The Sifters Sieve Broken, Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Wherein it is cleared, that Prelacy, as it ſtood in England, was an uſurpation on the office of Presbyters, in anſwer to Doctor Boughens third Chapter.
IN your third Chapter, parag. 1. You repreſent me ſaying that the Kings oath to maintain Epiſcopacy, is ſin.
Where do I ſay ſo? I ſay, if the Kings oath be to maintain Epiſcopacy, as it ſtood in England, then it is ſin, and if you leave out this limitation, (as it ſtood,) you trifle and change the ſtate of the queſtion; and I muſt minde you of a true rule in diſpute, Qui verba ſupprimit quaeſtionis aut imperitus eſt, aut tergiverſatur, qui calumniae magis ſtudeat quàm doctrinae: He that ſuppreſſes words of the queſtion, is either unskilful, or wrangles, and indeavours, rather to calumniate, then teach. Which latter you plainly do; for hence you infer, that I condemn all the Kings and Queens of this Land, that have taken this oath. But firſt, you muſt prove, that they have taken the oath in this ſence, to maintain Epiſcopacy, as it then ſtood: which ſure our preſent Soveraign, hath declared he did not, (and ſo we may judge of the reſt;) for he hath offered, to reduce Epiſcopacie to that power which it had in ancient times, In his meſſage from the Ile of Wight, Nov. 17. 1647.to exerciſe no juriſdiction without its Presbytery. Whereby the King doth manifeſt, either he is not by his oath, bound to maintain Epiſcopacie, as it then ſtood; or elſe, that notwithſtanding his oath, he may alter ſome of Epiſcopal juriſdiction, at the motion of his Houſes. Either of which will cut your combe, eſpecially the latter.
Secondly, you ſay, I condemn all thoſe Fathers and Counſels, that juſtifie the neceſſity of Biſhops. Thirdly, and laſt of all, you ſay I condemn the whole Church of Chriſt, which from her infancy hath been governed by Biſhops.
Where you ſtill leave out my limitation, as it then ſtood, which added, your inferences will appear moſt falſe. Since it is apparent, that both Counſels and Fathers, and ancient Churches aſſerted, and were governed, not by Epiſcopacie without, but with the joynt help of Presbyters.
Hear what Bilſon ſaith, in his Epiſtle to the Reader, before his perp. Govern. God forbid, I ſhould urge any other, but ſuch as were Paſtors over their Churches, and governours of the Presbyteries under them. And again, That Elders at firſt did govern the Church by common advice, is no doubt at all with us; this is it which is doubted, &c. that thoſe Elders were Lay-men, pag. 158, 159. But had our Biſhops, as they then ſtood, any Presbyteries joyned with them? Preſbyters they had; but had they any Presbyteries, wherein the Presbyters met for acts of government, that the Biſhop did govern? And therefore "your interrogations about blaſphemy, &c. are but the meer calumnies of a tergiverſator, altering the ſtate of the queſtion.
And, as ignorant and impertinent trifling is your ſecond parag. Wherein you talk of the abuſes of particular perſons, as ſome Princes or Parliaments. Whereas my argument runs not on the men, but the office it ſelf, as it then ſtood, excluding Presbyters from part in government, which was not the act of any extravagant Biſhop, but the ordinarie cuſtome of them all: ſo, not the men, but the office it ſelf, was in an abuſive poſture, in excluding Presbyterie from participation in government; which is the thing to be proved.
Which thing, you confeſs, I endeavour to prove by Syllogiſm, which you ſet down, parag. 3.
That power which deſpoyls 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; But this Prelacy did, as it ſtood in England. ergo, Engliſh Prelacy was an uſurpation against the word of God.
Parag. 4. You think, to retort this argument on the Parliament, to prove them, as well to be an uſurpation, becauſe they have ſequeſtred and diſpoyled many of you Presbyters, of preaching and ruling in their Congregations.
