.
But ſay you, The Order of Biſhops is Chriſts inſtitution. And yet ye have ſworn to up with it, root and branch.
The former you endeavour to prove; and the latter you take for granted, which is very falſe, for there is no ſuch expreſſion, nor hint, in the Covenant, as root and branch.
But Chriſt you ſay, was the root of Epiſcopacy, who is called the Biſhop of our ſouls, from him it takes its riſe. You are good at affirming, but where's your proof? Why, its evident in the Apoſtles, ſtrictly ſo called, who had their orders immediately from Chriſt, parag. 4.
A goodly argument, as though an Apoſtle, and one of your Lord Biſhops were birds of a feather: Whereas toto caelo differunt; An Apoſtle was an Officer extraordinary, immediately called and inſpired of God, and his office to indure for a time, and your Biſhop is an ordinary officer, called by man, who you would have to endure for ever. But to them, ſay you, he gave power to ordain Apoſtles. Falſe and Atheological. An Apoſtle cannot be created but by God, and had his knowledg by inſpiration from God; this is confeſt by Divines on all ſides. See Bilſon perp. Govern. chap. …. pag. 106.
But you will prove they had power to ordain Apoſtles, Mat. 10.8. foreign, which the Greeks underſtand thus; a gift ye have received, a gift give.
But what Greeks? Will they underſtand things againſt the letter of their natural language? The Engliſh of the words to every ſmatterer in greek, is, freely you have received, freely give; and the meaning is plainly, that they ſhould not make merchandize of their gift of miracles; For the whole verſe runs thus, Heal the ſick, cleanſe the lepers, raiſe the dead, caſt out devils; Freely you have received, freely give. But what is this to power to create Apoſtles? which ſpeaks onelyonly of their diſpenſing their gift gratis. And ſo the Authors in your margent, ſuch as I can meet with, for the moſt part, take it; ut ſit miniſtratio gratuita muneris gratuiti, that there might be a free adminiſtering of a free gift, Hil. in Matth. Can. 10.
Ergo ne quid in miniſterio noſtro venale ſit, admonemur; Therefore we are admoniſht, that nothing in our miniſtry be ſet to ſale. Ego miniſter & Dominus abſ que pretio hoc vobis tribui, & vos ſine pretio date, ne Evangelij gratia corrumpatur, Hieron. in Mat. 10.8.
Now what are theſe to your purpoſe? Only Gennadius from this proves ordination ſhould be without price; but this muſt be but by way of alluſion. For do you, Mr Doctor, think that the Apoſtles had power to create Apoſtles, given them here, whilſt Chriſt was alive? I hope your ſecond thoughts will be wiſer. That Chriſt renewed the Commiſſion of the Apoſtles, Joh. 20.21. As my father ſent me, ſo ſend I you, is granted: but that they (as you affirm) upon the ſtrength of this commiſſion ordained ſome other to be Apoſtles, conferring on them the ſame honor and power which they had received from Chriſt. Is an aſſertion, I know not whether fuller of boldneſs, or ignorance; yea, in part a very Bull. For firſt one part, and one of the principleſt parts of their honour, was, to be called immediatly by Chriſt; which they could not confer on others, unleſs you can make Chriſt and the Apoſtles individually one, which is impoſſible. Beſides, that there were many other honours peculiar to the Apoſtles themſelves, not communicable to their ſucceſſors: You may read in Bilſons perp. Govern. chap. 9. pag. 106.
