Episcopal Authority in this Matter among Churches Constitut in their Organick Beeing In the 4 th place the Drs absurd Assertion of a Supreme and Absolut Power to Reform and Correct drawn from this Passage doth obviously appear to the meanest Reflection For 1. The Apostles themselves arrogat no absolut or supreme Power Paul disowns a Dominion and asserts a Ministerial Authority only competent unto him 1 Cor. 4.1 2 Cor. 1.24 I had alwise thought that in the Judgment of all Protestants yea of all Men of Sense who ever read the Scriptures there is none hath a supreme Iudgment or absolut Power over the Church of God but He who is the Churches Head and Husband there being but one Lord and all Ministers being Brethren one Master of the House of God who hath Dominion over the Ordinances under whom even Apostles are but Stewards and Servants which I suppose none if not this Dr. will deny 2. It s strang that in reading this Passage the Drs. Eyes and Thoughts could not fix upon and ponder the important last Clause of the Words viz As I had appointed thee which doth very clearly suppose and import both the Apostles superior Authority to Titus and his restricting him to his Rules and authorizing Information in this Matter And how these can consist with Titus's supreme Iudgment herein and absolut Power will sute the Drs. greatest Skill to prove and demonstrat In a word this odd Inference of such a supposed Power in Titus is disowned by all sound Interpreters as might be easily made appear And in special the Belgick Divines tells us upon this Passage That Titus was not to perform this by his own Authority and good Pleasure only as the Dr. holds but according to the Order which the Apostle prescribed and did observe himself paralelling this with 1 Tim. 4.14 where it appears that the Elders concurred with Paul in Timothy's Ordination And this last Clause of the Verse they render As I commanded thee The Drs. Second Proof of Titus's Apostolick Authority is P. 399 That he is authorized to ordain Elders in every City And there being Presbyters and Elders in Crete left by the Apostle before Titus was left there who yet had no power to Ordain else Titus's power of Ordination had been in vain and an invasion of their power as a Preshytry Therefore this power of Ordination was competent to Titus only not to Presbyters especially since it is extended not only to Ordination of Elders but also to Rebuking with Authority to the Correction of Offenders with the Rod of Excommunication chap. 2.15 To Admonish Hereticks and to Reject them from Communion of the Church if obstinat chap. 3.10 From all which the Dr. concluds his Apostolat in the Church of Crete to be the same that the first Apostles themselves had in the several Churches planted by them I Answer 1. The Dr. doth nothing but here again beg the Question and argue ex ignoratione elenchi and this one point being but supposed That the Office of Apostles and Evangelists was Extraordinary and we may justly suppose it having above made it good this Arguing appears mere puerile Sophistry But 2. To come more closly to the Drs. Arguing As for the laying on of Hands in Ordination we have told him That it is a Presbyterian Act competent to mere Presbyters And therefore neither Timothy nor Titus could have a Sole or Episcopal Authority therein unless the Dr. will make the Scripture inconsistent with it self Next as for his Authority in his Rebuking and Censures supposed in these Directions I answer That neither can this be Titus's sole Prerogative For either it is meant of a private Rebuke and this every Christian hath Authority in thou shalt in any wise Rebuke thy Neighbour and not suffer Sin upon him Levit. 19.17 or of a Ministerial Rebuke and this is competent to every Minister of the Word Isa. 58.1 2 Tim. 4.1 2. Tit. 1.13 2 Sam. 12.7 And besides Institutions and Reproofs of Church Officers will not prove a fixed Episcopal Power Prophets Rebuked but had no Jurisdiction over Priests nor Paul over Peter tho he reproved him Moreover we find the Authority to receive Accusations and to Correct Delinquents by Reproofs and Censures competent to the Juridical Courts and Church Mat. 18.16 17. 1 Cor. 5.4 5. Gal. 6.1 2. 1 Thess. 5.12 In which places a judicial Rebuke and Admonition is attributed to the Juridical Court of Pastors not to one Prelat not uni but unitati 3. As for the Drs. Notion of a supposed existence of Elders in that Church who had no power of Ordination else this Prescription which the Apostle gives Titus to Ordain had been fruitless and an Invasion of their Power in the Drs. Judgment I deny his Consequence as having no twist of a Connection For 1. Upon supposition of Apostles or Evangelists extraordinary Offices Pauls instructing Titus and his Authority in Ordination thereupon was a power and Authority Cumulative unto but not Privative of the Ordinary Officers and Elders their standing and ordinary Authority herein It being certain that this Authority of Apostles and Evangelists as is above described could not bevoided whatever advance of Gospel Ordinances there was in Churches these extraordinary Officers had still their Authority and Inspection vigent I suppose the Apostle Paul had in the presence of Titus the Bishop of Crete in the Drs. sense ordained Ministers or Elders in this Church will he own the consequence that this did nullify Titus's Authority herein as Bishop Surely not And thus he must acknowledg our Plea to be clear as to the reserved Authority of Pastors or Elderships notwithstanding of the Apostolical Prescriptions instanced 2. Elders once ordained its true have power to ordain Elders yet the bene esse did call for the Inspection and Direction of such highly gifted and extraordinary Officers as Evangelists and their interposed Authority in that infant-state of the Church wherein Apostolick Precepts and Rules in reference to Government were to be delivered to the Churches and practised accordingly And in a word the Dr. neither hath nor can prove that Titus did ordain here alone or solely perform any other authoritative Act where Elders were present and the Churches reduced to an Organick Mould and Form which is the consentient Judgment of sound Protestant Divines Judicious Calvin upon the place will tell him That Titus here acted only as a President or Moderator which is clearly evinced from the Authority and Power of Elderships asserted in Scripture And we may retort upon the Dr. thus If neither Apostles nor Evangelists extraordinary and highly gifted Officers did exercise their Power to the prejudice of standing Elderships or juridical Courts of Pastors much less ought any ordinary Church Officer arrogat such a Dominion and Authority over the Courts of Christ and Judicatories of His Church when the Office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased I need not here stand further to tell the Dr. That the power of
send it back to the Dr. with a Censure of Impertinency till it be returned with a Testimonial of a better proof than of his bare Assertion and ipse dixit The Dr. enquires how we can argue a perpetual power of Ordination in the Church from the Ordination of Timothy and Titus citing Ius divinum Minist Evang. p. 159.167 if the Office they were ordained to were not perpetual And if perpetual then so is Episcopacy nothing different therefrom Answ. We hold the Ordination instanced to examplifie a Presbyterian Ordination as well as in General a Power of Ordination in the Church Timothy's Ordination having this Scripture account that it was by Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie which Power and Authority of a Presbytrie the Apostle Paul's presence and his Imposition of Hands tho supposed doth rather Strengthen than invalidat since neither the Eminent Gifts of Timothy nor his designment for such an Eminent Office nor Paul's Imposition of Hands the Great Apostle of the Gentiles did Swallow up or exclud the Presbytries Ordinary Power and Authority but Timothy must pass through this Door of a Presbytries Authoritative Ordination and Imposition of Hands in order to the Exercise of his Office therefore much more doth this Authority belong to the Presbytrie now when the Office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased And for Titus's Ordination in an active Sense or his Ordination of Elders the Apostle tells him expresly Chap. 1.5 the Passage wherein the Dr. places his Chief Strength that it was to be performed according to the Apostles appointment which appointment in the Sense of our Divines is none other else than that which himself examplified and is Intimat 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 i. e. with Authoritative concurrence of the Presbytrie or Eldership So that Titus had no Episcopal Authority therein notwithstanding of his Evangelistick extraordinary Office And this is invincibly made good in opposition to the Drs Design and pleading in that the Apostle in the same very Text wherein he enjoins Titus to ordain Elders doth identify and make one and the same the Office of the Bishop and Elder which were a mere implicantia in terminis if the Apostle in this Precept did Authorize or enjoyn the Drs. supposed Prelatical Power in Ordination as Competent to an higher Order of Bishops Superior to Prerbyters For the Drs. asserting the Office of Episcopacy and that of Timothy to be one and the same he therein beggs thâ— Question and supposes what he has to prove The Office of the Prelat and Evangelist being so vastly different as we have already made appear And therefore his Reason and Argument is pitifully absurd from our assertting the Power of Ordination as inherent to the Church upon the Ground of the Apostles Ordaining Presbyters and Evangelists to conclud the standing Office of Prelatical inspection or Ordination The Dr. should also know that the asserting that a Church Officer such as an Apostle hath an extraordinary Authority conversant about Ordination can neither infer that the Power of Ordination it self is extraordinary and expired nor that every Person Ordained hath an ordinary standing Function Which the â—postles extraordinary Authority in the first Planting of Presbyters while the Churches were in fieri as to their Organick Being their Ordaining Evangelists extraordinary Officers together with their exercing extraordinary Gifts and Authority as well in their Actings of the Power of Order and Preaching with Miraculous Gifts of Tongues and Confirming their Doctrins with Miracles as in Point of Jurisdiction their Extraordinary Censures above exprest doth evince and make evident The extraordinary Mission of the Twelve Apostles hath derived from it a Ministry and Ecclesiastick Authority diffused and spread among all the ' Church Officers in the World none of which doth Succeed them into the same formal Office So Timothy's Evangelistick extraordinary Authority is derived handed down into and seated in a Presbytrie tho the Evangelistick Office is extraordinary and as such not Succeeded unto The Service and Work of Teaching and Governing to continue in all Ages and in all times doth not render the Apostolick Mission or Commission ordinary nor infer their being Succeeded in idem Officium eundem Ministerii gradum the ordinary Power being Institut and settled in the Hands of ordinary Officers by a New warrand and Commission according to the Scripture Rules of Ordination The Office of Moses was not rendered ordinary because many Works of Government exercised by him were recommitted to the Elders of Israel and so the Case is here The Evangelists extraordinary Office and Commission necessary as that of the Apostles for the First founding of the Churches for Watering the Apostles Plantation Building up the Churches in their Organick being and settling all the ordinary Officers thereof is changed into the Presbytries ordinary Collegiat Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction which we find was in the Apostolick Church exercised and even in this of Ephesus For the Drs Proofs from Antiquity upon this head and touching Timothies Episcopacy over Ephesus they are sufficiently obviat by what is said above and in special by what we have offered and evinced anent the Fathers various acceptation of the Names of Bishop and Apostle The Dr. brings an Anonymous Author to prove that Timothy was Enthroned forsooth Bishop of the Metropolis of Ephesus by Paul A pityful Proof indeed and fit only for a nameless Author It being evident by the best searchers of Antiquity that the Office of Metropolitans had not a Being till several Ages after Timothy For Chrysostom his asserting that Timothy was intrusted with a Church or whole Nation If we shall assert that this is applicable to his transient or temporary Evangelistick Trust in correspondence to the extensive Office of Apostleship it says nothing to our purpose And the Dr. should know that Chrysostom upon Tit. 1.5 makes the Office of Bishop and Presbyter one and the same and therein cuts the Sinews of the Drs. design and arguing For other Authors who do call Timothy together with other Bishops then in being Apostles which the Dr. further Pleads it doth sufficiently evince what is said above of their improper equivocal acceptation of the Term since no person of Sense who ever Read the New Testament can take the Office of Apostle as delineat in Scripture to be applicable to Timothy far less to ordinary Bishops fixed in certain Posts Nay the Dr. himself and in contradiction to himself doth unawares bewray this in his Greek Citation of Theodoret who asserts that the Twelve Apostles were more strictly called so or rather according to the Truth of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles according to Truth or in very deed Clearly importing that the Name appropriat to other Officers was but used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or improperly as any Minister or Messenger of Christ may be thus called And if this be Theodorets general Rule as the Dr calls it that the Twelve Apostles were only such
parts of him are now Extent As for the Catalogues of Succession which the Dr. mentions we have heard how shattered they are and inconsistent with themselves and Censured consequently by the Learned as deserving no Credit Next as we have heard out of Iunius the Ground of this fancied Succession Viz That the most Eminent Ministers for Moral Respects found in Church Records were insert to fill up these spurious Catalogues and termed Bishops in conformity to the times wherein this distinguishing Name and Office obtained tho they were mere Presbyters and for most part contemporary one with another So we have from the same Iunius made appear what the design was of these Catalogue-drawers Viz. To prove against Hereticks that the Christian Church had retained the Seed of the true Doctrin and the traduces Apostolici Seminis as it was called but not to point out or assert a Succession of our Dr's supposed Hierarchical Prelats And therefore in the Third place the Dr. says nothing to the purpose unless he can prove that by Bishops they meant the Prelats of his cut and Mould with such an absolute Apostolick Authority as he suggests which untill he make good he does but â—eaâ— the Air and â—egg the Question For since the Fathers are found to use the Names of Bishop and Presbyter indifferently as the Prelatisâ—â— themselves acknowledg it is palpably absurd and Sophistical Reasoning to conclud from the bare Name and Title of Bishop which the Fathers make use of their assertion of the Prelatical Office which the Dr. pretends The Folly of his reasoning then appears by this irrefragable Reason that we find the Fathers calling such persons Presbyters whom he imagins Bishops in his Sense Irenaeus in his Epistle to Victor Cited by Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 23. calls Anicetus Pius Higinus Telesphorus Xistus Presbyters of the Church of Rome Presbyteri illi qui te praecesserunt the Presbyters that went before thee Thus also he expresses himself Nec Polycarpus Aniceto suasit ut servaret qui sibi Presbyterorum quibus successerat consuetudinem servandum esse dicebat Tertullian also Apol. Cap. 39. calls the Presidents of the Churches Seniores or Presbyters when he saith Praesident probati quique Seniores For what the Dr. adds of Irenaeus his seeing Polycarp and hearing him discourse of Iohn the Apostle who affirms he could reckon up the Bishops Ordained by the Apostles to his own times reckoning Eleven from Linus to whom he says Peter â—and Paul delivered the Episcopal Power of Governing the Church It is Answered That this is abundantly obviat by what is now said of the promiscuous use of the Names of Bishop and Presbyter and the intendment of the Fathers in such recitations Yea and from Irenaeus himself convict of Folly in that he ascribes the same Authority to Presbyters lib 4 Cap. 4.3 qua propter iis qui in Ecclesia sunt Presbyteris obedire opportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt Reliquos vero qui absistunt a principali successione quocunque loco colliguntur suspectos habere vel quasi haereticos malae sententiae vel quasi scindentes elatos sibi placentes c. Thus also lib. 4. Cap 44. he expresseth himself ab omnibus talibus absistere opportet adhaerere vero his qui Apostolorum sicut diximus Doctrinam custodiunt eum Presbyterii ordine sermonem sanum conversationem sine offensa praestant ad Informationem correctionem aliorum From which Passages of Irenaeus the Authors of the Appendix before mentioned do infer 1. That Presbyters were called and owned by him as Successors of the Apostles And I may add that if called so by the Fathers the terming of Prelats Successors of the Apostles is of no weight to prove the Dr's design 2 dly That they are also called Bishops 3 dly That the Apostolick Doctrin is Derived from the Apostles by their Succession 4 ly That there is nothing said of Bishops in the former place of Irenaeus which is not said of Presbyters and therefore such places cannot prove that the Apostles Constitut in the Churches Bishops distinct from Presbyters The Dr's two Countreymen Dr. Reynolds against Hart Chap. 2. and Dr. Whittaker de Pontificatu quaest 2. Cap. 15. have long since informed him of the Fathers improper use of the word Bishop when applyed to Apostles and the unsuitable absurd appropriating such an Office unto them In a word in the forementioned Appendix the pretended Succession of Bishops from the Apostles is fully baffled from several Grounds 1. The Homonymie of the Word Bishop these of the first and later times being of a different Mould as to their Office and Power the later being Diocesian the first not so since the Church was first governed by the common Council of Presbyters and the Succession being drawn from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the First Ordained Minister as among the Athenians there were nine Archontes or Chief Rulers equal in Power and Authority yet the Succession of Governours there was derived from one who was the Chief 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to diminish the Authority of the rest sed ut minus impedita esset temporum enumeratio as Iunius expresses it and for the same end was the Succession in these Catalogues drawn from the first Ordained Minister or the present Moderator and President 2 ly That the Catalogues the nearer they come to the Apostles times runs in the greater confusion and uncertainty and contradicts one another some calling Clement the first Bishop after Peter some the third and the intricacies about the Order of Succession in Linus Anacletus Clemens and another called Cletus are inextricable Some as we have above made appear calling Titus Bishop some Archbishop of Crete some Bishop of Dalmatia Timothy and the Apostle Iohn are by some said to be Bishops of Ephesus at the same time Thus also Polycarp is said by some to be the First Bishop of Smyrna by others to Succeed one Bucolus and another affirms that Aristo was Prior to both Some say that Alexandria had but one Bishop and other Cities Two others that there was but one Bishop of one City at the same time What uncertainty and contradiction is here Iunius resolves the doubt Controv. lib. 2 Cap. 5 Not. 15. viz. That these or some of these were Presbyters Ruling the Church in common but the following Ages fancying to themselves such Bishops as had then obtained in the Church fell into the Snares of Tradition supposing according to the custome of their own times that there could be but one Bishop in one Church at once which saith he is quite cross to the Apostolical times 3 ly Upon the former grounds and in correspondence to this account of Iunius they do inferr That these Authors make the Catalogues speak according to the language of
Conference and as no members I would fain know if the Dr. will say that these Elders meeting with the Apostles Act. 15. which he will no doubt acknowledg was one of the best Moulded Councils yea and a Standart for after-Councils were no Members but called and meeting for conference only since in the Scripture account and three fold Partition of those that mett Viz Apostles Elders Brethren there is an intire joint concurrence with the whole procedure viz both in the Disquisition the Sentence the decretal Epistle and Appointment in reference to the Churches obedience It does also sute the Dr's consideration to shew how it can consist with reason and the Nature of a Church Judicatory that such persons as are no Members nor fit to be Members are in tuto to prepare Matter for Laws and take share in debates But the Dr's Forgery here is evident For 1. If Presbyters concurrence in Ordination was Authoritative not by consent only and they imposed hands as proper Ordainers even when Bishops had obtained Power in Judicatories by confession of Episcopalians themselves see Dr. Forbes Iraen lib. 2. Cap. 11. I would fain know why such Ecclesiasticks or Church Officers as had Authority to Ordain which is one of the greatest Acts of Ministerial Authority had no Authority in enacting Laws in Councils but sat as Cyphers 2 ly The Dr. will find Antiquity against this deputed kind of conferring or consulting Power which he allows to Presbyters in Councils without Authority in enacting Laws Chrysostom hom 17. on Matth. calls Presbyters expresly Christi vicarios Christs Vicars or Deputes And its strange that such to whom Christ entrusted this Vicarious Power had no interest and Authority in enacting Laws in his Church and in the Government thereof Cyprian lib. 4. Ep. 8. shews that Dominus Sacerdotes in Ecclesia c the Lord condescended to elect to himself Priests or Ministers in the Church the Dr. will not say that he put this designation only upon Prelats And did he elect and constitute them for no interest in the Government thereof Nay on the contrary the Judgment of the Ancients is clear in this that the Power of external Jurisdiction and consequently the Authority of enacting Laws or Canons was common to Bishops and Presbyters Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians called the Presbytrie Senatum Dei Gods Court or Senat non consiliarios solum as our Dr. makes them sed assessores Episcopi not his Advisers only but his Authoritative fellow-Counsellors And I hope such he will grant as are in this Character have interest not only in preparing matter for Laws but an essential Official Right in the Authoritative enacting of them Irenaeus lib. 4. Cap. 44. calls them Principes Princes or Chief And if such in his Judgment the forementioned Authority is clearly by him attributed to them Augustin Serm. 6. calls the Brethren in Eremo Patronos Rectores Terrae And what pitiful Patrons or Rectors are they who have no Authority in enacting Laws Chrysostom asserts expresly on 1 Tim. 1. hom 11 That they presided over the Churches as Bishops and received together with them the Office of Teaching and Governing the Church And if this with the preceeding Testimonies give not the Lie to the Dr's forementioned distinction anent Presbyters sole consulting interest in Councils and upon the Bishops Call allennarly without any Authority in enacting Laws let any Judg. Chrysostom moreover in the beginning of that Homily stating the Question wherefore the Apostle after he had spoken to the Office and Duty of Bishops passes over to Deacons omitting the order of Presbyters returns this Answer and Reason Because betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter there is almost no difference and because that unto Presbyters also the care of the Church is committed And what he said concerning Bishops the same things also do agree to Presbyters And if with the Dr's good leave I might draw an inference from Chrysostom's assertion I would thus subsume But so it is that the Authority of Government and the enacting of Laws in Church Judicatories is by the Apostle ascribed to the Scripture Bishop whom he mentions Ergo the same Authority and Power is by the Apostle ascibed to Presbyters in Chrysostom's Sense Gratian in Decret Caus. 16. Quest. 1. Cap. shews that Ecclesia habet senatum Presbyterorum A Senat of Presbyters without whose Counsel the Bishop can do nothing They were not then called at the Bishops pleasure for debate only and preparing matters as the Dr. pretends but were the sine quibus non in the enacting of the Laws themselves The Dr. makes Prelats to enhance all decisive suffrage in Judicatories yet Cyprian Ep. 6. and 28. professes He neither could nor would do any thing without the Clergy And the Fourth Council of Carthage condemns the Bishop's Decision unless Fortified by their Sentence So far was it that the Bishop's sole Suffrage gave the Strength and Formality to Laws that they were null without Presbyters Authoritative Concurrence This is clear by so full a consent of Antiquity that we will find That neither in Censuring of Presbyters Nor 2 ly In Judging the conversation or Crimes of Church Members Nor 3 ly In Excommunicating or Receiving of Penitents Bishops could do any thing without Presbyters Tertulian Apolog. Advers Gentes shews vs That the Churches Exhortations Castigations and Divine Censures were put forth by the Probati quique Seniores who did preside the accused Person being brought into the Congregation And this Authoritative Sentence of Presbyters was more approved than when passed by one Man As when Syagrius and Ambrose passed Sentence in the same Case The Church was unsatisfied with the Sentence of Syagrius because he passed it sine alicujus Fratris Consilio without the consent of any of his Brethren But were pacified with the Sentence of Ambrose because saith he hoc judicium nostrum cum Fratribus consacerdotibus participatum processerat This his Sentence proceeded jointly from him and his Fellow Presbyters or Ministers Yea the very Admonition of Offenders were not given by the Bishops alone but by the Elders August De verb. Apost Serm. 19. Thus also Origen contra Celsum lib. 3. Excommunication it self Tertullian tells us was vibrated by those that laboured in the Word and Doctrin and the Presbytrie that delivered unto Satan as Jerom shews Epist. ad Heliod So Epist ad Demet. they also Received and Absolved the Penitents Cyprian Epist. 12 shews that this was the custom nec ad communicationem venire quis possit nisi prius ab Episcopo clero manus illi fuerit imposita such as were Excommunicat returned not to Church Fellowship before hands were laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy And writing to his Charge anent lapsed Christians he tells them exomologesi facta manu iis a vobis in poenitentiam imposita After Confession and laying on of the Presbyters hands they might be commended to God And such as returned from
Heresie and were to be Received in the Church at Rome in the time of Cornelius Cyprian tells us Epist. 6. compared with 46. they came before the Presbytrie and Confessing their Sins were Received Now if Presbyters had such Authority and the Episcopal Power was of this Nature and thus Limited let any Judg how the Dr's Assertion can subsist viz That in Judicatories Pastors had no decisive suffrage For the Dr's after-discourse P. 436. anent the Civil Soveraigns Decrees in case of a supposed interfeiring with the Churches Legislative Power as he calls it I shall not it being some what out of our way much digress in examining the same tho I judg it very lax and liable to considerable exceptions yea and hardly reconcilable with it self or sound sense and Divinity The Dr. holds That the Churches Legislative Power cannot reach to controll the Civil Decrees And yet holds That these Decrees cannot countermand Gods Laws Now the Dr. will not say that the Churches Legislative Power is not founded upon and Authorised by Gods Laws nay he positively asserts that it is He adds That next to the Laws of God the Soveraigns Laws are to be obeyed And thus makes the Law of God the overruling Law the Regula Regulans and paramount to those of the Soveraign And therefore by good consequence from this Assertion the Churches Legislative Power in exhibiting and declaring Gods Laws must likewise be thus Paramount thereunto and first obeyed Especially if he stand to that instance of his Act. 15. as exhibiting the Plat-form and Standart of Church Laws wherein the enacted Canon and Decree is said to be the mind of the Holy Ghost and thus a Divine Law the Authority of God being thereto interponed Yet in the very next Words he lays down this Assertion That next to the Laws of the Soveraign the Laws of the Church are to be obeyed And so here these Civil Laws are set in an higher Sphere and made Paramount to all Church Laws and this without any exception or Limitation whether they be consonant to the Divine Law or not or any Limitation of Consonancy to the Divine Law in the Laws of the Church The person who will reconcile and soudder these must in my apprehension be better skill'd than all Vulcan's Gimmerers and no doubt better seen in logical Rules and subtilties than I. So much for the Dr's First Prerogative of a Bishop as distinct from a Presbyter in the Power Legislative and of making Canons The Second Peculiar Ministry and Prerogative of the Bishop above Presbyters the Dr. tells us is To Consecrat and Ordain to Ecclesiastick Offices Thereafter the Dr. spends much discourse upon Christs Mission of the Twelve Apostles as the Father sent him including a Power of Ordination of others which he Confirms by Luk. 24.33.36 Mark 16.14 Matth. 28.16 Which Commission he tells us was transferred Originally upon the Apostolick Order So that Ecclesiastick Commissions were either given by the hands of these First Apostles or by such Secondary Apostles as were by them admitted into Apostolick Orders and these Secondary Apostles were the same with Bishops Ans. We need not spend time in resuming what is said already in Answer to this There 's no doubt but our Lord gave a Power of Mission and of Ordaining Ministers to His Twelve Apostles A Power to Plant Churches through the World and a Gospel Ministry and Ordinances in them But that by vertue of this their Mission they were to transferr their Apostolick Office and Authority to ordinary Succeeding Officers is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Quaesitum or Question which the Dr. still beggs and supposes but will never be able to prove from either the Nature and intendment of their Mission or the Power and Authority of Succeeding Officers whom they Ordained as we have above evinced The Dr's Proofs are pitifully claudicant he tells us That tho the whole Disciples were present the Apostles only Imposed hands upon the Seven Deacons Act. 6. And why not The Authoritative Imposition of Hands in Ordination is no doubt proper to Ecclesiastick Officers not to the People but where were the Succedaneous Bishops here who had solely this Power tho Ministers were present The Dr. has let us see no shaddow of this from the Text. He next tells us of Paul and Barnabas Ordaining Elders in Antioch Iconium and Lystra A mighty proof The Apostles in planting Churches ordained Ministers in them Ergo Suceedaneous Bishops have an Apostolick Authority of Ordaining derived to them solely as their peculiar Prerogative above Pastors This Consequence is denyed If the Dr. own these Elders for Pastors it should seem they had an Ordaining Power else the Apostles settled these Churches in a very mank frame and lame posture and wanting the Essentials of an Organick Church If the Dr. allow them an Ordaining Power he crosses the Scope of a proof of Succeedaneous Bishops with Power of Ordination set up by the Apostles since thus he ascribes it unto Pastors And if he deny it he is liable also to the same absurdity and that mentioned above and will cross his Notion of the Bishops Office ascribed to the Elders of Ierusalem who mett with the Apostles in that Council Act. 15. Besides if the Dr. put an Episcopal Mitre upon these Pastors or Elders and make them Bishops in his Sense it is very odd that among these little new gathered Churches such highly Authorized Diocesan Prelats were set up before any Pastors for Feeding with the Word and Doctrin For discovering the folly of which Gloss and Assertion I dare appeal to the Current of Interpreters Or if the Dr. imagin the strength of his Proof to ly in this that these Officers were Ordained by Apostles solely he should know that as we all allow an extraordinary Power in Apostles in Churches not yet Constitut not competent to Ordinary Officers so his Assertion is anent an ordinary Power of Succeedaneous or Secondary Apostles as he calls them as sole and singular in Ordination But the Dr. finds a Difficulty in his Way viz. That Paul and Barnabas were ordained Apostles of the Gentiles by certain Prophets and Teachers in Antioch Act. 13.1 2. To which he makes this Return That these Prophets and Teachers had no doubt received the Apostolick Character being ordained by the Apostles Bishops of Syria For otherwise saith he how could they have derived it And this Notion the Dr. reposes such Confidence in that he tells us There is no doubt but they had this Character But truly whether the Insipid Folly of the Objection or of the Return here made unto it be greater is a Question to me First That Paul and Barnabas were at this time and in this Action ordained Apostles of the Gentiles I believe few if ever any except the Dr did imagin I had always thought that it is evident to any who reads the Account and Story of Pauls Conversion and Call to the Apostleship by the Lord from Heaven that when
ad huc Carthagini prerogativam illam Presbyterorum Diaconorum primitivae Ecclesiae qua communi totius Presbyterii i. e. Presbyterorum Diaconorum collegii consilio administrabantur omnia ab Episcopis Citing thereafter Ignatius's Epistle to the Trallians wherein he enjoins Subjection to the Pastors or Presbyters as to the Apostle of Christ. And least the Dr. alledge this imports no more than a Consultive Power Cyprian Ep. 18. having mentioned what was written by Lucian in name of the Confessors which they desired to be communicat to the Presbyters and as he expresses it per me collegis omnibus innotescere to be by him made known to his Collegue-Presbyters he adds quae res cum omnium nostrum concilium Sententiam spectat praejudicare ego soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo Thereafter he shews that having sent Letters of Copies to many Collegues he had an acquiescing Answer in this his purpose To which we may add what is above touched of Cyprians Judgment in receiving the Lapsed Ep. 12. and several other places that the Pastors or Presbyters had a necessary interest therein doth by necessary consequence inferr that they had the same interest in the Sentence as in the Absolution As for the 38 Epistle which the Dr. Cites I find nothing in it that will conclud what he asserts having perused that Epistle That which he seems to take hold of is that expression of Cyprian accipiat sententiam quam prior dixit ut abstentum se a nobis sciat upon which Passage the Annotator upon Cyprian doubts whether he means Excommunication properly and strictly so called or not or rather that which we term the Lesser of a Suspension from Ordinances for some little time quo elapso saith he Presbyterium de Contumacia vel Paenitentia eorundum judicabat c. Moreover speaking of Felicissimus he says to the Presbyters cum post haec omnia nec vestra autoritate presentia fractus c. clearly pointing at the Authoritative Interposing of the Pastors in this Matter And that he does not mean the stricter Excommunication seems by this probable that speaking of several Delations of his Crimes which the Delators had offered to prove he adds quae omnia tunc cognoscemus quando in unâ—m cum Collegis pluribus permittente Deo convenerimus which speaks his reserving a further Censure to a more full Enquiry into the Cause yea and this Enquiry he will not undertake but with the Authoritative Concurrence of Presbyters called by him his Collegues And in the Matter of Augendus his Corresponding Guilt with this Felicissimus he says sciat se in Ecclesia nobiscum non esse Communicaturum and Sententiam ferat si ultra cum co perseveraverit i. e. upon Supposition of his continued Contumacy Wherein it is evident that no Sentence is passed upon this Person as the Dr. alledges and that in the Censuring of both Cyprian supposes a necessary Interest of the Pastors or Presbyters And the ensuing Epistle pointing out the actual Censuring of these two with several others not mentioned in the preceeding Epistle confirms what we have said The Dr. will needs have the fifth Canon of the first Council of Nice to suppose a Power of Excommunication to be solely in the Person of the Bishop But besides that the Words he cites are remote from proving it the Presence of Presbyters being therein presupposed it is evident by several Testimonies of Ancient Fathers as well as by that Act of the fourth Council of Carthage mentioned that Presbyters did Authoritatively concur in Ordination and Censures for which see Smectym Sect. 8. and Ruffin Hist. Lib. 10. See Council Antioch Canon 10. Council Ancyr Canon 13. And determined against this sole Usurped Authority of the Bishop either in Censuring Presbyters or in Judging the Conversation and Crimes of Church Members or in Excommunication or Receiving Penitents We have also heard that the fourth Council of Carthage Canon 23. condemns the Bishops Decision unless fortified by the Sentence of the Clergy This is so evident that the Dr. is forc'd to clap his Wings closer and Correct himself adding That afterward to prevent Abuses in the fourth Council of Carthage it was Decreed that the Bishop should hear no Mans Cause but in Presence of the Clergy and that his Sentence should be void unless Confirmed by their Presence Well then to Correct Abuses issuing from his supposed Canon of Nice here is by his own Confession a Counter-canon Decreeing the contrary And where is now his bold Assertion of the Universal Practice of the Church founded upon a Divine Institution which Patronizes this supposed Power of the Hierarchical Bishop And if we may ply the Dr with his own Weapon and Argument and present to him a Dish of his own Preparing how doth he here make a Divine Institution Comprobat by the Churches Universal Practice a Seminary of such Abuses as this Council found necessary to remove Likewise how doth this Council by its Censure Lash the supposed Practice of Cyprian and puts among the fore-mentioned Abuses to be necessarly removed Ay but says the Dr The Sentence in this Case was the Bishops not the Clergies I Answer if they were sine quibus non in the Sentence by what Shadow of Ground can he assert that it was solely the Bishops And we heard above Cyprian in Express Contradiction to the Dr Assert that not the Concurrence only but the Sentence is properly the Clergies as well as his Moreover if a Paralel Argument in Point of Ordination which the Dr. also doth appropriat to the Bishop may be Judged valid in this Case as no doubt it is we have made appear from Canon 2. of the Fourth Council of Carthage that they Decree in this Case that omnes Presbyteri presentes manus suas Iuxta manus Episcopi super caput teneant cum Presbyter ordinatur And the Dr. cannot deny that ex natura rei and in the Scripture Sense Imposition of Hands in this Action of Ordination is Authoritative not Consentient only and supposes the Actors to have this Badge of the Ordaining Power I mean it in a Ministerial Sense as it is competent to all Church Officers We have also told him that Dr. Forbes as Learned an Episcopalian as our Dr. in his Iraen lib. 2. Cap. 11. holds that Non tantum duntaxat ut consentientes ad consensum enim sufficiunt suffragia plebs etiam consentit nec tamen est ejus manum imponere sed tanquam ordinantes seu ordinem conferentes ex potestate ordinandi divinitus accepta gratiam ordinato hoc adhibito ritu apprecantes That not only as Consenting which is proper to the Vulgar who cannot Impose Hands but as Ordaining or Conferring Orders and by a Divine Authority they do in this Action or Rite pray for Grace to the Ordained Which contrary Testimony of our Scottish Episcopalian not only in Point of Fact contradicts the Dr but from
the Dr's Strained Exposition of such a Ceremony or Ordinance peculiar to a Bishop in the Sense he has offered is evident beyond all contradiction For taking it to import the Spirits Work in a Figurative Allusion to this Imposition or for Ministerial Imposition I mean in the Ordination of Pastors In both Senses it quite rejects the Dr's Gloss And even taking it in the most favourable Sense to his Scope viz. To import an Imposing Hands upon and Praying for the Baptized either at Baptism it self generally or upon the Adult who were Baptized it is beyond all contradiction that in this case it was joyned with that Sacrament and consequently performed by the Admistrator of that Ordinance Or admit that it was an Imposing of Hands upon Baptized Children sometime after their Baptism when grown up to give an Account of their Faith before their Admission to the Lords Supper the very Nature of the Action it self doth evince that in its purer and Primitive Practice and before Clogged with Additional Corruptions the thing was performed by the Elders and Ministers of the Church And the Dr. cannot shew either from Scripture or pure Antiquity that this was peculiar to a Bishop of his Cut and Mould Again it is a strange and most unaccountable Notion to assert that such as have Authority to Preach the Word and Administrat the Sacraments and Seals of the Covenant and in special Baptism whereby Persons are to be Discipled and brought to Christ which was the great Commission of the Apostles themselves should notwithstanding have no Authority to Administrat such an Appendix of Baptism and Confirming Rite as this is supposed to be That such as have Authority to lay the Foundation can put no Hand to such a supposed Superstructure Nay that such as have Authority to dispense the Sacrament of the Lords Supper that great Sealing Faith-Confirming Ordinance have no Interest in the Administration of such a Confirming Ritual as this is Besides in the 3 d. place it is easie to destroy the Dr's Argument with his own Notion and Pleading He pleads That tho the extraordinary effects of Gospel Administrations be ceased yet such Functions and administrations continue as are means of the Spirits ordinary influences Gifts and Graces since our Saviour has promised to the Church a continual Communication of his Spirit Now dare the Dr. deny a continual Communication of the Spirit in and by the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments If these be to continue and for the great ends of Conversion Confirmation and grouth in Grace and in the Hands of Pastors as the proper Authorized Dispensers of these Ordinances which are the Ministration of the Spirit by what Shadow of Ground can the Dr. seclud them from any interest in this his Ministration of the Spirit He tells us that Christ now Communicats ordinary Operations in the same way that he did the extraordinary And he will not deny that he did Communicat the Extraordinary by the Word and Sacraments concredited to all Ministers I mean in the external Administration and why not also the ordinary by the same Persons and Dispensers Again 4 ly The Dr. adds this his supposed strong proof and corroborating Argument especially saith he considering that this laying on of Hands is placed by the Apostle in the same Class with Baptism Hence I subsume if in the same Class it must be so as a Principle of the Doctrin of Christ as Baptism is so he calls it and as having the same Authority with Baptism as an Ordinance of Christ and a mean of dispensing the same influence of the Spirit And if so how will the Dr. Assign a Shadow of Distinction as to the Administrators and make it appear that two Ordinances of so near a Cognation and both Acts of the Power of Order of such an Affinity in their nature and scope should so vastly differ in the Instruments of Administration that the one is peculiar to the Office of Apostolat and a Succeedaneous Prelat Forsooth the other not but may be Administat by a Pastor He tells us The Apostle put both Ordinances in one Class but the Dr. in this crosses the Apostle and sets up in this respect Confirmation in the higher Class Here I would offer to the Dr. or those of his Perswasion Amesius's Answer to Bellarmin's Argument for this Right of Bishops One of his Arguments for the Divine Right of Episcopacy and of Bishops above Presbyters is Soli Episcopi ut Ordinarii Ministri c. Bishops only as Ordinary Ministers can Confirm the Baptized as also Consecrat Temples and Altars Citing Act. 8. Amesius returns him thus the Protestant Answer De Consecratione Templorum non laboramus c We value not the Consecration of Temples and Altars whited Walls may be the sole Consecraters of Walls and stones but for Confirmation of the Baptized in so far as it seems to have any thing of Divine Right in it and is thus lookt upon it doth equally agree to Presbyters and Bishops This saith he may be sufficiently proved from the Canon Law it self Dist. 95. and is evinced by this Reason of Ierom what is greater than Christ or what may be preferred to his Body and Blood He adds in Answer to that of Act. 8. that â—he Apostles were no Bishops nor sent unto an Ordinary Confirmation Bellarmin enerv Tom. 2. P. mihi 110 I need not inlarge upon any deductions from this Passage nor insist in shewing the Dr. the Correspondence of this Answer with what is above offered We may adduce another Venerable Countryman of his Cartwright Answering the Rhemists Pleading for this Sacrament of Confirmation from this Text tells the Iesuitâ— That the Apostle means no Sacrament much less Confirmation after Baptism but by a Trope or borrowed Speech a Metonymia adjunctis as he calls it the Ministry of the Church upon which Hands were laid which appears saith he in that whosoever believes not that there ought to be a Ministry by Order to Teach and Govern the Church overthrows Christianity whereas if Confirmation of Children were a Sacrament as it is not yet a Man holding the rest and denying the use of it might notwithstanding be saved Upon this Testimony of Cartwright we may very probably Conceive that the Sense he gives of that Passage is the General Sentiment and Judgment of Protestant Divines in his Day And to this Scope we find many of the later Protestant Divines expound it as might be easily made appear I need not add how obvious it is that the Drs. Opinion and Gloss hath no small influence upon the hardning the Papists who make Confirmation a Sacrament See for Cartwrights Sense of this place Gomarus Simplicius Pareus Mr. Dickson c. Among whom Gomarus shews that the Imposing Hands upon the Baptized is a Practice later than the Apostles But to proceed The Dr. in Confirmation of this his Gloss and Conceit adduces the Instances of the Holy Ghost comming upon these of Ephesus Act.
Gifts their immediat Mission their extensive Authority in the Planting and Watering of Churches as some Episcopalians who speak more cautiously than the Dr. do express and limit this Succession then it is easy to make good that the Dr. in this Branch of the Answer is as much in a Premunire and that his Answer may be easily broken with a Wedg of his own setting and that his Adversary may easily pull his Spear out of his Hand and Kill him with it For 1. His Answer to those who alledg the Apostolick Office and Power to be Temporary as suted to the Necessity and Exigence of that Time and Case of the Church without intention of deriving it into a Succession is First That this is said without so much as a plausible colour of Reason And if there be no plausible colour of Reason in denying a Succession to the Apostolick Office the Dr. in embracing this Answer is without all colour of Reason 2. He tells us That we acknowledg our Saviour institut the Apostolick Office and that in His Institution He gave no Intimation that it was but for a Season and that thus in calling the Apostolick Office such we presum to make Christs Institutions Temporary without producing the Intimations of His Will and that upon this Ground we may repeal all Institutions of Christianity c. But I pray whether doth not the Dr. in this Answer make our Lords Institution of the Apostolick Office Temporary as in its Nature suited to that Exigence of the Time and Infant State of the Church And whether he is not upon his own Ground obliged to produce the Intimation of our Lords Will hereanent And if he cannot produce it or rather doth hold it clearly intimat in the Nature of the Office it self then the Dr. must either confess our Exception and Answer to his premised Argument about a Succession to the Apostles to be valid and sound or this his Answer and Evasion to be nought and that he is therein contradictory to himself and liable to that Absurdity wherewith he charges us viz. Of making temporary and cassing all our Lords Institutions and over-ruling the Will of God by arrogant Presumption Which is the high-flown Imputation the Dr. puts upon our Answer But to bring this Matter to a short Issue and to strick out the Bottom of his great Notion and Topick The Power of the Keys or the Power of Order and Jurisdiction lying in authoritative Dispensing of Gospel Ordinances viz. The Preaching of the Word and Administration of the Sacraments together with the appendent Power of Disciplin and Government which was the substantial main Piece of the Apostolick Authority and Office and to be derived in a Succession as necessary for the Churches Preservation in all times we hold to be seated properly in the Pastoral Office which succeeds to that of the Apostles in the respect and for the end mentioned and in point of this Authority and Power we hold that any Pastor is equal to an Apostle which beside many other Reasons that might be adduced appears demonstratively by this Scripture Ground viz. That it is evident in Scripture that the Apostles in the first Constitution of Churches planted Presbyters or Pastors therein as the highest Ordinary Officers to feed with the Word and Government Acts 14.23 Tit. 1.5 with Act. 20.17 1 Cor. 5.4 12. v. compared with 2 Cor. 2.6 c. And not only so but left these Presbyters or Pastors as their immediat Successors committing the whole Government to them in their last Farewels to the Churches without the least hint of a Super-institution of any Officers of an higher Order Act. 20.17.18.28 1 Pet. 5.2 3 4. compared with 1 Thess. 5.12 13. c. Hence it may be thus Argued These whom the Apostles placed as Chief in the first Constitution of the Churches and left as their immediat Successors in their last Farewels which they gave to the Churches these have no ordinary Officers superior to them in the Church by Divine or Apostolick Warrant But the Apostles placed first Presbyters or Pastors feeding immediatly with the Word Doctrin and Government as their proper immediat Successors and to these they committed the Churches in their last Farewels Therefore the Pastor hath no ordinary superior Officer to him in Church Government by Divine or Apostolick Warrant Thus we see the utter Insufficiency of the Drs. Proof from this Argument anent the Seventy Disciples which may save us the labour of pursuing such Advantages as the Exact and Critical Disputant might have against him in his way of handling this Argument It is not clear from his Discourse whether he place these Seventy Disciples in the Office of Evangelists or of ordinary Ministers If he suppose and assert the First the Strength of his Argument is sufficiently Refuted by what is said above it being palpably absurd to infer different Degrees of the Pastoral Office from the Superiority of Apostles to Evangelists If the Second the Consequence is as absurd the many Prerogatives of Apostles above ordinary Pastors making such an Inference palpably ridiculous His Proof of the Succession of these Seventy to Apostles in their Office upon which he founds his Assertion of the Subordination of the one to the other is drawn from the Succession of Simeon to Iames at Ierusalem Philip to Paul at Cesarea Clemens to Peter at Rome In which he palpably falls short as to two essential Points thereof 1. He offers no Divine but an Human Testimony as to this Matter of Fact viz. of Dorotheus Eusebius 2. He offers no Proof from Scripture that the Persons instanced were of those Seventy mentioned Luk. 10. whom our Lord sent forth after the Twelve Apostles That the Apostles were chosen from among the Disciples or that they are first named in the Catalogue of Church Officers Ephes. 4. is a pitiful hungry Proof For the Dr. will not say that the Seventy were not also taken from among the number of Disciples or that all coming under this general Denomination were Church Officers And as to the other point of the Nomination of the Apostles first in the Catalogue of Church Officers even supposing it will import some special Prerogatives of these Twelve it is utterly remote from proving either First that these Seventy might not have been in the character of Evangelists and consequently had a correspondent Authority eo nomine Or Secondly That supposing them by their Mission to have had the same extensive Authority with the Twelve Apostles that the foresaid Prerogatives of Apostles did enervat this their Authority and Commission which was immediatly from our Lord as well as that of the Apostles and in its Nature and Extent never retracted or limited for any thing can be seen in Scripture For what the Dr. objects anent the Superiority of the Apostles over the Seventy as being in Office not in Power and Jurisdiction To which he answers That the Office including the Power must import a Superiority
in Power It is 1. here impertinent to the Purpose and Point he has to prove For upon supposition that both Offices were Extraordinary and Ceast even admitting a Superiority of Apostles to the Disciples it will never prove essentially different Degrees in the Pastoral Office as is said And 2. Admitting some special Prerogatives in the Apostolick Office above that of the Seventy with a special respect to their Gifts the Jurisdiction and Power of both the one and the other with a general Respect to Church Government and the great and standing Ends thereof might notwithstanding be of the same Nature and Extent It is also here very noticeable how the Dr. prevaricats p. 393. and falls off the Hinges of the Point when he makes it to ly in this That our Lord appointed a Superiority and Subordination between Ecclesiastick Officers Which in general he cannot but know that Presbyterians do accord unto since we hold the Pastoral Office to be above that of the Elder and that of the Elder above the Deacon Whereas the State of the Question and the Drs. Undertaking therein is anent a superior Order of Officers called Bishops to whom the Order of Pastors is subject and subordinat or essentially different Functions in the Pastoral Office or Degrees thereof Now to prove this special specifical Subordination instanced from a Subordination of Ecclesiastick Officers in general is to argue a genere ad speciem affirmative Est animal Ergo est homo By which Reasoning our poorest Tyrones in the Logicks would thus derid their Fellows I shall not say the Dr. for good Manners sake Es animal Ergo es brutum And so I dismiss the Drs. first Argument CHAP. II. The Drs Second Argument taken from the Practice of the Holy Apostles Examined THE Second Argument whereby the Dr. undertaks to prove the the Divine Right and Institution of Episcopacy is from the Practice of the Holy Apostles And this he prosecutes at large from p. 393. to p. 404. His Proofs may be thus generally summed up and run to this issue viz. That the Apostles did not only exercise that Superiority in their own Persons which their Office gave them over the inferiour Clergy but also derived it down with their Office to their Successors And that therefore they look not upon the Institution of their superior Office of Apostolate as a temporary Expedient only but as a standing Form of Ecclesiastick Government to be handed down to all succeeding Generations In Answer to which I do observe that the Dr. holds the Apostolick Office in a Formal Sense and in its proper Nature with all its Ingredients viz. immediat Mission universal unconfined Inspection infallible directive Power their Apostolick Power of Coertion by Judgments their Gifts of Tongues and Miracles c. all which were included in the Apostolick Office to be an ordinary standing Function in the Church and succeeded unto in this its whole Nature and Extent and as he expresses it Handed down to all succeeding Generations Wherein as the Dr. palpably contradicts not only clear Experience of all Generations the body of all Protestant Divines yea all Men of Sense that have ever bestowed their Thoughts upon this Subject but also his very Fellow-Pleaders in this Cause One of their late Writers of no small Repute in answer to this Objection viz. That the Apostles Superiority over the Seventy was Extraordinary and Temporary grants That in some Things their Priviledges were Extraordinary and to Cease with themselves instancing their immediat Calling their sending to all Nations their Infallibility their Gifts of Tongues or whatever was necessary for the first Founding of the Christian Church Clearly contradicting the Drs. absurd Assertion of a Succession to the Apostolick Office without all Limitation But it s no strang thing that Midianites deal Stroaks among themselves when encamped against Israel By that Superiority which their Office gave them over the inferior Clergy he must needs understand an Official Superiority proper the Apostles as such and without any Restriction as is said since he makes the Apostolick Office to be institut by our Lord as Ordinary and Perpetual and the Practice of the Apostles in this pretended Derivation of their Office â—o Successors to be pursuant to the Institution of our Saviour He holds there was nothing of the Office of Apostolate of a Temporary Nature or as suted to the Exigence of that Time that it was the very same Office without any Restriction or Limitation which they did transmit unto Successors Thus he expresly p. 394. Now to raze this Foundation of the Drs Proof let these Things be considered First That our Divines do Harmoniously assert the extraordinary Nature of the Apostolick Office as such and that they could not be Succeeded to in idem officium eundem gradum Particularly the Learned Polanus in his Syntag. lib. 7. Cap. 11. P. mihi 537.338.539 reckons up these their Prerogatives beyond ordinary Church Officers 1 Their immediat Institution by Christ therefore Paul was called from Heaven to be an Apostle 2 Their immediat Mission to Teach 3. Their Universal Legation to Plant and Found Churches through the World 2 Cor. 11. 4. It s visible Badg Viz conferring the Spirit by Laying on of Hands 5. Immunity from Error in Teaching 6. Their singular Right of Spiritual Coercing the Rebellious and extraordinary Authority hereanent and extraordinary Spiritual assistance 2 Cor. 10. 7. The Gift of Fore-telling Things to come Rom. 11.25 26. 2. Thess. 2.3 8. Their extraordinary Authority beyond any Successors as being over the whole Church c. It would consume much Time and Paper to set down the vast number of Testimonies correspondent to this and the thing were Superfluous All who are acquaint with our Writers being convinced hereof From hence we may thus Argue They whose Call whose special Work and Duties whose Qualifications for their Work are ceased their Office is ceased and they are not Succeeded therein But the Apostolick Call special Work and their proper Qualifications are ceased Ergo c. The Major is evident it consisting of a sufficient enumeration of ingredients to make up an Office and further undenyably Confirmed by this That our Divines take in these very things mentioned in the Definition of an extraordinary Office and as the evidences of it The Assumption is as evident the Appostles Call was immediat who will deny that this is ceased Their special Work and Duty as Apostles was to Plant Churches and the Gospel Ordinances and Government among them throughout the World and that by a special Commission intrusted to them of all which Churches they were in an immediat Sense and in actu exercito Officers And what Church Officer dare now arrogat that to himself Their Gifts Qualifications were extraordinary such as the working of Miracles Gifts of Tongues infallibility in Doctrin And can any deny that these are ceased Secondly Hence as whatever he would draw the Episcopal Preheminence from will necessarly
or where or by whom another Iames than either of the two mentioned by the Evangelist was Constitut a Thirteenth Apostle is a Point I am sure far surcharging the Drs Ability to prove and his proofs here adduced are such as the simplest may Laugh at Whereof this is one That the Scripture makes it evident that this Iames had the great Preheminence in the Church of Ierusalem And next That in the Council Act. 15. he gave the Decisive Sentence calling it his Sentence v. 19. and determined the Controversie after that Peter Paul and Barnabas had declared their Judgment Which Argues saith the Dr. that he had great Authority and Preheminence in that place An odd proof I must confess Behold the Visag of this Argument The Apostle Iames spoke last in the Council of Ierusalem he called the Judgment he delivered upon the Question his Sentence after others had spoken the Controversie came then to an Issue Ergo he was of Special and Eminent Authority in Ierusalem beyond any of the Apostles And this as a supernumerary Thirteenth Apostle Constitut by the rest to succeed in that Office and derive the Office of Apostolat to after Generations It is indeed a Question to me whether this Assertion and Conclusion it self or the Dr's Method of deducing it be more absurd But sure I am both are and that in an eminent degree The Dr. has so wonderful a value for Prelacy that he will needs have this new supposed Bishop of Ierusalem preferred upon that account by all the Apostles to themselves and set up in the Chair to presid in the Council as the Worthiest yea and that his very Judgement upon the account of his high Prelatick Office outweighed all the Apostles Sentiments and ended the Controversie as he expresses it Such a conceit this is and Phantastick account of that Scripture as I dare challenge the Dr. to show if it ever came in the mind of any Protestant Writers It would have suted the Drs. serious Thoughts to ponder whether that which was delivered by others in this meeting and in special by the Apostle Peter was not their Sentence as well as that delivered by James and whether both these Sentences of Peter and James were not the same and delivered upon the same Scripture Grounds and whether the delivering of a Sentence or Judgment in a Judicatory which the Meeting finds equitable and do accord to upon Grounds offered by him and some others speaking before him can conclud an Episcopal Authority over the Meeting But to proceed the Dr. ibid Argues further from the Apostle Paul his going in to James mentioned Gal. 2.9 Upon the account of his supposed Episcopacy at Jerusalem altho none of the Twelve that he is upon this account preferred to Peter John had the Priority of them both in the Church of Jerusalem A conceit sufficiently refuted by a recitation What! The Apostle Paul become so high a Prelatist that a New Constitut Bishop at Jerusalem is by him preferred to Pillar-Apostles as having a Priority above them in that Church I had thought that our Blessed Lord recommended and Authorized his Apostles as the Universal Doctors of the whole Church before this time as the Foundation and Pillars thereof So they are called by the Apostle Paul Eph. 2.20 And that the Lord in Sealing them solemnly by the Spirit the day of Pentecost at Jerusalem from whence the Law was to go forth had recommended them as his highest Doctors and Apostles both to Jerusalem and to all the Churches and that Peter and John's Ministry had the First and Eminent Seals there yea and that the Apostleship of the Circumcision was especially committed to Peter and consequently his Apostolical Authority at Jerusalem singularly conspicuous weighty and acknowledged where his Ministry was chiefly exercised and this by the Apostle Paul's own acknowledgment Gal. 2.7 And that he paid so great deference to this Apostle that he went up to Jerusalem to see and visit him Gal. 1.18 Besides that the Dr. supposing this James not to be one of the Twelve is cross to the current of Protestant Writers and Commentators as we have said As for Paul's going into James with the Elders Act. 21.18 Which the Dr. saith will prove that James was of greatest note and Figure in that Church If the Dr. mean his exercising his Ministry there at that time and that he was of eminent Note among the Elders or ordinary Ministers As who can doubt of this in respect of his Apostolick Office This is easily accorded But the Drs. Inference from this that he was of greatest Note and Figure among the Apostles yea and eo nomine as Bishop of Ierusalem and moreover as in the Capacity of a Supernumerary Apostle and Bishop added to the Twelve he will as soon squeeze Water from a Flint as draw it from this Scripture The Dr. tells us P. 395.396 That as what he has said renders it highly probable that Iames was Apostle at Ierusalem peculiarly and had the Priority of Peter and Iohn therein so the Testimmonyes of early Antiquity advances this probability to a Demonstration Whereupon he Cites Hegesip and Euseb. Lib. 2. Cap. 23. Clement Lib. 2. Cap. 1. and some others That Iames whom the Dr. takes not to have been an Apostle till constitut Apostle and Bishop of Ierusalem appears to the Dr. upon the pretended premised Scripture Grounds upon this account preferred to both Peter and Iohn tho Pillars hath so exposed his Understanding of the Scriptures as doth much save the Labour of an Adversaries discovering his Nakedness in this Point Besides it seems with the Dr. that Human Testimonies of Antiquity and of Human Writers puts the Cape-stone upon and compleats Scripture-proof So that what was upon the Scripture proof but probable upon the high accession of Human Testimonies is with him advanced to a Demonstration But the Dr must be minded that if his pretended Divine Proof which must be both of the Factum and the Ius as to Iames's Episcopacy obliges him to draw his Demonstration of both from Scripture and if by his acknouledgment all his Scripture Proof amounts but to a probability his pretended Demonstration made up by the patchment of Human Testimony added to the Divine as giving the Demonstrative evidence and Strength thereunto is a Demonstration like to the Feet of the Image of Clay and Iron which could never make one intire piece and cleave together Next For his Testimonies the Dr. cannot but know that in the Judgment of Famous Protestant Divines this Proof from the Testimonies of Fathers and the Denomination of Bishops by them put upon Eminent Ministers and even some in the Apostolick times is a very slippery and uncertain Proof The learned Scaliger will tell him Prolegom in Chro. Euseb. That â—tervallum illud ab ultimo capite Actorum c. The Interval from the last Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles until the midst of the Reign of Trajan in which Tract
