Review of the Seditious Pamphlet by Dr Bramble, Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII.
The chief of the Prelates agree with the Presbyterians about the Divine right of Church-iſcipline.
THe Warners challenge in this Chapter is, That we maintaine our diſcipline by a Iure divino, and for this he ſpews out upon us a Sea of ſuch Rhetorick, as much better beſeemed Mercurius Aulicus, then either a Warner, or a Prelate. In this challenge he is as unhappy as in the reſt, it is for a matter wherein the moſt of his own Brethren (though our Adverſaries) yet fully agree with us, that the diſcipline of the Church is truly by divine right, and that Jeſus Chriſt holds out in Scripture the ſubſtantials of that Government, whereby he will have his houſe to be ruled to the worlds end; leaving the circumſtantials to be determined by the Judicatories of the Church, according to the general rules, which are clear alſo in the word for matters of that nature. In this, neither Papiſts, nor the learned'ſt of the Prelates find any fault with us; yet our Warner muſt ſpend a whole Chapter upon it.
It is true as we obſerved before the elder Prelates of England in Edwards & Elizabeths days, as the Eraſtians now, did maintain,The Warner and his prelatical Eraſtian brethren are obliged by their own principles to adviſe the King to lay aſide Epiſcopacy and ſet up the Presbytery in all his dominions. that no particular Government of the Church was jure divino, and if this be the Warners mind, it were ingenuity in him to ſpeak i… out loud, and to endeavor to perſwade his friends about the King, of the truth of this tenet, he was never imployed about a better and more ſeaſonable ſervice: for if the Diſcipline of the Church be but humano jure, then Epiſcopacy is kept up upon no conſcience, conſcience being bottomed only upon a divine Right, ſo Epiſcopacy wanting that bottom may well be laid aſide at this time by the King for any thing that concerns conſcience, ſince no Command of God nor Warrant from Scripture ties him to keep it up. This truly ſeems to be the main ground whereupon the whole diſcourſe of this Chapter is builded. Is it tolerable that ſuch truths ſhould be concealed by our Warners againſt their conſcience, when the ſpeaking of them out might be ſo advantagious to the King and all his Kingdoms; however we with all the reformed Churches do beleeve in our heart the divine Right of Synods and Preſbyteries, and for no poſſible inconvenient can be forced to deny or paſs from this part of truth, yet the Warner here joyns with the elder Prelates, who, till Dr Banckrofts advancement to the ſea of Canterbury, did unanimouſly deny Epiſcopacy to be of divine Right, and by conſequent affirmed it to be moveable, and ſo lawful to be laid aſide by Princes, when ſo ever they found it expedient for their affairs to be quite off it; why doth not the Warner and his Brethren ſpeak plainly their thoughts in his Majeſties ears? Why do they longer diſſemble their conſcience, only for the ſatisfaction of their ambition, greed and revenge? Sundry of the Prelatical Divines come yet further to joyn fully with Eraſtus, in denying not only Epiſcopacy, and all other particular forms of Church-Government to be of Divine Inſtitution, but in avowing that no Government in the Church at all is to be imagined, but ſuch as is a part of the civil power of the Magiſtrate. The Warner in the Chapter, and in divers other parts of his Book, ſeems to agree with this judgment; and upon this ground, if he had ingenuity, he would offer his helping hand to unty the bonds of the Kings conſcience, if here it were ſtraitened, by demonſtrating from this his principle, that very ſafely without any offence to God, and nothing doubting for conſcience ſake, his Majeſty might lay aſide Epiſcopacy, and ſet up the Preſbytery ſo fully as is required in all his Dominions, though not upon a divine Right, which the Preſbyterians beleeve, yet upon Eraſtus royal Right, which the Warner here and elſewhere avouches.
What the Warner puts here again upon the Preſbytery, the uſurpation of the temporal Sword in what indirect relation ſoever,The prelatical party were lately bent for Popery. its probation in the former Chapter was found ſo weak and naughty, that the repetition of it is for no uſe; only we mark that the Warner will have the Presbytery to be an abſolute papacy, for no other purpoſe but to vent his deſire of revenge againſt the Preſbyterians, who gave in a challenge againſt the Prelates, eſpecially the late Canterburians, among whom Doctor Bramble was one of ſome note, to which none of them have returned to this hour an Anſwer; that their principles unavoidably did bring back the Pope. For a Patriarch over all the Weſtern Churches, and among all the Patriarchs of the whole Catholick Church a primacy in the Roman, flows clearly out of the fountain of Epiſcopacy, according to the avowed Doctrine of the Engliſh Prelates, who yet are more liberal to the Pope in granting him, beſide his ſpiritual ſuper-inſpection of the whole Catholick Church, all his temporal Juriſdictions alſo in the patrimony of St. Peter, and all his other fair principalities within and without Italy. There is no Ceremony in Rome that theſe men ſtick upon: for of all the ſuperſtitious and idolatrous Ceremonies of Rome, their Images, and Altars, and Adorations before them are incomparably the worſt; yet the Warners friends without any Recantation we have heard of, avow them all, even an Adoration of and to the Altar it ſelf. As for the Doctrines of Rome, what points are worſe then theſe which that party have avowed in expreſs terms, a corporal preſence of Chriſts Body upon the Altar, the Tridentine Juſtification, Free-will, final Apoſtacy of the Saints: when no other thing can be anſwered to this our ſore challenge, it is good to put us off with a Squib, that the Preſbytery is as abſolute Papacy as ever was in Rome.