But herein I muſt tell you, you bewray your own, not the weakneſs of my argument; for my argument runs not upon any particular officers, whether juſtly or unjuſtly deſpoiled. But of all the officers, as they are officers; of which Epiſcopacie was guiltie, excluding all Presbyters from partnerſhip in government. And had you had your wits about you, that can put the [dul man] upon others, this you might eaſily have ſeen, and that any in the Syllogiſm, notes not particulars in any office, but the kinds of officers preſcribed by Chriſt.
But Parag. 5. You would teach me to ſpeak, had you ſaid (ſay you) that power, that wrongfully diſpoyls any of Chriſts officers, and then you tell me, I have not learnt, it ſeems, to diſtinguiſh, between juſtly and unjuſtly.
But it ſeems, you, though a D. D. have not learnt to underſtand plain ſence: For in that ſence that my words ſhould be taken; can, I pray you, any kinde of officers be wholly diſpoiled of a privileledg, or abridged in a dutie leſt on record by Chriſt, juſtly? Sure then there muſt be ſome power, that can controul Chriſts inſtitution, without injuſtice or uſurpation.
You add as wiſe an amplification, that Gods word and mine, are two; Gods word ſaith, Non eſt poteſtas, niſi a Deo, there is no power, but of God, Rom. 13.1. But you ſay, (ſay you of me) that there is a power which is an uſurpation againſt the word of God.
It ſeems then, you think, that there is no uſurped power in the world, or Church, no not the Popes claim to both the ſwords. Sure, you are a learned interpreter of Scriptures, whereas its plain, the Apoſtle ſpeaks onelyonly of all kinds of lawful civil powers, not denying, but ſome may uſurpe a power that belongs not to them, as the Pope doth; and its in queſtion, between you and me, whether Prelacie did, or no.
You add, "I cannot diſtinguiſh between the office and the abuſe. Will you then acknowledg, it was an abuſe in Epiſcopacie, to ingroſs all government? If you do, you grant the queſtion, if not, you trifle. Do you not know, Maſter Doctor, that theſe be two things, an uſurp'd power, and an uſurpation in power. If Epiſcopacie have no inflitution from Chriſt, its an uſurp'd power: an office without inſtitution, that queſtion I wave. If there be inſtitution for Epiſcopacie, yet if Presbyterie ſhould govern with it, and be excluded, this is not an abuſe of perſons, but an incroachment of one office upon another. This I accuſe prelacie of, as it ſtood; one would think, this were plain enough to a vulgar capacitie; yet you run on in your miſtake.
And Parag. 6. Mention divers examples of particular officers, and abuſing their power in unjuſt cenſures, or uſing it in a juſt way. Which is meer trifling, as I ſhall make it appear, by your laſt inſtance about Biſhops, depriving Miniſters. For I queſtion not now, the Biſhops, or you, for calling Truth Hereſie: nor for the abuſe of power, in ſuſpending, or depriving for unjuſt cauſes; but for doing it ſolely, without the counſel and conſent of a Presbyterie, wherein, I ſhall hereafter, clear to you, they uſurp more, then the practiſe, and counſels, of former Biſhops allowed them. This is the plain ſtate of the buſineſs: and its ridiculous, to undertake the anſwer of a Treatiſe, and miſtake the plain ſtate of the queſtion.
But Parag. 7. You come to the Minor, and thats trifling ſtill, on the ſame miſtake; but to ſeem to ſay ſomething, at laſt you ſay; It is as falſe aſpeech, to ſay, Prelacy diſpoiles any, as to ſay, Judicatory wrongs any; Where ſtill you bewray your ignorance, in comparing an act to an office; but may not one Court diſpoil another? Did not you, or ſome Prelates think, theſe Courts did diſpoyl them of their rights heretofore, that granted Prohibitions in point of tythes, &c. and ſo the Civil power incroach on the Eccleſiaſtique? Why elſe, were ſome Judges ſo frown'd on by ſome Prelates, for ſuch prohibitions?
