Theodulia, or, A just defence of hearing the sermons and other teaching of the present ministers of England against a book unjustly entituled (in Greek) A Christian testimony against them that serve the image of the beast, (in English) A Christian and sober testimony against sinful complyance, wherein the unlawfulness of hearing the present ministers of England is pretended to be clearly demonstrated by an author termed by himself Christophilus Antichristomachus / by John Tombes.

CHAP. 3. ARG. 3. (Book 3)

Sect. 1. That which is by some termed Antichristian, is not alwayes unlawful.

THose that act in the Holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristi∣an Power, Office, or Calling, are not to be heard, but to be sepa∣rated from: but the present Ministers of England act in the Holy things of God, by vertue of an Antichristian Power, Office, or Calling: Therefore. The major is evident. For,

1. The Power, Office, and Calling of Antichrist is opposite and contrary unto the Power, Office, and Calling of Christ: not to sepa∣rate from such as act by vertue of such an Office-power, is to stand by, and plead for Antichrist against Christ.

Answ. The ambiguity that is in the termes of this argument is that, which makes this Argument seem to many well-meaning people to be of some force, which will appear to be a meer falla∣cie, when the terms are clearly opened. Concerning which, that which is chiefly to be explained is, who is the Antichrist here meant, and what is meant by Antichristian, which hath been so: strangely abused, especially of late years, that every thing that hath been m••sliked by an opposite party, is branded with the name of Antichrist, and mark of the Beast, and made a sufficient cause of utter separation from such as own any thing so called and of almost Vatinian hatred. The word [Antichrist] I find not in any place in the Bible, but in the Epistles of St. John, 1 Joh. 2.18.

As ye have heard that Antichrist should come, even now are there many Antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time, v. 22. He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son, ch. 4.3. And every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God: and this is that Spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the World, 2 John. 7. For many deceivers are entered into the World, who con∣fess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a decei∣ver and an Antichrist, or the Deceiver and the Antichrist. In which passages I observe:

1. That Antichrist is described as a Deceiver, as one that oppo∣seth the grand truth of the Gospel, and therefore the word in the Scripture use is not applied to persecuting Princes and Emperours, as the great Turk, but to false Teachers.

2. That the opposition is by denying, not by making himself Christ, but by denying Jesus to be the Christ; and therefore the term Antichrist is not one that sets up himself as if he were Christ, they are expressed by another word [Pseudo-Christs] Mat. 24.24. but one that is against Christ by teaching contrary to him.

3. That the term Antichrist is applied to many false Teachers who were in St. Johns time.

4. That yet there was one Antichrist more notable than the rest to come into the World. About whom hath been variety of opinions of old, and of late much controversie, whether he should be a single person, or a state or rank of persons succeeding one af∣ter another: whether the Antichrist be already come, or is yet to come: whether the Popes of Rome for some generations, have been the Antichrist, or they and some other. The opinions of the Fathers were various as conceiving of Antichrist by conjectures, after the Popes of Rome began to be so haughty, as to usurp do∣minion over Emperours and Kings, and to be tyrannous in cruel persecutions of them that opposed the Papal corruptions, many pious and learned men stuck not to stigmatize the Popes of Rome as Antichrists: and since the Reformation begun by Luther, it hath been the common tenent of Protestants, that the later Popes of Rome have been the man of sin foretold 2 Thess. 2.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. the City of Rome, the Whore of Babylon; and the Papacy, or Popes, the Beast, described Rev. 17. which is taken for a Pro∣phesie of Antichrist. And though some have endeavoured to ap∣ply these Prophesies to Caligula, Simon Magus, Domitian, Mahomet, the Turkish Sultans; yet generally not only the French and Ger∣man

Protestants, but also the English, the most esteemed for learn∣ing even of the Order of Prelates, such as Downham, Robert Ab∣bot, Usher, Bedel, Prideaux, together with King James, and his Defendant Andrews, and many more have applied the Prophesies in the Revelation, and 2 Thess. 2. to the Roman Popes, as the Anti∣christ that was to come. Whence every thing that is retained in the Protestant Churches, not taught or exemplified in the Scriptures, according to the use of the Church of Rome, is usually termed Antichristian, as coming from Rome, and the mark and image of the Beast, in which sense I conceive this Author useth the term Antichristian, as being against Christ, and by power Antichristian, he means Authority, and Rule Prelatical; by Office-Antichristian, the Office of Preaching, reading the Common-Prayer, Admini∣stration of Sacraments, and Discipline according to the Church of England; by Calling Antichristian, he means Ordination by a Bishop. Now out of this may be gathered an answer to the Argu∣ment. If by Antichristian Power, Office, and Calling, be meant the Papal Power, Office, and Calling, and the acting in Holy things be by preaching the Doctrine of the Trent Council, in the points determined therein against Protestants, by administring Sacraments according to the Roman Missal; and Discipline accor∣ding to the Canon Law of the Popes, in which Papal power is established, the major is granted and the minor denied. For though I deny not that a person Ordained by a Popish Bishop, if he forsake Popish Doctrine, and preach the Truth taught by Pro∣testants, may be heard preach the Gospel, though he do not re∣nounce his Ordination, yet while he holds that Doctrine, he is not to be heard as being an Antichristian Deceiver. But if by an Anti∣christian Power, Office, or Calling, be meant by vertue of Ministry, according to the Liturgie, Articles of Religion and Homilies of the Church of England, from the Ordination and License of the Bishops, (which this Author terms Antichristian) the major is de∣nied; and to the Arguments to prove it, I answer, that that which he calls Antichristian, is not truly such, but only miscalled such by him; and therefore till he proves that Power-Office and Calling which he calls such, and means in his major proposition is such: his major is denied, and it is denied, that what he calls Antichristian, is opposite and contrary to the Power, Office, and Cal∣ling of Christ; or not to separate from such as act by vertue of such an Office power, is to stand by, and plead for Antichrist against Christ, until he proves such acting to be really so. And this an∣swer might suffice to invalidate all the other Arguments he brings

for his major, they all moving upon this unproved Supposition, That what he calls Antichristian, and standing by and pleading for Antichrist, is in truth such. But because there are some things to be examined in the other Arguments also, I shall survey them also.

2. Saith he, It's unlawful to attend upon the teachings of An∣tichrist, therefore upon the teachings of such as act by virtue of a power derived from him.

Answ. If by teachings of Antichrist, be meant, the teachings of the present Doctrin of the Church of Rome, according to the Trent Council, wherein they dissent from Protestants; and the power derived from him, be meant, of the Engl••sh Bishops Ordination; it is denied, that the Preachers of England derive their power from Antichrist, Pope or Church of Rome, and I say, that it is meer im∣pudency to say they do, who renounce the Popes authority by solemn Oath, and separate from the Church of Rome, and are persecuted, condemned, and put to death, where the Pope hath power, even because they disclaim the Pope and his Doctrin. Yet if any should act, by virtue of Ordination from the Pope (as doubtless many did before the Reformation, such as Wickliffe, and many others) and yet not teach his Doctrin, he might be heard teaching the Gospel, and in such a case the consequence were not valid; and therefore in this sense it may be denied, that because it is unlawful to attend upon the teachings of Antichrist, therefore upon the teachings of such as act by virtue of a power derived from him.

3. Saith he, Christ calls and solemnly charges his, upon the pe∣nalty of most dreadful Judgments, to separate from every thing of Antichrist, Rev. 18.4. & 14.9, 10, 11.

Answ. It is true, Rev. 18.4. we read thus, And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. Which may be understood of a local departure f••om Babylon, or Rome, when her judgment of Destruction from the Kings of the earth draws nigh: but if it be extended further, to a departure by forsaking communion with her in Worship, and leaving the subjection which was yielded to her in her Government; yet is it not understood of every Doctrin the Pope teacheth; not of the Bible or Apostles Creed, or any Doctrin or Service agreeable to these; nor of relinquishing every Rite and Usage, though un∣due and illegitimate, which is observed by them; but the Forni∣cation, that is, Idolatry, Heresie and other wickedness mentio∣ned,

v. 3. Chap. 17.2. Revel. 14.9, 10. it is said, If any man worship the Beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God. By the Beast and his image are meant, some Empire or State which promotes Idolatry: Some conceive it meant of the Pagan Emperors: Others, and those both more and more accurate Commentators among the Protestants, understand by them, the Roman Papacy, and Latin Empire; the worshiping of which is un∣doubtedly the acknowledging of its power, and subjection to their Idolatrous Decrees and Edicts. The receiving his mark in the forehead or the hand, is, allusively to the use of marking Slaves in the forehead, and Souldiers in the hand, to profess themselves servants to the Popes, and ready to fight for them; which Mr. Brightman makes to be in the Roman Clergy their in∣delible character in Ordination; in the Emperors their Oath of Pro∣tection of the Popes; in the Common people their assuming the names of Papists and Roman Catholiques. Mr. Mede more exactly in his Com∣ment on Rev. 13.18. thus, To receive the mark of the name of the Beast, is to subject himself to his authority, and to acknowledge him to be his Lord; but to receive the number, is to imbrace his impiety, de∣rived unto him from the Dragon, to wit, the Idolatry of the Latins: whence that happily will not be unworthy consideration; although no man can receive the mark of the name of the Beast, or be subject to his authority, but together also he must receive his number, that is, be must needs be Partaker of his impiety: yet it may be, that one may admit the number or impiety of the Beast, but yet refuse the mark or name. That which now long since is true of the Greeks, which doth evince, that the worship of the Beast and his Image, and re∣ceiving his mark in his forehead or in his hand, is not retaining of every usage of the Papists, no not though it be Corrupt and Su∣perstitious, as many zealous persons against Popery, but superfi∣cially viewing the text conceive, much less such customs as are not superstitious in their use; but acknowledging the universal Monarchy of the Popes, and adoring Images, the Host, Reliques, Crosses, invocations of Saints, and such like impieties, which the present Ministers of England do profess to abhorr; and therefore it is without cause, that they are charged with receiving the ma••k of the Beast; and people are affrighted with the penalty of the dreadful Judgments, Rev. 14.10. unless they separate from them and their Ministry as a thing of Antichrist.