Quadratus Ignatius flourished let the Dr. observe this as to Ignatius here Cited by him may be truely called with Varro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or obscure wherein nothing that is certain has come to our Hands concerning the Affairs of Christians except some very few things which the Enemies of GOD has catched up by the way such as Suetonius and Corn. Tacitus Which gap that Eusebius might fill up he drew somethings without Discretion and choise out of the Hypotyposis or Examples of I know not what Clement for he is not that Learned Clement that wrote the Strommata and out of the Five Books of Hegesippus a Writer no better Let the Dr. observe this as to Hegesippus and Clement here Cited by him Yea and Hegisipus himself as he shews lib. 3. Cap. 28. Holds that immediatly after the Apostolick Age was gone tunc impii erroris conspiratio per seductionem eorum qui alienam Doctrinam tradebant initium caepit Error began to Spring and advance The Learned Iunius controv 3 lib. 10. Cap. 23. Not. 3. Mentions and proves an equivocal acceptation of the Word Bishop in the Writings of the Ancients The Learned Whittaker also will Inform the Dr. De Pont. Quest. 2. Cap. 15. That Patres cum Iacobum Episcopum vocant c. The Fathers when they call Iames Bishop or Peter take not the Name of Bishop properly but they call them Bishops of those Churches wherein they stayed for a time He adds That it is absurd to say that the Apostles were Bishops since he that is properly a Bishop cannot be an Apostle the Bishop being set over one Church and the Apostles Founders and overseers of many Churches Yea he is so Bold as to add further without craving Pardon of such as are of our Drs. Judgment That non procul distat ab insania c. It differs little from madness to say That Peter or any other Apostles were Bishops And to this purpose he speaks at large Cap. 3. Sect. 9. making good his Assertion from the unfixed extraordinary Nature of their Office who were to follow the Spirits conduct towards all places wherever they were called The Dr. might have also learned from Fran. Iunius Contr. 3. lib. 2. Cap. 5 the cause of the Error and mistake of the Ancients in terming the Apostles or Evangelists Bishops and drawing from them Supposititious patcht Catalogues of Bishops which are found contradictory to one another Viz. That such Ministers as they found in the Church Records more famous such they cull'd out to make up their Catalogues even tho they were contemporary and those they named Bishops in conformity to their own times whereas saith he there were many Bishops or Presbyters at once appointed by the Apostles in the Churches Hence has proceeded this Confusion in the Catalogues for instance they make Peter Bishop of Rome and having a Seat there a Fable contradicted by many of the Learned and proved by them to be such but whether Clement was First or Third and who or in what Order next after Succeeded them whether Linus or Anacletus is never yet cleared Some make Titus Bishop of Crete some Arch-Bishop some Bishop of Dalmatia Timothy and Iohn are made by many Bishops in the same Post at the same time Some say Polycarpus was First Bishop of Smyrna some make him to Succeed one Bucolus some make Aristo First Some give Alexandria one Bishop some Two at once See Append. ad jus Divinum Minist Evang. Clearing this at large The Dr. also should have done well to have considered the important difficulty offered by Iosephus Scaliger about the Succession of the Bishops of the Church of Ierusalem related by Didoclav Cap. 4. P. 123. wherein he proves Eusebius Relation to be contrary to our Lords Prophesie anent the Destruction of Ierusalem and to Iosephus's History As likewise what this Learned Author hath observed and written to invalidat the Credit of Eusebius's History and the discovery he has made of his many gross Errors therein as well as in other Points So that our Dr. and his Fellow-pleaders might have observed this their grand Magazin to be but a corrupt Treasure and Poisoned Fountain How Fabulous is the Epistle of Christ to Agbarus King of Edessa related by him That which Philo the Iew wrote of the Esseans a Sect among the Iews Eusebius affirms that he Wrote it of Christian Monks which Scaliger in his Elencho tri Haeresii hath convict of falsehood out of Philo himself He proves Peters Crucifixion at Rome by a Tomb-proof In the Computation of Times Scaliger observes his gross Errors Nay which is more considerable he discovers gross ignorance of Scripture in saying that the Cephas reprehended by Paul was not the Apostle Peter but another of the Number of the Seventy Disciples To which might be added many things in his personal Carriag and Qualities which doth weaken the Credit of his History as his presiding in the Council of Tyre against Athanasius and standing upon the Arrian side Scaliger in his Thesaurus temporum Animad P. 268 Sets down the Testimonies of the Ancients concerning his Errors and Arrianism wherein some affirm that he died When he Wrote the History he was in the Judgment of some an Arrian And even admitting the unexceptionableness of his History when first Written yet that it hath been corrupted by some ignorant Impostor is by Didoclav Cap. 4. P. 111. Demonstrat from this that he makes mention of Sozomen who was born an Hundred Years after his time Had the Doctor also Perused the Learned Reynolds he might have found that in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls he proves at large from Chrysostom Ierom Ambrose Augustin Theodoret and many others both Ancient and Modern Authors that in Scripture Presbyter and Bishop are all one The Epistles of Clement of the first Century are very pregnant against the Divine Right of Prelacy particularly his Epistle to the Philippians wherein he makes but Two Orders of Ministry Bishops and Deacons which he says the Apostles set up to propogat the Ordinances to Believers But I am too prolix in a Matter of it self clear and plain and which we may probably have occasion again to touch Only before I part with the Drs. First Instance I cannot but in this place observe and again leave it to the Readers consideration that the Dr. affirms this Apostleship which Iames did derive from the Twelve was only an Episcopal Inspection of the Church in Ierusalem A strang Apostleship indeed and so very far unlike and disproportioned to the Apostolick Office that he might as well affirm that any Curat of the Church of England when set over a Flock or Cure has an Episcopal Authority committed to him The Drs. Second Instance to prove the Apostles committing their Apostolick Authority to Successors is taken from Epaphroditus Philip. 2.25 Who is Styled the Apostle of the Philippians Citing Ierom on Gal. 1.19 Who shews that others were Ordained Apostles as Epaphroditus And
Theodtret holding that he was Constitut their Bishop I answer 1. Tho his Episcopal Authority over this Church of Philippi were granted to the Dr. it will never come up to prove his Point and Assertion of devolving the Apostolick Office upon him but rather proves the contrary it being evident both from the Nature of the Thing it self and in the Judgment of Judicious Divines that these Two Offices are incompatible and inconsistent and it is a greater degrading of the Office of Apostolat as it stands delineat in Scripture to restrict it to any Particular Church than to make the Primat of England Curat of any Parish 2. The Dr. doth grosly mistake this Denomination of Epaphroditus while making it Import his being their Bishop as is obvious to any that Reads the Text and will view Commentators upon the place as might be easily and at large made appear if our intended brevity did permit The Belgick Divines upon the Passage tells us That the Word Apostle signifies one who was Called and sent forth by Christ himself to Preach the Gospel through the whole World meaning in its Strict and Proper acceptation for clearing which they Cite Gal. 1.1 Eph. 4.11 And here the Dr. may observe how they take the Nature and Extent of the Apostolick Office Then they add But here it is taken more largely in General for one who is sent forth by any one to act any Thing in his Name or for him He was by the Philippians sent unto Rome to Paul to carry him that which they had Contribut for his Maintinance Citing Chap. 4.18 Where the Apostle shews that he had Received what was sent by Epaphroditus Which discovers the Folly of the Drs. gloss They add That if it be rendered their Teacher the Word is sometimes taken so in a General Sense for any kind of Teacher Rom. 16.7 Where the Phrase of Note among the Apostles doth import among them who Preached the Gospel here and there paralelling this with that of 2 Cor. 8.23 Where the Phrase of Messengers or Apostles in the Churches is ascribed to other Brethren together with Titus and imports only Messengers and Teachers So That altho the Phrase of your Messenger or Apostle were in this place admitted to import a Pastoral Relation to Philippi it is as far from coming up to a Proof of the Drs. Gloss as East from West Grotius upon the place shews that Graece loquentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocabant qui sacras pecunias colligebant atque portabant at Diximus ad Math. 10.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dixit Ignatius That the Word Apostle is here taken late or largly and for Honours cause put upon this Person as a Minister only is Asserted by Erasm. Simplicius Vorstius That he is thus called quia missus fuit cum Eleemosyna and that this is Confirmed by the ensuing Clause of Ministring to the Apostles wants has a large Harmony of great Judgments Thus Zanch. Simp. Estius Beza Collating this with 2 Cor. 8.23 For what the Dr. adds ubi supra of Ierem and Theodoret It is easily answered that the Word Apostle ot Bishop is by them used in a General Acceptation as might be cleared from many Passages of the Fathers especially Ierom holding that through the Apostolick times communi Concilio Presbyterorum Ecclesiae gubernabantur Thus in his Comment upon Titus where he proves this from Phil. 1. Act. 20. Heb. 13.17 1 Pet. 5. And if the Word Apostle in Scripture have this General Acceptation as we have heard why not also in the Writings of the Fathers The Drs Third Instance P. 398 is of Titus and some others whom the Apostle 2 Cor. 8.23 Calls Messengers or in the Greek Apostles of the Churches which the Dr. takes to hold out their Apostolick Authority over the same and will not have the Phrase to Import their Relation to these Churches whose liberality they carried Thereafter he Insists upon the Instance of Titus whose Episcopal Authority over Crete he endeavours to prove from the Epistle written to him To the Instance First in the General I Answer that the Drs. Sense of the Passage Cited is but his own Imagination without the least Shaddow of Ground in the Words or Context especially taking it to Import an Apostolick Authority in his Sense as might be cleared by multiplyed instances if needful We heard that the Pâ—lgick Divines take the Phrase to Import Teachers in a General Sense The Authors of part 2. Pool Annot. Thus Sense the Passage Viz That the Apostle calls Titus his Fellow-helper in the Business of the Gospel for the others he tells them they were such as the Churches thought fit to make their Messengers and had the Credit of the Churches whose Messengers they were since the Churches would not have Instructed them if they had not Judged them Faithful Both which Senses stands clearly cross to that which the Dr. Grounds upon And to discover further the weakness of his Reasoning even granting that this Text would Import a Fixed Episcopacy of Titus and these other Messengers over some Churches how doth it prove the Apostles devolving upon them the entire Apostolick Office in the same Nature and Extent as it was committed to the Twelve by our Saviour The Dr. will never be able to knit this Antecedent and Consequent by Scripture or Divine Reason And this being the Point he is all along undertaking to prove any may see how palpably he mistakes and misses his Mark in these Instances But now to examin the Drs. proof of Titus's Episcopacy these Things I do in general premise which do cut the Sinews of his or any others Arguings for the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy or Titus over these Churches 1. In Churches already constitut this Authority was not solely seated in them they were only to go before the Churches in wholesome Counsels in relation to the planting of Ministers not to do as they pleased excluding others as judicious Calvin expresses it Instit. lib. 4. cap. 3. since Paul himself neither imposed Hands nor Excommunicat alone in Churches constitut And a whole Colledge of Apostles had the ordinary Elders going along with them in a Synodal Procedure Act. 15. far less could Timothy or Titus assum this Episcopal Preheminence who were inferior to Apostles 2. After the Church of Ephesus was Exedified and Compleated in its Organick Beeing and after Timothy had gotten his Charge as to Ordination and Jurisdiction in Ephesus in the first Epistle directed to him wherein the Dr. and his Fellows hold him to be instructed with Episcopal Authority Paul committed the whole Episcopal Power and Charge to the Elders before Timothy's Face in his last Farewel to that Church calling these Elders the Bishops and enjoyning them the Exercise of their Authority as appointed by the Holy Ghost and this without the least Hint of any Inspection or Authority that Timothy had over them hereanent or of any relation they had to him in this Matter thus Act. 20. And
the same Judgment by necessary consequence we must make of Titus since the Dr. and his Fellows draw their proofs equally as to both from these Epistles 3. In these Epistles themselves their Power stands so described and circumstantiat as to Ordination and Jurisdiction over these Churches as it clearly excluds an Episcopal Preheminence and Authority For First As Diocesan Bishops they ought to have been designedly set and fixed as Officers in these Churches but the contrary appears in the Text I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus saith Paul to Timothy And again to Titus I left thee at Crete and to set in order things that are wanting Which words point at an occasional transient Imployment there not a fixed Instalment Secondly In these Epistles they are both called back without the least intimation of their returning Thirdly If their Power was Episcopal and Ordinary then in the Apostles Prescriptions and Rules anent their Successors the Power and Authority of these Successors ought to have been described and Rules given touching the Gifts Call Ordination c. of the Diocesan Bishop especially since the Dr. holds that the Description of and Authorizing such a Bishop is the great scope of both these Epistles and he will not say that this Office was to die with Timothy and Titus But so it is that the Apostle prescribs no Rules for any Church Officer higher than a Pastor and supposes still that he is the highest Ordinary Church Officer in all his Rules and Prescriptions in point of Church Government delivered either in these Epistles or any where else in Scripture Fourthly As Timothy is expresly called an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and consequently Titus is supposed to hold the same Office so this Office in the Judgment of Protestant Divines is acknowledged and held to be Extraordinary and Expired as that of the Apostles The Work and Exercise thereof consisting in a planetary Motion to Water where the Apostles Planted to bring Instructions from the Apostles to the Churches touching the Duties of both Pastors and People and Reports of the Churches State to the Apostles So their Office supposing the Churches in fieri as to their Organick Beeing in a great measure at least and also the Existence and Exercise of the Apostolick Office they must needs be as the Apostles themselves Extraordinary Officers And in special Timothy and Titus accompanying Paul in his Travels and continual planetary Motion being so clearly held out in Scripture concluds the Impossibility of their being fixed to any Station and proves that Character given to them by Ambrose as Evangelists viz That they did Evangelizare sine Cathedra Their continual planetary Motion is by some largly described from the Apostolick Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles Thus first Timothy is found at Berea with Paul Act. 17.14 then at Athens v. 15. thence Paul sends him to Thessalonica 1 Thess. 3.1 2. Then having been at Macedonia with Paul he came to him to Corinth Act. 18.5 Then he is with him at Ephesus and thence sent to Macedonia Act. 19.22 whether Paul went after him and was by him accompanied into Asia Act. 20. He is with him at Troas v. 5. and at Miletus v. 17. where Paul gave the Elders of Ephesus their last Charge as the Bishops of that Church And after this he is found either in Journeys or absent from Ephesus For after he is found a Prisoner with Paul at Rome being mentioned as his Companion in these Epistles written while Paul was there as the Epistle to the Philippians Philip. 1.1 Philem. v. 1. Col. 1.1 And he is never found again at Ephesus But towards the end of the Apostles Pilgrimage is sent for to Rome So Titus is found at Ierusalem before he came to Crete Gal. 2.1 thence is sent for to Nicopolis Tit. 3.12 then to Corinth Then he is expected at Troas 2 Cor. 2.12 13. and meets with Paul at Macedonia 2 Cor. 7.6 whence he is again sent to Corinth 2 Cor. 8.6 And after this near the time of Paul's Death is found at Rome from whence he went not to Crete but to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4. 10. And after this is not heard of in Scripture So that whether we consider 1. The various Journies 2. The order of them 3. The time spent in them 4. The nature of their Imployment which was as the Apostles Co-adjutors to negotiat the Affairs of the Churches where they travelled and especially the Scripture-silence of their being Bishops of any one Church their supposed Episcopal Authority in these Churches of Ephesus and Crete doth palpably appear to be an Anti-scriptural groundless Fiction This Conclusion upon the premised accurat Search and Scripture account of Timothy and Titus is thus inferred by the reverend and learned Divines in their Conference at the Isle of Wight The Authors of Ius divinum minist Evangel In whose Words I have represented this Account both because of the judicious Concisness thereof and also because these Peices are but in few Hands These things thus premised its easie to discover the Absurdity of the Drs reasoning from his Third Instance to prove an Apostolical Authority Devolved upon Titus His Proof is from Chap. 1.5 For this Cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and Ordain Elders in every City as I had appointed thee From whence the Dr. First Argues That Paul gave him the Supream Judgment in things that were wanting with an absolut Power to Reform and Correct them It is Answered 1 mo Tho an Episcopal inspection over this Church were granted the Dr. is infinitly behind in his Proof of Paul's devolving upon Titus an Apostolical Authority in the Scripture Sense and Extent as we have often told him 2 do Upon supposition of that which we have before made good Viz That both Paul as an Apostle and Titus as an Evangelist had extraordinary Offices and suted to such a Case and exigence of the Christian Church as is now gone off this direction and Command proper and peculiar to the one and the other as Apostle and Evangelist and supposing this Exigence of the Church can lay no Foundation of the Duty of Ordinary Officers 3 tiâ— By what consequence can the Dr. infer an Episcopal Authority and Inspection from these prescriptions to Titus unless he can prove the absolut seclusion of Ministers from the Work here enjoyned or any interest therein in Churches Constitut For as for what they did in the Constitution of Churches in fieri is not to the purpose I mean in respect of the Organick being especially since we find that the laying on of Hands in Ordination and the Authority thereof is in Scripture held out to be competent to a Presbytrie which they exercised upon Timothy himself one of our Drs supposed Apostles or Bishops and that tho Paul was present 1 Tim 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 So that it is evident that neither Timothy nor Titus were instructed with any singular
Excommunication is by the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 5. supposed to be competent to a Presbytry And therefore Titus could have no Sole and Ordinary Authority herein For what the Dr. adds of the Testimonies of the Ancients touching Titus's Episcopacy at Crete such as Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 4. c. it is sufficiently Answered already and we need not repeat The Drs. Fourth and last instance to prove the Divine Right of Episcpacy from the Apostles practice is of the supposed Episcopal Authority of Timothy over Ephesus and that not only over the Laity to Command and Teach 1 Tim. 4.11 to receive or reject Widdows 1 Tim. 5.9 c. But also over the Clergy to take care for their Provision 1 Tim. 5.17 Not to admit Deacons but upon tryal nor Ordain the Elder till a good acquittance in the Deaconship 1 Tim. 3.10.13 to receive accusations put the Guilty to shame 1 Tim. 5.19.20 And to exercise this Jurisdiction without Preferring one before another v. 21. which could not be without a Jurisdiction over them He has also ascribed unto him an Ordaining Power as to the laying on of Hands 1 Tim. 5.22 All which Authority that it was given him by Paul for a standing Form of Government the Dr. proves from this Ground because it was after the Presbytrie was formed and settled there and after Paul's great Labours in that large Church for Three Years And therefore he may be supposed not only to have Planted a Presbytrie there as in other Churches Acts 14.23 but also to have reduced it to much gâ—eater perfection than any other And by consequence Establishing this Authority in a single Person is such a Form of Government as the Apostle must needs have understood and intended to be of of that Nature as was to continue as a Pattern to other Churches It is Answered 1. There is nothing here of a New Argument but a Repitition of the former and a New Begging of the Question Viz. The â—tanding ordinary Office of Apostles and Evangelists which we have above convict of Falsehood But 2. To come a little closer to the Drs. New Instance since he presents here some Actings of the Power of Order which he acknowledges tho performed by Timothy and enjoyned to him by Paul in that Church yet are likewise Competent to Presbyters or Pastors Viz Teaching c. which together with other Actings of the Power of Order he makes common to Pastors and at large discourses this P. 427 428.429 c. I would fain know how the Dr. will diversifie these in this Instance and shew that the enjoyning to Timothy in this place such an exercise of the Power of Order as is above exprest will give him no peculiar Interest therein but joyntly with the Presbyters and yet that the Commands in point of Jurisdiction are delivered to him peculiarly and not to them Where will the Dr. shew this distinction and difference in the Apostolick Precepts to Timothy It should seem the ordinary Rule will take place here non est distinguendum ubi Lex non distinguit since the Precepts are equally delivered and without the least Intimation of such a difference or distinction The person who makes the distinction seems Chargable with arrogant Anti-scriptural Boldness The Dr. pleads that the Apostolick Precept 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay Hands suddenly on no man prescribes a standing Rule in Point of Jurisdiction Viz that the Prelat has a sole interest therein secluding Presbyters wholly from any Authority in this Matter For this he makes the Bishops peculiar prerogatiue P. 436.437 c. And he draws his great Proof in this place from the Apostles addressing this Precept to Timothy not to Pastors or Presbyters Now what if any shall lash the Dr. with his own Argument and Plead from the Apostles Solemn Charge to Timothy 2 Tim. 4.1.2 Preach the Word be instant in Season cut of Season and several such Precepts relative to General Ministerial Duties or Actings of the Power of Order such as a Right behaving in the House of GOD 1 Tim. 3.15 To be a growing Minister in the Words of Faith 1 Tim. 4.6 To exercise himself to Godliness v. 7. To be examplary to Believers in word and Conversation c. V. 12. To give attendance to Reading Exhortation and Doctrin not to neglect but to stir up his Gift to Meditat upon the things of God and give himself wholly thereunto to take heed unto himself and to the Doctrin and continue in them v. 13.14.15.16 with 2 Tim. 1.6 That such Actings of the Power of Order are proper only to the Bishop and such Ministerial Duties peculiar to him So that Presbyters or Pastors have no Interest or concern therein because these Precepts are pecuâ—iarly addressed to Timothy not to them What Answer and evasion can he have to save him from a Contradiction and inconsistency with himself If his own Argument be good against us upon the forementioned Ground why not the very same Argument in this Case against himself The Drs. only Answer and evasion which he can have is That these Commands as to the Exercise of the Power of Order or respecting Pastoral Duties in general tho peculiarly addressed to Timothy yet could give him no peculiar or sole Interest therein because Presbyters are elsewhere in Scripture Instructed with the same Power But 1. In this Answer he breaks his Argument all in pieces the Strength whereof is drawn from the peculiar addressing these Precepts to Timothy But here he acknowledges that the peculiar Address will bear no such conclusion of Timothy's sole Interest in the Duty enjoyned And 2. If he say that the Bishops peculiar Interest and Jurisdiction is elsewhere evident in Scripture who sees not that he but pityfully beggs the Question and baffls his own General Argument And further he should know that the Presbyterians stand upon an advantagious Ground with him in this Point For we hold and can prove that the Power of Jurisdiction is prescribed and competent to Presbyters since the Scripture shews the Power of Ordination to be seated in a Presbytrie 1 Tim. 4.14 with Act 22.5 Luk. 22.66 Matth. 18.17 Consequently correspondent Actings of a Jurisdictional Power All that watch for the Peoples Souls are in Scripture held out to have a joint Rule over them Heb. 13.17 In the Church of Thessalonica the Labourers in the Word and Doctrin jointly fed and laboured jointly censured and as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers were to be submittted to and obeyed 1 Thess. 5.12 So it was in the same Church of Ephesus Act. 20. So with these Elders or Bishops 1 Pet 5. And I would fain know why the Drs. Notion and Argument from the peculiar addressing of Precepts will not hold good in our Case against him upon the ground of these and such like Scriptures where the Power of Order and Jurisdiction is jointly ascribed to Presbyters without the least hint of a Superior Authority herein or their Precarious dependence upon
any Officer of an higher order Moreover will the Dr. be bold to affirmâ— that what was prescribed to Timothy in Point of Order and Jurisdiction was confined within the Church of Ephesus and not rather to be exercised through all other Churches as the Apostle enjoined him And if this last must needs be asserted upon the Ground of his Evangelistick transient imployment through the Churches as is above from Scrpture evinced and delineat it follows by inevitable consequence that the Addressing of these Prescriptions to him while at Ephesus can infer no peculiar Relation he had to that Church but respected the Exercise of his Evangelistick Office in other Churches as well as there especially since the Apostle here enjoins him to do the Work of an Evangelist i. e. of such an unfixed transient Minister as is above described not the work of a Prelat over this Church If the Dr. deny this he will advance him to a Metrapolitan over several other Churches or else must quite his plea. But finally to Raze the Foundation of the Drs. Notion and Argument which he draws from Paul's Constituting a Presbytrie at Ephesus and reducing it to a greater perfection than in other Churches before Timothy had these Prescriptions in point of Government Adddressed unto him therein From whence the Dr. concludes that the Apostle established the Government to continue by a single person presiding over Clergy and Laity Besides the exceptions above touched to which this is lvable I would First know of him whether this Pâ—esbytrie or Presbytries so perfectly Constitut in his Judgment had not an essential and inherent interest and Authority in such Actings of the Power of Order as himself acknowledges competent to them such as Teaching and the like And if so as himself doth hold and suppose notwithstanding of the Addressing of Precepts to Timothy hereanent why were such Precepts addressed to Timothy Why was not this left to the perfectly Constitut Presbytrie and Precepts only in Point of Government addressed to him Especially since it s known the Bishops do not much concern themselves in Teaching and these other Ministerial Duties exprest in the Precepts abovementioned And if the Prior Authority of a Constitut Presbytrie hereanent was no Just Ground to stop the Apostles Precepts to Timothy in the Power of Order and such Ministerial Duties as are contained in the forementioned Precepts nor can infer Timothy's sole Interest therein why I pray shall this Reason be valid in point of Jurisdiction What will the Dr. Answer if one should improve his own Argument thus Notwithstanding of Pauls great pains in Preaching and Constituting a perfect Presbytrie to use his own term and that there were many Pastors gifted to Preach and admonish yet the Apostle afterward in his Epistle to Timothy gave this Commandment to him not to them Therefore this is proper and peculiar to the Bishop only And sure I am whatever Answer he can give to this which has any Sense or Consonancy to Scripture will loose and Answer his own Argument against us In a word its easie to retort this Argument from a Priority of time and shew that when pertinently improven it stands upon our side against the Dr. and his Fellows Which retortion I thus offer After Timothy had received these Instructions in the Church of Ephesus with reference to the Clergy and Laity as he speaks the Apostle Committed the whole Episcopal Charge to the Elders or Ministers of Ephesus as to both Order and Jurisdiction without the least hint of any Interest that Timothy had in or over them herein or of any precarious dependence of these Elders and Ministers upon him in the exercise of this their Power notwithstanding that Timothy was present with them when the Apostle gave this Charge and that it was his last farewell-Charge when never to see their Faces more Now if the Apostle had given Timothy a standing Episcopal Authority before and Constitut him their Bishop what a pityful inconsistency retraction and contradiction was it to his former Doctrin and practice in the Instalment of Timothy to devolve his whole Authority upon these Elders Commanding them as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Feed and Rule Surely if the Argument from Priority of time be valid it must be signally so in this Case wherein it is strengthened by so many Corroborating Circumstances of the Sacred Text and to use the Drs. expression and Address him in his own words ibid. this Constitution was to be a Pattern to all Churches and to be sure the Government now at last Established at Ephesus was such as the Apostle intended should continue The Dr. will needs have this Practice of the Apostle Paul to proceed upon the express Institution of our Saviour consequently to found a Divine Right of a Subordination of Ecclesiastick Officers since the Apostles ordained other Apostles and Bishops to presid over the Churches But sure looking to his Scope and Pleading nothing could be said in a more inconsistent Mould For he cannot but acknowledg That the Institution of our Saviour did relate to the Apostolick Office in its whole Nature and Extent as above delineat viz. To found and plant Churches through the World to establish the Gospel Government and Ordinances in them and this with extraordinary Gifts and infallible directive Authority as Christs immediatly sent and first Ambassadors Yet the Apostles supposed prosecution of this Institution he maks to consist only in setting some certain Bishops over particular Churches with an ordinary and limited Power for I hope he will not make them all universal Patriarchs Now how exactly these Bishops are shapen to the Pattern of Christs institut Apostles any may judg yet he will have them not only Bishops but Apostles properly so called such as were the first Apostles and as succeeding them in their formal Office Besides in speaking of this Divine Right he tells us His Arguments pleads for a Superiority and Subordination of Ecclesiastick Officers Which is a General easily accorded by us as is said and no way will come home to prove his supposed distinct Offices in the Pastoral Charge The Dr. tells us ibid That if the ordaining of Presbyters be an Argument of the perpetuity of the Office as we hold why not the Apostles ordaining Bishops as good an Argument for the perpetuity of that Office I answer when the Dr. shall make it good that the Apostles ordained Bishops of his Mould 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church by Church as we can prove and it is evident they did ordain Ministers or Elders or make it appear that the Apostle gave to Timothy or Titus any Rules for the Ordination of his supposed Bishop or for his Qualifications as in that Capacity as it is evident he prescribs Rules anent the Ordination and Qualification of the Pastor in both these Epistles then and not till then the Drs. paralel Argument shall be admitted But till then we must
Ordination of any higher Officer than a mere Pastor or Prerbyter I shall only add 3 ly That it is evident in the Apostles Doctrin and Practice that they own the Ministers of the Word as to the perpetual Pastoral Charge and in the ordinary Power of Government their equals as their practice in Ordination and Jurisdiction among Churches Constitut which is above discribed doth make evident And it were strange that Evangelists should beâ—instructed with Episcopal Preheminence in such Churches who were inferior to Apostles That Timothy who was ordained by a Presbytrie concurring Authoritatively tho Paul was present should usurp Preheminence over a Presbytrie tho inferior to an Apostle and that whereas Presbyters did concurr pari passu with a whole Presbytrie of Apostles in every piece of a Judicial Act and Decree wherein was put forth both the Diatactick Critick and Dogmatick Power and Authority in Church Government yet an Evangelist inferior to any of the Apostles should take Episcopal Preheminence over a Presbytrie in this Matter For the Drs. proofs from Antiquity upon this Head that we may understand how well he has laid his Measures for reaching his Scope and End let it be remembered what it is he undertaks to prove viz. The Churches universal Reception of the Office of Apostolat in its entire Nature as a standing necessary Function in the Church to be transmitted to after Ages with the same Authority and Commission as delivered at first to the Twelve For this is that which the Dr. directly and designedly pleads for from that passage of Scripture where Our Lord said to his Apostles As my Father hath sent Me so send I you And according to this Rule let us examin his Instances His first proof P. 406 is from St. Clement who mentions in his Epistle to the Corinthians three Orders of Ecclesiastical Officers whom he calls the High Priest the Priests and the Levits which Words saith the Dr. can be no otherwise understood than of the Bishop Presbyter and Deacons A strange proof and an odd Explication indeed How doth the Doctor prove that Clement did any otherewise express himself than with this Allusion to the Old Testament Church Officers signifying that there are diverse Officers in the New Testament Ministry as in the Old Again How comes the Dr. to explain him of Bishop Presbyter in the Singular and Deacons in the Plural And how does this correspond to Clements expresion of High Priest in the singular and Priests in the plural Will the Dr. owne the Primacy of an High Priest over the Christian Catholick Church as of the Church of the Iewes Or be bold to Averr that Clement Asserted this Moreover the Drs. Explication of Clement viz. That he means by the High Priest the Bishop by the Priests the Presbyter c. Baffles his Design and cuts the Throat of his Cause and pleading For if Clement lookt upon the Presbyters or Pastors as holding an Office and Authority corresponding to that of the Priests under the Old Testament then certainly he did hold them to have a necessary Essential Interest in Government such as the Priests had For the Dr. will not be bold to say that the Sanehedrin made up of Priests had not a governing Power or that it was Monopolized in the person of the High Priest as he affirms it is in the person of the Bishop secluding the Presbyters And further to discover how the Dr. has abused his Reader and forefeited his Credit in this Citation let us take Notice that Clement to remove the Sedition raised by the Corinthians against their Presbyters p. 57.58 tells them how God hath alwise appointed several Orders in his Church which must not be confounded In the Iewish Church he appointed an High Priest Priests and Levits and then tells them that for the times of the Gospel Jesus Christ sent his Apostles through Countreys and Cities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which he Preacht and constitut the first Fruits approving them by the Spirit for Bishops and Deacons to those who should afterward believe From which Words the learned Authors of the Append. Minist Evang. Have long since concluded against the Dr. and his Fellows 1. That in the first and purest times the custom was to chuse Bishops in Villages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And how small little Apostles these were I need not tell the Dr. and such for Authority and extent of Power as are many Pastors now in Scotland 2. That Bishops and Deacons are the only Orders of Ministry owned by Clement as planted by the Apostles the first Primitive Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which shews the Drs. palpable Forgery in making Clement to assert three Orders of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Clement adds p. 57. That the Apostles by Jesus Christ knowing that contentions would arise about the Name of Bishop and being endu'd with perfect knowledg they appointed the foresaid Orders Viz Bishops and Deaeons Upon which the Learned Authors of the Apendix do further note 1. That by Name we are not to understand the bare Name but the Honour and Dignity as the word is taken Philip. 2.9 Eph. 1.21 The Controversie among the Corinthians being about the Dignity of Episcopacy and the Deposition of their Godly Presbyters p. 57.58 2. That the only remedy appinted by the Apostles for the Cure of all Contentions arising about Episcopacy is by Committing the Care of the Church to Bishops and Deacons in Clements Judgement What ever Remedy of Schism the Church afterward applyed in setting up one Bishop over another Clement tells us that the Apostles endued with perfect knowledg of things Ordained only Bishops and Deacons Whosoever shall Peruse him p. 57.62.69.72 will find he clearly asserts the first and purest Primitive Church to be Governed by Presbyters without Bishops Besides that he uses the Names of Bishop and Presbyter promiscuously and supposes them to be one and the same throughout the whole Epistle The Dr. brings next Ignatius upon the Field Whose Six Epistles written on the way to his Martyrdom he tells us are express for the derivation of this Superior Order from the Apostles So that we have no other evasion but to alledg they are Counterfeit from which imputation they have been Triumphantly vindicat so he expresses it by a Learned Pen And that therefore no Man of Learning without exposing his Reputation can call them in Question Who this learned Pen is who thus vindicats them the Dr. hath not thought fit to let us know and if he mean Dr. Pearson as probably he doth he should know that his pretended Vindication was confuted by a learned French Divine Dally and his Proofs convicted of Forgery So that the Dr. exposes his Understanding and Modesty in this Assertion That the Vindication is Triumphant And as for the Drs. Re-vindication this Author should know the learned L'Rooque a Famous Pastor of the French Church replyed to Dr. Pearson and Dr. Beveredge in defence of Dally upon the Point of Ignatius's
Moderators had no Authority over the Presbytrie tho ordinarly thus termed And which clears this to Conviction Polycarp himself in his Epistle to the Philippians makes but two Orders of Ministry viz. Elders and Deacons as the Apostle Paul doth in his Epistle to the same Church and exhorts them to be subject to the Presbyter as unto God and unto Christ. And sure the Dr. will not make him cross this in his practice so that he falls utterly short of proving an Episcopacy of his Mould much more a derived Apostolat from these blind Testimonies The Dr. adds That it cannot be imagined that all Churches would have universally admitted Bishops in Ignatius's time the Apostles being alive had not some of them derived their Authority from the Apostles immediatly But 1. The Dr. hath given no shadow of proof for this universal Reception For I pray what proof is this Such and such Authors say there were Bishops in such and such Posts or rather put this general name upon such Persons Therefore the Christian Church received the Hierarchical Prelat universally or the Prelat with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as an Officer of Divine Institution For besides that the Dr. will never prove from the bare Assertion anent Bishops that they were of his Cutt and Mould the contrary being apparent especially in these early Times And many Fathers asserting the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter he must prove and instruct the universal Judgment and Practice of all the Churches as to the Reception of the Hierarchical Bishop of his Mould before this Assertion can be made good 2. The Dr. cannot deny Scripture Instances of the very early Reception of Corruptions in the Church both under the Law and Gospel As in the times of the Old Testament he knows the early Reception of the Idolatry of the Golden Calf by the Church of Israel together with Aaron himself but Forty Days after the delivery of the Law from Mount Sinai And besides many such Instances in the Old Testament we have Scripture Instances of the Devils sowing his Tares early in the Church of the New Testament such as the Error about the Resurrection the worshipping of Angels Justification by the works of the Law the necessity of Circumcision and other Ceremonies the Error of the Nicolaitans c. And look a little forward in the early times of the Church we will find Errors Traditions pretended to be received from the Apostles and owned by some of the Fathers themselves which notwithstanding the Dr cannot but acknowledg to be Errors Such as the Millâ—nary Error the Error of Children's receiving the Lords Supper c. whereof afterward The Dr. thinks it inconsistent with the Churches veneration to the Apostle Iohn that they should receive a new Order of Men without his Authority But this Universal reception of such an Order as the Dr. supposes is not yet proved Besides that the Dr's supposition of this impossibility of such a corruption early creeping in because of some Apostles or even of Iohn yet alive he will find not to be solid when he ponders duely the working of the Mystrie of iniquity and the Seeds of a Papacy even in Paul's time and a Diotrophes seeking Preheminence even in Iohn's time yea and directly contradicting and opposing the Holy Apostle The Dr. should know that it is not the slippery Principle of a supposed impossibility of this Nature while the Apostles were alive that we must found our Perswasion upon but the lively Oracles and living Doctrin of the Apostles is our Rule and whatever Doctrin or practice is cross thereunto tho all the Church should receive it yea tho an Angel from Heaven Preach it we ought to reject it and might call that Angel accursed For what the Dr. adds out of Bishop Taylor of Episcopacy Sect. 18. That de facto the Apostles with their own Hands Ordained several Bishops over Churches Viz Dion Areop Bishop of Athens Caius of Thessalonica Archippus of Coloss Onesimus of Ephesus Epaphroditus of Phillippi Titus of Corinth c. I Answer the Dr. does well to add the Caution if Credit might be given to Ecclesiastick History And truely this History must be of mighty force that must be believed against clear Scripture and the Credit and belief founded thereupon must needs be distinct from that Faith which God allows Nay the Drs. Credit of such History must needs set him at odds with himself For as to the First we find the Apostle Paul enjoyning the Church of Thessalonica Obedience to their Pastors jointly as their Spiritual Rulers and Governours without the least hint of any Super-eminent Prelat and enjoining to these Rulers Authoritative admonition of the Flock 1 Thess. 5.12.14 And will this Bishop and our Dr. Charge such a Contradiction upon the Apostle Paul as to settle a Presbytrie of Pastors in that Church with Authority to Rule and Govern while this Authority and Power is entrusted unto one Bishop or to take it afterward from them and put it in the Bishops Hands How I pray shall we believe such History against such plain Scripture And whether I pray deserves most our Credit the Apostles Divinly inspired Epistle enjoyning Obedience to the Pastors of that Church of Thessalonica jointly as their Spiritual Rulers and Guids or an after Apocryphal History declaring that this Authority was by the Apostles appointment monopolized in one Bishop either at that time or thereafter set up and Ordained by Paul Whether are we to believe the Scripture account of the State and Government of the Church of Ephesus as entrusted by Paul in his last farewel to the inspection and Government of the Elders jointly as the Bishops thereof Authorized by the Holy Ghost or an Historical account of Onesimus as their sole Bishop who had this Power Monopolized in him in Contradiction to the Apostles last prescriptions unto that Church either at that time or thereafter I dare pose this Dr. or any man of Sense and Candor upon it And whether upon such ground as this we might not cast off all Divine Institutions and receive all fopperies and Superstitions which Man 's wicked Heart by Satans influence might suggest The like might be said of Philippi the Apostle in the Preface of his Epistle to that Church saluting the Bishops as their Pastors in common calling all the Ministers Bishops and thus applying to them that Name and Office which the Dr. and his Fellows will needs appropriat to a Prelat And sure Paul writing by instinct of the un-erring Spirit of God gave not empty complemental Titles to these Pastors or Bishops but supposes them to have a standing joint Authority over that Church as the Spiritual Guids and Rulers thereof And it is a fearful and Gross imputation upon the Wisdom of God to suppose that either now or afterwards such a pretended Prelat as the Dr. maintains either had or was to have by Divine appointment all this Authority of the Pastors enhansed
and monopolized in him And if we will admit of after suposed Decrees and Fables of this Nature opposit to Scripture we may make them as some Papists blaspheme them a Nose of Wax Again If the Dr. adhere to this phantastick Apocryphal History he crosses his own Pleading from Scripture and wounds his Cause to Death with his own hands For we have heard the great strength of his Scripture Argument as touching the Apostles setting up succeedanous Apostles and Bishops in correspondence to Christs Institution lyes in the supposed instalment of Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Titus Bishop of Crete and that the instructions addrest to them in Point of Government in these Epistles are a clear indication yea and Demonstration in the Drs Sense and Pleading of this supposed instalment of the one and the other by the Apostles in these their pretended Diocesses of Ephesus and Crete and we know how much the Dr. labours to prove the consentient Judgment of the Fathers hereanent Now if the Dr. will hold with Bishop Taylor that the Apostles with their own hands installed not Timothy but Onesimus Bishop of Ephesus and Titus not Bishop of Crete but of Corinth what is become of all his pleadings from Scripture for their installment elsewhere The Dr. says The supposed Instalment of Titus and Onesinus at Ephesus and Corinth and that by the Apostles own Hands is most certain if we believe Ecclesiastical History And if most certain upon this Ground then most certain it is 1. That the Drs. Pleadings for Timothy's and Titus's Instalment at Ephesus and Crete is most false and all his pretended Scripture Proofs by his own Confession mere wind and lies And 2 ly That all the Dr's Testimonies of Fathers and pretended Historical accounts hereanent are Fabulous Dreams I know no imaginable evasion the Dr. hath but to alledge their after-instalment in these places by the Apostles But the Dr. must give a Scripture-account as well as Historical of this matter ere a door can be opened to him for this Refuge But to proceed The Dr's Third Inference is that the Bishops of this Age were lookt on as a Superior Order to Presbyters Ignatius commanding Presbyters to obey them according to Christs Institution Ans. we have heard what Judgment we are to make of these Epistles and consequently what a sandy Foundation the Dr. builds this inference upon Again if the Dr. will make Ignatius consistent with himself he must needs disown this Inference and Opinion of him For in his Epistle to the Trallians he enjoyns them to be Subject to the Presbytrie as the Apostles of Christ and calls the Presbytrie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Court and Conjunction of Apostles of Christ And in the same Epistle he call the Colledge of Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making the Bishop thus their Fellows in the Government and nothing else And how far this is from the Dr's supposition of Ignatius Judgment about the Hierarchy and the Practice of the Church in this Point let any Judg. The Dr. proceeds to his Proofs from the next Age further as he tells us from the Scripture Antiquity And no doubt the more Dark in this Point He tells us of Iustin Martyr in his Apology to the Emperour Antonius who speaks of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President in the Church who Consecrat the Bread and Wine gave to the Deacons to distribut to the present and to be carryed to the absent And that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was Bishop he tells us appears by Dionysius Bishop of Corinth his Contemporary who used the Names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Bishop promiscuously A sorry Proof no doubt The Churches had a President or these called by Iustin so Therefore Bishops with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and holding the entire Apostolick Office Again these Presidents are called sometimes Bishops and gets that general Name Therefore they were such Bishops and of such a Mould as the Dr. pleads for What Arguing can be more insipid and Vain But if the Dr. put a due Value upon the Argument drawn from Epithets as Pointing at the Office and Authority of the Persons thereby designed what thinks he of the Spirit of GOD in Scripture his Denominating Pasters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as we have above cleared One would think this as strong a Proof of their Episcopal Authority as this of the supposed Bishops drawn from this Epithet of Iustin and Dionisius I might further Argue and press the Dr. thus If these Scripture Denominations do prove and argue an Essential Interest and Authority in Church Government competent to Pastors they do by necessary consequence overturn the Peculiarity of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presidency ascribed to the Bishop as set over Pastors and enhancing all this Authority and do by further consequence inferr either that Fathers contradicted the Scripture if attributing this Prostacie to the Bishops in the Dr's Sense or that if they speak according to the Scripture Sense and acceptation of the Word they must needs mean the Pastor only and not his imaginary Prelat And so whatever Sense the Dr. imbraces of Iustin and Dionisius his Cause and Pleading here is lost and falls to the Ground Moreover if the Dr. stand to this supposed account of the Bishops Office offered by Iustin he will make the Administration of the Lords Supper peculiar to him against the Dr's own Sense and Pleading who acknowledges that Preaching of the Word and Administration of the Sacraments are the proper Duties of the Pastoral Function whereas here it is made peculiar to the Bishop to Consecrat the Bread and Wine Besides that the Dr. here apparently approves the carrying of the Sacrament to the absent a seed of gross Popish Superstitions But I am weary of this pityful trash As for the Dr's Citation of Euseb. lib. 4. Cap. 23. And the Five Books of Hegesippus the Fragments whereof he says are in Eusebius's History anent the Succession of Bishops of Rome Anicetus Soter Eleutherius succeeding Sucessively and of Iames Bishop of Ierusalem succeeded by Simon Cleophae Euseb. lib. 4. Cap. 22. And thereafter that Dionisius Bishop of Corinth in his Epistles mentions Publius and Quadratus Successive Bishops of Athens and several other Bishops in their Respective Sees It is Answered this is abundantly obviat and removed by what is premised First Anent the suspected Credit and Faith of his vouchers whom as we have heard the learned does Censure and disown which has no small confirmation from this that Eusebius himself in the Proaem of his History Professes that he is entred into a dark Desert having no footsteps of Historians going before him but only some petty Narrations which certain persons in certain times and places have left And for Hegesippus whose Fragments the Dr. Confesses is all Eusebius's Foundation in this Point he is by most Famous Protestant Writers acknowledged fabulous and unworthy of Credit besides that no
Ierom and approve his Testimony who affirms that upon occason of Divisions the Government was altered and immutata ratio as he speaks it is a pityful and palpably absurd inference to argue upon this that either Ierom or we do impute this providential issue and Mans sinful abuse and miscarriage to the Divine Institution it self And if the Dr. own such a consequence he will justify all such abuses and Ieroboams Plea for setting up his Calves at Dan and Bethel because he judged it could not consist with the safety of the Kingdom which God had given him over Israel that the Ten Tribes should go up to Ierusalem to worship after the Kingdoms were divided Secondly He says We hold that upon this occasion it was universally agreed upon that one Presbyter should preside over all the rest which was the beginning of Episcopacy And this appears as dark and confused an Account as the former For 1. As to the Office of a President or Moderator whose Work is to be the Mouth of the Meeting to gather the Votes and moderat the Procedures we hold that the very nature of all Government essentially requires this and consequently Church Government and that this was alwise and necessarly practised as in all Church Government so since the beginning and is examplified in that first Christian Council Act. 15. wherein we judg it probable that the Person presiding was the Apostle Iames And therefore its gross Non-sense to say we hold this Presidency to have been first introduced upon occasion of Schism But next if the Dr. by by a President over the rest mean such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is either advitam or who has such a Presidency as encroaches upon or inhances the Decisive Votes of Pastors this indeed we acknowledg with Ierom came in Paulatim and by peice-meal tho at first he was but a mere President advitam and had some Honour and deference upon this account And this we hold was the rise of that Prelacie which in Process of time swallowed up all the decisive Power of Pastors and their exercise of Government But the Dr. badly represents the Matter P. 415. when he calls this a Chusing of one to preside over the rest which is applicable to any President of a Judicatory or mouth of a meeting or unto a speaker in Parliament Thirdly The Dr. says we hold that this remedy was Universally agreed upon If he means that upon occasion of Schisms we hold that this custom of the fixed President with Authority and deference as above exprest came in by degrees and became Universal in Process of time as additional corruptions ordinarly do this is easily accorded But if he mean that we hold there was a Formal General Council decreeing this as the Dr. with his Fellow-Pleaders fasten this gloss upon that Passage of Ierom prospiciente concilio toto orbe decretum he should know that we disown such an Opinion and have sufficiently made it appear that Ierom intended no such thing since in collating his two Testimonies viz his Comment upon the Epistle to Titus and his Epistle to Evagrius the contrary is evident For Ierom makes this a Consuetudo or Custom and says it came in Paulatim or by Degrees And no man of Sense can but distinguish betwixt a gradual reception of any Practice spreading it self and growing up to a custom and a practice taking its rise and Original from a formal joint Decree of a General Council The Dr. having set down some part of one of these Testimonies of Ierom alledges that we hold or guess as he expresses it that this Universal Decree was about the Year 140. We hold indeed with Blondel that about this time the forementioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 took place but that we hold or guess it was by an Universal Decree is the Drs. groundless imputation which he can Justify from none of our Writers Let any Peruse the Learned Iunius his account and explication of this Testimony de Clericis Cap. 15. Not. 16. together with the Authors of the Ius Divinum Minist Evang. Part. 2 d. P. 56.57 and the Appendix thereto P. 102. 103. and this will be convincingly apparent Well what says the Dr. to this Testimony Having given out our Sense of Ierom's words wherein he contradicts his former Gloss his First exception is That Ierom being Born but about the Year 330 is a Witness far short in Antiquity to these early Witnesses which he has adduced That he is a Hundred Years after Origen three Hundred after Clâ—ment and one Witness must not stand against so many early Harmonious Witnesses We have made it appear that none of the Drs. early Witnesses give a Relevant Testimony to the Point and These he undertakes to prove viz. the derivation of the Apostolick Office in its proper formal Sense to an Order of Ordinary Officers Superior to Pastors and inhancing their whole Authority in Government We have made appear that all that his Testimonies amounts to prove is only a General designation of Bishops made use of by the Ancients and at most a supposal of some deference and fixed Presidency which they had in Judicatories And who sees not that this is utterly short of proving what he intends So that his Witnesses are mute in our Cause and speaks not to the Question and Iâ—â—errogatur The Dr. from P. 433. to P. 447. asserts and endeavours to prove that the Bishop hath for his peculiar prerogative annexed to his person and Office as Bishop 1. The Legislative Power which he calls the Essence of Government in the very same manner as he supposes the Apostles possest and exercised it 2 dly The sole Authority to Consecrat and Ordain 3 ly The whole Authority of Spirituall Iurisdiction to Cite Examin Judg Censure and absolve Delinquents 4 ly To Confirm the Baptized From all which he as intirly excluds all Pastors in Meetings never so frequent and formal and allows them no more Interest in any of these than if they were no Church Officers at all So that their medling in the least with these his supposed sole prerogatives of the Bishop is in his Judgment as gross Antiscriptural encroachment and stepping beyond the Duties and limits of their Function and Office as if they should invade the Kings Authority and prerogative Now the Office of the Bishop being of this Nature and extent in the Dr's Judgment let any Person of Candor or Conscience give sentence upon it what the Witnesses before adduced by him do say to prove this and what strength there is in their Testimoneis to reach this conclusion Again 2 ly As the Drs. pretended early Witnesses are but general and ambiguous in their Testimonies and consequently can make no Faith in this Matter so they are so far from being unanimous as he calls them that upon the contrary several of them as is above cleared do give Witness against him Particularly Clemens and Ignatius two of his most Ancient Witnesses
Sense the whole Church by joynt Determination had simul semel made this Alteration it is evident that he charges the Error upon the Church as a Recess from the Divine Path but not at all upon the Divine Appointment it self which he diligently distinguishes from and sets in Opposition to this Custom and Practice of the Church So that the absurd Reflection upon the Apostles Government and the Wisdom of our Saviour the Dr. may see to be lodged nearer home viz. not only upon these who first brought in this Human Prostasie especially such as Scrued it up to an Hierarchical Primacy which is so cross to the Apostolick Parity but also and in a singular manner to be chargeable upon these who uphold it after its many Evils are discovered Ierom asserts only the Matter of Fact viz. That this Imparity was brought in for Remedy of Schism but leaves the chargâ— of Reflecting upon the Apostolick Government upon the Authors of this Innovation And upon the Promotters thereof it must still ly The Dr. alledges That Iorom approves of this as a Wise aâ—d Prudent Action An odd Approbation indeed To approvâ— a Custom or Action as Wise and Prudent which he holds to be opposit to the Divine Appointment For his proof viz. That Ierom asserts the Safety of the Church to depend upon the Authority of the High Priest or Bishop to whom if Supreme Authority be not given there would be as many Schisms as Priests As the Dr. has pointed us to none of Ieroms Writings for Proof of this so as we have cleared above Ierom and the Ancients in such Allusive Expressions intend nothing else but a Distinction of Offices in the Gospel Ministry and to assert the Authority thereof Blond Sect. 3. P. 135. shews out of diverse Councils their expressing the Gospel Ministry under the Character of Priests and Levites And I dare referr it to this Dr or any Man of Sense if a grosser Contradiction or Non-sense could ever fall into any Mans Thought than to hold the Necessity of an Hierarchical Bishop with Supreme Authority and yet the Necessity of a Divine Appointment to the contrary That which the Dr. calls the Unavoidable Consequence of Jerom 's Hypothesis viz. That the Church had gone to Ruine if a Wiser Form of Government than that of Apostles had not been taken up to supply its Defect We have made appear to be a very easily avoided Consequence and by no Twist of Reason to be deducible from Ierom's Hypothesis and that the Dr in drawing such a Consequence has in stead of Ierom involved himself in absurd Deductions He calls this Testimony of Jerom the only considerable Objection against the Universal Conformity of the Primitive Church to Episcopal Government And therein discovers his small and slender Reading in this Controversie since he might have seen in Blondel Salmasius and many others many more considerable Objections And this one we have found so very considerable that it hath quit baffled and born down the Dr's mean and inconsiderable Answers But to proceed In the close of this Section P. 421. the Dr. flies high in these his supposed victorious Answers to Jerom's Testimony telling us that the Apostolick Superiority of Bishops being handed down by Testimonies from Age to Age it s as unreasonable to reject the same as the Canon of the Scriptures thence derived The Dr. here discovers what Spirit he is of I had alwise thought that the Divine Impression of the Scripture Canon the intrinsick infallible evidences of a Divine inspiration had been the great ground of the Churches reception not its being handed down to us from former generations or the First receivers And that our Divines had alwise distinguished the Church and former Generations Testimony and recommendation from the innate Essential evidences of its Divine Authority as to the Ground of our Faith and reception But however I shall tell him that he should have exhibited as full and Divine proof and unanimous recommendation of all the Churches for his hierarchical Prelacy as there is for the Scripture Canon before he had offered such an high flown notion Before I part with the Dr. upon this head I must needs tho I have a little before touched it take notice of two pieces of signal unsoundnness and unfair dealing in this Matter of Jerom's Testimony First That in all his Animadversions and muster of Episcopal strength against it he doth not in the least take notice of Jeroms Scripture proofs of the parity of Bishop and Presbyter in correspondence to our Sense and Pleading Upon Philip 1.1 He argues That many Bishops are saluted by Paul in that Church and that it could not have many of the Diocesian stamp That therefore the Apostle speaks indifferently of Bishops and Presbyters as one and the same That Act. 20. Paul called the Elders of Ephesus Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost and that therefore he owned the Elders of that one City as Bishops That in the Epistle to the Hebrews the care of the Churches is divided among many obey them that have the Rule over you for they watch for your Souls That Peter called so from the firmness of his Faith exhorts thus the Elders the Elders which are among you I exhort who am also an Elder and Witness of the sufferings of Christ Feed the Flock of God which is among you not by constraint but willingly c. These things I write saith Ierom to shew that among the Ancients Bishops and Presbyters were one and the same and that by little and little the care was devolved upon one Now what says the Dr. to these his Arguings upon the Apostles Doctrin If they are not found why doth he not discover his mistake If they hold good the Dr's exceptions evanish unto Wind. As for instance That Ierom is too late a Witness that he is a Witness in his own Cause that he talks otherwise when not byassed with partiality c. For if these Reasonings be sound his Witness is both a most early and Divine Witness and in the cause of God and Truth And whatever other Testimony he may be supposed to give this Divine Testimony ought to be preferred wherein there can be no partiality unless the Dr. will impute partiality to the Divine Oracles and the Decision of the Holy GOD of Truth in this Point This also answers the Drs quible about a Decree Apostolick as the Ground of the Change of Government and that Ierom could mean no such thing since none can be so brutish as to impute to the Apostles a contradictory Decree to their own Doctrin As also that other exception of his evanishes upon this Ground Viz. That no such Decree of the Church was Recorded And that therefore there was none such For say it was either a Decree or gradual Custom if cross to the Apostolick Doctrin it ought to be rejected Thus also appears the Folly of his last exception That he imputes to the Apostolick
some of you into Prison that ye may be tryed In a word what ever Characteristick of this Angel the Dr. shall produce we can make it appear to be applicable to Presbyters or Pastors First Is it a Commission to Preach and Baptize This he will grant belongs to all Pastors Is it the Power of Ordination The Scripture shews us that this is Seated in a Presbytrie 1 Tim. 4.14 Matth. 18.17 Is it the Ruling Governing Power All Ministers are such Angels All that Watch for Souls do Rule over them and all Labourers in the Word and Doctrin have an equal joynt Interest in Feeding Censuring and Ruling in the Churches over which they are set Heb. 13.17 1 Thess. 5.12 And People are accordingly to submit themselves to them Therefore this Prostasie and Ruling Power is no sole Prerogative of a single Angel or supposed Bishop Thus it was with the Church of Ephesus Act. 20. And it is much more suteable to understand the Angel of Ephesus of a Plurality of Ministers to whom in a plain Scripture the whole Government is found intrusted rather than to Explain that plain Text by a Metaphor and contrary thereunto to set up one Angel or Diâ—cesan Bishop over that Church with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction The Dr. will find this our Sense of the Angel to be no new Opinion when he considers that Augustin Homil. 21. upon this Book thus takes it Expounding the Angel of Thyatira the Praepositi Ecclesiarum or Governours of the Churches So Aretas Lib. 1. Cap. 1.2.9.10 Primas in Apoc. Cap. 2. Ambros. Ambert Anselm Pererius Victorin Tirin Haym Bed Perkins Fox in his Meditations on the Revelation pag. 7 8. Pilkintoun Bishop of Durham in his Exposition of Hag. Ch. 1. v. 13. The second thing I premise is that the Dr. hath no advantage tho it be yielded that the Angel is a single Person For 1. He may be the Angelus Praeses or the Moderator Angel not the Angelus Princeps or the Lord Angel yea and the Praeses or Moderator for the time as a Speaker in Parliament Ephesus had many Angels Act. 20.28 1 Tim. 5.17 of equal Authority who were made Bishops by the Holy Ghost and set over that Church accordingly and they are spoken to in the Plural though the Angel is named in the Singular Number 2. This Angel is said to have no Jurisdiction or Superiority over the rest of the Ministers nor can the Dr. shew where this Angel is spoken to with reference to Ministers as subject to him which notwithstanding is his begged Supposition and Petitio Principii all along in this Argument 3. The Parochial and Diocesan Division of the Churches were long after this and not until the 260 year after Christ in the Judgment of best Antiquaries 4. Nothing is required of this Angel but that which is the common Duty of all Pastors Finally suppose it were granted to him that a Superiority were imported in Naming this Angel it may be a Superiority of Order Dignity or Gifts and in such Moral Respects not of Power and Jurisdiction The Dr in Order to this his Scope proposes generally the Method of his Proof shewing That he will prove that they were single Persons 2 ly That they were Persons of great Authority in these Churches 3 ly That they were the Bishops or Presidents of these Churches Before I examin his Proofs it is pleasant to consider how well this Undertaking of the Dr. answers his Scope which all along in this Dispute is to prove a Succession of ordinary Officers in the Office of Apostolat as he calls it and in their whole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction excluding Pastors from the least Interest therein By his Principles these supposed Succeeding Prelats are the sole Governours of Churches have the sole Legislative Power wherein he says the Essence of Government consists the Power of Consecration and Ordination to Ecclesiastick Offices and that of the same Nature and Extent as he supposes the Apostles had it by vertue of their Apostolical Mission The Bishops also have by his Principles the sole Executive Spiritual Jurisdiction Monopolized in them as their peculiar Prerogative viz. as the Dr. explains it to Cite Examin Admonish Offenders Exclud from or Admit to Church Communion Censure or Absolve Bind or Loose The twelve Thrones to Judg Israels Tribes promised to Apostles he understands of the Authority of Judging and of all Spiritual Jurisdiction in the Church Visible committed to them and by them to the Bishops as their only Successors in this Authority To which we may add the Confirming of the Baptized by Imposition of Hands which he also ascribes to them as their sole Prerogative This the Dr. at large insists upon from P. 433. to P. 438. Now to prove all these Prerogatives of the Bishops and this Extensive Power so paramount to all Authority or Interest of Pastors in Government as it renders them mere Cyphers without a Figure from the seven Asian Angels Because they were single Persons or of great Authority in the Churches or President-Bishops in these Churches is such a Proof as the Simplest may Laugh at For 1. Will any Man think that their being Saluted as single Persons will prove this Extensive Authority Why may not a Senate be Saluted in the Consuls a Parliament Addressed in the Chancellor or the House of Commons in an Epistle to the Speaker 2 ly Say that they were Presidents and admit that they had Deference and Authority as such as the Consul in the Senate will this suppose or by any Shadow of Consequence or Connection inferr that they had such a Power as is here described and such as swallows up wholly and absolutly all Authority of the Members of Church Judicatories Nay the Dr. will as soon joyn the Poles together as unite this Antecedent and Consequent Besides in calling them Presidents he discovers this and confutes himself since the Terme both Name and Thing in all Languages and in the Sense of all Men is appropriat to such as are set over Juridical Courts Civil or Ecclesiastick the Members whereof are still supposed to have a Decisive Suffrage and Interest in the Government Again 3 ly The Dr. says he will prove that they were Persons of great Authority in these Churches But if he speak to the Point and prosecut his Scope he must call it Absolute and Sole Authority intirely exclusive of all Interest which Pastors or any other Church Officers may claim therein Come we to the Dr's Grand Proofs First That they were single Persons he proves from this That they are mentioned as such the Angel of Ephesus the Angel of Smyrna And thus all along Addrest in the Singular Number I know thy Works I have a few things against thee Ans. This Argument is abundantly removed by what is premised anent the Collective Sense of the Word Angel which our Lords Addressing the the Epistle to one Angel doth no whit Impugn in the sense of sound Protestant
