Alexander Leighton’s arguments against a prelatical hierarchy

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
... For all my pressures, I smiled to hear their Champion for the time; beat the brains out of their cause, with a beam of their own making, or of the Popes; withal I told Sir Henry, that his Antecedent and Consequent were of so deep distance, that all the Learning in the World, could never make them meet. Yet he set a face to prove it, by a connex Proposition;

If Aaron were over the Priests,

Then Bishops should be over Ministers, &c.

I denied the Connexion, and told him that all the learning amongst them could not advance that Argument one foot; nor no more they did; but being at a stand, I told Sir Henry Martin that he could not of all the Quiver, have chosen a deadlier shaft against themselves; as should appear by the retorting of the Argument thus.
  • Aaron’s Priest-hood was superior to the rest under the Law.
  • Ergo, No Superiority in Ministerial function should have place under the Gospel.
  • The sequel I prove thus.
  • That which was in form of a Type of Christ under the Law, must have no place under the Gospel, because it is done away.
  • But not only the Priest-hood, but also the superiority of Priest-hood, or Ministerial Function, was in form of a Type under the Law.
  • Ergo, Superiority in the Ministerial Function, must have no place under the Gospel.
The Major I cleared both from proof and reason, as Collos. 2. vers. 17. Yea the Author to the Hebrews speaks particularly to the point, as in Hebr. 7.11, 12. The Minor as it is undeniable, so he had granted it by way of query: yea, the Papists themselves grant both in express terms, in the fore-quoted place to the Hebrews, That the Levitical office in Aaron, and other things were figures of Christ’s death, and to be ended and accomplished in the same. ...

For more, Alexander Leighton’s arguments against a prelatical hierarchy.