4. Saith he, There is not a command in the Scripture enioyning Saints to take heed of being deceived, to try the Spirits, because many

Antichrists are gone abroad into the World: but is an abundant demon∣stration of the truth of this Assertion.

Answ. I grant it, if the Assertion were, they that act in the holy things, as acknowledging the Power, teaching the Doctrin, owning the Calling of him that is truly Antichrist, are not to be heard, but to be separated from: But being understood of other things, which the Separatists call Antichristian, it is not true, nor proved by the commands in Scripture, which forbid only to reject Antichristian Doctrin and Worship, not every thing said by any without proof to be a thing of Antichrist. The Baptism given in Popery, is not by all Separatists rejected as Antichri∣stian; there is less reason to call the Ministry of England a thing of Antichrist.

5. Saith he, The institution of Officers of his own, by Christ, to be continued in the way appointed by him to the end of the World, Ephes. 4.11.

Answ. It is true, that Christ when he went up into heaven gave gifts to men; some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evange∣lists, and some Pastors, and Teachers, and that some of these are to be continued to the end of the World, and in that way he hath ap∣pointed: But that there is any particular way of Election, Or∣dination and Mission of ordinary Pastors and Teachers in those words appears not; nor how the major is proved, those that act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian (so called, not proved) Power, Office, or Calling, are not to be heard, but se∣parated from, I discern not, unless this be the Argument, Christ hath appointed these, therefore no other are to be heard, but to be seperated from, which overthrows the hearing of, and commu∣nion with gifted Brethren (whom he would have heard) for they are no Officers of Christs institution.

6. Saith he, That there is not one promise of a blessing in the whole Scripture, upon persons attending on such a Ministry, with innumerable things of the like tendency and import, that might be produced if needful, are such a basis upon which the truth of the major proposition stands, as cannot be easily shaken or removed.

Answ. Though there be no one promise of a blessing in the whole Scripture, upon persons attending on such a Ministry, as theirs is that act in the holy things of God, by virtue of an Antichristian Power, Office, or Calling, whether real or supposed as such; yet if any, that so acts, as suppose a Dominican Fryer, or Jesuite in the Indies do Preach the Gospel truly, there is a blessing pro∣mised

in Scripture, upon persons attending on such a Ministry, Christ having said, Luke 11.28. Blessed are they that hear the Word of God, and keep it; yet were there no promise of blessing, the major is not proved, unless this were true, they are not to be heard, but to be separated from, to whose Ministry, as such a blessing is not promised; which makes unlawful the hearing of gifted Brethren, unless they can produce such a promise; yea, every action indifferent should be unlawful, unless it have a blessing promised to it. What more he can say for his major, yet rests in his breast, and so needs no answer till it be produced. I hasten to the proof of his minor.

Sect. 2. The names given to the Ministers of England, prove not their Office not to be from Christ.

The minor (saith he) wants not sufficient demonstration. First, the present Ministers of England, are either from Christ, or from Antichrist. There is no medium (a Linsey-woolsey-Ministry, that is partly of Christ, partly of Antichrist, as 'tis not to be proved by Scripture, so will it not be abetted) That they are not from Christ, hath in part been proved already, and may further be evinced.

1. Their names are forraign to the Scripture: where read we of Deacons in their sense, Priests as distinguished from Christians, in the New Testament, Deans, Cannons, Petty-Cannons, Prebendaries, Arch-Deacons, Lord Bishops, Parsons, Vicars? &c. these are only found in the Popes Pontifical, whence they are derived.

Answ. It hath been abetted by Mr Bradshaw in his Answer to Francis Johnson his second reason against hearing the Ministers of the Church-Assemblies of England (whose Arguments this Author hath revived, though answered long since by Mr. William Brad∣shaw, and the answers vindicated by Mr. Thomas Gataker, from Mr. Cans reply) that there is a medium, and that a Ministry may be from Christ in respect of the thing Ministred, though from Antichrist in respect of the way of entry into it; yea, he saith, It is not necessary, that the Ministry of Priests and Deacons, though ordained by Antichrist himself, should be the Ministry of his Apostasie: but notwithstanding his Ordination, their Ministry may be the Mini∣stry of Jesus Christ as was the Ministry of Luther, Huss, Wickliffe, and others. I add, that if by being from Christ or Antichrist, be understood of outward calling (as this Author seems to mean) Ministers m••y be neither from Christ nor Antichrist, and yet true Ministers, as those that Preached Christ even of envy and strife; yet

St. Paul saith, Philip. 1.15, 18. Notwithstanding every way, whe∣ther in pretence, or truth, Christ is Preached, and I therein do re∣joyce, yea and will rejoyce.

But let us consider his proofs, that the present Ministers of Eng∣land are not from Christ.

To the first I answer, that the term Priests as distinguished from all Christians in the sense used by the Convocation of the Church of England, is the same with Presbyters, as appears by the Latin translation of the 39 Articles of the Church of England, Art. 32.36. extant by it self, and in the Corpus & Syntagma confessionum of the Protestant Churches, and the Letters of Orders under the seals of Bishops in Latin, and this is sure found in Scripture, Act. 11.30, &c. The other names note not any Ministry different from the Ministry of Christ, but are used to signifie some diffe∣rence in their maintenance, or places, which may be annexed to them, and yet their Ministry from Christ. If this Authors reason were good, the names are forraign to the Scripture, therefore the things; it would follow, that Congregational Churches are forraign to Scripture, Lecturers, Sacraments, Ruling Elders, Iti∣nerant Preachers, &c. because their names are not there. But this Author adds,

So are 2. Their Officers: Deacons attending tables we read of, but Deacons Praying, Preaching, Administring Sacraments (so called) by virtue of an Office-power, an order of the first step to the Priest∣hood, we find not. Priests in the Old Testament (both true and false) we read of: In the New, Saints are so called,

1. In respect of Analogie to the ritual Priest of old, whose pre∣rogative it was to come near to God, Deut. 21.5▪ to whom through Christ, Saints have access with boldness, Ephes. 2.18. & 3.19. James 4.8.

2. In respect of their union and engrafture into Christ, the great High-Priest over the house of God.

3. In respect of that analogie there is betwixt what Christ hath done for them as Priest, and by his Spirit worketh in them: He offered up Sacrifice; so do they, Psal. 116.17. & 141.2. Rom. 12.1. Heb. 13.14. He was crucified, died; so are they, Rom. 6.6, 7, 8, &c. Gal. 2.20.

4. As Priests, they are anointed to the participation of, do thereby attain to, a kind of holy and intimate communion with Christ in all his glorious Offices, Rev. 5.10. But an office of Priesthood in men for the Ministery of the Gospel, that are to be branded by men in that their Office, must Preach what they would have them, and cease

when they would have them (as is the case of the present Ministry of England) the Scripture is a stranger to.

Answ. Though the present Ministers of England, men are to hear, be more than Deacons; yet this may be said, that if it be supposed, that the Office of a Deacon be not now to attend Ta∣bles, as the first seven Deacons were, Act. 6.2. yet according to the book of Ordination, it is his Office, where provision is so made, to search for the sick, poor and impotent people of the Parish, to in∣timate their Estates, Names, and places where they dwell, unto the Curate, that by his Exhortation, they may be relieved with the almes of the Parishioners or others. If they be appointment to Pray, Preach, and Administer the Sacraments, they have this to plead, that Philip the Deacon did both Preach and Baptize, Act. 8.5, 12, 38. that St. Paul requires of the Deacons, 1 Tim. 3.9. That they hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience, and v. 13. They that have used the Office of a Deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus, and therefore may the Deacons Office be well conceived the first step to the Priesthood, that is, the Office of a Presbyter. As for the word Priest, as it answers to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the New Testament; if the Saints, as Saints, may be termed Priests, then may the Elders, or the best of them surely be called Priests; yea, and that in a spe∣cial manner, as in respect of their Office drawing near to God, engaged to offer spiritual sacrifices of Prayer and Praise, which the Apostles conceived to belong to them in special manner, to∣gether with the Ministry of the Word, Acts 6.4. and 13.21. yea the Apostle Paul Rom. 15.16. useth this expression, that this grace was given to him of God, that he should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the word applyed to Christ as a Priest, Heb. 8.2. and joyned with Sacrifice, Phil. 2.17.) the Minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ministring as a Priest the Gospel of God, that the offering, or sacrificing of the Gentiles might be acceptable; and therefore in respect of his Office, he might have been called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Priest, though not properly, yet allusively; and so may Ministers now, as the Christian Church is called the Temple of God, the Israel of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, &c. And if, as some conceive, the word Priest be derived from the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it may be judged the fitter word than Minister, which is more apposite to signifie a Deacon, than an Elder. Selden de Syned, vet. ••braeo. l. 1. c. 14. p. 583. Vocem nostram Priest, & Teutonum Belgarum{que} Priester, uti & Gallorum Prebstre & Prestre, & Italorum Prets a Presbytero deformatam

nemo puto non concedit. p. 585. Nec pueruli nesciunt voces istas, Seniorem, Priest, Presbyterum, Elder, ex sui tam naturâ Usu{que} pri∣mario & significatione apertissimâ non magis differre, quàm 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & consulem, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & principem, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & Regem, aut quae alia sic invicem omnino eadem sunt.