but the People under him yet not one word to Pastors I had thought that the Clergy and Laity being distinguished by the Dr. P. 421. and both the one and the other in his Sense under the Bishops Government and inspection when he makes the Plural Address to go beyond the Bishop he would have cast an Eye upon the under-Clergy or Ministry before the People as concerned before them in these important duties or supposed Transgressions But we may easily discover the knack of the Dr's policy in this For Pleading in his Second Argument That an Authority in reference to Church Government is clearly imported in several of these directions or reprehensions particularly those addressed to the Angel of Pergamus and Thyatira in reference to Juridical Tryal conviction and Censures He was afraid least by this means he should have opened a door for Ministers claim to the Bishop's incommunicable prerogatives had he extended the plural Address to them as well as to the People Thirdly The Dr. having told us That in such plural Addresses the people under the Bishop's Government are included gives for instance that Passage Rev. 2.10 The Devil shall cast some of you into prison I should verrily think he was here concerned to specifie the Clergy and Laity and include both For it seems in his Sense all the Pastors were safe from the Thunder-clap of this warning I know not by what shield except that of the Drs. fancy and there were no prisons there for Pastors this being only spoke to the People This charge of gross folly upon his Mould of Reasoning and it is gross enough at all will is the more evident in that Answer to the Objection taken from that phrase Chap. 2.25 unto you and unto the rest in Thyatira from which passage we plead for a plural diversifying Ministers and people under distinct Comma's The Dr. will admit it by no means to to be meant of any but the People making the term you and the rest in Thyatria one and the same as distinguishing only the sound from the unsound part in that Church So that it is evident the D appropriats the Plural Phrases to the People only and consequently is exposed to the forementioned absurdities in his way and method of pleading That that Passage Chap. 2.10 doth reach the Pastors is upon several important grounds made good by Mr. Durham upon the place as 1. from the remarkable change of the singular number to the Plural 2 ly That his was a searching tryal to the Church whereof it was her concern to be warned 3 ly That the preservation of Some was as signal a consolation in such a Tryal as Isai. 30.20.21 See others cited by Pool Critic upon the place The Dr. enquires If Angels had not been single Persons why are they not mentioned Plurally as well as the People This Querie confirms what is now imputed to him That they are mentioned Plurally we have already made good in the premised Instances Yea the Dr. himself answers himself acknowledging that there is a Plurality bespoken in the Person of the Angels so that he is not only Personally Addressed But the Dr's strange Fetch is that he will allow a Plurality of the People to be Addrest and spoken to in one singular Bishop or Angel but none of the Pastors at all For which Notion I had almost said Non-sense no imaginable ground can be given but the Dr's good Will to his Hierarchical Bishop whom he would fain shape out of this Scripture which we see so rejects and baffles his Endeavours that instead of any evident ground of Answer from the Text he must needs embrace an Airy Notion of his own Brain Thus to that pregnant Passage Chap. 2.24 which we adduce to prove the Angel to be Addrest Plurally viz. To you I say and unto the rest in Thyatira Where there is a clear Distinction made betwixt the Plural you viz. the Pastors and the rest in Thyatira viz. the People The Dr. has no other Shift but that pitiful one viz. That the Ancient Greek Manuscripts leave out the Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Read it To you the rest in Thyatira distinguishing the Seduced from the not Seduced And therefore cannot be meant of the Angel who is always Addrest in the Singular Number But 1. This Shift baffles most of all the old Greek Copies the Reading he embraces being supposed Mantytecla's Manuscript baffles all the Episcopal English Clergy concerned in our last Translation who notwithstanding all their Zeal for Episcopacy as appears in their various and unsound Translation of the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet durst not make this Adventure with the Dr but with the Current of Ancient Copies Read the Text with the Conjunction Notwithstanding that in their Preface to the Reader they assert their Diligence in Searching the Original Text. I need not stand here to recount the large Testimony and Cloud of Witnesses the Body of Protestant Divines Translators and Interpreters all concurring in this our Sense and Reading in Contradiction to the Dr's Conceit and Exception See Paraeus Arethas Ribera Dr. More who expresly taketh the you to import the Pastors Beza c. But 2 ly This Conjecture and Answer is clearly Cross to the Text For 1. The Adversative but in the beginning of v. 24. clearly limits the you here and distinguishes it from the you meant of the People in the close of v. 23. 2. The Conclusion of this verse clears this to Conviction I will put upon you none other burden hold fast Pray by what Logick will the Dr. exclud Ministers and includ the People only in this Plural Phrase Were no Ministers kept unpolluted Or were there some other burdens to be put upon them than what they had already And are they excluded from holding fast ' till Christ come what is received from him and only the People concerned herein as contradistinct from the Bishop Sure I am such absurd Consequeuces might cover with Blushes the Asserters of this Opinion I might add that even granting the Dr the Advantage of this Gloss and leaving out the Conjunction and admitting with Grotius that thus the Sound are distinguished from the Unsound in this Church the Dr. would be pitifully puzzl'd to prove that none of the Clergy as he calls them is in both these Classes and consequently that the Plural Phrase doth not stand for us even in this Discriminating Sense But this we insist not upon To proceed to the Dr's second Proof p. 423. of our Lords Allowance and Approbation of Episcopal Government in these Epistles viz. That they were Persons of great Authority This he proves from the Title of Angel shewing them to be Persons of Office and Eminency Christ also Directing to them the Epistles to be communicat to their Churches To which he adds another Proof taken from the Authority which is supposed to be exercised by some of these Angels and competent to others He gives Instance of
the Angel of Ephesus trying the false Apostles which imports a Juridical Tryal the Blame laid upon the Angel of Pergamus for having them that held the Doctrin of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans which shews his Power to have cast him out upon the Angel of Thyatira for suffering Iezabel to Teach which shews that it was in his Power and that he had Authority to eject her and her Followers Ans. The Dr's Proofs of Authority in these Angels and Churches in reference to Government are good and sound and accorded to by all Divines But he has left behind him two Points of his Proof in reference to his Scope which are to use our Scottish Proverb the Tongue of the Trump and without which all his Discourse is but like Sand without Lime 1. He says They were single Persons of great Authority But he has not yet made good that they were single Persons nor offered to Answer the pregnant Grounds pleaded by our Divines to prove the contrary and that the Collective Sense of the Term Angel is most suteable to the Scripture and the Tenor and Scope of these Epistles 2 ly Supposing them single Persons he has not proved either from the Title of Angel or their Authority imported in these Epistles that it reached any further than that of Presidents or that the Authority here Instanced was Monopolized and so inhanced in them as to exclud intirely all the Pastors therefrom The contrary whereof besides the Proofs we offered in the beginning we heard the Belgick Divines make out and give Instance particularly with reference to Ephesus to the Elders or Ministers of which Church Paul committed the whole Government as the propper Governours and Bishops thereof Act. 20.28 And therefore even supposing the Angel a single Person he cannot be supposed in Contradiction to that Scripture to have had such Authority and Power as did Inhance or Exclud that of the Pastors and Bishops of Ephesus so clearly therein asserted and held out The Dr. acknowledges That what our Lord writes is not to this Angel personally but also to the People P. 422. But I pray how will the Dr. set up his March-stone and shew us the Limitation of these Instructions in Point of Government distinguishing the Person of the Bishop from the Pastors since neither the Supposition that the Bishop is a single Person will prove this nor the Honourable Title of Angel as the Dr. calls it a Title suteable to all Pastors who are Angels and Messengers of the Lord of Hosts by their Office Nor can the Dr. flee to the Refuge of the Authority supposed in these Prescriptions without a palpable begging of the Question And as for the Communicating of the Epistles to the Churches as Directed to them This is so suteable to the Angelus Praeses or to any President or Mouth of a Meeting that it hath no imaginable Strength to bear the Weight of the Dr's Conclusion The Dr's Third and last proof of our Lords approbation of Episcopal Government in these Epistles and that the Angels were Bishops of these Churches and Presidents thereof is drawn from the Testimony of most Primitive Antiquity as he calls it for which he Cites the anonymous tract of Timothy's Martyrdom mentioned Bibleotheca patrum N. 244. Shewing that Iohn Two or Three years after his return from Patmos assisted with the seven Bishops of that Province he assumed to himself the Government of it which Seven were the Angels here here Addrest these Churches lying within the Lydian or Proconsular Asia of which Ephesus was Metropolis And therefore these Seven Bishops by whom he Governed the Province of Ephesus are the Seven Angels all within that Province He adds That Austin call the Angels of Ephesus praepositos Ecclesiae Epist. 162. and the Seven Angels praepositi Ecclesiarum Comment in Rev. That Ambrose in 2 Cor. 11. referring to these Angels tells us that by Angels are meant the Bishops Ans. 1. Since the Dr. calls these Angels Bishops and Presidents over these Churches in propounding this Proof if he intend only Presidents he will fall utterly short of his design and scope of evincing that Episcopal Power which he ascribs to them a President and one who has all Authority Monopolized in him being quite distinct things If he intend by Presidents of the Churches such as are set over it in a general Sense Are not all Pastors in Scripture called such as are set over God's People and have the Tittles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Dr. will have them such Presidents over the Churches as had monopolised and enhanced in their persons all Authority of Government a President being of far larger extent and surely with a relation to a Church it is not all one to say such a person is President of a Church and a Sole President As it it is not all one to say such a man is Minister of London and the Sole Minister For all Ministers in the Scripture Sense are Presidents over the Churches But 2 ly since the Dr. draws his supposed demonstrative evidence of the power and Authority of these Seven Angels addrest by our Lord in these Epistles and of the nature and extent of that Office which is indigitat by the term Angel and consequently the meaning of the prescriptions given to them from Primitive Antiquity as he calls it I would know whether the Dr. will own this Principle that Antiquity or even that which he calls Primitive or the First human Testimony secluding the Scriptures or of the First Ages after the Canon of the Scriptures is the infallible Rule and Commentarie for understanding the Nature and Office of Church Officers mentioned in Scripture If the Dr. will not own this Principle his evidence by his own confession is no evidence For an evidence which will fail and not reach the conclusion is no evidence at all and in the best construction no proper evidence without restriction s and limitations added If the Dr. hold the Affirmative then I would urge him thus First If Mens Testimony or the Churches Primitive practice tho never so early must be the Key and Comment in this Case of the Scripture Sense of the Character and description of Church Officers and able solely to found our Faith and persuasion hereanent why may not also human practice and profession of the Church simply considered determin our Faith and prectice as to every Scripture Truth and duty therein held out For the Dr. can assign no difference nor upon admitting the antecedent shew the least shaddow of a ground which will limit and enervat the consequence Secondly If this be admitted I would know whether he will not thus set up an higher tribunal than the Scriptures as to the ground and Rule of our Faith and practice and in opposition to the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 2.4 make our Faith stand in mans Wisdom not in the Wisdom of God and his Power and in contradiction to the Apostle Peter 2 Pet 1.20.21 make
the Scriptures of a privat Interpretation as if the Prophesie had come by the will of Man For if I must believe no otherwise anent the Office of these Angels and the Scriptures pointing out the same than according to the human Testimony of after-Writers or the Testimony and Practice of supposed Bishops their pretended Successors then the custom and practice of fallible Men becomes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ratio and demonstration a priori the great and chief ground why I believe Scriptures to have such a Sense and no other And thus we will give Men a Dominion over our Faith which resolves ultimatly into an human practice and Testimony of fallible Men A Principle which no sound Protestant will own Besides that the proof of the Assumption of the Argument and to instruct this Matter of Fact and that all Primitive Antiquity as he calls it doth testify for the Bishop which he has shapen out would inextricably baffle his indeavours as is above cleared It being evident that as the Writings of many of the First Writers are lost and not a fâ—w corrupted So many Eminent for Piety and Learning have written nothing in the First Ages which are therefore generally acknowledged to be very dark in the Matter of Fact The Affirmative proof lying upon the Dr. he is obliged to make it appear that neither the one nor the other has contradicted his supposed Testimonies else he but beats the Air and has said nothing to the purpose Thirdly The Scripture as hath been proved ascribing to Pastors the Power of Order and Jurisdiction and even to the Pastors or Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus the Angel whereof is First here addrest Act. 20.28 Compared with 1. Tim. 4.14 1. Pet. 5.2.3 1 Cor. 5.4.5 When this Scripture account of the Office and Authority of Pastors which surely is Antiquity prior to the Dr's most Primitive Antiquity and of far greater veneration stands cross to his pretended Primitive Testimonies of the Bishops Power and both are laid in even Ballances together which of the two will preponderat The Dr. for shame will not say the Second Hence I inferr that he must either accord his Human Testimonies with Scripture or quite this Plea And next he must acknowledg that he stands obliged to Answer the premised Scripture accounts of the Pastors Office and our Arguments drawn therefrom before his Human Testimonies deserve the least value or notice Again Fourthly We may here ply â—he Dr with a Notion and Argument of his own Mould The Dr. thinks it strange how we can suppose the Church to have so suddenly altered the Government from Presbytrie to Episcopacy if Presbytrie was her first Government But I would ask the Dr since its evident in Scripture that Pastors and Presbyters have both the Name and Thing of the Scripture Bishop and consequently Episcopal Authority ascribed to them yea and in the premised Scriptures several such paralells its actual Exercise supposed to be inherent in and competent to them And in special since the Elders and Pastors of the Church of Ephesus are enjoyned by Paul in his last Farewel to exercise Episcopal Authority joyntly over that Church without the least Hint of any Episcopal President over them and this after all his Prescriptions to Timothy and the Exercise of his Evangelistick Office there whence came all this sudden Universal Change in Iohns time that all this Episcopal Authority competent before to Pastors of Churches and particularly of Ephesus is Monopolized in the Person of one Bishop How came all the Churches of Asia to be so suddenly cast in this Mould And to press the Querie a little further if there was such an Universal Authority of Bishops in Iohns time and thus acknowledged and attested by all the Primitive Antiquity as the Dr. pretends yea and acknowledged by Ierom himself as well as by Augustin and Ambrose how comes Ierom to say that even in his time the Elders were subject to the Bishop by Custom not Divine Dispensation Comment on Tit. and on Isai. 3. that they had in his time Caetus Presbyterorum a Meeting or Court of Presbyters which he calls an Apostolick Senat How comes a Presbytrie to be mentioned in the Council of Ancyra Canon 18 How comes Ambrose or a Father Coetaneous to him upon Eph. 4. to assert that after the Church was enlarged caepit alio modo gubernari it began to be Governed after another manner than at first and that non per omnia conveniunt c. the Government of the Church in his time was not every way suteable and square to the Apostolick Appointment How comes Augustin Epist. 10. to assert with Ierom that by Custom of the Church Episcopatus was major Presbyterio How comes Firmiliâ—nus apud Cyprian Epist. 78. to assert that the Pastors or Presbyters possident ordinandi potestatem possesses the Power of Ordination And these Presbyters he calls Praepositi Presidents or Rulers using that very Term from which the Dr. draws the Episcopal Authority of these Angels Yea Chrysostom on 1 Tim. asserts that inter Presbyterum Episcopum inter est ferme nihil there is almost no difference betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter and that which is spoken by Paul to the one agrees also to the other Now if there be such Harmony in the Testimony of the Ancients in point of the Bishops Power as the Dr. pretends I would fain know what means this immusical Jarring and palpable Contradiction to his Assertion and even by these very Fathers whom he brings for his Vouchers Hence Fifthly it appears that the Dr's Proofs from these Testimonies and his pretended Argument from all Primitive Antiquity is pitifully Lame and short of his Design upon two important Grounds 1. That his Witnesses are not Harmonious several of them giving a palpably Cross Testimony to him 2. In that they do not assert that sole Authority of Bishops and that absolute Inhanced Power which he alledges For no Man of Sense can draw this Consequence from the general Name of Bishops used by him or from a simple calling of them Presidents will conclud them to be such as he pretends yea and not such de Facto far less Iure Divino since in other places they are found clear and positive in a contrary Assertion And therefore unless the Dr. will Stage these Fathers whom he mentions as the most Arrant Self-contradicting Non-sensical Fools that ever Spoke or Wrote he must needs acknowledg with us that they use the Term Bishop in a general Sense and as common both to such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presidents as had then obtained and to other Pastors So that in such Characters appropriat to such Persons they could neither understand an Episcopal Presidency founded upon a Divine Right and Apostolical Institution as the Dr. pretends nor such an absolute Power as swallows up and Inhances all Authority of Pastors in Government which he also asserts This considered with what is above offered doth so fully
cut off the Dr's third Argument which he prosecutes P. 424 425 c. that nothing needs be further added as there might be with Advantage if a particular Examen were made of his Citations The Folly of his first Headless Testimony appears in that it makes the Apostle Iohn to assume a new Archiepiscopal Chair or Primacy over the Asian Churches The Sottishness of which Conceit and the Contrariety thereof to the Scripture Account of the Apostolick Office is evident to any of common Sense since the Apostles by vertue of their Office which extended to all Churches planted and to be planted were Ministers thereof in actu exercito and yet this Apostle must be assisted with seven Bishops forsooth to support his new Archiepiscopal Chair over that Province The Citation speaks of a Province in general which the Dr. will needs have to be that of Ephesus and the seven Angels must be these seven Bishops by whom he governed that Province Again the Angel is called by Augustin the Praepositus or President therefore he was an Hierarchical President as the Dr. has shapen out What Consequence is this As to what He adds out of Ignatius and Irenaeus in reference to Polycarp's Episcopacy over Smyrna from Eusebius Lib. 4. Cap. 15. and Polycrates's Episcopacy over Ephesus Lib. 5. Cap. 24. we have spoken to it already and to the Credit to be given to these supposed Epistles as likeways to Eusebius's History Besides that in Eusebius Lib. 5. Cap. 23. Irenaeus calls Anycetus Pius Heginus Telesphorus Xistus Presbyters of the Church of Rome Presbyteri illi qui te praecesserunt We also did shew that he thus expresses himself further Nec Polycarpus Anyceto suasit ut servaret qui sibi Presbyterorum quibus successerat consuetudinem servandam esse diceret We have also already made appear that Polycarp his supposed Bishop disownes the Office and Doctrin imputed to him by the Dr since Writing to the Philippians he ownes only Bishops and Deacons as the two Orders of Ministry and perswades the Philippians to be subject to their Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Christ. To which we may add that Bishop Bilson himself acknowledges Perpet Gov. P. 158 159. that Elders at first did govern by common Counsel For what he adds of Eusebius's Testimonies anent the existent Bishops in several of these Churches when Iohn wrote to them it is abundantly removed by what is said above in reference to the Sense and Acceptation of the Term Bishop by Ancient Writers as likewise by that which we have often observed of Eusebius himself The Dr. adds a Passage of Paraeus which we shall take notice of he tells us that Paraeus proves out of Aretas Caesariensis that Antipas the Faithful Martyr mentioned Rev. 2.13 was Bishop of Patmos immediatly before the Angel of that Church to whom Iohn wrote and that that Angel was one Gaius who as he proves out of Clement succeeded to Antipas in the Episcopal Chair Paraeus says indeed that these of Pergamus had cruelly slain Antipas but adds quis fuerat ex Historia parum constat that there is no Light from History who he was He adds Aretas Pastorem ejus Ecclesiae fuisse sensit sub Domitiano fortem fidei assertorem c. that Aretas thinks he was Pastor of that Church and under Domitian a Strenuous Asserter of the Faith and Burnt in a Brazen Bull. He adds that he to whom our Lord wrote might be tempted to lay aside his Office for fear of the like Punishment c. But what the Dr. adds of an Episcopal Chair and of his Name Paraeus says nothing neither doth he ascribe to Antipas any other Office than that of Pastor seeming to take these Churches for Congregational And if the Office to which the Angel succeeded was that of a Pastor only where is our Dr's Episcopal Chair which he here assigns him Besides Paraeus affirms the History to give no certain sound touching the Office and Character of Antipas Neither doth he mention any thing of Clement The Authors of the second part of Annot. under the Name of Pool do affirm That no Ecclesiastick History makes mention of Antipas and that he seems to have been a Person of obscure Note And that no History giving Account of him has inclined some to think this Epistle is wholly Prophetical and that Antipas signifies all such as oppose the Pope as if it were the same with Antipapa The Dr's Conclusion upon the whole of this his discourse and Argument from the Seven Asian Angels is That it being apparent that there were Bishops presiding in each of these Churches when Iohn wrote consequently they had the Government of these Churches committed to them since he Writes to them as Governours and Overseers of these Respective Churches So that they being Bishops our Saviour in these Epithets allows and approves of the Episcopal Order But by what is above replyed it is evident that nothing which the Dr. has adduced amounts to prove the existence of any such Bishops as he has shapen out in one or all of these Churches And therefore our Lords writing to these Angels gives not the least shaddow of allowance or approbation of that Episcopal order which he asserts And so to the Dr's Summ of all as he expresses it viz That the Episcopal form is of Divine Right upon Ground of our Saviours Institution Seconded by the Practice of the Apostles and conformity of the Primitive Churches and our Lords express approbation We may confidently repone from what is above replyed that it is evident that the high-flown Hierarchy he pleads for has no Foundation either in our Lords Institution or the Practice of the Apostles is noways Authorised by the Conformity of the Primitive Church or our Saviours Approbation in his Epistles to the Asian Churches but as opposit to all these is by the Churches of Christ to be rejected and disowned CHAP. V. The Dr's Scripture Proofs of a Four-fold Ministrie or Prerogative of a Bishop as Superior to a Pastor in Point of Government considered THE First Prerogative of the Bishop as contradistinct from a Presbyter is with the Dr. to make Laws and Canons which is the Essence of Government and supposes a Legislative Power else faith he Christs Wisdom is impeached if he left a Governed Society without a Legislative Power I need not stand to tell the Dr That by consent of Protestant Divines the Churches Power is not properly Nomothetick Architectonick Legislative but Ministerial and declarative of Christs Institution in reference to Ordinances the Doctrin Worship Disciplin and Government of his House The Dr. proves this Authority P. 433.434 from the Apostles Power Act. 15. Determining the Controversie anent Circumcision And says That in their Decree they exercise a Legislative Power laying upon the Churches to abstain from what was not prohibited by any standing Law of Christianity That as the Apostles and Primitive Bishops made Laws by common consent for the
good of the Church in general so by their own Authority for particular Churches to which they were more particularly related Here is I must say odd and confused stuff First The Dr. supposes that the Decree Act. 15. had no previous Scripture Foundation contrar to the express tenor and scope of the place where it is evident 1. That in this Disquisition there are Grounds of the Sentence laid down yea and Scripture Grounds 2 ly The Sentence runs in these terms It seemed good to the Holy Ghost viz. speaking in the Scripture and to us 3 ly Upon these previous Scripture Grounds of Charity and Union-and the esehewing the Offence of the weak Iews apparent in the debate and disquisition the things enjoined are termed necessary things and thus supposed materially such antecedaneously to the Decree Hence 4 ly The Dr. in saying That this Abstinence he must understand it in the present Case and circumstances of time place and persons was never prohibited by any standing Law of Christianity expugns from being Laws of Christianity all our Lords Precepts in point of Love and Unity and the eschewing the Offence of the little Ones For these Rules did clearly found this Abstinence and ground the necessity thereof in the present Case and exigence Again in the nexplace The great point the Dr. has to prove is That this supposed Legislative power is the Bishops sole prerogative secluding Pastors This he proves by the Apostles together with the Elders and Brethren their comming together and determining this matter One would think this makes fair to prove the contrary The Apostles here meeting with and taking into the disquisition and Decree and into every step of the procedure the ordinary Ministers and Elders as persons interested and concerned and who are found to concur with them in enacting and enjoining the thing Decreed in order to the Churches Obedience Ay but the Dr. tells us That by consent of all Antiquity by these Elders we are to understand the Bishops of Iudea for which he Cites Dr Hammond on Act. 11. A Dr. no doubt of a like soundness with himself But 1. If the Dr. adhere to Dr. Hammonds notion of Elders he must Esteem them Bishops where ever mentioned and deny the existence of any Pastors the true Scripture Bishops at this time wherein our Dr. will and must needs justle and deal stroaks with Dr. Hammond For to omit other instances he holds the Elders present with Iames when Paul went into him to be Pastors over which Iames as Bishop of Ierusalem did preside 2 ly None can imagin these Elders to be Bishops of Iudea without the most ridiculous Forgery imaginable For in the context it is evident that at this time the Apostles were but founding and gathering Churches in Iudea settling Churches therein and taking inspection of them by their Apostolick Authority And therefore it is a strange phantastick conceit to imagine Churches by this time grown up to a Diocess in Iudea and of such a bulk and number as to have Diocesan Bishops set over them yea and Diocesan Bishops of so considerable a Number as the Elders may be rationally supposed to be at this time and in this meeting yea and these besides the far greater Number of Ordinary Teachers and Pastors which this Man will not deny the Apostles to have ordained where Churches were planted Again why I pray the Bishops of Judea only gathered here in order to this general Decree for all the Churches and no Bishops of the Gentile Churches which he will say were by this time set up Besides that looking to the occasion of this debate anent the Circumcision which had its rise from some of them that went from Judea as from the Apostles and thus troubled the Churches the design of the Gentiles appears evidently to be to send Paul to the Apostles and Elders residing at Jerusalem without the least hint of any more enlarged Advertisement of others than such as were there at that time Again the Dr. says That Apostles and Primitive Bishops made general Laws for the whole Church and Bishops particular Laws for their particular Churches Thus saith he Paul gave Rules to the Corinthians for more decent communication of the Lords Supper Strong reasoning indeed and hanging well together First he supposes the Apostles made by their Apostolical Authority the general Rules for the whole Church as proper to them with concurrence of ordinary Bishops the ordering of particular Churches being peculiar to the ordinary or Primitive Bishops And presently to prove this he puts the great Apostle of the Gentiles into the class of Ordinary Bishops in giving Rules to this Church of Corinth and wisely supposes that Pauls Apostolick Prescriptions about Right and decent Communicating concerned only this Church of Corinth and were Authorized and enacted by no Apostoick Authority nor by the Apostle Paul as in that capacity To this scope the Dr. with as much Sense and soundness instances Paul's giving Laws and Canons to the Churches of Galatia contradicting therein the Relation of these Canons to particular Churches since they did respect both the Churches of Corinth and the Churches of Galatia Of the same nature is that which he here mentions of Pauls Charge to Timothy and Titus 1 Tim. 5.7 Tit. 1.5 touching the redressing disorders and supplying defects in these Churches For besides that Paul exerced an Apostolical Authority in these Directions to the Evangelists extraordinary Officers as Paul himself which clearly excludes Director and Directed from the compass of the Dr's Argument he will not deny several of these directions at least to have been of universal concern and necessity and in this respect also as remote from his Design The Dr. adds That what the Apostles and Primitive Bishops did to be sure they had Authority to do and whatsoever Authority they had they derived it down to their Successors That Apostles and Evangelists exercised a Lawful Authority is indeed very sure and no less sure than the Dr's Argument here is loose and unsure from Apostolical directions to Evangelists to conclud the Nature and Mould of the supposed Episcopal Authority of Prelats in reference to making Laws as is above evinced since the Dr. cannot shape out nor by any twist of reason and sound consequence inferr his supposed Hierarchical Prelat with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction from the Office of either Apostles or Evangelists The Dr will not have any Officer beneath a Bishop to have been allowed suffrage in any of the First Four General Councils yet immediatly after some way retracting and correcting himself he allows them a place in General Councils but tell us it was only for debate and preparing the Matter of Laws but the form of Laws he says proceeded from the Bishops suffrage This is pretty First The Dr. will never prove that in the First Councils there were Prelats of his stamp and Mould Next its strange that in Councils Presbyters were sitting for
2.17 That upon this ground Pastors or Presbyters who have a Rule appropriat unto them and are termed as in that capacity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both the one and the other may very well come under the Character of Rulers and Brethren and by consequence that the Relation of the one to the other may well come under this complex Phrase of Rulers among the Brethren especially since in the Council Act 15. the Elders and Brethren are distinguished as Church Officers from privat Church Officers from privat Church Members Again the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and even among Brethren doth evidently and frequently in Scripture reject the Dr's Mitr'd Notion Particularly Heb. 13.7 where they are spoken of in the Plural as over that Church both in Ruling and Feeding by Doctrin And v. 17. they are in a Plurality supposed both to Rule and watch for Souls And v. 24 they are distinguished from the Saints under this Denomination And consequently in all the Three Passages put under the Character of Rulers among the Brethren but as having all a Relation to this Church and actually and jointly Ruling and Feeding by Doctrin Consequently they are such Rulers among the Brethren as are all Faithful Pastors And therefore of a quite distinct Character from his supposed Ruling Prelats The Dr. affirms That Ordination was confined to such as were admitted to the Apostolat as the laying on of Hands in Ephesus was by Paul committed to Timothy upon whom he himself imposed Hands And unto Titus at Crete whom he left to Ordain Elders 2 Tim. 1.6 Tit. 1.5 To this we have spoken at large and need not here stand upon a prolix resuming of what hath been offered in Answer thereunto Only in a word we may see that the Dr. Shoots short of his proofs which is obviously evident to any that considers that he neither proves nor can prove these his groundless Postulata and suppositions without which he misses his mark and his Argument has no imaginable Foundation such as 1. That the Offices of Timothy and Titus were ordinary and the same with his described Hierarchical Prelat This we have already disproved and by clear Scripture evidence made the contrary appear 2 ly That the Apostles Precepts in point of Ordination to Timothy and Titus did import their sole Authority therein in Churches constitut so as to seclud all Authority of Pastors or Presbyters in the same even where they were settled and could concurr The contrary whereof we have also made evident Again whereas the Dr. thinks to strengthen his Plea in telling us That the Apostle by Imposing Hands on Timothy Ordained him an Apostle or Bishop of that Church We have evinced the folly of this alledgeance and that the Apostles imposing Hands upon Timothy rather strengthens than impugns the Presbyterian Cause Since 1. It is evident that the Presbytrie and consequently Ordinary Pastors whom the Dr. wholly excluds from Ordination laid Hands upon Timothy 1 Tim. 4.14 and had an Authoritative interest therein And 2 ly That the Text mentions Paul's Laying on of Hands in order to Gifts but the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie in another Mould and Phrase Hence its easie to cut the Sinews of the Dr's Arguing with a Notion of hii own set down but a few Lines above He enquires how could the Prophets at Antioch derive an Apostolat to Paul and Barnabas if they had not been of that Character Now I would ply the Dr. with this Counter-query how could Imposition of Hands and Authoritative Imposition be performed by Pastors and Ministerial or Evangelistick Authority be derived by them together with Paul to Timothy if Pastors were not of such a Character as had an Ordaining Power Here is a Query founded upon the Dr's own medium and his Answering satisfyingly the second will clear him in Answering the First Hence what he adds P. 438 439. viz. That through the whole Scripture History Ordination is performed by those of the Apostolick Order or by secondary Apostles as he calls them◠doth in this appear groundless For here we find the Power of Ordination seated in and exercised by a Presbytrie And we have told him and above evinced that tho we suppose Paul present and imposing Hands with them it rather confirms than invalidats our Argument from this place for Pastors and Presbyters Power in Ordination Not to insist upon the Dr's recent instance of Prophets and Teachers Authoritatively Imposing Hands upon Paul and Barnabas which tho not importing a formal Ordination yet considering the circumstances and context viz. The Persons Imposing hands scil Pastors and Teachers the Persons upon whom they imposed Hands scil Apostles together with the end and design i. e. their being solemnly set a part and Blest and thus sent out upon a special Legation it s an Instance strongly pleading and as we use to say a majori ad minus for a Power of Ordination in Pastors in relation to Ordinary Church Officers And whatever may be said of instances as to Ordinary Pastors in these Infant-times of the Church rare when extraordinary Officers such as Apostles and Evangelists were existent and their Offices vigent the Episcopal Authority so clearly and frequently as we have proved ascribed and apropriat to Pastors doth certainly includ this Authority of Ordination as essential thereunto The Dr. adds That if we Consult Primitive Antiquity the best Interpreters of Scripture in Matters of Fact at least we will alwise find the Power of giving Orders confined Limited to Bishops I need not much digress to tell him that the after-practice of Churches is acknowledged in matters of Fact and even by Eusebius himself in a great measure dark and uncertain and is also acknowledged and found much opposit to Scripture And therefore a slippery and unsound ground and Comment as to Scripture Matter of Fact and in order to such a conclusion I might add that if the Dr's Reasoning hold good it is in point of Right as well as in matter of Fact the sure and sole Comment upon Scripture But for this bold and Universal assertion of the Dr's it is easily convict of falsehood by what is above offered The 4 th Council of Carth. Canon 22. Decrees That the Bishops Ordain not without the Clergy And if we suppose this Canon obeyed there wanted not abundance of conformable instances In Cyprians time the Pastors had the Power manum imponendi of Ordaining Ep. 78. And in Aegypt in absence of the Bishop Ordained alone as Ambrose on Eph. 4. asserts Besides what is at large made out to this scope by our Writers in reference to the Chorepiscopi and this for a very considerable extent both of time and place Cyprian Ep. 33. Writing to his Charge certifies them That Aurelius was Ordained by him and his Collegues who were present with him And least the Dr. start at a supposition that Cyprian called Presbyters his Collegues let any peruse Ep. 33. and this will convincingly appear We
have told him before that Firmilianus saith of them that Rule in the Church quod Baptisandi manum imponendi Ordinandi possident potestatem and who these are he shews a little before viz. Seniores praepositi We have also told him that Chrysostom himself was found accused in Synod ad Quaercum Ann. 403. that he had made Ordinations with the Sentence and company of the Clergy And in the forecited Council of Carthage Canon 21. it is enacted That the Bishop Ordain not without the Clergy And Canon 2. Presbyters are enjoined to Impose hands with the Bishop The Authors of Ius Divinum Minist Evan. in the Appendix together with Smectymnus and several other Presbyterian Writers have exhibit so many clear instances of this that we need only refer the Reader to their Learned Labours for the discovery of the Drs. folly in this Assertion In the close of his discourse upon this point he tells us That this is so undenyable that tho Ierom equalize Presbyters with Bishops yet he is forc't to do it with an excepta Ordinatione Ans. If we should suppose Ierom to speak of the general custom of that time and place and neither absolutely nor Universally as to the practice or Matter of Fact far less of of a Divine Right the Dr's undenyable proof is soon overturned but especially it s Razed when we tell him that Ierom's excepta Ordinatione is well enough understood of the Bishops ordinarly assumed Chief interest in the rituals of Ordination tho Presbyters as is above cleared did intrust this to him as having a joint and essential interest in the thing it self The next peculiar Ministry of the Bishop which the Dr. assigns is The execution of Spiritual Iurisdiction viz. to Cite examin Offences before their Tribunals to admonish the Offender exclud from Church Communion or receive upon Repentance The Dr. discourses at large in proof of a Spiritual jurisdiction Established in the Church and proves it soundly from Matth. 18.16.17.18 Expounding that Clause tell it unto the Church of a Delation in Order to an Authoritative admonition and from those Passages in the context If he neglect to hear the Church let him be as a heathen c. and that other whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. Concluds well a Power in the Church of excluding from and admission into Fellowship Citing that Paralell Math. 16.19 I will give unto thee the Keyes c. which he also well explains by what is said Isai. 22.21 22. anent the Key of the Hâ—use of David i. e. the Government of his Church committed to our Lord in the Type of Eliakim's substituting to Shebna who was over the Household He expounds well the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven of the Government of the Church and the Power of Binding and loosing of admission to or exclusion from Church Fellowship All this is easily accorded But now comes the main Point and the Cardo questionis This Power saith the Dr is wholly deposited in the Episcopal Order This is soon said but to prove it hoc opus hic labor est It were superfluous here to remind the Reader how the Dr. understands the Episcopal Order or how far in a sound Scripture Sense of the Episcopal order this assertion might be admitted But to the Point the Dr. proves his Assertion from this ground that in all the forecited places it was only to Apostles that our Lord derived this Iurisdiction they alone being the Stewards to whom he committed the Keyes and Government of his Family to whom alone he promised Twelve Thrones to Rule and Govern his Spiritual Israel as the Chief of the Tribâ—s Governed the Natural Israel Math. 19.28 Upon which ground he tells us that the Heavenly Jerusalem has the Names of the Twelve Apostles upon its Gates Rev. 21.14 c. And the Twelve pretious Stones v. 19.20 Do in his Sense denote the Power and dignity of the Church As also the 144 Cubits of the Walls Measure amounting to Twelve times twelve he takes to denote the Apostles equal Government of the Church From all which the Dr. thrusts out as his project of the whole his former Notion and Topick of our Lords lodging this Jurisdiction in those of the Apostoliek Order derived from the Apostles which saith he was administrat accordingly either by the Apostles immediatly or by the Bishops of the several Churches to whom they communicat their Order Ans. All this in so far as relates to the Dr's scope is nothing but a repetition of what is already Answered I shall easily accord with him in this that as our Lord placed and left in his Church a Spiritual Jurisdiction so his Apostles were the First and immediat Recipients of this from himself I do likewise consent to the Dr. in this that this Spiritual Authority was to be continued in the Church and Transmitted to fit Administrators and was not to die with the Apostles As also there is no doubt that they were to deliver our Lords mind and the Standart and continuing measures and Rules of all the Ordinances of the House of God the Doctrin Worship Disciplin and Government thereof in which Respect they are called the Churches Foundation But in all this the Dr. has not laid one Ground-Stone of his proof which as we have often told him lyes Chiefly in these two Points 1. That the Office of Apostolat in its entire nature and extent and as exercised by the Twelve was by our Lord intended for an ordinary Function and Office to be thus continued in and transmitted to the Church and devolved on Successors who were accordingly to exercise the same Office and Power 2 ly That these Successors were so invested with this Apostolick Power and Office as they had the whole Government the Power of Order and Jurisdiction monopolized in them in so far as the Pastors and Presbyters appointed and set up by Apostles in the Churches had only the Doctrinal Key entrusted to them but not that of Government whereas both the one and the other were committed to these supposed succedaneous Apostles Now its evident that if the Dr. prove not these he says nothing And that both these are unsound and Antiscriptural Suppositions we have already made appear 1. From the many evidences and clear Scripture discoveries of the extraordinarie expired nature of the Apostolick and Evangelistick Office And 2. From the Apostles intrusting and transmitting to Pastors or Presbyters and devolving upon them both the Keyes of Doctrin and Government as their proper and imediat Successors as also from clear Scripture Grounds and instances which do evince their actual exercise of the same But next to examin a little more closely the Dr's Proofs I would gladly know of him or any of his Perswasion whether they do not look upon and understand that Text Math. 18. as containing a constant Fundamental Law and Rule given to the Christian Church to prescrib the Method of removing
Scandals as also the proper Subject of the Keyes and Iurisdictional Power and of that Power in special which is called Critick The Dr. holds That Christ here established a Iurisdiction in the Church he also acknowledges That the Church here meant hath Power of Authoritative Admonition and the Binding and Loosing Power since he holds it to be the same with that Binding and Loosing Authority which our Lord promises to Ratifie in Heaven Iohn 20.23 Matth. 16.19 He understands by this Jurisdiction this Authority and Exercise of the Keyes pointed at in these Paralells Nay he acknowledges P. 443. That in the Forecited Passage Matth. 18. our Lord institut the Power of Censuring And I need not tell him that Words of Institution of any Ordinance are the proper Standart and Measure thereof and the Pattern shewed upon the Mount Now what is meant by the Church the proper Subject of the Keyes in the Dr's Sense and Pleading is the Question The Dr. will not say it is the Political Magistrat as some have alledged for he holds That our Lord spoke this to his Church as a distinct Society and having distinct Officers from the Kingdoms of the World And whereas some have alledged that we are to understand this Church of a Iewish Sanehedrin the Dr in the whole Strain and Scope of his Discourse disownes this for he asserts That in this Text our Lord is speaking to the Christian Church and establishing a Spiritual Jurisdiction therein Neither can he understand by the Church the whole Collective Body according to the general Notion of the Word for the Dr in the Strain of his Discourse makes this Power and Authority peculiar and proper to Church Officers as is evident in his Paralells above-rehearsed and the Church Representative to be the proper Subject of that Jurisdictional Power here enjoyned Now all this being evident in his own Pleading since the proper Subject of this Power is by our Lord exprest who knew best how to express it by the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church I would fain know by what Warrand the Dr. can can make this Term peculiar to one single Person viz. a Bishop so as it must be holden to express his sole Prerogative Or where will he shew or make it appear that in any Greek Author Sacred or Prophane the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes one single Person If he say that by the Church the Community of Church Rulers or Bishops is to be understood viz. that all Bishops in common and every Bishop apart hath this Power and Authority I Answer this understood of Scripture Bishops or Church Officers in general and of such Church Officers of particular Collegiat Churches is easily accorded But if he mean of his Hierarchical Bishops in Bulk and of every one of such a part he both Beggs the Question and Crosses the Scope of the Place For 1. Howsoever we take the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church whether for the Church Universal to whom Officers and a Government is given immediatly or for particular Churches to whom in a mediat Sense the same Government and Charge is given we must of necessity understand it to be given to such parts of this whole as do come under the Denomination and partake of the Nature of a Church and according to the Dr's Sense above-evinced an Imbodied Society or Juridical Court must in that Statute be understood which can never be applicable to a single Person And besides this would invert our Lords Method of Procedure and the Gradation here held out and enjoyned which is as the Dr. himself acknowledges from one to two or more and the last Result and ultimat Appeal is to the Church or the Imbodied Court of Officers with whom the Jurisdictional and Critical Power is lodged 2 ly Granting that this Jurisdictional Power in Order to the first Planting of Churches was for this end at first lodged with the Apostles yet the fore-mentioned great Rule and Fundamental Law as above Sensed and in a great Measure by the Dr. himself will still evince that the Apostles were not to Exercise it to the prejudice of the Authority given thereby to the standing Officers and ordinary Authorized Courts of the Christian Church unless they can be supposed to have had a Power Paramount thereunto For wherever a Christian Organick Chuch was gathered by vertue of this Precept tell the Church the Scandals were to be delated to the Officers thereof who consequently according to the Nature and Tenor of the foresaid Law are supposed to have the Binding and Loosing Power whatever Apostolical Authority might reach in Churches not Constitut or in way of Apostolical Direction to Churches Constitut as in the Case of the Incestuous Corinthian yet this was not Privative of but Cumulative to the ordinary Power of Collegiat Organick Churches as is often told him I might further urge the Dr. with this that that Passage Iohn 20.23 cannot but be extended to a Doctrinal as well as Iurisdictional Remitting or Retaining Binding or Loosing the Doctrinal Key as well as Jurisdictional being Primarly given to Apostles to be by them derived to Successors Our Lord in his Gift to Apostles divided them not And therefore neither were the Apostles to divide them in Devolving this Power upon and Committing this Authority to Successors And since the Dr. acknowledges that the Apostles by virtue of our Lords Commission Devolved upon Pastors the Doctrinal Authority and Committed to them that Key thus P. 427 428. why not I pray the Jurisdictional also both being inseparably tyed together Nay the Dr. himself upon the Matter yields this for he tells us ubi supra That the Command Go Teach all Nations Math. 28.19 did reach Pastors as the Apostles Successors in this Ministerial Duty and that Preaching was one of the principal Imployments belonging to the Apostolical Office And if the Apostles were to commit to Pastors one principal part of their Office why not also the less principal Besides that the Command Go Teach or Disciple all Nations will clearly includ the Jurisdictional as well as Doctrinal Key The Dr. adds ibid. That yet this Command of Preaching was not restrained to their Office since inferior Officers Preacht as the seventy Yet he adds That none Preacht but either by immediat Commission from Christ or Apostolical Ordination But I pray were any in his Sense otherwise allowed to exercise Disciplin but in this method Why will not the Dr. allow the exercise of Disciplin to the Seventy and such a Mission of Rulers consequently For Timothy whom together with the Seventy he probably Judges to have held an Evangelistick Office he pleads had Authority both to Teach and Rule And the Teachers Act. 13. he holds to be Bishops So that in his Sense Government being annexed in these instances thereunto the Lord did extraordinarly call in these times of the Church some persons who were not Apostles Therefore his Reason is insufficient to prove that the
Power of Government and Preaching being Eminenter contained in the Apostolick Office they did not commit the Ruling Authority to such to whom the Preaching work was intrusted Once more to reflect upon the Passage tell the Church we will find our Sense and Pleading correspondent to judicious Interpreters Dic Ecclesiae is coram multis inquit liber Musar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iustinus And that the person may have a punishment inflicted of many 2 Cor. 2.6 and the rebuke may be before all 1 Tim. 5.20 And that the person Offending may be moved by the consent and multiplicity of those rebuking him So Grotius who shews us that it was the practice among the Jews after the more privat admonition to bring the Matter to the Multitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Court of Judges who have the Power of binding and loosing as distinct from the multitude Thus Camero Simmachus Beza To the Presbytrie representing the Church whereof mention is made 1 Tim. 4. 14 Piscator Beza Camero And these whom Paul cal's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2.6 But to proceed with the Dr he tells us next That none but such as are of the Aopostolick Order can pretend to the Jurisdictional Power since it was First lodged in the Apostles and by them immediatly exercised or by the Bishops of the several Churches to whom they communicat their Authority and Order But one should think that such to whom they committed the Chief and principal part of their Office as they did to Pastors by the Dr's Confession to such they did commit their Order in so far as unto ordinary succeeding Officers and that together with this the other subservient part of Ruling was also committed both Keyes being in their Nature as above hinted so inseparably connected And he cannot give one instance of the Apostles giving the First to Successors without the Second Nay the instances are clear of their committing both to Pastors The Elders or Ministers of Ephesus are entrusted by the Apostle Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both to Feed and Rule as Bishops Authorized by the Holy Ghost over that Church which command is by the Apostle laid upon them when taking his last farewell of the same and not a word is dropt by the Apostle of either the one or the other to Timothy their alledged Bishop The Apostle Peter enjoins the Elders as their Fellow-Elder to Feed and Rule and exercise Episcopal Authority over the Flocks A clear Demonstration compared with the preceeding Instances that these Elders and Ministers were the Apostles proper and immediat Successors in both Offices of Teaching and Ruling So that the Dr. may here see in this Scripture-Glass the Portraiture the clear Image of the Scripture Bishop and the Authentick and Original Character of the Office of these Pastors and Bishops of the Churches to whom the Apostles committed the Preaching and Ruling Work viz. the Preaching Pastors or Presbyters Shall I add a Caution and acknowledg to the Dr they were not the Bishops of his supposed Order since the Apostle discharged them to be Lords because in these simple times of Christianity the Apostles themselves were rude and not yet acquaint with the Grandure of Spiritual Lords and Lordships in the House of God But least the Dr do think this odd that I do hold the Work of Preaching and Administration of the Sacraments an higher Point of Episcopal Authority than Ruling at least if I may add only Ruling which he knows the Bishops arrogat to themselves solely not medling much with the first and that I hold the Governing Power to be appendant upon and consequent unto the Power of Order in Preaching and Administrating the Seals of the Covenant I must tell him that if this be an Errour A great one has led me into it and one of the Dr's most eminent Primary Bishops who I am sure had a Divine Authority for his Office and an Infallibility in Teaching besides It is even the great Apostle of the Gentiles who gives to Timothy this Precept The Elders that Rule well count them worthy of double Honour especially they that Labour in the Word and Doctrin wherein it is evident the Apostle allows the Labouring in the Word and Doctrin the higher Honour above Ruling yea and Ruling well But to prove that the Apostles committed this Iurisdictional Power only to the Bishops of their Order the Dr. brings the Instance of Pauls pronuncing the Sentence of Excommunication against the Incestuous Person 1 Cor. 5. shewing that he as present in Spirit had Judged i. e. saith the Dr pronunced Sentence concerning him who had done that Deed And v. 4 5. he orders them to declare and and execute his Sentence But that the Current of the Context runs Cross to the Dr's Pleading is several ways evident For 1. The Apostle blames this Church that this Sentence was not passed before and that they saved him not the Labour of this Prescription or Appointment in performing their Duty Antecedaneously thereunto It is evident he checks them that this Person was not by an Ecclesiastick Censure of such a Nature as is here intimat put away and taken from among them v. 2. 2 ly He writes to them to do it and this as an Act of their ordinary Authority proper to them as Church Officers viz. Authoritatively to deliver to Satan and that when by the Authority of our Lord they were mett together the Body of Professoâ—s being also concerned in a Consent to this Ejection And therefore they were not to meet merely to Declare or Witness what the Apostle had done before 3 ly He thus expostulats v. 12. Do not ye Iudg them that are within A convincing Proof that they had Power to Censure all that were within that Church by an Intrinsick Authority proper to them as Officers thereof 4 ly He calls this Act or Sentence 2 Cor. 2.6 A Censure or Punishment inflicted of many viz. the Church Officers not a Declaration of his previously passed Sentence I hope the Dr. will not fall into such a blunt Conceit as to make one and the same the Declaration of a Sentence passed by another and the formal Passing of a Sentence or Inflicting of a Censure or Punishment which if done warrantably as is here supposed doth necessarly import Authority in the Persons Acting Inflicted of many says the Apostle i. e. Not by all the Multitude as Independents Judge nor by one Person or Bishop as the Dr. Dreams As for his Expounding Pauls Judging this Person Censureable to be his Pronuncing Sentence it is a very gross Distortion For Paul as an Apostle infallibly Inspired by virtue of his Apostolical Directive Authority and in special as having the Care of the Gentile Churches upon him 2 Cor. 11.28 had Power to Direct and Prescribe Duty to either Members or Officers of any Churches And therefore if the Dr. will draw this Act to Exemplifie Episcopal Authority he draws upon
himself two gross Absurdities 1. That Paul had and Exemplified a standing lawful Episcopal Authority wherever such Prescriptions were exercised and to whomsoever they could reach And this Reaching over all Churches his Care being thus extended as is above cleared the Dr. makes him a standing Primat and Patriarch over them Exemplifying a sort of Patriarchal Primacy to be Transmitted in the Church 2 ly That his Apostolick Prescription of the Duties of Church Officers was not Cumulative unto but Privative of whatever Authority and Interest in Government they might acclaim or in the Exercise of the Power of Order And thus suppose the Bishop of the Dr's Mould set over the Church of Corinth had neglected his Duty as these Officers are here found faulty in this point Pauls Apostolick Direction in the Dr's Sense and Pleading nullifies his Power and proves he had none Or supposing an Archippus or negligent Minister had needed his Apostolical Direction to perform such Acts of the Power of Order as were proper to his Function Pauls Prescription of Duty by the same Reason swallows it up and makes it null Certain it is that neither could the Apostles divest themselves of this directing Power of Judging upon neglect of Duty which had been a divesting themselves of their Office nor can they be supposed without the grossest Consequences striking at the Root of all Church Authority to have by their directing or judging Power exauctorat such to whom the Direction was given of their Power and Interest in their respective Duties whether as Members or Officers of the Churches Pool Anot Vol. 2. Expound this 4 th v. of the Power and Authority of Christ concurring with them while gathered together And upon v. 5. Expounding the delivering to Satan of Excommunication and casting out of the Church They give this Reason because the Apostle speaks of an Action which might be and ought to have been done by the Church of Corinth when they mett together and for not doing of which the Apostle blames them Thus clearly Asserting the Intrinsick Authority of the Church Officers of Corinth herein and upon the same Grounds which we have Asigned To the same Scope do the Belgick Divines Expound this whole Passage paralelling it with the great Precept Matth. 18.15 Both upon v. 4 5. and upon 2 Cor. 2.6 touching the Subject of this Jurisdictional Act viz. That it was Inflicted of many they Expound of Church Governours or Officers Diodat upon Chap. 5. v. 4. thus Senses the Words That they were to perform this as the Lords Ministers by Authority received from Christ and that the Command is directed to the Pastors and Conductors of the Church being gathered together in Ecclesiastical Judgment having the Apostles Declaration instead of his Voice and Vote And to obviat such a Notion and Fancy as that of our Dr. upon this he adds That this was without doing any prejudice to the ordinary Ministry of the Church of Corinth And that Paul uses his Apostolical Power Modestly only to excite the other viz. the ordinary Power of Pastors and to strengthen it And he Expounds v. 7. not only of Purging out this Incestuous Man but all such Scandalous Kind of People who by their Infection might plunge again into the Ancient Corruption c. And upon v. 12. Do not ye Iudg them that are within He says That it is certain that a Judge cannot exercise his Jurisdiction but only over those that are within his Precinct and subject to his Tribunal Clearly Asserting a Spiritual Tribunal in this Representative Church To the same Scope he Expounds the last verse The English Annot. upon v. 2. of this Chap. in Correspondence to the Exposition and Answer premised and in Opposition to the Dr's Reasoning do shew That the Apostle finds fault with the Corinthians for that they had not Excommunicat this Incestuous Person before he had Wrote unto them and Charged them so to do because the Fact was Notorious and the Church Scandalized And upon v. 4. which mentions the Power of Christ they shew That the Power of Excommunication and Absolving is Christs and the Ministry thereof only Committed to the Governours of the Church And the delivering to Satan mentioned v. 5. they Expound by that Paralel Matth. 18.17 We need not spend time in multiplying Instances of Sound Expositors in opposition to the Dr's Sense of this place That there is here an Allusion to the Iewish Synagogue is the Consentient Judgment of the learned viz. in their Way of Excluding and casting out the Scandalous Thus Grotius Estius Hammond Simplicius Piscotor Beza c. Pareus Paralelling v. 5. with 2 Cor. 2. 6. shews that the same Persons are Authorized to Comfort and forgive him who inflicted the Censure viz. the Church Officers What we have said might be further improven from the end of the Action which was the purging out the Old Leaven and taking the Scandalous Person from among them and the Character of the Censure it self called a Punishment inflicted of Many in Opposition to the Dr's Design and Argument But the thing it self is obvious And therefore we proceed The Dr. Adduces next Paul's Threatning not to spare 2. Cor. 13. But to proceed with Ecclesiastick Censures And his mentioning Two or Three Witnesses to establish every word according to the Words of our Lord when he Institute this Power of Censuring Matth. 18. And v. 10. of 2 Cor. 13. Threatning Severity according to the Power given him to Edification And to come with a Rod He must needs saith the Dr mean Apostolical Censures and Excommunication to be Execute and Performed in his own Person in which Respect he delivered Hereticks of the Church of Ephesus to Satan 1 Tim. 1.20 It is Answered First all this is easily removed by the often Adduced Distinction of the Apostles ordinary and extraordinary Authority and of a Cumulative and Privative Exercise thereof Altho the extraordinary Power upon fit Emergents such as either the supine Negligence of Ordinary Church Officers or the more endangering spread of Offences or obstinacy of Offenders or a defect of the ordinary Church Officers in whom this Power was Lodged and Seated was alwise in readiness and to be Exercised for the Churches good and Edification yet nevertheless this Exercise as we have often told him was never exclusive of nor derogatory unto the Churches ordinary Intrinsick Authority nor except in Cases mentioned or Extraordinary Emergents without the actual Concurrence of the ordinary Church Officers And if as the Dr. says the Apostle here insinuats a method of procedure suitable to our Lords Institution Matth. 18. It could not be otherwise Besides he Threatens this severity as a proof of his Apostolick Power 2 Cor. 13.3 which some understand of his Miraculous Power to inflict Bodily Afflictions Others of his Power to cut off from the Communion of the Gospel Churches thus Pool Annot. And if the Dr. will allow that by mentioning Two or Three Witnesses he ties himself to
