Power, Office, or Calling, act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichriftian Power, Office and Calling: But the prefent Minifters of England receive their Power, Office and Calling from a LordBishop, and act in the Holy Things of God by vertue of that Power, Office and Calling. Therefore.

The confequence of the major (or firft Propofition) is manifeft, the Office of Lord-Bishops is Antichriftian, therefore those that act by vertue of a Power, Office or Calling received from them, act by vertue of an Antichriftian Power, Office or Calling.

That the Office of Lord-Bifhops is Antichriftian, one would wonder fhould be denied in fuch a day as this, after fo full a demonftration thereof by many Witnesses of Chrift, who have wrote fo cleerly in this matter, as if they carried the Sun beams in their right hand, especially that it should be denied by perfons of Presbyterian and Congregational Principles (if indeed any of them do deny it.) To profecute this matter to the uttermoft is not our prefent intendment, the intelligent Reader knows where to find it done already to our hand; and if after all that hath been faid,any through felf-love, or fear of perfecution, will herein be ignorant, we might fay, Let them be ignorant. But we shall propofe briefly a word or two in this matter.

1. That Office that is not to be found in the Scriptures of the inftitution of Chrift, but is contrary to exprefs precepts and commands of his, is Antichriftian: But the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in the Scriptures, is contrary to exprefs Precepts. Therefore.

The minor Propofition confifts of two parts.

1. That the Office of Lord Bishops is not to be found in the Scripture of the inftitution of Chrift: He gave indeed Apoftles, Prophets, Paftors and Teachers, Ephef. 4. 11. of Paftors and Teachers we reade, Rom. 12.7,8. Eph.4.8. Bishops alfo, and Deacons, without the interpofition 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.IROS, Bishops) but where the Office of Lord-Bishops was inftituted by Chrift, we are yet to feek: indeed fome appearances of a fpirit ftriving to afcend into this Chair of wickedness,was feen in Diotrephes, and others in the Apoftles time, but thefe were the Antichrifts that were then gone abroad into the world.

world. The Scripture before mentioned, Ephef. 4. 11, speaks as fully to the Officers and Offices inftituted by Chrift, as any we meet with: Fail they in their deduction of their Office from hence, and they will undoubtedly prove fucceflefs in their attempts. Let us then fix here a little; mention we find here of Apoftles, Prophets, Paftors and Teachers, none at all either here, or elsewhere, of Lord-Bishops. But perhaps their Office, though they are called by another name, is comprized in fome one or other of thefe, let that then be confidered.. Are they Prophets? that (in the fence of the Spirit in this place) they will not pretend to. Are they Paftors or Teachers? this is too great a debafement of their Lordihips, their Parochial Priefts over whom they prefide,are fuppofed to be Officers in that degree. What then are they? Apoftles! Their Succeffors they do indeed boaft themselves to be, and are fo accounted by their Abbettors (and fo doth the Pope himself) but how prove they their Succeffion from them? if they derive it through the Papacy, who fees not the invalidity thereof? How lubricous and uncertain is that their Succeffion? how do they therein proclaim their shame, and yield the matter in controverfie? what clearer Argument that they are Antichriftian, if the Pope be the Antichriftian Head over many Countries, as is by the generality of Proteftants believed, and will not by themfelves be gainfayed? But in what fence do they pretend to be the Apoftles Succeffors? do they fucceed them as Chriftians? that is not the thing in queftion, they ftand or fall, in refpect thereof to their own Mafter; herein we have no controverfie with them, as not willing to judge any thing before the time. Do they fucceed them in refpect of their Office? let them prove that, and take the Cause. The Apofties were firft immediatly Sent by Chrift: Secondly, Extraordinary Officers, Commiffionated to the preaching of the Gospel throughout the Nations of the world; Are their Lordships fuch? what can be imagined more frivolous or falfe? where find we any Apoitles after the departure of thofe that were immediatly by Chrift called to that Office? Did the Apoftles ordain any as their Succeffors therein, in any of the Churches of Chrift? Where reade we of their fo doing? yea, are any qualified with Gifts as they, for the dif charge of fuch an Office? or doth Chrift indeed fend forth Servants in any imployment, and not furnish them with Gifts fuitable thereun to? Credat Apelles!

D

What

What more difhonourable to the Lord Jefus can be afferted? it remains then, that they being neither Prophets, nor Apoftles, nor Paftors, nor Teachers, that they are not to be found in the Scripture of the inftitution of Chrift. Nor are they dream'd of in the world for feveral hundreds of years after Chrift. Clemens in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth takes notice of no other befides Exenomor & Dianova, Bishops and Deacons,which Bishops he calls apsoßúzaga, Presbyters or Elders: Yea, Lombard himself confeffes, Hos folum Miniftrorum duos ordines, Ecclefiam primitivam habuiffe, & de bis Solis, praceptum Apoftoli nos babere: Lomb. 1. 4. Sen. D. 24. li. 3. ext. The Primitive Church, he tells you,had no other Order of Ministers, than Bishops (or Presbyters) and Deacons; nor did the Apoftles give commandment concerning any other. That their rife and occafion was from the aims and defigns of men, to accommodate Ecclefiaftical or Church-affairs to the ftate and condition of the Civil Government, is ingenuously confeft 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. Hamond we mind, who in his Differtations about Epifcopacy, Se&.3. hath thefe words, His fic pofitis, illud ftatim fequitur ut in Imperii cognitione) Provincia qualibet, cum plures urbes fint, una tamen primaria, et principalis cenfenda erat, Murtoworis Ideo dicta cui itidem inferiores reliqua Civitates fubjiciebantur, ut Civitatibus Regiones, fic et inter Ecclefias, et Cathedras Epifcopales,unam femper primariam, & Metropoliticam fuiffe: So far is the Office of Lord-Bishops from being of the Inftitution of Chrift, that theirPrimacy and Supremacy was the refult of the designs and contrivements of men to accommodate the ftate and frame of the Church, to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations. 1:2. That the Office of Lord Bifhops is contrary to exprefs Precepts of Chrift in the Scripture; the truth of which, he that runs may reade in the enfuing Scriptures, Mat, 20, 25. Mark 10. 42. Luke 22.25. 1 Per.5.3. the English of, Vos autem non fic, but ye shall not do fo; Neque ut Dominantes Cleris, not lording it over God's Clergy or Heritage, an ordinary Reader may eafily conclude to be inconfiftent with their fordly dignities. Not to multiply Arguments in a matter that others have fo largely debated. 2.That Office that is derived from,and is only to be found inthe Papacy, is furely Antichriftian (if the Pope be the head of Antichrift, this must not be denied) But the Office of