As for that which is added, that the present Ministry of England, is bounded by men in their Office, so as that they must Preach what they would have them, and cease when they would have them: I think it is not without example in the best ordered Churches. I do conceive that in the Churches of the Separatists, they would tie their Ministers to Preach according to their Confession, and that if any taught otherwise than according to the declaration of the Faith, and Order of the Congregational Churches, in their meet∣ing at the Savoy, Octob. 12. 1658. they would restrain him, or withdraw from him. Sure the Apostle would have Timothy to abide at Ephesus, that he might charge some that they teach no other Do∣ctrin, 1 Tim. 1.3. and Titus to reject an Heretick, Tit. 3.10. and 1 Cor. 14.30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace, v. 28. If there be no Interpreter, let him keep silence in the Church. Which is sufficient proof, that even those that are Gifted extraordinarily, may be bounded by Order; and they that teach otherwise than they should, may be silenced. Which if the Prelates, or others do, when they should not, they are ac∣countable to Christ, who will judge them for it: But it is no proof, that their Ministry is not from Christ, who submit to the commands of men, that have power over them, forbidding them to teach some truths, and forbearing to teach, when it cannot be with safety and fruit to the Church of God, themselves, and them which are without. It is added:

So is it 3. to their admission into this their office, viz. by a Lord-Bishop without the consent of the Congregation, in which they are as Officers.

Answ. In the Answer to the second Chapter of this writing, Sest. 3. hath been shewed, that the praeelection or consent of the Con∣gregation in which a Minister is to act as an Officer, is not so necessary to his Office, or to the communion with him in it, but that he may be owned, and act lawfully as their Minister in some cases without it. The admission of the present Ministers of England hath not alwayes been by Lord Bishops; some have been made by Suffragan Bishops, not Lords, and instituted, I think, by Dean and Chapter, and if ordained or instituted by a Lord Bishop, yet not as Lord, but as Bishop, which is not alwayes without the

election of the Congregation, who are in some Parishes Patrons; and in others there is supposed in Law, an implicit consent in their Ancestors, yielding that power to the Patron to present, and an after consent by receiving him that is instituted as their Mi∣nister. In some Peculiars and Donatives, there's no institution from a Lord Bishop required, nor alwayes any other than a Licence to preach from the Bishop. But whether these usages be right or wrong, notwithstanding them, yet may the Offices of the present Ministers of England be from Christ, though this Author further argue to the contrary, thus.

Sect. 3. The term Priest proves not symbolizing with the Popish Order of Priests.

The very truth is, both in their Names, Office, and Admission thereunto, the present Ministers of England symbolize not with the Ministers of Christ, but the Popish Order of Priests: (so that if these do Act by vertue of an Antichristian Office-power, then do they) as he that runs may read in the ensuing paralled par∣ticulars.

1. They are both called, and own themselves Priests; which though some may make light of light of, yet considering that it is a term borrowed, either from the Priests of the Law, the assertion of such a Priesthood, being a denial of Christ come in the flesh: or from the Priests of the Heathen (in conformity to whom, as the Druides of old, our Priests wear their white Garment or Surplice) or from the An∣tichristian Church (so called) of Rome: such Idolatrous Super∣stitious names, being commanded by the Lord to be abolished, Hos. 2.15. Z••ch. 13.2. wants not it's sufficient weight; the retention whereof, being also a sore suspicion of too great a compliance with, if not a willingness to return to that from whence they are derived. Of the same mind with us herein is Hierom upon the 2. of Hosea, the Hebrew Doctors, Kimchi and Aben-Ezra, the Chaldee Paraphrast, Ribera (though a Jesuite) Zanchi, Danaeus, Sanchius, Polanus, River, and almost all that write upon the said Scripture. The last mentioned, viz. Learned Rivet, hath these words in his Corollaries from Hos. 2.15, 16. There are many names which in themselves are good enough, and might be used, but God abhorreth the use of them, because they have been abused to Idolatry; he instanceth in∣deed in the word M••ss: but Priest or Altar being of the same a••••ay, upon the same foot of account, is to be rejected. The reformed Churches in Helvetia, in their Harmony of Confessions, are of the same mind,

The Ministry (say they) and the Priesthood are things far different the one from the other — he himself (viz. Christ) remaineth only Priest for ever; and we do not communicate the name Priest to any Minister, least we should detract something from Christ.

Answ. Every one, saith Mr. Selden de Syn. Ebrae. l. 1. c. 14. p. 583. yields, that our English word Priest, and the Dutch Priester, and the French Prebstre, and Prestre, and the Italian Prete, to be formed from Presbyter. Selden de Syn Ebrae. l. 1. c. 14 p. 586▪ Certà in Ritualibus Anglicanis nostris Priests & Ministers pro Presbyteris clim semper usurpata. And, besides what I said before out of the English 39 Articles, and letters of Orders, it doth appear from the very words of the Master of the Sentences, Peter Lombard; cited by this Author in this Chapter, pag. 26. out of the Fourth Book of the Sentences, distinct. 24. divis. 9. that the same whom the Papists call Priests, they call Presbyters; and say, that they have the precept of the Apostle for them, and that the Order of Priesthood, or Presby∣tery, the primitive Church had; and therefore in this the Papists themselves use the word Priest in English, but as the same with Presbyter or Elder, from the Scripture or primitive Church; not from either Jews or Heathens, and therefore symbolizing in this name with the Papists, if men had not mistaken it, and clamourously and ignorantly inveighed against it; had given no cause of suspition of compliance, or willingness to return to the Ido∣latry of the Mass, as it is used in the Church of England, who have declared against Transubstantiation, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, in the Articles 28.31. in the Liturgy, as it hath been lately revised, and to which assent is required by all Ministers; besides other wayes, as amply as any other Protestant Church, and therefore it is very evil, that this Author doth insinuate into the minds of men such a suspicion of the willingness of the pre∣sent Ministers to return to Popery, because of retaining the name Priest, which neither came from the Antichristian Church (so called) of Rome, nor is an Idolatrous Superstitious name commanded by the Lord to be abolished, Hos. 2.15. Zech. 13.2. This of Zech. 13.2. is not a command, but a promise, that God would cut of the names of the Idols out of the Land, and that they shall be no more remembred, which if it imply a command; yet it is but of the abo∣lition of the names of Idols, not of the name of Priests, whom I never found to be reckoned amongst Idols; or that the name Priest is the name of an Idol. The other text, Hos. 2.16, 17. is thus▪ And it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, that thou shalt call me Ashi, and shall call me no more Baali. For I will

take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall be no more remembred by their name; which is a Prediction of what should be, rather than a Prohibition; and the reason of that Prediction seems to be this, God would not be called Baali, that is, my Lord, because that word noted a Husband as commanding, or dealing hardly or rigorously with his Wife; but Ishi, accor∣ding to the first notation of Ishah, Gen. 2.23. one from whom the Wife comes as bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh; and there∣fore is bespoken as a kind and gentle Husband, which the words, v. 14, 19, 20. lead to. But if the reason of the not calling God Baali, be as Grotius in his Annot: Although Baal in common use signifie an Husband, she shall not dare to use that name, out of hor∣rour of that name, which hath been imposed on an Idol: it may seem, that the reason of not using, should be not the unlawful∣fulness of bespeaking God by that name, according to the proper and original meaning; but lest either she should in thought remember the Idol, or be thought by others to continue that Ido∣latrous name: For the words are not, thou shalt not use the words at all thy Husband among men; but, thou shalt not call me Baali, that is, in thy Prayers and Confessions of me as thy God. But if it be understood as a Prohibition, according to the Law Exod 23.13. which I will not deny the 17. v. [For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall be no more remembred by their name.] to import, it can∣not be conceived, that it forbids any more than the use of those names with honour, or so as to trust in them, as their worshipers did, when they applyed them to their Idols, as Psal. 16.4. is meant, when the Psalmist saith, He would not take up the names of their gods within his lips; that is, as Hos. 14.3. Neither will we say any more to the work of our hands, ye are our gods. Which sense the words before lead to, that they should not any more prepare their silver or gold for Baal, as v. 8. and, as in the dayes of Baalim, wherein she burnt Incense to them, and she decked her self with her ear-rings, and her jewels, and she went after her lovers, and forgot me saith the Lord, v. 13. By which name of Baalim, was meant the Sun and other Planets, as may be proved out of holy Scripture, and is shewed by Mr. Selden in his Syntagma de Diis Syris. So that the forbidding the name of Baal, or Baalim, doth not appear to be any more than the using of these names, as applyed to Idols, with approbation of the Idolatrous Worship done to them, or giving occasion in applying the name to God, to conceive, as if he were like the Idols, or allowed their