the Method of procedure which our Lord Institute Matth. 18. he must by Parity of Reason allow the other part of the Institution touching the Juridical or Censuring Church to have its own place therein And that Consequently the Apostle was to take along the Authoritative concurrence of the Church Officers of Corinth in this procedure But the truth is he quite mistakes the Passage For in that Clause of Two or Three Witnesses the Apostle Intimats only the certainty of his coming the Third time He had taken up thoughts of and was preparing for his Journey and giving them previous warning of his coming he alludes to that of Deut. 19.15 to ascertain them thereof accordingly Thus Pool Annot. and Interpreters generally He had been at Corinth once Act. 18. Afterward he had twice purposed and promised to come once in the 1 Ep. Chap. 16.5 And now again here And then he adds in the Mouth of two or three Witnesses c. Thus Belgick Annot. Diodat thus senses this Clause in the Mouth of Two or Three Witnesses c. The meaning is saith he these Three warnings of my coming shal be as so many Witnesses by which if ye do not amend you shall be sufficiently convinced of incorrigible Rebellion to proceed to a sentence already penned 2 Cor. 10.6 cum jam bis terve id dixerim tandem ratum erit thus Grotius As for the Apostles threatning sharpness of Censure v. 10. And his Apostolical Rod 1 Cor. 4.21 It receives the same Answer by the forementioned distinction of the Apostles ordinary and Extraordinary Power and the cumulative and privative exercise thereof And if the Dr. will not take this from me may I hope he will from a far greater The Learned Iunius in Answer to Bellarmin pleading much to the Dr's Scope and Sense from this Passage of the Apostle Shall I come unto you with a Rod offers the same distinction De Concil lib. 2. Cap. 16. of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Rod secundum illam c. According to the common ordinary Rod saith he Peter was a fellow Presbyter 1 Pet. 5. but according to the singular and extraordinary he stroke dead Ananias and Sapphira He adds in respect of this common Rod Paul saith 1 Cor. 5. You being gathered together and my Spirit in the Name of the Lord Iesus But as to this singular one he saith Shall I come unto you with a Rod 1 Cor. 4.21 This common Rod he denyes to have been in the Hand of any one Man whether Apostle or other or that they had any sole or singular Prerogative in Churches constitute Grotius and others do here take in the same which Iunius mentions of the extraordinary stroke either the inflicting of Death as upon Ananias and Sapphira or Blindness as upon Elymas or Diseases The Belgick Divines joyn together the Exercise of punishment and Discipline in this Clause While I have been mentioning Iunius I must upon this occasion shew that in opposition to the Dr's Pleading in Relation to Successor Bishops to Apostles by Testimony of the Fathers Iunius will tell him De Clericis Cap. 14. Not. 15. that this is not to be understood of a Succession from Christs Institution quia nunquam instituit Christus ut Apostolis secundum gradum in Ecclesia Succederetur Christ never appointed Successors to the Apostles according to Degree And that the Fathers understood it of a Succession ex simili non ex pari of similitud not Parity And a similitud Secundum quid or imaginary according as Bishops were then Moulded The same Answer and distinction above Rehearsed serves for what he Adduces of Pauls delivering Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan 1 Tim. 1.20 And that this is the Sense of Sound Divines appears in that this is made Paralel with 1 Cor. 5. wherein the Apostles Extraordinary Authority is by them distinguished from the Churches Ordinary Power As for his further Proof from the Apostles deriving this Spiritual Iurisdiction to Timothy and Titus the pretended Bishops of Ephesus and Crete and their supposed singular Authority and Censures and Judicially Cognoscing upon Ecclesiastical Causes which he draws from these Passages 1 Tim. 5.19 20. Tit. 3.10 We have above spoken to it at length and provenfully that the Evangelistick Function of them both who were fixed to no particular Posts together with the clearly supposed Power of Church Judicatories when Established as is evident in several Paralells and of the supposed Concurrence consequently of ordinary Officers with them in the Nature and Scope of these very Instructions themselves doth clearly eveâ—t his Pleading For what he adds of the Censuring Power of the Angels of Ephesus and Thyatira Rev. 2. What we have made already good of the Collective Sense of the word Angel and the Insufficiency of admitting him to be a single person or President to bear the weight of his Conclusion discovers the Vanity of this his Repeated Notion in this place The Dr. adds that the Bishops of the Primitive Ages were the sole Administrators of Spiritual Iurisdiction This we have above convict of untruth And whereas he tells us further that they ordinarly admitted their Presbyters Concurrence for Advice we have made appear that their Concurrence after Bishops were set up yea and by Confession of Bishops themselves was Authoritative not for Advice only The Dr. will needs have Cyprian to challenge a singular Authority of Excommunication Ep. 38 39. But if he will not set him by the Ears with himself Ep. 6 18 28. where he professes he neither could nor would do any thing without the Clergy and Ep. 78. where he shews that Presbyters had the Power of Imposing Hands and of Ordaining and unless also he can disprove what is made good anent their Ordaining alone especially in Aegypt in absence of the Bishop what we have touched anent the Chorepiscopi their Authority and Power herein which is at large made good by our Writers the Dr. must acknowledg that he misses his Mark in this Citation Cyprian also is so far from challenging a Cathedral Authority of sole Censuring as the Dr. wouâ—d make him that Epist. 33. he ownes the Presbyters as his Collegues even in the Point of Ordination and disownes any such usurped Authority In the Ordination of the Confessor Aurelius he thus expresses himself hunc igitur fratres dilectissimi a mâ— a Collegis qui presentes aderant ordinatum sciâ—tis Thus also Ep. 58. speaking of the Pastors he expresses himself Ego Collegae Fraternitas omnis And Ep. 6. shewing his earnest desire to meet with the Pastors while absent from them he gives this Reason ut ea quae circa Ecclesiae gubernacula utilitas communis exposcit tractare simul plurimorum examinata limare possemus And speaking there of the turbulency of some persons he says they were such as nec a Diaconis nec a Presbyteris regi posse c. Upon which Pamelius has this Note hinc non obscure colligitur
19.5 After Paul laid his Hands upon them And of the Samaritans Act. 8. who altho Preacht unto and Baptized by Philip and Converted by his Ministry yet St. Peter and St. Iohn were sent to lay Hands on them upon which they received the Holy Ghost v. 17. From whence he inferrs that therefore this Ministry of Confirmation appertained to Apostles since Philip a Preacher a worker of Miracles a prime Deacon and if we may believe Cyprian an Evangelist and one of the Seventy Two would not presume to assume it but left it to the Apostles I Answer in general these Texts are by the current of all Protestant Divines and Interpreters understood of the Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit and the apparent extraordinary signs thereof attending the imposing of the Apostles Hands which in that time and Case of the Church was a proper Badge of the Apostolick Office and therefore can have no force to prove an ordinary standing Ordinance appropriat to ordinary Pastors Since in this Case the proper sole end of this Action was the forementioned special effect which is not now to be expected and also the persons acting did therein exercise an extraordinary function and Authority as Apostles Hence this singular Gift at this time exercised can no more be pleaded as laying a ground for the standing duty of ordinary Officers than Anointing with Oil by the Apostles which had the Miraculous effect of healing at that time Upon the First Text mentioned by him the Belgick Divines do shew that the comming of the Holy Ghost upon the laying on of Pauls hands is to be understood of the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost presently after exprest And their Prophecying is by Diodat exponed accordingly of a supernatural evident Divine inspiration To the same Scope it is exponed by the English Annotators And indeed the Text it self makes it so evident that none can call it into question and considerable it is that they all paralel this place with that Act. 8. Grotius upon the place tells us that Baptizati erant ab alio Christiano sed Deus ad commendandum munus Apostolicum non ante iis Spiritus sui dona communicare voluit quam Apostolica manus eos tetigisset Thus also Simplicius Camero and Piscator Epones this effect of the Imposing of the Apostles Hands with reference to the extraordinary influences of the Spirit Again in the fourfold premised Division of the laying on of Hands mentioned in the New Testiment we find only that the Imposition of Hands in the Ordination of Pastors is that which hath a clear standing Warrand and design the other three mentioned having an extraordinary end not to be now expected But further to urge this the Dr. says That tho the extraordinary effects are ceased yet the ordinary institut means of the Spirits influences remain Now as to this Point of the Apostles imposing Hands upon the Samaritans the Passage which the Dr. mainly insists upon and improves I would fain know if he will deny that these Samaritans Baptized by Philip upon their professed Faith and Conversion which in many of them no doubt was real had not received the Spirit in his ordinary gracious influences If they had then the the Apostles imposing Hands thereafter he must grant was either with a special respect to the forementioned Miraculous evidences of the Spirits Seal or it was useless and to no purpose at all The Belgick Divines upon v. 14. of this Chap. Do shew That the Apostles were sent to settle convenient Order in this Infant Church and strengthen them And therefore not merely for the end of Imposing Hands as the Dr. alledges and upon v. 15. mentioning the Apostles praying that they might receive the Holy Ghost they do thus Paraphrase it namely in a visible and Miraculous manner as often happened in this Church Act. 10.45 and 19.6 1 Cor. 14.27 for otherwise they had already received the Holy Ghost seeing no man can believe without the Holy Ghost Rom. 8.9 1 Cor. 12.3 Diodat to the same Sense understands the Holy Ghost here of the external and Miraculous evidences of his Grace Pool Annot. vol. 2. thus Paraphrases v. 14. as pointing out the Apostles Confirming the Doctrin and constituting a Church in Samaria by Apostolical Authority And the Clause of receiving the Holy Ghost v. 15. they expound of these extraordinary Gifts of Tongues Prophecie working of Miracles as Chap. 10.45 And upon that Clause v. 16. for as yet he was fallen upon none of them They shew that it is plain the Holy Ghost is not here meant as the Author of saving Graces For so he was fallen upon all that did believe Faith being the Gift of God but he was not yet bestowed as the Author of these extraordinary Gifts mentioned Chap. 2.38 Piscator upon this 15. v. Shews That the Spirit given here does not denote Sanctification or Confirmation in Grace but the extraordinary Gifts of Tongues and Prophesie c. as appears from the use of this Phrase Act. 10.45 and 19.6 As also from this that these Gifts were conspicuous to Simon The Imposing Hands mentioned v. 17. Dr. Lightfoot understands in the same Sense non Denatat saith he dona interna Gratiae Sanctificantis atque confirmantis omnibus piis collata sed dona extraordinaria aliquibus duntaxat exhibita And v. 18. which mentions Simons seeing this conferring the Holy Ghost is Interpreted of his seeing by this visible sign of the Gift of Tongues pointing out the Spirits inward Operation So Chrysostom and out of him Corn. a Lapide From all which it is evident in opposition to the Dr's Pleading 1. That this Imposition of Hands was not the sole end for which the Apostles were sent to Samaria 2 ly that there was no need of it in order to common Gifts of the Spirit or an ordinary Confirmation in the Faith thereby 3 ly That this Action of Imposing Hands was a special Badg of the Apostolick Office and that therein was put forth an extraordinary Apostolick Official Power competent to no Ordinary Officer 4 ly That it was put forth and exerced at this time in order to such a transient extraordinary effect as is not now to be expected since in that Infant state of the Church it did respect the Confirmation of the Doctrin of the Gospel the Confirmation of Believers and was to be a Divine attestation of the Apostles Mission and Authority in this extraordinary manner All which cuts off the Dr's design and Pleadings from this Scripture And whereas he alledges that an Extraordinary effect at that time will not prove the Ordinance it self to be ceased no more than Preaching sometimes attended with such effects I Answer when the Ordinance or mean is in Scripture held out with respect to ordinary standing Effects as Preaching has for its great end the Faith Conversion and Edification of Hearers till all the Elect are brought in this is true But when the mean or Action is in its Circumstances
Pastors labouring in the Word and Doctrin to whom as the Apostles committed what was in their Office ordinary and necessary to be continued in the Church So upon such Principles and grounds in such a manner and for such an end in their Doctrin delivered to the Churches as does quite overthrow the Hierarchical Prelat he Pleads for as no Plant of the Lords Plantation FINIS A Full REVIEW and EXAMINATION OF DOCTOR MONRO's Scripture-Pleadings Upon the Point of EPISCOPACY In his late Book intituled An Inquiry into the New Opinions chiefly propogated by the Presbyterians of Scotland CHAP. I. The Dr's Vnsound and Impertinent Reflections upon our first Reformers as to their Iudgment in point of Church-Government Exposed Together with his Vnsound and Popish Method in his Answer to the Argument against Episcopacy taken from Mat. 20.25 And with the paralell Texts TO Examin in the better Method what this Dr. produceth against us it is fit that we First view what he represents as our Assertion and which he boldly Charges with Error and Novelty and as one of those Opinions never heard of for 1400 Years after our Saviours Incarnation It is thus That we affirm our Saviour hath appointed his Church under the New Testament whether Provincial National or Oecumenick to be Governed by the several Classes of Presbyters acting in a perfect Parity and owning no Subordination to any higher Officer in the Ecâ—lesiastick Senate above a Presbyter in the modern and current Notion of the Word That which I mainly desiderat here is 1. The term of several Classes appears obscure not pointing at the Beautyful Order and Subordination of Judicatories which we maintain according to the Nature of all Government consequently of Church Government The Classes and excerpted Classes is an invidious independent term We own the Congregational Church represented by the Pastors one or more with the Congregational Eldership The Presbytrie a Judicatory Superior to this made up the Pastors of the Congregations together with Ruling Elders The Provincial Synod superior thereunto consisting of the Ministers of the Several Presbytries with Ruling Elders in the Precincts of the Province to which the proportioned number of Presbytries are subordinat and wherein they are represented The National Church made up of a convenient number of Ministers and Elders from every Presbytrie therein to which the Provincial Synods are subordinat Which Model of Government has been so fully Cleared from Scripture by many Learned Pens that he cannot stand before the evidence of Divine Authority and Reason offered for the same And which any who have Read may see the vanity of his empty Pamphlet 2 When he tells us of Presbyters Acting in a perfect parity he insinuats as if We held no other Presbyter than the Pastor and that all who come under this general Name or Character have by our Principles the same interest in Church Government which if he mean of Government in its whole Extent viz that Power which is called the Diatactick Critick and Dogmatick it s a gross Falsehood For we distinguish an interest in the last which is proper to Pastors from that interest in the first two which we allow to Ruling Elders 3. When he tells us We own no higher Officer in the Ecclesiastick Senate above a Presbyter in the modern Current Notion of the Word he speaks in the Clouds and confusedly not specifying what is that Notion of the Word which he calls Modern and current and which we own as of the Divine Appointment and Signature We hold that the Pastor labouring in the Word and Doctrin and to whom is Committed the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key is termed also in Scripture the Elder or Presbyter and that he is the highest ordinary Church Officer of Divine Appointment and this with the Body of Protestant Churches and Divines We also hold that the Scripture points out an Elder or Presbyter that Rules only and is inferior to the Labourer in the Word and Doctrin as having no interest therein and this Notion of the Word we hold and can make good to be the Scripture as well as Modern Notion If this Dr. in calling it the Current Notion of the Word intend that which is the general Sense of Divines he seems here to Charge them all with Novelty and Singularity since all who hold this Notion of the Word and understand the Presbyter in the Sense above exprest must needs own him to have such interest in Government and the same Authority which we Assert And therefore Cross to the Dr's Notion which he is not pleased directly to specifie The Dr. without distinction or setting up his discriminating March-stones as to the extension of time calls the days wherein this Notion of the Presbyter is become current dayes of Separation and Singularity differing in this from the Uniform Testimony of Antiquity And the Critick has here much to say in proof of his Charging with Singularity and Separation and a dangerous Separation from the Uniform Testimony of Antiquity the whole Body of Reformed Churches and Divines since in their Confessions and the Current usage of their Writers they thus understand and make use of the term Presbyter As also that upon other grounds he Charges them with Singularity and Separation since he calls these dayes such absolutely abstracting from this particular Cause And what dangerous Consequence this Doctrin is of and how highly reflecting upon the Churches will sute his serious second and more sedat Thoughts when in a better frame and humour The Dr. adds That in this we differ from the first Presbyterians among our selves who Declare in their Confession of Faith that all Church Policy is Variable so far were they from Asserting an Indispensible and Unalterable Right of Parity But in this he has Abused his Reader and any that but reads that Confession may easily discover his Impudent Forgery and Imposings For First In the ninteenth Article of that Confession Assigning the Notes of the True Church they present these three 1. The true Preaching of the Word of God as he has revealed himself in the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles 2. The right Administration of the Sacraments annexed to the Word and Promise to confirm it to our Hearts 3. Ecclesiastical Discipline uprightly Ministred as Gods Word prescribes whereby Vice is repressed and Vertue nourished And giving Instance of this in particular Gospel Churches they add Such were in Corinthus Galatia Ephesus and other places wherein the Ministry was planted by Paul and were of himself named the Churches of God citing on the Margine 1 Cor. 1.2 2 Cor. 1.1 Gal. 1.2 Ephes. 1.1 where Paul ownes them and names them as Churches and to prove they had a Ministry and Ecclesiastick Discipline planted therein they further cite Act. 16.9 10. and 20.17 c. pointing us to Pauls last and farewel Charge to the Elders or Pastors of Ephesus wherein he entrusted the Government thereof to them as the only Bishops thereof set up and Authorized by the
Holy Ghost And such a Church they profess the Protestant Church in this Realm to be From this Account of the Confession it is evident 1. That in the Sense of our first Reformers Church Government and Disciplin rightly Administred is an Essential Mark of the Church 2. That it must not be according to Mens Invention or Rules of Worldly Policy but according to the Prescription of the Word of God Thus clearly asserting that the Word of God prescribes the Rules and Measures of it and consequently determines what Government and Disciplin it is else there could be no Appeal to that Rule And look as they make the Word of God the Standart and Rule of the true Doctrine in the first Note so of Discipline and Government in this third Hence as none can without extremest Impudence assert that the Word leaves us to Waver and at an Uncertainty as to the true or false Doctrine or that it is not perfectly contained in the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles Appealed to in that first Note so without the same Impudence neither can this be alledged of the Discipline or Government anent the Rectitude whereof and its Divine Measures the same Appeal is made 3. When exhibiting Scripture Instances they mention a Ministry established by Paul in the Churches and in special such a Ministry or Eldership as had the Government established and lodged with them in a Parity of Pastors as the Church of Ephesus when Paul gave them his last Charge to Feed and Govern joyntly as the Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost they clearly assert the Divine Warrands of Presbyterian Parity Next for that Passage which the Dr. takes hold of in Art 21. which he durst not point his Reader to as knowing that the very Reading would discover his Forgery that which they affirm is thus expressed Not that we think any policy or Order in Ceremonies can be appointed for all Ages times and places c. It s evident that it utterly rejects his absurd gloss and impertinent groundless inference For 1. They are not speaking of the Species and form of Government but of these things which Councils has a Power to determin in yea peremptorly affirm that they have no Power or Authority to make that to be Gods Word or the true interpretation thereof which was not so before by his Holy Will and by clear Consequence that no Councils can alter or change that Ministry and Government which in Art 19. They affirm the Apostles established 2. Having mentioned the Confutation of Heresies and giving a publick Confession of Faith according to the Word as one great design of General Councils they assign the Second which is to Constitut good Order and Policy to be observed in the Kirk that all things be done decently and in Order citing 1 Cor. 14.40 Let all things be done decently and in order Wherein Paul prescribs this general Rule to be applyed to the particular circumstances of that Church Then they add Not that we think any Policy and order in Ceremonies can be appointed for all Ages Times and places Adding That when Ceremonies foster Superstition they ought to be removed Wherein it is evident as the Meridian Light that that Policy which they hold alterable is not the Government of the Church appointed by the Apostles in the Word or that Ecclesiastick Disciplin therein prescribed For this they make a Note of the true Church and to call this alterable according to the difference of Times and Places were so gross a contradiction as no Men of Sense could fall into much less the Godly and Learned Compilers of that Confession But by this alterable Policy they mean such as Relâ—tes to the variable Circumstances of particular Churches and such appointments thereanent as God has left to the Regulation of the Christian Prudence of Church Governours according to the general Rules of the Word of which Rules that instance they exhibit 1 Cor. 14.40 hath the prime place So that the Dr's Inference that therefore the Authors of the Confession held not an indispensible Divine Right of Parity of Pastors or Presbyters has no dependence upon that Passage which he Cites nor has any Subsistence but in his own imagination The Dr. adds P. 13 That the First Presbyterians pleaded only that their New Form was not repugnant to the Oeconomy of the New Testament Church and Primitive Institution that it came nearer to the Original Model of Churches But never affirmed that the Christian Church by the Original Authority of our Saviour and his Apostles ought to be Governed by a Parity of Presbyters and that no Officer in the Church higher than a Presbyter could pretend to any share in Ecclesiastick Government I Answer the Dr. hath not exhibit to us these Presbyterians whom he calls First and who thus pleaded We heard that our very First Reformers Pleads for that Government they were settling as a Divine Ministry and Government according to the Word and deriving its Original Pattern from the Apostles Plantation of Churches such as Ephesus had when Paul gave his last directions to that Church To which Original Pattern they hold that all Churches ought to be squared and Subordinat And if we advance a step further to our Books of Disciplin we will find the Divine Right of our Government Asserted in most Material Points thereof The Peoples interest in the Election of Pastors in their Call and in their Admission is Asserted in the First Book of Disciplin Head 1. with the Explication In the 7 Head of Ecclesiastick Disciplin the highest Censure of Excommunication is attributed to the Ministry as their Duty and Priviledge not to the Prelat and all Preachers without exception are declared Subject to Disciplin and the Subjection of all Preachers to the Prophets in their Doctrin is Asserted in the 9. Head of Church Policy upon that special Point of Propesying and interpreting the Scriptures All which cutts the Sinnews of the Prelats Exercising Power over Pastors Establishing their Essential Divine Right of Government In 2 Book of Discipl Chap. 1. The Divine Right of Church Government and Policy is Asserted and its distinction from the Civil The unlawfulness of Ministers assuming Name or Thing of Lordship Again The extraordinary expired Function of Apostles Prophets and Evangelists is Asserted The identity of the Pastor and Bishops Office as the highest ordinary Function together with the Relation thereof to a particular Flock is Asserted Chap. 2. Moreover Ch. 7. initio the Ruling Elders Office and Congregational Eldership are Asserted Ibid. Our Church Judicatories Congregational Provincial and National are Asserted Chap. 11. The Unwarrantableness of the Office of Bishops Assuming Authority over Pastors and a Lordship over them and over Christs Inheritance is Asserted And such Bishops as refuse Subjection to the Established Disciplin and Government of Pastors are appointed to be deposed from all Function in this Kirk Likewise Patronages as crossing the Peoples Right in Election of Pastors are condemned
as a Corruption of Popery Chap 12. Now the Divine Right of the Courts and Officers we own in opposition to Prelacy being thus Asserted in these Books of Policy and in the Judgment of the Compilers thereof drawn forth from the Fountain of the Word the Model also presented and described in these Books amounting to a specifick form of Government and eversive of Prelacy the Compilers also as is said presenting it as the Divine and Scripture Pattern they must needs hold it to be a standing Form appointed by our Lord and his Apostles Again if the Dr. hold that the New Testament Oeconomy contains a specifick standing Form of Government and a Standart for all Churches while time lasts then such a Form as with Respect to the main is asserted to be consonant thereunto is asserted in so far to be not only allowable but necessary And this the Dr. must needs admit unless with Papists he will make Scriptures themselves a Nose of Wax and the New Testaments Prescriptions in Point of Government and its Oeconomy versatile and so Lax and General that it discovers no Species of Government Besides if these Reformers affirm the Pastor to be the highest Church Officer Iure Divino and that he is all one with the Preaching Presbyter then by necessary Consequence they must needs hold that by Original Authority of Christ and his Apostles all Churches ought to be Governed by a Parity of Presbyters or Pastors and that no Ecclesiastick Officer above a Presbyter can pretend to a share in Ecclesiastick Government These Assertions are of so close and clear a connection that if the Dr. attempt to cut this Gordian Knot he will fall into such a shameful Assertion as to affirm that an Officer not allowed by Christ but condemned by his own Original Authority and that of his Apostles has notwithstanding a share in Ecclesiastick Government Besides the dull inadvertency of this Assertion appears in this that he holds our Reformers did plead that their Form was allowable and not repugnant to the New Testament Oeconomy and yet not such as was recommended by our Lords Original Authority to all Churches For if he hold that the New Testament Oeconomy is a clear fixed Standart and Model for all the Churches then whatever Frame of Government is not Dissonant or Repugnant is conform and consonant thereunto and consequently not only allowable but necessary And if our Lords Original Authority prescribed this Oeconomy as a Standart and Rule for Church Government in all Ages that Model that comes up to this First Standart in so far as it comes up to it is that which the Church is to imitat in all Ages unless he will say that all Ages are not to imitat this Pattern shewed upon the Mount And in special our Reformers hold that our Saviour in the Original Prescription of this Pattern presents the Pastor or Preaching Presbyter as the highest ordinary Church Officer And therefore it is no rashness to affirm that in all times of the Church such an Officer as a Prelat Superior to Pastors is forbidden and Condemned The Dr. says That tho our Reformers affirm their Government was not repugnant to the New Testament Oeconomy they were not so rash as to affirm the Church ought to be thus Governed in all Ages So it s with this Grave cautelous Dr rashness to affirm that a Government suted to the Divine Pattern is for all Ages consequently a precipitant Assertion to affirm that our Lords Pattern is the just Standart for all Ages The Dr. will be satisfied That we plead for our Iudgment in Government which he calls a New Notion as probable but cannot endure that we plead for an absolut infallible Right and require obedience to it as due to infallible Authority This he says is worse than speculative Enthusiasm I Answer if we can produce no Scripture Warrand for that Government we own we shall be satisfied it come under the Character of a New Notion But if we can make it appear to be the Government recommended in the Scripture-Oeconomy and Pattern then as being founded upon Infallible Authority we justly challenge Obedience to it and while this Light is shut out and rejected by the Dr. and his Fellows they are justly Chargeable in so far with Speculative yea and Practical Enthusiasm The Dr's pretended Rhetorical Florish whereby he would set off this Charge upon Presbyterians taken from the similitud and allusion to the person who should threaten to knock him on the Head unless he wil affirm against his Reason and Senses that he sees such Armies in the Air as are pointed out to him Is but a phantastick Flash of his own Airy Imagination for we impose nothing Arbitrarly or Imperiously upon his Reason or any of his way but challenge the utmost attention and best Exercise of their Sense and Reason to that Scripture-Light and demonstration of our Government which we offer from the Word which had he seriously searched and pondered with an Eye to God the Father of Lights he had been otherwise and better imployed than in flinging out such Squibs and Crackets into this Countrey and in writing his folly and ignorance in such an Airy Childish Pamphlet as this is He adds P. 14. That it were better to fall into High-way-Mens hands than amongst such Spiritual Robbers But he commits this Robbery upon himself while shutting his Eyes against that Scripture-Light which has been offered upon this Point And he knows by what numerous cruel Laws and Barbarous execution thereof in the late Reigns he and his Masters our Scots Prelats endeavoured to knock down the reason and Conscience of many Thousands of this Nation both Godly and knowing in an Imperious obtrusion of their ungodly Hierarchy upon them and many wicked Vows and Oaths for upholding it The Dr. next alledges That we vainly boast of a Divine Institution of our Government and unanswered Writers in its defence but when put to produce Arguments for it we have have nothing but perplexed Probabilities intricat consequences from wrested Scriptures to offer contrary to the Uniform suffrage of the Ancients c. Ans. what Divine Warrand we plead for the Divine Right of the Courts and Officers we own is so well known to such as are acquaint with this Controversie and how solid our Scripture-proofs are and consonant to the Sense both of Ancient and Modern Writers that this Mans flanting boast can make no other impression upon them than of his procacious vanity Had he intended as a Champion indeed for his Cause to Fight not to bragg in this Pamphleting Bragadocio which any may see to be ad pompam non ad pugnam he should have fairly and formally encountred Ius Divin Reg. Eccles. Ius Divin Minist Evang. Smectym with its Vindication Mr. Baynes Diocesan Tryal in Answer to Dounham Didoclav Cap. 4. And the Scripture-Pleadings of many Forreign Divines against the Hierarchy and for the Parity of Pastors and then to have boasted having discussed
their Doctrin and Practice they disown all dominion and Prelatical Principality in the Church and all outward grandure and greatness as inconsistent with their Office and the Office of all Gospel Ministers But to the Topick and ground of the Dr's Argument I Answer directly that the Apostles as they understood so they practised our Lords Precept in the sense we owne 1. In that they practised a compleat equality of Official Power among themselves This I hope he will not deny or if he do its easie to set all Protestant Divines in pursuit of him 2 In that they never exercised nor attempted to seek any Civil Greatness or Dominion such as the Prelats he pleads for do own as competent to their Office They knew that their Lord when but desired to give advice in a Civil Cause gave this return who made me a Iudg And declined the Imployment And that therefore neither they nor any of their Successors were to be Civil Counsellors and Spiritual Peers in Parliaments and Princes Courts 3. They disown all Dominion in one Pastor over another and discharged it earnestly Thus the Apostle Peter to be Lords over Gods Heritage 1 Pet. 5. Thus also Diotrephes affecting a Preheminence is rebuked by the Apostle Iohn And Paul owns himself and other Apostles as Stewards only in the House of God and disowns a Dominion as we have heard Next As for their Iurisdiction over subordinat Ecclesiasticks which is the Substratum of the Dr's great Answer and Question I do deny First that they exercised any Episcopal Jurisdiction properly taken over them Secondly such a Jurisdiction as did Cross this Precept The Proof of both these will fully discover the vanity of the Dr's Second Reply And First that the Apostles exercised no such Episcopal Authority over Ecclesiasticks or Churches planted as the Dr. pleads for is evident thus 1. Their Apostolick Authority connected with their Infallibility in Teaching reached to prescrib Duty to the Members and Officers of Churches consequently was cumulative thereto not privative thereof which appears in their enjoyning the exercise of Spiritual Iurisdiction as inherent in Church Officers as Excommunication 1 Cor. 5. And their owning a Spiritual Jurisdiction and Authority in Pastors both in the designations of Rulers Governours Overseers Bishops attribut to them As also in their frequent enjoyning the Peoples obedience and subjection to them as in that capacity Heb. 13.7.17 1 Pet. 5.2.3 1 Thess. 5.12.2 The Apostles did not as the Prelats invade the decisive Power of Pastors in Government but took along their decisive Votes and concurrence as we find in that Council Act. 15. where its evident that in every Point the Elders or Ministers conccurred with the Apostles in the Disquisition Sentence and decretal Letter 3. As the Apostles planted Churches with Pastors or Preaching Presbyters instructing them with Authority to Feed and Rule as Bishops or Rulers set up by the Holy Ghost so they committed the Government of the Churches to them in their last farewells without the least hint of Super-institut Officers of an higher Order So that the Apostles instructing Pastors with such Authority commanding its exercise enjoyning the Churches obedience to them exemplifying and Authorizing their interest in highest Judicatories yea making even Evangelists as Timothy pass through the Door of Presbyterial Ordination in order to the exercise of his Office Not to insist upon even Apostles submission to the Authoritative Imposition of the Hands of Prophets and Teachers when sent out upon a special Gospel Legation To which we may add the Apostles owning Pastors as Brethren Fellow-helpers Fellow-Labourers Co-Presbyters or Elders It follows inevitably 1. That as to the Perpetual Pastoral Charge the Authority of Preaching the Gospel the Administration of the Sacraments and the appendent Jurisdictional Power which by the Apostles Doctrin is a Lower Step to this and connected therewith they own the Pastors or Preaching Presbyters their Equals and their proper Successors in this Ministerial Authority consequently the ordinary Church Officers of the highest Order to whom they committed the Keys of Doctrin and Disciplin 2. That the Exercise of their extraordinary Apostolick directive Power and Authority which they could not divest themselves of while alive did no whit impeach the standing Authority of Pastors nor did it includ any Jurisdiction properly over Churches constitut and Moulded in their Organick being By Iurisdiction properly I mean such as is of a standing necessity in order to the Churches Edification in all times or such a Jurisdiction over Churches as may be supposed paramount unto or privative of the Jurisdictional Authority of Pastors and of Organick Churches Secondly That the Apostles exercised no such Authority over the Churches as did cross our Lords Precept and Prohibition is evident in that 1. Our Saviour discharged Imparity among Church Officers of the same kind and therefore this could not impeach the Apostles Authority over ordinary Officers 2. Our Lords instructing them with such a measure of the Spirit as was sutable to the First founding of the Churches and with Authority as his living and infallibly inspired Oracles to plant Churches and the Gospel Ordinances and Government therein Unless the Dr. will say that our Lords Precept did cross and contradict his design he must needs ackdowledg that the Apostles in exercising this directive Power and extraordinary Authority over ordinary inferior Officers could not cross this his Precept and Prohibition they being our Lords immediatly called infallibly inspired and extraordinarly Gifted First Messengers in order to this end Thus we have seen the vanity and insufficiency of the Dr's Second Answer But there is no end of Vanities The Dr's Third Answer is Prefaced with a very big and high Flown swelling boast That which he says baffles and exposes our Argument to all intents and purposes is that our Lord did that himself among them which now he Commanded them to do one to another And the doing of this one to another in obedience to his Command could not infer a Parity unless we Blasphemously infer that Christ and his Apostles were equal For our Lord recommends what he enjoins from his own constant and visible Practice among them that he their Lord and Master was their Servant And therefore it became the greatest among them to be Modest calm and humble toward their Brethren which would qualify them for Ecclesiastick Promotions This poor and mean Answer and Reason of the Dr's is a notion for which he is beholden to his Popish Masters And being here subjoyned to such big words brings to mind some Poetick Phrases Quid tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu And Projicis ampullas sesquipedalia verba And that of Partuâ—iunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus There 's no doubt that the Dr. has as much exposed and baffled his own Judgment and Reputation in this thrasonick weak Answer as in any thing else But to the point First I must tell him that if this Argument tending to prove from this Text
Pomp and absolut Dominion of the Prelats whom the Dr. pleads for And if any of them held this Notion of their pretended Dignity when their Power came to the length of incroaching upon that of Pastors in Government they held but an empty Chimerical Notion Contradictory to their Practice As the Popes Notion of his being Servus Servorum Dei The Dr. ibid. returns again to his Post telling us That it appears from what he has said we have no Shadow of Argument for our new Doctrine from the Texts above instanced Thus the Protestant Pleadings therefrom against the Papacy has no Shadow of Argument with him But whether our Arguments or his Answers be most Substantial is left to the Reader to Judge from what is said He tells us That Wallo Missalinus Glances at this Text but lays no great Stress upon it But the Dr. has not exhibit either his Words or Argument as neither Beza's Reflection upon the Passage in his larger Notes Tho he tells us as some great Discovery forsooth that Beza holds That all kind of Iurisdiction is not here forbidden but such as is joyned with Imperious Bitterness and Domination And what he would make of this I would fain know Did ever any imagine that all kind of Jurisdiction is here forbidden Did our Lord discharge all Government in his Church by this Precept and Prohibition As for Beza's expressing thus that which is forbidden it is evident to any who are acquaint with his Writings that he holds all pretended Spiritual Jurisdiction which is joyned with Domination or Lordly Rule of one Pastor over another to be a Sinful Abuse of Jurisdiction and consequently to fall within the Compass of what is prohibited in these Texts I proceed to another Notion and Answer of the Dr's We are told next ibid. That the Hierarchy and Subordination of Priests was establisht by Divine Authority in the Jewish Church If our Saviour had pulled down that Ancient Policy and commanded Equality among Presbyters of the New Testament he would not have stated the Opposition betwixt his Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles but between the Mosaick Oeconomy and the Disciples of the New Testament Here the Dr. obliges us in affording still more Light in taking up his Judgment and Principles in Point of Church Government viz. in his Sense the Iewish Policy by our Lords Warrand was at this time standing as the exact Standart and Plat-Form for the Gospel Church Government And therefore we need not doubt what he means by Chief Places and Dignities and Honours in the Church and that he holds that our Saviour did not forbid but supposed the Lawfulness of a Chief Rule and Principality of one Disciple over the rest in the Church Nay P. 27. he is clear and positive in this That that Hierarchy the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof was divided in a Supreme and Subordinat Priests was never abrogated consequently stands imitable and imitated in the New Testament I think the Dr. will find the clearest Pattern at Rome of this his Holy Standing Hierarchy In Answer whereunto I need only say That the standing Policy of the Jewish Church never abrogat but continuing as the Measure and Standart of the New Testament Church Government is so notoriously known to be the great Popish Argument for the Papal Hierarchy pleaded by all the Antichristian Rabble and Locusts who stand up for this Monster and Mystery of Iniquity and so Universally condemned by all Protestant Churches and Divines that there needs no more to Stigmatize a Man as of that Number in their Judgment than such an Assertion That all our Divines do hold the Abrogation of the Iewish Church Policy is so clear that it would Load much Paper but to Recite their Names Rivet Cath. Orth. Tract 2. Quest. 4. brings in his Iesuit Ballaeus with this Argument in his Mouth That because one High Priest under the Old Testament had the Chief Government therefore it ought to be so in the New And tells him that there is Multiplex Abusus or a manifold Abuse and Corruption in this Pleading He shews him further that every thing in that Dispensation reaches not us that the High Priest was Typical of Christ as the Apostle shews Heb. 7. That if a Parity of Government were pleaded there should be a Dedication of one Family for the Ministry as there was for Priests and Levites c. Turret Part. 3. Quest. 16. Thes. 15.16 After he has set dâ—wn the Judgment of the Ancients against a Primacy in the Church he brings in the Solution of the Popish Objection and Argument taken from the Government of the Church under the Old Testament which he Baffles from several Grounds such as 1. The Extent of the Christian beyond that of the Iewish Church 2. That the High Priest had no absolute Authority over that Church being subject to the Jurisdiction of the great Sanhedrin Deut. 17.11 3. That what Authority he had was Typical of Christs the High Priest of the New Testament Wallaeus de Function Ecclesiast P. mihi 470. brings in this Objection against Parity of Pastors taken from the High Priest under the Old Testament and the twenty four Orders of Priests over whom there were Presidents And thus Answers That these things were partly Typical partly Political that there was a Priority of Order here not an Essential Difference of Power and Authority that they all Governed the Church by Common Counsel But for the Abrogation of this Ministry and that it was to be no Standart for the Gospel Church I will produce and offer again to the Dr's Consideration that one Text Heb. 7.12 The Priesthood being changed there is made of Necessity a Change of the Law viz. The Policy suted to the State of that Church must be changed also The Text asserts that the Priesthood or their particular Frame of Church Officers being changed or abrogat there is therefore a Change or Abrogation of the Law i. e. the Legal Ordinances respecting both their Worship and Government Pool Part. 2. tells us That this Change referrs to the Expiration of the Aaronical Order to which the Hebrews were not bound for that a better Priesthood and Law were to fill up its Room That the Mutation of the Priesthood required a Change of the Law That God determined that both Priesthood and Law should expire together English Annot. on v. 11. assert the Abrogation of the Legal Priesthood together with the Covenant viz. the Legal and by clear Consequence that Policy The Belgick Divines upon the place do shew That the Levitical Priesthood was many ways involved with the Legal Dispensation of the Covenant aâ—d therefore abolished with it Diodate shews That the Priesthood and all the Ceremonial Worship of the Tribe of Levi was to give place to Christs in whom was accomplished all the Reality and Truth and he is now both Priest and Law-Giver Bilson an English Bishop shews the Reason why that Policy cannot stand under the New
with Ministers of the New Testament Church The Moral Law being the constant Standart of Truth and Duty in all Ages our Saviour who came to fulfill all Righteousness and establish the Law was therefore concerned to vindicat the same from corrupt glosses but this bears no proportion to his Scope in the Case of the Disciples that old Ministry and Policy being now ready to evanish The Dr. proceeds to another Text and tells his Reader that we Cite 1 Pet. 5.2.3 to serve the same design We have made appear that our design in pleading this and the preceeding Texts is the same with that of Protestant Divines and that the design the Dr. serves in his Glosses and Answers is Popish as to the intentio operis at least a design to support the Popes Triple Crown with Bellamin and his other pleaders and Advocats Our Argument from this Text against the Prelatical Hierarchy is this Looking to the Apostles scope he first dehorts Ministers and none will doubt all ordinary Church Officers from the evils they are constantly tempted to viz. Covetousness Lordship usurpation and Dominion over Gods Heritage evils of a close connection and cognation that they do not Act the Diotrephes seeking Preheminence over their Brethren or affect a Masterly Dominion over the People for that both comes under the Denomination of Gods Heretage none will doubt He likewise dehorts from Reluctancy at their Laborious imployment Next there is a positive exhortation presented to Ministers viz that they be examples to the Flock that is that the Graces they Preach to others shine in their Walk and in special that of Meekness and Humility which most nearly Resembles their Glorious Master the great Shepherd of the Sheep that this appear in their conduct and Government as that of his who leadeth Gently and would not have Ministers to Rule with Rigor as those Reprehended Ezek. 34.4 Hence from the Scope and contexture it appears 1. That the Pastor Labouring in the Word and Doctrin being here addressed as the Apostles Co-presbyter and Fellow-elder is owned by him as the highest ordinary Church Officer and that this Apostle now shortly to put off his Tabernacle doth Aaron-like invest him in his Robe â—or highest Sphere of an Ordinary Minister 2 He enjoyns them to exercise Episcopal Authority As also Paul did the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20. which must respect Ordination and Jurisdiction in the full extent thereof and their equal interest therein 3. All of them are discharged to Lord it or exercise a Dominion over one another or over the Flock but to exercise a humble exemplary Ministry Hence we further inferr against the Hierarchical Prelat 1. That the Apostle ascribing this comprehensive Authority to Pastors which comprehends both the Doctrinal Key and that of Jurisdiction For I hope our Episcopal Brethren will acknowledg that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Episcopal Authority and inspection includs both he cuts off the Hierarchical Prelats pretended super-Inspection paramount thereunto Hence 2 The Pastor being found thus discribed and installed in this comprehensive Scriptural Episcopal Authority the Hierarchical Prelats Office which swallows up this Power and Authority of Pastors and arrogats to it self solely the Name and thing of a Bishop is discharged as unlawful 3 We argue a minore ad Majus against that Office from the Text thus All Masterly power of Pastors over their Flock is discharged Ergola Fortiori much more that of Prelats over Pastors themselves Now for the Judgment of Protestant Writers in corespondence to this our Sense we might exhibit a great cloud of Witnesses but of the whole we offer only these few instances The Belgick Divines make this 2. v. paralel with that which is enjoined Act. 20.28 to the Elders of Ephesus as to the Authority and exercise of a joynt Episcopal inspection competent to Pastors And the 3. v. they Translate not Exercising Dominion the very same thing which our Lord prohibit to his Apostles Pool Annot. 2. Part. doth also make the Command in this 2 v. praralel with Act. 20.28 and Ioh. 21.15.16 and Paraphrases the Command as importing both to feed and Rule and enjoining the exercise of the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key jointly yea and hold it to be of such a Nature as to the main designs of the Gospel as was enjoined to Peter himself and his Fellow-Apostles The Clause of taking the oversight they expone thus being Bishops or acting as Bishops over it superintending Inspecting and Watching over it viz. the Flock paralelling this with Act. 20.28.29 where such Pastoral Episcopal Feeding and Rule is enjoyned in Pauls farewell to the Elders or Ministers of Ephesus The prohibition or negative part of the Precept v. 3. not as being Lords they Expone of not exercising such Lordship and Dominion as temporal Lords paralelling this with Matth. 20.25 26. Luk. 22.25 as also with 2 Cor. 1.24 where Paul disowns Dominion and with 1 Cor. 3.5 Who then is Paul or who is Appllo But Ministers Yea even Grotius Comerarius Menochius expone the Command of Feeding v. 2. as importing Government or Rule paralelling this with Ioh. 21.15 16 17. Act. 20.28.29 The Clause of taking the oversight is generally understood of superintending and acting the Bishops Episcopum agentes Beza Piscat Valla. Erasm. Gerard says it s an allusion to their Name as if the Lord enjoined them to be Answerable to it The ensuing Verse is understood of imperious Dominion over GOD's Church Thus Piscat Menoch c. Turret Institut Theol. Part. 3. Quest. 16. Thes. 8. produces the same Text collated with 2 Cor. 1.24 as proving a prohibition of all Lordly Power to Ministers shewing that this is the prerogative of Christ the Chief Sheepherd and that in opposition to such Lordly Power Pastors are called Ministers Messengers Servants Stewards of the Mysteries of God Maccov from this Passage Collated with Act. 20.28 concludes the identity of the Episcopal and Pastoral Office Loc. Commun Cap. 82. P. 845. The Eng. Annot. upon the place do shew That such a Magisterial carriage is forbidden as is Taxed 3 Ioh. v. 9. in Diotrephes Love of Preheminence But now What is the Dr's great Answer to this Text He says It s the Apostles Commentary upon our Saviours Words and Commandment This is very true He next adds That it forbids the Spirit of Pride and Insolence as a thing very unsutable to all Power and Authority in the Church To which I Answer it is certain the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Paralel with Matth. 20. Luk. 22. where Peter learned the prohibition and imports Dominion but not Tyranical Dominion properly It being made use of by the LXX to express Lawful Dominion 2. We have told him that the positive part of the Precept refuts his gloss which the Apostle doth not thus express in the Dr's Sense not proudly or insolently Domineering but using Dominion moderatly as the Apostle would have presented the Precept if a Lawful Lordship had been allowed but
be evident to any who will compare their Writings with his Reasoning in this Pamphlet To give a Summary and Brief Account of our Arguments from these Scriptures cited by him and consequently of this Dr's Phantastick Vanity and Trifflings in this Matter From Act. 20. We thus Argue First That the Apostles solemnly declares to the Elders or Pastors of that Church of Ephesus that the Holy Ghost had constituted them Bishops over the Flock Whence we collect 1. That the Pastor is the true Scripture Bishop 2. That by his Office he Feeds and Rules the Flock and hath the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key committed to him by the Holy Ghost Next it hence follows that whatever Authority Power and Jurisdiction is imported in the Name Bishop falls within the Compass of this Solemn Command given to these Elders or Pastors who are enjoyned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that this being essentially and intirely included in the Pastoral Office the Diocesan Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or pretended Paramount Inspection over them evanisheth as a mere Chimaera especially since it excludes and inhaunces this Authority of Pastors 3. It is evident that this Charge was given to the Elders before Timothy now present with Paul and was posterior to the first Epistle directed to him for at Writing thereof the Apostle was at Macedonia And the Sacred History informs us that he came thereafter to Miletum with Timothy and gave the Elders this Charge In a Word this Charge and Command was Paul's last Solemn Charge for after this they were to see his Face no more So that these being the Apostles last Thoughts to speak so and Testamentary Instructions in Point of Church Government we have here the the Samplare and Pattern shewed by this great Apostle upon the Mount of this Divinely Inspired Model and Instructions And since the Episcopalians will not call the Gospel-Church a Speckled Bird and her Government of diverse Cuts they must acknowledge that the rest of the Apostles gave the same Directions As 1 Pet. 5. with 2 Pet. 1.14 doth furher clear From hence we further Argue First These Bishops who Feed and Rule the Flock immediatly are the Apostolick Bishops and these only Ergo the Hierarchical Prelat is no Apostolick Bishop 1. Because his pretended Episcopacy is over the Pastors he is Pastor Pastorum 2. He hath a Relation to no Flock as such We Argue Secondly from the Text thus These Apostolick Bishops have both the immediat and intire Episcopal Inspection and Power over Christs Flocks committed to them by God both the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key And therefore the Hierarchical Prelat stands Condemned upon a double Ground 1. As Snatching away the last from Pastors and Arrogating it solely to himself 2. In Tearing and Breaking asunder the Bond. wherewith Christ hath Tyed these Keyes And this in a double Respect 1. In the Case of the Pastor to whom he leaveth only the Doctrinal Key 2. With Respect to himself who is obliged ex Natura Ratione Officii or from the Nature of his Office to Preach the Gospel to no Flock but to Govern only Thirdly All this Scriptural Episcopal Jurisdiction is by the Apostle ascribed to these Pastors or Bishops of the Holy Ghost in Presence of Timothy while there is Altum Silentium of any Interest he had over them in this Matter Whence it may be inferred 1. They are declared and supposed the Highest Ordinary Officers of that Church having a Collegiat joynt Authority therein And 2. By clear Consequence it follows that nothing here enjoyned them inferrs or doth include a Precarious Dependence upon him in these Duties or his Supereminent Inspection over them 3. By further necessary Consequence this Authority being thus declared by the Apostle and recognosced after all the Precepts delivered to Timothy in the first Epistle written to him it cannot be supposed to contain any Super-eminent Episcopal Charge over these Pastors but a Transient Evangelistick Inspection only to pass off with that Exigent It being infallibly clear that there can be no Inconsistency or Contradiction betwixt this last Farewel Charge to the Pastors of that Church and his Directions to Timothy while residing therein Finally It is hence infallibly concluded 1. That the Apostles themselves Exercised no such Jurisdiction over Churches constitute in their Organick Beeing as is properly and formally Episcopal or of the Hierarchical Mould This Episcopal Authority being committed to the Colledge of Elders as their Essential Right and Priviledge 2. That the Apostles did not Substitute the Hierarchical Prelats or Diocesan Bishops as their Succedaneous Substitutes upon their withdrawing unless we will make the Apostle Paul to Model this Church in a Mould Hetrogeneous to other Churches And in a Word it hence follows that whatever may be pleaded as to Matter of Fact neither this nor any Church else could ever after Iure divest themselves of this Authority I mean the Church Representatives or Officers thereof in setting up such a Proestos or Prelat whose Power did encroach upon this their Authority allowed them by God From Tit. 1.5 7. The Presbyterians Argue not merely from the Promiscuous Use or Identity of the Name Bishop and Presbyter but from the Nature and Mould of the Apostles Reasoning and the Connecting Particle and Illative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which points at the very Topick and Ground upon which the Apostle concludeth that which is his Scope which necessarly inferrs an Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter not a Nominal only For thus his Argument lyes The Presbyter or Elder must be so and so Qualified for such must the Bishop be So that the Stating of an Official Distinction betwixt the two as different Orders of Ministers breaks the Force of the Apostles Argument there being no Soundness in such Reasoning as this Inferior Officers must have such Qualifications because such are proper to the Superior Office No doubt the Holy Ghost who thus Reasons ascribes to them not only the same Name and he knew best how to express the Nature of the Things by fit Words but likewise the same Qualifications Work and Office Episcopalians will not disowne it that the Bishop hath distinct Qualifications and Work from that of the Presbyter or Pastor So that they must either acquiesce in this our Sense of his Words while purposely describing the Presbyter and Bishops Qualifications Office and Duties or Blasphemously impute unto him Incongruity of Speech and Unsoundness in Reasoning And therefore the Office of the one and the other is clearly supposed one and the same From Philip. 1.1 Where the Apostle salutes a Plurality of Bishops of that Church We inferr 1. Their proper Episcopal Relation thereunto 2. That they could not be Diocesans 1. Because the Deacons the lowest Officers are immediatly subjoyned to them And Prelatists will not say that there were no Pastors in that Church but only Diocesans 2. It is impossible there could be a Plurality of Hierarchical
Bishops therein and by clear Consequence the Pastors and Presbyters are supposed the Highest Ordinary Officers of that Church Exercising a joynt Collegiat Power in the Government thereof If I should adduce the Judgment and Testimonies of Protestant Divines upon these Passages correspondent to our Sense and Pleading it were a large Work The Belgick Divines upon Act. 20.28 from that Clause the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers do plead as above For having told us that in the Greek it is Bishops and that from this the Word Bishop is derived they add That these are v. 17. called Elders of the Church from whence it appears that in the Holy Scriptures there is no Difference made betwixt Elders and Bishops pointing to Philip. 1.1 upon which Passage they shew that this Term is common to all Governours and Overseers in the Church referring again to Act. 20.17 28. together with 1 Tim. 1.3 Where they shew That Timothy was appointed to continue at Ephesus not as Bishop but as Evangelist for a time to Confirm the Church Upon Chap. 3. v. 1. they shew That the Word Bishop is to be understood of all Overseers and Teachers of the Church without Difference as appears in the following Description compared with other places citing Act. 20.17 28. Philip. 1.1 Tit. 1.5 7. Diodat on Act. 20.17 shews That by the Elders we are to understand the Pastors and Conductors in v. 28. Upon which Verse he shews That the Word signifies Overseer Guardian c. And represents the Duty of a true Pastor of the Church without any absolute Dominion only for the Profit and Good of the Flock Philip. 1.1 he paralells with Act. 20 17 28. 1 Tim. 5.17 Understanding therein the Ministers of the Sacred Governing Senat 1 Tim. 3.1 he understands of the Bishop or Pastor who has the Charge of Teaching and Governing the Church On Tit. 1.5 the Elders who are immediatly after called Bishops he understands of such Pastors and Conductors as were to be placed in Churches where was a Competent Number of Believers Pools Annot. Vol. 2. understands Act. 20.17 as speaking of such Elders as are Governours and Pastors of the Church And shews that the Term and Title respects not their Age but their place And upon v. 28. they shew That the Overseers there mentioned are the same who are called Elders v. 17. and were certainly such as had the Government and care of the Church committed to them Upon Philip. 1.1 By Bishops they understand Pastors and Teachers asserting that the Name and Office of Bishops and Pastors was all one in the Apostles days and do Cite for Confirmation of this Act. 20.17.28 1 Cor. 4.1.2 1 Thes. 5.12.13 1. Tim. 3.1 1 Pet. 5.1 2. Tit. 1.5 Heb. 13.17 Iam. 5.14 3 Ioh. 9. The very Passages we make use of shewing that this is the Sense both of Ancient and modern Interpreters Thereafter they confute at large Hammonds Notion of Presbyters who takes them for Diocesan Bishops Upon 1 Tim. 3.1 They shew That the Term Bishop is the proper Title of Gospel Ministers pointing at their Honourable Work and Imployment and Paralels this with the Title of Angel mentioned Rev. 2.1 Upon the last Clause of v. 2. where the Bishop is injoyned to be apt to Teach they shew That he must be neither an Ignorant nor lazie Person Eng. Annot. upon Act. 20. understand the Elders v. 17. of the Governors and Pastors paralelling it with these Elders of Ierusalem mentioned Chap. 11 30. Upon v. 28. they shew That the term Episcopus or Bishop is here to be understood of the Pastor of the Church and Minister of the Word as elsewhere Also upon Philip. 1.1 on that Clause the Bishops and Deacons they shew That the Synod of Nice did forbid Two or more Bishops to have their Seats in one City And before that Cornelius Bishop of Rome upbraids Novatus with Ignorance as Euseb. lib. 6. Writes that he knew not there ought to be but one Bishop in that Church in which he could no be Ignorant there were Forty Six Presbyters And Oecumenius and Chrysostom affirm this of Philippi In one City it cannot be supposed say they there were more Bishops in that restrained Sense as the word was afterward taken Here therefore by Episcopi and Diaconi we are to understand the whole Ministry at Philippi consisting of Presbyters to whom the Government of the Church was Committed And Deacons who not only had the Care of the Poor but also Assisted Ministers in their Ecclesiastical Function Upon 1 Tim. 3.1 they shew That the Term Bishop doth properly relate to the Flock referring to Philip. 1.1 And having shewed that Antiquity did appropriat this Term to Diocesan Prelats and consequently as it relates to Pastors But that they Disowne this as not being the Scripture Acceptation is evident not only from that Reference to Philip. 1.1 but also from this that the Clause of Desiring a good Work they paralell with 1 Thes. 5.13 where after the Apostle has v. 12. enjoyned a due Deference and Subjection to such as Laboured among them viz. In the Word and Doctrine he enjoyns to Esteem them Highly in Love for their Works sake asserting thus the Bishops good Work to be one and the same with that of the Pastor and consequently the Office By the Elders mentioned Tit. 1.5 to be Ordained in every Church they understand the Pastors to be Ordained where there was a convenient Number of the Faithful And the Apostles Reason v. 7. For a Bishop must be Blameless c. they paralell with Philip. 1.1 1 Tim. 3.1 2. Thus clearly Corresponding our Sense and Pleading for the Identity of the Bishops and Pastors Office from these places The Professors of Leyden Disput. 42. at large Correspond with our Sense and Pleading from these Passages They assert the Extraordinary Expired Call and Office of Prophets Apostles and Evangelists and that the Pastors Dâ—ctors Elders and Deacons are the only standing ordinary Church Officers Thus Thes. 17.18 19 20. c. Ascribing to Pastors the Authority of Government as the Highest Ordinary Officers of the New Testament Thes. 25.26 Thes. 29. From Act. 20.28 they shew that the Apostle calls the Pastors of the Church of Ephesus Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost paralelling this with 1 Tim. 3.2 where they tell us the Bishop is described from such Qualities and Effects as the Apostle Peter enjoyns and ascribes to his Fellow Presbyters 1 Pet. 5.1 2. Adding that in the Epistle to the Philippians Chap. 1. v. 1. under the Name of Bishops for whom the Apostle prays for Grace he understands such qui Philippi Verbo Gubernationi praeerant who had Inspection of the Doctrine and Government distinguishing them from the Deacons who were set over the Churches Treasure Adding that Tit. 1.5 such whom the Apostle Named Presbyters v. 7. he calls Bishops non correlate ad Presbyteros tanquam ad Secundarios sibique Subordinatos Praesules sed ad Ecclesiam Vigilanti ipsorum Curae