Parag. 8. You come to my proof, which I ſet down. Presbyters are, by Chriſts warrant in Scripture, indued with power to rule in their Congregations, as well as preach; you adde in your own character, to as well, as much: why, you know beſt, others may gueſs. For proof I bring four Scriptures; the firſt from 1 Tim. 3.5. If any cannot rule his own houſe, how ſhall he take care for the Church of God? Here is care (ſaith the Doctor) to be taken for the Church, but no rule given to the Presbyter in the Church, unleſs you will allow as much power to rule in his Pariſh, as he hath in his own houſe: Is it ſo Doctor? is there none given, becauſe none is expreſt? Is there not rule in the Church implyed? Hear Theophilact, aforeign: Theoph. in 1 Tim. 3.4. Again in ver. 8. foreign.for the houſe is but as a little Church. If therefore he know not how to rule a little and eaſily circumſcribed and known Church, how ſhall he govern ſo many ſouls, whoſe mindes he cannot know?
To the ſame purpoſe, Chryſoſtome, bforeign, &c.for the Church is a certain houſe; but if the Rector of the Church have aſſiſtants in government, ſo hath the husband the wife in his houſe. (Now what the Rectors fellows in government are, whether lay-Elders, or no, let the Doctor inquire:) He concludes, it is far more eaſie to govern an houſe, then the Church; therefore he that cannot govern an houſe, &c. So you ſee, that place gives, by implication, government to a Presbyter: If you object what Chryſoſtome after hinteth, as though the things here ſpoken, were meant of one of your Biſhops; firſt, you your ſelf judge the contrary: next, it will do you no good; for he ſaith, the Apoſtle paſſeth from Biſhops to Deacons, not mentioning the order of Presbyters, becauſe between a Biſhop and a Presbyter, there's almoſt no difference; for the care of the Church is committed to them, to wit, Presbyters; and what he ſaid of Biſhops, belongs alſo to Presbyters, Biſhops being only in ordination above them: Thus Chryſoſtome, Presbyters then were not excluded from governing. So Theophylact gives the ſame reaſon, why Presbyters are not mentioned: Quia quae de, &c. Becauſe what he ſpake of Biſhops, belongs to Presbyters, for to them the office of teaching and government of the Church is committed, being only inferior in regard of election: And for what you object about Deacons, "that we allow them no rule in the Church; It's falſe, they have rule in their ſphear, that is, in diſpoſing the treaſury, though not perſons of the Church, they being not over perſons, (which the Presbyter is) but the Treaſurie.
The next proof is for the Doctor, happily miſprinted, 1 Tim. 5.21. inſtead of verſe 17. which I believe the Doctor could not but ſuſpect; but he was loth to meddle with it: yet if he mean to replie, I muſt now minde him of it, 1 Tim. 5.17. It is thus written, Doctor; Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, eſpecially they that labour in the word and doctrine. Theſe, you will grant, were Presbyter-Biſhops; for to allow any other at Epheſus, would marr the market; and ſee, here is ruling diſtinct from teaching, aſcribed to Presbyterie.