Worship, even as the Apostle, Eph. 5.3. forbids any naming of for∣nication, uncleanness, or covetousness, with any shew of liking. For that the Prophet meant not to prohibit the name of Baal to be given at all to God, much less by a Woman to her Husband, or Lord, as the word did originally signifie, may be gathered from that, Isa. 54.5. (who prophesied about the same time with Hosea) where what we render [thy Maker is thy Husband, the Lord of Hosts is his name] is in the Hebrew, thy Baal, or Baalim in the plural number: and Nahum after him, Nahum 1.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Baal of wrath, that is, who is a Lord of wrath; by our Translatours rendred furious, and by God himself after him, as we now read, Jer. 31.32. I was a Husband unto them, is in Hebrew, I was a Baal to them, saith the Lord. Yea▪ were the prohibition such, as that we might not give the names given to Idols to God, we might not give God the title of Melec or King, because the Idol of the Ammonites was called Molech, Milchom, or Malcham, that is their King, Zeph. 1.5. nor call God Jehovah, because the Gentiles termed their God Jove, or Jah, because they termed their God Jacchus, or Helion the High one, because they termed the Sun Helios, or Adonai, because of Adonis, all which to have been used in imitation of, and derivation from these names of God is shewed in that imperfect relique of Mr. Hugh Stanford in the first Book of Mr. Parker, De descensu ad inferos, in Fullers Miscel. l. 2. c. 6. Dr. Hammond Annot. on Psal. 68.4. in Mr. Selden De Diis Syris syntag 2. c. 1. in Heinsius his Aristarchus sacer on Nonnus, c. 1. If Names abused to Idolatry or Superstition, might not be used without such abuse, the godly might not say, as Isa. 63.16. Doubtless thou art our Father, or we cry Abba Father, or Our Father, or Christ Father; because Idolaters said to a stock, thou art my Fa∣ther, Jer. 2.27. or say to the Lord, thou art our God, because Idolaters said, our Gods, Hos. 14.3. nor Christ be termed a Priest, Lord, Master, because of the abuse of them to Saints deceased, Popes, Rabbins, or others. Surely the name Priest being the name of no Idol, it cannot be proved from Zech. 13.2. Hos. 2.16, 17. that it is commanded by the Lord to be abolished. Nor do I think any of his Authors say it. Hieroms words are; Though it might well be spoken in respect of the signification of the word, which sig∣nifies in common application, an Husband as well as Ish; yet I so hate the name of Idols, that I will not have it said Baali, but Ishi; in ••espect of the ambiguity and likeness of speech, lest while a man speaks one thing he mind another, and mentioning an Husband he mean an Idol. What the Hebrew Doctors, and others named by

this Author, say upon this place of Hosea, I cannot examine for want of the Books. That which he produceth out of Rivet, I as∣sent to. That which this Author saith, that Priest or Altar are of the same allay with the word Mass, and is upon the same foot of account to be rejected, is not true; sith Mass doth usually signifie not only the Service, but also the consecrated Host, as the chief thing in it, which is an Idol, and so is not the name Priest. In the Helvetian larger Confession, ch. 18. 'tis true they make a difference between the Ministry now, and the Priesthood in the Old Testament; and it is true, that they assert Christs Priesthood as for ever and incommu∣nicable; and therefore give not the name of Sacerdos, usually translated Priest, to their Ministers; not because they take the word Priest, as it answers to Presbyter to be evil, in the sense used in the Church of England, as a Degree or Order above Deacons; but as it is used in the Church of Rome, as their words shew, which are these. For our Lord himself ordained not any Priests in the Church of the New Testament, which having received a power from a Suffragan, might offer daily the Host, I say the very flesh and very blood of the Lord for the quick and dead, but such as should teach and administer Sacraments. This Author proceeds in his paralellism thus:

Sect. 4. The parallel particulars prove not the English Ministers sym∣bolizing in office with Popish Priests.

2. The Priests of Rome must be first Deacons ere they are Priests; so must the present Ministers of England.

3. The Priests of Rome must be Ordained to their Office by a Lord Bishop or his Suffragan: so must the Ministers of England.

4. The Priests of Rome must at their Ordination, be presented by an Archdeacon, or his Deputy, with these Words, Reverend Father, &c. Reverend Father, I present these men unto thee, to be admitted unto the Order of Priesthood: so are the present Mi∣nisters of England.

5. The Priests of Rome must be Ordained to their Office ac∣cording to their Pontifical, devised by themselves: the Priests of England, according to their Book of Ordering Priests and Deacons (which is taken out of the Popes Pontifical) as is evi∣dent to any that shall compare the one with the other, and as hath been long since confessed by themselves in an Admonition to the Parliament in Q Elizabeths dayes, in their second Trea∣tise.

6. The Popish Priests must kneel down upon their knees at the feet of the Lord Bishop that Ordains them, and he must say to them, blasphemously enough, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins ye remit or forgive, they are remitted; whose sins ye retain, they are retained: which exactly accords with the fashion of Ordaining the Priests of England.

7. The Popish Priests are not Ordained in and before the Congregation to whom they are to be Priests, but in some Me∣tropolitan, Cathedral City, several miles from the place: so are the Priests of England.

8. The Popish Priests take the care of souls, though not elect∣ed by them, from the presentation of a Patron, by the Institu∣tion and Induction of a Lord Bishop: and do not the present Ministers of England the same?

9. The Popish Priests wait not the Churches Call to the Mi∣nistry, but make suit to some Prelate to be Ordained Priests, giving money for their Letters of Ordination: so do the pre∣sent Ministers of England.

10. The Popish Priests are Ordained to their Office, though they have no flock to attend upon: so are the Priests of Eng∣land.

11. The Popish Priests must swear Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary: so do the present Ministers of England.

12. The Popish Priests may at their pleasure, without the consent of the People, resign and give over their Benefices, and betake themselves to some other of greater value: A symmetrie with them herein is visible by the frequent practice of the Mini∣sters of England.

13. The Popish Priests, though Ordained to preach, must have special license from the Prelates so ••o do: so must the Priests of England.

14. The Popish Priests are subject to be silenced, suspended, deprived, and degraded by the Prelates: as are the present Mi∣nisters of England.

15. The Popish Priests are not of like and equal power, de∣gree and Authority amongst themselves, but are some of them inferiour to others herein; as Parsons to Arch-deacons, Arch-deacons to Lord Bishops, Lord Bishops to Arch-bishops: so the Priests of England.

16. The Popish Priests must be distinguished from other people by their Vestments, as Surplice, Tippet, &c. so must the Priests of England.

17. The Popish Priests are tied to a Book of stinted Prayers, and a prescript Order devised by man, for their Worship and Administration: so are the Ministers of England, and that to such an one as is taken out of the Popes Portuis, as hath been proved by divers. That the Common-prayer Book in Edward the sixth his time was so, you have his, with his Councils Testi∣mony for it: thus they write, As for the Service in the English Tongue, it hath manifest Reasons for it; and yet perchance it seemeth to you a New Service; and indeed is no other but the Old, the same words in English which were in Latine. If the Service of the Church were good in Latine, it is good in English. How little different the Common-prayer Book now in use, is thereunto they that will take pains to compare the one with the other, may be satisfied. To these parallel particulars might be added sundry more, wherein there is an exact symmetrie betwixt the Popish Priests and the present Ministers of England, but ex ungue Leonem. The sum of what we have been offering in this matter, is this. First those Ministers that in their Names, Offi∣ces, Admission into their Offices, are not to be found in the Scripture, are not Ministers of Christ, act not by vertue of an Authority, Office, Power, Calling, received from him. Second∣ly, Those Ministers that in their Names, Office, Admission in∣to their Office, are at a perfect agreement with the Ministers of Antichrist (such are the Popish Priests acknowledged to be by those with whom we have to do) are not the Ministers of Christ, have not received any Power, Office, or Calling, from him to act in the holy things of God: But such (as hath been abundantly demonstrated) are the present Ministers of England: therefore these have received no Power, Office, or Calling from Christ, and so are Antichristian. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Answ. Of these particulars the three first are granted, and a∣vouched as not Popish, but justifiable and agreeable to Orthodox antiquity.

To the fifth, I return the same answer that Arch-Bishop Whit∣gift gave. Surely if those things which were good in the Popes Pon∣tifical, and either contained in the Scripture, or well used before in the ancient Church, or well prescribed by General Councils, be also in our Pontifical, our Pontifical is never the worse for having of them: for if the thing it self be good and profitable, it forceth not from whom it was taken, or of whom it was used, so that now it be rightly used. But it is most false and untrue, that the Book of Ordering Ministers and Deacons, &c now used, is word for word drawn out of the Popes Pon∣tifical,

being almost in no point correspondent to the same, as you might have seen, if you had compared them together. But ignorance and rashness drives you into many errours.

To the sixth, though the English Prelates avouch not the Opi∣nions of the Popish Writers, of giving grace, ex opere operato, by the Sacrament of Orders, as they call it, of the indelible character im∣printed by the laying on of hands of the Prelates, with such other of their errours, as wherein they over-magnifie the power they have in their imposition of hands, yet they plead that they do use the words Joh. 20.22, 23. in the Ordination of Priests, without blas∣phemy or absurdity. Archbishop Whitgift in his Answer to the Ad∣monition, p. 49. of the Edition 1572. in 40.

To use these words (Receive the Holy Ghost) in Ordering of Ministers, which Christ himself used in appointing his Apostles, is no more ridi∣culous and blasphemous, than it is to use the words that he used in the Supper: But it is blasphemy thus outragiously to speak of the words of Christ. The Bishop by speaking these words, doth not take upon him to give the Holy Ghost, no more than he doth to remit sins, when he pronounceth the remission of sins: but by speaking these words of Christ, Receive the Holy Ghost, Whose sins soever ye remit, they are remitted, &c. he doth shew the principal duty of a Minister, and assureth him of the assi∣stance of Gods Holy Spirit, if he labour in the same according∣ly. Mr. Richard Hooker Eccl. Polit. l. 5. sect. 77. The Holy Ghost may be used, to signifie not the person alone, but the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and the very power and authority which is given men in the Church, to be Ministers of Holy things, is contained within the number of those gifts whereof the Holy Ghost is Author, and therefore he which giveth this power, may say without absurdity, or folly, Receive the Holy Ghost, such power as the Spirit of Christ hath endued his Church withal.

See Edward Stilling fleets Irenicum, part. 2. c. 6. p. 231. Bradshaw against Fr. Johnson, p. 65. of Gatakers Rejoynder to Can. Though in their Ordination of Ministers the Bishops use, as a Ceremo∣nial speech, to say, Receive the Holy Ghost; and therein perad∣venture offer some force to the Scripture, unto which they al∣lude; yet they disclaim all actual power and authority of giving the person or gifts of the Holy Ghost unto men.