atque Inspectioni Commissam non enim alicujus in alios Ministros Autoritatis aut alicujus prae aliis Prerogativae sed sâ—lius istius Curae ac Vigilantiae Respectu Episcoporum Titulo in Sacris Literis Insigniuntur That the Bishops are called such not with Relation to any supposed Subordinat Bishops or Presbyters but to the Church committed to their Vigilant Care in which Respect alone they have that Title in Scripture but not upon the Account of any Prerogative or Authority which one Minister has over another Which how clearly it asserts our Judgment Principles and Pleading upon these Texts in Opposition to the Hierarchical Bishop and for the Parity of Pastors is convincingly evident But let us hear their Inference Thes. 30. which is thus Non ergo ex Divino sed ex Humano Instituto aliquis post Apostolorum tempora aliis ex Ordine Presbyterorum fuit Authoritate praepositus atque Episcopus dictus ex singulari Prerogativa sicut post Hieronimum non-nulli quoque Pontificii confitentur nominatim Lombard Lib. 4. Distinct. 24. Gratian Dist. 93. c. Legimus Dist. 25. c. olim Cusanus de Concord Cathol Lib. 2. Cap. 13. Citing first Ierom on Tit. 1. ad Evag. In summ that the Setting of one Presbyter over another in a supposed Supereminent Authority and Peculiar Prerogative under the Character and Designation of a Bishop is an Humane Invention only without any Divine Warrand as not only Hierom but several Popish School Men have acknowledged The Professors of Saumur speak also our Sense here fully Syntag. Thes. Theolog. de Divers Minist Evang. Grad Thes. 7. They hold the Office of Apostles Prophets and Evangelists to be Extraordinary and Expired making peculiar to them their immediat Call Infallibility in Teaching their Universal Legation to all Churches their Extraordinary and Miraculous Gifts c. The Pastors and Doctors Office they hold Ordinary and affirm they are the same with Presbyters planted in every Church Thes. 16.20 de Episcop Presb. Discrimine Thes. 7.8 they shew that the Apostles placed Presbyters Church by Church for the Government thereof citing Act. 14.23 and 20.17 28. where they Collect that these Presbyters were Commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to take heed to the Flock and are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which they infer that it belonged to them to Watch over Inspect to see unto and take Care for such things as tended to the Conservation Propagation and Growth of the Church Adding Quod fieri sine Regiminis Cura Potestate non potest which could not be performed without the Care and Authority of Government Thes. 9. They assert that Pastors being thus in the beginning Constitute by the Apostles they did according to the Apostles Command and from the Nature of the Office Intrusted to them ex Officio sibi ab Apostolis demandato Govern the Church Communi Consilio by Common Counsel according to Hierom's Phrase Communibus Suffragiis Communi Solicitudine Cura by Common and Equal Suffrage and Care Adding Nullus tum eorum in reliquos Sym-Presbyteros Autoritatem Potestatem Imperium aut Iurisdictionem habuit sed par equalis Cura Solicitudo omnibus singuâ—is in totum Gregem competebat that in these First times no Presbyter or Pastor had Authority Power or Jurisdiction over his Fellow-Presbyters but the same and alike Care and solicitude over the whole Flock was competent to every one Thes. 10. they shew That tho there was one who as in every Colledge or Juridical Court was Primus or President yet that Primatus was Ordinis duntaxat non Authoritatis Potestatis Dominii Imperii Iurisdictionis sic enim non fuissent Sym-Presbyteri quomodo passim vocantur in Patrum Scriptis of Order only not of Authority and not importing a Iurisdictional Power and Dominion For thus they had not been Collegues or Co-Presbyters as they were every where called in the Writings of the Fathers Thes. 14. they shew That things being thus Constitute by the Apostles as every one of these Presbyters had not only the Authority and Power of Preaching the Word and Administration of the Sacraments Verum etiam pari Iure pari Autoritate ad Ecclesiae Clavum Gubernaoula sedebant quam ut dixi Communi Consilio Communibus Suffragiis regebant That with the same Authority also and Equal Jurisdiction Ministers did sit at the Churches Helm and Governed her by Common Suffrages Adding Quod hinc liquot quod omnes communiter Presbyteri Episcopi pariter in Scriptis Apostolicis adeoque Vetustioribus Scriptoribus vocantur promiscue That Pastors are called both Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously in the Apostles Writings makes the preceeding Assertion apparent Then they add the Scripture Proofs thus Id quod satiâ— manifestum ex loco Act. 20.28 Ubi Ephesinae Ecclesiae Presbyteri dicuntur â— Spiritu Sancto constituti Ecclesiae illius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tam ex Philip. 1.1 Ubi Apostolus Epistolam suam inscribit Ecclesiae illius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulla factâ— Presbyterorum mentione quos Episcoporum nomine isthic procul dubio intelligit Nunquam enim plures fuerunt in eadem Ecclesia Episcopi ex quo Episcopus singularem habuit ac praecipuam supra Presbyteros Autoritatem atque Potestatem ejusque Manus distinctum fuit a Presbyteriali Munere atque Ordine That the Parity of Bishop and Presbyter appears from Act. 20.28 where the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus are said to be Constitute Bishops of the Church by the Holy Ghost As also from Philip. 1.1 where the Apostle inscribes his Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons of that Church making no mention of Presbyters whom without doubt he understands by the Name of Bishops For there were never more Bishops in the same Church since the time that the Bishop had a Singular Power and Authority above Presbyters and his Office was distinguished from the Order and Office of Pastors Then they add Thes. 15. Id ipsum manifestam ex 1 Tim. 3.2 Opportet Episcopum esse irreprehensibilem c. nulla mentione facta Presbyteri Nam si alias tum fuiâ—set Episcopus alius Presbyter Paulus isthic Presbyterum non omisisset sed adjecisset eadem in Presbytero requiri vel si alia aut pauciora in eo requiri voluisset id procul dubio monuisset alioqui ea in parte Officio suo Defuisset That the same appears from 1 Tim. 3.2 A Bishop must be blameless c. without mentioning the Presbyter For if the Bishop and Presbyter had been then distinct Paul would not in this place have omitted the Presbyter but would have added that the same things were required in him or if he would have required either other or fewer things in him he would without doubt have admonished hereof otherwise in so far he had been wanting in his Duty They add Idem liquet ex Tit. 1.5 7. Nam ubi dixit Titum se reliquisse in Creta
imports the Church of God Those whom Luke calls the Elders of the Church of Ephesus those Paul calls the Bishops for this end constitut by the Holy Ghost to Feed the Church of God whence it evidently appears that Bishops Presbyters and Pastors are the same He adds de inde in una eadem ecclesiae simul conjunctim plures fuisse episcopos c. That it appears the Spirit of GOD placed at once and joyntly a Plurality of Bishops in one and the same Church Quem admodum ex eo quoque videri est quod Phil 1.1 Legimus Paulus ac Timotheus servi Iesu Christi omnibus sanctis qui sunt Philippi una cum Episcopis Diaconis Ecce Philippis plures simul erant Episcopi erant autem illi Seniores Ecclesiae That in the Church of Philippi a Plurality of Bishops are saluted by the Apostle who are supposed to be the same with Pastors He thus proceeds Et ubi in Epistola ad Titum Cap. 1. Legimus Hujus rei gratia reliqui te in Creta ut quae desunt pergas corrigere constituas oppidatim Presbyteros sicut ego tibi ordinaram si quis est incupatus c. Opportet enim episcopum inculpatum esse c. An non hic quoque videmus eosdem esse Presbyterum Episcopum Et 1 Pet 5. Loco supra citato tres hae voces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad eosdem ab Apostolis Scriptae leguntur unde videas Apostolorum tempore in ecclesia Christi eosdem fuisse Presbyteros Pastores Episcopos That the Apostle in the Epistle to Titus Chap. 1. shewing that he left him to place Elders in Crete who must be Blameless c. Because a Bishop must be such doth shew That the Bishop and the Presbyter are one and the same And 1 Pet. 5. the three Original Words which signifie Presbyters Feeding and Overseeing or Acting the Bishops are by the Apostle Written and Ascribed to the same Persons Whence it is evident that in the Times of the Apostles Elders Pastors and Bishops were one and the same in Gods Church He adds Est itaque prorsus indubitatum Alas this Poor Man wanted the Venerable Dr's Instructions to have Corrected this Bigotrie in prima Apostolica Ecclesia sic fuisse ab Apostolis Dispositum ut Seniores Ecclesiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Gregis Dominicae Curam gerentes Communi Opera Ministeria Docendi ac Râ—gendi obirent essentque ut ita dicam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Nulli Capiti ac Praesidi subjecti quales hâ—die quoque in nonnullis Ecclesiis Verbi Ministri reperiuntur inter quos nemo caeteris est superior Officio Potestate c. That it is beyond all Debate that the First and Apostolick Church was by the Apostles so Constitute that the Elders of the Church did Exercise a Common Episcopal Care over the Lords Flock and the same Function of Teaching and Governing the same and were therein subject to no Head or President Like unto whom are found several Ministers now in some Churches who owne no Superior in either Office or Authority c. Afterwards speaking of the Exalting of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the peculiar Name of Bishop and of Ieroms Account of this Practice viz. for Eviting of Schism which he calls Emphatically Tentatio illa that Tentation He adds Profuerit ne Consilium hoc Ecclesiae Christi melius est posterioribus saeculis declaratum quam cum baec Consuetudo primum introduceretur cui debemus omnem illam Principalium Equestrium Episcoporum Insolentiam Opulentiam Tyrannidem imo omnium Ecclesiarum Christi Corruptionem quam si Hieronimus cerneret dubio procul Consilium agnosceret non Spiritus Sancti ad tollenda Schismata sicut praetexebatur sed ipsius Satanae ad Vastanda ac Perdenda prisca Pascendi Dominici Gregis Ministeria quo fieret ut haberet Ecclesia non veros Pastores Doctores Presbyteros Episcopos sed sub Nominum istorum Larvis Otiosos Ventres ac Magnificos Princepes qui non modo non pascant ipsi Populum Domini Doctrina Sana Apostolica sed Improbissima Violentia vetant ne id per quenquam alium fiat Hoc sciz Consilio Satanae factum est ut habeant Ecclesiae pro Episcopis Potentes Dominos ac Princepes magna ex parte ex Ordine Nobilium ac Satrapum Saeculi Delectos c. Whether this Counsel or Method of Eviting Schism was profitable for the Church of Christ was more apparent to the After-Ages than when this Custom was first introduced For thereunto is owing all that Grandure Insolency and Tyrranny of those Knight-like and Princely Bishops yea the Corruption of all the Churches of Christ which if Ierom had discerned he would no doubt have acknowledged that this was not the Counsel of the Holy Ghost for the Removal of Schisms as was pretended but the very Project of the Devil to Wast and Destroy the Primitive Ministry appointed for Feeding the Lords Flock that thus the Church of God might not have true Pastors Doctors Presbyters and Bishops but under the Disguise of such Names Idle Bellies and Magnificent Princes who not only Feed not the People of God themselves with the Sound and Apostolical Doctrine but by most Wicked Violence hinders the same to be performed by any other And that by this Engyne of Satan it s come to pass that the Churches instead of true Bishops have Powerful Lords and Princes chosen for the most part out of the Order of the Nobility and Grandees of this World Thereafter he Inveighs against their Gorgeous Stoles Girdles c. which he says is to them instead of the Spiritual Armour enjoyned Eph. 6. calling them the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Counterfeit Bishops and the Pastors the true ones Thus he P. 362. I must here again present to our Dr some further Account of the Sentiments of the Learned Iunius upon this Point in his Animadversions on Bellarmin ad Controver 4. de Concil in Cap. 15. Par. 9. Art 7. Non sunt Pastores Laici nec Ecclesiastici quicunque sed soli Episcopi That the Bishops only are the Pastors and no Inferior Officers He thus Animadverts and Answers Distinguenda Assumptio haec nam si anguste Episcopos ex Pontificiorum usu intelligas falsa est sin autem latius Communiterque Presbyteros Operam dantes Administratione Verbi ex Dono Vocatione Dei vera est Assumptio Recte enim Magister Sententiarum Lib. 4. Disput. 24. Excellenter inquit Canones duos tanquam Sacros Ordines appellari censent Diaconatus sciz Et Presbyteratus quia hos solos Primitiva Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solis Preceptum Apostoli habemus enim vero si soli Episcopi Pastores essent profecto neque Episcopi faciunt officium qui non pascunt gregem c. That the premised Assertion that the Bishops
Cap. olim Dist. 95. He adds that these who have Laboured in Reforming the Church these Five Hundred Years have Taught that all Pastors be they Entitled Bishops or Priests have equal Authority and Power by Gods Word Citing first the Waldenses in Aeneas Silvius Hist. of Bohem. Cap. 35. Next Marsilius Patavinus Defens Pacis Part. 2. Cap. 15. Wickliff c. If the Testimony of Bishops will please the Dr we will find Bishop Iewel fully Combats him in this Point Defens Apol. cont Hard. Edit An. 1570. P. 243. What meaneth Mr. Harding saith he to make it an Heresie to say that by the Scriptures of God a Bishop and Priest are all one Knows he how far and to whom he reaches the Name of an Heretick Then he Cites Chrystos on 1 Tim. Hom. 11. shewing that inter Episcopum Presbyterum interest ferme nihil Betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter there is almost no Difference Ierom ad Evagrium asserting that Apostolus perspiâ—ue docet eosdem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos The Apostle clearly Teaches the Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same calling the contrary Opinion a Vecordia or Folly Also August Quest. Vet. N. Test. Quest. 101. Quid est Episcopus nisi primus Presbyter That the Bishop is only the first Presbyter Amb. de Dignit Sacerd. Episcopi Presbyteri una est Ordinatio Asserting that the Ordination and consequently the Function of the Bishop and Presbyter is one and the same All these and many more Holy Fathers saith Bishop Iewel together with St. Paul the Apostle for thus saying by Mr. Hardings Advice must be holden for Hereticks I will add and all these and many more together with the Apostle Paul by this Dr's Advice must be holden for Novelists and Scots Schismaticks But there are other Bishops will yet enter the Lists with our Dr Bishop Pilkinton on Revelation and in the Treatise of Burning of Pauls Church Bishop Bilson Perpet Gover. Cap. 2. Yea more of the Famous English Drs. Fulk against the Rhemists on Tit. 1.5 Dr. Humphray in Campian Duraeum Iesuitas Part. 2. Ration 3. Whittaker above Cited So also ad Rationes Campiani Ration 6. Confutat Duraei Lib. 6. Chemnitius Gentiletus the great Examinators of the Council of Trent the one a Divine the other a Lawyer doth both Condemn as a Trent Error our Dr's Assertion anent the Distinction of Bishop and Presbyter the one by Scriptures and Fathers the other by the Canon Law We have heard that Dr. Reynolds for this Parity of Bishop and Presbyter tells us It s needless to speak of the particular Persons since it s the common Judgment of the Churches of Helvetia Savoy France Scotland Germany Hungary Poland the Low Countreys and our own Witness the Harmony of Confessions Sect. 11. Now from all that is said whether the Body of Protestant Divines and Churches be not for the Official as well as Nominal Identity of Bishop and Presbyter Whether this be not likewise the Judgment of the most Ancient and Purer Church Whether our Argument be only a Confusione Nominum and Sophistical and Childish Is left to the Judgment of Judicious and Impartial Readers who shall Weigh what is said in the Ballances of Scripture and Sound Reason Before I proceed I cannot but take notice of this Dr's petulant impertinency in proposing our Argument He says this is our great Argument That there is no distinction betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture And therefore we conclude that our Argument a Confusione nominum is demonstrative and solid As if when we maintain that in Scripture there is no distinction betwixt these Offices we meant a Nominal only and not a real diversity Had he ever perused the Authors he Cites or conferred with any Presbyterian who understands the Controversy he would have found that from the Scriptures Cited and many Paralels it s an Official oneness not a Nominal only we plead for and that our Arguments therefrom has such Nerves as he durst not medle with The Dr. tells us P. 23. That whether the Bishop be of an Higher Order than the Priest falls not under his enquiry nor is it very Material considered with Respect to the common Priesthood and Subordinat Officers they might be of the same Order tho at other times when Authority and Iurisdiction is Named the Bishop with regard to his Dignity and Power is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter Here I must say is a strange Confusion and that not Nominum but Rerum 1. The Dr. is so much for the Official Scriptural Superiority of the Bishop to the Presbyter that he affirms the Contrar Assertion to be a New opinion got into the Heads of his Countrymen and some others but never heard of this 1400 years For curing of which he has sent down this Learned Pamphlet yet he will not enquire whether a Bishop be of a higher Order or not to a Presbyter i. e. He will not enquire whether his Country-men or he have the Right in this Debate If the Bishop be not of an Higher Order his Countrey Presbyterians are Right their Arguments which ly level to this scope are good and Conclusive and do batter his Principle of a Superior Order of Ministers above the Pastor and in especial under this Designation and Character of Bishop The Antithesis whereof viz. that there is an Officer called a Bishop of a Superior Order eo no nine the Dr. Contends for tanquam pro aris focis yet he says the enquiry into this Point which to all men of Sense is the Cardo Questionis is not in it self Material Let any ponder whether this stout pretended Signifer doth not here let fall his Standart and even flees at the First alarm 2. He tells us when Authority and Iurisdiction is named the Bishop with regard to his Dignity is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter Now I do appeal to all Men of Common sense whether the Dr dos not here Assert 1. A Divine Authority and Jurisdiction of a Bishop above a Presbyter 2 By clear Consequence that he is of an higher Order than the Presbyter or else how can he be in Jurisdiction and Authority above him 3. That the Bishop under that Character and eo nomine is thus Represented in the Scripture Accounts of him Now all this being his Assertion in opposition to his Country-mens supposed Errors how can he decline the enquiry whether the Bishop be of an higher Order Let any Judge if he says not this upon the Matter the thing is Clear in it self in the Scripture Accounts and this I maintain in opposition to the Scots Presbyterians whom I do hereby Charge with a new Opinion on this Ground but am not Concerned to Examin their Arguments or make good my own 3. He tells us they are sometime considered as of the same order with respect to the common Priesthood I Answer we have proved that Presbyters or Pastors have both name and thing of all ordinary Ministerial
Authority appropriat to them and that with Relation thereto the Bishop and the Presbyter are in Scripture made one and the same 2. When he says they are made of the same Order with respect to the Priesthood common to either He speaks Confusedly and Ignorantly For will he say that the attributing to Two Church Officers who are different the same Geneal or to speak to the Dr's Scope the same Generical Priesthood or Ministry will inferr that they are of the same order therein or specifical Office If so then Apostles who are called Presbyters or Elders he must say are of the same Order with them yea with Deacons also since sometimes their Office and Ministry is represented by such a term as Represents a Deaconate or common service Further I must here warn the Doctor to take up his Shield and beware of the Rebound of his own Blow Was our Lord of the same Order with the Prophets or Servants of God because in the capacity of Mediator and with Respect to a general Ministry or Service of the Father he gets the Designation name and thing of Prophet Messenger and Servant of God Will the Dr. thus Blasphemously degrade him into the same Order with mere Creatures who are Prophets and Servants In a word let us hold the Dr to his affirmative and challenge his proof of this Point viz. That in Scripture there is an ordinary standing Church Officer exhibit under the Character and designation of a Bishop who is alwise Reckoned above a Presbyter or Pastor when Authority and Iurisdiction is Named And according to the scope measures and extent of this Assertion let his ensuing Discourse Answers and proofs be examined wherein I am sure he has fair dealing according to all acknowledged Laws of Disputation Well proceed we then to his Proofs of this Assertion and the ground of his ensuing Answer to this Argument taken from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter He tells us that the inspired Writers as the Iews Dichotomotized or made a bipartit Division Reader be not so ignorant as to start at this term as a Goblin the Dr. as an English Orator may cast his Greek into an English Mould And you must know he is against new stanâ—â—t Opinions not Phrases Well what did they Dichotomtoize The Clergy saith the Dr. into Two Orders here he has soundly exponed his term like that of Priests and Levits tho as among the Jews So among Christians this admitted of a Sub-division and subordination of Church Officers among themselves as were the Priests of the Old Testament This he says was suitable to the Language of the Helenistical or Graecian Tribes high Oratory of the Apostolick Age the Name of Priest and High-Priest being Confounded Levit. 1.7 The Sons of Aaron the Priest shall put Fire c. v. 8. the Priests Aarons Sons shall lay the parts c. Now saith the Dr. if Priests and High-Priests got the same Name without any distinction of Order notwithstanding the High-Priests extraordinary priviledges the Name of High-Priest likewise being never affixt to Aaron or Eleazar and the term but Twice or Thrice mentioned in the Books of Moses while yet the Homonymie of Names pleaded not against the Subordination of Priests Could it be thought strange that Apostles or Apostolical Men in mentioning Presbyters of the New Testament might not make use of the current Phraseology of their Countreymen in speaking of Priests and Levites Dividing them into two Orders as if there were no more Tho the meanest Jew knew the high Priest was very Honourable and by all marks of eminency and Authority Disstinguished from ordinary Priests Thus he Pag. 23.24.25 I Answer Quod haec ad rhombum What says this to the Point Or how lyes this Discourse level to his scope either to prove the Bishops Jurisdictional Authority above a Presbyter or Pastor as Bishop in the Scripture Sense or to prove that we Argue sophistically when alledging that the Scripture makes the Bishop and Presbyter one in Name and thing and that therefore the discriminating of both by Episcopalians is antiscriptural How I say this lyes level to the Dr's Conclusion or can in solid Reason reach the same I must Confess passes my Comprehension For 1. Tho all the Dr. says be granted it is palpably evident that this pleading if it prove any thing levels merely against such as would draw the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter only from this that there is an homonymie of these two Names whereas it is the Identity of the Qualifications Gifts Duties and every essential of the Office which is the Topick and Principle Presbyterians plead from not merely the confusion of Names 2. The Dr. himsef acknowledges that notwithstanding of this supposed confusion of Names oâ— Dichotomotizing the Old Testament Church Officers yet the High-Priest was distinguished from the other Priests by marks of Eminency and Authority for instance that he is called High-Priest And therefore before his Discourse can have any shadow of Answer he is bound to Exhibit in a just Paralel the same Scripture marks of Eminency and Authority of the Diocesan Bishop above the Pastor or Presbyter-Bishop as the Scripture Exhibits in reference to the High-Priests above the ordinary Priests or the Priests in reference to the Levites else this Answer by his own Confession and in the Sense of all men of Sense is but a pitiful Begging of the Question For upon this Ground he might alledge a Distinction betwixt the Pastor and Preaching Presbyter He alledges P. 25. That in the Hagiographical and Prophetical Writings the High-Priest is frequently distinguished by his proper and special Character Well then he is obliged to let us see in Scripture such a frequent distinction of the Prelatical or Diocesan Bishop from the Pastor or Presbyter by such a Character as the Dr. makes special and Peculiar to him and exhibit his special Official difference therein and super eminent Authority over Pastors else he never touches the Point We hold that the Bishop and Presbyter are in Scripture alwise one Name and thing The Dr. grants that the High Priest and other Priests are not so but distinguished and therefore he brings an impertinent Paralel and exception anent the sometimes Community of Names of Priests and High-Priests unless he can otherwise than thus disprove and answer our Assertion Besides the Critical Disputant will here put him to prove that the inspired Writers of the New Testament followed the Phraseologie of the Iews in speaking of the New Testament-Church Officers especially since we find frequent recitations of them in a far other strain and Phrase and that in their several Classes and Degrees both ordinary and extraordinary as 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.6 7 8. Eph. 4.11 Moreover when in that place Levit 1. Aaron is called not merely the Priest but emphatice Aaron the Priest whose eminent immediat Call to the Priesthood is so clear and distinguished from his Sons the Priests mentioned in the plural in that very Passage
evil one was then Sowing among the Wheat 3. That such a Proestos was as much above the Presbyters as the High Priest above other Priests is as Ignorant an Assertion and Arrant Untruth as the Dr. could readily have let fall Whereof I will 1. Convince him out of his own Mouth unless in the Point of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he still begg the Question 2. From the Scripture Accounts of the High Priests Office First He does acknowledge that the High Priest was thus Termed upon the Ground of Special Ministries which were Essential and Peculiar to him Now I pray what were the Special Ministries of this Proestos and even in the Point of Order in the Apostles Days above his Fellows Next the High Priest entred every Year into the Holy of Holies with Blood and Incense and had this Prerogative above other Priests the Priesthood was Hereditary to his First Born Tyed to his Family c. And would not the Dr. Blush to Assert such like Prerogatives as Applicable to the Proestos or Supposed Fixed President in the Apostles Days But he adds Salmasius grants That when the pretended Equality prevailed a Preces had the Loce Primarius in Consessu during Life And that there are such palpable Evidences of the peculiar Honour and Iurisdiction of one of the Ecclesiastick Senat in the Apostolick Age that the Learnedst Sticklers for Parity cannot deny it But if Salmasius assert that while this pretended Proestos had the Chair an Official Equality of Pastors was existent and prevailed it is undenyable that he denyes to this President or Chair-man such an Episcopal Preheminence and Dominion as the Dr. pleads for and allows him only the Chair of Presidency not Principality A Moderator's Chair and no more Again I Challenge our Dr. to prove this Consequence Salmasius asserts that even an Official Equality prevailed among Pastors when there was a Proestos set up during Life Ergo he asserts that this Proestos was ab initio in the Apostolick Age or approved by the Apostles For what he adds P. 29. That the Learnedst Pleaders for Parity do acknowledge a peculiar Iurisdiction appropriat to one of the Ecclesiastick Senat in the Apostolick Age He should have Named them and where they assert this For as for what he adduces of Salmasius I have shown how far it is from reaching his Conclusion And Beza I am sure whom no doubt the Dr. will owne as an Eminent Pleader for Parity condemns this Humane Prostasie as the Episcopus Humanus distinct from the Divine much more a Peculiarity of Jurisdiction in one Pastor over another For the Dr's Inviduous Character of Sticklers for Parity which he bestows upon Presbyterian Writers the premised Account of them discovers what a Black Theta he marks himself with who dare thus asperse the Body of Reformed Churches and Divines No doubt if they were such Sticklers for Parity of Pastors or Preaching Presbyters for this is the Parity which he thus ignorantly represents in such a Confused General as he is for Imparity and the Prelatical Hierarchy their Stickling were not to be Valued But what are these palpable Evidences which convinces our greatest Sticklers Something saith the Dr that makes it evident beyond all Contradiction Some mighty Evidences then we must expect The first which he adduces is That of the Apocalyptick Angels among whom he tells us we justly reckon St. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna But 1. How has he proved that these Angels were single Presidents and that the Term is not taken Collectively 2. How does he prove that such as acknowledge them single Persons do hold them to be any more than Presidents pro tempore Beza I am sure acknowledges them only such Whom the Dr or any other do reckon for the Angel of Smyrna when Iohn wrote the Epistle to that Church is not the Question but whom he can prove from Scripture to have been such and what the Bishops Character is in Scripture The Dr's next supposed evidence is drawn from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and the Catalogues of Bishops succeeding to the Apostles in their several Sees To which I Answer in short First That the Dr. can neither prove 1. That the Apostles or Timothy and Titus the Evangelists exercised an ordinary Episcopal Authority to be continued in the Church Nor 2. Can he prove or conclude from these Catalogues such an Authority Since 1 They are found to consist of Officers of diverse Cutts and unequal Authority 2 Inconsistent and contradictory to one another 3 They are found resolving in Apostles or Evangelists whose Office admitted of no Succession and upon this very account can found no shadow of an Argument for what he intends far less make the thing evident beyond contradiction What the Dr. adds further in this Page Of our concluding the Equality of Presbyters of the New Testament from the Dichotomies used in Christian VVriters and of the Ancients dividing sometimes the Clergie into two Orders c. And that nothing of moment was Canonically Determined in Ecclesiastick Meetings without their Bishops That Cyprian compares the Evangelical Priesthood and Ministrations with the Aaronical Is the same nauseating repeated begging of the Question with the former wherewith instead of solid Scripture Proof of the Official imparity of Bishop and Presbyter he fills up idle Pages How often shall we tell him that the point in question is not what Dichotomies were used in Christian Writings or who determined Canonically in Ecclesiastick Meetings after the Apostolick Age What Comparisons Cyprian Clemens or Origen used in setting out the New Testament Ministry But what Answers the Dr. has to offer to the premised Scripture Arguments of Presbyterians for the Paritie of Bishop and Presbyter Iure Divino And what proof from Scripture from the Apostles Doctrine and Practice he can produce for such a Jurisdictional Power and Authority of a Bishop under this Character above the Pastor or preaching Presbyter as he is bold to assert We often tell him that we plead other Grounds than his fancied Dichotomies And tho that were made one Ground and say further he had disproved it in these his pityful Tautologies and Repetitions what says this to the many other Nervous Pleadings above rehearsed But proceed we P. 29.30 He presses thus his often Repeated Notion anent Dichotomies Especially says he since the Ancients sometimes divide the Clergy into two Orders yet upon other occasions subdivide the highest Order and distinguish the Bishop from subordinat Presbyters Ans. He should have Exhibit these Ancients and their words thus distinguishing the Bishop under that Character from all subordinate Presbyters 2. The Dr. is obliged this being the substratum and supposition of all his Answers and insinuat Argument to exhibit the Scriptures subdivision of the Pastoral Office into higher and inferior Orders and the Scripture distinction of such an ordinary Officer as comes under the Character of Bishop from Subordinat Preaching Presbyters or Pastors As for determination in Councils
subsistence required the same in all times And besides these succeeding Officers when invested with this ordinary Power were still subordinat to them as Apostles and cloathed with that formal Office and Authority I know that in this Phrase of Subordinat Ecclesiastick Officers the Dr. excluds the Bishops in the Series of his Reasoning that he may take them within the compass of a supposed Apostolical ordinary Power over Pastors But how absurdly and inconsequentially as well as cross to the Sense of sound Divines in this Point is already evident and shall yet further appear To proceed the Dr. tells us That by the second i. e. their extrinsick extraordinary priviledges suted to the First Plantation of Churches they were in capacity to exercise their Authority with greater Success in the Conversion of Infidels in the Government of Churches Wherein I differ from him in tâ—is that he makes their Extraordinary Apostolical priviledges necessary only for the bene esse which were necessary Simpliciter for the Planting and Government of the Churches in that infant State thereof The very exercise of their Apostolical Authority as such did consist in exerting these extraordinary priviledges For thus their Mission their Gifts their extensive Power essential to the Apostolick Office taken in a formal sense Respected the founding and watering of the Churches in that Infant-state of Christianity the Establishing the Gospel Ordinances therein and all its ordinary standing Officers I must then mind the Dr. that when he speaks of the Apostles ordinary permanent essential Power by Essential he must not nay cannnot understand that Power which is Essential to them as Apostles strictly or under that reduplication qua Apostles For then their Office were not extraordinary but a standing Office to be succeeded to in its intire Nature formally as they were invested with it and did exercise it which is cross to that Sense of the Apostolick Office exhibit by Protestant Divines as I shall further make appear The Dr. will needs distinguish their Essential Apostolick Office from their extraordinary Prerogatives their transient temporary Priviledges who were the first Apostles and were Limited in the exigences of the First Christian Mission Wherein he speaks confusedly For 1. These Prerogatives suted to the Churches First exigence were in such manner suted as was the very Office it self and consequently were Essential ingredients thereof for this end Hence 2. The Essential Office of the Apostolat as such or taken in a proper formal Sense could admit of no such spliting and distinction unless the Dr. will split and distinguish the Essence which he should know consists in indivisibili The Essential Apostolick Office the Dr. tells us P. 96. is necessary peramanent perpetual citing Matth. 28. Lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the World Hence in his Sense the Command and Promise in that place imports the standing Essential Office of Apostolat to the end What Harmony this keeps with the Sense of Protestant Interpreters let all judg Pool tells us The Promise imports his presence to the end with his Ministers Preaching Baptizing Teaching to observe what he has Commanded That it relates to Gospel Ministers in their Ministrations as the Apostles successors thus the English Notes and Belgick Divines But that it imports a standing Apostolick Office to the end no sound Protestant ever dreamed To proceed to make this appear the more saith the Dr. ibid. The Apostles as such were formally and essentially distinguished from all other Ecclesiastick subordinat Officers This indeed makes it appear more if one contradictory Proposition will prove another For if the Apostles were Formally and Essentially i. e. in respect of their essential formal Office distinguished from all inferior Officers all Officers who were not in a proper formal Sense Apostles How could any succeed them in this proper formal Office And consequently How could that Office be permanent It being certain that such Functions wherein they were to be succeeded could not be their Characteristick as Apostles and their mark of distinction from succeeding Officers For instance the Function of Preaching and Baptizing with the appendant proportioned ordinary power of Government was a Work and Office wherein they were to be succeeded The Apostles were at first enjoyned go Teach Baptize and Disciple the Nations Paul enjoyned to the Elders of Ephesus to Feed and Rule by the Word and Discipline within their Percinct Hence these Duties simplely considered could not be that wherein they were distinguished from inferior Officers For 1. In respect of this Pastoral Work both the Apostle Peter and Iohn owned themselves as Co-presbyters which could have no good Sense if in this they were distinguished from all others 2. Hence this distinguishing Criterion had then evanished when inferior Officers had it So that the Dr. in his Series of Reasoning is driven upon this Scylla or Charybdis either to say that their Essential Office perished with themselves and consequently was not permanent in opposition to what he asserts P. 95. or else in respect thereof they were not formally and essentially distinguished from inferior Officers in contradiction to what he asserts P. 96. I know the Dr's tacite Evasion is that he supposes the Bishops not to be Subordinat Officers which how cross it is to the Series and Contexture of his Reasoning as well as the Sense of sound Divines we shall further mâ—ke appear The difference of their Office from that which is properly and formally Apostolick being so palpable that himself is forced to place a Distinction betwixt the Function of the one and the other yea and calls them a sort of secondary Apostles Thus distinguishing them from those he would have to be Primary But the Dr. will now enquire ibid. What distinguished the Apostles from the Seventy two from Presbyters in the Modern Notion as he speaks I could wish he had exhibite and refined his antique Notion from Deacons and other Offieers of the New Testament He undertakes 1. To exhibite the Presbyterian's Account of the Apostolick Office and tells us That the Presbyteriand and Socinians contrary to the uniform Testimony of Antiquity affirm that the Apostolick Office is ceased as extraordinary that the Apostles were distinguished from Subordinat Ecclesiasticks by infallibility in Preaching their power of Miracles their being immediatly called by our Saviour to the Apostolat by their unlimited and unconfined Commission to propagat the Gospel among all Nations This is such Stuff as I dare challenge and appeal all Protestant Churches and Divines to give Judgment and Character upon the person who presents it which I am sure will be such as will fasten upon him an infamous Stigma Nor shall I here much medle with or stand upon the shameless Man his comparing us to and ranking us with the blasphemous Socinians in this point citing their Racovian Catechism Sect. 9. Chap. 2. But to convince all that are but acquaint in the least with the Protestant Doctrine in this point I shall exhibit in some
Gifts of the Spirit by the laying on of their Hands they add quae omnia fuerant c. All which were necessary in the Apostolick Office for laying the first Foundation of the Christian Church through the World Here again the Apostles Extraordinary Office is asserted by the Saumer University and that with the same Ingredients upon the like grounds as we do hold So here are more of the Socinian Principles if we may believe this Dr. and this University as well as that of Leyden found ignorant of and going cross to all Antiquity in this Matter The ordinary succeeding Officers and of the highest Function in that capacity they hold to be the Pastors and Doctors whom they assert to derive down what was ordinary in the Apostolick Office to whom the Authority Consequently and Power of Teaching and Governing the Church is committed citing Act. 13. where mention is made of this Authority in the Pastors and Teachers of Antioch and their joint collegiat Power in Imposition of Hands also 1 Cor. 14.29 30 31 32. where the Prophets Authoritative judging of every Member of the Colledge and Society and the due Subjection of every Prophet to their decision is asserted joining therewith Chap. 12.29 Are all Apostles are all Prophets are all Teachers c. Well shall we offer to the Dr yet more Scots Presbyterian Novelists and of the Socinian Stamp in this Matter Piscat de Minist Eccles. Aphorism 9 Apostoli immediate a Christo vocati fuerunt c. The Apostles were immediatly called by Christ and sent through the whole World to esâ—ablish every where the Kingdom of God by the Preaching of the Gospel In his Explication he shews that in this Aphorism the Ministry of the Apostles is explained in four Heads 1. Ex causa sine qua non c. From the Cause and Ground without which they could not discharge their Apostolical Office and this was their immediat Vocation and Calling 2. e subjectis Locis c. From the Places where they Exercised their Apostolick Function viz. the various Kingdoms of the World 3. Ex Fine ad quem c. From the Scope and End to which they were to Direct their Ministry and Labours viz. the Planting and Founding Churches c. 4. Ex Causa Instrumentali c. From the Instrumental Cause they were to make use of viz. their Unfixt Preaching of the Gospel Here I Appeal to all Men of Judgment whether this Account of the Apostolick Office is not the same with that which this Man rejects as Socinian Aphorism 12. Sequuntur Pastores c. He proceeds to Describe Pastors and Doctors whom the Church can never want in the Explication he tells us that a praecedentibus differunt Duratione They differ from Apostles Prophets and Evangelists in Continuance as being of constant Necessity to the Church Thus Denying in Contradiction to our Dr the Permanency of the Apostolick Office Afterwards he adds Officia Pastorum indicantur c. That there are four Branches of the Pastors work and Office The Interpretation of Scripture the Ordering of Government and Discipline the Administration of the Sacraments together with Authoritative Admonitions and Exhortations Shewing thereafter that the Pastors do Succeed to what is Ordinary in the Apostolick and Evangelistick Office And their Episcopal Pastoral Authority he proves from these notable known Passages improven by the Presbyterians Act. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.1 2. Philip. 1.1 1 Tim. 3.1 2. Tit. 1.5 7. Now I dare refer it to all Men of Sense whether this Man is not in this Point of the New Opinion of Scots Presbyterians and stands Antipode to our Dr's Uniform Testimony of all Antiquity Shall we Consult yet another Turret Part. 3. Loc. 18. Quest. 17. Thes. 3. Reasoning against Bellarmin in Point of Peters pretended Primacy he draws his Argument a Natura Apostolici Muneris and tells the Iesuited Cardinal and our Dr. with him that the Apostles had an immediat Power and Jurisdiction which they received from Christ immediatly And Thes. 4. in Answer to Bellarmin holding much to our Reverend Dr's Sense and Pleading that Peter had the Pontificat as an ordinary Pastor to be therein succeeded He Answers that gratis supponitur c. it is without Ground presumed that Peter was an ordinary Pastor to whom any could succeed Adding in the end denique cum Apostolatus c. since the Apostolat as such was an Extraordinary Temporal Transient Function which was to expire and cease in the Church it could have no Successors Herein flatly giving the Lie to our Dr's Grand Topick and Principle anent the permanent Function of Apostolat as necessary in the Church till the End of Time As for his Judgment of the Pastoral Office as the Highest Ordinary Function of the Church and the same with that of the Scripture Bishop and Presbyter and by Consequence the Succession thereof to what was Ordinary in the Apostolick Office we have already made it appear Musculus if I may Name him again without Angring our Dr. is full and clear to this Purpose de Offic. Minist P. 358 359. Apostolus est qui c. That the Apostles were not set over any one particular Church but the Lords Command to them was that they should Preach the Gospel through the World and the Command Go Teach all Nations was peculiar to them And P. 360. he shews that Pastors were the same with Bishops and were in this distinguished from Apostles that they were sent to Teach and Feed particular Churches and fixed to them Amand. Polan Syntag. Theol. Lib. 7. Cap. 11. de Minist Ecclesiae describes thus the Apostolick Office Apostoli Christi fuerunt Christi Discipuli immediate ab ipso edocti c. That the Apostles were the Disciples of Christ immediatly Instructed by him sent to Preach the Exhibiting of the Messiah before his Ascension and thereafter to Preach to the whole World and thus to Found the Gospel Church having this Testimony from God that they could not err in Doctrine c. Afterward he tells us what were the Privilegia Apostolorum and the Prerogative Praeordinariâ—s Novi-Testamenti Ministris their Prerogatives above the ordinary Ministers of the New Testament Instancing 1. Their immediat Institution by Christ. 2. Their immediat Mission by him to Teach 3. Their General Legation to the whole World with Authority of Founding Churches every where not in one place only Citing 2 Cor. 11.28 where Paul shews that the Care of all the Churches was upon him 4. The Visible Symbol and Badge of this Legation viz. the conferring of the Visible Gifts of the Spirit by Imposition of Hands 5. Their Immunity from all Error after their Receiving the Holy Spirit in the Day of Pentecost 6. Their Extraordinary Authority against the Rebellious Citing 2 Cor. 10.6 8. where Paul mentions his Readiness to Revenge all Disobedience and the Authority hereanent for the Edification of the Church whereof he might Boast 7. Their Prophetical Gift in shewing things to
to produce succeeding Officers with this Prerogative and Power or acknowledge this his Description naught which he so vainly offers in opposition to the Account of this Office offered by Protestant Divines 2. He sayes That this power was constant perpetual and to be transmitted to Successors Here I ask him whether the Apostles were to transmit their Power to one Successor and Supreme President or to devolve their Collateral Universal Power over all Believers and all subordinat Officers to respective Successors coming after every one of them If the Dr. adhere to the first he clearly homologats the Papal Pleadings for a Primacy over the Church Universal And indeed his owning as a Patern to the New Testament Church the Continuance of the Iewish Oeconomy does much oblige him thereunto If he assert that every one of the Apostles had a respective Successor then his Descripâ—â—on obliges him to mantain that every such Successor has transmited unto him A Perpetual Spiritual Constant Universal Inspection over all Churches both Ministers and Believers For this essential Authority of Apostles he affirms they were to transmitt to Successors and that according to the Command of our Saviour But to proceed Let us Listen to our Dr's Explication P. 97. The Apostles Permanent Successive Power was to Preach the Gospel Govern the Churches they Planted give Rules and Directions to Successors in the same Office and all Subordinat Ecclesiasticks Inflict Censures Communicat this Authority to others Hear Complaints Decide Controversies Settle Church Discipline Conferr the Holy Ghost as the Necessity of the Faithful requires He tells us He understands the Gifts that must needs attend the Authoritative Ministry of Holy Things This being Essentially the Apostolick Office it remains for ever in the Church the ordinary Necessities thereof requiring it should continue till Christs coming Here First I would enquire again since the Power thus described is in the Dr's Sense Permanent and Successive and necessary to the Church whether is it so as devolved upon every Person Succeeding and in the same Extent and for the same Eâ—ds as the Apostles Exercised it If it be not then every Body of Common Sense knows that this Apostolick Power and Office cannot be called Permanent and Successive and of a continued standing Necessity in the Church no more than a Pastors ordinary Power to Preach and Baptize will prove this and that they hold this entire Apostolick Office which he describes If this Apostolick Power and Office be devolved in its entire extent and to every Person Succeeding then every Person thus Succeeding has an Entire Unconfined Universal Authority and Inspection over all the Churches all Ecclesiasticks and Believers to use his own Terms and are obliged by their Office to Preach unto and Govern them all as the Apostles did to give Rules Inflict Censures upon all Subordinat Officers If he say that every Apostle did not so Extensively Preach and Govern I Answer even admitting some Gradual Difference in the Extent of the Actual Exercise yet this did no whit Lessen their Universal Commission exprest Matth. 28. and the Obligation of a Proportioned Endeavour could not Impeach their standing Authority over all the Churches and their Relation in Actu Exercito as immediat Catholick Officers thereof And the Dr in saying That this Authority and Iurisdiction reached over all Subordinat Officers and Believers without Exception which very Power he affirms they were to Transmit to Successors confirms what I said and cuts him off from this Evasion To clear this further in the second place it may be asked whether these supposed Successors are Authorized to Plant Churches give Rules to them Decide Controversies Conferr the Holy Ghost as the Apostles did with Respect to the End Manner and Extent foresaid If not then sure this Power is Transient not Permanent and Successive as the Dr. calls it If they have this Power of Apostles as above exprest Then first there lyes upon every such Successor an Obligation to Plant Churches where they were not For he will not deny that the Apostles were to Plant to Govern the Churches Planted and to give Rules and Directions thereanent The Absurdity of which Assertion is sufficiently apparent and its necessary Dependence upon what he asserts no less evident But while we speak of Successors giving Rules the Dr. would do well to inform us what Rules he means whether the Apostles Rules or others If the same then they could not Succeed the Apostles in Authoritative Infallible Delivery of the first Gospel Rules this Work being already done If others then the Dr. will ascribe to them such a Nomothetick Authority as to Rules as no Church can now acclaim in the Sense of all Protestant Divines If he say he means an Application or Declarator of Apostolick Rules in particular Cases Then I Answer This is not the Apostolical Delivery of Rules as all Men know but is toto coelo different from it both in its Nature and Extent So that this Shift will not help the Dr. out of the Briars But in the next place the Dr. has told us of an Apostolical derived Power in Deciding Controversies which he appropriats to the Bishops their Successors and in the Sequel of his Reasoning must atribute it to every one of them And here I would enquire of him how did the Apostles Decide Controversies The Dr. will not deny that any one of the Apostles by virtue of their Authority and Infallibility could decide Controversies infallibly as being our Saviours Living Oracles and having the Mind of Christ And what Bishop or Succeeding Church Officer I pray has this Power and Authority We know General Councils have erred in their Decisions But the Dr. gives a greater Power to every Bishop by this his New Notion Or if the Dr allay and lessen this Decision either as to Extent or Authority then he is still in the Briars and baffles his own definition and explication Further the Dr. has told us the Bishops succeeds the Apostles in giving the Holy Ghost The Scriptures tells us the Apostles gave the Holy Ghost and even Miraculous visible Gifts thereof by imposition of Hands and we have heard that Protestant Divines ascribe this to them as one of their incommunicable Prerogatives The Dr. will needs have them succeeded in this But being someway sensible of the absurdity of this lax Assertion he restricts it to such Gifts as must needs attend the Authoritative Ministry of Holy things Be it so but will he say that the Apostles did no otherways give the Holy Ghost This he cannot assert Then I say 1. He must acknowledge that here is a defective maimed not an intire Succession in this work and part of their Office 2. The Dr would be puzzled to shew a Reason why he restricts and limits this Point of the Succession rather than the rest Finally the Dr. calls this Power of the Apostles Supreme and no doubt since it is with him one Criterion of the Apostolick Office and competent
to all their Successors the Bishops in this Apostolick extent For he affirms that this Power of the Apostles is perpetual and necessary in the Church and that the Bishops are their proper Successors therein And here the Dr. would do well to inform us of what Character and Mould in Point of Power these Bishops are whom he owns to succeed to this Apostolick Office For that de facto there is a great variety in the extent of their Power he will not deny Whether doth he hold that every ordinary Bishop is such a Successor or the Arch Bishop or only Primats If every Bishop does thus succeed which the Series of his Arguing seems to import then I would know how a Bishop with a derived subaltern subordinat Power limit to a certain and may be not a very great Precinct or district can be said to succeed the Apostles in a Supreme Iurisdiction over all Believers and Ecclesiasticks Let him make Sense of this if he can If he say that the Bishops Succession relates to their Power within their own district Then 1. They no more succeed the Apostles in the Power by him described than Successors to a Sheriff in a Kingdom can be said to succeed to the Regal Throne 2. If he once break square thus and infringe his own Rule his measures and description he must consequently acknowledge that a Government in the smallest precinct yea even of a Pastor over his Flock is eaten us a Succesion to the Apostles If he say the Pastor has no Rule over Ecclesiasticks and consequently no Apostolick Succession in his Sense I Answer neither has the Bishops over all Ecclesiasticks which is also his Sense and description of the Apostolick Succession If he own that only Arch Bishops are such Successors Then 1. How comes he to owne the Bishops in universum as succeeding the Apostles in a Rectoral Power 2. Since the Bishops can give Rules to subordinat Ecclesiasticks Preach if their Lordships please give Rules of Disciplin hear complaints decide Controversies c. wherein he makes this Apostolick Succession to consist how can he deny even to Diocesan Bishops this Succession 3. Suppose but one Diocesan Church in a Countrey gathered the Dr. will not deny an Apostolick Succession and Government there according to his Pattern and Principles But to proceed if the Dr. hold that only the great Arch Bishops or Metrapolitans have this Supremacy and Apostolick Succession I would know upon what ground he can defend this in his Principles I know none except that of the extent of their Power be alledged But here the Dr. is still at odds with himself For the Apostolick Power which he holds to be Succeeded unto and Permanent extended to all Churches to all Ecclesiasticks and Believers And besides suppose an Oecumenick Council Assembled the Dr. will not assert that he has an Authority paramount to it by his Office and that there may not be a greater Metropolitan than he existent whose Power may be paramount to his in the Council or otherwise Thus we see how our Dr. in his Phantastick Description of the Apostolat and Pleadings for the Bishops Succession thereunto has involved himself and is Rolling Sisiphus Stone which still returns upon him and renews his Labour But in the next place the Dr. P. 97.98 tells us That extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost Power of Miracles Languages other Spiritual Furniture were temporary extrinsick advantages necessary for first forming the Christian Church and when this Fabrick is erected Scaffoldings are removed But I should think if the Apostolick work and necessary duties required these extraordinary Gifts as necessary advantages and furniture for the same then they were intrinsick not extrinsick to the Office it self Which I will prove to the Dr by a paralel Argument the Topick whereof he must needs owne To be apt to Teach to have Spiritual knowledge and the Gift of utterance in a competent Measure prudence a competent knowledge of the Scriptures and Languages thereof he will acknowledg are needful for the Pastoral work of Feeding by the word and Doctrin Therefore say I they are essential and intrinsick to the Pastoral Office For 1. Else there were no need of a previous trial of these Gifts in order to admission to that Office And 2. God conjoins the call to the Office with the Gifts for it and the one in an ordinary way must be made Appear by the other I hope the Dr and I are agreed as to the Soundness of this Reasoning Now let me subsum upon this Conclusion In like manner the Apostolick Office required these works or duties whereunto were necessarly annexed the forementioned Gifts and Eurniture for the fame 1. They were to teach all Nations this they could not do without the Gift of Tongues wherefore on the day of Penticost they were thus sealled Yea were Commanded to stay and wait at Ierusalem for this Seal 2. Another piece of their work was to Confirm their Doctrin by Miracles then new and unknown thus to seal their Commission to an Infidel world as also to the Iews as Moses and Aaron were to Pharaoh and Israel before whom the Signs were shown of the Rod and Leprous hand This Work required the Gift of Miracles 3. They were to form the Christian Church and lay the ground plott of its Government and deliver the Rules and plat-form of its Doctrine and Worship This required an infallible directive Power and Authority in reference to all the Ordinances and Officers thereof 4. Their Work and Office required an immediat Relation in actu secundo to all Churches so that they were while alive solely such Officers thereof Hence their very Office being of this Nature and supposing the Christian Church a forming erecting it is certain that taken in a proper formal Sense with these its Ingredients iâ— is the Scaffolding which is removed when this Fabrick is erected since now no Mortal can pretend to such a Mission Commission and Authority Further The Command Go teach all Nations he must hold still vigent as essentially included in the Apostolick Office for he distinguishes this part of their Permanent Power from their extraordinary expired Priviledges P. 96. so that he must needs acknowledge that this requiring the Gift of Tongues it was essential thereunto Again he holds there is a Supreme Power of Government constant and transmitted to the Church And this Supreme Power necessarly requires 1. Infallibility in all the Methods and Measures of Government For that upon the ground of such a Supremacy the Apostles had an Infallibility in all their Measures and Ordinances of Government delivered to the Churches the Dr. will not deny 2. He cannot deny this necessary Consequence That therefore they were priviledged with unaccountableness and uncontrolable Power And this in his Principles he must needs hold to be transmitted For if Supremacy and Infallibility will not infer these two surely nothing will And the Dr. will not say that Supremacy over all Church
Officers and Members are temporary expired Priviledges For this he clearly distinguishes from them And it being thus the Question still recurrs to what Bishops he ascribs this Whether to some of them who are of Special Character or to all If to all then none of them are subordinat and accountable to another as being all Infallible and Supreme in the Exercise of their Government If to some only under what Character are they Primats Arch-bishops or Patriarchs And whether are they subject to one Head If to one Head then they loss the Priviledge of Supremacy wherein the Dr. makes an Apostolick Succession to consist Yet it will be hard to say that they were not subject to a General Council as to their Doctrine and Administration And sure I am the Dr. will assert that the Apostles had such a Supreme Power as put them beyond the reach of Subjection to any Church Judicatory and this their Supreme Authority he asserts to be Constant and Permanent still necessary for the Church and died not with their Persons So that here is another confused Maze and Farrago of Inconsistencies But further to shew how this Mans precipitant folly has involved him two things are again considerable First He holds the Iewish OEconomy never to have been abrogat but to be still vigent as it exemplifies a Pattern to the New Testament Church This he acknowledges had a Supreme High Priest who was an OEcumenick President over that Church over all inferior Priests and all their Courts For he wil be far from admitting any inferior Priests to share in this Priviledge Hence iâ— inevitably follows that this Supremacy is in his Sense applicable only to the Supreme OEcumenick President that the Christian Church may come up to its Pattern And it being thus let us in the next place see how he notwithdanding crosses this in two Points 1. In making this Constant Supreme Spiritual Power over all Members and Officers in the Christian Church to have been first exercised by every one of the Twelve Apostles and by them derived to their respective Successors 2. In holding in discriminatim and without any note of distinction of one from another that the Bishops yea all Bishops are Successors of the Apostles he means in a proper formal Sense For this is the very Title of this goodly Chapter of the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles as is said Further I would gladly know whether our Dr. ownes any Church-Power to have been transmitted to Presbyters or Pastors and to be asserted Act. 20 28. 1 Pet 5.2 Heb. 13.7.17 and many such places pleaded by the Presbyterians It is probable he will acknowledge this so that it be within their Precincts insubordination to the Bishops Now I pray why will he deny them the Priviledge of Succession to Apostles in point of Church Power He hath no Shadow of Ground unless upon the Account of a Precarious Dependence upon the Bishop So that it is not a Supreme Spiritual Power as he defines that of the Bishops as succeeding Apostles therein And I beseech him why are not the Bishops upon this Ground of their Precarious Dependance upon Superior Bishops equally cut off from this Priviledge If he say the Bishops Power reaches to Church Officers under them not that of Presbyters I have already told him what an Insignificant Evasion this is and that he cuts himself off from this Answer in that he makes this Apostolick Power which is Transmitted to Successors to be a Jurisdiction and Authority over all Subordinat Officers all Ecclesiasticks and all others Believing in Christ. And he tells us That the Apostles were to give Directions to their Suceessors in the same Office So that if it be not thus understood who can reconcile his Words to Sense For he distinguishes the Successors to their Office from such as he calls Subordinat Ecclesiasticks who have no such Authority And to say the Office is perpetual and permanent that the Office imports Essentially a Supreme Power over all Church Officers and Members and is thus distinguished from all Inferior Offices that this very Office is derived to Successors as being Essential and necessary to the Church Government in all Ages and yet that these Successors one or more have a Power Encircled within a certain Plott of Ground or District is such a palpable Contradiction and Non-Sense as none can be more evident We are told P. 98. That the Essence of the Apostolick Office consisted not in the forementioned extraordinary Priviledges but in the Rectoral Power Transmitted to their Successors in all Ages I have told him and made it appear that their Rectoral-Power necessarly included these Priviledges and since he acknowledges that the Essence of their Office consisted in their Rectoral Power it does necessarly follow that these being of the Essence of that Power they were Essential to the Office We acknowledge with him that they were by their Office distinguished from Subordinat Officers The Dr. infers That therefore this Distinction must consist in something so peculiar to them as its incommunicable to any Orders of Officers not Honoured with this Character Before I come to a direct Answer I will here cleave all his Reasoning asunder with a Wedge of his own Setting The Apostles Universal Unconfined Inspection over all Churches Planted and to be Planted and as Catholick Universal Ministers thereof in Actu Exercito is that whereby they are distinguished from other Officers who are not of that Character And being thus distinguished this must of necessity be the Essence of their Office for it is the Essence from which Essential Distinctions flows Yet we will find the Dr. Disowning and Denying this P. 96. Next from hence its easie to infer that to give Successors the true Apostolick Character and Power it must be of this Nature and Extent else its Hetrogeneous unto and comes short of its Pattern Will any Rational Man deny that the Rectoral Power derived to Apostles by our Saviour wherein he says the Essence of their Office did consist was of this Nature and Extent Now let him produce if he can any one Officer or Successor with this Character Again that whereby they were distinguished or what was peculiar to them may be understood two ways 1. Materially or Simplely 2. Formally or as making up their Complex Office with its other Ingredients and as properly subservient to the proper formal immediat Ends thereof In the first Sense there were several things whereby they were not properly distinguished from other Officers at that time considering them materially and remotely such as Gifts of Tongues Miracles c. which others had in their own Sphere and Degree But formally they were proper to Apostles considering their Degree Circumstances and proper immediat End Others had Gifts of Tongues and of Miracles but these Gifts were distinguished from those of Apostles upon the Ground above exprest I would make it evident by a Scripture Instance Our Saviour shews what Miraculous Signs shall follow