Parag. 10. You come to the third Scripture, Heb. 13.17. Obey them that have the rule over you, and ſubmit your ſelves, for they watch for your ſouls, &c. Here rule is given to Presbyters: Now here the Doctor is pitifully puzled, and comes off poorly. He asks, who are theſe rulers here mentioned; are they Presbyters only? Again, that he ſpeaks of Presbyters, I deny not, but that he ſpeaks of Presbyters onelyonly, that I deny. Good Doctor, am I to prove that Presbyters only are rulers, or that Biſhops are not the only rulers, as they were with us? If then, Presbyters be here meant, and they be rulers, the Holy Ghoſt aſcribes power of ruling to them, which is the queſtion; ſo now I have confitentem reum. And your ſimile, Parag. 11. "of commanders in an Army, helps me, not you; for though Captains and Lievtenants be not ſole rulers, they are co-rulers in an Army, (you know) both over their Companies, and other Officers in a Counſel of war; So if there be Biſhops in the Church, which you here beg, yet they are not to be ſole Governours, as they ſtood with us. What you have concerning Timothy, Parag. 11.12. though I deny not the things, it will not ſerve your turn, ſith Timothy was not a Biſhop in your ſenſe, but an extraordinary Officer, an Evangeliſt, a diſtinct office, Epheſ. 4.11. and aſcribed to Timothy, 2 Tim. 4.5. he had therefore an office, and power above a Biſhop of your fancle, though afterwards from the cuſtome in the Church, and ſome acts that Biſhops did like his, (but not ſolely) he was alluſively, only, if not abuſively, as Walo Meſſalinus hath it, foreign, called a Biſhop. But this digreſſion about Timothy, was but to bafflle the Reader, and to take him off the plain evidence of the former Scriptures; for the cloſe, that ſuch power was not in Presbyter-Biſhops, par enim in parem non habet poteſtatem; Your rule holds, while they are ſingle; but a company of one kinde is above one ſingle one of the ſame rank; a Presbytery is above any one Presbyter, as well as a Synod of Biſhops above one Biſhop; and ſo a Presbytery may exerciſe power over one of their Presbyters, as well as a Synod of Biſhops over one of their fellow Biſhops.
You come to the fourth place, 1 Theſſ. 5.12. Parag. 13. We beſeech you brethren, that ye know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admoniſh you.
In anſwer to this, if the Doctor go not againſt his own conſcience, he hath but little ſcience. Firſt, he ſaith, that a great friend of Presbytery, ſaith, this place is paralel to that, 1 Tim. 5.17. And ſo ſay I too: And then if it be not cited (as you know who cited Scripture) with mutilation, there will be ruledom for Elders.
The Elders that rule well, But you leave out theſe words, and onelyonly take the latter; That theſe Presbyters are worthy of double honour, who labour in the word and doctrine. Whence you gather, ruling is nothing, but labouring in the word and doctrine. A collection, juſt like that, Matt. 4.6: of Christ caſting himſelf off the pinnacle, from Pſalm. 91.11. lamely quoted. You add, Theodoret Thoſe that are over you in the Lord, that is, they that offer up prayers and ſupplications for you. Theſe words of Theodoret, you bring cunningly, as though they onelyonly expounded the words, that are over you. Whereas, it is all he ſaith, to the expreſſion of admoniſhing; whereby its plain, Theodoret by his expoſition, rather denotes the perſon intended there, to be the Miniſter, then deſcribes his whole work. I appeal to your own conſcience, whether you think, the genuine meaning of foreign, be, to pray for people; but in Calvin, whom you cite afterwards, how egregious is your fraud? for though the words you cite are in him, yet they are in opening that other part of the text, for their works ſake; but when he comes to that wherein government is, how plain is he to my purpoſe? Qui praeſunt in domino. Hoc additum videtur ad notandum ſpirituale regimen. Which are over you in the Lord. This ſeems to be added, to note the ſpiritual government, praeeſſe in Domino dicuntur qui Chriſti nomine & mandato Eccleſiam gubernant. They are ſaid to be over them in the Lord, who govern the Church in the name, and in the command of Christ. You abuſe Calvin as much, in miſciting his inſtitutions, lib. 4.2, 3, 5, 15. where he ſpeaks not of 1 Theſſ. 4.12. but of Timothy and Titus, to whom in the government of the Church, he aſcribed a Preſidency, not a Monarchy, as his words ſhew. Falluntur ſi putant, &c. They are deceived, if they think that Timothy, or Titus did uſurp a kingdom in the Church, to diſpoſe of all things at their own arbitriment. Praefuerunt enim tantùm, ut bonis & ſalutaribus conſilijs populo praeirent, non ut ſoli excluſis alijs omnibus agerent quod placeret. They were over others, onelyonly that they might go before others, with good and wholeſom counſels; Not, that all other being excluded, they alone might do what they pleaſed. So that this is ſpoken of thoſe that you call Apoſtles, not Presbyter-Biſhops.