Besides, I add, sith the laying on of hands is together with the designation of the person, a sign of prayer, as Mat. 19.13. Mark 10.16. and in Confirmation, and the Apostles use Acts 8.15. and

in Ordination, Acts 13.3. those words may be used prayer-wise, and freed from exception. Whereto perhaps that makes, which Dr. Field l. 5. of the Church, ch. 56, hath; The Council of Carthage 4. Canon. 3. provideth, that in the Ordination of a Presbyter, the Bi∣shop holding his hand on his head, and blessing him, all the Presbyters that are present, shall hold their hands by the hand of the Bishop, and the person Ordained kneeling, joyns in prayer for the Blessing. So Dr. Sparks conceived it might be understood, ch. 15. of Unity and Uniformity. Ecclesiast. disc. of the French Reformed Chur∣ches, art. 8. ch. 1. The Ordained shall kneel when they impose their hands on him.

To the seventh, Ordination is not alwayes at a Cathedral, and may be before the Congregation to whom the person is to be Priest.

To the eighth, That it is not alwayes so; nor when so, Popish. See before in Answer to the Preface, sect. 22. and to chap. 2. sect 3.

To the nineth, To offer a persons self for Ordination, may be no evil, but in some cases a duty, 1 Tim. 3.1. Isa. 6.8. Giving money for Letters of Ordination is no simony, but only wages to the Register for his writing; as when the Register was paid for writing and sealing the Instrument signifying the person to be an approved Preacher. Against any Bishops taking money for Ordi∣tion, and the Registers exacting overmuch, provision is made Canon 135▪ Eccl, 1. Jac. and even in the Council of Trent, Sess. 21. Decr. de reformatione c. 1.

To the tenth, The Priests of England are not to be Ordained without some title, according to Cannon 33. even the Trent Council, ubi supra c. 2. hath made some provision about it. It is necessary that some b•• Ordained, though they have not a fixed flock to at∣tend upon Ministers are necessary for Armies, Navies, and sun∣dry occasions, which continue but for a while. Even the Synod of Dort made some Orders about such; and the New-England Elders that imploy Ministers to teach the Native salvage people, do ju∣stifie the Ordaining to Office without a flock to attend upon, unless they would have them imployed without Ordination, which were incongruous to the Holy Ghosts direction, Act 13.2. If Itinerant Preachers should have Approbation, they should have Ordi∣nation.

To the eleventh subscription is required by the 36. Canon. to three Articles about the Kings Supremacy, the Books of Common-prayer,

and Ordination, and the 39. Articles of Religion; at Or∣dination the Priest promiseth obedience to his Ordinary, to follow with a glad mind and will, his godly admonitions, and submit himself to his godly judgment, by the late Act unfained Assent and Consent is further required, but none of these by Oath; the Oath of Ca∣nonical Obedience is only required at Institutions into Benefices, and is bounded with such terms as make it not intolerable; sure it is nothing like that which is required of Papists, according to the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth, supra forma juramenti professio∣nis fidei.

To the twelfth, The practice of leaving Benefices, is not strange to any Churches: even from New England some have come into Old England, leaving their places there; nor are there wanting like instances of Congregational men at home, perhaps for grea∣ter benefit, without consent of the people. The practices are not on any side justifiable in all: yet we read in Scripture of re∣movals of Ministers from one place to another upon urgent oc∣casions.

To the thirteenth, The person Ordained hath authority commit∣ted to him by the Bishop to preach the Word of God in the Congregation where he should be lawfully appointed; that is, by License, which is thought needful to be added besides Ordination, because all per∣sons are not alike fitted for all Congregations; the Voice, and other abilities not serving for one Congregation, which will for another.

To the fourteenth, Silencing, Suspending, and Degrading, may be necessary in some cases, Tit. 1.11. and 3.10. if the Laws intrust the Prelates with it: so it hath been in other Churches besides the Popish. The abuse of it is justifiable in none.

To the fifteenth, Inequality is judged to have been in the El∣ders of the Primitive Churches, by the inscription of the seven Epistles of Christ to the seven Angels of the seven Churches of Asia; and hath been in some sort in all Churches, which have been well ordered; and too much experience shews, that by reason of the inequality of parts and minds, it is necessary to settled or∣der. What is undue in the Popish or Protestant Churches, should be charged on the Authors, not on the Ministry it self.

To the sixteenth, The Vestments of English Priests are not all the same with Popish; those that are, it's denied to have the same use, and therefore not to be charged with the same super∣stition.

To the seventeenth, Even the late Assembly of Westminster pre∣scribed a Directory for Worship and Ministration. The Common-prayer Book, that now is urged, should not be judged the worse in those prayers or portions of Scripture, which are holy and good, because they were in the Popes Porluis; no more than the ac∣knowledgment of Jesus to be the Son of the most High God, is the worse because the Devil used it, Mark 5.7. And therefore King Edward the 6. his plea for it was good; and the thing not to be misliked, because used in the Roman Church; who though they have many great corruptions in their Doctrine and Worship, yet have they retained the Bible, Apostles Creed, many prayers from ancient Fathers, and some Popes who were holy men and Martyrs in the first Ages, which are not to be rejected, because continued by later vicious and Antichristian Popes. That which is insinua∣ted, as if the Common-prayer Book now in use, were little diffe∣rent from the Popes Portuis or Missal, is very untruly and un∣justly suggested. He that shall impartially, and without preju∣dice compare the one with the other, shall find a vast difference in the things liable to exception. I have made some view of the Ro∣man Missal of Pius the 5. and Clement the 8. and Breviary of Pius the 5. and Urban the 8. and though I deny not sundry Collects Prayers, Hymns, Lessons, Psalms, Epistles and Gospels are the same in the Common-prayer Book in English, with those in Latine, as being either parts of Holy Scripture, or agreeable to it; yet there are so many differences in fundamentals of Doctrine, sub∣stantials of Worship; and in Rituals, as the invocation of Saints, and the opinions of Merit, sacrifice for Quick and Dead, adora∣tion of the Host, vertue of the Cross, half Communion, and ma∣ny more things material, that I cannot but judge that either much ignorance, or much malice it is that makes any traduce the English Common-Prayer Book, as if it were the Popish Mass Book, or as bad as it; and to deterr men from joyning with those Pray∣ers and Services therein, which are good; as if it were joyning with Antichrist the Pope, or receiving the mark of the Beast, when they can hardly be ignorant that the Martyrs in Queen Maries dayes were burnt for it, is impudent falshood. By the parallel par∣ticulars, and such other as might be alledged, cannot be inferred an exact symmetrie betwixt the Popish Priests and the present Mini∣sters of England. In many particulars might there be shewn a pa∣rallelism between Ministers of the Congregational Churches, and Presbyterial, and the Popish; yet an exact symmetrie would not thence be demonstrated. Few of these particulars alledged, are

unjustifiable, those that are, if not excusable, yet are far from that which is the main thing charged on the Papists, and disputed against learnedly, by Mr. Francis Mason against Champney, that they Ordain Priests to offer the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass for Quick and Dead; which is abhorred by the English Prelates and Ministers, and they are not to be charged to symbolize in Office with the Popish Order of Priests, for which this Author hath pro∣duced nothing, though it were the chief thing to be proved: and therefore the minor of his Syllogism is denied, and it is manifestly false which he saith, he hath abundantly demonstrated it, he having said nothing to prove it in the main.

Sect. 5. The Office of Bishops is not proved to be Antichristian, but may be found in Scripture.

It follows, Secondly, Those that receive their Power, Office, and Calling from a Lord Bishop, and act in the Holy things of God, by vir∣tue of that Power, Office, or Calling, act in the Holy things of God by virtue of an An••ichristian Power, Office, and Calling: But the present Ministers of England receive their Power, Office, and Cal∣ling from a Lord Bishop, and act in the Holy things of God by virtue of that Power, Office, and Calling: Therefore. The consequence of the major (or first proposition) is manifest, the Office of a Lord Bi∣shop is Antichristian, therefore those that act by virtue of a Power, Office, or Calling received from them, act by virtue of an Antichri∣stian Power, Office, or Calling. That the Office of Lord Bishops is Antichristian, one would wonder should be denied in such a day as this, after so full a demonstration thereof by many witnesses of Christ, who have wrote so clearly in this matter, as if they carried the Sun-beams in their right hand, especially that it should be denied by persons of Presbyterian and Congregational principles (if indeed any of them do deny it.) To prosecute this matter to the uttermost, is not our present intendment, the intelligent Reader knows where to find it done already to our hand: and if after all that hath been said, any through self love, or fear of persecution, will herein be ignorant, we might say, Let them be ignorant.

Answ. The Office, Power, and Calling received from a Lord Bishop, is all one with the Office, Power, and Calling received from a Bishop Suffragan, who is not a Lord; and therefore the adding of the title Lord to Bishop, being only a civil title, they being made Barons of the Land by the King, and nothing per∣taining to their Ordination, but only giving them power to vote

in Parliament or Convocation with other dignities, is only brought in here ad faciendum populum, to create envy or hatred against them in the Common people or others, who are prepos∣sessed with prejudice against them. What their Office is, as Bishops, may be best discerned by the Book of Consecration, which I gather from their promises and the prayers then used, to be the instruction of the people committed to their charge out of the Holy Scripture, and to teach or maintain nothing as required of necessity to eternal salva∣tion, but that which they shall be perswaded may be concluded and proved by the same faithfully to exercise themselves in the same Holy Scriptures, and call upon God by prayer, for the true understanding of the same; so as they may be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome Doctrine, and to withstand and convince the Gainsayers, to be ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all erro∣neous and strange Doctrine, contrary to Gods Word, and both private∣ly and openly to call upon, and encourage others to the same, to main∣tain and set forward as much as shall lie in them, quietness, love, and peace among men; and such as be unquiet, disobedient, and crimi∣nous within their Diocess, correct and punish according to such au∣thority as they have by Gods Word, and as to them shall be committed by the Ordinance of the Realm, to be faithful in Ordaining, Sending, or Laying hands upon others, to shew themselves gentle and merciful for Christs sake to poor and needy People, and to all Strangers desti∣tute of help. These are their Offices which they are required to perform at their Consecration, whatever their practise be, it pertains not to the present point; this is the Office they under∣take, and it is as much wonder to me that any sober man should assert this to be Antichristian, as it is to him that some should deny it. I deny not but there are many that have termed Bishops Antichristian, nor have there been wanting who have said as much of persons of Presbyterian and Congregational principles, but such use of this term I have alwayes condemned, even when Bishops were lowest, as tending to nothing but to inflame the minds of Dissenters in opinion with hatred one against another: but I have not met with any sober Writer, or considerate man, who in conference hath judged their Office as it is undertaken by them to be Antichristian. I deny not that many learned men at home and abroad have disputed, whether Bishops are by Divine Right an Order above Presbyters, nor have there been wanting even of the Bishops themselves who have denied it: Somewhat I have read on both sides, but shall leave that controversie now, and only examine what this Author saith to prove, the Office of Lord Bishops to be Antichristian.