or well known with the Apostles Diodat and the English Annot. take it to import Excellent Evangelists or Preachers or such as were well known to the Apostles But now our Dr. P. 101.102 〈◊〉 obviat one main Objection taken from the narrow Limits of the secondarie Apostles as he calls them This saith he alters not the Nature of their Apostolical Power within their Bounds no more than Kings of Judah can be denyed the Honour of sitting upon the Throne of David in full Power and Royality after the Apostacy they were as truâ—ly Kings as any of their Predicessors as Solomon tho the number of Subjects was not equal Ans. I pray was not in his Sense the Rectoral Spiritual Power which our LORD conferred upon his Disciples and Apostles of the Nature and Extent above exprest and such as he calls Supremâ— over all Church Officers and all other Believers And sayes he not expresly that this very Power thus described by him is Essential to the Apostolick Office and Permanent and that the Apostolick Office being no other than this remains for ever in the Church How then is it possible that such Officers as derive down this extensive Apostolick Power should crumble into a petty Diocess How are such petty confined Successors Supreme and over all Church Officers 2. The Dr. Similitudinary and paralel Reason cutts the Sinews of his Pleading and Argument It is true Kings â—â— Iudah sat upon Davids Throne in full Power over Iudah But I pray did they succeed to David or Solomons Throne or Dignity as they left it I trow not Now he has told us that the Bishops succeed the Apostles in that same Supreme Authority over Church Officers and all Believers which Christ committed unto them Should England be divided into two Kingdoms or into an Heptarchy will any say that the Man who succeeds to one of these petty Dominions succeeds to the Crown of England or unto the Kings thereof because they possess a part of his Throne and Dominion Surely not And so the Case is here In a word since in the Dr's Sense the narrowing the Limits of the Authority impeaches not the Episcopal Power and since he will no doubt owne the Maxime Majâ—s minus non variant speciem Nazianzen and such Bishops as aâ—e said to have had but little Dorps for their Diocesses had this Apostolick Power What consequence this will bear in reference to Pastors some whereof have a larger District I have already told him P. 102. The Apostles Bounds and Provinces of their Inspection was not as equal as their Power it self wherewith they were vested Who doubts of this Whatever was their Condescension this way and adjusted Measures of Travels for the more commodious spreading of the Gospel yet by vertue of their Commission their Authority reached the whole World and all Churches planted and to be planted and this conjunctly and severally As when the twelve Spies were sent to Canaan whatever wayes they might have separatly gone in a voluntary Condescension yet their Authority and Commission joyntly and a part immediatly and formally reached to a search of the whole Land But I need not labour in proving this For the Dr. is â—o ingenuous as to confess it telling us That the different extent of places to which they went did not alter or change that Rectoral Power and Iurisdiction wherewith they were endued But thus he inferrs ibid. no more did the Apostolick Authority transmitted to Successors differ from that which was lodged in the first Apostles tho confined in its exercise to narrower Limits But good Mr. Dr. the Paralel is pittyfully Lame the Original Authority lodged in the Apostles by our LORDs Commission is by your Confession and Description immediatly relative to all Churches and all Believers in them So that this immediat Relation and a Right to Officiat upon Occasion accordingly was still Vigent and Existent with any one of the Apostles tho ordinarly exercising their Ministry in never so narrow a Circle every one of them being Universal Doctors Bishops and Inspectors of the whole Catholick Church planted and to be planted and that ex natura officii as Apostles But I hope ye will not say this of the Bishop he being properly and immediatly related only to his Diocess It had been a gross absurdity to say Paul or Iames are only Apostles of such or such a Province and have a Relation Apostolical to no other Church as it is proper to say this Man as Bishop of such a Diocess has an immediat Relation to it and to no Diocess else How often shall we tell the Dr. whose nauseous Repetitions forces us to repeat that the Apostles were capable of no particular fixed Ralation to any one Flock or Diocess being as Apostles vi natura officii Catholick Doctors of the Church Catholick and constant infallible Inspectors and Directors of its Government and all the Ordinances and Officers thereof And consequently that this their proper formal Office of Apostolat went off and expired with that infant State and Exigence of the Church and could never be succeeded unto by any Church Officer P. 103. We are told That the Apostles by lot divided the places of their Travels and went about what fell to their share None doubts of this in general tho the particular Account of their dividing the World by lots and who were to go to Asia who to Scythia c. is a piece of Discovery on the back of the Bible which we let pass among the rest of the Dr's profound Notions He adds It s plain that when Matthias was chosen it was to take the lot of his Ministry and Apostleship Who doubts of this either And that every Apostle had a share of this Ministry of Apostolat because all of the same Office But this will noways infer except by the Dr's Logick which can prove quidlibet ex quolibet that they were capable of a fixt Relation to any one Post or Watch Tower of the Church That they Governed the Churches where they resided as the Dr. next tells us we doubt not Tho I add if the Churches were constitute in their Organick Beeing according to Gospel Rules their Apostolick Inspection was Cumulative unto not Privative of the Government of the Ordinary Officers Constitute therein He adds ibid. They committed their Apostolical Episcopal Inspection to particular Persons who succeeded them even in their Apostolick Authority This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Question which the Dr. still Cants over without Proof We have often told him that their Apostolick Rectoral Power as he calls it related immediatly to the Catholick Church And to say that this they committed to particular Persons related to one fixed Post and by Consequence solely Pastors or Bishops thereof in an immediat proper Sense and subject to Superior Collegiat Churches and Judicatories which he must needs hold unless he embrace the Independent Principles and he cannot deny that de Facto the Bishops he pleads for were and
are thus subject is as great Non-Sense as to say a Man succeeding to a Privat Cure succeeds a Metropolitans Place or that the Person who succeeds to an Episcopal Chair doth succeed to the Papacy in its supposed Rectoral Power The Dr. doth here again Cant over That their Rectoral Pâ—wer distinguisht them from all Subordinat Officers And from hence we rationally inferr that all Ordinary Officers being Inferior and Subordinat to them this Rectoral Power reacht all Officers and Believers as to the Ius it self and consequently the Exercise upon Occasion And that therefore the Dr. absurdly calls this their Power Permanent and as absurdly holds that Officers related to particular Posts did therein succeed them P. 103 104. The Dr. thus proceeds When the Evangelical Priesthood still Priesthood got its Qualified Officers Bishops and Priests were not to encroach upon one another but every one was to Feed the Flock within the Limits alloted to him Now here is a Confession which contradicts and baffles all his Pleadings For even these pretended succeeding Bishops and Apostles in his Sense could not without Impeaching Christs Order and Encroaching on their Fellows go beyond their Limits in the Exercise of their Ministry And he will not deny that this Limited Ministry flowed from the very Nature of their Fixt and Limited Office But will he dare to say that any one of the Apostles were thus Limited or had an Office of this Nature or that they would have Encroached upon the Authority of any of these his supposed fixed Bishops if Officiating within their Bounds and Exercising their Apostolick Rectoral Power in an immediat manner without their previous Consent as one Bishop or Pastor cannot yea may not upon this Ground thus Officiaâ— But saith the Dr ibid. They were not so Confined to their Sees but that their Episcopal Care reacht the whole Church as far as was possible and Christian Charity did require I Answer 1. So is no Pastor fixt to his Post but as a Watchman upon Ierusalems Walls and thus having an immediat Relation to the Catholick Church his Pastoral Care in its Exercise in an Orderly Way is capable of a further Extension The Church of God is a City that has Watchmen set upon her Walls and in their several Posts whose Care must in a mediat Sense reach the whole City but cannot in its Exercise be extended but according to the Garrison-Laws and Discipline So that thus the Dr. will make any Pastor succeed the Apostles For he will not deny that the Pastoral Care is of this Nature Nor can he assign any Reason why since the Bishop is tyed to his Limits as well as the Pastor the Pastoral Care is not capable of such an Extension of its Exercise as is suteable to the Churches Edification But 2. The Dr. speaks improperly and confusedly when he assigns no other Rules and Measures of this extended Care but Christian Charity and a Possibility thereof merely For unless he turn Independent and deny all Subordination of Church Officers and Courts he must needs acknowledge that this Extension of Exercise must come under the Regulation and Authoritâ—tive Inspection of Superior Judicatories the Spirits of the Prophets being subject to the Prophets And the Church Representative must be still supposed the proper Ministerial Judges of her greater Good and Edification which is the great Ground of this Extension So that its pitifully impertinent to say that its only Christian Charity and the simple Possibility of the Thing in it self considered whereof the Person himself is supposed Judge that regulats this Matter of so high Importance Who will say that a Sentinel's Exercise of Military Inspection can be extended beyond his Post and Station assigned him by the Governour and Officers of the Garrison upon mere Charity and a Possibility of this further Extension without Respect to what the Military Discipline and the Authority of the Governour and Officers will allow Now to subsume I beseech this Dr. to tell me plainly and speak it out were the Apostles by vertue of their Office to extend their Apostolick Inspection from one Church or Countrey to another only after this Manner and by such Rules and Measures And dare he deny that they were to follow the Spirits Conduct every where and by vertue of their Office had an immediat Access to Exercise their Authority over all Churches wherever they came and were subject to no Churches Inspection or Direction in this Matter Can he not here see a palpable Distinction of the Office of Apostolat from all ordinary Officers as that of the Commanders of a Garrison who are called to go the Round over all the Posts and Sentinels to take Inspection over and Direct them differs necessarly and essentially from the Office and Charge of those who are in these fixed Posts whether their Inspection be of a Larger or Lesser Extension And hence it appears that unless the Dr. can let us see such Officers in Scripture whose proper Work was of this Nature succeeding the Apostles in the Inspection mentioned and having such a Power devolved upon them he will never prove it from the Occasional Transient Officiating of Fixed Officers beyond their Limits Directed and Authorized therein by and under the Inspection of Superior Church Officers and Iudicatories As for his Citation of Causabon Exercit. 14. ad Annal. Baron N. 4. touching the Bishops peculiar Care of their own Flock yet so as suo quodam modo they Cared for the whole Church I nothing doubt but that it may have a Safe and Sound Sense when applyed to every Pastor whose mediat Care actu primo suo modo reaches the whole Church And the Citation quite baffles the Dr. For if their care reached to a peculiar Charge committed to them in solidum it was toto coelo different from the Apostolick care and Charge as is above made good And the Dr. in saying that this exactly resembled the Features and Lineaments of the Apostolick Office shews himself to be as bad unskilful in the Art of Limning as unsincere and unskilful in Disput. For such a Confined Limited Ministry under such Regulations as is above expressed can no more Represent the Features and Lineaments of the Apostolick Office in a proper formal Sense and in its intire Nature as delineat in Scripture than a hand or Foot can Represent the Lineaments of an intire Body For what he adds ibid. That Confinment to a particular See proceeds not from the Nature of the Priesthood but Rules of Prudence and Ecclesiastical OEconomy and Canonical Constitutions He speaks confusedly and without Sense For this being the Nature of the Priest-hood or Ministry viz That it is Gods Ordinance designed for Edification it must be consequently Adapted and measured to this end And therefore whatever Person hath an ordinary Ministry committed to him must have it in such a proportion as his Case and personal ability can reach God committing to no Man an immediat inspection of the Catholick Church as
his peculiar Charge So that whatever be the particular individual Limits of the Charge which is left to the Churches Prudence to assign yet the persons having such a Limited Charge as is above discribed flows from the Nature of the ordinary Ministry and the State and Case of the Church when the extraordinary Office of Apostolat is expired And to Convince the Dr. of this and of the Folly of this Lax Assertion that Confinement to a particular See proceeds not from the Nature of the Priesthood I would put to him this Querie Whether the Assigning unto one Bishop an Uâ—niversal Inspection and Primacy over the Catholick Church would be any impeachment of the Nature of his Priest-hood or Ministry Assigned to him by Gâ—d yea or not If not then who sees not that he owns the Lawfulness and Divine Warrands of a Papal Primacy especialy if the Church should Corroborat this by an Universal Constitution If he say that this extension were contrary to the Nature of the Priest-hood Then he Contradicts himself in Asserting that the Priest-hood of its own Nature requires no Confinment as he calls it and in Calling it so he Insinuats some sort of Violence offered to the Nature of this Ministry Besides these Constitutions he mentions Confining Bishops to a certain Charge are either cross or Correspondent to the Nature and ends of a Gospel-Ministry expressed in Scripture If cross thereunto then sure they are not Lawful unless he will say God gives the Church Authority to enact Constitutions cross to his Revealed Will and consequently paramount to his own Rules and Authority Which whether it be greater nonsense or Blasphemy is hard to determin If they be Correspondent to the Nature and ends of a Gospel Ministry how can he deny that such a Confinment or Constitutions proceed from the Nature thereof His Reason added viz. That the Apostles ordained Bishops for the Spiritual Service of such as should believe is as void of Sense or connection as any can be For so are all Pastors the true Scripture Bishops ordained by Apostles But will he be bold to say or if he say will not all Men of Sense hiss him That the Apostles ordained all and every Bishop or Minister for the actual immediat Service of all Believers of the Catholick Church as their proper peculiar Work and Charge This he must either say or his Reason is nought Nay will he not thus contradict himself in affirming his Secondary Apostles as he calls them to differ in Extension of Power from the first Apostles P. 105. We are told That the Apostles committed their Rectoral Power over subordinat Ecclesiasticks to particular persons succeeding in their Room in particular Churches Another piece of Repeated nonsense The Apostles by their Office had an Universal immediat Inspection over all Ecclesiasticks or Church Officers of the Catholick Church as himself describs their Office Yet this their proper formal Office thus described by him he will needs have them to devolve upon particular persons fixed to particular Churches as good Sense as to say the King Commits his Regal Primacy and Rectoral Power over his Kingdom when dying or leaving it unto the Man whom he hath enstalled in the Office of a Sheriff But the Dr. tells us that he will now propose the true State of the Controversy I am sorry a Doctor has disputed so long upon a Question and has yet the State of the Controversy to propose Common Ingenuity and Rules of Dispute would have prompted him in the first place to propose the true State of the Question and explain the Terms thereof But these Rules are too Pedantick for our Dr. who is more inclined to Pamphleting Harrangues than Systematick Divinitie Well what State of the Question offers he Thus it is Whether the Apostles committed their Apostolick Authority they exercised in particular Churches to such single persons duelie and regularlie chosen Or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in administration of Ecclesiastick Affairs in a perfect Paritie and Equalitie I shall be glad to admit this State of the Question when one Exception is offered by way of Caution Viz That as we grant an Ordinary Authority which the Apostles exercised in particular Churches contained in their Office Eminenter which they transmitted to Successors So we deny that the Authority which they transmitted to these ordinary succeeding Officers was an Authority properly and formally Apostolical or such in a formal Sense as themselves exercised And this I have made appear to be the Harmonious Sense and Judgement of sound Divines who distinguish the expired Apostolick Office and Authority from that ordinary Power and Authority which they transmitted to Successors What next We are told ibid. That the Scripture-confusion of Names might I presume to prescribe a better Term to such a Master of Language as our Dr. I should rather to evite an apparent Reflection on the Holy Ghosts Language call it Community or Homonymie will not prove Community of Offices when persons are undenyablie distinguished with regard to their Authoritie If we forget this mighty Caution of our warry Dr. we must not blame him if an unwearied Repetition will help us The Dr. will have this fixed that we fight not in the dark The Presbyterians do hold this as fixed as he What next P. 105.106 The LORD promised a perpetual Duration of the Apostolick Office not in their personal but Spiritual Capacitie he loving his Church as much after as before his withdrawing If then they conveyed their Episcopal Power to single persons in all particular Churches and not to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in a Paritie and Equalitie then the Divine Right of Episcopal Government is clearlie Estabilished But 1. How often will this Man cant over his Petitio Principii and take that for the Ground and Topick of his Argument which is in the Question Yea and in the Question by his own Confession viz That the Apostolick Office is perpetual permanent and succeeded unto in a proper formal Sense What strange may I call it Impertinency or Inadvertancy is this Since himself asserts that we deny such a perpetual Office of Apostolat and he opposes above his definition anent their permanent perpetual Office unto Presbyterians assertion of the contrary and their Definition asserting the Apostles Transitorie Function 2. His Proof from Christs promise and constant care of the Church is in the Sense of all Protestants unsound and foolish and he is therein inconsistent with himself For in their Sense yea and by his own Confession there are many expired Prerogatives of Apostles yea Gifts of Officers in the first Apostolick Church which notwithstanding impeaches not either that promise of Christs constant Care of his Church or his constant Love thereunto And therefore it reflects neither upon the one nor the other that this formal Office of Apostolat consisting of such expired Prerogatives is ceased Nay himself confesses that without Impeachment of either of these the Apostles Extensive universal Power
his other transient Imployments therein If the Dr. deny this he will swallow Monstruous absurdities viz. He will assert that in other Churches he had no Authority to rebuke to receive accusations to rebuke such as sin before all to see to the Worship to Charity to the State and Carriage of Widows to the right Instalment of Deacons and all this without partiality c. If Timothy in all these other Churches had this Authority the premised prescriptions together with the express scope thereof were applicable to him as officiating else where then they can infer no particular Relation to this Church more than others If the Dr. say that they are applicable as in this transient Imployment Protunc but not so as in Ephesus where his Relation was fixed the directions consequently in a special manner applicable thereto Who sees not that this is a palpable and shameless begging of the Question supposing these prescriptions to infer a fixed Relation to this Church of Ephesus which is the very Quesitum and Point in question But Secondly to strike out the Bottom of the Dr's Notion and put this to a short Issue since upon the one Hand the Episcopal Charge as to both Order and Jurisdiction was by Paul in his last Farewel committed to the Elders or Ministers of this Church of Ephesus joyntly Which Charge the Apostles are found to intrust likewise unto Pastors in other paralell places And since upon the other Hand Timothies Inspection is found Transient and Relative to several other Churches and therein Exercised it follows necessarly that what Authority he had in this Church and is supposed in these Directions and the Scope thereof was Cumulative unto not Privative of the ordinary standing Authority of the fixed Pastors established or to be established therein and that Timothy had no sole or Episcopal Authority Paramount to that of Pastors intrusted to him Which may be further confirmed upon these Grounds in that 1. The Apostles themselves Exercised no such Authority in Churches constitute as is evident in the Presbytries Concurrence with Paul in Timothies Ordination and Presbyters Authoritative Excommunication of the Incestuous Corinthian 2. This Supposition of such a Paramount Authority would make the Apostles in Cloathing Single Persons therewith to contradict their Previous Doctrine and Practice in the Instalment of Pastors with the Episcopal Authority To make which convincingly apparant one thing further I would propose to the Dr Whether will he deny that several Prescriptions delivered to Timothy were Relative to such Authority such an Exercise of the Power of Order as is incontrovertibly Applicable to Pastors I shall take the Dr's own Instance of Rebuking such as Sin before all Seeing to Widows and the Objects of Charity I add To give himself to Reading Exhortation to take Heed to himself and the Doctrine to Preach the Word to be Instant in Season and out of Season c. All which the Apostle doth with the same Emphasis of an Explicit Special Address to Timothy prescribe And to the same Scope of Directing him how to behave in the House of God Charging him as Solemnly to observe the same as these that relate to the Power of Jurisdiction But will the Dr's Inference â—old good That therefore Timothy had a sole Interest therein and such as was Exclusive of that of Pastors If his Answer be Negative why shall his Argument hold good in the Point of Jurisdiction and the Precepts relative thereunto I know nothing he can Answer except that either Pastors had this Authority in a Dependance upon Timothy or that the Power of Order is attribute to Pastors elsewhere not that of Jurisdiction Both which Evasions are a mere Petitio Principii and a Baffling of the great Topick and Ground of his Argument taken from the Address of these Precepts to Timothy especially since the same Precepts and equally supposing Authority in Church Government are attribute to Pastors Who knows not that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 20.24 the Authoritative Rebuke of the Highest Degree even to Excommunication is ascribed to the Colledge of Pastors 1 Cor. 5 As lâ—â—ewise the Authoritative Admonition is held out to be their joynt Priviledge Gal. 6.1 2 Thes. 3.14 15. Likewise the Laying on of Hands in Ordination is ascribed to the Presbytrie 1 Tim. 4.14 And they are thus found clearly Judges of Scandals as being Impowered to receive Delations Mat. 18.16 17. And none can deny that these Authoritative Precepts are directed to them upon the constant standing Grounds exhibit in Scripture and to the same Scope viz. the Preciousness of Souls their Account to Christ the great Shepherd at his Appearing Act. 20.24 1 Pet. 5.1 2 3. Old Whittaker in Answer to Bellarmin long since told our Dr Controv. 4. Quest. 1. Chap. 2. That Timothy here is supposed to have no such Dominion over Elderships or Pastors as Prelats afterward assumed And that Receiving the Accusation imports according to the Apostles Mind bringing a Crime or Scandal to the Church That the Ecclesiastick Synod had the Chief Interest in Censures though even Appeals were made to the Metropolitan See Bucer de Vi. Usu. Sacr. Ministerii Willet Sinops Papismi Controv. 5. Quest. 3. Part. 3. in the Appendix Bucer de Gub. P. 398. Before I pass this I cannot but add a Remark or two further 1. That the Dr. will needs have Timothy Directed to Order the Publick Worship and Liturgies of the Church That he is Directed 1 Tim. 2.1 and elsewhere anent Publick Worship is certain But for Liturgies which the Dr. thrusts in he must be told they were not yet sprung up if we may believe Tertullian and others It is palpably evident that in all these Precepts there 's altum silentium of Liturgies whatever the Dr's Love to them might Buzze in his Ears 2. He tells us That Timothy and with Emphasis he alone in the Church of Ephesus is Charged before the Lord to observe these things c. Thus in the Dr's Sense it seems that no Pastor had any thing to do with Rebuking Sinners either by Doctrine or Censure or the Oversight of Widows and the Objects of Charity c. These being peculiar to the Episcopal Function An Assertion no doubt peculiar to the Dr. But proceed we We are next told P. 109. That in those Apostolical Directions and Injunctions addressed personally to Timothy are contained the Nature Extent and Authority of the Episcopal Power But why calls he it not an Apostolical Power Since in his Sense the Office derived is of this Nature and Character Again if this be the Nature of the Episcopal Power and if thus one and the same with that of Timothy then sure it is not paramount to the Collegiat Power of Pastors For such we have proved Timothies to be Next as for the Extent thereof we have made appear that his Evangelistick Authority is found extended to several other Churches And therefore if the Dr.
shape Prelat's Diocesses by this Standart he will extend his Measures far beyond Ephesus What more is contained in those addressed Injunctions His relation to that Church saith the Dr. and the perpetuity of his Power But we have above made appear that these Injunctions can no more evince a peculiar Relation to that Church than to others where he exercised his Evangelistick Office as well as in that of Ephesus And for the perpetuity of the Power we have told him that the intimation of Timothie's transient Employment in that Church presented in the beginning of the Epistle the express Command of doing the work of an Evangelist therein an Office acknowledged by Protestant Divines to be expired the Apostles express recalling him from this transient Employment to the further prosecuting of his Office else where as likewise his ascribing the whole Episcopal Power after this to the Pastors of this Church of Ephesus in Timothie's presence without the least hint of his Interest therein convinceth this assertion of Falsehood But to prove that his Power was not transient but successive and perpetual the Dr. presents unto us the Apostolical Command put upon him to commit his Power to faithful Men who shall be able to teach others This proves indeed a Succession of a teaching Ministry and of the Scripture Bishops and Pastors who must be apt to teach and hold fast the faithful Word But that it imports a committing his Evangelistick Authority to Successors is the Dr's Anti-scriptural Dream Wherein he runs cross 1. To the Judgement of sound Interpreters as all know since they understand by that which was to be intrusted to these Faithful Men the Doctrine of the Gospel not the Authority of Timothy 2. He doth herein cross the Scope Context And that in three Points 1. In that there is here a Plurality of Successors supposed to whom this was to be committed And if Timothie's Authority was to be devolved upon a Plurality Dr. farewel the Derivation of an Episcopal Power to a single Successor 2. The great Characteristick of these Faithful Men is as is said that they be apt to teach which is the very Character of the Pastor Chap. 3.2 3. The thing which is to be committed is That which Timothy had heard of Paul Sciz The true Doctrine of the Gospel and the Pastoral Charge thereanent which is likewise intrusted to all Ministers of the Word Act. 20. Tit. 1.9 But the Dr. will needs have that which is enjoyned in this Precept which is Faithfulness and Ability to teach others to be by Timothy committed to a single Successor as it was in solidum his sole Prerogative Really Dr. this is at least slender Dealing of Charity What! All Faithful Teaching monopolized in the person of the Bishop committed to him in solidum excluding Pastors Many will suppose that if this Work be enhanced in the Bishop the Diocess will be meanly fed especially since besides his personal incapacity to feed the whole Diocess his Sermons drops very rarely and many poor Sheep may starve in the interval But to proceed the Dr. ibid. will have his Adversaries to grant That Timothy 's power exercised over Ephesus was the very same which he pleads for as due to Bishops in their particular Sees That he had an Evangelistick Power we grant and that Bishops take or usurp an Authority and Inspection which with some Presbyterians is said to have an apparent Resemblance of that of Timothy is true But that the Function exercised by Prelats is one and the same with that of Timothy is denyed For 1. We have proved that neither Apostles nor Evangelists had a fixed or ordinary Authority over particular Churches or any such special Relation thereunto as Prelats do pretend 2. We made appear that the Authority which they exercised was not exclusive of or paramount unto the ordinary Authority and Decisive Power of Pastors in Government that in Churches constitute they had neither a sole Power nor sole Exercise of Ordination and Jurisdiction such as Prelats assume who according to the Nature of that Government are the proper sole Pastors of the Diocess and the whole power of Order and Jurisdiction is properly and originally seated in them no Pastor having any thing of this or the Exercise thereof but according as it is lett out or derived to them at the Bishops pleasure For they deny universally that the Pastoral Office hath in its Nature included any Interest in Government Now this Dominion over Church Judicatories thus exclusive of all Authority of Pastors in Government no Evangelist nay nor Apostle ever exercised it being such a Dominion in the House of GOD as is disowned and discharged by them 2 Cor. 1. ult 1 Pet. 5.2 3. Besides the Dr. knows that he pleads for a power in Civils and a Civil Peerage as due to Prelats which he dare not say that Apostles or Evangelists ever exercised nor can he or any of his Party make it appear that the Apostles gave the least shadow of a Warrand for it in their Doctrine But to proceed the Dr. adds ibid. That we pretend that Timothy exercised his power in the Church of Ephesus under the Notion of an Evangelist not as proper Bishop of Ephesus That he was enjoyned and accordingly exercised this Office and had a Command put upon him to perform the Work of an Evangelist there is that which under this prodigiously profound Dâ—'s Correction a Man tinctured with the New Scots Opinion viz The â—postle Paul pretends And this Office we hold to be distinct toto coelo â—â—om that of the Bishop The Dr. saith he will examine this afterward wherein I shall afterwards trace and search him But at present the Dr. will have some things to be granted which cannot be denyed If such indeed its pitty the Dr. were denyed so just a Demand What are these First That the power which Timothy exercised was Lawful in it self GOD forbid we should assert that Paul enjoyned or authorized an unlawful power But Lawful and Law being Correlats the good Dr. will allow us to Distinguish Lawful into that which is so upon ground of a Standing Law or Ordinance And that which is so upon a temporal and transitory Precept and authorized by an Extraordinary Authority for the time Which might be exemplified in a multiplicity of clear Scripture Instances if we were not discoursing with a venerable Dr. who can distinguish General and Special Ordinary and Extraordinary Precepts c. Lawful in their own time and Circumstances We know the Apostolick Universal Authority was Lawful writing authentick binding Epistles in the Execution of this Authority constituting Officers Church by Church modelling them in their Organick Being delivering to them the Ordinances their Disciplining all Nations laying on Hands in order to the Spirits Miraculous Gifts anoynting the Sick with Oyl in order to the healing of them c. What next The Doctor in the Second Place will have us grant That this power was practised by Timothy
in the Church of Epesus And truely they are highly Censurable who will deny the Doctor so Just a Demand so necessarly following upon the preceeding Concession and the Scripture Records of the Exercise of his Power in that place And no doubt had the Dr. knit all his Consequences as well as this he had past for a fair and Triumphant Disputant and Acted as a Man worthy of his Cape and Orders Only we must be permitted together with this Concession to Whisper the Dr. in the Ear That he Exercised the same Evangelistick Office in other Churches as well as in Ephesus yea and both before and after he was there and he knows the Consequence which these that have got the Scots Notion in their Head will draw upon him viz. That therefore Timothy had no Special Relation to that Church nor Ordinary Inspection therein What is his Third Desire of a Concession viz. That this Power was committed to him alone not to a Colledge of Presbyters Acting in Parity and Equality If he mean the Evangelistick Power or an Evangelistick Inspection supposing as is often told him the Existence of the Apostolick and Evangelistick Offices which we hold with all Sound Divines to be expired Supposing likewise the Foundation of the Churches to be a laying and which we may call the Scaffolding which the Dr. hath told us was to be removed when the Building is perfected And withal understanding the Term Alone as Exclusive of Pastors and other Inferior Ordinary Church Officers And so as not to Confine the Evangelistick Office to Timothies Person This Demand is easily granted But here we deny two Points 1. That this Inspection or Extraordinary Evangelistick Power was so committed to Timothy over this Church at this time as to Exclude or Inhaunce the Pastors Ordinary Power or to infer his Sole and consequently Episcopal Interest in Government 2. That the Ordinary Power of Government was not committed by Paul to a Colledge of Presbyters as the Dr. supposes or that the Non-committing of Timothies Formal Office and Power as an Evangelist to such a Colledge will infer such a Conclusion Since thus we would fasten a Contradiction upon Paul in Intrusting the whole Episcopal Power over the Church of Ephesus after this to a Colledge of Presbyters Acting in Parity The Fourth Undenyable Point the Dr. will have us to grant is That there is no mention of a Spiritual Power lodged in a Colledge of Presbyters to which Timothy was Accountable for his Administrations I Answer 1. There was no need because in that Infant-State of the Church when to use the Dr's Phrase the Churches Fabrick was but in an Imperfect Scaffolding Posture the Ordinary Church Officers and Judicatories were a Framing he was Accountable to the Infallibly Inspired Great Apostle of the Gentiles Paul who Enjoyned him to order Things in the Moulding of that Church as he had Commanded and Appointed him Besides that the Nature of Timothy's Work being a Temporary Transient Inspection to pass off with that Exigent to give Way to his other Imployments elsewhere there was no Access for such an Inspection in the Colledge of Presbyters Here I cannot but take notice that the Dr. still adding the Clause of Spiritual when speaking of Timothy's Power must be minded of the Bishops Temporal Civil Authority which they claim 2. We find mention made of a Presbytrie that Ordained him and whether if ever fixed in any particular Post or Charge after Pauls Death the mention of a Presbytrie that Ordained him will infer an Accountableness is left to the Dr's Consideration As also whether the mention of that General Rule 1 Cor. 14.32 That the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets will infer an Accountableness of all who come under a Character of Prophets to their Collegiat Meetings The Dr's Fifth Concession he will have from us is That the great and most eminent Branches of Episcopal Power were lodged in his Person Viz. the Ordination of such as were admitted unto the sacred Function the care of the Widows the censuring of Elders the Authoritative prevention of Heresies about which he tells us the Episcopal Authority was most conversant in the Primitive times I am glad that the Bishops high Office is become of so condescending and humble a nature and genius that the mean business of the care of poor Widows or Church Eleemoâ—ynaries is become one of the most eminent Branches of their Power I see these Branches runs far out and their Lordships must have long Aâ—ms But may I hope that the Dr. will take along in his next famous Work since he hath in this place forgot it the little mean and humble exercise of Preaching the Gospel constantly and assiduously since we find that Timothy was here enjoined it and that in Season and out of Season to which these Eminent Branches may stretch out if at least the Dr. can obtain a Licence for it of their Lordships with such restrictions and proviso's in respect of their State-Imployments as this unwarry Man Paul forgot to put in who lays this in an unlimited general Precept upon the Bishop Timothy and with the solemnity of an alarming Preface of Laying this Charge upon him before God and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the Dead at his appearing and his Kingdom 2. Timothy is found so far from having the Dr's Eminent Branches of Episcopal Power lodged in him that in the Scriptural Accounts he is found to have neither Root nor Branch of the same The Bishops Power is supposed Ordinary his was not the Bishops Power is pleaded for as necessary to the Churches exedified State in all times and when Moulded in its Organick Being his was suted to the Moulding thereof when in fieri as to such a Being the Bishops Power is in Fixed Diocesses Timothies was not but a transient Ministry like that of the Apostles The Bishops hath sole absolute Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction over all Pastors of the Diocess Timothy had no such Authority but only of an Inspector and Moderator for the time of his transient Mission The Bishops assume a negative voice in all Judicatories of the Diocess which the Dr. here owns for he will have them subject to no collegiat Meetings of Pastors had Timothy assumed this he had contradicted and baffled the Apostles Carriage Act. 15. where ordinary Pastors or Elders are found concurring Authoritatively with the Apostles in the whole procedure of that solemn Council both in the Disquisition the Sentence and the Epistle enjoyning the Churches obedience thereunto And I must presum to add with the Dr's good leave that this Council is of more venerable Authority and the Constitution thereof of a more Divinly-exemplifying influence than any he can appeal to as patronizing the Hierarchical Prelat for whom he pleads Again had Timothy ordained alone without Pastors where they were to be had he would have crossed the Rule of his own Ordination and Pauls
but as one who had a more excellent Office entrusted unto him so that he held not both Offices joyntly Secondly For the point of Ordination I Answer First It is more than he hath proved or can that Timothy had a sole Interest therein in Churches constitute And what he might do in Churches not constitute is not to the purpose For 1. Ordination is found in Scripture to be the Judicial Act of a Presbytrie which was exercised even upon Timothy himself 2. Paul would not ordain alone tho the great Apostle of the Gentiles but took along the Presbytries Authoritative Concurrence where a Presbytrie was constitute as is evident in the Scripture Accounts of this Evangelists Ordination wherein the Presbytrie Authoritatively laid on Hands together with the Apostle Hence it is evident that far less could Timothy assume a sole Interest in Ordinarion exclusive of that of the Presbytrie when constitute since his Office was inferior to that of Apostolat Next Supposing Philip an Evangelist in the proper Scripture Acceptation above described he was no doubt capable of the same Employment and Exercise thereof when the Churches Case required it as Timothy else the Dr. will say that Evangelists had not all the same Office and Authority For what he adds of Confirming the Baptized we have above spoken to it a large And when he hath described this Confirmation and exhibite the Divine Warrands thereof and proved from Scripture Timothie's Interest therein I doubt not to bring up Philip to the same Priviledge We are told next That to be an Evangelist is very agreeable to all Subordinations of the Christian Hierarchy Thus it seems with him That the Term imports no peculiar Office And thus if he owns Eusebius Notion of Evangelist which is to Preach the Gospel to such as had not heard it or resisted it and were not Converted He appears inconsistent with himself in making it applicable to all Church Officers and consequently appropriating to them the Function of Converting Infidels by Preaching the Gospel as in these first times of Christianity And what Harmony this keeps with the Sense of Protestant Divines in Reference both to the Pastoral and Evangelistick Office is obviously evident Not to scann the foulsom Popish Savour of his expression of Christian Hierarchy and the necessary consequence of his absurd ascribing the Office of preaching the Gospel consequently the administration of the Seals of the Covenant to the meanest and lowest of Church Officers He adds That the primitive Bishops were Evangelists and that any Bishop or Presbyter that Converts Infidels are as properly Evangelists as these so called in the Primitive Church He must say as this person of whom our debate is who is by the Apostle Paul called to do the work of an Evangelist This is such a gross absurd Assertion that to recite it is to refute it Will any Man of common Sense imagine that when Timothy is thus enjoyned he is put upon no other work or to exercise no other Function than what the meanest Deacon was capable of Or that the Sense of this Precept do the Work of an Evangelist is only amounting to this Convert Infidels I think indeed the Man who believes this is an Infidel to this Scripture Light The Dr. is now advancing to a Scripture proof from Iames and tells us He will not debate with us whether James was one of the Twelve or not Nor shall I detain him upon this it being spoken to above and shall aknowledge he had the Name and Authority of an Apostle ascribed unto him Gal. 2.9 and 1.19 That he was Bishop of Ierusalem the Dr. tell us is uniformly attested by the most ancient Witnesses especially Clemens Alexandrinus and Hegesippus What Strength is in this Argument from Human Testimony and what Credit Hegesippus deserves is above touched But we must tell him that he must be set to his task It is Divine Testimony and Scripture proof and Witnesses we are seeking according to his undertaking not that of Clemens or Hegesippus But he tells us he needs not fill Text or Margin with Gitations since all his Adversaries and particularly Salmasius acknowledge that he was the first Bishop of Jerusalem But truely he hath instead of Scripture proof filled his Pamphlet with such stuff that he had done well long since thus to resolve Here is a bold and broad amplifying Assertion which some will be bold to call one of the Dr's broad and splendid Lies What! All his Adversaries acknowledge Iames first Bishop of Ierusalem I know not one nor can he Assign one of this All that acknowledge him Bishop in the Prelatical Sense His Instance of Salmasius which is the only one to evince this All the Dr. Produceth is such a pitiful faint Witness that his adducing of him serves only to render the Dr. the Object of their Laughter who are less Serious For all that he can say is That James continued at Jerusalem when other Apostles withdrew But that he was therefore in his Sense Bishop of Ierusalem is a Consequence which will require other Rules of Logick to make it good than have been heard of Suppose Salmasius acknowledge that the Ancients called him so all do know that he asserts only their expressing the Offices of Apostles and other extraordinary Officers after the Mode of their Times and Denominations which had then obtained as Iunius Whittaker and many other Learned Protestant Divines have observed And the Matter it self is evident to all Unprejudicat Minds So that we need not insist upon this Only we must again enjoyn him his Task of proving a Twofold Consequence and help his Memory in order to his next Undertaking against the Presbyterians 1. Iames stayed at Ierusalem when other Apostles withdrew Ergo he was properly and formally Bishop thereof 2. Salmasius acknowledges that de facto the Ancients call him Bishop and that he abode at Ierusalem Ergo he acknowledges him Bishop of Ierusalem and a Bishop of the Dr's Mould as succeeding the Apostolat therein now it seems laid aside Again the Ancients acknowledge that de facto he was Bishop of Ierusalem and Salmasius relates this Ergo he ownes the Ius of the Hierarchical Bishop When the Dr. hath managed this Task he shall be an Apollo for his Skill But now P. 113. the Dr. tells us That the Account the Scriptures gives us of him is very agreeable to the Testimony of the Ancients I am verrily of the Opinion that the Dr's Veneration for Antiquity is too Venerable I should think that the Dr. should have spoken better Sense and Divinity if expressing it in this Order that the Testimony of the Ancients is agreeable to the Account of the Scripture and to have made the Scripture Account the Leading Testimony Well let us hear this Account of Scripture Only before we hear it let us remember what the Point is which this Account and Testimony must have Reference to viz. That the Apostle James was properly and formally Bishop of
Pools Annot. with several others take to be only the Signification of his Judgement upon the Question in Correspondence to what Peter had before spoken As for Simeons Succession to Iames in Ierusalem and Hegesippus Account of the Succession of Bishops there It is spoken to above and what Credit is to be given to the supposed Catalogue of Bishops in Ierusalem and other pretended Diocesses For what he adds of Calvin's Judgement upon Gal. 2.9 As favouring his Opinion I Answer Calvin takes him indeed to be among Eminent Apostles viz. In Moral Respects prudentia aliis dotibus as he expones the word Pillar and attributs the same Eminency to Peter and Iohn And speaking of his presiding in the Council he doth not positively assert the Ground which the Dr. alledges but problematically with a fortassis id factum c. And even granting his Admission of a Presidency the Consequence of an Official Presidency and as importing a Majority of Power far less eo nomine as formally Bishop there is so very gross and obviously impertinent as any with half an Eye may discover it The Dr. tells us That his Scripture Instances do plainly demonstrat that the Apostolical or Episcopal Authority was conveyed to single persons in the first Plantations of Christianity What Demonstrations these are I refer to the Reader to Judge from what is above replyed such sure as are not adapted to any Rules that hitherto hath been heard of whereof this is a very clear Demonstration that the Dr. in this Peroration and refined Summ and Conclusion of his supposed mighty preceeding Demonstrations hath pronounced as great None-sense as ever was spoken or written Which I demonstrat thus from the Series of his Reasoning In his Sense the Apostolick and Episcopal Office is one and equal and Apostles as such were Superior to all Church Officers except Bishops their proper Successors in Official Authority Now here is a Successor Bishop preferred to all Apostles eo nomine as Successor-Bishop yet deriving in his Sense also an Apostolat only And which is yet odder succeeding to an Apostolick Office who was an Apostle before and by his Confession thus related unto and having an Official Authority respecting the Church Universal Yet when his Charge is Restricted to Jerusalem as his proper Post and Diocess he doth upon this Ground Transcend all the Apostles in Official Authority If any will sodder these Assertions together and reconcile them to sound Sense and Divinity he must be better skilled than all Vulcan's Gimmerers The Dr. will not insist upon the Presbyterians imaginary and superficial Exceptions which they have invented They must be such because he saith it and save him from a Concern in Scanning them No doubt if as Superficial and Imaginary as his Demonstrations their Inventions were very shallow The Dr. brings next P. 114. the Trite Argument taken from the seven Asiatick Angels And first tells us of Salmasius taking the Angels as denoting the Churches the Denomination being taken from the purer Part of these Cities to which Christ wrote To which he replyes from the distinction of the Churches from the Angels Rev. 1.20 And that the Sense would thus be to the Church of the Churches Not to detain him much here we only tell him that whatever Salmasius Sense or Escape might be in this he cannot deny that in the Sense and Judgement of the Body of all Presbyterians the Angels are distinguished from the Churches as the Church Representative is from the Church Collective Besides himself acknowledges P. 115. That the Heavenly Admonitions are first addressed to the Angels and by them were Communicated to the Churches As at the close of every Epistle all are called to hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches And he will not doubt that Salmasius distinguisheth Ministers from Church Members in this Point and the Church Members concern in all that is written he can less doubt Besides that Salmasius words will hardly bear his critical and saucy Construction who calls them a silly subterfuge since he may be supposed to compare only the Populi purior pars as he Terms it with the rest of the Inhabitants of these Towns so that the Address distininguisheth them from others And the Angel of the Church in his Sense will import only the Church in such a City not the Church of such a Church But the Dr. will not have the Angel a Multitude but one single Angel presiding over Presbyters and People We have already made appear that the Collective Sense of the Term Angel is most suâ—eable to Scripture and the Scope of this Book But the Dr. will needs loose the Objection taken from the Plural Address of the Angel which he thus propones That some Instructions there are in these Epistles in which others beside the Angels are particularly admonished This is a piece of our Dr's petty Sophistry He must make the knot easie that he may know how to loose it The very proposing of this Objection is a yeelding of the Cause For if in this Plural Address these others addressed be not the Angel then there is no Plural Address of the Angel himself or Representation of the Term Angel in a Plural Mould But had the Dr. intended to Dispute not to triffle in proposing a simple Foppery in stead of a Presbyterian Objection he should have told his Reader that we hold and do exhibit Instances of it that the Angel himself is addressed Plurally and bespoken so in these Epistles as a plurality of Officers appear evidently to be pointed at by thâ— Term Angel As particularly when it is said To you and the rest in Thyatira Rev. 2.24 Thus likewise v. 10. Fear none of these things which thou shall suffer Behold the Devil shalt cast some of you into prison that ye may be tryed and ye shall have tribulation c. Be thou faithful unto death Well what saith he to this Objection Why The Epistle is no less addressed to the single Angel than that of the Philippians is to the whole Church at Philippi though Paul useth particular Compellations Chap. 4.2.3 I entreat thee also true Yoke-fellow help those Women c. But good Dr. here is both a particular special distinct Precept and under such a Compellation as is in tâ—rminis separat and distinguished from the Body of the Church and those general Precepts addressed thereunto So that there is no shadow of a Paralel when the Angel is plurally Addressed for the Precept and Injunction is the very same Fear none of these things which thou shalt suffer There 's a relative pointing at the single Term Angel Then the Devil shall cast you that ye may be tryed Be thou faithful c. There the same persons are addressed and spoken to both singlely as one Angel and plurally as many that in reference to the same very individual Purpose and Duty the Speech running on both to the same Persons and the same Scope So that to use the Dr's
Phrase in reference to Salmasius his Answer to this Objection appears to be a silly subterfuge fit for nothing but to move their Laughter who are seen in this Debat and unworthy to have been uttered much less printed by a Man who sets a D. D. to his Name The Dr. cannot but know that the pinch of this Debate and state of the Question betwixt him and us is Whether all that 's spoken of this Angel can be competent to one individual the contrary whereof Presbyterians have made good and not anent the Concerns of particular Persons in some special Precepts of a general Epistle which is in terminis addressed to the whole Church The Dr. adds as another mighty Answer That the second Epistle to Timothy is addressed to him alone tho the Conclusion be to all the Faithful at Ephesus Ans That the second Epistle to Timothy is addressed to him immediatly no Body doubts As for that Conclusion The Lord Iesus be with thy Spirit Grace be with you there can nothing thence be inferred but that the Apostle in the Precepts addressed to Timothy designed the Good of the whole Church And altho what is contained in the Epistle have this general Scope yet it is to be applyed pro unius cujusque modulo and Peoples Duties and that of Ministers are to be distinguished But in the plural Adress of the Angel the same Duties are as is said enjoyned to the same Persons and to the same Scope And the Mystical Term Angel is represented in a plain plural Mould as pointing at a Plurality of Church Officers Besides that in this Conclusion the People are distinguished from the person of Timothy So that the Conclusion doth not solely and immediatly reach them But this holds not paralel with the Direction of an Epistle to a Plurality thus Mystically represented by one single Angel The Dr. adds further That the Bishops of the Asiatick Churches are said to be Angels in Imitation of the Jews among whom the High Priest was dignified with that Name as Mal. 2.7 Where the Word Messenger may be translated Angel I like not the Doctor 's Iewish Imitations If the Pattern was drawn from Mal. 2.7 Even granting this to the Dr that the Term Angel is with Allusion to that Term of Messenger the Term and Designation is Scriptural And had his Eyes been single he might in looking upon that Text have found that the Term of Messenger and Priest hath a plural Signification And consequently our Exposition of the single Term Angel in a Collective Sense in these Epistles and Application of the Plural Address to the single Angel to be Exemplified in that Scripture But the Dr. will needs suppose gratis and Magisterially Dictat unto us his Petitio Principii That the High Priest only was Dignified with that Name But he and his Fore-leader Dr. Hammond hath piâ—ifully mist the Mark in this Notion it being palpable that the Scope is to direct the Lords Priests and Ministers in their common Duties to which they were called and to say that the High Priest alone was here designed and intended will infer that the first Verse of that Chapter O ye Priests this Commandment is for you is to be understood only of the High Priest that he alone was concerned to give Glory to the Lords Name as is enjoyned in the 2. Verse and he alone threatned in the same Verse with a Curse to be inflicted upon his Blessings that he alone was to have the Law of Truth in his Mouth and to keep knowledge as Verses 6 7. and that at his Mouth only the Law was to be sought Whereas all the Priests were Teachers and Solemnly Addressed the People in Teaching together with Moses himself Deut. 27.9 10. and were sent to Teach the People 2 Chron. 17.8 Besides that had the Dr. been through in Searching this Controversie he might have found that as the Term Levi represents in this Chapter the Multitude of Levites so Presâ—â—terians do plead that the Term Angel whereby the Officers of every Church of Asia is represented hath nothing peculiar in it beside what is applicable to every Minister of the Gospel whose Angelick Frame as well as Office and Authority is hereby pointed out And therefore cannot in this place Indigitat an Officer Superior to Pastors or Ministers The Dr. asserts That the Angels Authority was extended to Laity and Clergy But he must be admonished that his new Term of Clergy and Laity were not then begot and he must prove not assert without Proof this his alledged Extension of the single Angel or Prelat his Power and Authority The Dr. pleads that the Faults of the Churches are imputed to the Angels because of their Spiritual Power to Reform and Chastise these Abuses Ans. No doubt Ministers have great influence upon the good or ill Frame of Churches and this will say as much yea much more for us than for the Dr for upon our Supposition of a Plurality of Pastors Addressed in the Angel it s much more suteable to suppose a Peoples good or ill Frame and Spiritual Condition to be influenced by the good or bad Carriage of their Pastors who have an immediat Inspection over them than to suppose it flows merely from the good or bad Carriage of one Prelat set over their Clergy and themselves this Inspection being the more remote And the Dr. knows we may call in an old gray Hair'd Witness Experience to testifie that there hath sometimes been some diligent Pastors and a thriving People in a Diocess where the Bishop hath been naught And besides that the Dr. here pitifully beggs the Question he should have seen how to evite the Inconvenience of Timothy so eminently commended for his Faithfulness Stedfastness and Piety his falling as Bishop of Ephesus from his first Love and by his bad Carriage influencing this bad Frame in that Church and leading them wrong As likewise he should have seen how to make it appear that the Important Duties of Faithfulness holding fast what is attained not to Fear Sufferings Warnings of a Prison Tryal c. are applicable to one Person solely As likewise how several of these evils charged upon the Churches could be the Objects of the Bishops supposed Spiritual Chastising Power such as their Dead Frame Falling from their first Love c. The Dr. ibid. will in the next place loose the Objection taken from Rev. 2.24 But unto you I say and to the rest in Thyatira Whence he tells us we plead that the Epistles were directed to a Community because the Compellation is in the Plural To this he Answers That the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is left out in the most Ancient Manuscripts particularly the Alexandrian preserved in the Royal Library 'T is pity the Dr or a Man of his Sense was not called in to Instruct or Inform our last Translators whâ— were no doubt as favourable to the Episcopal Cause as he though I will not say they would have allowed all
Apostolick Warrand as knowing that the contrary Practice and Principles of almost the whole Body of Reformed Churches and Divines do in this Point contradict him He therefore pretends to Abstract from this supposed Necessity and the Grounds thereof and to plead only for the Lawfulness of the Order Yet least he should seem too Cool a Pleader he presents some things which he calls Positive Grounds of Episcopacy Whereof the First in Summ is That Christ hath appointed in his Church an Official Power which we call Episcopal paramount unto and above any Power that can be Exercised by a single Presbyter alone Which Power of Ordination and Iurisdiction is acknowledged utrinque Lawful in it self the only Difference is that Presbyterians hold it to be Seated in a Colledge of Presbyters and the Episcopalians hold it to be Concentred in one Person yet to be Exercised by Presbyters Concurrence and Consent So that the Difference of this Diffused Episcopacy in the Presbytrie and Contracted in a single Bishop to be managed with Consent of Presbyters is like that between mâ—nus aperta and manus clausa Ans. The Surveyer doth but here Shufflle and Obscure the true State of this Question betwixt Episcopalians and Presbyterians Which is this viz. Upon our Supposal of that Authority and Government ascribed in Scripture to Pastors or Presbyters and their Essential Interest therein how an Officer who is pretended to be Distinct from them and Superior unto them and Enhancing and Concentring all their Power in himself can be consistent with the Scripture Prescriptions in point of Government The Surveyer should have known that the Scripture doth not only appoint the Official Power but its proper Subject So that the Removing it from its proper Basis and Subject is a palpable Impeachment of these Institutions in point of Government And therefore if by our Lords Warrand this Official Power is Diffused in a Colledge of Pastors or Presbyters the Concentring it in the person of one Prelat must needs be an arrant Usurpation in Men yea and if possible in Angels Next the Surveyer Narroweth and Disguiseth the Bishops Power he pleads for And that several ways 1. He overleaps his Arrogated Power of Order whereof he is the proper and primary Subject in the Diocess wherein Pastors Act but as his Deputs 2. His Civil Acclaimed Power 3. He seems to Tye the Exercise of it to the Consent and Concurrence of Presbyters wherein he dissembles the Nature of their Arrogated Jurisdictional Power For if he did mean a Concurrence and Consent which is Decisive Besides that he in this contradicts himself in Concentring this Power in the Prelat since frustra est potentia quae non potest reduci in actum he durst not affirm that the Official Power of the Prelat then existent by Law and whom he pleaded for was of this Nature For according to the Law establishing Prelacy they were to Exercise their Power with Advice only and of such of the Clergy only as they should find they themselves being Judges of known Loyaltie and Prudence Again should the Surveyer say this Advice was only Consultive not Decisive he did but Mock and Prevaricat in adding this Limitation of Presbyters Consent and Concurrence and in pretending thus to put some Limitations on the Prelats sole Exercise of his Power as if it did not swallow up and exclude the Official Authority of Presbyters and Pastors in Government In a Word as it is certain that the Diversifying of the Subject diversifieth the Species and Kinds of Government which is evident in that of Monarchy Democracy Aristocracy c. So in the point of Church Government depending upon Divine and positive Institution It is easie to discover such a vast Variation upon this Ground as might have covered this Surveyer with Blushes and which baffles his Notion with his own Similitude of the manus aperta clausa For he will not deny the Lawfulness of an OEcomenick or General Council in a Just Representative of all Christian Churches having an Authority diffused in all the Members which respects the whole Churches Now here is the manus aperta and in his Sense the manus clausa or the Monopolizing and Concentring this Authority in one person doth no whit impeach the Lawfulness of the Power it self Then advance the manus clausa an OEcumenick Bishop or Supreme Head over all the Church having all this Authority Monopolized in him which was before diffused in the General Council And here it may be demanded whether this Pleader or such as he did owne such an Officer as Lawful or not If such an Officer be owned as Lawful then farewel the Protestant Profession and the Doctrine of all Reformed Churches against a Papal Supremacy Universal OEcumenick Bishop If such an Officer be held unlawful then this Notion and Argument is quit baffled and excluded which asserted the Lawfulness both of the Diffused and Contracted Official Power For here the one Power is owned as warranded of GOD and instituted in its Nature and Exercise The other is disowned as contrary to His Institution What the Surveyer adds upon this Head touching a Lawful Demanour towards Powers that are usurped and entertaining fellowship with a Ministerial Church though called by an usurping Bishop hath been sufficiently answered by the Apologist and Others and the Difference so clearly stated betwixt the Condition of a Church wherein Prelats are obtruded upon the standing Church Judicatories in which Case Ministers are to keep their places and contend against them and such a State and Condition of a Church wherein the Government is razed and the Foundation of it laid upon a Princes arrogated Supremacy over the same and Prelats Authority as his Administrators in the Government thereof and withall in the Concurrence a formal and direct acknowledgment of both the one and the other being required as the Condition of Ministerial Communion that nothing needs here be further added The Next Ground the Surveyer adduceth is That Ministers Union and Association of themselves and setting over them one single Person to Moderat and Govern the Actions of the Meeting is Juris Divini and that by our own Confession Ans. The Surveyer durst not make his Application here or had he done so the absurdity of the Consequence from this Moderator or President to the Prelat he pleaded for would have palpably appeared and his Inconsistency with himself For 1. He saith that Associat Ministers set over themselves this Moderator and this he holds to be Iuris Divini and GODs Will And if so then sure it is neither Iuris Divini nor GODs Will that this Moderator should be obtruded upon them by an Extraneous Power without the least shadow of their Consent as he could not but know the Prelats he pleaded for were obtruded upon this Church 2. If it be GODs Will that this President be set over Meetings of Ministers to govern the Actions of the Meeting and preserve Due Order then it is not His
Will that this Moderator or President should have their whole Authority Concentred in him as this Surveyâ—r pleads and so as to smallow up their whole decisive Suffrage and render them mere Cyphers This he cannot but acknowledge to exceed far the mere governing the Actions of the Meeting and preserving of Order Which is the proper Work of a Moderator I might add that the admitting it is GODs Will that Ministers set over their Associat Meetings one single person to Moderat will not so much as infer that he should moderat ad vitam Since 1. This will bring under the burden of whatever abuse of his Power he may be guilty of and exclude all Help and Redress 2. This will deny the Judicatory or Meeting the Advantage and Use of these governing Gifts and Graces that may be supposed in other Members And sure the Surveyer could not but acknowledge this contrary to the Divine Law since the Gifts and Graces of every Minister are given by GOD for the Advantage of His Church and to be improven accordingly The Ministration of the Spirit saith the Apostle is given to every one to profit withal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Metaphor taken as some do judge from Bees bringing all to the common Hive Thus we see that unless the Surveyer degrade the Bishops to mere Moderators this Reason is utterly remote from and absolutely short of reaching any other Conclusion The Third Ground is That it is Juris Divini by way of Approbation that the Churches in their Ministerial Combinations for Government should have one over them who hath a singular Power for prevention of Schism and Disorder and such a Power as what is Right or Wrong in the Church may be imputed to him as is manifest from the Epistles directed to the Angels of the Churches Rev. 2.3 whom Beza Cartwright Reynolds c. hold to be single persons Ans. It is not clearly discernible what strength is in this Reason beyond the former since it still runs upon the Ius Divinum and necessity of a President in Church Meetings in order to this as its native and great End viz the Prevention of Schism and Disorder And if this be the Rule and Measure of such a Presidency the Surveyer had been hard put to it to prove that this doth necessarly infer and require that it be such as swallows up the whole decisive Power and Authority of Pastors in Government And that Disorder and Schism cannot be otherwise prevented by a President than thus Authorized and that reserving to Pastors their decisive Authority and Power cannot as well reach this End 2. For what the Surveyer adds That the Power of the President must be such as what is Right or amiss may be imputed to him as using his Power Well or Badly As it may have a terrible Sound in the Ears of the Hierarchical Prelat who hath an Authority and Power extended not only to all the Pastors of the Diocess but the whole Body of the People therein as this Surveyer owns P. 194. Since he hath thus a Work and Office of such a Nature as is impossible to be managed Besides that the Charge of all the evils within the Diocess lyeth necessarly upon him So likewise it is more than this Surveyer could prove that what was well or amiss in the Asian Churches is chiefly imputed to one Person For 1. It is not enough to say that some Authors though acknowledged Godly and Learned do hold them to be single persons but the Grounds hinc inde of those who hold them to be such and of those who understand the Word Angel in a Collective Sense must be weighed in the Ballances of the Sanctuary 2. Beza's Judgment is that the Proestos or President is first advertised that by him all the rest of the Colledge and also the whole Church might have notice made to them of that which concerned them all And further that not so much as the Office of a Perpetual President can be hence inferred as that which he holds to be the Foundation of the Tyranical Oligarchy whose Head is the Antichristian Beast 3. Granting a Presidency for prevention of Schism and disorder over these Churches the Question still is to be discussed what Presidency it was And that it could not be of the Surveyers Supposed Episcopal mould is evident and by thâ— Presbyterian Writers made good from several Grounds As that 1. It cannot be made good that any directions in these Epistles respecting Government diversifie one Pastor from another or suppose his Iurisdiction over the rest 2. That without fastning a contradiction upon the Scripture Account of the Presbyter or Pastors Office this cannot be admitted Pastors having the Name and thing of Rulers Governours and Bishops attributed unto them yea and the Episcopal Power being found committed to the Pastors of Ephesus the first of the Churches here addressed in Pauls last farewell to them Act. 20. And none will deny that the whole Churches were settled in an Uniform Mould of Government That the Collective Sense of the word Angel is most sutable to the Scope of these Epistles and paralel Scriptures is above made good and needs not be here repeated The Surveyer alledges P. 193. That if single persons had not been intended they would have been compared by the Spirit of God not to single Stars but Constellations Thus this critical Master of Language will needs Teach the Spirit of God how to express himself But since he acknowledges that these Churches tho made up of several Congregations do upon the Ground of an Unity in Government come under the denomination of one Candlestick why may not also the Pastors and Ministers because of a combination in Government come under the Denomination of single Stars Besides that these Stars or Angels are as is above made good sometimes addressed plurally and thus upon the matter held out as Constellations He adds That we may as well extend the seven Candlesticks beyond the Seven Churches as the Angel beyond a single Person But the Spirit of GOD calling these Candlesticks the Seven Churches and the Stars generally the Angels of the Churches not the Seven Angels sufficiently discovers the impertinent folly of this Objection But says the Surveyer ibid. by this Collective Sense of the Word Angel we will take in the Ruling Elders as Messengers of the Lord of Hosts or else assert that these Churches had none Ans. The Divine warrand of the Ruling Elder is made good upon clear Scripture grounds and if he have a share and Interest in Church Government the Surveyer could give no reason why he might not in so far come under this Denomination as a Church Officer supposing that our Lord addresseth in these Epistles both Church Officers and Members For what he adds of Blondels Sense of the Authority of these Angels P. 6. of his Preface It is evident to any that reads it That he ascribs the Power of Presidents only unto them and holds that the Proestotes