Thus it is apparent, how ungroundedly you confine the rule of Presbyters to prayer, inſtruction, admonition, adviſe.
But you ſay, "this is all the rule that you can finde belonging to Presbyters. All that you will finde, you ſhould have ſaid; for you might have found it in the name, Biſhop, which is a name of authoritie, and rule, uſed by Heathens; ſometimes for the Rulers of Countries, and Provinces, who are called Epiſcopi. And why elſe did that Presbyter, that had the chief honour in rule, and after, by manifeſt uſurpation ingroſt all, appropriate the name of foreign to himſelf, but that the word notes rule? And this title is given to all Presbyters, Act. 20.28. Feed the flock, over whom the Holy Ghoſt hath made you Biſhops, Over-ſeers. This is ſaid of all the Presbyters, without any hint of diſtinction: and doth not this note government? Let me ask you a queſtion: have you not read Bilſons perp. government of the Church of Chriſt? Can you finde no rule belonging there to Presbyters? Its then, becauſe you cannot ſee wood for trees. pag. 140. He notes, government, to be comprehended under the titles of Shepherd, Watchmen, Over-ſeers, Rulers, Guides; and theſe titles belong to all Presbyters: And pag. 141. The government, ſpoken of, 1 Cor. 12.28. He makes common to Paſtors, Prophets, and Teachers: and producing that of Jerom: Communi Presbytorum conſilio regebantur Eccleſiae; He adds of his own; That Elders at firſt did govern by common advice, is no doubt at all to us. This is it which is doubted and denyed by us, that thoſe Elders were lay-men. pag. 158.159. And after, to prove that the Presbyters were not Lay, but Eccleſiaſtical; he produceth Jeroms words, with approbation, Biſhops and Presbyters, were at firſt all one; and what doth a Biſhop, ſave Ordination, which a Presbyter doth not? Biſhops muſt know, that they are greater then Presbyters, rather by cuſtom, then truth of the Lords diſpoſition, and ought to govern the Church in common, pag. 150.
And all this, he cites out of Jerome, for his own defence: That what Jerome ſpake, he ſpake of teaching, not ruling Presbyters. But what need I add particulars? the ſume of his 11 Chapter, is, not to deny, but taking it for granted, that in Primitive times there was a Presbyterie that was joyned in government with the Biſhops, without which, he neither could, nor ought to do any thing, in point of cenſure; taking, I ſay, this for granted, he endeavours to prove, thoſe Presbyters, conſiſted onelyonly of teaching, not lay-Elders. Chapter 14. Setting out the uſe of Presbyters, in the fourth uſe, he hath theſe words, The government of the Church, was as firſt ſo conſtituted, that neither the Presbyteries ſhould do any thing without the Biſhop, nor the Biſhop without a Presbytery, pag. 307. Thus far Bilſon.
How clear is that of Tertullian, for the rule of Presbyters? Nam & judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conſpectu, ſummum que futuri judicij praejudicium eſt, ſiquis ita deliquerit …ut a commucicatione orationis & conventus, & omnis Sancti commercij relegetur, Praeſident probati quique ſeniores, honorem iſtum non praetio, ſed teſtimonio adepti. Thus it is as clear as the Sun, that ruling is injoyned as a duty, and given as a priviledg to the Presbyter; of which it was diſpoiled in England by Epiſcopacie; and therefore, to maintain Epiſcopacie in that poſture, was to maintain it in uſurpation, againſt Chriſts diſpoſition, and ſo unlawful.
But you require, Parag. 14. one place of Scripture, that allows Presbyters to excommunicate, or abſolve, of their own authority.