We shall, saith he, propose briefly a word or two in this matter.

1. That Office that is not to be found in the Scriptures of the institution of Christ, but is contrary to express precepts and com∣mands of his, is Antichristian: But the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in the Scriptures, is contrary to express precepts. Therefore.

Answ. I think the Major is not true, if universal. The Office of some Religious Votaries is not to be found in the Scriptures of the institution of Christ, but is contrary to express Precepts and Commands of his, and yet may not be Antichristian, in that special sense in which the Scripture useth the word Antichrist, nor as I suppose this Author useth it, unless he make every sin to be Antichristian. But because the Minor is that which he insists on, I pass to his proof of it.

The minor Proposition consists of two parts.

1. That the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in Scripture of the institution of Christ: He gave indeed Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, and Teachers, Ephes. 4.11. of Pastors and Teachers we read Rom. 12.7, 8. Ephes. 4.8. Bishops also, and Deacons without the interposition of any other Order, we find 1 Tim. 3.12. Deacons we have appointed, Acts 7. Elders, Acts 14.23. those who are Bishops we find called Presbyters, Tit. 1.5, 7. and those who are Presbyters, we find termed Bishops, Acts 20.28. (Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Bishops,) but where the Office of Lord-Bishops was instituted by Christ, we are yet to seek: indeed some appearances of a spirit striving to ascend into this chair of wickedness, was seen in Diotrephes, and others, in the Apostles time, but these were the Antichrists that were then gone abroad into the world. The Scripture be∣fore mentioned, Ephes. 4.11. speaks as fully to the Officers and Offices instituted by Christ, as any we meet with: Fail they in their deduction of their Office from hence, and they will un∣doubtedly prove successless in their attempts. Let us then fix here a little; mention we find here of Apostles, Prophets, Pa∣stors and Teachers, none at all either here, or elsewhere of Lord-Bishops. But perhaps their Office, though they are called by another name, is comprehended in some one or other of these, let that then be considered. Are they Prophets? that (in the sense of the Spirit in this place) they will not pretend to. Are they Pastors or Teachers? This is too great a debasement of their Lordships, their Parochial Priests over whom they preside, are supposed to be Offi••ers in that degree. What then are they? Apostles! Their successors, they do indeed boast themselves to be,

and are so accounted by their abettors (and so doth the Pope himself) but how prove they their Succession from them? if they derive it through the Papacy, who sees not the invalidity there∣of? How lubricous and uncertain is that their Succession? How do they therein proclaim their shame, and yield the mat∣ter in Controversie? What clearer argument that they are Antichristian, if the Pope be the Antichristian Head over many Countries, as is by the generality of Protestants believed, and will not by themselves be gainsayed? But in what sense do they pretend to be the Apostles Successors? Do they succeed them as Christians? that is not the thing in question, they stand or fall, in respect thereof to their own Master; herein we have no controversie with them, as not willing to judge any thing be∣fore the time. Do they succeed them in respect to their Off••ice? let them prove that, and take the cause. The Apostles were first immediately sent by Christ; secondly, extraordinary Offi∣cers, Commissionated to the Preaching of the Gospel through∣out the Nations of the World: Are their Lordships such? what can be imagined more frivolous or false? Where find we any Apostles after the departure of those that were immediately by Christ called to that Office? Did the Apostles ordain any as their Successors therein in any of the Churches of Christ? Where read we of their so doing? yea, are any qualified with Gifts as they, for the discharge of such an Office? or doth Christ indeed send forth servants in any imployment, and not furnish them with Gifts sutable thereunto? Credat Apelles? Apella would have been printed. What more dishonorable to the Lord Jesus can be asserted? It remains then, that they be∣ing neither Prophets, nor Apostles, nor Pastors, nor Teachers, that they are not to be found in the Scripture of the institution of Christ. Nor are they dreamed of in the world of several hundreds of years after Christ. Clemens in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth, takes notice of no other besides 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Bishops and Deacons; which Bishops he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Presbyters or Elders; yea, Lombard himself con∣fesses, Hos solium Ministrorum duos ordines, Ecclesiam primitivam habuisse, & de his solis, praeceptum Apostoli nos habere, Lomb. l. 4. Sen. D. 24. h. 3. Ext. The primitive Church, he tells you, had no other Order of Ministers, than Bishops (or Presbyters) and Deacons: Nor did the Apostles give commandment con∣cerning any other. That their rise and occasion was from the aims and designs of men, to accommodate Ecclesiastical or

Church affairs to the state and condition of the Civil Govern∣ment, is ingenuously confest by one that was looked upon to be as great an admirer of, and as able a Champion for Diocesan, and Metropolitical Prelates, as any one of late dayes; tis Dr. Hammond we mind, who in his Dissertations about Episco∣pacy, Sect. 3. hath these words, His sic positis, illud statim se∣quitur ut (in Imperii cognitione) in provinciâ qualibet, cum plures urbes sint, una tamen primaria, & principalis censenda erat, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ideo dicta cui itidem inferiores reliquae civitates subjiciebantur, ut civitatibus Regiones, sic & inter Ecclesias, & Cathedras Episcopales, unam semper primariam & Metropoli∣ticam fuisse: So far is the Office of Lord-Bishops from being of the institution of Christ, that their Primacy and Supremacy was the result of the designs and contrivements of men to ac∣commodate the state and frame of the Church, to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations.

Answ. The thing to be proved was, that the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in the Scriptures; but the whole Discourse is about another thing, not the Office, but superiority of Order above Presbyters, Primacy, or Supremacy of degrees among Bishops, the dignity of their Sees, or Episcopal Chairs, which is quite another thing than what he undertook to prove; so that we may hereto apply the Poets words;

— Amphora coepit Institui currente rotâ cur urceus exit?

Which were enough to answer this whole passage; yet there are some things to be animadverted therein:

1. It is true we read of Diotrephes, 3 Joh. 9, 10. and of no other in Scripture, that he l••ved the preeminence either over or among the Church, or the brethren and strangers who were to be received, that they might be fellow-helpers to the truth, v. 5, 8. and that St. John if he came, would remember his deeds, prating against them with malicious words: and not content therew••th, nei∣ther doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the Church. But this was not the usur∣ping the Superiority of Order of a Bishop above a Presbyter, but a proud pragmatique, arrogant practice over the Church, Brethren, Strangers, even St. John himself, together with very injurious vi∣olent proceedings in words and deeds, which are nothing to the bare challenge by dispute, or assuming by collation either of the

Civil or Ecclesiastical Power, a Superiority of Order above Presbyters; nor is Diotrephes mentioned as one of those Anti∣christs that were then gone abroad into the world, or any mention of Antichrist in that Epistle.

2. I know not the reason, but I take notice that in this pas∣sage reciting Ephes. 4.11. twice, he leaves out Evangelists, and concludes thus, It remains then, that the Bishops being neither Pro∣phets, nor Apostles, nor Pastors, nor Teachers, that they are not to be found in the Scripture of the Institution of Christ. Which conclusion might be overthrown, if it were pleaded, that they were Evangelists, and so successors to Timothy, termed an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4.5. and to Titus, whose work is alledged for a pattern of Bishops, 1 Tim. 1.3. & 5.19, 22. Titus 1.5. But sith that title is declined by pleaders for Episcopal Superiority, I let it pass.

3. But the term of Pastors and Teachers, is challenged by Bi∣shops: and what saith he against it? This is too great a debasement of their Lordships: which is a Satyrical Sarcasm, no proof. Did any of them say so, or count it to be so? If any did so, he shewed himself unworthy of the name, yea forgetful both of what he promised and prayed for, alluding to this very Text, as his Con∣secration, and which was expresly charged on him by the Arch-Bishop when he delivered him the Bible. Nor doth it any whit derogate from the congruity of the titles of Pastors and Teachers as it is given to Bishops, that their Parochial Priests over whom they reside, are supposed to be Officers in that degree, than it doth from the giving of the Title of Teacher to a Presbyter, be∣cause Assistents or Coadjutors are given them in case age or infirmity hinder them from the frequent doing of that office. I omit mention of the living, to avoid imputation of flattery, but I suppose the Author of this Writing is not ignorant, that Jewel, Usher, and many more, have, when they were Bishops, been truly termed Pastors and Teachers, and hope well of others.