or Presidents acknowledged alwise the Power of the Colledge of Presbyters to be above their own and were subject to the Injunctions of the Meetings as well as any other Member The Fourth Ground which the Surveyer layeth down P. 194. is this That as there are ordinances merely Divine so also mixed Ordinances which have a Divine ground and with all adjoyned thereunto a positive human Institution such as Calvin holds geniculation in prayer to be The Episcopal Power being in it self Lawful the Subjecting of it in one person in a certain Circuit is most suitable for preserving Unity supposing the Person to be of greater worth and consequently recommended by the light of Nature and in so far by the word of GOD and further warranded by a Lawful Church Constitution Ans. This ground easily appears foolish and unsound when we consider that not only the Power it self is of Gods appointment and institution but likewise the Subject thereof and and Officers Cloathed with the Power so that whatever Authority the Church may be supposed to have for regulating the Exercise according to the general Rules of the word and of Christian prudence yet no Church under Heaven hath Authority to lift up the March-stones which God hath set and impeach his Institutions in Point of Government Which Guilt is certainly Contracted either 1. In setting up a New Officer Cloathed with such Authority as he hath not allowed such as we have made appear the Prelat to be both in Respect of his acclaimed Civil and Ecclesiastick Authority 2. In Robbing the Pastor of that Authority allowed by the great Masters Appointment and Institution which as we have made appear doth in its Essence respect an Interest both in the Power of Order and Jurisdiction As for Calvin he is found in that place to speak nothing of the Nature of this Geniculation or what may give light touching the Nature of those mixed Ordinances Besides that the Surveyers Reason here adduced from the Light of Nature appears to Confound the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and without Respect to the Gospel Rules of Government to found a Claim thereunto merely upon the greater Worth and Ability A Principle which will also brangle the Civil Government And in a word this Principle of Monopolizing the Power in one Person in a certain Circuit for this end of Preserving Unity will tower up this singularity of Government in one person over the Bishops the Arch-Bishops till the Hierarchy resolve in a Papacy at last Proceed we to the Surveyers Fifth Ground ibid. resolving in a Partition of Three or Four Particulars to infer a direct positive Institution for the Superiority of one Church Officer of a certain Circuit over others Whereof the First is That Iesus Christ from his Received plenitude of Church Power from his Father to be made use of till the Elect be gathered in sent his Apostles with plenitude of Power for all Church Offices necessary for Edifying and Preserving the same as Power to Preach administer Sacraments preserve the Church in order by Godly Disciplin for which he Cites Joh. 20.21 As my Father hath sent me even so send I you c. Ans. As it is acknowledged that the Apostles were sent forth for the Great end of laying the Foundation of the Gospel Churches and Establishing the Ordinances and Offices thereof so that whatever Officers they are found to have Instituted and Authorized for the Churches preservation and Purity of Order ought to be received with all due Reverence so it is evident that their Office was in this Respect Extraordinary and that they were Distinguished from all other Officers by their immediat Call their immediat Instructions from Christ inâ—allibility in Doctrin a greater Amplitude of Power c. Hence we have made appear there was no Shadow of a Prelatical Power in their Office the exercise thereof since none of the Apostles were set over any fixed Diocess but had an immediat Relation to the whole Church they exercised their Ministry sometimes joyntly and promiscuously in the same place they Ordained no Inferior Officers alone without the Concurrence of other Officers where they might be had nor Challenged as Prelats a sole Power of Jurisdiction over the Churches c. The Second Subservient ground which the Surveyer P. 195 adduces is That the Apostles had Successors to themselves in that plenitude of Ordinary Church Power for that Power was not to Cease till the end of the World according to the Promise Matth. 28.20 I am with you alway to the end of the World meaning with them and their Successors Ans. That the Apostles had Successors that derived down an Ordinary Church Power in reference to the Preaching of the Word the Administration of the Sacraments and such a Governing Power and the exercise thereof as is necessary for the Churches Edification and Preservation in all times is easily admitted And this ordinary Church Power we maintain with the Body of all Protestant Divines to be derived down by the Pastor the proper Successor of the Apostles in this Work as hath been above cleared And this is most Properly that plenitude of Power which was to continue to the end For this Surveyer in this Discriminating term of Ordinary Church Power seems to exclude any Succession of Church Officers to the Apostles in eundem gradum and properly The Surveyer tells us in the Third place That there are three probable Pretenders to this Succession of Apostles Viz Single Presbyters in the Modern Notion Colledges of Presbyters in a full Equality of Power Or some single Persons having Superiority of Power over ordinary Presbyters The Pretensions of the People or of any other to the Church Government He tells us he doth pass as Irrational And so do we Only I must here say That as what a single Presbyter may do in extraordinary Cases in Point of Jurisdiction is not here the Question And that therefore his three Pretenders may be Justly reduced to two So in his confident Rejection of all other Pretenders as Irrational he should have been aware of touching the Kings Crown and more consistently defended his Erastian Supremacy in Church Government Since in the last Edition of our Scots Hierarchy he was Owned and Established as the chief Officer and Head of this Church The Surveyer will have this Question of the Matter of Fact upon which the Jus depends to be determined by Historical Narrations of the Acts of the Apostles and the first and surest Light Church History can afford in the Churches purest Times I have made appear that this Question of a Divine Fact must be decided by the Scripture Light allenarly and by Consequence not from the Acts of the Apostles Solely excluding what further Light in this Matter is to be had from their Instructions in Point of Church Government contained in their Epistles and likewayes from other places of the New Testament So that whatever Practice of the Church the History
even of Purest Times presents unto us must be brought to this Touch-stone and Standard of the Scripture Institution as being thereby Regulable And therefore can make up no part of this Rule In determining this Question the Surveyer in the first place Will not have the Fulness of Ordinary Church Power committed by the Apostles to any single Presbyter as if he had Actual Power of Ordination or Iurisdiction That the Power of Order the Administration of the Word and Sacraments is committed to the Pastor is of it self Evident That the Power of Jurisdiction is committed to him as he is by Office a Member of the Judicatory which is the proper adequat Subject of this Authority of Ordination and Jurisdiction is equally evident The Surveyer challengeth us to shew such Colledges of single Presbyters as had that Plentitude of Church Power committed to them by the Apostles and exercised the same especially taking in Ruling Elders Ans. If by Plentitude of Church Power be understood the ordinary Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction necessary for the Churches Edification and Preservation in all times and as abstracted and distinguished from the extensive Power of Apostles Evangelists We say it is found seated in the Colledge of Pastors and Presbyters both in the Acts of the Apostles and else where in the New Testament The Apostles instituted Pastors or Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church by Church and sure not to preach only and administrat Sacraments but to Rule seeing they have the Name and Thing of Governors Rulers Overseers Bishops ascribed to them And if they were to Rule sure in Collegiat Meetings We find the Exercise of this Power commanded and commended to Pastors or Presbyters Thus by the Apostle to the Elders or Pastors of Ephesus Act. 20. By the Apostle Peter 1 Pet. 5. to the Pastors of the Churches to which he wrote We find this Jurisdictional Power accordingly exercised by them both as to Ordination and the highest Censures 1 Tim. 4.14 1 Cor. 5. And the Circumstances of these and such like Texts do cleary evince that this Jurisdictional Power was to continue thus exercised by these Societies or Colledges of Presbyters when the Apostles were gone off the Stage and that consequently they are the Proper Subject of the Power immediatly derived from them As for the Ruling Elder his Institution and Office being found in Scripture he is upon Divine Warrand supposed a Member of these Judicatories when the Churches are fully constituted in their Organick being But the Surveyer tells us We cannot make appear that in these Meetings of Presbyters there was an Equality of Power since Superior Officers were with them Ruling and Ordering their Church Actings Ans. Though de facto it were found that in these Meetings Superior Officers were present yet if they be found Officers of an Extraordinary Authority and whose Power was Cumulative unto not Privative of the ordinary Power and Authority of these Meetings This is utterly remote from speaking any thing to his Purpose and Conclusion 2. Whereas the Surveyer peremptorly poseth us Where such a Meeting of Presbyters is found in the Acts of the Apostles he should have added or else where in the New Testament without Superior Officers ordering their Meeting We peremptorly Pose him what Superior Officer is found set over the Colledge of the Elders of Ephesus when Paul gave them his last Charge touching the Exercise of a Ioynt Episcopal Power over that Church What Superior Officer is found set over the Bishops and Pastors of the Church of Philippi Or over these Pastors and Bishops mentioned 1 Pet. 5. or these Ruling Teachers mentioned 1 Thes. 5.12 Heb. 13.7.17 Sure these Governing Teachers mett for Government and these Meetings if found thus Constituted and Exercising an Episcopal Power we have therein Convincing Instances of an Episcopal Power in a Colledge of Presbyters without the Inspection of any Superior Ordinary Officers For as for Apostolical Directions hereanent they could no more impeach this Authority than Directions with Reference to the Power of Order could impeach the same The Surveyer P. 196. brings for his third Ground The Apostles committing the Plentitude of Ordinary Church Power to single Persons in a Superiority over other Ministers Instancing the Asiatick Angels Rev. 2.3 And Pauls Directions to Timothy and Titus whom he sent and instructed with a Iudiciary Power into Ephesus and Crete and to ordain Ministers which had been to no purpose had this Power been competent to Pastors Ans. This Trite Argument hath been above at large spoken to Therefore we shall but briefly touch it in this place First For the Asiatick Angels We have made appear First That the Collective Sense of the word Angel stands upon the most probable Foundation and is owned by the greatest part of sound Interpreters as being most suteable to the Style of Prophetick Writings representing many Persons by a singular Typical Term whereof frequent Instances are exhibit to the Style of this very Book in representing many Persons or a Series of Men by one Symbolical Term such as Whore VVoman Beast c. Besides that the Angel is found plurally addressed Chap. 2.24 Next That admitting the Angel to be a single Person will only plead that he is the Angelus praeses or Moderator yea and so pro tempore and addressed as the Parliament is in the Person of the Speaker That no Address is made to him with respect to any Jurisdiction over Pastors nor can any Reason be given wherefore the Commendations and Reprehensions respecting Ministerial Dutys must be fixed in an Exclusive Sense upon one Person c. Next For the Directions to Timothy and Titus It is above made appear that their Office was Extraordinary and passed off like that of the Apostles with that First Infant State and Exigence of the Church since it is made Good they were Evangelists in a proper formal Sense 2. That upon this Ground they could have no Successors in their Formal Office and Inspection which imported a Relation to no particular Church nor can consequently represent the Authority of any ordinary Officer with such a fixed Relation of this Nature and Extent It is likewayes made appear that the Episcopal Pleaders from these Directions must either upon this Ground extend their Power equally with that of Apostles or make it appear that these Directions of this Nature and importing this Authority were applicable to them no where else and in reference to no other Churches where they are found to exercise their Office Either of which are inevitable Absurdities Finally It is made appear that this Inspection was of a Transient Nature did suppose the Existence and Exercise of the Apostolick Office was Cumulative unto not Privative of the Official Authority of Pastors and therefore cannot prove a sole and single Authority of a Prelat over Church Judicatories But sayes the Surveyer What need was there to send them for this End to these Churches if a Iurisdictional Power was competent
to Pastors This Objection is above fully removed And here again we repone 1. The Infant State of the Church requiring a Temporary Super-intendency of an Evangelist and Directions from an infallible Apostle 2. Episcopalians must confess that in many Points wherein Timothy and Titus are immediatly addressed ordinary Pastors and Presbyters have a necessary and essential Interest and that therefore they must acknowledge this to be one end of these addressed Instructions that Pastors or Presbyters may have a clear Vidimus of their Ministerial Office and Duties And that by consequence the addressing of these Directions to Timothy and Titus will not exclude Pastors from the Jurisdictional Power And no more make this peculiar to these persons than the Injunctions respecting the Reading Preaching of the Word Convincing the Gain sayers and Rebuking the Scandalous solely applicable to a Prelat as his incommunicable Prerogatives The Surveyer here Cants over again the Old Song That its the greatest possible evidence that can be in such a Matter of Fact that immediatly after all the Apostles Death until the Council of Nice the Church had no other Government but that of Bishops Ans. This Assertion especially as respecting the Patriarchal Bishop of the late Edition viz with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction tyed to Preach to no flock and deriving all his Power from the Civil Magistrate is so grosly absurd so palpably false that the very Repetition is a Confutation the contrary having been demonstrated by several Learned Pens The best Antiquaries confess these first times dark as to Matters of Fact But the Surveyer quite mistakes this Question which is not anent a mere Matter of Fact or the Churches Practice simplely Considered but anent the Apostolick Instructions and Institutions in point of Church Government viz what Officers the Apostles set up and Instituted in what order and Cloathed with what Authority how qualified for their Office and instructed therein how they are found to have exercised this Power when thus Instituted and set up If this be clear in the Scripture Records then no defects or aberrations therefrom either in or after the Apostles times can direct or warrand our Imitation nor can be an Infallible proof of the Rule unless we will extend this to Regulat us as to every Scripture Truth and Duty therein held out Both Scripture and Church History do give us an account of the early aberrations from the Divine Rule both in Point of Doctrin Worship and Government such as those anent the Resurrection Justification by good Works Worshipping of Angels the Error of the Nicolaitans and in Point of Government the Mysterie of Iniquity the Embryon of a Papal Primacy was working in Pauls time and early appeared in Diotrephes aspiring after a Primacy Not to stand upon the Millenary Error the Error anent the Vision of GOD and others early appearing thereafter The Surveyer will needs strengthen his Notion by the Maxim Lex currit cum praxi consuetudo est optimus interpres Legis What interpretation and Sense this is capable of in reference to Human Laws or of what use is left to the Consideration of the Gentlemen of the Long Robe But sure with respect to the Divine Law 't is dangerous and sadly lax Divinity Israels Consuetudo and early practice of Idolatrie and the Worshipping of Images as that of the Golden Calf with a pretended design to Worship the Lord Jehovah was a shrewd and gross interpretation of the Second Command The People who told Jeeremiah that they would pour out Drink Offerings to the Queen of Heaven because their Progenitors in a long tract of time had done so were much in this Surveyers Mind But the great Lawgiver who enjoyned his People not to walk after their Fathers Commandments nor Judgments though of never so Large an extent and long Continuance but after his Laws and Judgments is of another Mind Tertullians Rule and Prayer is good speaking of Custom in it self considered and simplely Surge veritas ipsa Scripturas tuas interpretare quas consuetudo non novit nam si nosset non esset Did Custom know Scripture it would be ashamed of it self and cease to be any more Upon which ground he pleads that the Eternal Light himself might arise and expone his own Scriptures The Surveyer tells us That in these preceeding grounds he hath pleaded only for the Lawfulness of Prelacy though the necessity is not denied But sure if these grounds evince any thing they prove a Necessity as well as Lawfulness If the Apostles Directions and Practice in the Institution of Church Officers pursuant to their great Masters Commission together with his supposition of the Apostolical and Christian Churches Universal Reception and Practice will not evince and prove this I know nothing will Besides that we heard him plead upon the Ground of a Divine Institution which will bear this Conclusion of Necessity not of Lawfulness only But in this proof of the Lawfulness of Prelacy the Surveyer tells us he intended to quiet the Minds of People anent the Covenant obligation against it A good Pillow of security no doubt this had been had he proved that Universally and absolutely no Oath can oblige against a thing in it self Lawful or retrench our Liberty thereanent and answered the Arguments urged by Casuists on the contrary But it is not our purpose to digress on this head He adds That if Lawful it is Juris Divini that we submit to a Lawful Human Ordinance and Command for the Lords sake Which Reason were valid had he made good that the Human Ordinance in this Circumstantiate Case had for its object a thing Lawful And that the Human ordinance is the First Rule and adequat ground of our Judging the expediency of a Practice hic nunc though in it self Lawful And further that the Human Ordinance can of its own Nature loose solemn Oaths and Vows upon the Lawgivers themselves and the Subjects against such a practice as is commanded CHAP. II. The Surveyers Exceptions and Answers which he offers to the Scriptures Pleaded by Presbyterians Examined Particularly To these Passages viz Matt. 20 25 26 with the Paralels Mark 10 42 Luke 22 25 To that passage Mat. 18 17 and Act 20 17 28 Tit 1 5 7 1 Pet 5 1.2 The Vnsoundness and Inconsistency of his Exceptions and Glosses made appear THE Surveyer having thus presented his Episcopal Strength and his great Grounds for proving Prelacy Lawful doth in the next place undertake to Answer the Scripture Arguments that are pleaded for Presbyterian Government which we shall now Consider and Examinâ— The First Scriptures he tells us P. 197. that are made use of for proving the Parity of Ministers in the Government of the Church and disproving Imparity or Superiority of any over others are Mark 10.42 Matth. 20 25 26. Luke 22.25 Where because our Lord is speaking of the Kings and Great Ones of the Earth their Exercising Dominion and Authority over their Subjects
forbids his Disciples to do so it shall not be so among you therefore it is concluded that there should be no Superiority or Governing Power of Ministers of the Church above Ministers but all should be equal Ans. These Texts have been above considered and improven It is evident that our Lord Commanded Parity of Official power among his Apostles his First Ministers and by clear Consequence the same equality among Pastors who are equal and of the same Order as Apostles were and their proper Successors in the ordinary power of Government That the Prelats acclaimed Power in Civils and Dominion over Church Judicatories brings him within the Compass of the prohibition in these Texts is above made good The Surveyer in his way of expressing our Argument seems to oppose to this Official equality of Pastors the Superior power and Authority of greater to the lesser Judicatories which is the necessary Ligament of all Government and of Presbyterian consequently But to proceed The Surveyer in his First Answer will needs question That there is at all a Prohibion in these Texts given to Christs Apostles but only a mere prediction of what was to be their Lot in the VVorld Viz. That they were not to have a Stately Glorious Pompeous worldly Superiority over others Christ assuring them they were to be dispised of the World It was as Incongruous to prohibit them to Reign as Grandees as to Charge a Man not to act the King who is assured that all his days he is to be a Beggar Ans. This pitiful Shift and Gloss out of the Road of Interpreters discovers what a desperate falling Cause the Surveyer was maintaining which needed the support of such a Conceit as this To which we oppose 1. The Circumstances and Scope of the place clearly refuting this irrational Subterfuge It is evident our Lord was here curing the Disciples Emulation and sinful Debate about Superiority and Chiefness in his Church and Kingdom and directing them both negatively and positively in the exercise of their Spiritual power as his Ministers and this in order to the preventing of mistakes in Judgment and contravention of their Practice in Reference to the Nature and Exercise of Church Government In order to which Scope the pointing at the events of Providence merely in their external Condition had been utterly extraneous and impertinent And as in this Gloss the Surveyer doth Violence to the prohibiting part of the Text so most palpably to the positive Injunction He that will be great or Chief as Luke hath it let him be as the Youngest recommending to them a Humble Ministry in Opposition to Pompous greatness 2. The Surveyers Reason is palpably absurd and impertinent for notwithstanding of our Lords warning them of their despised State in the World yet he also Instructed them in the Nature and Exercise of his Kingdom did shew he was to have a Church which is his Kingdom against which the Gates of Hell should not prevail In which Kingdom they being Officers and Governours it was necessary they should understand its nature in order to a due exercise thereof and as necessary it was their Successors should have the same knowledge The Offices in the House of GOD are truely Honourable to be counted worthy of Honour and Highly Esteemed by the Members of the Church was it not then necessary that the Nature of this Spiritual greatness and Honour in opposition to worldly Pomp should be thus pointed out The Surveyer holds there was a Prophetick Intimation that Apostles and their Successors should not have a Glorious Pompous Worldly Superiority and thus excludes from an Apostolick Succession Prelats who are Princes of the Empire and Peers of the Land and must set them in Terms of Contradiction to this his supposed Prophecy Secondly Granting there is here a Prohibition the Surveyer will consider what is prohibited and to whom For the First He tells us It is that Sort of Dominion exercised among Kings of the Gentiles according to the Notion the Apostles had of Christs Kingdom Act. 1.6 Luk. 24.21 Mat. 18.1 Mark 9.34 So that our Lord discharged Earthly Pomp Coactive Power of Worldly Kingdoms not all Superiority of one of his Ministers above others non Rem sed Modum Rei Ans. This is above Examined and Confuted We have made appear that all Masterly Power and Dominion is here forbidden as inconsistent with that Humble Ministry and Ministerial Service enjoyned in the positive part of this Precept which doth not Discriminat one Dominion from another as if one sort were allowed and another forbidden or as if Government which is in the Nature of Lordship and Dominion were Diversified and Distinguished in respect of its manner of Exercise good or bad but all Masterly Power though in its self lawful is here both as to matter and manner forbidden to Christs Ministers in the Exercise of their Authority This Man acknowledges Earthly Pomp to be forbidden and Worldly Grandure and what could his thoughts be of Prelats being a third Estate of Parliament bearing State Offices of the Highest Sort He says our Lord discharged not Rem but Modum Rei If by this Modus Rei he understand a Civil Dominion he hath cut off the Prelats Civil Rule and in so far acknowledges their Transgressing this Precept If he restrict the Sense to a Dominion which he may call Spiritual he leaves still a Latitude for the highest Extension thereof even to a Papal Primacy He tells us that a Chiefness is rather supposed than forbidden as he labours to prove P. 201. from Luk. 22.26 And thus neither the Disciples Distemper nor Emulation about a Primacy nor the Papal Pretensions thereof are ever touched by this Prohibition according to his Gloss And in this as he crosses our Lords Scope so he contradicts himself since P. 199. he asserts with Cyprian that the Apostles were Pari honoris potestatis consortio praediti had equal Power and Authority This Answer of the Surveyer wherein he embraces the Popish Distinction and Evasion upon this Text viz. That our Lord discharged that Sort of Dominion only exercised among the Kings of the Gentiles and as he expresses it non Rem sed Modum Rei brings to Mind a remarkable Passage of the Learned Turretin Institut Theol. Elenct Part. 3. Loc. 18. Quest. 16. de Regimine Ecclesiae P. mihi 164 165. Having Cited this Passage Luk. 22.25 26. against the Papal Monarchy together with the paralell 1 Pet. 5.2 And from both having inferred that Dominion in the Church is forbidden and a Ministerial Service enjoyned He brings this Popish Argument and Exception Nec dici potest apud Lucam Monarchiam Dominationem absolute non interdici sed tantum ejus modum qui non sit simulis Dominationi Politicae seu Tyrannidi Regum Gentium That is It cannot be said in the place of Luke that Monarchy and Dominion is not absolutely forbidden but only the manner thereof or such as is like to that Tyrannical
Dominion of Earthly Kings The Reasons of his rejecting this Gloss he subjoyns Quia Apostoli non contendebant inter se de modo Primatus sed de Primatu ipso c. That the Apostles were not contending about the manner of a Primacy but the Primacy it self and therefore that our Lords Answer may be apposit to their Question it must needs absolutely forbid all Dominion 2. If our Lord had intended to forbid only some special kind of Dominion certum Dominationis modum he had not removed their Ambition which he is here endeavouring signally to remove since other Primacies also do Feed Ambition 3. Saith he this Phrase Not so viz. shall it be among you according to the Use of the Scripture doth import a simple and absolute Negation as Psal. 1.4.147.20 Adding that in the paralells Mat. 20. and Mark 10. it is expressed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non it a sit inter vos It shall not be so among you He adds that if Christ had allowed a Dominion to Peter the Apostles had been admonished thereanent and that the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying a Service or Ministry ascribed unto them is inconsistent therewith He afterward in the next Paragraph Answers the Objection taken from the Signification of the Compound Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as importing a violent Domination shewing that the Words of themselves will not necessarly import such a thing which he proves from some paralel Texts and that they signifie a simple Dominion only which he further proves from Lukes making use of the Simple Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adding in the third place that there was no need that our Lord should speak of a Dominion of this Nature because the Apostles Debate was not about a violent Domination He adds further Nec valet quod subjicitur c. It is of no weight which the Popish Adversary pleads against the Discharge of all Primacy because our Lord subjoyns He that is greatest among you since our Lord speaks not of a true Greatness in respect of the thing it self but of an Imaginary in respect of Affectation and Desire Which Matthew and Mark do expone and clear by these Words Whosoever will be great amongst you In the rest of his Reasons he hath several things to this purpose as if he had been expresly Disputing against this Surveyer as indeed upon the Matter he doth and Listeth him among the Popish Adversaries in this Point For that Point of the Persons spoken to the Surveyer tells us The Apostles were sometimes spoken to as representing all Christians Mark 13.37 In which Sense this Prohibition was not given to them which would strike at the Authority allowed among Christians Sometimes what is spoken to them concerns themselves alone in their Apostolick Capacity as Matth. 19.28 In which Sense we cannot understand this Prohibition since it would exclude all Ministers afterward Some things likewise were spoken to them as representing only Ministers as when Power of remitting and retaining Sins is given them Joh. 20. In which Sense we cannot apply this unto them since this will impeach the Superior Authority of any of them above others and their Authority over Inferior Ministers evidenced in Pauls Excommunicating Hymeneus and Alexander making Decrees for the Church of Corinth c. Ans. Whatever may be said to this Partition in it self it is certain the Enumeration is not so adequat as not to admit of a Super-numerary Some things might be spoken to Apostles which did most nearly concern them as Apostles as being immediatly directed to them and yet may have an useful reference in a Subaltern and Subordinat Sense to all the Ministers of Christ. As when our LORD said to His Apostles Ye are the Light of the World the Salt of the Earth This in some respect had a peculiar Application to them as Apostles and our LORDs Infallibly Inspired Ambassadors authorized to lay the Foundation of the Gospel Church prescribe her Ordinances and institute her Officers and several of them appointed to be the Holy Ghosts Pen-Men in writing the Scriptures in which respect the Church is said to be Built upon their Foundation But though no Ministers else could acclaim to be in this respect the Light of the World and Salt of the Earth or challenge a Right to the peculiar Priviledges of Apostles included therein it is notwithstanding certain that there is a Subordinat Application hereof unto ordinary Ministers that they are in their Capacity and Sphere the Light of the World and the Salt of the Earth and have the Honour and Duties of their Ministerial Office therein enjoyned and included as well as the Apostles had theirs 2. Since he grants the Apostles were pari honoris potestatis consortio praediti and cannot deny that our LORD bespoke them upon that Ground of an equal Official Power and as in that Capacity it follows that he bespoke Pastors whom he appointed to be in the same order of an equal Official Power and to succeed to the Apostles in their ordinary Authority The Surveyer can give no Reason wherefore our LORD discharged the impeaching this instituted Equal Power of Apostles by an Unlawful Dominion and not to have given the same Prohibition to Pastors Why a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Chief or Primat is discharged among Apostles and not also among Pastors The Surveyers Contrary Instances as he calls them of the Apostolick Authority over Ministers in the Church are palpably Impertinent and do miss the Mark. For 1. Their Authority in the first plantation of Churches can no wayes conclude what is the ordinary Authority of Pastors in the Churches ordinary and settled Government 2. Our Argument runs thus That the Apostles being placed in an equal Sphere of a Ministry were equal among themselves as Apostles formally and equal among themselves as Gospel Ministers upon this Ground But that therefore they could have no Authority Apostolical as Apostles over Inferior Officers doth nowayes follow this Supposition nor will it follow that because the Apostles were Ministers and had Authority over other Ministers that therefore there is a Lawful Official Authority of one Pastor over another because the Apostles were more than Ministers viz. Apostles and in that Capacity had that Superiority but not as Ministers simplely So that such an Argument would run cross to the common Rules It is certain whatever Authority they put furth in the Churches in fieri and in directing them in the Exercise of their ordinary Power yet in settled Judicatories they are found acting as Elders and Ministers and not as Apostles This hath been made Good in Pauls assuming the Presbytrie in the Ordination of Timothy The ordinary Elders or Ministers concurring with the Apostles in that Council Act. 15. Both in the Disquisition in the Sentence and enjoyning the Decree But sayes the Surveyer We must not distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not If notwithstanding this
Prohibition the Apostles exercised Authority over Ministers it doth not Discharge such an Authority of Pastors over Pastors Ans. The Laws of our LORD delivered in the New Testament and the Correspondent Recorded Practice thereof doth State a clear distinction betwixt the Extraordinary and Ordinary Officers and Pastors and that both with respect to the Nature and Extent of their power The Surveyer tells us the Ambition beginning among the Apostles the cure should have been applyed to them Ans. So we affirm it was in our Lords prohibiting either a Prelatical Dominion among themselves or over Inferior Officers But this could not impeach their extraordinary Inspection over the Churches which was together with their Office to pass off and die with themselves when that Case and exigency of the Church was over The Surveyers Second Counter-evidence P. 199. is drawn from 1 Cor. 12.28 God hath set in his Church First Apostles Secondarily Prophets Thirdly Teachers which is an ordinal Numbering with reference to the Object they were imployed about as Presbyterians hold upon this ground the Pastors Office Superior to the Elder Ans. Not to stand upon this his ordinal numbering nor upon an enquiry wherefore the Evangelist is excluded by the Surveyer in this Account of ordinal numbering whom we find Numbred Eph. 4.11 It is Evident that 1. This Instance is extravagant from the Point For from our Assertion that the Prohibition of Unlawful Dominion over their Fellows was given to Apostles as representing Pastors or Ministers he draws a Conclusion that thereupon will follow a Discharge of the Superior Authority of one Pastor over another he means an Official Superiority the Contrary whereof he undertakes to prove by Instances and here his great Instance is drawn from the Apostolical Authority which the Apostles exercised over inferior Officers or the supposed ordinal Numbring of Extraordinary Officers But I pray what is this to prove the Official ordinary Superiority of Pastors over Pastors or to evince their Superior Degrees among themselves Apostles Prophets Evangelists c. were placed in their several Degrees or had their special Pieces of work in the Churches Infant State therefore there ought to be the same Degrees of the Pastoral Office What Consequence is this 2. He is inconsistent with himself in this Reasoning For 1. He hath already distinguished the Apostles Official ordinary Power in the plenitude whereof he alledges Prelats do succeed them from another which he must call extraordinary else his Distinction is chimerical and must fly with one Wing And 2 He alledges some things are spoken to them alone in their Apostolick Capacity which concerned none else and thus distinguishes that capacity from the capacity of Pastors Now when he is about to prove that the Apostles qua Pastors or in that Capacity and under thus reduplication strictly and properly were above other Pastors and consequently that there are different Degrees of the Pastoral Office As if he had forgot his Distinction he draweth his Argument from the Apostolical Acts of Superiority over inferior Officers and the supposed Degrees of Apostles Prophets and others in that extraordinary Function wherein he palpably baffles his former suposition and Distinction That in the Text Cited together with the Paralel Eph. 4.11 there is a Numbering whether we call it ordinal or not of Extraordinary Officers now past off with these first times of Christianity is the consentient Judgment of sound Divines and by Consequence that no Argument can be drawn from hence for distinction of Degrees in the Pastoral Office The Surveyer P. 200. cannot understand how the Pastor having a Doctrinal Superiority over other Officers of the Congregation should in Point of Disciplin which is but a Personal application of the Word sink below his Assistants in the Session and have his Voice swallowed up by theirs But he might much more wonder at his own Principle who alledges the Pastor to have in dispensing the Word and Sacraments an Authority and Power of the same Nature with that of the Hierarchical Bishop and yet when he comes from the Pulpit and sitteth in a Judicatory with the Prelat losses all Authoriry in Government and according to the last Edition of our Hierarchical Prelacy become a mere Cipher without a Figure having no Power but to advise the Prelat and scarce that As for the Pastors Authority in the Session we say that although the higher Honour allowed to the Labourer in Word and Doctrin above the Officer who Rules only and who doth not thus Labour will allow the respect deference of a constant Presidency in the Parochial Church Judidicatory yet Ruling Elders having an Essential interest in Church Government he cannot have the sole decisive Vote though there is still access to appeal to a higher Judicatory in case of mal-Administration The Surveyers Third ground is That if Governing Superiority be inhibit to Pastors over others it is either of one over others and thus we unjustly distinguish this Monarchical Government of one while we allow the like Government of many which in an Aristocratical form may have as much of State and Command as of one If we say that he Discharged all Superiority of many or of some Number over others this will in favour of Independents destroy Presbyterian Government and the Subordination of Iudicatories Ans. This is in part already removed by what we have offered anent the Essential difference in Point of Government betwixt the Judiciary Power as Subjected in a Colledge or Society and the Monopolizing and concentring it in one Person 1. We have told him that our Lord hath Established and Instituted both the Nature and Subject of Church Power 2. Having Instituted Pastors of an equal Official Authority all Pastors as Members of the Judicatory have an Essential interest in the decisive Votes and an equal decisive suffrage therein upon this Ground so that there is a Clear exclusion of the Monopolized Government in one Person who appears excluded and Discharged by our Lords Instituted Principles and Grounds of Government since this Concentring of Government in one robs Pastors of this their Decisive suffrage excludes a free and full Conference and Debate in order to a sutable Determination by a free suffrage as is exemplified in that Council Act. 15. And therefore this Dominion of a Prelat over Pastors besides his Pompous Civil Dominion brings him palpably within the Compass of this Prohibition 3. That the Presbyterians Subordination of Judicatories cannot fall within the Compass hereof nor come under the Surveyers imputation of State and Dominion is many ways evident 1. This is founded upon the Light and Law of Nature and the Nature of all Governments 2. This is notably consistent with the Jurisdictional exercise of the Pastoral Office and the ends thereof both which the Prelatical Dominion destroys This Subordination is founded upon our Lords Institution as is evident Matth. 18. where the gradation in Point of Censure and Appeals is from the Lesser to the greater Number which
the end and the person privatly admonished is not gained and convinced of his Miscarriage the Matter is to be brought to the publick hearing of the Church and such a Church and Collegiat Meeting as is supposed to be cloathed with power to censure Ecclesiastically So that admiting there is a Remedy here prescribed for the removal of the privat Offences it is still under the Notion of Scandals that might arise among them in point of Charity and Equity And hence it is evident that the Gaining here made the Scope of Dealing with the offending Brother respects mainly the gaining of his Soul to GOD So the word is taken Iam. 5.20 and the gaining of his Friendship only in a Subordinat Sense As for the Passages cited neither v. 21.22 of this Chap. nor Luk. 17.1.2 3 4. which the Surveyer himself dare not call exactly paralel to the place under debate can evince that the Offences mentioned were nothing but mere privat Injuries and not Scandals as Mr. Gillespie in the Aarons Rod Lib. 3. Ch. 2. hath abundantly proved And admitting there is a Medium betwixt privat Injuries and all Offences this place is meant only of Offences and Scandals Nor can it be hence inferred that the more grosser and the lesser Scandals may not fall under a diverse Consideration with reference to some pieces of a Method of Procedure as is evident from what the Apostle prescribes 1 Cor. 5. in reference to the removal of that attrocious Scandal of the incestuous Corinthian The Surveyer P. 203 204 205. spends a long Discourse in endeavouring to load with Absurdities the Distinction betwixt Civil and Ecclesiastick Powers upon the account of the Varieties of Offences arising upon sins of Omission and Commission sins of Quotidian Incursion Scandals from Actions Criminal or in point of Civil Injuries of Oppression c. And Injuries in order to the joynting of the supposed Discipline as he calls it with the Civil Government when the Civil Injuries and Scandal are joyned whether he shall complain to the Church to Iudge of the Scandal since thus the Church will Iudge the Civil injury and invade the Magistrats part or else pronounce the Actions Scandalous and Censure blindly following the antecedent Iudgment of the Magistrat or otherwise be necessitat to review the whole Process de novo c. Ans. As Matters coming before these Respective Judicatories must be considered Matterially and Formally so the proper difference betwixt the two Jurisdictions with respect to the Object is to be drawn from the Formalities of the Actions or the ratio suo qua they come under their Respective cognizances It cannot be the Materiality of the Action simplely for this would make the Two Powers inevitably to Justle and the Church might not medle with any Action which the Civil Magistrates Power doth in any Case touch such as habituated Adultery Perjury Incest c. So that the Scandal being the proper formal Object of the Churches Power the same Action as under the other formalis Ratio of the Civil injury is the proper object of the Magistrats Cognizance and in the Case wherein the Civil injury is dubious the Magistrats Right stands good as to a Priority in the Cognizance Likewise there are Civil wrongs wherein the Case is so dubious that before the Legal Decision the Person wronging cannot be presumed to have Acted from a bad Principle or purpose but from the ground of a mistaken Right and therefore after the Legal Decision no Scandal can be concluded And in cases wherein there is manifest Scandal the Churches Power takes place and herein there is no necessity as the Surveyer pretends either for a blind following the Magistrats Decision in this Point or an immediat medling with Civil Processes For the Scandals Mentioned by him we say that as in the Circumstantials of procedure there is such variety allowed to the prudentials of Church Governours according to the General Rules of the Word as cannot Justle with the Method prescribed in this Text so these Sins whether of ommission ordinary incursion of opinion in Matters Civil or Criminal in so far as habituat and scandalous do come under the Churches Cognizance understanding this still with the due Caution premised touching the Scandal of Civil injuries For Scandals in Matters Criminal if the Magistrats Sword of Justice do strike in removing the Person from the Land of the Living there is a prevention of any further dealing If he neglect his Duty the Church is to follow the ordinary Methods for gaining the Persons Soul and removing the Scandal In a word the Civil Ecclesiastick Jurisdictions being both Gods appointments as this Surveyer should not deny it necessarly follows that they have their distinct Limits and Measures drawn their proper Ends and Objects appointed by the God of Order and therefore cannot be said of themselves to interfere and clash together without a Blasphemous reflection upon him who is the Author of both so that whatever practical interfeirings and abuse of Power men in either Capacity may be guilty of can no more reflect upon these Ordinances themselves than Mans Sinful abuse can be said to impeach the Divine Authority of the Office he sustains I add this remark further that the Surveyer doth in the Premised discourse palpably contradict himself while endeavouring to asperse a true Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction for he professes to disclaim Erastus his way and asserts there ought to be a Godly Disciplin in the Church for correcting Offenders and keeping the House of GOD and his Ordinances in Purity and consequently he professes to own an intrinsick Church Government distinct from the Civil and by further consequence a coordination of the two Powers and Jurisdictions and likewise a necessary mutual Subjection of persons Cloathed therewith to the Respective Authority of the one and the other Jurisdiction yet in his muster of supposed absurdities he impugns this Principle and endeavours to prove that without palpable Confusions and clashing of Societies there can be no exercise of this Government Besides he pretends to impugn only the received sense of this Passage and to keep within these Limits yet while attempting to prove that this is not the sense of the place he rambles out into such a Discourse as if it prove any thing doth evince that neither this nor any other place of Scripture doth hold out an Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction and Disciplin as properly and formally distinct from the Civil The Surveyers next Answer P. 205. is in Summ this That supposing the Church Collective cannot be here understood but the Representative only in the Matter of Representation it is indifferent whether they be one or many one Commissioner may represent a Presbytrie in an Assembly So that tell the Church is tell the Presidents and Rulers of the Respective Churches or tell him that 's Chief with his Assistant Ans. The State of the Question is whether the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church doth here import such an
imbodied Society or Court as is the proper Subject of a Jurisdictional Censuring Power and to whom the Appeal is to be made after more privat Dealings which if evinced the Hierachical Prelats arrogated Power monopolizing this Jurisdiction and to use the Surveyers term concentring this Authority in himself solely is sufficiently overthrown as contrary to the Scripture Pattern and cross to this great Rule and Standart For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is the Consentient Judgement of Criticks and Interpreteâ—s that it naturally signifies a Caetus and Caetas evocatus a concio convocatorum an indicta concio thus Suidas thus Demosthenes and in Scripture it points out generally a Convocation as Act. 19 32. and a Convocation in curia or a Caetus civilis v. 39. And sometimes it s put for the Assembly of Believers sometimes for the Church Militant sometimes for a Province Kingdom or City Compare Eph. 5.23 with Act. 8.13 Rev. 12.5 Rom. 16.5 And here good Interpreters do consequently take it to Represent the Ecclesiastick Senat or Presbytrie making it one and the some with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4.14 Hence the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies in Concione delibero Verba facio to Consult Deliberat and Discourse in Publick Assembly The Text convinces of this For 1. The Gradation is from the Lesser to the Greater Number 2. Our Lord v. 19 20. speaks of an agreeing on Earth and gathering together in his Name Besides that the Surveyer himself expones the Church of the Rulers and Governours who if they have a joynt Essential Interest in their Jurisdiction he overthrows his Opinion of Concentring this in the Prelat if he ascribe the Jurisdictional Decisive Authority to one who is Chief making the rest but his Assistants he again contradicts himself in seeming to ascribe this Ruling Power to the whole Meeting for thus the Sense could not be as he says tell the Rulers and Governours For what he adds of Commissioners it is palpably absurd For 1. The Church Representative or the Officers thereof have a Divine immediat Institution are set by God therein and have not a derived Authority from the Church 2. It is the Court it self not the Deputed Commissioner one or more which is the proper Subject of the Jurisdictional Power 3. To make the Paralel hold he behoved to say the Prelats have a derived Power as Commissioner from the Church the Falshood whereof is apparent The Surveyer adds P. 206. That the attributing a Iurisdictional Power to the Church is nothing against him who allows not to one single Bishop this Power without the Council of Presbyters according to the 4th Council of Carthage Can. 23. though nothing is to be done without the Bishop Ans. In Stating the Question with the Presbyterians P. 192. he tells us It is whether this Power be equally Diffused in the whole Colledge of Presbyters or Concentred in one Person Now if the Person of the Bishop be the Centre he cannot allow this Official Power to step beyond that Centre So that no Members of the Meeting have any Interest therein He adds here as likeways in the place before Cited That the Bishop must exercise this Power with the Concurrâ—nce and the Assistance of Presbyters But this can import no Exercise of Jurisdiction since privat Persons may Counsel and Advise who have no Decisive Suffrage And he knew that in the late Edition of our Hierarchical Prelacy the Clergy were to Advise the Bishop only and scarce that So that our Prelats in such Exercise of their Power baffled that Act of the Council of Carthage which he mentions The Surveyer adds That there is a Plurality of Officers even where this Inequality of Power is supposed whether Iudging or Advising But if one only Judge and the rest are but mere Advisers the Judging Power being thus Concentred in one there is no such Court as is the Subject of a Jurisdictional Power So that the Surveyer bewrays great Impudence in saying that the Determination properly flows from them all since the Authority is thus Concentred in one But says the Surveyer since the Organick Church is made up of Rulers and Ruled the Notion of a Church will not import an Equality of Power in all Ans. This Paralel is palpably unjust and impertinent since the Church Organick considered thus complexly doth necessarly and essentially include Members and Officers Rulers and Ruled and consequently a necessary Inequality But the Surveyer could not deny that in this place the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church imports a Society or Colledge of Rulers only which can come under no such Consideration of a necessary Inequality The Surveyers Fourth Answer is in Summ That we find the highest Censures of the Church inflicted by the Authority of single Persons who ever otherwise concurred So Paul excommunicat Hymeneus and Alexander 1 Tim. 1.20 And to say he acted as a Member of a Quorum is to make him a vain Boaster and to make the Scripture speak what we will Ans. The Surveyer must acknowledge yea hath acknowledged the difference betwixt the Apostolick Authority in the Framing and Constitution of Churches and the Exercise of their Power in Churches already constitute in their Organick Beeing In the first Case there was an indispensible necessity of exerting a singular Apostolick Authority when no Officers were to concur and Churches were not fully Moulded in their Organick Beeing And we heard himself distinguish the Apostles ordinary and extraordinary Power In the other Case when Churches were constitute it is evident and hath been made good that they did assume the Official Concurrence of ordinary Church Rulers The Surveyer challengeth us to produce a Warrand for our Assertion of Pauls acting here upon an extraordinary Apostolick Authority Thus he challenges the Apostle Paul to produce his Warrand for this his Apostolick Acting which he has long since produced and recorded if this Man had been pleased to read and consider it Whereas he tells us It was none of the extraordinary Characters of the Apostles to act in these Matters by his own only Authority We say it was where Churches were not constitute and no ordinary Officers to concur And this Surveyer might be challenged as the Affirmer to prove that this Act was put forth in an Organick Church where ordinary Officers were to concur or else in denying this to be one of the Characteristicks of the Apostolick Office he asperses his Apostolick Power and Authority He adds That what was beyond their immediat Calling infallible Direction illimited Iurisdiction c. was transmittable to his Successors and actually transmitted to Timothy and Titus It is Answered we have made appear that their immediat Calling considered with reference to its Nature and End of Planting Churches Constituting the Officers Ordinances thereof did necessarly include this Authority in this first Framing of Churches which neither was nor could be transmitted unless it be pleaded that the Churches Foundation could
be twice laid For Timothy and Titus we have above spoken to their Authority and Office and made appear that it was transient and extraordinary as that of Apostles and to be Exercised with the Authoritative Official Concurrence of ordinary Officers or Presbyters where they were Planted The Surveyers Fifth Answer and Exception P. 207. is That there is in this Text an Allusion to the Jewish Church Courts wherein there were Chief and Subordinat Rulers both in the Sanhedrin and Synagogues Ans. Unless the Surveyer can make appear that the whole Iurisdictional Power and Authority therein was so Concentred in one Person as there was nothing of it left to any of the Members and that their Work was only to give Assent unto the sole Decisive Determination and Sentence of that one Person this Answer will never help the Hierarchical Bishop whose Power was of this Nature according to our Laws If it be supposed that the Jurisdictional Power was competent to the whole Colledge in these Meetings the Passage stands still in its Condemning Force against the Hierarchical Bishop That the whole Jurisdictional Power in the Sanhedrin was Concentred in the Person of the High Priest none can without extreme Impudence assert We heard that the Learned Iunius and several others do assert that the ordinary Jurisdiction was penes concessum Sacerdotum competent to the whole Meeting of the Priests The Levits as well as the Priests were to shew the Sentence of Judgment in Matters and Questions brought before them Deut. 17.8 9 10. So Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19.8 9. restoring this Sanhedrin set the Levites as well as the Priests to Judge the Controversies that came before them by way of Appeal And though we find that the High Priest did pronounce the Sentence of Judgment 2 Chron. 19.11 with Deut. 17.12 this will not infer the Surveyers Conclusion of his sole Decisive Suffrage since the Moderator of an Assembly may pronounce the Sentence flowing from their joynt Decisive Votes For the Rulers of Synagogues since we read of them and of Chief Rulers in the plural Mark 5.22 Act. 13.15 compared with Act. 18.8 17. it is evident there could be no peculiar Jurisdiction lodged in one exclusive of the rest His Last Exception to this Passage is That the Remedy here prescribed was presently to be made use of upon the rising of Scandals and therefore was not for Scandals to arise a long time thereafter Ans. This first Seminarie of the Christian Church being at present under our Lords immediat Inspection there was no such Access for a present Use of this Remedy therefore this Rule and Remedy was mainly prescribed for after-times as the Charter of the Churches Jurisdiction The Author of the second part of Pool's Annot. well observes upon this Passage That we are not to understand our Saviour as speaking with relation unto the present time but the time to come and giving Laws which should take place and abide from the gathering of the Christian Church And if the Church be understood of those that have the Authority of Binding and Loosing they shew that the present Church of Apostles was to constitute particular Churches to whom when constituted in force of this precept such Offences were to be told c. The Surveyer asks Suppose Scandals then arising V. G. Iudas giving Scandal to Peter would our Lord have sent them to the Sanhedâ—in of the Jews Upon the Ground I now offered the Negative Answer is clear The Complaint was to be made to this glorious Head of the Church in whom all church-Church-Authority is truely concentred and in telling him the Church was told But the Surveyer tells us of Bucers Assertion That Christ and his Apostles were a sufficient Representative Christian Church And this Primitive Presbytrie and Representative he professes to accept well of where was no Equality of Power in the Members Ans. The Surveyer knew there was here an absolute Dominion of the Churches Glorious Head over a Society of Officers And if he will still have such a standing Pattern of a Representative Church viz. a Supreme Vicar having the Radical Authority thereof the Pope will joyn issue with him in his gladful Acceptance thereof That there was no Equality of Power in the Members contradicts his former Assertion anent an Equality of an Official Power among the Apostles unless he will put Christ the Glorious Head among these Members and degrade Him from his Head-ship He tells us further That in this Primitive Pattern there was no Inter-mixture of Lay-Elders A witty Knack and Notion indeed He hath told us P. 199. of several Classes and Degrees of Church Officers which he thinks exemplifies the continual standing Measures for the Christian Church from that Passage 1 Cor. 12.28 First Apostles Secondarily Prophets Thirdly Teachers after that Miracles and he will not doubt Evangelists likewayes are of the Number who are reckoned Eph. 4. Our Surveyer saw no mixture of these in this Presbytrie nor of the Pastor whom he distinguishes from the Apostolick Office the Bishops being with him their Successors So that the poor Man was upon the Charybdis or Scylla either to acknowledge that this Presbytrie was not so compleat as it ought to have been and thus forced to contradict what he here asserts That according to this Form all others afterwards should be framed for this will make the Pattern and after Copies manck and defective Or else if he acknowledge that in this Primitive Seminary and Embryon of Church Judicatories all ordinary Officers were not present he behoved to confess that his Charge against Lay-Elders as he calls them because not here was impertinent and groundless The Surveyer calls for such a Presbytrie to end all our Controversie That is a Presbytrie with a Head having a Soveraign Absolute Dominion over all the Members And since he would not with the Millenaries have our Lord to reign personally on Earth he here wished for a Supreme infallible Vicar to end the Controversie In his Dislike of hetrogenous Mixtures in Church Judicatories he might have reflected upon the High Commission Court with its threefold Inteâ—mixture 1. Of Members viz. His Reverend Fathers the Bishops and Lay-Lords Nobles and other States-men 2. Of Matters cognoscible and Objects of their Power viz. Scandals and Civil Crimes 3. Of the Actings of the Câ—urt like the Popes Ecce duo gladii Fyning Confyning Imprisonment As also Ecclesiastick Censures of Excommunication Deprivation c. One Remark further I add upon this Passage of Scripture The Surveyer founds his Argument upon the Allusion made to the Jewish Courts But 1. It is evident in general there are Scripture Allusions that will not so much as plead for the Lawfulness of the thing alluded to witness the Psalmist allusion to Charming and our Lords warning that he comes as a Thief 2. Should he plead for a compleat equality betwixt the Iewish and Christian Church Judicatories he would plead for an Oecumenick Bishop and fixed President over the whole
Christian Church as there was a Supreme High Priest set over the Iewish so-that this Argument proving too much and beyond his Assertion proves nothing 3. It is enough to found the allusion that there be some likeness of the things compared and thus in this Case there being in the Jewish Church Courts a sutable Subordination of the Lesser to the greater and a Correspondent Official Power seated therein the allusion stands good intire and evident upon this ground that Christian Church Courts are of such a Nature The Surveyer P. 207.208 makes his next Assault upon our Argument for the Official identity of Bishop and Presbyter drawn from Act. 20.17 28. where the Elders of the Church sent for by Puul to Miletus are called Bishops And from Tit. 1.5 7. where he that 's called an Elder is called also a Bishop and the Names are used as Synonimâ—us so 1 Pet. 5.1.2 the Elders are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as have oversight over the Flock The Argument with the Surveyer runs thus If there were no Bishops in the Apostles days differing from Presbyters in Office there ought to be none now But there were none such in the Apostles days Ergo We do for Brevity rest upon this hint of Argument having spoken to it above as deducible from these Texts His fiâ—st Answer is That the first proposition is not so indubitable as it seems And his proof is that Beza though holding the Scripture Bishop and Presbyter to be â—ne and the same yet acknowledges the Lawfulness of that Episcopacy which he calls human And therefore though no such Bishops had been in the Apostles time the Churches appointment of such a Constitution guided by the Spirit might be a fit means for Conservation of Peace Ans. First The Surveyers founding the unsoundness of the proposition upon the supposed sentiments of Beza as it appears palpably unsound unless Beza were supposed infallible so it is evident and if we could here stay upon it might be made good at large from many Passages of Beza which we have elsewhere produced that he disowns the human Prostasie as a recess from the Divine appointment and the fiâ—st step of the Churches defection in point of Government On Philip. 1.1 he tells us of the community of the Name of Bishop and Presbyter which Continued till he who was in the Assembly set over the rest began to be peculiarly called the Bishop from hence saith he the Devil began to lay the first Foundation of Tyrannie in the Church of GOD. And discoursing further of the Ascension that was made from Bishops to the higher Officers of the Hierarchy till it came to Patriarchs c. He hath this remarkable Passage at the close of his Discourse Behold of how great moment and consequence it is to decline even in a hair-breadth from the Word of GOD. Now this Surveyer might have pondered what Sense or Divinity it could be in him or Beza to assert that the Church is guided by the Spirit in her declinings from the word of GOD. To this Scope we might Cite many Passages of Beza See for brevity Beza ad Cap. 9. apud Sarav num 20. Beza Resp. C. 11. N. 3. Likewise in Quest. 2. Referent Sarav P. 92. In which Passages and many such like we find him clearly condemning this Human Prostasie in so far as transcending the Limits of a Moderators Office The Surveyer next coming to the Second proposition of the Argument tells us That its sooner affirmed than proven that there were no Bishops in the Apostles days differing from Presbyters in the modern notion And he compares the Presbyterians to the Melancholick Man in Athens who concerned himself in every Ship arriving in the Harbour as his own property A Charge easily retorted since in such like Hypochondriack distempers the Surveyer as his Fellows would needs have the Hierarchical Bishop of their New Notion to be lodged under the Denomination of the Scripture Bishop Yea and in a Distemper beyond that of the Man at Athens will often lap him under the Denomination of a Presbyter where there is not so much as an appearance of this auspicious arriving Vessel The Surveyer tells us That the Name of Presbyter is not in Holy Scripture a distinguishing Name of one sort of Officers from all others although sometimes the Scripture requires that it must be looked on as Distinguishing those that are under that Name from other Officers Ans. The proposition he impugns is That in the Apostles days there were no Bishops Superior to Presbyters no Ordinary Officers of the Hierarchical Mould or Bishops of his Modern Notion That from these places Cited it is aparent that the Ordinary Church Officers Instituted by Apostles were Bishops and Presbyters of the same Official Mould and Authority to whom the Feeding and Governing of the Church is enjoyned promiscuously And all his Answer to the Proposition amounts to this that the Name of Presbyter is sometimes a more general Name than to point at an ordinary Officer An Answer utterly remote from the Point as is obvious to any that considers That it touches not 1. The Official Identity of the Bishop and Presbyter in the Passages Cited and their equal Official Authority as ordinary Church Officers given to Feed and Rule the Church jointly which is a necessary Consequence of the former 2. The unwarrantableness of such an Officer as the Hierarchical Prelat whose Office encroaches upon and robs them of that Power allowed them of GOD which is another Necessary Consequence drawn from this Ground This Charge is the more evident in that he hath acknowledged that sometimes these Names of Bishop and Presbyter distinguishes those that are under the same from other Officers And in the Passages Cited he cannot but acknowledge them thus distinguished Sure they are so at least for any thing he hath said He tells us he will in this and other Considerations remove our Mistake But sure he hath here presented his own He adds P. 209. That in the Rehearsal of Church Officers 1 Cor. 12.28 with Eph. 4.11 Presbyters are not in the Number though Bishops and they are comprehend under the Name of Pastors and Teachers which shews that the Name is not appointed to design any certain Order of Ministers Ans. The Surveyer could not but grant that the Hierarchical Bishop according to his modern Notion as distinguished by this Name from the Pastor or Presbyter is in none of these Rolls and therefore upon his own Principle this Name is not appointed to design any certain Order of Ministers And where is then his warrand for the Hierarchical Bishop as thus distinguished Likewise the Surveyer very unhappily made the Name of Teacher the Characteristick of his Hierarchical Bishop who looks upon Teaching as none of his work nor is Chargeable qua Prelat with any deficiency in his Office though his Sermons drop but once or twice pro forma and on Solemnities from one years and to another In a word as the