But you ſay, this is evident in S. James Biſhop of Jeruſalem, Epaphroditus Biſhop of Philippi, and in Apollos Biſhop of Corinth. But for S. James, that he was an Apoſtle Scriptures witneſs indeed, Gal. 1.19. but that he was ordained of the Apoſtles, in that Scriptures are ſilent; nor hath Jerome any ſuch words, but that he was called an Apoſtle; illud in cauſa eſt, omnes qui dominum viderunt, & eum poſtea praedicaſſent, ſuiſſe Apoſtolos nominatos. He was therefore called an Apoſtle, becauſe all that had ſeen the Lord, and afterwards preach't him, were called Apoſtles, Jerom. in Gal. 1.19. But to make a man truly and properly and Apoſtle, was required ſomewhat more, ſcilicet, immediate inſpiration and miſſion by Chriſt, as may be gathered from S. Pauls proving his Apoſtleſhip from theſe, Gal. 1.11, 12, 15, 16, 17. And James was an Apoſtle truly, and properly, yea, a chief Apoſtle, Gal. 2.2.9. And ſo he is mentioned in the Scripture, as an Apoſtle in Jeruſalem, not a Biſhop of Jeruſalem. See Act. 15.2, 13, 23. Here Iames is contained under the name Apoſtle, with the reſt, without any hint of precedency there, as Biſhop. And therefore, whereas he is called Biſhop of Ieruſalem, ſometimes by the ancients; that is to be taken but in an alluſive, not a proper ſenſe, becauſe he exerciſed his Apoſtolical function there, while others exerciſed theirs elſe where; and ſome of the Apoſtolical power was emulated in the Fathers times by Biſhops. But a Biſhop there properly he was not, for that were to degrade him: an Apoſtle being an office extraordinary, and ſo higher then the ordinary office of Biſhop. And ſuch degradation is not onelyonly injurious. But if the reſolution of the Chalcedon Counſel be true, cited by Bilſon, pag. 280. To bring back a Biſhop to the degree of a Presbyter, is ſacriledg; Then certain, to bring down an Apoſtle to the degree of any ordinary Officer (as a Biſhop is) cannot want guilt. "And for Apollos, if he were Biſhop of Corinth: I pray you, why did not Saint Paul write to him, when he blames them for not excommunicating the inceſtuous perſon? and blame him for that neglect of diſcipline, and enjoyn him to ſee it done, and not the Church? Or why doth he ſay, that the cenſure was inflicted by many, 2 Cor. 2.6.? if Apollos were their Biſhop, who alone had power of excommunication; If he be contained under the title of Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 4.9. (which Calvin approves not;) yet is he called Apoſtle, in a large, not ſtrict ſenſe, as contradiſtinct to other Church-officers, Epheſ. 4.12. For Epaphroditus, indeed he is called, in the Epiſtle to the Phlliippians, Your Apoſtle; but that is moſt generally taken, as Walo Meſſalinus confeſſeth, by Greek and moderne Interpreters; to hint, not the name of a Churchofficer, but a meſſenger from the Church to Saint Paul, as our laſt tranſlation takes it; and the words following, imply part of his meſſage; he that miniſtred to my wants. And though Walo Meſſalinus diſſents, yet he confeſſeth his expoſition not to agree ſo well with propriety of ſpeech. But theſe (you ſay) are confeſſed to be Apoſtoli ab ipſis Apoſtolis ordinati. Firſt, this is falſe; for neither Calvin, nor Meſſalinus, ſpeak of their Ordination. And the very phraſe, an Apoſtle ordained of Apoſtles, ſhews, that the title, Apoſtle, is taken improperly.
But Parag. 5. you ſay, Apostles they were at that time called, but afterwards the name Biſhop was ſetled on them. For this you cite Theodoret. The ſame perſons were ſometimes called, both Presbyters and Biſhops; but thoſe who are now named Biſhops, were then called Apoſtles; but in proceſs of time, the title of an Apoſtle was reſerved to thoſe that were foreign, Apoſtles properly and truly ſo called. And the name of Biſhop came appropriated to thoſe who were lately called Apoſtles.
For anſwer to this, Firſt, I obſerve you have given us a clear confeſſion out of Theodoret, that Biſhops and Presbyters were all one, divers names of the ſame office.
Secondly, thoſe that Theodoret affirms, that being in his time called Biſhops, were formerly called Apoſtles, were not foreign, Apoſtles truly, but onelyonly called ſo, becauſe they had preheminence over others in his times, as the Apoſtles had over others in the firſt time of the Goſpel.
Thirdly, he gives us no proof, that thoſe that are now called Biſhops, were formerly called Apoſtles: and his conjecture is not infallible; Nay, is it not apparently falſe, that the name of Biſhop came appropriated to thoſe that were lately called Apoſtles, (but were not ſo foreign?) for was not the name of Biſhop continued common to Iames, Peter, and others that were foreign, Apoſtles truly ſo called? Continued. I ſay, by the Fathers, calling them Biſhops, alluſively. But though the name of Biſhop was given to Apoſtles, by the Fathers: It cannot be ſhewen, where thoſe that are now called Biſhops, were called Apoſtles, (as Apoſtle ſignifieth a Goſpel officer) by the Scripture. If they were, let the Doctor produce the place, where in Scripture any ordinary officer was ſtiled an Apoſtle; which if he cannot do, Theodorets aſſertion, in one part, contrary to the plain expreſſions of the Fathers: and in the other, without ground of Scripture, cannot have much force on any unprejudiced Reader.
The Doctors inference is obſervable, Hence is it, ſaith he, that Timothy and Titus, are called Biſhops and Apoſtles. Biſhops in the poſt-ſcripts of the Epiſtles which were written to them by S. Paul, but Apoſtles by Ignatius, Theodoret, and many others. Whence plainly it appears, that the poſt ſcripts of the Epiſtles, were not Saint Pauls, but ſome other, later then Ignatius and Theodoret: And ſo have no force to prove Timothy and Titus Biſhops.
Parag. 6. You add, Biſhops then they were called, &c. That is, They were ſo called by men, that ſpake of officers in the Scriptures, according to the ſtile of their own times, but in Scripture-ſence, they were a degree above Biſhops, Apoſtles, or Evangeliſts; and in that ſence ſpeaks Walo Meſſalinus, whoſe name you abuſe.