4. But under the term of Apostles they may not be reckoned. True; they had extraordinary Commission and Power, yet they may be Successors to them. (Dr. Owen of Schism, c. 6. sect. 55. Professedly disclaims all thoughts of rejecting those Ministers as Papal and Antichristian, who yet adhere to this Ordination in a succession from Popish Bishops, being many of them eminent∣ly gifted of God, to dispense the Word, and submitted unto by his people, in the administration of the Ordinances, and are right

worthy Ministers of the Gospel.) This Author denies not they succeed to them as Christians. If so, they may be heard as Gifted Brethren, which was denied by him to the Ministers chap. 2. But why not in Office? was the Apostles Office any other than what Christ injoyned them Mat. 28.19, 20. Mark 16.15? and therein they must have Successors, though not in the extent of their Commission, and in their Power; else, how should Christ be with them all dayes unto the end of the World? But, they cannot derive their Succession, but through the Papacy, and then they are Antichristian. I answer, They may derive their Succession by proving their consonancy with them in doing the same work af∣ter them, and Preaching the same Gospel. If any, to stop the mouths of the clamourous Papists, have derived their Succession from the Bishops under the Papacy, by proving (as Mr. Francis Mason did) the Consecration of the Bishops after the Reformation by three Bishops allowed by the Romanists themselves after the an∣cient Canon, though perhaps more than needs; yea, though they were Consecrated and Ordained by the Pope himself and some Cardinal Bishops; yet, if they were Consecrated, or Ordained to no other work, nor in any other manner than Priests and Bi∣ships are Ordained and Consecrated, according to the order of the Church of England, they would not be Antichristian. For though it be not gainsayed, but that the Pope is the Antichristian head over many Countries; yet it is gainsayed, that all that is derived from him, or done by him, is Antichristian. I do not think it is Antichristian to confess the Apostles Creed, though a person say he believes it, because it is received from the Pope and Trent Council.

5▪ That Bishops as a Superiour Order or Degree above Presbyters were not dream'd of in the World, for several hundreds of years af∣ter Christ; I think can hardly be made good: though I will not meddle with that point, which hath been debated so much by men of greatest and most exact skill in Antiquity, with whom I conceive my self no way fit to be compared: yet this I say, that the not taking notice of Bishops distinct from Presbyters by Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians, published not long since by Patrick Yong, is ballanced by the passages in Ignatius his Epistles, if they be genuine, concerning which, the Reader may judge by what Arch-bishop Usher hath written in his Edition of those Epistles of Ignatius. As for Lombard▪ if the Pri∣mitive Church, according to him, extend not beyond the dayes of the Apostles, as his words import, they prove not, that the

Order of Bishops above Presbyters was not dreamt of several hun∣dreds of years after Christ. But of this I will not contend, it's enough for my purpose, if the Office be found in Scripture, though not their Superiority.

6. As for the words of Dr. Hammond, I find them Dissert. 4. de Episcopatu c▪ 5. sect. 4. though not fully cited by this Author, and I acknowledge, that he makes the state and frame of the Churches to have been accommodated to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations in the Empire; yet withall, he con∣ceives, that the reason of directing seven Epistles to the seven An∣gels of the seven Churches was, because they were Metropolitan or Mother-Churches; and conceives this division into Provinces, Dioceses, and depending Churches, to have been transcribed from the samplar of the Jews by Moses Law, Deut. 16.18. and 17.9. And therefore his words are not to be drawn to an acknowledge∣ment of Lord-Bishops Primacy and Supremacy to have been the re∣sult of the design and contrivements of men; much less, that the Superiority of Bishops above Presbyters, had its rise and occa∣sion from the aims and designs of men, to accommodate Eccle∣siastical Affairs to the state and condition of Civil Government. It is added.

Sect. 6. The office of Lord Bishops is not contrary to express precepts of Christ in the Scripture.

2. That the office of Lord Bishops is contrary to express Precepts of Christ in the Scripture; the truth of which, he that runs may read in the ensuing Scriptures, Mat. 20.25. Mark 10.42. Luke 22.25. 1 Pet. 5.3. the English of, vos autem non sic, but ye shall not do so; neque ut dominantes Cleris, not lording it over God's Clergy or Heritage; an ordinary Reader may easily conclude to be in∣consistent with their Lordly Dignities.

Answ. This Author still shoots wide from the mark: He un∣dertook to prove, that the Office of Lord-Bishops is contrary to express Precepts of Christ in the Scripture; but he concludes against their Lordly dignity; which is no more their Office, than the honour ascri∣bed to a Preacher, or Reader in the University by giving them the titles of Master, or Doctour in Divinity, is their Office. The term Bishops indeed implies their Office appointed by Christ, to have inspection over the flock; but the term Lord is only a t••tle given them by the King, when he makes them Barons of the Realm, which may be severed from the Office of Bishops, as it hath been

since the Reformation in England, when Suffragan Bishops have been made without the addition of Lordship. But however this Author conceives the having such titles as Lords to be contrary to the express precepts, Mat. 20.25. Mark 10.42. Luke 22.25. 1 Pet. 5.3. and he translates Vos autem non sic, But ye shall not do so. But this is more than either the words or translations do permit. It is in Mat. 20.26. Mark 10.43. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, It shall not be so among you, or to you; which explains best Luke 22.26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, But ye not so; that is, as our transla∣tion renders it, But ye shall not be so; and so notes not a Pre∣cept, but a Prediction, and shews Event, not Duty, which Mr. Gataker thinks in his Cinnus l. 1. c. 3. p. 36. after a discussion of several Interpretations, to be the genuine meaning of Christ. But granting it to be a Precept, is it a Precept to the Apostles only, or to others? The former hath countenance from the Text:

1. From the occasion, the request of the Mother of Zebedees children.

2. The indignation of the Ten, by reason of it.

3. Christs calling of them to him, and no other, in Matthew and Mark.

4. Their contention of St. Luke.

5. Christ's speaking to them who had been with him in his temptations.

6. His allotting to them a Kingdom, and to sit on twelve thrones.

But if it be to others, it is doubtful, whether to all Christians, or only to Ministers of the Gospel; and, whether it forbid simply Dominion at all, or such Dominion as the Rulers of the Gentiles exercised; to wit, Tyrannical; or the affectation and in∣ordinate seeking of it, not the having or the exercise of Domini∣on. In my Romanism discussed, Article 7. sect. 8. p. 172, 173. I have set down ten Reasons to prove, that the Rule meant in those Texts, is not only Tyrannical Dominion, but also the Dominion of one Apostle over another, and the affectation and inordinate seeking of that rule, which a person may have, and lawfully ex∣ercise; and this is forbidden not only to Ministers, but also to all Christians: but not a Christians having or exercising the Office of a King or Civil Magistrate; nor the Apostles Rule over the Church of God, or Ministers of a lower Order: For then Chri∣stians should be forbidden to exercise that Office which is Gods Ordinance; and the Apostles did ill in practising and appointing

Rule over Christians, yea of some Ministers over others in some cases. But the Rule which is forbidden, is, Rule over the Faith of the Saints, which St. Paul disclaims 2 Cor. 1.24. and the Popes usurp (whose decrees in points of Faith, and determinations of doubts of Conscience, and impositions of Laws binding the conscience are made unerring) such Rule over Princes in secular Affairs with pomp & outward grandure, like Gentile Princes, as the same Popes usurp, rule for themselves, not for Christ, rule by force, not by authority of Gods Word. If any Lord-Bishop affect, seek, take upon him, or exercise such Lordship or Dominion, it may be censured for Antichristian, yet not his Office, but his practice is to be thus censured; and this not to be imputed to his Order, but his Person. But to judge so of a person barely, because of the Title of Lord, which was given by Sarah to her Husband, and pro∣pounded as meet, 1 Pet. 3.6. or to deny any liberty to manage any civil business to an Ecclesiastical person, because of those words of Christ is more than I conceive they have sufficient ground to do. Sure such Congregational men as have been Heads of Colledges in the Universities, or Vicechancellors, or Leaders of Forces, have given occasion to be termed Antichristian, as well as Lord-Bishops, if Lordly Dignity, and Secular Rule merit that appel∣lation.

As for 1 Pet. 5.3. the Annotation in the Book of the Anno∣tations in English, termed the Assemblies, is thus, Lords] that is, not imperiously commanding your own inventions, instead of the Doctrine of the Gospel; nor carrying themselves insolently and ma∣gisterially towards Gods people, 3 John ver. 9. which imports not an Office forbidden, but the evil practice of them whose Office is allowed; For this very Exhortation is given to those who were Elders among the Christians, even St. Peter, who entitles himself a fellow Elder to them, and therefore contains not a Precept forbidding the Office of a Lord Bishop, any more than of an Elder, such as St. Peter was, but the abuse of the Office; nor doth it forbid Lordly Dignity, but Lordly Rule; where∣as Bishops Rule should be Pedo non Sceptro, not as Princes, but as Shepherds. If any Prelate use such Rule, it is not his Office, but his Practice, which is to be termed Anti∣christian.

Sect. 7. The Office of Lord-Bishops not from the Papacy.

But this Author proceeds, Not to multiply Arguments in a matter that others have so largely debated.