Surveyer in this Reason quite ruined his Cause and assertion so it is evident that in the Scripture Accounts of the institution and work of Presbyters the work and Office is found the same with that of these ordinary Officers Cited 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. since both Teaching and Government are evidently committed unto them Act. 20.28 with Tit. 1.5 7. 1 Tim. 5.17 But for the Divine Institution of his Hierarchical Prelat or any proper designation for his Office in that Capacity our Surveyer after all the Travels of his Surveying Notions brings us home nothing but a non inventus est He adds as a proof of his former Assertion That he knows no place of Scripture where the word Elder must needs point out an Officer fixed to a particular Charge in Teaching and Ruling having no other above him in Power or having Power over any other Officers But he should have pointed us to the place where the Diocesan Bishop of his new Mould is represented in Scripture under the Name of either Bishop or Presbyter And if he give over this discovery and the Answer of our demand hereanent he must take home and Lodge this Argument with himself and when he falls upon a good answer bestow it for us upon himself But for such Presbyters or Elders as he doth desiderat he might have found them in the same Text of Act. 20.17 28. impowered with the ordinary Office and Authority of Teaching and Ruling the Church as succeeding the Apostles in this ordinary Office yea and fixed as the ordinary Officers of this Church of Ephesus for this end as likewise Elders thus set up with an Episcopal Power and fixed to their Charges Tit. 1.5 with 1 Pet. 5. Likewise 1 Tim. 5.17 We have Elders or Presbyters supposed to have a fixed Relation to that Church having also a Teaching and Governing Power Yea Act. 14.23 We find such Pastors or Presbyters ordained Church by Church or in every Church But the Surveyer adds That Presbyterians hold Elders to be of two Ranks and therefore if the Ruling Elders are not to be here supposed they make the first Constitution of Churches manck and defective without Ruling Elders or Deacons Or if they include both under the Name of Elders he can with beteâ—â— Ground include the Majores Presbyteri or Bishops distinct from the Minores or Pastors Ans. Whether we assert there are Ruling Elders here or not his Hierarchical Bishop is not in the least helped or his Pleading for him strengthened For if we shall say that in this first plantation of the Churches there were only Teaching Elders or Pastors appointed who were in tuto to appoint and ordain Ruling Elders and Deacons his absurdity is easily evaded if we shall but suppose that which is easily supposable that in the first Constitution of Churches there was a gradual procedure and the chief Officers the Pastors first ordained and impowered as above said If we embrace the other Answer and affirm that Elders of both sorts were here ordained his Inference hath no shadow of a Connection hereupon since we do make good from Scripture the Distinction of the Teaching and Ruling Elder who both come under this general Designation But for his Hierarchical Bishop his Institution Name or Office the Surveyer can give us no shadow of a Pâ—â—of and but beggs the Question in supposing such an Officers Existence Besides though it were granted that such a Distinction could be admitted where finds this Surveyer the Deacons in these Catalogues And how will he thus evite the Rebound of his own Blow and his own absurdity of a manck Constitution of the Primitive Churches For what he adds That Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons is called a Presbyter of his Church of Lyons It is certain Bishops were sometimes so called and therefore they were the more guilty who did appropriat the Name Bishop to a pretended Office Superior to a Presbyter especially since this Retention of the Name Presbyter was from some Impression of the New Testament Times and Writings wherein the two Names are promisâ—uously used to point at one and the same Officer And it would seem this Name which with Beda signifieth Sapientiae Maturitatem should have been rather assumed by these pretended Fathers than that of Bishop which with him imports industriam curae pastoralis the Industry of the Pastoral Care a Work that Prelats are found little to concern themselves about There is another Passage wherein he might have seen such Presbyters as he desiderats viz. Act. 15.22 23. where mention is made of Apostles and Elders meeting in that Council at Ierusalem who must needs be understood of fixed Pastors of that Chuch The Surveyer P. 210. offers to our thoughts Whether James the LORDS Brother called by the Ancients Bishop of Jerusalem and is a Distinct person from the two of that Name comes under any of these Denominations We have above made appear in collating this Passage with Gal. 2.1.9 Gal. 1.19 That this Iames who is called the Lords Brother is called an Apostle and such an Apostle as Peter and others v. 17.18 Which is also clear from this that we read of a Iames the less Mark 15.14 Which as Ierom contra Helvidium reasons had been no fit Distinction had there been three Iames's The Harmony of Interpreters taking Iames to be an Apostle in Gal. 1.19 is above made appear such as Estius Paraeus Gomarus Menochius Piscator Tirinus Simplicius c. The Surveyer was not to be troubled in a Counter-enquiry To what purpose he proposed the Question Or next under which of these Names he comprehended the Deacons But for us a rational Account may be given If it be said they are comprehended under none of these Names there being in this Meeting put forth a Diatactick Critick and Dogmatick Power and Authority in none of which Deacons as such have an Interest their Work and Interest being to serve Tables To that Passage 1 Pet. 5. where the fixed Elders or Presbyters of the Churches have ascribed unto them an Authority in Feeding and Ruling the same The Surveyer Answers That the Name of Presbyter is common to all Church Officers Higher and Lower even to Apostles as Beza acknowledges Ans. He hath already acknowledged That it must sometimes in Scripture be looked on as distinguishing those pointed out thereby from other Officers So that it may here denote a Preaching Pastor in special notwithstanding that in a general Sense Superior Officers had that Name such as Apostles He could not deny the peculiar Office of a Deacon though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes appropriat to Superior Officers And besides that the proper Name and Designation of the Superior Officer he cannot shew to be given to the Inferior though the Superior in a General Sense have sometimes the Name of the Inferior attributted to them He might have here seen that these Officers or Presbyters have an Episcopal Inspection and Oversight over the
Names mentioned viz. Rulers Governours Overseers Bishops Ministers Stewards Ambassadors And next in Special that this Church of Corinth is clearly found to have been a Presbyterial Church and under the Inspection of a Presbyterial associat Ministry 1. There was a great multitude of Believers there mention being made of many Believers of many Baptized and added to the Church All whom Paul Baptized not himself consequently are supposed to be Baptized by other Ministers God likewayes having a great Harvest of Souls there much People in that City upon which Paul was encouraged to stay among them for so considerable a time as the Year and six Moneths compare Act. 18.1.7 8 9 10 11. This multitude behoved to be divided in particular Congregations 2. There is correspondent Plenty of Ministers and Preachers found there pointing it out as a Presbyterial Church and not one single Congregation first Paul stayed all this time at Corinth as a Master Builder having other under Builders Act. 18.11 1 Cor. 3.10 an occasion of their Doting some upon one some upon a second some upon a third Teacher So that there appears a plenty of Preachers there who had their several Flocks and Followers And Paul speaks of their not having many Fathers though they had ten thousand Instructers compare 1. Cor. 3. with 1 Cor. 5.14 Mention is likewayes made of a Subordination of Prophets to Prophets 1 Cor. 14.29 Considering likewayes the Division of Tongues and Languages this Church could not be one Congregation but united in a Presbyterial Classical Unity Which in a word is further confirmed from this Principle that we read of a Plurality of Churches there while the Apostle sayes Let your Women keep silence in the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sayes not the Women in general but your Women in that Church Yet this Plurality of single Congregations in Corinth are called and owned as one Church in the Inscription of the Epistle which could not be merely upon the Ground of Heart-unity for thus they were jure-charitatis nor in regard of an Explicit Church-Covenant whereof the Scripture is silent nor in respect of the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments for these were dispensed in single Congregations severally since they could not all meet in one Congregation So that of necessity they are owned and designed as one Church in regard of one joynt Administration of Government among them by one common Presbyterie or Colledge of Elders associated for that End See Ius Divin Minist Eccles. P. mihi 206.207 208. That the Prophets mentioned 14. Ch. were ordinary Pastors and Ministers of that Church not extraordinary Officers as the Surveyer insinuats since Rules and Directions aptly agreeing to ordinary Pastors are imposed upon them for the well ordering their Ministerial Exercises is upon this and many other Grounds made good by Mr. Rutherfurd in his Due Right of Presbyt P. 466.467 The Surveyer in his next Answer is in with standing the Evidence of this Scripture driven upon the contrary extreme of ascribing the Authority and Jurisdiction here mentioned to the Apostle Paul solely He tells us That the Apostle speaks of the Sentence as proceeding from himself though the declaring and executing thereof was committed unto the Corinthians that they are charged for not mourning that the Incestuous might be taken away by such as had Power And it were improper to say a Man were to take a thing away from himself Ans. The plain reading of the Text is a sufficient Confutation of this Distortion and Gloss. The Apostle certainly reprehends this Church and imputs a Guilt to them as to Non-procedure in this Matter Now the Question is wherein their Negligence appeared And this is best seen and understood in pondering the Duty enjoyned viz. their Iudging such as were within Purging out the Infectious bad Leaven the Delivery unto Satan c. comp v. 5 7 12. with 2 Cor. 2.6 If they had no Authority hereanent why is such a Defect and Negligence reprehended This Surveyer in making them only the Promulgaters and Executers of the Apostles previous Sentence taketh the Guilt of this Negligence from the Corinthians and puts it upon the Apostle Paul The Surveyers Gloss upon the Apostles Rebuke as to their not mourning over this Wickedness viz. That they sought not with Tears to such as had Power to inflict the Censure If meant of a Power lodged in the Apostle is contrary to the Scope since they are enjoyned to deliver the Person to Satan and to put him away from among themselves But says the Surveyer the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged imports the Apostles sole Determination that none are taken in as Sharers with him in this Censure and imports he required only the Execution of their Sentence We have already removed this Objection the Apostles giving his Apostolick Judgment as touching the Necessity and Expediency of the Thing can no more exclude and prejudge the Authority and Interest of the Ordinary Church Officers herein than his giving his Apostolick Judgment in any other Uncontroverted Duty wherein the Persons enjoyned the same have an infallible Interest will bear such a Conclusion Suppose the Apostle giving his Judgment touching Archippus greater Diligence in his Ministry And giving his Judgment in the Point of Marriage and the Duties thereof as one that had found mercy to be faithful can this prejudge the Interest of the Persons concerned in the Duties enjoyned Or would the Surveyer have said that Pauls requiring the Obedience of Church Officers in any Point of their Ministerial Duties and shewing them that he had judged such and such things to be their Duty will conclude they had no Authority and Interest therein antecedaneously to such Judging and Enjoyning Surely not at all Nay suppose his Hierarchical Bishop set up in this Church with his arrogated Power of Ordination and Censures and that upon his Neglect of putting forth his Power Paul had thus declared that he had already judged the Necessity and Expediency of such Duties will this prove that the Bishop was destitute of all this Authority antecedaneously to such Judging or had none previous thereunto The Surveyer could not say it and no more could he assert it in this case The Apostle saith to whom you forgive any thing I do also which looks like the Apostles corresponding with the inherent Authority in these Officers so that the Apostles Judging in this Case was to prevent and obviat their Pretences of Delay and quicken them to their Duty But the Surveyer P. 213. from that Passage when you are mett together with my Spirit and the Power of the Lord Iesus inferrs That something was to be done beyond the Authority of the Church of Corinth viz. Delivering of the Man to Satan to be tormented outwardly which Paul only by his Miraculous Power could effectuat Ans. Suppose such an extraordinary Appendix distinct from the Censure it self which may be upon weighty grounds called in doubt it doth no whit
impeach the intrinsick ordinary Authority of the Church Officers in the inflicting of that Censure though this Miraculous Effect attending the same were ascribeable to Apostolick Authority Again the Surveyer in the Series of his Reasoning shutting up both the Sentence in its self and this Miraculous Appendant which two he must needs distinguish unless he totally deny the Right of Excommunication in the Churches within the Sphere of an Apostolick Prerogative renders useless and casts a blot upon several Clauses of the Sacred Text such as their Solemn Meeting together here enjoyned and that expresly in order to the delivering of the Man to Satan which doth include the intire Sentence and Punishment and that this Punishment is expresly said to be inflicted by many viz. the Church Officers as distinct from the Church Members for thus they are called in Opposition to the Collective Body Besides that the Apostle in this Passage joyning first in their gathering together and then mentioning his Spiritual Confirming Presence holds out that the first was an Authoritative gathering together the other a Confirming Approbation for their Encouragement in this Exercise of their intrinsick Power and Authority as all Sound Interpreters take it Again the Separating here enjoyned must be an Active Iudicial Separating this Person from them as the Leper and Unclean Person under the Law was thus separat from the Congregation which doth import an Authoritative Interest of Church Rulers in putting forth this Censuring Act whereas the Surveyer makes it a consequential withdrawing only from a Person already Censured The Surveyer in his third Answer tells us That though a Censuring Power were in these Church Officers it can make nothing for us unless we could prove they were single Presbyters in the Modern Notion There were Prophets here above ordinary Officers who might have this Power and it is uncertain whether ordinary Presbyters were here settled Ans. The Surveyer hath forgot that he hath acknowledged upon that Passage 1 Cor. 12. That there were here such Pastors and Teachers as will include the Bishops and likewise Presbyters Besides that the Apostle diversifies the Ordinary and Extraordinary Gifts v. 8.9.10 Likewise he knew there were in Corinth many Instructers and such as were settled in every Church Act 13.1 2 3. Compared with Ch. 14.23 Viz. Preaching Elders and Presbyters so that he could not with any Shadow of Reason suppose they were all extraordinary Officers And in a word if he asserted there were here mixed Officers he not only made the Power and Authority of the extraordinary Officers to swallow up that of the Pastors but likewise he crossed his monopolizing this extraordinary Power in the Apostle Again since he could not say the Apostle in these Injunctions doth by distinctive notes or Apostrophees diversify the Ordinary from the Extraordinary Officers in the point of this high Jurisdictional Act he baffled and excluded his First Answer And in a word giving by this Answer a Jurisdictional Power and Authority in this Act to a Collegiat Meeting of Church Officers and asserting that it was joyntly thus put forth by them he did thus bid farewell to my Lord Bishops singular prerogative in this Matter and generally in Point of Government His last Answer is That if this Power were supposed in the ordinary Church Officers of Corinth they might have had this by delegation and Commission of the Apostle But where did the Surveyer read this Commission What account can he give of such a delegated Power beyond the Essential Authority of Pastors to deliver to Satan purge out the old Leaven to meet together for this great Jurisdictional Act And why was the Apostle Paul so fatally Cross to the Diocesan Prelat as not to deliver this Commission to him But we must know this Chimerical fancy stands upon the strong Pillar of this infallible Surveyers may be or might be and this is all the proof we must expect But what is the last shift and dead lift We are told next That this Instance of the Church of Corinth is but one which cannot make a Rule without the sure knowledge of the Divine Direction which the Apostâ—les had to keep an uniform course in such extâ—rnal Mattâ—rs Ans. As none will say that the Apostles did constitute the Christian Church as a speckled Bird with a Hetrogenous or various Mixtures of forms of Government so in this Pâ—int they had their Masters great Rules and Measures prescribed to them and such Rules as overthrows the Hierarchical Bishop First We may remind the great Rule in Mat. 18. recommending a subordination of lesser to greater Judicatories pointing likewise at the Collegiat Meeting of Church Officers as the proper subject of the Jurisdictional Power in opposition to what he pleads for viz the concentring this in one Prelat Next what surer direction can we have in this Point than that the Apostles are found Establishing wherever a Church was gathered such Officers as have Names and Titles of Intrinsick Official Power and Authority ingraven upon them and are found exercising an equal Official Power in Government Thus in the Passage now debated and 1 Cor. 12.28 Comp. with Eph. 4.11 and with Act. 14.23 Tit 1.5 7. Heb. 13.7 17 1 Thes. 5.12 Presbyterian Writers do exhibit a large account and induction of these Names and Titles importing Authority Such as that of Presbyter or Elder Act. 15.2 4 with 20 17 1 Tim. 5.17 1 Pet. 5.1 A Title of Political Rulers Iudg. 8.14 Thus expressed by the LXXII Interpreters The Title of Bishop importing a Power and Charge over the Flock Act. 20.28 Phil. 1.1 1 Tim. 3.2 Tit. 1.5.7 A word made use of also by these Interpreters to point at the Civil Magistrats Power Num. 31.14 The Title and Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Conductor Captain Governour Leader A word setting forth the Power of Civil Rulers Deut. 1.13 2 Chron. 5.1 And thus they are distinguished from the Church and Saints Heb. 13.7 17 24. The Title of Stewards over the Lords House and Family Of Pastors and Shepherds who are to feed Pedo and Pabulo a Title likewise attributed to the Civil Magistrat Isa. 24.28 comp 1 Cor. 4. 1. Luk. 12.42 Gal. 4.2 Rom. 13.2.3 Now our Lord Commanding his Apostles to Disciple all Nations or form them into Churches and the Apostles pursuant to this Commission being found to have placed such Officers in the Churches and these being found exercising a joint Official Authority in greater and lesser Judicatories either the Apostles Divine Direction herein must be acknowledged and their walking up to it in this Point of an uniform Mould of Government or their Faithfulness in the execution of their great Trust is impeached and called in Question Thu we have seen that after this pregnant Text hath tossed this Pitiful Sursveyer from one extream to another in seeking some shift of Answer and driven him upon the Pinacles and Precipies of contradictory Answers all his fantastick quiblings issueth in this miserable shift of
calling into Question the Uniformity of the Apostolick Church Government The Surveyer next assaults our Argument from the not mentioning of the Bishop in the Catalogue of Church Officers but palpably disguises it as if we argued merely from the non-nomination of the Bishop in Eph 4.11 among the Officers there mentioned as Gifted to the Church The Argument is this That there being several Recitations of Church Officers of Divine appointment and Institution as in that Passage Eph. 4. and likewise 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.6.7 The Diocesan Hierarchical Bishop is found in none of them and we may add and likewise in none of the Accounts of ordinary Church Officers exhibit in Scripture and therefore is no Officer appâ—inted of GOD. He tells us That though not mentioned under that Name they are mentioned under the Name of Pastors and Teachers But as he unjustly supposes that our Argument Concludes from that one place so he deals as unjustly or unskilfully in lapping them up under the Name of Teachers who so little concern themselves in that work and marrs his design in making them Succeed to the Apostles in the plenitude of their ordinary Power as he doth P. 194 195. for thus they are to be included rather in the Name of Apostles or else he must bring up Pastors and Teachers to the same Succession The Surveyer could not exhibit different Degrees of the Apostolick or Evangelistick Office why then did he assign different Degrees of the Pastoral Office This Consequence the Surveyer calls weak because a Governing Superiority among Apostles and Evangelists was partly impracticable partly unnecessary they seldom living in ordinary Societies because of their Dispersion for speedy spreading of the Gospel and having infallible direction in their Ministry Whereas Pastors living in Society and fixed-upon their Charges their Associations have need of some Governing Superiority among them to be a Nerve and Sinnew of their Union and that the Prudence of some may repress the Levity of others Ans. This Reason is but the ignis fatuus of our Surveyers fancy First as touching Apostles we find them notwithstanding of the infallible conduct of the Spirit joyning Counsel together yea and with concurrence of ordinary Officers as Act. 15. and a Moderator of the Meeting presiding whom his Party will needs make us believe did preside as Bishop of Jerusalem so that this very Colledge of Apostles had the Superintendency of this Episcopal Nerve in their Sense And none can deny that persons managing one work if far dispersed have the greater need of a Corresponding headâ— Next as for Pastors we find their social Government by common Counsel exhibit in Scripture and that their Union was a Presbyterial Classical Union and did not Coalesce into the Headship of a Hierarchical Prelat Besides the Surveyer is a niggardly Dispenser of Governing Prudence when Monopolizing it in one Prelat and denying it to the rest of the Members of the Society of Pastors Or if he allow it to more than one Person he plucks the Hierarchical Bishop from his Seat and disownes the Concentring of this Authority in his Person For what he adds of the Early Reception of this supposed Headship of the Hierarchical Prelat by the whole Church His Confident Assertion is easily Answered by a well grounded Denyal He is bold to say there is nothing in Scripture against this Officer But his palpable Perversion of the Scriptures pleaded against him discovers there is more said against him than he was able to Answer and these Texts pleaded appears the more forcible after all his faint Essays this way He offers in the next place P. 214. a Reply to our Argument from Philip. 1.1 From which we argue That there being here a Plurality in one and the same Church who must need be Pastors and Officers therein Therefore the Scripture Bishop is not the Hierarchical Bishop since the Apostle salutes these Pastors joyntly as Officers of the Highest Rank under this Notion of being Bishops thereof and without the least hint of a respect to any Superior Officer set over them Besides that no Inferior Officers are denominat by the Name proper to the Superior In Answer to this the Surveyer first takes notice that in this Epistle only the Direction is by Paul to the Officers as contradistinct from the Church whereas in the rest of the Epistles he includes them in the Organick Church without express mentioning of them Ans. Not to stand upon this Variety in the Inscription of Epistles wherein sometimes the Apostle Stile himself by his Authority sometimes not sometimes associats with himself Officers of an Inferior Order sometimes not It is noticeable here how this Man in a palpable Contradiction to himself doth quite baffle and run down his first large Answer to our Argument from 1 Cor. 5. which concludes the People only to be bespoken because Officers are not Named Whereas here he acknowledges that except in this one Epistle in the rest the Church Officers are included in the Organick Church without the express mentioning of them But to proceed the Surveyer will needs with Ambrose have the Reason of the Difference to be that they were not Bishops and Deacons of that Church but present with Paul and Timothy at Writing of the Epistle and assumed as Consenters with him and this he makes paralel with Gal. 1. All the Brethren that are with me He tells us the Apostle calls them not Bishops and Deacons of Philippi but absolutely Bishops and Deacons and the Copulative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may refer to Paul and Timothy the Writers as well as to the Saints at Philippi Ans. The Surveyer in approving this palpably absurd Gloss discovers how miserably he is put to it to find out a Lurking Hole and Subterfuge from this Argument For â—not to speak of Ambrose Sentiments wherein the Surveyer cannot make it appear he is followed by any Interpreters it is evident beyond all Contradiction that the Apostles usual Method in the Inscription of all the Epistles is First To describe himself either by his Office of Apostle or otherwayes as the Pen-man of the Epistle together with Others if any such be whom he is pleased to Associat with him in the Inscription And then in a Distinct Clause and Branch to Describe these whether persons or Churches to whom the Epistle is Addresed And we dare confidently Challenge such as embrace this Sense to exhibit a contrary Instance in any of the Epistles or to shew where the persons supposed present with the Apostle are in their Description cast behind his Character of himself and the Description of the Persons to whom he writes Nay this so evident that the Surveyers own Instance Gal. 1. baffles his Answer For after Pauls Description of himself as the Spirit of GODS Pen-Man calling himself an Apostle not of Men neither by Man c. He doth in the 2 v. add and all that are with me And next describes those to whom the Epistle is directed viz.
Unto the Churches of Galatia The Surveyer inverts the Order and would make the Words run thus Paul an Apostle c. unto the Churches of Galatia and all the Brethren c. And that of 1 Cor. 1. should thus run and be Sensed Paul an Apostle unto the Churches of GOD at Corinth and Sosthenes our Brother point blank cross to the Scope and Order of the Text. Thus also 2 Cor. 1.1 Paul an Apostle of Iesus Christ c. unto the Churches of GOD at Corinth and Timothy our Brother Thus the Sense of this place Philip. 1.1 is with the Surveyer Paul and Timotheus the Servants of Iesus Christ to the Saints in Christ Iesus at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons with Paul What Sense or rather Non-sense is this He could assign no Instance of such a Trajection of the copulative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he here admitts nor any Reason why Timothy is not ranked with these Bishops The Surveyer P. 215. to strengthen one absurd Notion with another doth in the second place alledge That there was here a casual Muster of other Bishops of Macedonia gathered at Philippi the Metropolis thereof to consult the good of the Churches And tells us That the Apostle speaks generally as to the Saints at Philippi Ch. 4.21 And not only of that Church so of these Bishops and Deacons taken universally as mett there though not of that particular Church But this fantastical Muster-master of these Extraneous Officers as he can give no shadow of Ground for this Matter of Fact which is the Substratum of his Reason Answer So he doth in asserting Philippi to be the Metropolis of Macedonia either in a Civil or Ecclesiastick Sense contradict the Judgement of several of the Learned And as he still beggs the Question in supposing the Existence of his Diocesan Prelat so there is nothing in this Epistle that might be supposed to have the least respect to the Ends of such a Meeting or can give Ground to extend the Bishops Deacons or Saints beyond the Limits of that Church unless such an Extension be applyed to other Churches in the like case of Epistles addressed to them as Ephesus Rome c. Nay where there is in the Inscription of Epistles such an express Extension in reference to the persons addressed we find it in a distinct Clause Thus 1 Cor. 1.2 after this general Inscription and Designation viz. Unto the Church of GOD which is at Corinth there follows this Extension with all that in every place call upon the Name of Iesus Christ. Thus 2 Cor. 1.1 After the Direction to that particular Church which is at Corinth follows this express Extension with all the Saints that are in all Achaia The Surveyer in his third Answer will admit the Bishops and Deacons to be related to that particular Church But tells us This will not prove they were all Bishops of an equal Degree It is good that the Surveyer will at last admit these Bishops to be the settled Bishops here and will take them off and likewise the Deacons whose work is only to serve Tables from his alledged great and general Consults anent the Case of the Churches of Macedonia But for what is here forged and pretended we have told him that the Scripture Bishops or Pastors are of equal Official Authority and that he would here mind and take home his own Reason viz. that there is no such Notes of Distinction or Discriminating Characters as he stands so much upon in the Apostles Salutation The Surveyer tells us The general Name might be common to the Bishops strictly so called and the Inferior Bishops As in a Letter directed to the Magistrats of a City and terming them Magistrats in general though one only is supposed a Provost and others Bailiffs Thus Saluting the Bishops in cumulo he denyeth not their different Degrees Ans. Besides that the Surveyer is still renewing his Petitio Principii and supposing the Existence of his Hierarchical Prelat he should have pondered the Rule Similitudo ad Pompam c. A Similitude may illustrat a thing proposed or supposed but cannot prove a thing in Question Next this Similitude overthrows his Scope For 1. There is not here a Naming of all in cumulo but under distinct Epithets of Bishops and Deacons diversifying as he acknowledged Church Officers of a distinct Character and Office 2. He makes the Term Bishop to be the Name distinguishing the Diocesan as under that Character from Presbyters and who is supposed to be but one in one Church Thus looking to his Similitude he makes the Apostle speak as improperly as if a Plurality of Provosts or Provosts in the pâ—ural were saluted in a Letter to one City But the Surveyer P. 216. urges That since we own two sorts of Elders the Preaching and Ruling Elder and comprehend them under the Name Bishop we must owne it that there are diverse Ranks of Officers saluted under that Name Or if disowning this it follows that the Apostle did not intend to write to such tho supposed Church Officers Ans. This Dilemma is crocked and pushes us not If we say such Officers were not as yet existent in this Church it only follows that it was not yet fully constitute in all its Officers Or if in the next place we admit them existent the Surveyer hath no Advantage For 1. We admit this Divinely instituted Officer as eminenter included in the Office of the Bishop or Pastor both having the general Notion of Inspection applicable unto them But the Hierarchical Bishop is but a half Divinely appointed Officer by his Confession 2. The admitting of the Ruling Elder impeaches not the equal Power of Pastors here saluted in the Plural but the admitting of the Hierarchical Prelat overthrows this and consequently the Apostles Scope But the Surveyer tells us he may upon our ground bring in the Superior and Inferior Degrees of Bishops and Presbyters under this general Name of Bishops Ans. We can comprehend none under this Designation who have not our Lords Institution as all Inspectors and Governours of his House must else they run unsent and cannot be called his Stewards not having a Commission from him We include the Elder as a Divinely instituted Officer whose Divine Institution we make good but do reject the Hierarchical Prelat as an Officer of Mans devising And the Surveyer might under Pretence of this general Name and upon such a Topick advance Cardinals Primats or whom he pleased The Surveyer in the fourth place will needs loose the Objection that the Name of the Superior Officer is not given to the Inferior To which he gives this Return That the Name of the Superior Officer is given to the Inferior in respect of some common Dignity Qualifications or Accidents competent to both as the Name of Presbyter both via ascensus and descensus is given to Superior and Inferior Officers as Beza confesses on 1 Pet. 5. Ans. The Surveyer here hath disguised the Strength
and Nerves of this Objection We know that Superior and Inferior Officers do come under general Names and Designations But our Assertion is this That no Name of the Superior Officer which is the proper Characteristick of his Office and whereby he is distinguished from the Inferior is attributed to such Inferior Officers since this would Brangle the Scriptures Distinction thereof and remove the March-Stones which God hath set So that his Instance of the common Name to Superior and Inferior Officers upon the ground of common Qualifications is impertinent to the Point For no Names of this Nature and Import can be the proper distinguishing Names of the Superior from the Inferior since this would infallibly infer a Confusion in the Holy Ghosts Language such as cannot without Blasphemy be imputed to him Thus the Name Apostle in its proper Sense or Evangeâ—ist is ascribed to no Inferior Officer To apply this the Name of Bishop is in the Surveyers Principâ—es a distinguishing Character of an Officer superior to a Pastor or Presbyter and therefore the Absurdity of his Inference or paralel Reason is palpably evident this Name being by his own Confession ascribed to ordinary Pastors The Surveyer in the Fifth place repeats again to us for Answer this poor hungry shift which we have before refuted viz That granting there were none but mere Presbyters at that time in that Church of Philippi who are called Bishops yet upon what grounds shall the Constitution thereof be the Measure of all Churches unless a Divine Rule for Managing the Government in that uniform manner could be produced Ans. The Surveyer in Repeating this Subterfuge which he made use of to eschew our Argument drawn from the State of the Church of Corinth told us that that Church which is but one ought not to be a Rule to others and that one instance cannot make a Rule Here it seems he he hath found another Instance to make the Number two yet this will not please him unless a Divine Rule be produced for managing the Government in that manner It is certain that the Apostles practice in the constitution of Churches in their Officers and Ordinances pursuant to their great Masters Commission hereanent and upon the necessary supposition of their Infallibility and Faithfulness in managing this Trust is a sufficient Rule and Divine Warrand to found our Perswasion and Faith in this Matter This is so clear that the Episcopalians must either acknowledge it or baffle and overthrow their own Principles and Arguings for Prelacy For I pray how will they make their supposed Constitution of the Churches of Ephesus Crete under the pretended Episcopal Inspection of Timothy and Titus a Standart and Measure for all Christian Churches if this Apostolick Constitution therereof be not admitted as an infallible ground of this Argument And if Presbyterians shall repone to their Episcopal Pleadings that the Constitution of these Churches cannot be a Standart for ever unless a Divine Rule be produced for managing the Government in that uniform manner they are destitute of an Answer So that it appears the Surveyer behoved either in granting the Churches of Corinth and of Philippi to be thus governed to yield the Cause to the Presbyterians in acknowledging a Divine Presbyterial Constitution of these Churches or stoâ—d obliged to retract and disown all his Episcopal Pleadings in the Instances exhibit The Episcopalians might have found that these Instances are exhibited by us as proofs and Demonstrations of the common Universal Rule The Constitution of the other Apostolick Churches after this manner hath been exhibit and evinced as by several others so in special by the Judicious Authors of the Ius Divin Minist Eccles. who have at large made appear and proven a Presbyterial Classical Unity and equal Official Authority of Pastors in Government 1. In the Church of Ierusalem 2. In the Church of Antioch 3. In the Church of Ephesus 4. In the Church of Corinth And that in all these Instances there is in the Word a Pattern 〈◊〉 Presbyterian Government in common over diverse single Congregations in one Church See Ius Divin Minis Eccles. from P. 292. c. And in special the Surveyer and his Fellows might have found this made good which he here pretended to seek a Proof of Viz That the Pattern of the said Presbytrie and Presbyterian Government is for a Rule to the Churches of Christ in all after Ages Which is made good First From this that the First Churches were immediatly Planted and Governed by Christs own Apostles and Disciples The strength of this Reason is illustrated from several Grounds As that 1. The Apostles immediatly received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven from Christ himself Matth. 16.19 Ioh. 20.21.23 2. Had immediatly the promise of his perpetual presence in their Ministry Matth. 28.18.19.20 The plentiful donation of the Spirit to lead into all Truth Ioh. 14.16 Act. 15. Ioh. 16.14 15. 3. They received immediatly Commands from Christ after his Resurrection and were instructed Forty days in the Nature of his Kingdom That they were first and immediatly Baptized of the Holy Ghost extraordinarly Act. 2.1 to 5. So that whether we consider the Spirits infallible influence upon the Apostles in this great work of ordering and Governing the Primitive Churches or their performing Christs Commandments in this work which he did impose upon them touching his Kingdom and consequently their infallibly Right use of the Keys of his Kingdom which he Committed to them it is evident beyond all contradiction that the Pattern of their Practices herein must be a Rule for all the succeeding Churches Secondly This is made good from the end proposed by the Holy Ghost in the careful Records of the Apostolical Churches State and Government which must needs be in order to succeeding Churches imitation since this Record as the other Scriptures must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our Learning or Instruction which Instruction must Relate not merely to the Factum but mainly to the Ius viz the Reasons and grounds of this Apostolical Government this being the most proper and profitable Instruction Thirdly That if in the Point of Government such Apostolick Patterns will not amount to an obligatory Rule we will impeach the Authority of other Acts of Religion received from them and bottomed only and Chiefly upon the Foundation of the Practice of Christs Apostles and Apostolical Churches such as the Reciving of the Lords Supper on the Lords days c. See Ius Divin Minis Eccles. P. 213 214. Nay this is so evident that the Surveyer without contradicting himself cannot but admit this Rule For P. 195 he will needs have the determination of this Question to depend upon the Historical Narrations of the Acts of the Apostles contained in Scripture and the surest Light History can afford in the Churches most Virgin times Now here is exhibit Historical Accounts and Narrations of the Churches pure and Primitive pure Constitution in its first and most Virgin times
two things First What the faithfulness of Moses under the Legal dispensation did reach unto which our Blessed Lords Soveraign Faithfulnesss doth exceed 1. Moses appointed the Officers of the House of God their several Orders and Degrees their Work and Duties in so far that his Institutions did amount to determin a species of Government 2. All his Appointments hereanent were fixed and unalterable so as none might add to or detract therefrom 3. They were hence not Committed to the disposal of the Civil Magistrate to mould them after the Rules of worldly Policy 4. These Officers were not to denude themselves of any part of the Authority and Function committed to them or of the exercise thereof Hence it inevitably follows that the Government and Officers of the Church of the New Testament is in all these Points of the like Nature the Species is determined the Offices and Officers are unalterable are not to be Fashioned by Mens Laws at their arbitriment are to continue in this Fixed Mould of his Institution and Method of its Official Exercise till his Returning again Secondly The Scriptures Perfection clears this abundantly all things to be believed and practised in order to Salvation are perfectly contained therein and there being so much delivered in Scriptures touching the Government Laws and Offices of the House of GOD and in order to the Instruction both of Church Rulers and Church Members in their Respective Duties if these Directions Laws and Institutions be not compleatly correspondent to these ends the Scriptures perfection is palpably impeached and the infinit Wisdom of the Lawgiver blasphemed To this Argument the Surveyer Answers That in order to the great end of our Lords Prophetical and Kingly Offices He hath given particular Commands concerning the Essentials of the Government of His House and general Commands to direct the Prudence of His Church to order what is Left to Christian Liberty for the best Ends And that it is preposterous to fancy a thing necessary and then alledge Christ hath instituted the same because Faithful but rather upon this ground we must reason the necessity of the thing from his Appointment Ans. This is removed in a word by this one Position That if we acknowledge these Essentials do include all necessary Offices and Officers of the Church and do draw the Limits and Measures of their Actings Qualifications and the Nature of their Power with such Exactness as none may justle with or encroach upon their Priviledges therein We can offer such Scripture Discoveries in this Point as do sufficiently lay aside the Diocesan Prelat and prove him such an Heteroclite as his Office cannot be brought up to the Scripture Rules Thus we are so far from such Reasoning as this fancycal Surveyer imputs to us that on the contrary we do suppose and prove the Scripture Institutions in this Point and upon the Scripture Discoveries thereof we reason the Necessity from our Lords Faithfulness But if the Surveyer did hold that the Offices and Officers of the House of GOD their Duties and Qualification are such things as falls within the compass of the Churches Liberty to dispose as she thinks fit 1. It might be enquired what he or those of his Mind will owne as Essentials Next To what end are all the Scripuâ—e Directions and Institutions in this Point delivered unto the Church of GOD And why upon this Ground the most extended Hierarchy may not be pleaded for 3. How this can consist with that express Design of the Scriptures Perfection viz. To make not only the ordinary Christian but also the Man of God the Minister of God perfect and thorowly furnished to every good Work or every piece of his Office and Duty and with this further Expression of this Design of Ministerial Instructions proposed by the Apostle 1 Tim. 3.15 viz. To instruct the Man of God how to behave in the House of God which is His Church In Answer to this the Surveyer acknowledges the Scriptures Perfection to make the Man of GOD wise to Salvation and furnish him for every good Work either by the general or particular Precepts thereof but that it belongs not to the Perfection of the Scripture to contain the particular Rules for all the Circumstantials of Church Government more than it doth for all the particular Practices of our common Life Ans. Behold the Hierarchy in this our Surveyers great Essay turned into the Dwarf of a mere Circumstance Behold also his Zeal for right ordering of the House of GOD what Officers must Rule therein what the Nature of their Work and Power is what Duties are committed to them what the Nature and Species of the Government must be whether it must run to the Extrems of Monarchy or the Anâ—baptistical Morellian way of Anarchy or the midle Forms All or either of these is but a mere Circumstance with our Surveyer Let any Judge if he gave not here manus victas to the Presbyterians and yeelded up his Cause to them For no Man of Sense will call the Matters instanced mere Circumstances And if they be not the Scriptures Perfection for the ends mentioned must clearly reach the Determination thereof The Surveyer told us That the work of the Bishop 1 Tim. 3. Doth import the Work and Office of the Hierarchical Prelat And he has acknowledged here the Scriptures Perfection to furnish the Minister of Christ for every good Work yea he hath asserted P. 194.195 That the plentitude of the Apostolick Power committed by our Lord to the Apostles for the great End of the Churches Edification and Union was by them committed to the Bishops as their proper Successors Now how these Assertions can consist with his Describing and Owning here the Work and Office of the Bishop as a mere Circumstance wherein the Scriptures gives no certain distinct Sound must be put among the rest of his mysterious Inventions Two or three things further I add and I have done with this Surveyer First It is generally acknowledged by all Sound Divines That there is no Lawful Church Office or Officer of the House of GOD but what must have our LORD' 's positive Grant or Institution And this is fortified by several Grounds 1. Whatever is not of Faith is sin in general and whoever pretends to Officiat in Christs House and Kingdom as an Officer therein acts sine titulo and his Actings are void And therefore he cannot act in Faith if there be not a Divine Warrand for the Office he sustains and the Official Exercise and Actings thereof 2. If we acknowledge Christs Kingly Power and Headship over the Church as a political Body whereof he is the political Head giving her her Laws and Officers Isa. 9.6 Matth. 28.18 Ioh. 5.22 As in all Kingdoms no person can claim an Office of State or Magistracy without the Warrand of the Laws and the Kings Authority thereto Interposed so all Church Power and Authority must be conveyed to Church Officers by this Glorious KING 's Authentick
this Rite of Imposing of Hands concludes upon solid Grounds Presbyters Authoritative Concurrence in Ordination So that comparing our Dr's Concession with Dr. Forbes his Sense in Point of Ordination and with what we have evinced of Presbyters Authoritative Concurrence in Government in the Sense of the Primitive Church the Dr's Pleadings for the Prelates sole Interest therein is sufficiently overturned yea and the Inconsistency thereof with it self discovered For what he adds of Cyprian his Asserting that a Bishop of his Metropolitick Church might pro Episcopatus vigore Cathedrae autoritate have Chastised a Deacon without Appealing to the Synod The Dr. has pointed us to no particular place of Cyprian where this is found And upon Supposition of what is clearly supposible in Cyprians time anent the Presbytrie their Deference and Entrusting the Execution of some Censures to the President-Bishop who had then obtained such a Minut-Matter as the Chastising of a Deacon might well fall within the Compass of the then Bishops Deputed Authority which will abundantly Salve this Expression from Wounding Pastors or Presbyters Essential Interest in Censures and Government Besides that Cyprian owning so clearly Presbyters Essential Interest both in Ordination and Censures in the above-mentioned Epistles viz. 33.58.75 compared with 12. and 46. doth clearly evince he owned no such sole Authority of the Prelat as the Dr. alledges Which is correspondent to the Testimony cited of Tert. Apol. advers Gentes cap. 39. Ambrose Epistola ad Siagrium Considering further the Smallness of the Charge of Prelats in the first Rise of the Episcopus Praeses who had their Charge confined oft to little Dorps or Villages and that the Pronunciation or Execution of Censures or Sentences was in a Deference to the then Bishops appropriat unto them by the Presbytrie who still retained an Essential Interest in Cognoscing upon the Cause The forementioned fifth Canon of the Council of Nice which mentions the Separation from Communion by Bishops of the Province and by the Bishop from the Congregation and the Convention of Bishops of the Province for Cognoscing upon the Cause if Dubious doth no Whit favour the Dr's Conclusion of a Spiritual Iurisdiction wholly Seated in the Bishops the Radical Authority being still in the Presbyters or Consistorial Meetings of Pastors The fourth Peculiar of the Bishop as distinct from a Presbyter the Dr. tells us is To Confirm the Baptized which after their Instruction in Christian Faith was always performed by Prayer and Laying on of Hands upon which the Party Confirmed received the Gift of the Holy Ghost Tho upon the first Institution of this Imposition extraordinary Gifts followed as of Tongues c. Yet saith he it was not therefore intended as an extraordinary Ministry to cease with those extraordinary Gifts no more than Preaching attended with those extraordinary Miraculous Operations The Function it self cannot cease no more than that of Preaching Because the extraordinary Gifts and Effects are gone and Christ promising a continual Communication of the Spirit to his Church he must be supposed to continue it by this Ministry of Prayer and Imposition of Hands and the ordinary Operations the same way that extraordinary were Hence the Apostle puts the Laying on of Hands in the same Class with Baptism Heb. 6.1 2. and makes it one of the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ Therefore it must be intended for a standing Ministry in the Church Ans. I shall easily grant to the Dr that in the beginning of the Gospel and in the first Apostolical Times of the Christian Church there were sometimes extraordinary Effects and Efficacy of Gifts attending the standing Offices and Functions which are to be continued in the Church and the Duties of Prayer and Preaching As also that we have in Scripture Exemplified the Gifts of the Spirit attending the Imposition of Hands As likewise that there is an ordinary Communication of the Spirits Gifts and Graces in and by Christs Instituted Ordinances But all this is far remote from the Point in Question and reaching the Dr's Assertion and Conclusion viz. That Christ hath Institute Confirmation of the Baptized after Instruction by Imposition of the Hands of a Bishop as his sole Prerogative and in the Capacity of an Officer superior to a Pastor in Order to the Persons further Confirmation in the Faith Any with half an Eye may discover that this has no imaginable Connection with what the Dr. here offers As for that Text Heb. 6. it hath no Shadow of a Proof of what he brings it for It s true there has been several Comments given of that Clause of Imposition of Hands but none of them favours the Dr's Fancy and imagined Sense Some have taken it to be meant of a Ceremony adjoyned to Baptism it self for a Sign of Blessing and Consecration to God Some have taken it saith Diodat for Laying Hands on such Catechumeni as had been Baptized for Confirmation of their Faith or as a Badge of Renewing their Covenant in Order to Partaking of the Lords Supper See Pool 2. Vol. on the place Certain it is the Laying on of Hands was either for Healing Diseases Mark 6.5 Luke 4.4 Act. 28.8 Or Communication of Blessings Matth. 19.13 15. Or Communication of the Gifts of the Spirit to such as were separat to Gods Service in the Church Act. 6.6 and 17.6 and 13.3 So 19.5 6. Hence some under this Expression take in all the Spirits Gifts whereby we are Renewed Increased Strengthned and Built up to Life Eternal See Pool Annot. The Belgick Divines understand it of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost in the Primitive Church imparted to Believers in general Act. 8.16 17. And especially in the Institution of Ministers in the Church 1 Tim. 4.14 Where this Laying on of Hands is attribute to the Presbytrie Dr. Owen takes this Clause of Imposing Hands to import a Description of Persons to be instructed in the other Fundamental Principles but to be no Principle it self He also holds that in those days it did commonly accompany or immediatly follow Baptism Act. 8.14 15 16. and 19.6 Withal he shews that when Baptized Children gave an Account of their Faith and Repentance which others had done before they were Baptized they were admitted to the Communion of the Church the Elders thereof Laying their Hands on them in Token of their Acceptation and Praying for their Confirmation in the Faith An Account of this Matter given also by many of the Learned He distinguishes a fourfold Imposition of Hands The 1. Peculiar to our Lord in Way of Authoritative Benediction as when he owned little Children to belong to his Covenant he laid his Hands on them Mark 10.16 The 2 d. In Healing of Diseases Miraculously Luke 4.4 Mark 16.18 The 3 d. In Setting apart to the Work and Office of the Ministry 1 Tim. 4.14 5.22 The 4 th In Collation of Supernatural Gifts of the Holy Ghost Act. 8.17 and 19.6 Now that none of all these comes home to
might hope to get this believed Some of the Books he mentions P. 22. his Conscience could tell him are Written by Scotsmen viz. Didoclav and Mr. Durh. And we know of no Answer returned to this Day unto either of them It should then seem that his Countreymen should rather alledge these Doth he think indeed we esteem that we need no other Answer than to tell of Blondel and Salmasius But yet more of this Hellish Blusterings Tho there are saith the Dr ibid. few of them that ever read them and that every Line of their Writings that hath Colour of Argument has been frequently exposed yet such is the Power of Prejudice and Partiality that they shut their eyes against the clearest Evidences produced by their Adversaries Here 's a Deep Charge 1. His Countreymen Presbyterians becomes such Peevish Ignoramus's that few of them read these Books 2. So Hardned in their Prejudices against Truth that they shut their Eyes against all Convictions thereof so that a Judicial Stroke and Judgment has fallen upon them if this Man may be believed But I will be bold to ask him what are these Evidences I mean Scripture-Evidences produced by him or any of his Party which we have not considered Dare he say that all in Scotland Embracing the Presbyterian Perswasion do thus shut their Eyes And may we not easily Retort his Charge and Enquire what Evidences has been produced by Didoclav Mr. Durh. and others whom he mentions And besides these many not Named by him to whom neither he nor any of his Gang have offered an Answer to this Day Why do they shut their Eyes against the Light produced by them Presbyterians no doubt need no other Evidence than this Pamphlet to convince the World that the Power of Prejudice has Shut and Blinded this Mans Eyes against Light He pretends therein by his mighty Arguments to Beat his Presbyterian Countreymen from their Principles He presents in the beginning of his Famous Work some considerable Authors whose Writings and Arguments he tells the World they ground their Perswasion upon yet never offers to Scann so much as one of them when fairly presented in their genuin strength And let all men Judg what prejudice and partiality this savours of And if he be not wholly a Stranger thereunto he cannot but know that our Judgment in this Point is the Sense of the whole Body of Protestant Churches and Divines And are they also thus Hardned But more yet ibid. the Dr. tells us further That it is enough for us that Blondel has written a Book of 549 Pages and this in our Iudgment may barr all Dispute Indeed Mr. Dr. if there were no more Strength or Nerves in them than in your 339 Pages Stuffed with Blustering Talk and Empty Quiblings the Defence were no Defence We are again told That when we are bidden Name the Place which proves the New Doctrine we refuse any such closs Engagement Really the good Narcissus here sees his Picture in the Well Decline a closs Engagement Let all Men that ever read the Authors he Names judge what closs Engagement this Man has made with them and if he has not as evidently Snaked away from their Arguments as ever did any Coward in Disput. For Ierom that he was of this Judgment of the Parity of Bishop and Presbyter the Learned have sufficiently discovered But saith he Salmasius and Blondel have been exposed by the Incomparable Bishop of Chester Had Presbyterians put this Elegy upon any of their Writers they had been posted up for Admirers of Mens Persons But now our Dr. will Examine some of his most Remarkable Testimonies from Antiquity Some no doubt not all and in the same manner as he does the Presbyterian Scripture Arguments i. e. so as to convince all Readers that he Traces but Phantastick Quiblings instead of Answer But being closs in my Examining his Scripture Pleadings that I interrupt not the Series thereof I must here pass over to his Second Chapter CHAP. III. Wherein the Dr's Absurd Description of the Apostolick Function in Opposition to Protestant Divines is exposed Together with his Assertion about the Succession of Hierarchical Bishops to Apostles in a proper Formal Sense His Opinion loaded with Gross and Palpable Absurdities IN this Chapter the Dr. having told us That he has Examined our most plausible Pretences for Parity And what Scripture Arguments he has Examined let any judge gives us Encouragement by undertaking Truly to State the Controversie I am sorry he has not done it sooner No doubt all will acknowledge this to be what he stands obliged to But to Trace his Steps and Examine him clossly 1. I am agreed with him in this That the Government of the Christian Church has been established and fixed by Christ and his Apostles to continue to the end and who oppose this Institution are Schismaticks 2. For what he adds P. 95. That it is agreed there was an Hierarchy under the Old Testament the High Priests having a Superiority and Iurisdiction over inferior Priests I must tell him that we do hold with all our Divines that this Superiority was such a fixed Presidency as had adjoyned thereunto some special Ministrations peculiar to it And moreover we hold that both the one and the other was Typical and also such as did not encroach upon the ordinary Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin or invade their Decisive Suffrage as Iunius particularly observes Our Dr's Inference That Subordination of one Priest to another is not simplely unlawful if meant of a Subordination of Officers in general is admitted If of one Pastor to another in Point of Official Authority it is a bad Inference and a Begging of the Question which is not about what may be simplely lawful or unlawful in this Case but upon the Hypothesis of Gods Institution in the New Testament OEconomy and Government The Dr's Distinction ibid. of the Apostles Ordinary Permanent Essential Power and their Extrinsick Extraordinary Priviledges suteable to the first Plantation of Churches is in general accorded But his Application and Explication subjoyned viz. That by the first they were distinguished from all subordinat Ecclesiastick Officers in the Christian Church is that which I deny And that upon this ground That Power which was Ordinary Permanent and Essential behoved to be so eminenter in the Apostles as it was to be transmitted to standing Officers who were to be Invested with the same Ordinary Essential Permanent Power else the Dr's assertion cannot subsist that this Power was ordinary and permanent in its nature or a Power necessary for the Churches Preservation when the Apostles at first Cloathed with it were gone off And therefore to be Transmitted to successive Officers consequently these ordinary succeeding Officers were in this equal to them when cloathed with this Power and invested therein And by further necessary Consequence the Apostles were not by this essential necessary Power distinguished from all Subordinat Ecclesiastick Officers it being such as the Churches
and Titus are found actually Recalled in these same Epistles For what the Dr. adds That his Occasional Travels disingaged him not from his Episcopal Inspection It is long since Presbyteriaâ—s and in special the Authors mentioned by him have Baffled this Answer telling him and such as have pleaded thus that they are challenged to prove that any one appointed Overseer of a particular Church had such a Planetary Motion and Transient Imployment as that of Timothy is proven to have been Or 2. That either he or Titus after this Imployment did constantly or ordinarly return to Ephesus or Crete and not to the Places of the Apostles present Abode or Imployment 3. They also tell him that this Answer is a Begging of the Question since all the Ground of Instalment exhibit here by the Dr. and his Fellows is in that Charge in Reference to Ephesus wherein this Transient Imployment is clearly held out The Dr. adds ibid. That Presbyterians would not take it kindly if told that the Relation to their Flocks were lost if upon Occasions they were Imployed now and then to Visit Forreign Churches Certainly they would not but they take it as unkindly that the Dr instead of an Illustrating Argument and Proof by this Paralell Beggs the Question still and draws a Simile from an Instance wherein there is a palpable Disparity and Dissimilitude For in the Instance adduced the fixed Relation Instalment and Title is supposed 2. The ordinary fixed Attendance upon the Pastors Charge in Consequence thereof whereas in the Case of Timothy his fixed Instalment is begged not proved but rather a Transient Occasional Imployment pointed at in the very Place which he Cites Whence it clearly follows That this Transient Unfixt Ministry was Timothies Ordinary Imployment and Ministry The Dr. proceeds to tell us ibid. That the Ancients took no notice of this Objection against his Episcopacy at Ephesus and that in the 11. Act of the Council of Chalcedon Twenty seven Bishops are Reckoned from Timothy What notice the Ancients took of this Objection is not the Question But for the Catalogues Presbyterians have long since told him what a poor Argument this is and have largely baffled this Phantastical conceit particularly Ius Divinum Minist Ang. in Prop. 7. of the Appendix in several weighty Considerations to which I refer him They have therein made appear that in these Catalogues besides that there is an Homonomy in the word Bishop the nearer they come to the Apostles days they are the more uncertain and contradictory one to another that the Catalogue-drawers spoke in the Language of their own times and in these Catalogues is a far other design than what is pretended by the Episcopalians that the Catalogues resolving in Apostles or Evangelists who were not Bishops nor could be properly as not having an ordinary but extraordinary Office the proof of a successive Line of Bishops from them which is drawn from these Catalogues appears palpably unsound and impertinent Before I pass from this since the Dr. mentions Act. 20.4 5. to prove that Timothy was left at Ephesus by Paul He had done well to look downward to the 28 v. where he would have found the whole Episcopal Charge over that Church committed after this to the Elders or Pastors of Ephesus before Timothies face in Pauls last farewell unto them and this without the least hint of any Interest that Timothy had in or over them or of their precarious dependence upon him in this Matter And here he might have seen a passage looking like the Apostles committing their Episcopal Power or what was ordinary in their Function to a Colledge of Presbyters and consequently a Scriptural Decision of this Question and Controversy against him But to proceed The Dr. P. 107 108 undertakes to prove from the Epistles that an Episcopal Authority was Committed to Timothy And to clear this by instances viz. That he is Charged not to rebuke an Elder but intreat him 1 Tim. 5.1 Not to receive an accusation but before two or three Witnesses v 19. To rebuke such as sin before all v. 20. Not to lay hands suddenly v. 22. To ordain such Deacons as were blameless 1 Tim. 3.14 15. Where his particular Relâ—tion to that Church is insinuat the Apostle Writing to him to instruct how to behave himself in the House of GOD c. To these the Dr. adds his Charge of the care of Widows and Objects of Charity and ordering the publick Worship and Liturgies of the Church 1 Tim 5.9 1 Tim. 2.1 1 Tim. 5.21 He and he alone saith the Dr is Charged to observe these things without preferring one before another doing nothing by partiality Ans. 1. If all these prescriptions suppose only in Timothy an Evangelistick and consequently an exraordinary expired Inspection not an Episcopal and ordinary then this Parade of the Dr's Argument is cut off with one Blow For as for his proof of an Episcopal Relation to that Church drawn from the Apostles shewing his scope to direct him how to carry in the House of GOD it is so clearly adapted to an Evangelistick Inspection over that and other Churches that it can afford him no shadow of a Reason or Evasion For Convincing the Dr. of this I shall make use of his own Paralel Argument and turn his Weapons point upon him He hath told us that no Presbyterian would think his Relation to his Particular Flock untyed if imployed to visit now and then Forreign Churches Now suppose that in this transient visitation of such Churches the Church Rulers do write several directions to such a Pastor in reference to Government adding as a pressing Motive that he is therein instructed how to behave in the Church of the living God which is his House in case he continue any time in this imployment as the Apostle here adds the limiting Clause if I tarry long Will the Dr's Argument hold good that this will infer such a Pastors relation to these Churches If he says this he Contradicts himself And on the other hand he will not dare to affirm that a Minister in this Case is not capable of such directions which would upon the Matter infer that these Churches were not the House of God and that a Minister is not concerned how to behave in them And if this will not conclude such a Pastors particular Relation to these Churches but supposeth only a transient Imployment in this Case then I say his Reason and Argument is naught which Infers Timothies special Episcopal relation to Ephesus I mean to that Church from this expression of the Apostles Scope in the premised directions Moreover the Dr. will not deny that Timothy visited and watered several other Churches after this at Ephesus and after the directions given while officiating therein Now I would fain know if the Dr. will deny that these directions together with this expressed scope thereof viz that he might know how to behave in the Church of GOD were clearly applicable to him in