Parag. 7. You argue, They that have the ſame name and office with the true Apoſtles, are of the ſame order with the true Apoſtles. But Biſhop Timothy, and Biſhop Titus, and Biſhop Epaphroditus, have the ſame name and office with the true Apoſtles.
This argument you ſeem to glory in, but with how little reaſon, the Reader ſhall ſee. For whereas you ſay, Biſhop Timothy, and Biſhop Titus, and Biſhop Epaphroditus, had the ſame name and office with the Apoſtles: This is manifeſtly falſe. Firſt, for the name, neither have Timothy, nor Titus, the name of Biſhop, or Apoſtle, given them by Scripture; and for other authors, as Ignatius and Theodoret, that call them Apoſtles; you muſt remember Theodorets diſtinction, of ſome that were foreign, and others that were called ſo only alluſively. The true and proper Apoſtles, were the twelve, and Saint Paul, and ſuch like, that had extraordinary miſſion and inſpiration.
Now in this proper ſence, Timothy and Titus were not called Apoſtles, but by way of alluſion: and to have the ſame name, and not in the ſame ſence, argues nothing. For your proof from Salmatius, for Epaphroditus being called Apoſtle, (beſides, that in giving ſuch a ſence of Phil. 2.25. he differs from many others, whoſe opinion is more probable) he onelyonly calls him an Apoſtle, alluſively, not properly: and as you fail in the proof of the ſame name, ſo fail you more, in proving they had the ſame office; for this you prove, onelyonly from one part of Apoſtolical power, Ordination, and Juriſdiction: Which they had from the Apoſtle Paul, in particular places; whereas the Apoſtolical office had power immediately from Chriſt, for ſuch juriſdiction, all the world over, Matth. 28.19. And whereas, the Apoſtle, makes Apoſtles and Evangeliſts diſtinct offices, Epheſ. 4.11. and bids Timothy do the work of an Evangeliſt, 2 Tim. 4.5. The Apoſtle ſhews plainly, that Timothy was in that rank. And thence it's clear, that Timothy and Titus, had not the ſame office with Apoſtles, but were in an inferiour order of Evangeliſts. So your argument falls to the ground.
For your cloſe, "that Biſhops, and onelyonly Biſhops, ſucceed the Apoſtles in ordination and juriſdiction: It's true of Scripture-Biſhops; but for your Biſhops, we ſhall not believe it, till you better prove it.
Parag. 8. You proceed, Since then Apoſtleſhip and Epiſcopacy, are one and the ſame office; He that is the root and Author of the one, is the root and Author of the other.
But I have, in part, ſhewed already, (and ſhall more fully hereafter) that Apoſtleſhip and Epiſcopacy are divers offices. Epiſcopacy, if it hath any place in Saint Pauls Catalogue, Epheſ. 4.11. being under Paſtors, which is two degrees below an Apoſtle: but you further infer, in covenanting to take away Epiſcopacy root and branch, you have done no leſs then covenanted to take away Jeſus Chriſt.
Anſw. Were Chriſt the ordainer of Epiſcopacy, as he is not, your inference is but a childiſh miſtake; for neither doth the Covenant ſpeak of root or branch, nor, if it did, would it follow, that Chriſt ſhould be rooted up; for there is a root, properly of Propagation, and a root metaphorical of Inſtitution, which is by appointment the original of a thing. Chriſt, if all were true that you ſay, is but a metaphoricall root, a root by Inſtitution, whoſe eradication cannot be inferr'd, if Biſhops, root and branch, be pluckt up. If a man undertake to take away all the trees in an Orchard, root and branch, will it follow, he muſt root up the Maſter that planted it too? Nothing leſs; ſo, nor in this caſe.
After this you fall a raving, ſhooting arrows, not caring where you hit, telling of Parſons and Ʋicars, ſequeſtred by my inſtigation. Which is a raſh, if not a wilful ſlander. And now I hope its clear you have done little to diſcharge the Kings oath of ſin, or to prove the Covenant a bond of iniquitie.
But Parag. 9. You think you put a ſhrewd quaery, if root and branch muſt up, how comes it, that ſome branches may be preſerved, as Presbyters ordained by Biſhops, &c.
Still you run on in your miſtake, whereas the Covenant hath no ſuch terms as root and branch. What? a Doctor preſent ſuch plain miſtakes to a Prince? Nor, if there were ſuch an expreſſion, were there any force in your objection; for do you not know, that many of our Divines diſtinguiſh between the Church of Rome and the Papacy, which they compare to a wen on a body. So may we, between the Miniſtery of the Church of England, and your Prelacie, which is but a high-ſwoln wen. Now I hope that a wen may be cut out, core and all, and yet the body be left ſound, yea, more ſound: ſo for this.