2. That Office that is derived from, and is only to be found in the Papacy, is surely Antichristian (if the Pope be the head of Anti∣christ, this must not be denied.) But the Office of Lord-Bishops is derived from, is only to be found in the Papacy. Which of the Refor∣med Churches that have separated from the Papacy have retained it? Did the woman in her flight into the Wilderness carry it along with her? What more absurd, then to run to the persecuting Whore and Beast for an Office of Ministry? and what more evident demonstrati∣on of its being an Antichristian Office, than its entertainment only by that false Antichristian Church, and its utter rejection and detestation by the true Spouse and witnesses of Christ in all ages? What is de∣livered over to us in this matter by some of them; we shall briefly affix hereunto. Hierome in his Epistle to Evagrius, and in his Com∣mentary on the Epistle of Titus, professes, That it is more by custom than by any institution of the Lord, that Bishops are become greater than the Elders or Ministers. Harm. of Conf. Sect. 2. Tit. 11. So from him do the Churches of Helvetia proclaim; whence they infer (and that truly according to Act. 4.9.) That no man by any right can forbid, but that we should return to the old appointment of God, and rather receive that, than the custom devised by men. Wickliff in his Answer to King Richard the Second, citing Mat. 20.25. 1 Pet. 5.3. sayes, Lordship and Dominion is plainly for∣bidden to the Apostles, and darest thou then usurp the same? If thou wilt be a Lord, thou shalt lose thy Apostleship, &c. The University of Geneva say, (Theses Genev. 71.) These functions following, we hold to be altogether false, and destitute of all true foundation, viz. the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all Churches; the Cardi∣nalship, Patriarchship, Archiepiscopalship, and briefly the whole degree of Lord Bishops over their fellow Elders. Marlorat in his Exposition on the Revel. chap. 17.3. sayes, That Archbishops, Deans, &c. are in Office under Antichrist; yea upon Chap. 9. that they are the tails of Antichrist. Beza saith, They could not be brought into the Church, until they had driven him out, who is the only Master, Christ: and, there is neither holy Scripture, nor Council, nor antient Doctors, which ever did know such Monsters, Beza's Confess. Art. 7.14. The noble antient Oldcastle, Lord Cobham saith, That the whole Episcopal degree of Lord Bishops over their

fellow Elders is altogether false and destitute of all true foundation— yea, that all other Functions and Offices besides Priests and Dea∣cons are unlawful, as being Sects devised by men destitute of all true foundation. To these we might add honest Bale upon the Reve∣lation, viz. chap. 17. where he saith, Canterbury and York are the Beastly Antichrist's Metropolitans, and Primates; and upon Chap. 13. that Archbishop, Diocesan, Archdeacon, Dean, Prebend, Doctors, Parson, Vicar, &c. are very names of blasphemy: For Offices they are not appointed by the holy Ghost, nor yet mentioned in the Scri∣pture. Cartwright sayes of them, that their Functions are not in the Word of God, but of the Earth, new devised Ministries, and such as can do no good: that their Office is the neck of the Popish Hierarchy, come out of the bottomless pit of Hell. Fenner proclaims them to be no natural members of the body of Christs Church, as being of humane addition, not born with her, nor grown up with her from the Cradle. The French and Belgick Confession sayes, That they pass not a rush for them. The Church of Geneva, That the Hierarchie is Devilish confusion, stablished (as it were) in despight of God, and to the mocking and reproach of all Christian Religion. The Seekers of Reformation in Q. Elizabeths time spake fully hereunto, [2 Adm. to Parl.] we have an Antichristian▪ and Popish ordering of Priests, strange from Gods Word, never heard of in the Primitive Church, taken out of the Popes Shop, to the de∣struction of Gods Kingdom — The Names and Offices of Arch∣bishops, Archdeacons, Lord Bishops, &c. are, together with their Government, drawn out of the Popes Shop, Antichristian, Devilish, and contrary to the Scriptures: Parsons, Vicars, Parish-Priests, are birds of the same feather: to whom might be added many others.

Answ. 1. Though the Pope in these later ages, especially since Boniface the third, obtained of Phocas the Emperor, more than 600 years after Christ, that Rome, the seat of blessed Peter the Apostle, which is the head of all Churches, should be both so called and accounted of all, as Platina speaks, and as Onuphrius addes, Had the title of Universal Bishop conferred on him; and it was added, that the name of Pope, which was determined to be the more ex∣cellent of all Episcopal terms, the Roman Bishops should alone re∣tain it, whereas before it was common to all Bishops, hath been judged deservedly the head of Antichrist, which Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome, had not long before, lib. 7. indict. 2. Epist. 96. made Antichristian, and the Usurper a forerunner of Antichrist: yet the Bishops of Rome, in the first ages, were not so accounted,

and therefore, it follows not, though the later Popes be the head of An¦tichrist, that the Office that is derived from, and is only to be found in the Papacy, is surely Antichristian; there having been Offices per∣haps derived from good Popes, and continued only in the Church of Rome, which deserve not that censure, but approbation rather. Nor is it necessary that every thing derived from Popes, since they have been the head of Antichrist, and continued only in the Papacy, should be Antichristian: the head of Antichrist may in∣stitute something that is not Antichristian.

2. It is not true, that the Office of Lord Bishops is derived from, and is only to be found in the Papacy. It is manifest in the first Ni∣cene Council, Canon 6. that then and before were Patriarchs, Me∣tropolitan Bishops, and Lord Bishops with their Office; and that Council was in the fourth Century, about the year 326. And that in the Greek, Eastern, Russian Churches, the same Office is conti∣nued. And therefore though no other of the Reformed Churches had retained that Office, besides the English, yet there would be no need for the Bishops of England to run to the persecuting Whore and Beast, for an Office of Ministery. But it is also pleaded, that the Lutheran Churches reformed, that have separated from the Papa∣cie in Germany, Denmark, Swethland, have retained the same Of∣fice under the name of Superintendents, which is the same in La∣tine, with Bishops in Greek; and that it is false, that the true Spouse and witnesses of Christ have in all ages utterly rejected the Office of Lord Bishops, and that it hath its entertainment only by that false Antichristian Church. Yea, it is manifest by the many Epi∣stles written to the English Prelates, by the reception at the Synod of Dort, and innumerable other wayes, that there hath been no such rejection or detestation either by any Church reformed, or Eminent Writers of them, except those of the Separation, who have been also averse from the Discipline of the Protestant Refor∣med Churches beyond Sea, and have given opprobrious Language to, and of them, as well as the English. As for the testimonies here cited, some of them, as the Speeches of Hierome, the Helvetian Confession of the Lord Cobham, are only about the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters, not of their Office; most of them, as that of Wickliffe used before by Bernard in his Tract to Pope Eu∣genius, those of the University and Church of Geneva; Beza's, the Belgick, French Confessions, Marlorat, Bale, are against the Popish Hierarchy; those of Cartwright, Fenner, and Authors of the Ad∣monition, were Speeches of Adversaries, which in no Court pass for testimonies; to which Arch-Bishop Whitgift and others have given answers long since. It is added:

Sect. 8. The Ordination of Bishops, is also of Presbyters.

Object. One stone of Offence must be removed out of our way ere we pass on further; it is this: Though Lord Bishops are Antichri∣stian, yet it doth not follow, that the Office and Ministry derived from them is so: For they are also Presbyters, and Ordain as Presby∣ters.

Answ. Give me leave to say, that were not men resolved to say any thing, that they might be thought to have somewhat to say, we had not heard of this Objection. For,

1. That they act in the capacity of Presbyters in the matter of Or∣dination, is false.

(1.) Contrary to their own avowed Principles; their Lord∣ships think it too great a debasement, to be degraded from their Lordly dignity to so mean an Office.

(2.) Contrary to the known Law of the Land, by which they receive power to act therein; in which they are known, and owned only in the capacity of Lord Bishops.

(3.) Contrary to their late practice, whereby they have sufficient∣ly declared the nullity of a Ministerial Office, received from the hands of a Presbytery, in thrusting out of doors several hundreds of Ministers so Ordained. Strange! That it should be pleaded they act as Presby∣ters in the matter of Ordination, and yet they themselves judge a Presbyterian Ordination invalid. But,

2. What if this should be granted? it would avail nothing, except it can be proved, that they are, and act as Presbyters of the Institu∣tion of Christ, which (these being only in a particular instituted Church of Christ) will never be to the worlds end. Thus far of the third argument.

Answ. 'Tis true, to some that have either renounced Episcopal Ordination as Antichristian, or refused to hear Ministers Ordain∣ed by Bishops, as acting by virtue of Antichristian Calling, it hath been told, that the Bishops were first Presbyters, and Ordained Presbyters together with Presbyters; and some of them that held that a Bishop and a Presbyter were not superiour in Order, but in Degree, did Ordain as Presbyters; and that therefore, if the Or∣dination of Presbyters be not Antichristian, the Ministers should retain their Ordination by Bishops, and the people hear them, though that were yielded, that Lord Bishops Office were Anti∣christian. Now nothing is here replied to the allegation, that Bishops Ordain with Presbyters; the Bishop with the Priests pre∣sent

are to lay their hands on the Ordained, according to the Book of Ordination: Nor to this, that some of the Bishops have acknow∣ledged Episcopacy not to be an Order above Presbytery; Nor to this, that though the Bishop imposing hands, do act as of superi∣our Order, yet being a Presbyter, his act is valid, as he that con∣veighs a thing as conceiving himself as Heir, and Executor, if he be not Heir; yet if he be only Executor, and by that hath power to conveigh it, the grant is good. But he sayes,

1. It is false they Ordain as Presbyters: it is contrary to their principles. Answ. Whether it be so in all is uncertain, nor do I know how this Author can prove it, unless they did declare it, which is more than I have learned. 2. It is contrary to the known Law of the Land. Answ. 1. It is not true, that the Bishops do re∣ceive power by the Law to act in Ordination, in it are known, and owned only in the capacity of Lord Bishops: for the Ordination of Suffragan Bishops, who are not Lords, is valid by Law. 2. The Law which gives power to act, ties not Bishops to think themselves of a Superiour Order to Presbyters, nor to act with such an inten∣tion, or under such a notion. 3. They have nullified Presbyterian Ordination, and required Re-ordination by a Bishop. Answ. They do not nullifie Ordination by a Presbyterie in foreign Churches; but in England perhaps, because the Laws require Episcopal Ordi∣nation; and it is conceived necessary to avoid Schism, or some confusion. 2. However those Presbyters are not of the institution of Christ, these being only in a particular instituted Church of Christ. Answ. If this be held, no Presbyters in any Church, but Con∣gregational, are of Christs Institution; and then all the Presby∣ters of the French, Dutch, and other Churches under Presbyterial Government, are excluded from being of Christs Institution, as well as these Ordained by Bishops of the Church of England; and then they by his Argument are no more to be heard than these▪ and so Separation avowed from all Churches, even Protestant, be∣sides those of their own way, which is the pernicious errour to which this arguing tends. But till it be proved I count his di∣ctates fit to be rejected, and proceed to the next Chapter.