The Preſbyterian Poſition which the Warner here offers, not to diſpute, but to laugh at, That Chriſt, as King of his Church, according to his royal Office and Scepter, hath appointed the Office-bearers and Laws of his Houſe, is accorded to by the moſt and ſharpeſt of our Adverſaries, whether Engliſh or Romiſh, as their own tenet: howbeit ſuch fooliſh conſequences, that all acts of Synods muſt be Chriſts Laws, &c. neither they nor we do acknowledg.
His declamations againſt the novelty of the Preſbytery in the ordinary ſtile of the Jeſuits againſt Proteſtants,The Prelats profeſs now a willingneſs to aboliſh at leaſt three parts of the former Epiſcopacy. and of the pagan Philoſophers againſt the Chriſtians of old, who will regard? our plea for the Preſbytery is, that it is Scriptural; if ſo, it is ancient enough; if not, let it be aboliſhed. But it were good, that here alſo the Warner and his friends would be ingenuous, to ſpeak out their minds of Epiſcopacy. Why have they all ſo long deceived the King, in aſſuring him that Engliſh Epiſcopacy was well warranted both by Scripture and antiquity? Be it ſo (which yet is very falſe) that ſomething of a Biſhop diſtinct from a Preſbyter had any footing in Scripture, yet can they be ſo impudent, as to affirm, that an Engliſh Biſhop in his very fleſh and blood, in his ſubſtantial limbs, was ever known in the world till the Pope was become Antichriſt? A Biſhop by virtue of his office a Lord in Parliament, voycing in all Acts of State, and exerciſing the place of a high Treaſurer, of a Chancelor, or whatever civil charge the favor of a Prince did put upon him; a Biſhop with ſole power of ordination and juriſdiction, without any Preſbytery; a Biſhop exerciſing no juriſdiction himſelf in any part of his dioceſs, but devolving the exciſe of that power wholy upon his Officials and Commiſſaries: a Biſhop ordaining Preſbyters himſelf alone, or with the faſhional aſſiſtance of any two Preſbyters, who chance to be neer; a Biſhop the only paſtor of the whole dioceſs, and yet not bound to feed any flock, either by Word, or Sacrament, or Government, but having a free liberty to devolve all that ſervice upon others, and himſelf to wait at Court ſo many years as he ſhall think fit. This is our Engliſh Biſhop not only in practice but in Law, and ſo was he defended by the great diſputants for Prelacy in England.The portion of Epiſcopa…y, whi… yet is ſtu to, cannot be kept upon any principle either of honor or conſcience.
But now let the Warner ſpeak out, if any ſuch Biſhop can more be defehded, or was ever known in Scripture, or ſeen in any Chriſtian Church for 800 years and above, after the death of Chriſt. I take it indeed to be Conſcience, that forces now at laſt the beſt of our Court-Divines to deveſt their Biſhop of all civil employment in Parliament, Court, or Kingdom, in denying his ſolitarineſs in ordination, in removing his official and Commiſſary courts, in taking away all his arches, Arch-Biſhop…, Arch-Deacons, Dean and Chapter, &c. in erecting Preſbyteries for all ordinations and ſpiritual juriſdiction. It is good that conſcience moves our adverſaries at laſt to come thus far towards us; But why will they not yet come neerer, to acknowledg that by theſe their too lately recanted errors they did too long trouble the world; and that the little which yet they deſire to keep of a Biſhop, is nothing leſs then that Engliſh Biſhop, but a new creature of their own deviſing never known in England, which his Majeſty in no honor is obliged to maintain for any reſpect either to the Laws or Cuſtoms of England, and leaſt of all, for Conſcience?