Lord

Lord Bishops is derived from, is onely to be found in, the Papacy. Which of the reformed Churches that have feparated from the Papacy have retained it? Did the Woman in her flight into the Wilderness carry it along with her? What more abfurd, then to run to the perfe cuting Whore and Beaft for an Office of Miniftry? and what more evident demonftration of its being an Antichriftian office, than its entertainment only by that falfe Antichriftian Church, and its utter rejection and deteftation by the true Spouse and witneffes of Chrift in all Ages? What is delivered over to us in this matter by fome of them, we fhall briefly affix hereunto. Hierome in his Epiftle to Eva grims, and in his Commentary upon the Epiftle of Titus, profeffes, That it is more by Cuftom than by any Inftitution of the Lord, that Bi Shops are become greater than the Elders or Minifters. Har. of Conf.fect.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 Cuftom devised by men. Wickliff in his answer to King Richard the 2d, citing Mat.20.25. Pet.5.3. fayes, Lordship and Dominion is plainly forbidden to the Apostles, and dareft thou then ufurp the fame? if thou wilt be a Lord, thou shalt lofe thy Apostleship, &c. The Univerfity of Geneva say, Thefes Genev.71.] Thefe Functions following, we hold to be altogether falfe, and deftitute of all true foundation, viz. the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all Churches; the Cardinalfhip, Patriarchship, Archiepifcopalfhip, and briefly the whole Epifcopal degree of Lord Bishops over their fellow Elders. Marlorat in his Expofition on the Revelation, chap. 17. 3. fays, That Arch-BiShops, Deans, &c. are in office under Antichrift; yea, upon chap. 9. that they are the tails of Antichrift. Beza faith, They could not be brought into the Church, until they had driven him out who is the onely Mafters Chrift; and, there is neither holy Scripture, nor Council, nor Ancient Doctors which ever did know fuch Monsters, Beza's Confel. Art. 7.c.14. The Noble Ancient Old-Caftle, Lord Cobham, faith, That the whole Epifcopal degree of Lord Bishops over their Fellow-Elders, is altogether falfe, and deftitute of all true foundation jea, that all other Functions and Offices befides Priests and Deacons are unlawful, as being Sects devifed by men deftitute of all true Foundation. To thefe we might add Honeft Bale upon the Revelation, viz. chap. 17. where he faith, Canterbury and York are the Beaftly Antichrift's Metropolitans, and Pri

D 2

mates,

wates; and upon chap. 13. that Arch-Bishop, Diocefan, Arch-Deacon, Dean, Prebend, Doctor, Parfon, Vicar, &c. are very names of Blasphemy: For Offices they are not appointed by the Holy Ghost, nor yet mentioned in the Scripture. Cartwright faies of them, That their functions are not in the Word of God, but of the Earth, new devifed Ministries, and fuch as can do no good that their Office is the neck of the Popish Hierarchie, come out of the bottomless Pit of Hell. Fenner proclaims them, to be no natural Members of the Body of Chrift's Church, as being of humane addition, not born with her, nor grown up with her from the Cradle. The French and Belgick Confeffion layes, That they pass not a Rush for them. The Church of Geneva, That the Hierarchie is devilife Confusion, stablifhed (as it were) in despight of God, and to the mocking and reproach of all Chriftian Religion. The Seekers of Reformation in Queen Eliza. beths time fpeak fully hereunto, [2 Adne, to Parl.] We have an Antiahriftian and Popish ordering of Priests, firange from the Word of God, never heard of in the Primative Church, taken out of the Popes shop, to the deftruction of Gods Kingdome- The names and offices of Arch-Bishops, Arch-Deacons, Lord-Bishops, &c. are, together with their Government, drawn out of the Popes fhop, Antichriftian, Devilish, and contrary to the Scriptures: Parfons, Vicars, Parish-Priests, are birds of the fame feather, to whom might be added many others.

Object. One ftone of offence must be removed out of our way ere we pass on further, it is this: Though Lord Bishops are Antichristian, pet it doth not follow, that the Office and Ministry derived from them is fa: For they are alfo Presbyters, and ordain as Presbyters.

Anfw. Give me leave to fay, That were not men refolved to say any thing that they might be thought to have fomewhat to fay, we had not heard of this Objection. For, 1. That they act in the capacity of Presbyters in the matter of Ordination, is falfe (1.) Contrary to their own avowed principles; their Lordships think it too great a debafement, to be degraded from their Lordly Dignity, to fo 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 onely in the capacity of Lord-Bifhops. (3.) Contrary to their late practice, whereby they have fufficiently declared the nullity of a Minifterial Office, received from the hands of a Presbyterie, in thrufting out of doors feveral hundreds of Miniftesr fo ordained. Strange! that it should be pleaded, they act as Presbyters in the matter of Ŏrdination