I anſwer, in all the places where they are made Church-Governours, they are inabled in a regular way to paſs all Church-cenſures; and of thoſe places I have produced and aſſerted many; as alſo where the keyes of the Kingdome of heaven are given to the Miniſterie in general, in the Apoſtles: and the place above cited in Tertullian, doth it not extend to excommunication, and that cenſure to be paſſ'd by Elders? But do you ſhew me, on the contrary, in Scripture a Biſhop, that is, an ordinary Paſtor, diſtinct from a Presbyter, indued with ſole power of rule in the Church, I will be of your mind. Your inſtances, of Timothy and Titus, will not ſerve your turn, for that they were Evangeliſts. Bilſon confeſſeth, more then once, the Scripture never calls them Biſhops; They are called ſo by the ancients, becauſe they did thoſe acts, that by humane cuſtome were afterwards appropriated to Biſhops, in regard of preſidencie; but they did them not as Biſhops, which they are not called; but as Evangeliſts, which they were, and were called in Scripture. For your ſpeech in this clauſe, of particular mens ſilencing, it's impertiment; and for the cauſe, it's delivered in your railing Dialect, which I paſs by, and of the ſame railing ſtrain is all your 15. Parag. only you tell us "by Scriptures we are made ſubject to Biſhops; and I have told you, and you confeſs, in Scripture Biſhops and Presbyters are all one, only you have a vain conceit of an Apoſtle-Biſhop; of which more anon.
Parag. 16.17. You endeavour an anſwer to that, that the Presbyters were ſubjected to lay-Chancellors, but it is only by way of retorſion; direct anſwers you are not furniſhed with, but refer us to the Doctors Commons; and yet I doubt not, but you have taken the oath with an &c. that ſwears to perpetuitie, more then Chancellors; but how do you retort? firſt, we have ſet many lay-Chancellors for one as the Parliament and Committees; ridiculous! when we ſpeak of Eccleſiaſtical Officers, to retort touching thoſe that are civil. But ſecondly, you retort, that though we complain of one lay-Chancellor, we ſubject Gentry and Commonalty to many Lay-Elders, and ſay not (ſay you) that there be preaching Elders with them, leſt it be return'd upon you, that the lay-Chancellor is but the Biſhops Officer in ſuch caſes of Judicature, &c. But I will ſay, that they have preaching Presbyters amongſt them, and more then you can ſay for Chancellors; yet they are to be choſen by the people in general, over whom they are to be; and though you ſay, the Chancellor is but the Biſhops Officer; Yet it is apparent in the woful experience of many Miniſters, that he is ſuch an Officer, that without, and againſt the Biſhops minde, hath convented and ſuſpended Miniſters, which is more power then the Biſhop ought to have; Epiſcopus ſacerdotibus ac Miniſtris ſolus honorem dare poteſt, auferre non poteſt; confeſt by Bilſon, perpet. govern. pag. 107. where the Counſel of Hiſpalis 2 ca. 2. and Counſel of Afric. ca. 26. are cited; what you add about inſtitutions by Chancellors, is nothing to me, who never yet had inſtitution; nor hath it any ſenſe in it, that it ſhould be againſt Gods direction, to receive inſtitution from a lay-Chancellor, as our land makes a Rectorie an inheritance, wherein the Civil Magiſtrate doth protect us.
You conclude, Parag. 18. That my first argument, you hope, is ſufficiently confuted; You have done your beſt, it's like, yet it ſtands in full force and vertue; That if the Kings oath bindes him to maintain Epiſcopacie, as it ſtood in practiſe, and as it is in your famous &c. oath; It is an engagement in that point to what is againſt Scriptures rale, and primitive practice; therefore an obligation to what is unlawful, and in that point invalid. In the cloſe, you cannot give off without calumniating, though never ſo irrationally. I ſay in anſwer, who ever they be, that hinder the Miniſters of God from any part or dutie of their calling required of God, uſurp upon them; and they that maintain them in that, maintain them in uſurpation; this is a truth, without derogation from any authoritie; and ſo I cloſe this ſecond chapter.