The ſmalleſt portion of the moſt moderate Epiſcopacy is contrary to ScriptureWhile the Warner with ſuch confidence avows, that no text of Scripture can be alledged againſt Epiſcopacy, which may not with more reaſon be applyed againſt the Preſbytery; behold I offer him here ſome few, caſting them in a couple of arguments, which according to his great promiſes, I wiſh he would anſwer at his leaſure.
Firſt, I do reaſon from Epheſ. 4.11. all the officers that Chriſt hath appointed in his Church, for the Miniſtry of the Word, are either Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, Prophets, paſtors or Doctors: but Biſhops are none of theſe five: Ergo, they are none of the officers appointed by Chriſt for the Miniſtry of the Word. The major is not wont to be queſtioned: the minor thus I prove; Biſhops are not Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, nor prophets: for its confeſſed, all theſe were extraordinary and temporary Officers: but Biſhops (ſay you) are ordinary and perpetual: our adverſaries pitch upon the fourth, alledging the Epiſcopal office to be paſtoral; but I prove the Biſhop no Paſtor thus; no Paſtor is ſuperior to other Paſtors in any ſpiritual power: but according to our adverſary, a Biſhop is ſuperior to all the Paſtors of his Dioceſs in the power of ordination and juriſdiction. Ergo, The doubt here is onelyonly of the major, which I prove Argumento à paribus: no Apoſtle is ſuperior to an Apoſtle, nor an Evangeliſt to an Evangeliſt, nor Prophet to a Prophet, nor a Doctor to a Doctor, in any ſpiritual power according to Scripture. Ergo, no paſtor to a paſtor. Again, I reaſon from 1 Tim. 4.14. Mat. 18.15. 1 Cor. 5.4, 12, 13. What takes the power of ordination and juriſdiction from Biſhops, deſtroys Biſhops: as the removal of the ſoul kills the man, and the denyal of the form takes away the ſubject; ſo the power of ordination and juriſdiction, the eſſential form, whereby the Biſhop is conſtitute and diſtinguiſhed from the Preſbyter and every other Church officer, being removed from him, he muſt periſh: but the quoted places take away clearly theſe powers from the Biſhop: for the firſt puts the power of ordination in the Preſbytery, and a Biſhop is not a Preſbytery; the ſecond puts the power of juriſdiction in the Church; and the third in a company of men which meet together: but the Biſhop is not the Church nor a company of men met together: for theſe be many, and he is but one perſon.
When the Doctors learning hath ſatified us in theſe two, he ſhall receive more Scriptural arguments againſt Epiſcopacy. The Prelats unable to anſwer their oppoſites.But why do we expect anſwers from theſe men, when after ſo long time (for all their boaſts of learning and their viſible leaſure) none of their party has had the courage, to offer one word of anſwer to the Scriptures and Fathers, which in great plenty Mr Parker and Mr Didoclave of old, and of late that miracle of learning moſt noble Somais, and that Magazin of antiquity Mr Blondel have printed againſt them?
What in the end of the Chapter the Warner adds of our trouble at King James his fifty and five queſtions, …96. and of our yeelding the bucklers without any oppoſition till the late unhappy troubles, we anſwer that in this as every where elſe the Warner proclaims his great and certain knowledg of our Eccleſiaſtick ſtory: the troubles of the Scots Divines at that time were very ſmall, for the matter of theſe queſtions, all which they did anſwer ſo roundly, that there was no more ſpeech of them thereafter by the propounders: but the manner and time of theſe queſtions did indeed perplex good men, to ſee Eraſtian and Prelatical counſellors ſo far to prevail with our King, as to make him by captious queſtions carp at theſe parts of Church-diſcipline, which by Statutes of Parliament and Acts of Aſſemblies were fully eſtabliſhed.
Our Church at that time was far from yeelding to Epiſcopacy; Prelacy was ever grievous to Scotland.great trouble indeed by ſome wicked Stateſ-men was then brought upon the perſons of the moſt able and faithful Miniſters, but our Land was ſo far from receiving of Biſhops at that time, that the queſtion was not ſo much as propoſed to them for many years thereafter, it was in Ann. 1606. that the Engliſh Prelates did move the King by great violence to caſt many of the beſt and moſt learned Preachers of Scotland out of their charges, and in An. 1610. that a kind of Epiſcopacy was ſet up in the corrupt Aſſembly of Glaſgow; under which the Church of Scotlād did heavily groan, till the year 1637. when their burthens was ſo much increaſed by the Engliſh Prelatical Tax-maſters, that all was ſhaken off together, and divine Juſtice did ſo cloſely follow at the heels, that oppreſſing Prelacy of England, as to the great joy of the long oppreſſed Scots, that evil root and all its branches was caſt out of Britain, where we truſt, no ſhadow of it ſhall ever again be ſeen.